Farmer wins four-year stoush with council

The council went to the Environmental Court in April, seeking an enforcement order to prevent any further indigenous vegetation clearance on the station and also requiring significant remedial work. However, in late October, the court released a detailed 107 page decision declining the council's application for an enforcement order.

Chartres welcomed the ruling clearing him of unlawful clearances dating back to 2001, saying the council's approach had been "over-zealous".

"These enforcement proceedings are an example of the time and money that gets wasted when poorly drafted, unworkable rules are misrepresented, implemented and enforced by local councils," he told Rural News.

SDC had accused Chartres of unlawful clearance activities dating back to 2001. However, it failed to prove that there had been any breach of the relevant biodiversity rules that applied since that time.

"This position was pursued despite the fact that the council had - on several occasions since 2001 - confirmed that vegetation clearance activities were lawful and compliant," Chartres explained.

He added that during the course of the four day Environment Court hearing, SDC was forced to concedde that it could no longer prove that clearances undertaken prior to 2017 were unlawful and - by the time the case had closed - it had abandoned this part of the case.

Chartres says he'd been required to present extensive and meticulous evidence to refute the council's claims, at very considerable cost, "Only to have most of these allegations abandoned by the council at the hearing".

He says his family had been treated "like criminals" for continuing the long-standing and essential farming practice of clearing regrowth bracken, mānuka scrub and exotic noxious weeds from previously cleared areas of the station.

"The decision of the court vindicating our management of the station also shows that the council has taken a heavy-handed and very unreasonable approach to these proceedings," Chartres adds.

He says he still felt disbelief looking back on the start of the legal battle, which started in September 2018.

"That when council staff, accompanied by armed police and two ecologists, arrived unannouned at the family's homestead to exercise a search warrant to undertake an ecological investigation of recent vegetation clearances," Chartres told Rural News.

"The family is still extremely angry that we were treated like criminals for continuing the long-standing and essential farming practice of clearing regrowth bracken, mānuka scrub and exotic noxious weeds from previously cleared areas of the station."

He added that clearing regrowth indigenous and exotic vegetation is an ongoing, essential and large-scale management practice for Te Anau Downs - due to the rapid re-establishment of vegetation amongst paddocks and extensive grazing areas in this high rainfall area.

"Our family have never stopped farming Te Anau Downs Station and we consider the council's approach to indigenous vegetation clearance and the misinterpretation of its own rules and the law as a severe erosion of property rights."

Chartres says it was particularly important to the family that the decision vindicated their stance that the farm development practices - which had carefully avoided wetlands and other significant vegetation - were lawful.

He believes the station's high-profile location has meant that clearance of regrowth vegetation has led to regular complaints from Forest and Bird, a past Minister of Conservation and other environmentalists.

"The enusing 'trials by social media' have been brutal," he says.

Chartres says his family has called Te Anau Downs Station their home since 1925, with its farming history dating back to 1860. He added that around 78% of the original farm has been appropriated to the conservation estate without compensation.

Property Rights!

Peter Chartres says he chose to freehold Te Anau Downs Station in 1982 to avoid the "progressive loss of grazing land to the conservation estate".

"It was, and still remains, my understanding that the freeholded area of Te Anau Downs was purchased from the Government as farmland, for agricultural purposes," Chartres told Rural News. "While large areas of regrowth brackenand scrub have been re-cleared to improve paddocks and grazing areas, extensive wetlands, beech forest and other indigenous vegetation has been voluntarily retained and fenced out at our own cost - long before any rules came into play making this a legal requirement."

Te Anau Downs Station - Wetland below Big Hill.

He says his family's intergenerational connection and deep commitment to Te Anau Downs has been consistently disregarded and disrespected by the council "despite extensive engagement during the revision of the District Plan and attempts to find a mediated resolution to these enforcement proceedings".

Chartres now faces another fight with SDC over recovering costs, with the court reserving the question of costs, he but says he'll be seeking recompense. "Me and my family are extremely relieved with the court's decision and will now be seeking to recover costs from the Southland District Council," he told Rural News. "It has been an extremely stressful, time-consuming and financially draining battle for myself and my family."