Access to the Hills above Casey

jimathome 8 November 2010 31

Is there any support for public access to the hills above Casey?

I have just moved from Nth Lyneham where there is good access to the Nth Lyneham Ridge.  There are a number of trails for walkers or joggers and stiles are provided to get you through the fences.  A nice place to take some exercise or walk your dog and it is shared by resident kangaroos and, sometimes, cattle (to keep the grass down).

I have been told by ACT Parks and Reserves that “the land to the west of Casey ….  is currently under rural lease.  As members of the public are not permitted on the land without the lessee’s consent, no access points have been installed in the boundary fence.”  There appear to be no plans to open this land up for public access – which is a great shame because it would be excellent for walking and would provide nice views over Nth Canberra.  Cows need a place to graze – but people need space too.  And Nth Lyneham shows it can, to a degree, be shared.

As Casey and surrounding areas fill up, people WILL want access to this area and a simple matter of a few fences won’t stop many – the fences will suffer and this could lead to problems for livestock.  The better approach would be to provide regulated access.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to Access to the Hills above Casey
Filter
Order
Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 11:14 am 09 Nov 10

Simple. If its grey, stay away.

Source is ACTMAPi. Search ACT land zonings all you like.

p1 p1 11:10 am 09 Nov 10

I find it hard to see how any kind of access to privately held land (not counting a right of way through) would work.

But it does make me think that if the government it going to take big chunks of farm land and turn it into a city (non of Gungahlin was there 30 years ago), then maybe they could have taken just a little more farm land and turned it into a strip of nature park, such as exists next to almost every other block of suburbs in the ACT.

While I can understand why this would upset the person who currently holds the land, it’s not like they haven’t had the last 100 years to get used to the arrangements of the Federal Capital Territory (and more recently the Australian Capital Territory).

sepi sepi 10:50 am 09 Nov 10

I’m not defending the illegal action of trespassing but the ACT government needs to consideration how they’re going to handle it. Its not extraordinary to consider public access to lease hold rural lands. At least Jim’s considering a legal avenues to access – rather than what some of you probably do … just jump the fence and don’t give a sh*t whether you’re trespassing.

I still genuinely dont’ understand what ‘public access to lease hold rural lands’ is supposed to mean?
Access across someone’s land to get to public land is one thing, but just allowing everyone to use leased land for whatever they want, as if it were public land is not possible, and is exactly the same as opening up your own backyard to the masses. I’m not sure why some people can’t see that.

Buzz2600 Buzz2600 10:08 am 09 Nov 10

How condescending. Jimathome isn’t boasting he’s “entitled” to anything. He’s asking a genuine question. This should have been considered when the ACT government was at the planning stage of the Gungahlin suburbs. Casey is surrounded by paddocks, plonk a thousand people into a suburb and of course they’re going to start exploring the natural surrounds, particularly curious kids. Eons ago, as a kid, I explored land around the Aranda reserve across to the paddocks near Cook and Mr Painter and all over the land around what is now Glenloch interchange and into Stromlo (some of it leased some of it public access land). Would you rather kids sit a home in front of TV instead?

I’m not defending the illegal action of trespassing but the ACT government needs to consideration how they’re going to handle it. Its not extraordinary to consider public access to lease hold rural lands. At least Jim’s considering a legal avenues to access – rather than what some of you probably do … just jump the fence and don’t give a sh*t whether you’re trespassing.

bd84 bd84 9:00 pm 08 Nov 10

Dear jimathome,
I intend lobbying my local member to have free access to your backyard, because heaps of people live around your house and may like to stretch their legs from time to time and smell the flowers. I feel it would be beneficial to the public to be able to enjoy the views through your back window and the fences around your yard are just an inconvenience that get in my way of wanting to walk wherever I want to no matter who owns the property. So if you could please kindly leave the gate open so I can have free access, I don’t want to have to climb over and risk damaging your fence.

Kind regards,
Random on the interwebs

Clown Killer Clown Killer 7:37 pm 08 Nov 10

This strikes me as another example of what happens when city folk turn up in the country. Just because the property doesnt have a picket fence, or a hedge or look like a McMansion they think that it must be OK to go wandering about on it.

This isn’t about the need to manage for urban change. It’s not even about the need to accept that changing community values will put pressure on the need for access. This is specifically about managing the self-inflated sense of entitlement that so many people in Canberra seem to acquire. Rather than buying their own acreage where they can do whatever they want when it comes to sniffing daisy’s or hugging trees they expect the Government to provide them with access to other peoples land.

The funny bit is watching them react to having their insidious selfishness exposed, bucause in all honesty they thought that they were being completely reasonable and that the world really should revolve around them and cant anyone else see the logic of pandering to their affluent middle-class sensibilities.

dr phil dr phil 7:35 pm 08 Nov 10

Just give John Star a ring and ask him, the goverment all ready took casey off him so that CRD could develop the land. Im sure if you told him you were also going to take out the pado’s curse wile you were up there he will let you in.

sepi sepi 4:42 pm 08 Nov 10

What on Earth would ‘non-destructive public access’ consist of? guided tours or something?

Either the land belongs to the lease holder (for the duration of the lease), or it is public /government land. It can’t be both.

The land may be quite small, in which case why should the landholder allow people trekking all over it.

Rural leases in the ACT are all different, and some leases go for 30 years. perhaps this land holder still has decades to go? And lessees do pay, some quite considerable amounts, as well as rates through the roof, for completely unserviced land (no electricity/water/post/rubbish removal).

jimathome jimathome 4:28 pm 08 Nov 10

I am really disappointed by the number of comments that have (deliberately?) distorted what I was proposing. For instance, I never suggested leased rural land should be invaded by all and sundry – I just pointed out that the growth of Casey raised a question about future management. And that it could be put to better community use, given the increasing population.
This was my first go at posting on such a site and I wonder whether it is worth it.
Still, some have got the point and made an attempt at being constructive. May I ask the question in another way. Given that many houses in Casey would contain kids between the ages of 10 and 15, just how difficult do you think it will be to keep those kids out of the hill top areas? I know that when I was that age, I could not resist wandering around in the bush and I defy any parent to try to stop their kids from doing so. In fact, no-one should do so because that is exactly what kids should do.
And anyone who thinks that it would be appropriate for the lease-holder to respond by getting out his shot gun is simply un-Australian.
It is inevitable that people will want access to this land – time to start thinking about how to do it safely and in a way that meets the needs of as many as possible.

troll-sniffer troll-sniffer 1:52 pm 08 Nov 10

Initially I was going to lump this in with the old chestnut of the Sydney suburbs complaining about the smell of farms that had been around for two hundred years before they moved in, but I think I agree with the notion that there’s more to this case, given the special status of ACT land.

My recommendation would be to approach your local member to discuss. The leaseholder could then be contacted for their views on allowing pedestrian-only access to limited areas of the leased land (on a trial basis if need be). Most lease-holders I know would be happy to give access as long as the access didn’t result in any stress for animals, any rubbish build-up, any non-compliant access such as free-ranging dogs, horses etc.

Heck, you could form a landcare group and help the lease-holder with weed control and tree planting and maintenance, that way you could pay your way for access to the land the lease-holder has to pay for. Food for thought.

housebound housebound 1:50 pm 08 Nov 10

Mineral exploration can be carried out on any property not just leasehold.
Not Residential or commercial

If you had something of high value under your land – like some high priced rare metal, your land would get explored one day.

Don’t get complacent. And our land laws don’t give lessees much in the way of rights anyway.

p1 p1 1:45 pm 08 Nov 10

Very Busy said :

Or “If you keep your dog out of my property, I’ll keep my bullets out of your dog”

That’s not what Joel said.

Very Busy Very Busy 1:41 pm 08 Nov 10

trickyxr said :

Farmer needs to put up the old TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT SIGN

Or “If you keep your dog out of my property, I’ll keep my bullets out of your dog”

trickyxr trickyxr 1:36 pm 08 Nov 10

trickyxr said :

johnboy said :

Well the functional difference is that pastoral lessees are required to share the land with other use purposes, for example mineral exploration and native title.

I don’t think non-destructive public access is too much to ask to be added to that.

They’re not freeholders, but they frequently try to pretend they are even though they never paid for it.

Mineral exploration can be carried out on any property not just leasehold.

Not Residential or commercial

trickyxr trickyxr 1:34 pm 08 Nov 10

johnboy said :

Well the functional difference is that pastoral lessees are required to share the land with other use purposes, for example mineral exploration and native title.

I don’t think non-destructive public access is too much to ask to be added to that.

They’re not freeholders, but they frequently try to pretend they are even though they never paid for it.

Mineral exploration can be carried out on any property not just leasehold.

Holden Caulfield Holden Caulfield 12:14 pm 08 Nov 10

nsn said :

“…a purpose built ladder over the fence.”

That would be a stile.

🙂

Thank you, I knew it had a name, it had just escaped me for a moment!

johnboy johnboy 12:13 pm 08 Nov 10

Well the functional difference is that pastoral lessees are required to share the land with other use purposes, for example mineral exploration and native title.

I don’t think non-destructive public access is too much to ask to be added to that.

They’re not freeholders, but they frequently try to pretend they are even though they never paid for it.

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 12:10 pm 08 Nov 10

johnboy said :

On the other hand pastoral lessees are not land owners, for all they try to act like it.

Of course they are – what’s the functional difference? The lessee gets to use the land for as long as they wish within the land purposes of use, and lease renewals in the ACT have been a simple process of changing a date in a database (for a date MUCH further ahead).

nsn nsn 11:18 am 08 Nov 10

“…a purpose built ladder over the fence.”

That would be a stile.

🙂

Holden Caulfield Holden Caulfield 11:01 am 08 Nov 10

I’m not sure what the official deal was, but back in the day when I lived in Nicholls you could get access to the “summit” of Harcourt Hill via a purpose built ladder over the fence. The paddock usually had a few cattle in it from time to time, so it was obviously being used by a farm of some description.

There is also a fire trail/access road between the housing and the paddocks, which is nice enough to walk along, so even if you couldn’t get access to the paddock the hill was still open to community access of sorts anyway.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site