Billionaire’s deal over access
The signs are hidden but the Overseas Investment Office is ok with that, writes Martin van Beynen.
It turns out that yes, you are allowed to walk across Russian billionaire Alexander Abramov’s exclusive retreat in Northland. There’s only one catch. The sign to say public access exists is hidden from the road and the Overseas Investment Office (OIO), which set the access terms, is fine with that.
The Sunday Star-Times highlighted the issue of access over the billionaire’s land in July, reporting the lack of any signage visible from the road and the impression of no access that created.
When Abramov bought the land in 2009 he was required to provide extensive access but this was gradually reduced, in a series of bureaucratic blunders, to mostly a signposted five-minute walk to a viewing platform overlooking a pond on the land, hosting the endangered pa¯teke (brown teal) duck.
The path to the duck pond provides access to another more extensive walk on Abramov’s land around a pa¯ site that is also supposed to be open to the public.
Earlier this year, this reporter scouted the area for any indication of the access but could not see it.
Passing motorists looking for a stroll would be none the wiser about the walk over Abramov’s land.
Combined with unwelcoming signs about video surveillance and locked gates, it appeared access had gone by the wayside.
Documents obtained by the Star-Times show Abramov’s staff being resistant to public access.
The Star-Times’ revelations in July prompted an investigation by the OIO which has found all is in order.
‘‘On 12 September, during a series of routine site visits in the area, we visited the property to check whether conditions of the consent were being complied with. Helena Bay Holdings cooperated fully throughout,’’ Vanessa Horne, group manager, said.
Horne said her staff were shown the entrance to the duck pond pathway.
‘‘While the signs are not visible from the road, the entry point (the stile) is. The entrance is separate (approximately 400 metres) from the main lodge entrance.
‘‘We considered the signage and access to be reasonable as this is still privately-owned land and not a public reserve or similar. We observed that there was sufficient space for parking as per the conditions.’’
She said the walk to the pond was along a gravel pathway that was easy to follow.
Access to a historic pa¯ site was available to members of the public who had a genuine interest in the area, and who complied with a protocol developed by the trustees and Nga¯ tiwai, she said.
‘‘The access is fairly rugged. It looked appropriate for the nature of the access, i.e., to those members of the public with genuine historical, cultural or sightseeing interests rather than for those looking to go for a more casual stroll.’’
Security was evident at the property but this reflected the isolated nature of the lodge, and did not seem unreasonable.
Horne declined to answer questions about how the travelling public could know about the access if they couldn’t see any sign and whether this sort of access would be acceptable in future cases.