Private property and walking tracks around Newnes

[christophermoore]

Hi all,

I recently had a landholder near Newnes comment on my blog about how reckless, disrepectful etc. it was to ignore a sign and pass through private property on the way from Newnes up Little Capertee Creek to the Red Rocks. I've responded on my blog but I'm trying to do something a bit more constructive about it.

Anyway I'm trying to figure out exactly where the private property is. I headed onto SIX maps and turned on "lot boundaries", and came up with this:



That map seems to show two areas of private property, with a sliver of land running between them.

My first question: Is this an accurate interpretation of the map? (i.e. that all areas not in the lot boundaries are national park?) I can't recall exactly where the "private property" sign was, but I think it was much further east along the trail than the boundaries on the map would indicate are actually private property.
My second question: Does anyone know that the track actually passes through private property, or does it pass between those two lots? The satellite images aren't sufficiently detailed to see the track (and the trees would probably be in the way anyway), and I wasn't carrying a GPS to log the route.

Thanks in advance,
Chris

[GPSGuided]

Question is, could the Lots be skirted?

[christophermoore]

My suspicion is that the track does actually pass between (i.e. not cross) the lots, and that the "Private property" sign is just to keep people from going down the (public?) road towards private property. However it would be good for someone else who has done the walk to verify this.

[GPSGuided]

I'd think that the Lot owner/s would also use the track, to an extend that'll easily establish a track that visiting walkers would naturally follow. Unless the owner put up clear signs and boundary fencing and ideally direction to the correct track, the fault could easily be attributed to both sides.

[christophermoore]

To be clear, there is a gate and "Private property" sign on the dirt road not far from the clearing at Newnes, well east of where the track appears to enter private property. However based on the lot boundaries on that map, it appears that section of the road is NOT private property.

Once the road on the map peters out, it becomes less clear.

[michael_p]

Looking at the image, lot 20 and 21 have a white background whilst the other lots have a green background. Maybe the ones with white backgrounds are the private properties and the ones with green backgrounds are part of the NP. If that is the case then Little Capertree Trail runs right into lot 21.

Geocaching NSW has a kml file of the NPWS Estate data here: http://www.geocachingnsw.asn.au/index.php/geocaching/natparks/114-google-earthjan2010.html. It can be useful for determining boundaries.

I have done a screen shot from Google Earth with the NPWS Estate Data overlay. Looks like it is only lot 20/21 that is the private property.

Hope this is of some help.

Michael.

[Mark F]

The gaps between the lots are public land and possibly road reserves so there is a proper way to avoid the private lots. It is amazing how land holders often try to establish a far larger perimeter of claimed private ownership than the legal reality and they need to be challenged on this. The questions I have is whether the lots are fenced so that their actual extent is easily identified? And did you walk across the cleared land and past the house or follow a trail though bush? There appears to be both options on the aerial photo data for the area.

[GPSGuided]

Did a quick cadastral records search on DP751639. It showed that DP751639 is a single block fully enclosing those 6 sub-divided Lots. There's no evidence that suggests the private owners of the Lot have any claim on the land outside of their Lot boundary. As such, I don't understand the legal meaning of the gate positioned much further to the East other than a practical measure to minimise "tourist" traffic venturing into their general area. Not unreasonable I think. But as asked above, did they have wire fencing around their private lot and whether you climbed past them? If not, then there's no way the Lot owner can make any noise. They need to clearly demarcate their private land.

[christophermoore]

From what I remember, there was a fork that turned off across the river towards the house, but we continued along the northern bank of the river. We didn't climb over any fences. So it looks like we were actually not on private property at all.

Thanks for your assistance!

[GPSGuided]

Sounds like the owner is using your walk report blog as a generic platform to highlight his concern with walkers in general.

[DaveNoble]

I've been up that way quite often - and never had any trouble with the landholders. They seem quite happy for bushwalkers to pass along the road. Most of the time - no one is home.

Dave

[tom_brennan]

I'd suggest it's probably better not to make comments like "(ignoring the Private Property sign – I mean, the gate was open…)".

It's easier to see the private property when you look at the topo, since that has the park boundaries. As you can see it's not hard to stay out of the private property.

[GPSGuided]

There seemed to be decently wide margin b/n those private Lot boundaries and NP boundary line. Is there a legal basis for the wide margin? Or are they there just for practical mapping reason? Again, I think it's up to the owners to demarcate the boundary of their Lot (not somewhere way outside their Lot) if they want keep trespassers out.

[WarrenH]

That lot belonged to a very nice the old bloke who had the 78 cats and a mountain of empty beer cans? It was 7 years ago that I visited him and his cats. I'm presuming that the old bloke has moved on now ... or maybe even passed on?

I doubt that the old bloke was web equipped.

Warren.

[kanangra]

Interestingly from the toppo map the northern lots would appear to no longer be in private hands just the southern lots. According to the toppo they are an inholding surrounded by the NP. The gap between the NP boundaries and the lots is simply for mapping purposes. On the ground there is no buffer with the park going right up to the boundary of the private lot.

There are several of these remnant private holdings surrounded by national park. Konangaroo on the Coxs is perhaps the best known. Luthers up on the Boyd Plateau was another. Private town in Yeranderie was also up until recently another. Slowly but surely the old owners are selling out to Parks and the lots revert to public ownership.

K.

[tom_brennan]

There seemed to be decently wide margin b/n those private Lot boundaries and NP boundary line. Is there a legal basis for the wide margin? Or are they there just for practical mapping reason?

I'm pretty confident it's for practical mapping purposes. I'd say that the actual NP boundary aligns with the (obvious) lot boundaries.

[GPSGuided]

Interestingly from the toppo map the northern lots would appear to no longer be in private hands just the southern lots.

That's consistent with my earlier cadastral records search. I didn't pay (for obvious reason) for a full title search of the DP and Lots which would have fully clarified the ownership situation of each Lot. In any case, if the walker took a slightly northerly path, it should be very easy to avoid the southern privately held Lots. But again, the owner should stake out his specific area as not all walkers will have a map showing his Lot.

[rcaffin]

Interestingly from the toppo map the northern lots would appear to no longer be in private hands just the southern lots.

We came down from Point Nicholson via that valley. There is a 4WD track running the length of the valley staying on the N side of the creek. It does not go into the PP area on the S side. Um - the track may be a bit faint in places ... So, you don't need to cross the creek into the PP.

Cheers

[davidmorr]

As such, I don't understand the legal meaning of the gate positioned much further to the East other than a practical measure to minimise "tourist" traffic venturing into their general area. Not unreasonable I think.

This practice of people closing off public roads seems to be quite common. I know of two on the central coast. You can partly understand why they might do this, since they often have to pay for the maintenance of the road. And at times it can become very dusty if there is a lot of traffic and your home is close to the road. Then again, they often think they can forestall theft or vandalism by keeping people away from their property - unlikely!

Now the neighbours are often not unhappy at the road being closed, but even if they are, they often keep quiet in the interests of harmony. Theoretically, you can take it up with the local council, but again they are reluctant to make waves for the sake of people from out of the area.

[puredingo]

It's always been a pet hate of mine when long time residence gate/fence off public thoroughfares. I can't comment on this particular case as I don't know the area but it happens quite a bit around here. The nieghbouring houses claim a kind of "squatters rights" to these sections of land and take umbrage when used.

It's easy to get away with here because of the cofusing nature of bounderies...NP runs into catchment land which runs into BHP land which runs into farm land....

The owners in an effort to keep these sections hidden often plant them out with gardens as a disguise or hang plain old decieving "private property signs" which should be removed by the council.