Lees Paddock Closed?

[Phil]

FYI sold at auction today for $280k

[corvus]

G'day Phil,
Do you know who the Buyer is and what they intend doing with it.
c

[ollster]

G'day Phil,
Do you know who the Buyer is and what they intend doing with it.
c

Please let it be a P&WS Christmas present for Tasmania!

[flyfisher]

Yeah, we wish.

[corvus]

Despite our worst fears I am sure the the Lees would had ensured a "right of way" easement to their internal blocks thus meaning that we would all still have access to the "paddocks" I hope.
c

[cmscott0]

So I take it that Lee's is still off limits to bushwalkers?

[tasadam]

So I take it that Lee's is still off limits to bushwalkers?

That's a good question... Has anyone been in there recently? Is the track still open? Any signs that access is now prohibited?
Being that the property is sold, the closed sign was applied by the creditors, so now that they have got their money, theoretically that sign is now invalid and it's up to the new owner/s, whoever that is...
Any ideas?

[PSAL]

Again Hi to All,

Just to advise you that this sale of the property is expected to settle on the 17th January 2011, as to what the new owners
intend to do post delivery of the property is unknown.

But what I can advise you, is that reluctantly the property remains as it was before the auction with a "No Trespassing"
continuing until the property has settled.

I hope that this clears up any confusion, thanks


Yours Sincerely

Jaime Dormer
Director
PSAL Limited

[flyfisher]

Hi Jamie, thanks for the heads up.
ff

[Nuts]

I dont use the track much, its pretty popular. Im sure common sense will prevail (or be enforced).
I do hope this isnt going to be avoidable issue No 1...

[corvus]

Again Hi to All,

Just to advise you that this sale of the property is expected to settle on the 17th January 2011, as to what the new owners
intend to do post delivery of the property is unknown.

But what I can advise you, is that reluctantly the property remains as it was before the auction with a "No Trespassing"
continuing until the property has settled.

I hope that this clears up any confusion, thanks


Yours Sincerely

Jaime Dormer
Director
PSAL Limited

G'day Jamie,
Can you confirm if there is a "right of way" easement through this property or if you cannot, direct us to the Legal Eagles that can please
corvus

[Paul]

Hi all,

The Title Deeds / Plan for freehold property at Pine Hut Plain, clearly shows that the property does not extend to the water edge. Therefore, it appears to me that unless a surveyor is engaged by either the vendor or purchaser, the exact boundary is unclear. Without such a survey, any bushwalker walking in proximity to the river edge could claim to be not on freehold property. Therefore legal access apperars to me, to remain.

It is, in my opinion, wrongful for any person to place a""No Trespassing" sign at any location other than the property boundary. Therefore I believe the sign should not be on the bridge, but somewhere which more resembles the propery boundary, that is, back somewhat from the river edge.

Cheers,

Paul.

[corvus]

Hi all,

The Title Deeds / Plan for freehold property at Pine Hut Plain, clearly shows that the property does not extend to the water edge. Therefore, it appears to me that unless a surveyor is engaged by either the vendor or purchaser, the exact boundary is unclear. Without such a survey, any bushwalker walking in proximity to the river edge could claim to be not on freehold property. Therefore legal access apperars to me, to remain.

It is, in my opinion, wrongful for any person to place a""No Trespassing" sign at any location other than the property boundary. Therefore I believe the sign should not be on the bridge, but somewhere which more resembles the propery boundary, that is, back somewhat from the river edge.

Cheers,

Paul.

G'day Paul,
The only problem with this is that the River has effectively re claimed one major section of "public " land and to remain on it is not viable , further the sign is no longer on the bridge and IMHO it should never have been there but on the actual boundary of the "private property" as previously stated by me I do not think the new owners will have the the legal ability to ban us from this "iconic track" and ponder as to how they could physically achieve it in any case
corvus

[taswegian]

don't put too much emphasis on that one.
Acretion and erosion don't come into play on such boundaries and it looks like the southern title has a short section that may be actual river frontage.
Not sure how far is 'proximity', not a legally explicit measurement.
I'd suggest this would just be a red rag to a bull issue if you tried to get smart. Been there, heard all the excuses.

I would imagine though common sense will prevail. Give the new owner a chance to show their colours.

[flyfisher]

Does anyone know anything about "traditional access" and if so, how it might affect this issue.

On a different tack, anyone know who the new owner is. Might not be a problem at all.

ff

[corvus]

don't put too much emphasis on that one.
Acretion and erosion don't come into play on such boundaries and it looks like the southern title has a short section that may be actual river frontage.
Not sure how far is 'proximity', not a legally explicit measurement.
I'd suggest this would just be a red rag to a bull issue if you tried to get smart. Been there, heard all the excuses.

I would imagine though common sense will prevail. Give the new owner a chance to show their colours.

Do not have any argument with your legal explanation it is just that in actuality the river bank is about 8 foot straight down to the non viable/existent edge, then non accessible till you regain the legal river easement and unless you have been there recently the map is only a rough guide.
I also agree that common sense will prevail and that this fear is just that a "fear"
corvus

[Michael_Kingston]

If only we had the same progressive laws around land access as England this would not be an issue. The Scottish are even more progressive.

In England and Wales, a footpath .................unchallenged use by the public, as of right, for at least 20 years, may give rise to a presumption of dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980.

[Drifting]

I'd say there's pretty good grounds to say there's an easement by prescription. But I think making a big deal of it before anything's been said is a mistake. I'm sure the owners will be fine.

[flyfisher]

Yeah, I'm of that opinion too, guess we'll find out in due course.

[Mr. T]

Enjoyed a walk in on Nov 28 with a couple of mates who had never been in there. Met a few others coming out who had been doing the same. Reckon we should keep on enjoying the Paddocks.

[crazyone]

i went along that way on tuesday and all seemed ok. there was a harcourts sign on the shed at pine hut plain i noticed. im pretty sure that something can be worked out with regards to access. as it was my first trip in the paddocks, i certainly hope that something can be worked out. i can see why people rave about the place!

[grant evans]

just a note to let you know that my mum owns lees paddocks or the paddocks as our family knows it by. we are opposed to any commercial activities at the paddocks including guided bush walking groups and the like. we still carry out traditional activities such as grazing cattle in the summer early autumn, trips with the horses and cattle dogs as has been carried out since the 1890,s. all that we ask of bushwalkers is to care for the paddocks and the hut, carry out their rubbish, including empty wine bottles which seem to be left in the hut on a regular basis and leave the hut tidy and clean.

[ILUVSWTAS]

carry out their rubbish, including empty wine bottles which seem to be left in the hut on a regular basis and leave the hut tidy and clean.

Why would someone think an empty wine bottle is ok to leave there?? Some members here use Lees quite often and enjoy a wine or 2. Im pretty sure they would have more sense than that though!!

[tasadam]

Cool, Grant, thanks for joining and telling us.

.....carry out their rubbish, including empty wine bottles which seem to be left in the hut on a regular basis and leave the hut tidy and clean.

I can assure you that I carried all mine out. Moved a fair bit of glass in my time as you will see (photo linked to wine topic).

[taswegian]

I suppose it could be asked why need wine anyway in such a place?
Isn't the absolute beauty enough to 'satiate'?

I reckon we users of 'The Paddocks' get it easy, and I am forever greatful that the owners have had the goodness of heart to allow others to enjoy it.
Thanks owners.

How many of us who visit that freehold area would ever dream of allowing any Joe Blow to rock up and setup up camp in our own backyard, light fires, grog on etc etc.
I could imagine the responses.
Yes I appreciate it's not all who trash and abuse, but thats not really the point - its more about access to 'land of anothers' and freely to.

[katief]

I agree Taswegian! I could not be bothered to carry alcohol in (nor carry out the empties). I have no issues for those that choose to do so responsibly, and I believe most would do the right thing. Perhaps I choose not to carry alcohol in, as I am very fortunate to hike with my best friend, and he brings with him fabulous conversation, a sense of humour and witty charm. Mix that with the awesome beauty of mother nature and I don't feel the need to enhance it with any thing more than maybe a coffee and chocolate. I choose to walk in to these stunning places to enjoy the pristineness of it, let's leave it so the next visitor can enjoy the same environment.

[Drifting]

LOL- poor Adam- you stirred up a ant nest with that photo. But I have to agree, even when I did drink, I never used to drink while I was in the great outdoors. Seemed sacrilegious somehow.

[taswegian]

Yeh - realised after I posted that it could be read the wrong way. No Adam - not having a shot at you, nor your pics. Sorry if it took a wrong turn.
I was trying to emphasis the sheer beaty of that region (and much of Tasy) that doesn't need any 'enhancing'.

For the record I have been there with a few blokes - one of which produced the bottle when tea time arrived. It did get carried out though - we saw to that.

[tasadam]

All fair enough and each to their own, quick points - it's not alcohol, it's wine...
Not just plonk either, always something special. And only ever on day trips, very rarely will I carry it on an overnighter, and even then only in the Platypreserve.
I happen to be in a wine tasting group, and a number of us also like to walk. So on the odd day trip somewhere, a bottle (or for a larger group, more than one) might be carried.

But to those that want to leave their bottles laying about, it gives all wine drinkers a negative slant. So, carry your bottles out, ok!

[corvus]

I am with you Adam, a glass of wine or two with good friends in an idyllic setting at the end of the day in my opinion is perfect,(non drinkers should not get involved in this discussion ) my wine is always decanted into a dedicated " platy and no glass bottles left behind " which does the wine no harm because in my "penurious retirement state " I no longer drink the top quality wines like you do but I still enjoy the conviviality it imparts nevertheless.
corvus