Thread: Kaimanawa Forest Park

So, public access should be maintained then?

Ask a Lawyer. @Tahr?

I believe so, and every document I have found, plus discussions with DOC would suggest the same.

Over to Helisika and the trust now, but the gates are looking dodgy.

LINZ may be the key to this. I believe they contract out their property management to private providers who may have been in a position to "do a deal" with the trust. Just because it is crown land does not guarantee public access.

They look like a local with tractor and chains could minister to them.

We've probably seen a bit of should happen and what transpires over the last few years.

Originally Posted by Longrun

So, public access should be maintained then?

Right now the answer to your question is yes as there is no agreement to be found between the crown and the private land owners. But access is far from being secure.

Something I should have said at the beginning is that I am in agreement with the Trust and DOC regarding some of the behaviours on the RHA. 4WDing up the river and the damage it causes isn't a good thing in my eyes - and I enjoy getting the 80 series stuck in interesting and unusual places. It would seem that the best solution would be to gate the road at the bottom of the hill and put in parking there. Maybe a rubbish bin or two?

Personally, I'd like to see rubbish dumpers flogged (don't mind if it is in public or not), but I'll settle for the place being kept clean.

As Buddha said so perfectly, don't be an arsehole.

Given that there appears to be no agreement between the crown and any private land owner, the gate and adjoining walls (open or closed) represents an obstruction that has no legal right being there.
This structure needs to be removed for a number of reasons including and importantly because it is divisive and serves no constructive purpose.

If all this has to go through the court system to sort out,could be years.

It doesn't have to go anywhere near a court.
The Authorities are in agreement on ownership. The Crown owns the land and the road.
If the Trust cannot produce an agreement giving permission to build the gate, they must remove it.

I'd suggest putting it at the bottom of the hill, next to a map showing the local boundaries.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

It doesn't have to go anywhere near a court.
The Authorities are in agreement on ownership. The Crown owns the land and the road.
If the Trust cannot produce an agreement giving permission to build the gate, they must remove it.

I'd suggest putting it at the bottom of the hill, next to a map showing the local boundaries.

I agree with you about the trusts right to put a gate on crown land without the appropriate consent, but as I said, just because it is crown land that does not mean public access is guaranteed.

If it's "crown land" then it belongs to the NZ Citizens and there would have to a very strong reason to suddenly deny what has been normal public access established for around 50 years imo.

Originally Posted by Woody

If it's "crown land" then it belongs to the NZ Citizens and there would have to a very strong reason to suddenly deny what has been normal public access established for around 50 years imo.

I agree. Just saying it's not a done deal.

No it is not a done deal, but we now have enough information at hand from the appropriate departments to understand ownership. People need to understand though that the crown can enter into an agreement that could still see a barrier in place. At this point in time, there doesn't appear to be such an agreement.

The title that is publicly available and the entry in the gazette (1969) on page 1334? shows that the land was taken by the crown through a process set down in the Public Works Act for the purpose of water control (electricity generation), that purpose did not include public access, however section 48 of the act allows for the controlling authority to grant an easement over the land for other purposes. It would also mean that for a structure such as gates to be built on the said crown land permission from the controlling authority would also be required. I believe the controlling authority to be LINZ (Land Information NZ) whose minister is Damien O'Connor. If LINZ did give permission without consulting the stakeholders with an interest such as DOC and the District Council then that is a very sad state of affairs, I think the question should be put to LINZ asking what knowledge they have of the situation and to come clean if they approved this in committee.

Originally Posted by Ruger7mm

The title that is publicly available and the entry in the gazette (1969) on page 1334? shows that the land was taken by the crown through a process set down in the Public Works Act for the purpose of water control (electricity generation), that purpose did not include public access, however section 48 of the act allows for the controlling authority to grant an easement over the land for other purposes. It would also mean that for a structure such as gates to be built on the said crown land permission from the controlling authority would also be required. I believe the controlling authority to be LINZ (Land Information NZ) whose minister is Damien O'Connor. If LINZ did give permission without consulting the stakeholders with an interest such as DOC and the District Council then that is a very sad state of affairs, I think the question should be put to LINZ asking what knowledge they have of the situation and to come clean if they approved this in committee.

Would such an agreement not need to be gazetted or otherwise published? There would have to be a record somewhere, but neither Land Transfer Office nor the Maori Land Court could find it.

Occam's razor suggests that nobody checked before starting the post hole borer.

Additionally, the Crown has shown no desire to restrict access over the last 54 years.