Printable View
These four + access routes were built to be roads in the first place and used as such. Roads vehicular or vehicle access routes- tracks; same thing is'nt it.
Oxford dictionary definition:
road
/rəʊd/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Transportation
Mining
noun
1.
a wide way leading from one place to another, especially one with a specially prepared surface which vehicles can use.
"a country road"
Apologies for my spelling and grammar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dazzh
- Not mean quite what you think.
- Maybe Thar could give a little insight into the implications of "Taken"
Now look up the definition of "legal road".Quote:
Originally Posted by Woody
Do you think NZED used "illegal roads"?
Yip, and they probably fined themselves for doing it.... As a tax break.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woody
And the NZED spawned some SOEs which continue to use the ""roads"" !
Here is a bit of history that might be relevant.
Some of you may know of View road which connects Broadlands rd to Aratitia Dam and SH5. This road was built by NZED and was "unclassified as class 1 or 2 or 3 and commonly used by class 1 trucks to avoid the nth broadland rd class2 weight restrictions. My understanding was that it was an "unofficial road" built to allow the dam consyruction and servicing from Wairakie hydro village and to Broadlands road. Now today it still serves the dam maintainance role but also serves to provide public and tourist access to the dam and Aratiatia rapids, rapids jet, polocross grounds and walkway up to Huka falls and the Rotokawa geothetmal power station and Fullfames rapids as well as a regular road traffic thoroughfare.
I see the four access roads off desert road as qualifying to follow this and pther NZED and similar public works precedents. Also note that the SOEs are still majority NZ public owned shares.
It is interesting that you mention this road, it is the very same road a resource consent specialist used as an example while talking with him about Waipakihi road today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woody
Waipakihi Road maybe a "road" in function and structure, however doesn't have the legal status of "legal road to pass and re pass", even if the title says it is owned by the Crown that doesn't mean it is actually a legal road. The land was aquired rather than taken through a process that pays the private owners going value for the land, although in my opinion the buyer has more advantage than the seller.
But also consider the tenure of the land when the Tongariro project initiated. Consider too the Mangakino village and Karapiro and Arapuni amongst others.
It was "acquired" from one Government department (Tongariro National Park) by another (NZED). The land in question was gifted by Horonuku Te Heuheu Tūkino IV, starting back in the late 1800's and finishing up as what we see as the TNP in the very early 1900's. The land either side only became Maori Trust land at the same time as the road was surveyed off and became Crown Land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruger7mm
For it suddenly to become not Crown land would seem mighty suspicious, given the 54 odd year history of the road being used by the public to access the Kaimanawa Forest Park.
With all the literature that's gone back and forth between forum members and government departments, it looks to me that this issue needs as much sunlight as possible...right now... to ensure ultimate transparency over what happens to Crown land and the public access it has afforded us all for over the last half century.
The word "take" refers to the compulsory acquisition of land.
See here page 23
https://www.businessnz.org.nz/__data...mpensation.pdf
A synopsis would have been sufficient lol!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Thank you for the info.
The land was taken from the Tongariro National Park, not iwi. The trust land holdings were created at the same time, in part as a compensatory land swap for the power scheme.
Regardless of whether it is a road or not, nobody other than the Crown has the right to erect a structure on it.
At the same time, only the Crown has the right to bar access, and for the entirety of the "road's" existence, the Crown has chosen to not do so.
Edit to add XR500 said the same as I was typing
Here's where it all started. Great historic footage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kbg9_z0fGo&t=3s
Photos taken today down by the far end of Waipakihi Rd. This seems to be a side road going into the privatre land.
Attachment 202845
Attachment 202846
Unfortunately, my mate didn't take much notice of an open gate across the Waipakihi Rd closer to SH1, but noted it would be a fair way to walk to the end of the road. Presumably that is the one photographed under the power lines a few pages earlier in this thread.
Love the center folds in the workshop!Quote:
Originally Posted by XR500
@9min.22secs, must be one of the single lads off this forum:D:D:D
Reminds me of the annex room off the workshop during my apprenticeship, just missing a half dozen bottles of Coruba and a bunch of drunken old Tradesmen.
Now for something completely speculative:
If there were a gate across Waipakihi Rd, then whatever may be said, there would be the possibility that someone could close it at some time. It would be most inconvenient if it were closed while you were in the bush and had to negotiate nicely with the key holder to come and let you out. From a practical point of view, whatever the law (and as Tahr points out there isn't just one black and white law), the existence of a physical gate is a real and ongoing threat to access. Therefore, if at all possible it must be prevented before it can be completed. Even if the gate has no legal standing, an ordinary person may not be entitled to remove it, as the materials would belong to someone else (the same as say your camping gear or a car parked beside the road).
Now, as for the land having been taken from the Tongariro National Park, it has been proposed that the wording of the gifting document may have differed in English and Maori ("The fate of our national estate" George Driver North & South magazine August 2022 p36) and that Tukino only agreed to share the taonga, not to give away all ownership. A legal challenge to reestablish public access in the presence of an already locked gate would be an up hill battle, even if it could ultimately be vindicated.
The road easement is 25 meters wide, and the gate is considerably less than that.
Just drive around the bloody thing. DOC won't care, it isn't their land, and the trust don't own it either, so as long as you don't drive on trust land they have no standing.
The original gifting of tongariro national park was quite a small area around the vents of the three volcanoes. The land down by the desert road was not part of the original gift.
NoteQuote:
Originally Posted by Ross Nolan
Comment made for satirical purposes.
Always consult with your lawyer before starting any course of action based on advice from Ross Nolan.
Could say the same about my comment. I meant prevent by legal determination like an injunction.
Speaking as a bush lawyer …
So do we know who ordered the gates to be put in? There must have been some financial or budget approval for the installation of that gate?
Follow the money…
The money came from Shane Jones and the election bribe account (provincial growth fund), so in effect from you.
The details are laid out early in the thread in the HELISIKA/Trust agreement.
Essentially the PFF pays construction costs, helisika pays maintenance and operational costs over a 15 year period and the trust owns the buildings and improvements.
The land the trust and road are on were from purchases subsequent to the original gift of the summits- as your pdf. Are you saying the purchases should not stand?Quote:
Originally Posted by stug
If so, I sold a house in Birkenhead last century I'd quite like back, and I'd quite like to reexamine the sale of my great grandparents farm at Pirongia also
No, the way I read someone else’s post it seemed as though they were saying the part of TNP near the desert Rd was part of the land gifted to the “park”. I was just showing the land near desert Rd was acquired through other means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross Nolan
If he didnt see that other gate they might have been removed.
Maybe the gate is just a muck stirring exercise to get attention and maybe some Koha? It wouldn't be the first time...
They have already received 'koha' from the taxpayer to the tune of, (back of the fag packet calc) a million. Possibly a bit less.
Guys, guys, guys.....wait until the "T" word creeps into this debate. Treaty. And the "C" word...Co-governance. The last 23 pages of facts/opinions on this thread may well become redundant. If Maori sense they have been wronged in any way, and they can gain from that, they will go for redress. Watch this space.
Got anything constructive to say about the topic? Or do you just want to voice your prejudice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger 888
This morning I received this email from TDC CEO Gareth Green.
Hi Darrin.
Further to the below email to Councillor Mack, he has referred it to me for further investigation. My team are currently looking into who owns the land and therefore who’s asset Waipakahi Road is, as well as what rights of public access are over this land. While it is clear that it is not Council land or asset, we should be able to get that clarity for you. This may take a few days, but I wanted to let you know that we will get back to you in due course.
Cheers
Gareth Green – Apiha Iho Matua - Chief Executive Officer
Will keep you posted.
Hi all
My enquiry to LINZ has been acknowledged and passed onto Crown Property to respond. Will pass on any news as received.
Cheers Ruger7mm
Is this where the Crown Property lease of that land parcel to the trust mysteriously emerges????Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruger7mm
This was posted on a FB page https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...bd7a906cc9.jpg
Sent from my CPH2145 using Tapatalk
I was being constructive, and voicing my freedom of speech, Tahr. I deal in reality, not prejudice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Freedom of speech doesnt extend to inflammatory, divisive dogwhistling. Some statements are more an action of aggression than of persuasion or information. They can be called out for what they are.
There will be a variety of views among a forum like this but ethnic based ones will be a small minority.
Trough snouting help yourself adventurism has been indulged in by all at times.
A rules based legal system can be hard to fully comprehend (for me at least) but will give us a good result if pursued early and forcefully.
