Dear Carterton District Council (CDC),

BACKGROUND
---------------------

The unsatisfactory response to the original information request dated 23 December 2021 is recorded at this link:
https://fyi.org.nz/request/18042-obstruc...

Unfortunately, the CDC response today (17 February) was devoid of reliable authoritative information, and what was originally requested/anticipated.

This is the second approach to CDC to be more specific and obtain official information from the local road controlling authority in relation to passage (access) along a segment of Rocky Hill Rd, particularly in regard to passage by light vehicle along the southernmost 3kms, which enables access to the vicinity of the Rocky Hill Conservation Area. The intent of the information request is to unambiguously reveal the current authoritative situation, as transparently as possible.

At present CDC, as the local roads controlling authority, asserts or implies that the locked gate is not on legal road (Rocky Hill Rd).

The CDC seems to rely upon GIS ‘illustrations’ or inaccurate mapping tools. However, it is well known that general Geographic Information System (GIS) services are not fit for a purpose such as this.
The regulatory function of defining rights, restrictions and responsibilities, especially in relation to legal roads (or any land title), requires State sanctioned formal, reliable measures, records, information and evidence to extremely high and regulated standards. GIS results can't be relied upon.

Only approved cadastral surveys can be relied upon.

Rocky Hill Rd is well defined by a number of formally registered cadastral land surveys.

The locked gate is situated on legal road.

LGOIMA REQUEST (5 questions)
----------------------------

1. On 17 Feb CDC responded:
"Where the walking starts is on private property, and the locked gate is not always locked"

Response:
Wrong!
The gate is on legal road.
The gate has been locked whenever we've turned-up.
An obstruction like this, unable to be opened to allow passage along a legal road, is illegal.

Official Information Request
As CDC is taking important decisions about this road and gate, please provide all information currently held by CDC that unambiguously proves the location of the gate in relation to the boundaries of the legal road.

2. On 17 Feb CDC responded:
"The 'legal road' is an unformed paper road that is not maintained by CDC, and therefore not suitable for vehicle access in places."

Response:
The actual situation is that there is a well-defined track that can be easily passed along by light vehicles.

Whether formed or unformed, the path is ‘legal road’ and therefore should be accessible for unfettered passage, by any means.

Official Information Request
Please provide all information held by CDC (as local road controlling authority) that supports the Authority's stance on Rocky Hill Rd concerning the obstruction of passage by any object, or anyone. Please provide all supporting official information, in whatever form.

3. On 17 Feb CDC responded:
"To use a vehicle on the visible road, would mean that they are making use of private land."

Response:
If that were true (a meandering track outside the legal corridor), the corollary would be private benefit also accruing to neighbours wherever they make use of legal road areas (and presumably they're continually advantaged over long periods of years).

Especially in rough terrain, throughout rural NZ, a little 'give and take', and 'a little more or less' is a normal characteristic, and considered reasonable reciprocity. It isn't all 'one way' i.e. Public loses - adjacent Landowner wins.

Official Information Request:
Please provide irrefutable evidence (cadastral, or authoritative information) currently in possession of your road controlling authority, that supports the Authority's assertion that any part of the 'visible' road is not within the legal corridor.

If such information exists for the track, then also provide the information that proves the corollary i.e.how much legal road (public asset) is utilised for private benefit? (e.g. planting/harvesting assets in the public road reserve).

4. On 17 Feb CDC responded:
"From discussion with one of the property owners, there is an agreement between the Department of Conservation (DOC) and the relevant property owners to allow walking access through private land."

Response:
This information request is focused on public land, not 'private land'. We're focused on the legal road and the driveable track that passes along this corridor towards Taipo Minor.

The CDC is the sole road controlling authority but the above response suggests that the Authority has lost control of part of this local legal road, and its statutory function.

Or worse, the Authority implicitly sanctions these private arrangements from which the public lose rights to pass by any means along the legal road?

Official Information Request:
Please provide all CDC’s official information related to any orders or constraints created by CDC concerning passage by any means along Rocky Hill Rd up to the vicinity of Taipo Minor (near the northern boundary of the Rocky Hill conservation area).

For example, please provide the original notes from the declared discussion that happened with one of the property owners.

As "there is an agreement between the Department of Conservation (DOC) and the relevant property owners", please provide a copy of that agreement.

Please provide all information held by the CDC concerning what anything any other parties have agreed to in relation to any part, or any aspect of access to, or passage along Rocky Hill Rd, to CDC's knowledge.

If such 'agreements' exist, has CDC endorsed these in ANY way? Please provide any related information.

5. Please provide any information on what needs to be done by CDC (as the road controlling authority) to permanently unblock the road for unfettered passage by light vehicle.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Murcott

PS
Here is a map link to provide situational awareness (only)
https://maps.walkingaccess.govt.nz/Viewe...

Use the 'Basemap' function to change to a topographic map base or an imagery view.
DO NOT use to ascertain where cadastral boundaries are on the ground, or their relationships to other objects. GIS, such as this, is not fit for that purpose.

Dear Dave Gittings,
Thank you.
Carterton District Council signage is somewhat 'informative'.
The DOC signage is confounding; a 'stakeholder' too?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/2Qv4VKAZVYjuz3...
Yours faithfully,
Richard Murcott

Dear Dave Gittings,

Thank you for posting the 'illustrative' plan of the area around the locked gate on Rocky Hill Rd.
We agree that this is not an authoritative definition of the geospatial relationships between real-world objects and the legal boundaries of the road.

We note your option to have a licensed cadastral surveyor flag exactly where the legal road corridor boundaries are in relation to other features. However, we cannot see how this would resolve the matter of access.

The legal road would be rendered precisely where it is, in relation to objects in or near to it. But passage along the road might still be permanently obstructed? Please separate these concerns.

Yet another outcome from a cadastral survey, is that it would/should also be specified to fix exactly what other improvements/assets are situated within or near the bounds of the legal road (fences, buildings, trees, etc, situated with the Council's public road).

All these things are complexities, and may we suggest they are distractions from the end outcome desired ... access. Is it possible to separate the concerns?

Consistent with situations like this all over NZ, the actual path/track followed does not need to perfectly fall within the surveyed cadastral corridor of the road. A reasonable expectation is that the practical principles of a little more or less', or 'give and take', apply. The Council likely has numerous examples throughout the District where this happens i.e. formed roads deviate from the surveyed road reserve.

Therefore, we suggest that the cost/effort and complications of doing a redefinition survey can and should be avoidable for ratepayers. There seems to be no obvious need to go down that 'rat hole'.

On the basis that the precise location of the legal road changes little if anything, may we respectfully suggest another option for Carterton District Council to consider (as local roads controlling authority)? Perhaps a chat with the experts on legal roads, and access to them, at the NZ Walking Access Commission?

We're merely looking for a focus on a reasonable, achievable access outcome that is balanced and reliably works for all i.e. access to the remaining 3km (6km return) of the Rocky Hill Rd to/fro the vicinity of Taipo Minor, which is near (eastward) the boundary of the Rocky Hills Sanctuary Area (DOC conservation estate).

We had anticipated that your engagement would include all neighbours to the legal road (Rocky Hill Rd). What communications has Council had with DOC? They're another official entity that has installed misleading signage on Rocky Hill Rd.

Yours sincerely,
Richard Murcott

Dear Dave,

The road was surveyed and formed well before any occupation arrived (fences etc). Subsequently, some things may not have been built in exactly the 'right' place wrt the legal road. So be it. That's a legacy, and perhaps an example of pragmatism in action (built in the 'best' place, in that distant time past?) in this remote and hilly rocky terrain.

But it is interesting to observe that the cadastral survey (DP 503510) undertaken only 6 years ago also fixed the segment of 'formed track', just a few metres south of the gate, as falling WITHIN the legal road (Rocky Hill Rd). That is perhaps a strong suggestion of the situation that may similarly exist at/near the gate i.e. the formed track is likely to be within, or at least near (within a few metres), to the intended route surveyed a century ago.

Consistent with the principles of 'a little give and take' is it not also reasonable to anticipate that a corollary of a road/path passing 'over' private land, would also involve 'private' assets sitting within the bounds of 'public' land (the legal road). Such positional 'anomalies' are common. They do not (and should not) impact the public right to pass around them. Especially when the preferred pathway to do so (generally signaled by adjacent land owners), is already clearly delineated on the ground i.e. the position of the track signals where it is preferable for people to pass. No matter if the track meanders a little in relation to the survey, the track provides a definition of the preferred path to follow to exercise the right to pass, or if necessary to pass around any private assets (or other objects) that might be 'in the way' of the originally envisaged path (as orginally surveyed). Today, the legal 'intent' is represented by where the track actually is.

What we're trying to signal is that the precise location (to cadastral survey accuracy) of the occupation (buidings etc) is somewhat 'academic' in a case like this. That is because we assume no one has any desire, nor need, to change any of these spatial relationships. The objects fall where they are in relation to one another, as they have for decades i.e. the formed track is wherever it is in relation to the legal road. And that is the route that local folk want people to traverse. It is what it is. No one needs to change that.

Therefore, the survey result would seem to have no tangible impact on the path that represents where to exercise the right to pass along the legal road. So, surveying would seem not to advance matters much at all. Everything falls within a few metres of one another in any case.
- we've established that there is a legal road.
- we're established that there is a formed path that follows it (if not entirely, then at least appreciably)
- the path (be it a gravel road or formed track or just a poled route) represents the desired path where adjacent landowners would prefer the right to pass to be exercised (logical, safe route)
- we've established that there is a permanent obstruction on that existing path
- we contend that whether that particular spot where the gate is falls within the surveyed road or not is 'academic' i.e. in the sense that the best way (and only way) to exercise the right is to pass along the legal road is as directed, which is by where the path is, along which everyone is directed to go ... either as pedestrians, or whatever mode.

We desire a pragmatic solution/understanding that works for everyone: for the adjacent landowners in particular, and the public so as to restore an ability to pass, by light vehicle, along Rocky Hill Rd.
Improvements to the misleading public signage (DOC's) would also be helpful.

1) Notwithstanding the above comments, IF CDC remain locked into commissioning a cadastral survey, then please advise, in detail, why, and what would be the perceived benefits for all parties?
2) If the present track and the locked gate across the path, was found to actually pass over a small area of private land, how and why would that influence CDC's position?
3) If the present track at the locked gate is found to fall within legal road, what would CDC's stance be, and why?
4) Why would there be any difference in the stance CDC might hold, whether scenario 2) or 3) prevailed?
5) how would CDC's practical assistance to all interested parties differ, given that there is only one existing road/formed track along which anyone can exercise their right to pass toward Taipo Minor.
6) if the cadastral survey were to proceed, would it identify the location of all the 'private' assets that fall within the legal road south of the gate?

With appreciation for your assistance
Richard

Richard Murcott

Dear Dave

You wrote: “If the unformed road differs to that of the gate then it is no difference from a driveway”

Many folk would consider it ‘irregular’ for the local roads controlling authority to judge any part of Rocky Hill Rd as comparable to a ‘private driveway’.

We also respectfully suggest that the survey option will not assist.

When it comes to rights, a legal road (formed or unformed) is the same as SH1
When it comes to legal local roads they never leave the local road controlling authority’s desk … the remit remains whether the road is formed or unformed. Hence we were compelled to bring the request to the Authority.

The tiny segment of Rocky Hill Rd we’re seeking information on is ‘formed’ (likely with public monies by a predecessor County). In any case, there is a clear formation and that formation indicates WHERE to exercise the public right to pass unfettered … wherever the actual survey pegs may be. (this may be considered ‘academic’). Afterall the position of either the gravel carriageway or formed track isn’t going to shift as there is no need. They are where they are, and wherever it has been formed is where to exercise the right to pass historically.

The reference to gates at the entrance of private driveways had us wondering whether anyone has been distracted or confused by the existence of the nearby Agricultural Right of Way. This is not to be confused with Rocky Hill Rd. That ROE is the equivalent of a ‘private driveway’ (it’s not a public ROW). It intersects Rocky Hill Rd just 90m beyond the gate. Then Rocky Hill Rd (legal road) continues southward for another 3km toward Taipo Minor. Clearly, Rocky Hill Rd must be accessible beyond the gate in order for folk who are authorised to turn onto the ROW to exercise their private privilege to pass along that registered Agricultural easement.

For the purpose of situational awareness the is a plan at this link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BEV5ajj...
Some of the data in this plan was directly extracted from survey plan DP 503510. The survey was generated on 6 March 2017. This 5yr old subdivision was approved by CDC. It clearly delineates that the legal road has a ‘formed track’. We know that the track is easily passable by light vehicle because we’ve done so, unfettered, in the past.

Re DOC Signage
Our questions about DOC participation remain unanswered. DOC mispresents the situation with bold signage installed on Rocky Hill Rd. Wording includes:
- “this access is over private property”
- “walking access only”
- and their map of Rocky Hill Rd gives no indication whatsoever that it is in fact legal road access

Did the Local Roads Controlling Authority (CDC) have an opportunity to approve the DOC signage?
- if not, why not?
- how did this misrepresentation on the DOC sign arise?

As our understanding of the situation is improving, we would very much desire to move the focus onto a fair and workable access solution for all, especially balanced with the concerns of local landowners with whom we have respect and sympathy.

Regards
Richard

Richard Murcott

Good morning Dave

You ask: Have you contacted the local land owners?

With Rocky Hill Rd being legal road it was deemed essential in the first instance to confirm facts from the local roads controlling authority. First things first.

So, no.
Who did Carterton District Council meet?

There's a single land title for both sides of Rocky HIll Rd at the point where the gate is situated. We're happy to take steps to reach out to them. The registered owner is not 'local'; based in North Sydney, Australia. We will contact their local 'agent' in the first instance.

Regards
Richard

Thank you Dave
Have connected with Malte who is coordinating a meeting for us.
With appreciation
Richard