Thread: Farmer lying about paper road?

I wonder how many of these entitled arrogant cockies who block access across a "paper road" will take responsibility if someone using this access (with or without their permission) gets injured by say the farmers dog, or charged and hurt by a bull, or even get hit by a farm vehicle? I bet they would run for the hills and claim none of their business it happened on public land.

a] paper roads = councill docs got f all to do with it
b]if he has a problem then fence the paper road off from his land thru to where it ends.
that he can do
but blockin denying vehicular access on a PAPER ROAD to where it ends is illegal unless dangerous existing conditions are involved.
if it was just for walking accesss itd be called a walking track not a fuckin ROAD

Originally Posted by gsp follower

a] paper roads = councill docs got f all to do with it
b]if he has a problem then fence the paper road off from his land thru to where it ends.
that he can do
but blockin denying vehicular access on a PAPER ROAD to where it ends is illegal unless dangerous existing conditions are involved.
if it was just for walking accesss itd be called a walking track not a fuckin ROAD

@GSP not quite. It may be called a paper road, but that does not mean it has to have vehicular access even possible. We have one along our boundary and it runs from the nearby road about 600 metres up behind a row of houses to a dead end. No public land at the end (possibly could call it a public cul de sac or cresent?) While it is wide at one end, it narrows down to a pinch point about 3 feet wide not far from the beginning and opens back up. No one looks after it officially so the neighbouring properties allow the local cocky to mow it for hay during summer. It certainly cannot be driven on. And I know of another that while it is designated a paper road, it is unable to be driven on as the grassy bit between the "tyre ruts" has fully mature pine trees in it so has clearly not been driven on for several decades at the very least...

um yes it does only dangerous topography or dangerous conditions that prevail can prevent vehicular access

What status do unformed legal roads have?
ULRs are no different in law from formed roads. Almost all have a nominal width of 20 metres, implying that they can be used by vehicles. The public have the right to use them on foot, on horse, or in vehicles without hindrance from the adjoining landholder or anyone else.
However, users of these roads must consider others, including adjoining landholders and their property. The general rules of the road apply and territorial authorities have powers to manage the roads.

ULRs may be unsuitable for vehicle use and even for walking, because of the topography that they traverse.

Originally Posted by timattalon

@GSP not quite. It may be called a paper road, but that does not mean it has to have vehicular access even possible. We have one along our boundary and it runs from the nearby road about 600 metres up behind a row of houses to a dead end. No public land at the end (possibly could call it a public cul de sac or cresent?) While it is wide at one end, it narrows down to a pinch point about 3 feet wide not far from the beginning and opens back up. No one looks after it officially so the neighbouring properties allow the local cocky to mow it for hay during summer. It certainly cannot be driven on. And I know of another that while it is designated a paper road, it is unable to be driven on as the grassy bit between the "tyre ruts" has fully mature pine trees in it so has clearly not been driven on for several decades at the very least...

Go cut the trees down for firewood

@Stocky I’d maybe have another yarn to the cocky and say do you want me going in by myself for a hunt or do you want me organising a forum hunting trip in there via chopper with 6+ blokes! And tonging up his so called pseudo private “Public block”

Originally Posted by outdoorlad

@Stocky I’d maybe have another yarn to the cocky and say do you want me going in by myself for a hunt or do you want me organising a forum hunting trip in there via chopper with 6+ blokes! And tonging up his so called pseudo private “Public block”

I'm going to try have another discussion. I'd prefer solve it without threats (even mild ones like shooting up the block, or getting DOC involved with potential illegal damage to public land or even forcing them to put in gates as it simply makes no sense when there is existing infrastructure that could be used and the farmer would have more power to create restrcitions due to them being on his land. I know another property that has a boundary that a mates guides on but unlikely they would allow access but may try that next or atleast to get a closer reference that I'm not going in to smash a heap of deer but rather chase animals of age and quality.

If it comes down to it the ULR is about 50 yards wide the entire way up and pretty easy to stick to just have to bush bash a small portion but id prefer have the farmer on side and not have to potentially cut through a paddock that may be stocked or deal with him potentially trying to mess with my vehicle (ill be bringing a multitude of trail cameras to set up around it). Im not looking to head in until probably late next year so starting sorting this early. No point flying in as they use the local chopper to fly out stags shoot by fat americans and i doubt they would be willing to risk losing work for flying me.

Our old farm had a paper road (and still does) that went through the front, then followed the boundary with the neighbours. Most of the bit at the front pretty much followed the farm road to the woolshed, but not far after that there was no way you could get a vehicle along it, it was way too steep, you probably couldn't even keep to the legal road on a horse.
In the 15 years we owned the farm, only one guy ever used it, he was fossil hunting and used to come about once a year.

Ok , my thoughts are this , read Tahrs post was probably correct 10-15 years ago but now mostly Id disagree for the simple reason it’s not solely upto the council to dispose of roads if there’s any interest in using the road especially to access rivers or doc land Wams will be all over it , in legal terms a road is a road wether it’s formed or not , iv had a few battles over this , Iv always taken the stance of being polite and go out and actually meet the voice at the end of the phone , almost any landowner will get on the defence but it’s worth while persisting as opposed to just getting angry and getting on the phone to Wams don’t get me wrong they are great and in my experience will sort it out for you however the help does come at a cost and that is that the work they do gets highlighted to the public of Nz , especially easements that often do not show up on there maps , my advice print off the map that clearly highlights the road , take both versions as in go to base maps & print off the satellite image, it’s handy for referencing tree lines , ridges etc , go see the cocky and thrash it out , last resort is contacting Wams , again I’m not rubbishing them in any way but private arrangements are a bit more beneficial .
The walking access commission was formed after the government tried to open access up to the public over leased land so that’s huge tracts of essentially public land tied up in a lease in some cases in the high country it’s literally mountain ranges , but federated farmers got on the bandwagon & the idea was scrapped however that is how Wams was formed .Good Luck

Yep. have to agree with Tim here.

Im a farmer and also someone who values public land access. The big issue of conflict for me that I see, is the lack of regulations and penalties for offences associated with mistreatment of public access.
If There was real consequence for mis use then the situation would be far better. Hell try being a rural landowner and getting a police officer on site in less than 2 hours on a good day. let alone at 2 am. Those of us with public land boundaries are put in shitty positions often enough that we just decide to minimise our risk in the most efficient way possible, and if that means someone contacts you who you dont know looking for access, then its most likely going to be a no.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Yep. have to agree with Tim here.

Im a farmer and also someone who values public land access. The big issue of conflict for me that I see, is the lack of regulations and penalties for offences associated with mistreatment of public access.
If There was real consequence for mis use then the situation would be far better. Hell try being a rural landowner and getting a police officer on site in less than 2 hours on a good day. let alone at 2 am. Those of us with public land boundaries are put in shitty positions often enough that we just decide to minimise our risk in the most efficient way possible, and if that means someone contacts you who you dont know looking for access, then its most likely going to be a no.

I completely understand and it's niave to think public land nearby makes any difference at all. We have no public land around us except a lake. We still get poached of the road (a real road) we are well aware of the lack of concern by the police but have found saying spotlighting of houses is occurring usually helps. Although our best catch was someone poaching off the lake that we saw from the farm so took photos and video called the cops, drove to the boat jetty and took the keys out of ignition while they where loading up the boat with 2 fallow and a pig in the back.

I think you would find most hunters support better punishments for poachers and hate them as they are a huge part of the reason people struggle with issues like this. It's a joke those guys we caught in film got a trespass notice and that was it no seizure of boat, firearms, etc. But that's a seperate issue.

Originally Posted by Stocky

I think you would find most hunters support better punishments for poachers and hate them as they are a huge part of the reason people struggle with issues like this. It's a joke those guys we caught in film got a trespass notice and that was it no seizure of boat, firearms, etc. But that's a seperate issue.

But it’s not a separate issue mate. It’s the other side of the same coin.

Farmers see poachers, trespassers, vandals and thieves getting fuck all comeuppance, so what do you think that does to their attitudes?

We end up in a situation where there is no enforcement of law on either side of the problem, and some individuals decide to mete out their own forms of bush justice.

A friend of mine who works at the local council told me that when the council receives an application to close a ULR, if there has been no public use or interest in that road recorded by the council, closure will be approved with the stroke of a pen and not need to be gazetted.

What is the importance and implication of the above ? In application the landowner, if they can bluff and exclude the public from using the section of public land that is the road (ULR), can at no cost convert a public asset to freehold title. So a 20mtr wide ULR stretching one kilometer is two hectares and will have a value of between $20,000 and $100,000 commonly. A form of legalised squatters rights / land grab.
This is land that was excluded from the original farm purchase but that they have occupied and earnt income off for years and can now sell with the property

Dont be fooled that this is a rare occurrence, and bs it is common now since Tenor Review.

A parallel would be a gang with HQ next to a council reserve in town occupying the reserve, fencing it off and applying to the council for the reserve to be added to their adjoining freehold title because the public havent used it for years

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

A friend of mine who works at the local council told me that when the council receives an application to close a ULR, if there has been no public use or interest in that road recorded by the council, closure will be approved with the stroke of a pen and not need to be gazetted.

What is the importance and implication of the above ? In application the landowner, if they can bluff and exclude the public from using the section of public land that is the road (ULR), can at no cost convert a public asset to freehold title. So a 20mtr wide ULR stretching one kilometer is two hectares and will have a value of between $20,000 and $100,000 commonly. A form of legalised squatters rights / land grab.
This is land that was excluded from the original farm purchase but that they have occupied and earnt income off for years and can now sell with the property

Dont be fooled that this is a rare occurrence, and bs it is common now since Tenor Review.

A parallel would be a gang with HQ next to a council reserve in town occupying the reserve, fencing it off and applying to the council for the reserve to be added to their adjoining freehold title because the public havent used it for years

I have to disagree with the parallel you have drawn here. In the cases I know of it would be more like having a public walkway / cycle lane beside your property, and burglars using it to access your property to steal your stuff, or motorcyclists using it as a skid pad on a Saturday night. But with one difference - you would be responsible for maintenance of the walkway and NOT the council......

Or in your example if it was not a gang next to the reserve, but instead it was your place, and every weekend you had to spend a couple hours mowing the grass there and picking up all the rubbish and carcasses left there...Sure it is council land, but they dont do anything. As I mentioned before, we have a fairly substantial paper road next to us and the neighbouring properties. The developer offered to landscape it into a birdlane / reserve as part of the subdivision, but while the council was not against the idea in principle, the roading division liked it as it meant it was no longer responsible for it (it did no maintenance anyway so it was no skin off their nose), Parks division objected vigourously against it as it would then have to maintain it as a reserve with no additional funding so it was declined and was left as a paper road. Apart from the local farmer mowing it twice a year for hay,that is all. It receives no attention from the council unless it is pointed out that it is becoming a fire risk. The local residents including myself, now mow it themselves just to keep it from becoming a fire risk or source of pestilence and so people can walk it if they desire. To give you and idea, when I first called to enquire about who is responsible for the paper road, the council replied "The land owner whose fence it is inside, is responsible as they get the use of it. But the developer was not ALLOWED to put the fences around the paper road and it is OUTSIDE of our fence. To give you an idea of size, this paper road is 300m long, and for the most part, about 10m wide with a narrow pinch point that is about 3 feet wide not far from the main road where it starts meaning it is a reasonable piece of land to be mowing.......especially when we cannot use it for anything else...Oh and the real kicker....I can build a structure within 2 metres of my boundary EXCEPT from the road frontage which has a 10 metre setback.....and the BACK of my section has the same 10m set back as the paper road counts as "road" in the consents division so if I want to make a garden shed I dont need a building consent due to its small size, but I do need a resource consent because I want to put within 10m of my back fence.....

Originally Posted by timattalon

I have to disagree with the parallel you have drawn here. In the cases I know of it would be more like having a public walkway / cycle lane beside your property, and burglars using it to access your property to steal your stuff, or motorcyclists using it as a skid pad on a Saturday night. But with one difference - you would be responsible for maintenance of the walkway and NOT the council......

Or in your example if it was not a gang next to the reserve, but instead it was your place, and every weekend you had to spend a couple hours mowing the grass there and picking up all the rubbish and carcasses left there...Sure it is council land, but they dont do anything. As I mentioned before, we have a fairly substantial paper road next to us and the neighbouring properties. The developer offered to landscape it into a birdlane / reserve as part of the subdivision, but while the council was not against the idea in principle, the roading division liked it as it meant it was no longer responsible for it (it did no maintenance anyway so it was no skin off their nose), Parks division objected vigourously against it as it would then have to maintain it as a reserve with no additional funding so it was declined and was left as a paper road. Apart from the local farmer mowing it twice a year for hay,that is all. It receives no attention from the council unless it is pointed out that it is becoming a fire risk. The local residents including myself, now mow it themselves just to keep it from becoming a fire risk or source of pestilence and so people can walk it if they desire. To give you and idea, when I first called to enquire about who is responsible for the paper road, the council replied "The land owner whose fence it is inside, is responsible as they get the use of it. But the developer was not ALLOWED to put the fences around the paper road and it is OUTSIDE of our fence. To give you an idea of size, this paper road is 300m long, and for the most part, about 10m wide with a narrow pinch point that is about 3 feet wide not far from the main road where it starts meaning it is a reasonable piece of land to be mowing.......especially when we cannot use it for anything else...Oh and the real kicker....I can build a structure within 2 metres of my boundary EXCEPT from the road frontage which has a 10 metre setback.....and the BACK of my section has the same 10m set back as the paper road counts as "road" in the consents division so if I want to make a garden shed I dont need a building consent due to its small size, but I do need a resource consent because I want to put within 10m of my back fence.....

Are you quite sure that next to your property is a ULR or is it just a parcel of council land designated to roading ? The standard for a road is a minimum 'chain' or 66 feet - 20 metres. Your parcel is only 10 metres tapering to 1 metre so cannot be a road as such only an access right of way or sum such. Fence it off, park Harleys on it and patrol it with gang members and see how much the public use it. Then you can apply to the council to 'take it over' for them