Shaw backs Kokako closure

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 10, Issue 482, 20 April 1993, Page 1

Shaw backs Kokako closure

District councillor Stuart Shaw has disputed the claims made to the Waimarino Community Board regardrng the issue of the closure of Kokako Road, in the Ruatiti Valley (see Bulletin, 6 April) He told the Bulletin that the information given to the board was one-sided and erroneous. Mr Shaw said that Mr Rawnsley, the adjacent property owner who has proposed the road be closed as well as offering an alternative tramping route, was not invited to the meeting where the board discussed the matter while one of the objectors, Jim Davis, was. Following is a letter to the editor from Mr Shaw: Kokako Road • Re: an item on the front page of your issue 6 April headed " 'No', to closing Kokako Road". As a tramper who is familiar with Kokako Road and Mr Rawnsley 's proposed alternative route I am appalled at the inaccuracies in the article. It appears that information from one person has been put before the W aim arino Commun i ty Board without any checking as to its correctness, which has resulted in community board members not receiving accurate information.

Re the comment "many people had expressed the wish to be able to use the route for access to tramping, horse-riding and hunting" I feel that the use of the word 'many' to describe the number of people who have objected to the suggestion that the Kokako Road may be closed is not correct. I am not sure of the history of the submission process or who initiated it and would doubf the worth of it. It appears that there were about ten responses only. Seven questionnaires were sent to the submissioners asking for information on usage of Kokako Road in the past and proposed use in the future and a question on whether an alternative route would be acceptable. Three of the groups indicated no past use, nor any intended use of Kokako Road. Two unsigned and unidentifiable answer sheets claimed considerable use of the route in the past, one on two occasions, and one on four occasions but because they do not identify the club or individual they cannot be checked. All seven questionnaires say 'yes' to the proposed alternative with the comment "provided it is a Turn to page 2

Shaw supports road closure

From page 1 practical route," on several. Alternative route The alternative route is certainly practical, as it is, to experienced trampers and will be an excellent tramping route when poled to indicate the track, to save unnecessary side trips up gullies to find crossing places, to any group that is capable of walking the present Kokako Road. Of interest, it is worth noting that the legal public access to the section of Kokako Road when it enters Mr Rawnsley's property is probably nine kms along legal and largely unformed road from the end of the Konturoa East Road, near the junction of the upper Retaruke and Oio Road near Kaitieke. The existing Kokako track, although a very easy grade, traverses very steep country and is definitely not suitable for horse traffic. The track is very wet and prone to slips. In one area several cracks caused by ground slumping indicate that a slip is imrninent. In one place the track is cut by a slip which has left a steep hard wet papa slope exposed, which would be impossible to cross on horse-back. The track can only be passed by leaving what may be the legal road line and trespassing onto private property, to regain the track on the other side of the slip. Many sections in the bush would slip badly if horse-hooves cut through the top layer of soil and vegetation and allowed run-off water to get under the top soil. A number of areas, clean except for young manuka and grasses, are scars of past land-slips. Safe and scenic Re the alternative route. Three members of the Taumarunui Tramping Club walked over the Rawnsley's suggested alternative route on Easter Sunday. The claim in your article that the route is totally unsafe is not correct. With no information from Mr Rawnsley, except to follow his new deer fence to the end, then follow the old fence down to the Ruatiti Stream, we travelled the proposed route in four and a quarter hours. As a tramping route it is safe and the scenery is among the best I have seen. Bluffs, water-falls, rapids, river-scenes, bush-tramping, open grass-flats etc. We followed a few wrong goattracks to get around sidestreams but at no time was anyone at any risk whatsoever The alternative route

has been travelled over without any route markers in four and a quarter hours. I have no doubt that markers identifying the best crossing places over side-streams would cut at least an hour off the time. As a tramping route Kokako Road would not even rate against the views of the mountains, the water-falls and bluffs of the proposed alternative route. I have been assured that the elderly woman with the replacement hip did not complete the last section of Kokako Road, which has the slip that blocks the track and several sections of deep mud, one on a narrow ledge above a near vertical drop of 20-30 feet. Re: the claim that the road is a six-foot benched track, I would suggest that there is not one section of the present track which is six feet wide except where Mr Rawnsley's farm road crosses it and where the deer fence, with the access gate in it, is. For most of its length it is just a narrow animal track, because of the slips which have obviously cut the track in many places over the years, the edges have fallen away and the banks have fallen onto the track. In places manuka up to six inches thick grows in the middle of what once was the track. No where on the track is there any sign of metal or any form of culvert, so at the most a six foot bench may have been formed many years ago. There is an identifiable line around the hill-side from a distance but often the track itself is only identifiable because of animal tracks. Proposed bridge Re the proposed application for a permit to build a bridge across the Ruatiti Stream on the legal road-line I am at a loss to know why the Ruapehu District Council is promoting the use of horses and possible trailbikes on the Kokako Road. The condition of the track is such that any horse traffic or trail-bike traffic will cause lots of damage in the form of landslips in a very short time. Legal opinion A legal opinion I have (I have not been able to get one from Ruapehu District Council management) states: "If a Local Authority was aware that a road was being used by the public, whereby damage was likely to be caused by the particular users, then that local authority could be held liable for any consequen-

tial damage suffered by an adjoining land owner. It is suggested that the duties of a local authority are higher in the case of an unformed road where it must be known to the council that abuse to the surface of the land is more likely to occur, from, say horses." Another quote says: "The onus is on any member of the public to prove that he or she is legally on 'a road' and not on private land." This statement surely gives control of the land, which is supposedly a legal road, to the adjoining land-owner until either the local body or the 'user' identifies the actual legal road. Questions If council issues a permit to a person to build a bridge on the legal road-line: (a) who will pay to identify the legal road-line so the bridge is built on the legal road-line? (b) who will pay to survey the legal Kokako Road-line if the adjoining land-owner decides to prosecute 'users' until the road-line is identified? (c) will council accept liability for repairs to the legal road-line, which the

builder of the bridge must surely undertake before the road can be used by anyone but foot traffic? Personally I am astounded that our council administrators have allowed this issue to drag on for so long without referring the matter to council's elected representative for debate and policy formation.

Stuart

Shaw

District Councillor Member Taumarunui Tramping Club (Inc) Federated Mountain Clubs. Editor's Note: Thank you, Mr Shaw, for passing on your extensive knowledge of this matter. I take exception to your statement that you are "appalled at the inaccuracies in the article". I am confident the article is accurate in its reporting of the community board meeting to which it relates. As you were not at the meeting I cannot understand how you can pass judgement on its accuracy as it relates to that meeting. If you have a problem with the accuracy of the information made public at the meeting, you should take the matter up with the Waimarino Community Board and/or your council's officers.