Tidying up, or co-opting public land into their own garden?

Forums › Off topic › Tidying up, or co-opting public land into their own garden?

1 | 2 | 3

1712 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Chorus

#3298826 18-Oct-2024 09:46

Handsomedan:

If they built the house, or they bought the house more recently, the LIM report would've shown the extent of their land holdings.

They bought the bare section in 2015 and commissioned the house build in 2016. They would have known full well where the property boundaries were prior to purchase and construction.

Handsomedan

7225 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3298832 18-Oct-2024 10:07

Wheelbarrow01:

Handsomedan:

If they built the house, or they bought the house more recently, the LIM report would've shown the extent of their land holdings.

They bought the bare section in 2015 and commissioned the house build in 2016. They would have known full well where the property boundaries were prior to purchase and construction.

They also bought and built next to a bush reserve - not a meadow or a grassed park.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3299109 19-Oct-2024 21:29

Handsomedan:

It all just feels like they saw an opportunity, made a casual attempt to get hold of the land, then went for it, with the intent to eventually end up with a "finders keepers, losers weepers" defence after the fact - perhaps even a squatters rights type of ruling, if they kept it long enough.

The fact that they fenced it, made it a mansion-estate-style flat expansive lawn, when there was bush there before feels very pre-meditated.

If they built the house, or they bought the house more recently, the LIM report would've shown the extent of their land holdings.

Putting a fence around their property that also encompasses public land is taking the pi$$ big time. Irresepective of their admission of guilt and seeming willingness to rectify the damage caused, they've enjoyed public land as private land for a long time and should be made to pay remedial rates and rent on top of any rectification costs. They were clearly trying to keep the public off the land directly adjacent to their own property, so that they could enjoy it exclusively.

So, a quick review of New Zealand's adverse possession laws (using ChatGPT to summarise, but it does at least provide sources now), land owned by the Crown or by local authorities designated as a public reserve is explicitly exempt - so even though their actions meet the legal requirements to establish adverse possession (the occupant must occupy the land hostile to the position of its owner, ensure that their occupancy is notorious and not hidden, exclusive to the rights of any other individual, and clearly with an intent to hold it for 12 years, they could not make an adverse possession claim anyway.

Willie123

6 posts

Wannabe Geek

#3299181 20-Oct-2024 15:30

I live nearby and am appalled at the level of entitlement shown.
The ODT article on Oct 1 says they’ve started removing the hedge but as of yesterday I’ve seen no changes.
I’m sorely tempted to take the family for a picnic near their house and see what reaction I get.

Greedy pricks!

nova

243 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#3299237 20-Oct-2024 19:47

I wonder if the council can use the fencing act to build a fence along the actual boundary. I think that would be justified, as otherwise the public don't know where they are allowed to go, and would also teach the people in this case a good lesson!

Ge0rge

2041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3299248 20-Oct-2024 20:36

lxsw20:
I think they're a bunch of chancers who thought they wouldn't get caught.

"We didn't hear back about leasing the land so assumed it was OK"

"Chorus didn't hear anything back from my neighbours within 15 days, so they went ahead with digging up the neighbour's lawn to install fibre."

"My neighbours didn't object within 21 days, so I built the fence and now they owe me for half"

These people are clearly in the wrong, but I'm not going to jump on them for acting on not getting a response - There certainly is legal validity to their argument in some situations.

Wheelbarrow01

1712 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Chorus

#3299272 20-Oct-2024 22:21

Ge0rge:
lxsw20:

I think they're a bunch of chancers who thought they wouldn't get caught.

"We didn't hear back about leasing the land so assumed it was OK"

"Chorus didn't hear anything back from my neighbours within 15 days, so they went ahead with digging up the neighbour's lawn to install fibre."

"My neighbours didn't object within 21 days, so I built the fence and now they owe me for half"

These people are clearly in the wrong, but I'm not going to jump on them for acting on not getting a response - There certainly is legal validity to their argument in some situations.

Yea but the two examples you gave are enshrined in legislation. In the case of Chorus it's the Telecommunications Act 2001. And in the case of the fencing scenario it's the Fencing Act 1978. In both cases the requisite notice clearly outlines the process and how to object, and what happens if you don't.

I can't say I've read the Help Yourself to the Reserve Next Door Act 😂

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
29727 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3299274 20-Oct-2024 22:39

i know someone who sold a random parcel of land to council

maybe if you make noise and suggest the council offer to sell them the parcel of land

cddt

1509 posts

Uber Geek

#3299298 21-Oct-2024 08:16

Kyanar:

So, a quick review of New Zealand's adverse possession laws (using ChatGPT to summarise, but it does at least provide sources now), land owned by the Crown or by local authorities designated as a public reserve is explicitly exempt - so even though their actions meet the legal requirements to establish adverse possession (the occupant must occupy the land hostile to the position of its owner, ensure that their occupancy is notorious and not hidden, exclusive to the rights of any other individual, and clearly with an intent to hold it for 12 years, they could not make an adverse possession claim anyway.

Adverse possession laws are unfortunately not always well applied in NZ - paying council rates on the land is insufficient to stop someone from declaring it abandoned and LINZ believing them!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10718939/How-Bells-block-was-snatched-away-legally

My referral links: BigPipe | Mercury

Gurezaemon

~HONYAKKER!~
1344 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3299956 22-Oct-2024 15:56

Something petty in me would love to see the council pave part of the land and put a block of public toilets there. Maybe along with some carparks for freedom campers.

Get your business seen overseas - Nexus Translations

Willie123

6 posts

Wannabe Geek

#3299959 22-Oct-2024 16:00

Gurezaemon:

Something petty in me would love to see the council pave part of the land and put a block of public toilets there. Maybe along with some carparks for freedom campers.

And a basketball hoop also! 😈

Handsomedan

7225 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3299962 22-Oct-2024 16:06

Willie123:

Gurezaemon:

Something petty in me would love to see the council pave part of the land and put a block of public toilets there. Maybe along with some carparks for freedom campers.

And a basketball hoop also! 😈

A half court B-Ball court would be awesome.
And the Exceloo playing "What The World Needs Now" with Leonard Nimoy's voice-over and the Start Trek door noise every time someone goes in.

"Your maximum use time is Ten Minutes."

*Piano starts

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

boosacnoodle

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3299988 22-Oct-2024 16:48

Curiously, CCC actually has a data set for all the properties that are infringing on public land. There's a lot more than you might think, and some are quite egregious (some are just paper roads but still an issue nonethless). Not sure why only this one made the news.

Willie123

6 posts

Wannabe Geek

#3302514 28-Oct-2024 16:35

He’s now laid out a heavy red fire hose on the ground, (clearly to indicate his boundary), but it’s still 25 metres from the house.

There’s also a big area of his garden waste dumped in the reserve by the creek.

He’s not giving up easily!

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3302517 28-Oct-2024 16:43

cddt:

Adverse possession laws are unfortunately not always well applied in NZ - paying council rates on the land is insufficient to stop someone from declaring it abandoned and LINZ believing them!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10718939/How-Bells-block-was-snatched-away-legally

I agree, but there is an exception to the rule: government land. You can't squat on it and take ownership, ever.

1 | 2 | 3