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?

Handsomedan

7224 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#317463 17-Oct-2024 11:12

This is an interesting one...a Chch couple "tidied up" a neighbouring piece of public land as it was scruffy and being used as a dumping ground, but as it turns out, it was also an important ecological site, bordering a wetland that is also the habitat of an endangered species of eel.

Thoughts on the below?

Looks to me like they expanded the back yard without paying for it, but maybe I am just being cynical.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350452871/couple-who-tidied-neighbouring-reserve-forced-undo-backyard-do

In 2018, a Christchurch couple removed tussocks, installed grass, planted a hedge and built a fence.
The backyard do-up affected part of Smacks Creek Riverbank Reserve, a council-owned area of ‘ecological significance’.
The council is now forcing them to remove the fence and restore the 500sqm area to its “intended purpose” - at their cost.

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...

1 | 2 | 3

3530 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3298411 17-Oct-2024 11:13

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"

SaltyNZ

8164 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3298412 17-Oct-2024 11:18

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"

100%

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

wellygary

8259 posts

Uber Geek

#3298415 17-Oct-2024 11:29

Yip to all the above,

And its not just the "tussocky" bit they "encroached" on, see the pale wooden fence way back near the house in the 2012 image, that's the boundary line.... They pretty much doubled their property size

boosacnoodle

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3298424 17-Oct-2024 11:38

Okay - you tidied it up, great! Why the fence, tho?

elpenguino

3383 posts

Uber Geek

#3298425 17-Oct-2024 11:39

Your photos tell a lot of the story.

If I was driving past I would think (in the old photo), I could sit in that area and eat lunch , let a child play etc etc.

I would not feel I could use the space if I saw the fence and hedge in the later photo.

So it's a total land grab. Cheeky buggers.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Scott3

3945 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3298480 17-Oct-2024 12:09

wellygary:

Yip to all the above,

And its not just the "tussocky" bit they "encroached" on, see the pale wooden fence way back near the house in the 2012 image, that's the boundary line.... They pretty much doubled their property size

I think that fence is the for the house behind.

But yeah, the point still stands.

It's not unusual for people that border public land to encroach somewhat (On my street many houses have their landscaping extending 3-4 m beyond the property line to occupy the gap between the property line and the footpath). Typically with small, fairly easily reversable changes (i.e. addition of trees, flower beds etc.) Generally a blind eye seems to be turned to such things.

Cutting down major trees, recontouring, building fences etc. all go far beyond thus

I looked up some before and after photos, which tell a lot more of a story than what is in the article:

2015-2016:

2018-2019:

2020-2021:

2023:

Scott3

3945 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3298482 17-Oct-2024 12:13

And because we can, 1984:

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Senecio

2693 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3298499 17-Oct-2024 13:11

If they hadn’t fenced it I don’t think anyone would care.

Taubin

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Subscriber

#3298501 17-Oct-2024 13:16

“Since then I’ll happily do anything the council want as long as they maintain it,” Murray said.

He doesn't just get to decide if the council are "maintaining it". It would also be a darned shame if a bunch of people decided to go have a very loud picnic on that council land, then pop up some tents and stay for a week or so. I can't stand entitled people, especially when they try to get one over on others.

ZL2TOY/ZL1DMP

martyyn

1961 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Subscriber

#3298504 17-Oct-2024 13:34

Someone around the corner from us decided to remove all the reeds and plant life from the riverbank at the back of their property a few years ago in order to build a new house, or more importantly, have a "nice" rear garden backing onto the river.

In an area known to be a significant flood zone and all without permission.

Their neighbours complained to the council who did nothing, I don't even know if someone came around to have a look. Now the area not only floods regularly every winter, it's well over knee deep over the entire sections of the four neighbouring properties. Last month's rain meant they couldn't get in or out of their houses without putting the kids in a canoe.

Some people just don't care.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3298514 17-Oct-2024 14:08

Scott3: It's not unusual for people that border public land to encroach somewhat

It's not just not unusual, it's more or less expected in many places, there's a sort of unwritten assumption that land owners whose properties border on otherwise barely-accessible bush strips will keep them clear of gorse, wooly nightshade, etc, and optionally maintain them as they see fit. We've spent a small fortune clearing gorse, privet, and brambles from the bush below our house, dealing with dead trees, replanting with natives, and so on. It works both ways, we get slightly more pleasant surroundings and the council don't have to send in maintenance people... which they never do anyway, so it'd be a sea of gorse, brambles, and privet by now.

Wheelbarrow01

1710 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Chorus

#3298775 17-Oct-2024 22:10

wellygary:

Yip to all the above,

And its not just the "tussocky" bit they "encroached" on, see the pale wooden fence way back near the house in the 2012 image, that's the boundary line.... They pretty much doubled their property size

I know the area well as I live just off Gardiners Rd. That's not their house in the 2012 image taken from the street - the house in that image in 2012 is their neighbour to the south at 332 (the partial house at the bottom of the aerial image). Their house at 334 didn't exist in 2012 - it was just an empty lot with no fencing (other than the boundary fence with 332). So they haven't appropriated as much land as you think, although the land in question is larger in size than their own 1200m2 plot.

It's a bloody cheeky move! Unfortunately for them, the council commissioned a detailed ecological survey of the reserve back in 2014, which included a an audit of every tree, shrub, flax, fern etc within the reserve - around 40 different species in total. So they will have a pretty good idea of exactly what is needed to remediate

The fact that they've trucked in topsoil to level "their" lawn as well as felling several mature trees that they knew didn't belong to them is quite appalling. The sense of entitlement is strong with this one, especially the "we asked the council about leasing and never heard back so we just assumed they were cool with it" attitude.

johno1234

2736 posts

Uber Geek

#3298792 18-Oct-2024 05:04

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"

Who doesn’t love a bit of free land!!!

Handsomedan

7224 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3298816 18-Oct-2024 09:15

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.

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

#3298825 18-Oct-2024 09:42

The assertion that the Council did not reply (which is no surprise to hear) probably gave them the impression that Council wouldn't mind. I think no one here disagrees that some level of maintenance and changes might be expected in an adjacent Council plot. It's more the fact that they fenced it off giving the impression that it was their own property (presumably to keep people out) and made significant changes to how the land worked.

1 | 2 | 3