Wednesday 28th October

Extracts from the following were published in at least one newspaper after I sent a copy to editors accross the country.

Ontrack has as its intent *nationwide*, to close down as many private rail crossings as possible. Farmers are being offered the chance to enter a "Deed of Grant" for the continued use of some of these many crossings..... for a a fee. This fee and the attendant conditions of the proposed Deed of Grant have not been spelled out. It is impossible to say how many of the nations crossings currently used by farmers will survive to enter this new arrangement, with the revised status they will possess. Each and every crossing (numbers mentioned range from 1600-8000) will undergo review.

There are a great many people who will be adversely affected by these intentions. Obviously no farmers will be keen to lose the use of the rail crossings they currently use. Nor will they be keen to pay for the privilege of crossing a set of rails whose presence bisecting their land is an ongoing inconvenience, even as things stand. Having said this, they may also be wary of speaking out, exposing themselves and their crossings to ontrack.

I would like to think this issue is one that is immediately recognised as something that is a threat to concepts that most NZers hold dear: the continued right to unfettered access to their own land.

It was in 1903 that the land here in Scargill was bisected by the newly arrived rail system. This was an imposition permitted by the Public Works Act. The establishment of the NZ Rail System was no doubt an accomplishment of considerable public good. The bisection of the farmers land back then would have been a major nuisance. One can only imagine the consequences if such was to befall our own properties today. The inconvenience and potential danger in being able to cross these rails in a strictly limited number of places, is not something that has diminished over time.

Liability for straying stock( even where the fault lies with causes other than the farmer) is squarely levelled at the farmer.

Ontrack who now administer the rail wish to escape responsibility for fires that spread from the rail to adjacent farm land. I am told by our Member of Parliament (Colin King) that farmers in part of his electorate have been  sent letters in which Ontrack divest itself of all responsibility in the event of such fires.

I have seen the effect of the run-off of powerful herbicides after rain, that have killed swathes of pasture that have remained bare long enough for metre deep erosion to develop.

With these observations in mind it is astounding to witness the degree to which things have changed. From a situation where the rail system entered the farmers life and psyche, provided services at countless small rural locations, stockyards, sidings, goods shed and stations, to today where regard for the collective good has evaporated and the boot is entirely "upon the other foot." The rail dictates to the farmer as if the farmer were beholden to "it."
 
*NO* new rail crossings will be established. This precludes all farmers from entertaining the notion of establishing any further subdivision of their land where access to such subdivision would only be possible by the establishment of a new rail crossing. This is a severe limitation. I know of one in Omihi who has given up such a dream because of that impediment.

The case that bought this topic to my attention is the proposed purchase of  25 Hectares of land from my uncle. That land is bisected by the railway, and the proposed house site (in a location with sufficient elevation to provide line of sight connection to broad-band internet) is across the rails.

Only when the Hurunui District Council dictated that the subdivider obtain an "unconditional acceptance" by Ontrack did we learn of the difficulties involved. They have made it clear that it will be mandatory to enter a Deed of Grant. They have done nothing to enlighten us about the cost or conditions nor have they stated that the continued use of the crossing will be guaranteed subsequently. They have also not stated what will happen to uncles other existing crossing.

Taking into regard Ontrack's Statement of Corporate intent to the effect that they propose to close as many private rail crossings as possible, their intention would impact adversely upon all effected land owners.

After a recent conversation with Henrietta Purvis of Oamaru, it is clear that people up and down the line are suffering equally. I was interested to hear that the Purvis's had received a copy of the deed which stated that no commercial vehicle activity could occur preventing stock trucks from accessing their farm. After fighting for some time they were told that they would be given a concession for commercial activities but that it would not be removed from the terms of the deed. While just down the road, stock trucks wishing to turn onto the main road from beach road were required to park with their trailers straddling the tracks while they waited for a gap in the traffic.

Another farmer was able to strike a deal where he "would only commence payments for the deed once 80% of all other crossings owners were paying" which further indicates the different rules for different folks. Ontrack have stated that it will take at least 2 years before all crossings are accounted for but in the last 12 months there has been almost no progress on this front indicating that it could take at least 10 years before all crossings are identified and the correct land holders presented with deed terms. Ontrack obviously knows that if they issued a nation wide statement that all land owners with crossings MUST obtain a grant then there would be an uproar. (not unlike the government decisions to impose charges on rural delivery postage that was later scrapped due public upset).

Thursday 1st November

Federated farmers have been contacted but have showed little interest (the did send a membership form, how helpful) in bringing this issue to the attention of their members 

UPDATE: According to one other affected by these Ontrack decisions, the Feds. did put some effort into the case (after the membership fee was extracted of course) but presented the issue as affecting a single individual rather than land owners as a group.

Friday 26th October

With the local MP (Colin King)  and the ombudsman on the case we are hoping for some progress regarding Ontrack's ongoing failure to aknowledge the status of our level crossing and continued silence to our questions about the actual legal origion of the claim that we must enter into a deed of grant.

Tuesday 31st July

Met with free lawyer at community law centre and presented our information and detailed the case. The woman we consulted with was a specialist in subdivision and resource managment law and while she was familiar with the process she made the comment that it looked like the council (and ontrack) were offloading their work onto us. As I thought, it seems that the council has given ontrack too much freedom to interveen and hold up progress.

We are now waiting for them to analyse our case further and get back with the suggested course of action.

The story so far

It wasn’t as if our original application for subdivision was written on a dirty napkin or something but I guess the council is used to dealing with legal and surveying firms who charge their clients tens of thousands of dollars to produce flashy folders of technical sounding details.

So, we resubmitted our application along with a carefully laid out map, key and documentation.

Once again we were told that the details were not sufficient and that this time they required written “unconditional consent” from ontrack, the organisation that manages the rail tracks that annoyingly bisect the property. Now to me this seems like a pretty extreme expectation. I don’t see any way reason for ontrack to give UNCONDITIONAL consent. If they did that then we could transport tanker loads of petrol across the tracks at midnight, why would they allow that?

This land has changed hands at least twice since the creation of the railway line. And each time it has been sliced smaller. Perhaps the council is trying to avoid the creation of small blocks of land, if you can call 24 hectares small.

It seems more likely that the council is attempting to offload the any responsibility or uncertainty to ontrack because they are either lazy, uninformed or stupid.

Luckily for us we have a friend of the family who works as an independent consultant to the railways. He was able to clarify the status of our crossing which I ten passed on to the guys at ontrack who refused to disclose any information they may have had, and even questioned the accuracy of my information.