Landowners blocking public beach access

Email
Print

Mon, 24 Jan 2011 7:00p.m.

A Northland beach

A Northland beach

Beach access: it is one of the touchiest issues in New Zealand at the moment.

What form of ownership should Maori have over the foreshore and seabed? How much control should private landowners have to restrict access to public beaches? What of the so-called Queen's Chain?

While the politicians try and legislate answers to these questions, we asked ourselves what is the situation now?

How easy is it to access our magnificent beaches when there is no public access?

Tristram Clayton and his two sons headed north to find out.

Watch the video.

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

16 Feb 2011 08:48a.m.

ned wrote:

@gosh, you are trying to convince everyone you have been
affected by racist comment's and succeeding..perhap's you need therapy instead of comming on here showing you're not quite right..you know upstair's..shut it already

01 Feb 2011 07:20p.m.

Kate wrote:

Im not only a resident of tutukaka for 20+ years but the gate they knocked on at 2.27 was ours. People work during the day and due to burglaries is why people have the security gates. The green house he knocked on calling "is anyone there?" the person of that house is unwell and in hospital right now. The public access to the beaches below both places are down the road from the green house with a big sign that says public access. You dont need permission to go below because its got public access to it.

29 Jan 2011 10:48p.m.

King Curtis wrote:

Oh dear Josh. Blacky?
Remember the sign posted on a gate that read.
"WARNING. PRIVATE R.O.W TANGATA WHENUA ONLY.
NO PUBLIC ACCESS TO BEACH. TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED."
That sounds pretty god damn racist to me as a whitey.

28 Jan 2011 05:02p.m.

Robin Taylor wrote:

This example of what has slowly become well-known about the mythical Queen's Chain, illustrates what a sorry state the coasts of New Zealand have been allowed to become. While it is becoming ever more difficult to put the clock back, as more and more beautiful coastal land that we all once though was 'common property - i.e. it 'belonged' to on one - is being put off-limits by the owners, it is not topo late to enact a basic change which would make every land transfer for this minute on subject to a universal acceptance of public access to the shore to the extent of, say, 10 metres above high water. And for the law to set a time limit on the acceptance of this change by all existing 'owners' of coastal land. Incidentally, it is another sign of the huge danger of embedding in law the idea that Maori have any right of 'ownership' of the coast including, very firmly, the foreshore and seabed.

27 Jan 2011 07:02a.m.

goodness wrote:

Again, there is no simply no proof iwi will sell off public access to developers etc. if they try to attain, or do attain, title. This is hypothetical only. As I've always said since '04: just because Maori possibly can, doesn't mean they certainly will, actively pursue title and try to block access for the public.

26 Jan 2011 05:31p.m.

Angie wrote:

Such private tenure limiting access is inappropriate in NZ.
But wait till you also get some iwi achieving title and then selling off development rights, such as to mining companies, that will effectively exclude the public and not be subject to environmental (RMA) controls.
Wait till you also get 'groups' drafting enforceable 'agreements' to protect their numerous wahi tapu areas on beaches and limit public access there.

26 Jan 2011 01:24p.m.

Michael wrote:

“One public beach that will remain private” – simply a bald lie. My gates were those rattled above what you described as a “gorgeous” beach and my neighbour’s home was also photographed – we were both away at the time. There are two public pathways down to this beach one is less than a hundred yards from the gates you were despondently rattling. Correctly done this would have given your access score at 5 out of 7 but that of course is not what you wanted to find.

26 Jan 2011 11:31a.m.

Derek wrote:

Sigh....

25 Jan 2011 08:13p.m.

Gosh wrote:

Whats ironic is if I called you blacky, you would think it racist wouldnt you. As far as referring to someone by their colour goes, its nothing but plain old dirty old racism. If you think it’s a cultural function, then I suggest your need to re-evaluate your cultural values.

25 Jan 2011 12:58p.m.

Derek wrote:

Gosh indeed. Well, I've had a right hard think not only am I not ashamed but Unlike you I reckon most people lack the means to be airlifted onto beaches to circumvent the fact land access is being denied. On a side note: The word "Whitey" was used with what's known as irony - a simple linguistic and cultural function you've apparently failed to apprise yourself of. Think harder is right.