The Levin Morning Star *

* The Levin Morning Star......122...... Saturday 4 April 2015

 A Good Walking Route Is Required On Levin's Kawiu

 Road Rural Section 0.6km Before The Power

 Sub Station From Town.

 

 A Solution Method.............Please see the end of the page.

Above. Views from near the power substation.

Below. Safe walking access 500m closer to town, blocked by an obsolete section of fencing.

 A piece of obsolete fence is ridiculously blocking a safe walking route. 

It must, in all reasonableness, be removed. 

 The Horowhenua Dictrict Council Officer concerned, is not correct, when

 he says that walkers can safely use the tar seal road edge below.

 The word safe, for road safety, is always relative

 to other safer options available.

 Please see further Details

Click    www.freewebs.com/walkz

__________________________________________________________

    Below. Location on Kawiu Road, Levin

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 A Solution Method

 

 with modifications for a small local issue

 

The United Nations Charter Article 33, of Chapter 6

 Pacific Settlement of Disputes, 

Clickable  link   http://un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

Article 33

  1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

     

  2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

 

 

 shall, first of all, seek a solution by

 

(1)  negotiation,

(2)  enquiry,

(3)  mediation,

(4)  conciliation,

(5)  arbitration,

(6)  judicial settlement,

(7)  resort to regional agencies

(8)  or (regional) arrangements,

(9)  or other peaceful means of their own choice. 

 

 How ?

 

By agreeing on as much as possible.

The dispute is that, while the writer, Richard Tingey, maintains that, it's

better to remove a piece of fence and use its wide grass verge for safer

walking at 143 and 145 Kawiu Road, a Horowhenua District Council 

Officer claims, from an Advisor, that it's safe to walk, with due care and

attention, on the grass road edge below, that's closer to the tarseal, because

it's wide enough.

Therefore, the Officer claims that the fence is not affecting pedestrian

 safety and accordingly, will not be removed.

 

What do the Horowhenua District Council and writer agree about in the

fence issue?

Is there agreement with this list? 

(1) The Horowhenua District Council's land subdivision computer plan, with boundary lines, is more likely to be right than wrong.

(2) Mothers and their childrens' rural road safety, as pedestrians, are a Horowhenua District Council priority.

(3) The fence in question has no apparent farming use at present, but may have been part of farmland stock control, before the residential subdivision requirements, given its barbed wire top strand and that, unusually, it's strainer post has only one set of wires. 

(4) The further a walker is away from the tarseal carriageway, the safer they are, not the opposite.

(5) It's more likely that if a majority of homes in an area are front fenced in line, with a few  being several metres out of line, then that variation would show up in the Horowhenua District Council's land subdivision computer plan, if it was fencing in accordance to the survey plan.

(6) That if there are regulation white survey pegs in a vicinity, they can often be used to work out on site legal survey plan boundary situations, in conjunction with the Horowhenua District Council's  land subdivision computer plan, for uncomplicated straight line common road  frontages, especially in newer subdivisions. 

(7) If the fence was removed, it would be safer to walk on the upper, wider grass verge that it's now  blocking, than on the narrow road edge grass, by the bank below.

(8) That a school group on a walk to see the lake, from a vantage point 75 metres north of the fence, would be safer if they were able to walk on the upper, wider grass verge, now blocked by the fence, than on the narrow grass verge beside the bank below. 

(9) That residents who fence off over a one metre width strip of road reserve land, that is not their own, should at least be charged a fair rental, added to their rates, but they should not be sold that land on narrow roads such as Kawiu Road and that the Horowhenua District Council should know of such fencing not to the survey plan.

(10) That rural Kawiu Road has some excellent scenic vistas available to users, but that it would generally rank lower as a pedestrian friendly road, if compared to most of the rural parts of Queen Street, Levin.

(11) That if any reliable road safety consultant maintained that it would be safer, if the fence was removed, then, if the Horowhenua District Council had no funds for the removal, it would be against the wider public interest to refuse to let the work be done by expert volunteer labour, given that material costs would be negligable.

(12) That the risk of injury from a pedestrian falling off the bank, if the fence was removed, would be negligable, compared to the risk a pedestrian now faces on the narrow grass verge, from wide farm vehicles, or when large vehicles, such as buses or large trucks, pass beside them.

(13) That a woman pushing a child's three wheeled fast push chair would be safer to go on the upper, wide grass verge, if the fence was removed, than on the narrow road edge by the bank, as they must do now, since the other side of the road is a shallow lumpy drain.    

(14) That the Kawiu Road edge, between 141 and 149, is less safe for pedestrians, than between 133 and 141, on account of the dip and curve in the road threatening the earlier section and the wider usable grass verge and flat straight road, benefitting the latter. 

(15) That it's unlikely that the piece of fence in question was added, at residential subdivision time, to stop people from using the upper grass verge for access, given that creating all of the wider grass verge at subdivision time, from farm use, would have probably been to improve pedestrian access and enjoyment.

Does the Horowhenua District Council agree with the writer on these

fifteen points?