Jump to content

More Manuka Fallout


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Kind of reminds me of a case from a few years ago. A guy with beehives in his back yard complained to the council about his neighbours dogs that barked a lot. Eventually the neigbour was required to g

Hmm.. Bit hard to unravel, but seems like the two players are Gerald Pearce and Roger Pearce. Gerald's property is totally landlocked with no road to it, but he has always accessed it through Rogers p

Agree. My read = bad luck settlers, and not much sympathy to them

1 hour ago, Trevor Gillbanks said:

Fun times in the Manuka wars.

It is probably bad blood between relatives .

Manuka is the excuse for conflict .

There is some ill feeling out our way too now with newcomers muscling in .

But its such a good flowering of manuka here  this yr there may be enough for all .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.. Bit hard to unravel, but seems like the two players are Gerald Pearce and Roger Pearce. Gerald's property is totally landlocked with no road to it, but he has always accessed it through Rogers property and built a track through it.

 

Gerald farmed his property plus had a beekeeper on it. No issues for some years. Trouble started 2 years ago when Roger decided to also get some bees on his property. 

 

Gerald then took legal action to limit the number of hives that Roger could have. This naturally created bad feelings, so Roger decided to hit back, and told Gerald he couldn't use the track any more.

 

My view? Before Gerald took out legal proceedings against Roger, he should have thought a bit harder, and realised his access to his own property depended on Rogers good will. You don't really expect to sue someone in court, but continue to get favours from them.

 

Hillbilly stuff.

Edited by Alastair
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Good Info 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alastair said:

Gerald's property is totally landlocked with no road to it, but he has always accessed it through Rogers property and built a track through it.

the block should have a legal entry, possible an easement over another block.

 

seen that issue locally where the neighbor blocks the road off because the road doesn't actually follow the easement, so technically its on private land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since they are both Pearces and their properties adjoin, it would seem likely they are family who have each recieved part of an estate. When whoever bequethed it chopped it up, it was assumed at that time that access would be granted via a track that probably already existed, the mistake was in not having that enshrined in law.

 

While I can see Geralds point that he had bees there first, he can raise objection to Roger getting bees nearby on his place. But it's different if someone is doing it on their own land. I don't think I would have the gall, if a neighbour to one of my sites got their own bees on their own land, that I would tell them not to do it, much less go to court over it. I am surprised he succeeded in court, because I thought how many bees you have on a farm block was not regulated. The case was not related to nuisance, but overstocking.

Edited by Alastair
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that claim before. A landowner claiming to be a beekeeper, or that part of his operation is beekeeping, because he recieves money from a beekeeper with hives on his land.

 

I just wonder how much of this may have been caused by the beekeeper, who when he discovered that Roger was getting hives, approached Gerald and told him that will reduce his crop, and therefore Geralds cheque.

 

Probably not expecting things to go as far as they did though, with him now having to rent a helicopter if he wants to visit his bees.

 

Unexpected consequences.

Edited by Alastair
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alastair said:

I've heard that claim before. A landowner claiming to be a beekeeper, or that part of his operation is beekeeping, because he recieves money from a beekeeper with hives on his land.

 

I just wonder how much of this may have been caused by the beekeeper, who when he discovered that Roger was getting hives, approached Gerald and told him that will reduce his crop, and therefore Geralds cheque.

 

Probably not expecting things to go as far as they did though, with him now having to rent a helicopter if he wants to visit his bees.

 

Unexpected consequences.

Agree. My read = bad luck settlers, and not much sympathy to them

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/12/2020 at 2:17 PM, Alastair said:

Since they are both Pearces and their properties adjoin, it would seem likely they are family who have each recieved part of an estate. When whoever bequethed it chopped it up, it was assumed at that time that access would be granted via a track that probably already existed, the mistake was in not having that enshrined in law.

Golden Bay has lots of complicated access arrangements that were made on a handshake 40yrs ago when land was cheap here .

Now when people are old and selling up to new owners things are unraveling .

  • Agree 1
  • Good Info 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...