IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT · 2017. 8. 16. · '" when the quarly was still operating at Hongoeka our ability as landowners to use our land was restricted

Minute Book: 176 AOT 191

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT

Hearing:

A20040004784 A20040007417

UNDER Section 326B, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993

IN THE MATTER OF HONGOEKA 4A - Reasonable access to landlocked land

HARRY MULLEN PETER FREDERICK MULLEN KATHLEEN MARY ASHTON Applicants

AND UNDER Section 326B, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993

IN THE MATTER OF HONGOEKA 3Bl & 3CIH, 4A, 4B, 5, 6A and 6B - Application for Roadway Order

JOHNNGATIAWA WARREN JAMES WIRIHANA RANGIHAEATA TIRATU WILLIAMS ANNETTE KING TOA RANGATIRA APIRA WOODBINE POMARE Applicants

31 May 2005, 154 Aotea MB

Appearances: Messrs H Mullen, P F Mullen and Mrs K M Ashton in person Messrs T RAW Po mare, J W Rangihaeta and Mrs T Williams in person

Judgment: 6 October 2006

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE L R HARVEY


Introduction

[l] Kathleen Ashton and her siblings, Peter and Harry Mullen, are the executors of

the estate of their mother Violet Mullen and in that role they are the legal owners of

Hongoeka 4A. This is a block of General land owned by Maori situated north of

Wellington on the Plimmerton coast, in the picturesque Hongoeka 8ay. They have

applied for reasonable access to their land, which they claim, is effectively

landlocked. While limited access is available at present, it is contended that access

around the coast over Hongoeka 381, 3CIH and 48 is strongly preferred.

[2] Tiratu Williams and other owners ofHongoeka 381, 3CIH and 48 oppose the

application. They say that the status quo is sufficient and that access around the coast

is unnecessary. Mrs Williams also expressed the fear that the Mullens sought access

for the purpose of, inter alia, opening their lands up for sale.

[3] More impOltantly, Mrs Williams and the others in opposition have their own

application for a roadway order filed in the name of Hongoeka Development Limited.

She says that this company has been created to promote the development of a number

of Hongoeka coastal blocks for the benefit of owners and their whfulau. The

company's proposal involves, it was claimed, an aquaculture venture and the revival

of a dormant quarry. Palties claiming to be affected by that proposal opposed this

application.

[4] The issues for determination are whether each set of app licants have satisfied

the COUlt that the access and roadway orders they are seeking should be granted.

The Land

[5] Hongoeka 4A is 21.0437 hectares in area and is General land owned by Maori

by vittue of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967. As mentioned, the legal owners

are Kathleen Ashton, Peter Mullen and Harry Mullen. It was subject to a roadway

order, since expired, issued by the Court in 1996. , I


/ [6] Hongoeka 3BI and 3CIH are 18.413 hectares in area created by partition order

on 17 October 1947, 36 Wellington MB 273. There are 7 owners holding 7,280

shares and there is no management structure in place.

[7] Hongoeka 4B is slightly larger at 21.0437 hectares with II owners holding

8,320 shares. The block was created by partition order on 18 June 1919, 31

Wellington MB 384. There is no management structure over the land.

[8] Hongoeka 5 is the largest of the blocks affected by these proceedings at

30.7561 hech1res. There are 25 owners holding 12,160 shares. It was created by

partition order on 15 October 1891. Again, no management structure has been created

over the block.

[9] Hongoeka 6A is 13.4886 hectares in area with 100 owners holding 4,226.4

shares. It was created by partition order on 4 September 1903, II Wellington MB

306. This block is administered by an ahu whenu hust and the trustees are Hohepa

Solomon, Raeleen Bishop, Ruhi Solomon and Tutari Salzmann.

[10] Finally, Hongoeka 6B was created by pattition order on 4 September 1903 and

is 28.5986 hectares in area. There are 13 owners of the block holding 11,307 shares.

This land does not have any formal management structure in place.

Access over the lands

[II] According to the court's records the most recent temporary access over these

lands was granted by His Honour Judge H B Marumaru on 13 December 1996, per

sections 316 and 319 ofTe Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993,66 Aotea MB 135. By that

order a roadway 20 metres wide was granted to Milburn New Zealand Limited over

Hongoeka. The order was in force for 5 years between I September 1996 and 31

August 2001.

[12] A review of the cettificate of title for Hongoeka 4A discloses that prior to

1996 a series of roadway orders affecting these lands were issued by the Comt from

the 1960s. For example on I August 1966 the Court confirmed a roadway order of


twenty years duration. Subsequent orders were then made in 1987 and 1991, the

former as a result of a hearing recorded at 91 Otaki MB 82. A review of these orders

confirms that temporary access - although one could hardly call 20 years temporary -

has been granted to enable a quarry to operate for well over 40 years and that access

was via the coast.

Procedural history

[13] The applications were first heard on 10 December 2004, 147 Aotea MB 272,

where the parties were directed to convene meetings of beneficial owners to discuss

the proposals. I noted then that both applications ought to be heard together and no

one present objected to this.

[14] On 17 Febmary 2005, a procedural direction was issued once again stressing

the necessity of meetings of owners to be convened to discuss the applications, 148

Aotea MB 292. On both occasions the paliies were left in no doubt that matters could

not proceed without properly constituted meetings of beneficial owners.

[15] As a result of those directions a meeting of owners for Hongoeka 3Bl and

3CIH and Hongoeka 4B was convened on 11 March 2005. The attendance sheet

records 33 persons present. The owners at the hui unanimously agreed to reject the

application seeking access over Hongoeka 4B.

[16] 18 March 2005 was when the applications were heard again. A number of

arguments by the parties were traversed as to why access should be granted or denied,

151 Aotea MB 221. At the conclusion of the hearing I confirmed that a site

inspection would take place prior to the final hearing of the application at Hongoeka

Marae.


Hearing 31 May 2005 Hongoelm Marae, Plimmerton

[17] The applications finally came for hearing before the Court on 31 May 2005 at

the marae. The hui was well attended and the wharenui was filled to capacity. A site

inspection was also undertaken with all parties involved at various points of the

journey across the blocks.

[18] After the issue of the minutes of the hearing the patties were then given 30

days to file any final submissions . Mrs Williams and Ms Pomare filed further

submissions with the last being received on 4 August 2005. Following that Mrs

Ashton advised court staff that company representatives had commenced planting and

other earthworks over Hongoeka 4B despite no final decision issuing ii-om the Court.

On a subsequent site visit by the court staff and myself between Levin and Wellington

circuit it became clear that Mrs Ashton's claim was conecl.

Submissions for Mullen whanau

[19] Mrs Ashton was the principal speaker for the Mullen application, which was

necessary, she contended, because current access was so limited as being negligible.

She refened to a repott by Landlink supporting that contention, 151 Aotea MB 222.

In an email on the court file dated 21 February 2005 to Hany Mullen, Richard

Peterson of the Porirua City Council also stated that"" . the track leading up into the

Hongoeka block does not have any legal status as a public road." Mrs Ashton refuted

suggestions that her whiinau were wanting access to open their lands up for sale and

emphasised that while preliminary discussions with developers to build homes had

been made, no concrete proposals had been finalised. Indeed she stressed that

notwithstanding those inquiries, the family's principal aim was to have reasonable

access to their lands for the purpose of building dwellings for themselves and their

whiinau. Mrs Ashton submitted that the proposed access route was fair in all the

circumstances. It would be more practical and less costly.

[20] Mrs Ashton also underscored that her family had taken all reasonable steps to

consult with the affected owners. She pointed to the fact that there were owners fi'om


the affected lands and those in the Hongoeka community who did support their

application while acknowledging that opposition by Mrs Williams and her group was

unwavering. She also confirmed that there was very minor opposition within her own

whiinau in the form of a niece who did not agree. Nonetheless, Mrs Ashton submitted

that it was reasonable that proper access should be granted along the coast to their

lands over Hongoeka 3Bl, 3CIH and 4B.

[21) Ms Po mare expressed support for the Mullen application, as did

representatives of the Hongoeka Marae Committee. Other persons claiming to be

affected by the application also endorsed the Mullen application for access.

Su bmissions in opposition

[22) As mentioned, Mrs Williams and her Suppolters, principally James

Rangihaeata and Toa P6mare, opposed the Mullen application. They contended that

existing access was adequate and that additional access around the coast was

UIUlecessary. Mrs Williams submitted that her opposition was in palt due to a

perception that the Mullens intended to sell their land. This, she claimed, would then

alter the entire character of Hongoeka Bay. Other submissions in opposition were

also made by a number of persons including Irene Mack, Te Rangikauhoe Tamaki

Thorpe, Terressa Harper, Pukere Gripp, Rangikauhoe Gripp, Matai Gripp, Ngapaki

Gripp, John Gripp and others largely in support of the stance taken by Mrs Williams.

Submissions for the Company

[23) In summary, Mrs Williams, assisted from time to time by Mr Rangihaeata and

Mr Pomare, articulated the company's application for reinstatement of the temporary

roadway order. In their view, the proposal for access would enable various cultural

and economic initiatives to commence and provide for the development of the land by

the owners for themselves, their whiinau and hapu. Those initiatives included a

proposal to re-open the local quarry and for aquaculture related proposals. Mrs

Williams emphasised that the majority of the affected owners supported the

company's application for access and consequently it was right and proper that it

should be granted.


Submissions in opposition

[24] Ms Pomare, Te Rakaherea Pomare, Ema Po mare, Hana Pomare, Tom Moke

and representatives of Hongoeka Marae opposed the company's application. In

essence, they contended that the company's proposals for re-opening the quarry and

other ventures would have a deleterious effect on their interests as landowners and on

the entire Hongoeka community. In her submission dated 4 August 2005 Ms Pomare

argued that the quarry operation ifrevived would deny the owners of adjoining blocks

free and unhindered use of their lands:

" ... We know from past experience that the provision of quarry access effectively dellies landowners the ability to freely use their land. Over the last 50 years, access has been permitted for a commercial quarrying operation that has provided relatively few benefits to the majority of owners ...

'" when the quarly was still operating at Hongoeka our ability as landowners to use our land was restricted to times outside the working hours of the quarry. During normal working hours from around Sam to 5pm (01' even 6pm) no vehicle access was permitted, to avoid the likelihood of accidents occurring between quarry trucks and other vehicles. We understand this to be a legal requirement under the health and safety regulations. Although pedestrian access was allowed during working hours, this was not without risk and was usually a fairly unpleasant experience due to the dust and noise generated by the quarry trucks ...

... Therefore, in our experience quarry access has proven to be incompatible with our needs as landowners to have unrestricted use of our lands . ..

[25] The effect on future development proposals by owners of the individual

blocks was also emphasized as a point of concern. Those in opposition also submitted

that the process of consultation had been inadequate and that there was consequently a

lack of support for the company's proposals fi-om amongst the landowners affected

and within the Hongoeka community generally. The issue of environmental impacts

and related affects were also raised as a concem.

The Law

[26] Section 326B ofTe Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 states:

"326B Reasonable access may be granted in cases of landlocked Maori land

Minute Book : 176 AOT 198

(1) The owners of landlocked land may apply at any time to the Court for an order in accordance with th is section. .

(2) On an application made under this section,-

(a) The owner of land adjoining the landlocked land that will or may be affected by the application must be joined as a party to the application; and

(b) every person having an estate or interest in the landlocked land, or in any other piece of land (whether or not that piece of land adjoins the landlocked land), that will or may be affected if the application is granted, or claiming to be a party to or to be entitled to any benefit under any mortgage, lease, easement, contract, or other instrument affecting or relating to any such land, and the local authority concerned, are entitled to be heard in relation to any application for, or proposal to make, any order under this section.

(2A) The applicant must, as soon as practicable after filing an application in the Court, send a copy of the application to the local authority concerned.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Court may, if in its opinion notice of the application or proposal should be given to any person mentioned in that subsection, direct that such notice as it thinks fit must be given to that person by the applicant or by any other person.

(4) In considering an application under this section, the Court must have regard to--

(a) the nature alld quality of the access (if allY) to the lalldlocked /alld that existed whell th e applicallt purchased or otherwise acquired the /alld; alld

(b) the circumstances in which the landlocked land became landlocked; and

(c) the cOlldllCt ojthe applicant amI the other parties, inclIliling any attempts that they may have made to negotiate reasollable access to the /alllliocked /amI; alld

(d) the hardship that would be caused to the applicant by the refitsal to make (l/I order ill re/atioll to the hardship that would be caused to allY other persall by th e makillg ojthe order; and

(e) the requirements of Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987, if the application affects a conservation area; and

(j) issues of public safety raised by a [rail operator), if the application affects a railway line; and

(g) such other matters as the Court considers relevant.

(5) If, after taking into consideration the matters specified in subsection (4), and all other matters that the COllrt consIders relevant, the COllrt is of the opinion that the applicant should be granted reasonable access to the landlocked land, it may make an order for that purpose-


(a) vesting in the owners of the legal estate in the landlocked land the legal estate in fee simple in any other piece of land (whether or not that piece of land adjoins the landlocked land) except land that is a national park, public reserve or railway line; or

(b) attaching and making appurtenant to the landlocked land an easement over any other piece of land (whether or not that piece of land adjoins the landlocked land), despite [section 75 of the Railways Act 2005]. "(Emphasis added)

[27] Section 316 ofthe Act is also relevant and it provides:

"316 Court may layout roadways

(I) For the purpose of providing access, or additional or improved access, the Court may, by order, layout roadways in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section and of this Part of this Act.

(2) For the purpose of providing access, or additional or improved access, to any land to which this Part of this Act applies, the Court may lay out roadways over any other land.

(3) For the purpose of providing access, or additional or improved access, to any land other than land to which this Part of this Act applies, the Court may layout roadways over any land to which this Part of this Act applies.

(4) Any order laying out roadways may be a separate order, or may be incorporated in a partition order or other appropriate order of the Court. "

[28] The decision of the Maori Appellate Court in re Parekura Hei Road (2004) 10

Wairiki Appellate MB 253 (10 AP 253) is relevant to roadways, as are the judgments

in re: Maraenui Parts 32 & aI's (1995) 9 Waiariki Appellate MB 1 (9 AP 1) and in

re: Taharoa A7H 2B3 (1999) Waikato Maniapoto Appellate MB (19 WMAC 209 -

219).

Discussion

[29] Hongoeka Bay has unique cultural, scenic and environmental features. It is a

regIOn of significance to the hapu of Ngati Toa Rangatira and doubtless to the

preceding Kurahaupo and Takitimu iwi at some stage. It remains the centre point of

Hongoeka Marae and those whom support that place. The sweeping views across

Hongoeka Bay encompass Mana Island and the surrounding coast and on a clear day

include panoramic vistas to the northern part of the South Island. Much of the area is

rugged coastline bordering hills and cliffs. Unsurprisingly, the land in the Hongoeka

region is highly desirable for a host of reasons.


[30] The Mullens family claim they need access through the coastal blocks as this

is more practical and more cost effective. While they do not deny that existing access

is available, they stress that it is quite impractical. Indeed, a proposed site inspection

of their land via the existing access could not occur because of inclement weather.

Interestingly, even access by four-wheel drive in such weather, which was not

particularly severe, was not possible. Reference was also made to various incidents at

the blocks over coastal access via a gate over which disputes had arisen.

[31] The company representatives argued that the Mullen application should be

declined. This was primarily on the basis of fears that access via the coast will enable

Hongoeka 4A to be opened up for sale. Reference was also made to the security of

kaimoana should permanent coastal access be granted.

[32] The company's advocates nonetheless implored the Court to grant their

roadway order to enable the resurrection of the quarry and for related development

ventures. But their proposals were also opposed by adjoining owners who feared the

constraints to their own access any revival of the quarry would impose.

[33] Plainly both parties want improved access to their lands for the reasons they

have articulated before the Court. As I stated at the hearing, the Act is premised on

the dual principles of retention and development and so as a general premise access

by owners to their lands is desirable where such access is not umeasonable.

Support and opposition

[34] That there are divergent views of both applications is unsurprising. Similarly,

that there are differences of opinion and have been displays of palpable hostility and

rancour was equally predictable. Curiously, the Hongoeka Marae Committee

supported the Mullen application and opposed that ofthe company. While the Mullen

proposal drew significant support from various persons affected directly and

indirectly by their application, there was and remains strident opposition from Mrs

Williams and those supporting the company. Equally obvious, the company itself

could not claim to command majority support for its proposals and indeed generated

vociferous opposition from those represented by Ms Pomare and !vIr Moke. But from


among the affected blocks the company appeared to be ahead in terms of numerical

support from those whom responded to the proceedings.

[35] In any case, the extent of support and opposition must be carefblly assessed

when considering both applications and while the COUlt shall have regard to such

matters, it is of course not bound by the outcome of meetings of owners or those

claiming to be affected. It is not simply a question of which patty has the most votes

either by shares or individuals. Having reviewed the evidence on the file my

conclusion is that the extent of support and opposition for both applications could not

be regarded as determinative one way or the other. There is clear support and

opposition to both applications, with the company, as mentioned, having the edge.

The Mullen application

[36] The first point to consider is whether Hongoeka 4A is in fact landlocked.

Section 326A defines landlocked land as "". a piece of land that has no reasonable

access to it and is either - (a) Maori freehold land; or (b) General land owned by

Maori that ceased to be Maori land under Part 1 of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act

1967." While access via the coastal road had been available, as mentioned, that access

has expired.

[37] If access is only available to the rear of the land via four-wheeled drive vehicle

and then only when weather permits, an argument that such access is "reasonable" can

hardly be sustained. Therefore, the nature and quality of the existing "access", if it

could be in fact described as such, is limited to the point of being negligible. The

circumstances in which this land became effectively landlocked is arguably as a result

of both the terrain and the expiry of the temporaty roadway order. Neither are matters

within the control of the applicants. It is difficult to see, as I noted during the

hearings, how any reputable building firm could contemplate traversing the land via

such limited and potentially unsafe access that a number of the objectors have

suggested. In this context it seems curious that the company wishes to deny the

Mullens that which it is seeking for itself, temporary or otherwise.


Hongoelm 4A effectively lamllocked

[38] I accept that the Mullen whanau have made attempts to negotiate access but

those efforts have failed to render any realistic outcome. Having heard from the

parties, I also consider that UlmecessalY hardship would be caused to the Mullens by

the refusal to provide coastal access. As temporary access had previously been

provided decades via the coast, I do not consider that any claimed hardship on the part

of those affected outweighs that which would be imposed on the Mullen whiinau. The

shOit point is that a refusal by the Court to provide access via the coast renders an

important part of Hongoeka A4 effectively unusable. I do not accept that such an

outcome is contemplated by the framers of the Act and in particular the principles of

retention, development and utilization. Nor do I accept the contention that access via

the back of the block is reasonable.

TempOI'ary access granted fOl' five yeal's

[39] Taking into account the evidence and submissions of the parties, and given the

particular circumstances of this case, I agree that the Mullen application for access

should be granted for five years and subject to review at the end of that period. I also

consider it appropriate that such access ought to be granted to all owners of the

affected blocks, including the company, subject to conditions. The access to be

granted will be by way of roadway order, mirroring that of 13 December 1996, but in

place of Milburn New Zealand Limited, the order will be in favour of all the owners

of the affected blocks of Maori freehold land and General land owned by Maori. This

is consistent with my general view that access by Maori to their lands where it is

reasonable ought to be facilitated by the Court .

[40] This compromise outcome will then enable the Mullens to realise their plans

for improved use and development of their lands for themselves and their whanau

without permanently affecting the lands of anyone else. It will also provide for

access, albeit temporary, to the other owners so that they too may enjoy the benefit of

their lands for themselves, their whiinau and hapii as contemplated by the Act. After

five years should it become evident that permanent access for any owner may be an

issue, that matter can be considered then. However, this is not to say that if


pelmanent access becomes a necessity, the Mullens or any other affected owner,

cannot bring forth an application for review at an earlier time.

Access subject to conditions

[41] In granting the Mullen application for access I have relied on assurances from

Mrs Ashton and her brothers that they do not intend to sell Hongoeka 4A now or in

the foreseeable future. Indeed, they emphatically denied that possibility and stressed

that the request for access was to enable the family to enjoy their lands and build for

themselves. While I appreciate that over time priorities and needs can alter,

nonetheless it must be underscored that the access now granted is specific to the

current beneficial owners, their descendants and their invitees only. Should

circumstances change in the future then a fillther hearing will be necessary to review

the access now granted. That will involve publicly notified hearings to ensure any

person claiming to be affected is provided with the oppOltunity to be heard before any

change to the access can be contemplated.

Roadway plan to be vmied

[42] Given the plantings and earthworks on Hongoeka 4B, the roadway will be

varied to traverse behind the company's buildings situated on that block. The

consequence of this of course is the production of a revised plan to incorporate this

change. The Registrar is di rected to take all such steps as a necessary to procure such

revised plan as soon as possible for my approval. Having traveled over both access

ways myself during the course of these protracted proceedings, my conclusion is that

while this route is less convenient, it is certainly not inconvenient or unreasonable.

The Company's application

[43] The company's application is arguably more problematic. While some of the

initiatives it promotes may have benefit for the owners and the surrounding

community, it would appear that further dialogue with those affected by the proposals

is appropriate. Although I see no reason in principle why access should be denied to


those owners represented by the company, the impact of its quarry plans in pm1icular

on all the owners of the affected Hongoeka lands needs to be carefi111y assessed. I

accept the submission of Ms Pomare that the proposed feasibility study, if not already

complete, must be undertaken as a matter of priority, with input from the owners.

[44] As foreshadowed, I consider that the company and its invitees ought to have

access, just like any other owner, to the lands of those persons it claims to represent

for any legitimate and lawful purpose. But where its activities by their very nature

infi'inge on the rights of other owners to have fi'ee and unimpeded access to their

lands, then that is another matter entirely. By granting the company, in effect,

exclusive access for the quarry operation, the other owners may themselves be

constrained with limited access. That cannot be reasonable . Therefore, some fhrther

discussion and negotiation, even at this late juncture, is likely to be necessmy if the

company's proposals are to have any prospect of fulfillment. Whether or not final

consent would be granted for the quarrying and aquaculture ventures are issues for the

relevant authorities and courts.

Conditions for the company

[45] I am therefore prepared to grant access as sought in the application, subject to

three conditions. Firstly, that the company initiates further negotiation over usage

with affected owners. In the absence of agreement, the matter is to be refened back to

me for further direction. Secondly, the company undertakes to ensure the completion

of a feasibility study into alternative access as originally contemplated. Any such

report is to be circulated to all affected land owners and copy filed with the Court.

Thirdly, that any resource consent and other regulatory requirements are satisfied for

the specific uses sought by the company. Those who continue objecting to the

proposals will then have oppor1unity to make their case before the relevant authorities.

I understand certain consents that were granted in October 2005 may now be subject

to judicial review.

[46] For completeness I record that the company's actions, or omissions as the case

may be, in planting or permitting to be planted trees along the area of the coastal

access relevant to these proceedings was both unnecessary and unfortunate. It might


be argued that such steps were simply a transparent, but t:1iled attempt to thwalt the

Mullen application for access. If the Mullen whiinau had sought injunctive relief it

may have been granted in these circumstances, particularly where the COUlt's final

decision had not yet been issued. The company and its representatives should take

note for future reference that any repeat of such actions may ultimately be counter

productive to its overall development objectives.

Decision

[47] A roadway order for temporary access for five years is now granted in favour

of the owners of Hongoeka 3Bl 3CIH, 4A, 4B, 5, 6A and 6B. The roadway shall be

defined in accordance with the order of 13 December 1996 and the COUlt'S plan

ML 5497, subject to amendment as set out in paragraph 43. For the avoidance of

doubt the roadway order is granted in favour of the owners, thei r descendants and

their invitees only.

[48] Should any part of Hongoeka 4A be alienated in the filture the access now

granted to the owners of that block will be immediately reviewed.

[49] In the company's case, the order is subject to agreement with affected owners

over access anangements, the commencement of a feasibility study into alternative

access and confirmation that resource consents and any other regulatory requirements

have been approved by the relevant authorities.

[51] There will be no order as to costs .

ce . open Court at ~ ¢TOI?l)tIr

~J L R Harvey JUDGE

on the 0111 day of OeroeeM006.

Documents

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT · 2017. 8. 16. · '" when the quarly was still operating at Hongoeka our ability as landowners to use our land was restricted