From ‘Significant Natural Area’ to ‘Significant Council Incompetence’—A True Story

Like many landowners across New Zealand, I received a letter from Waipa District Council regarding the arbitrary designation of Significant Natural Areas (SNA) on private land.

I found this disgraceful that in our so-called democracy, that Councils have been empowered to seize control of private property without compensation (approximately 4,000 hectares in Waipa) under the Resource Management Act—and even more appalling was to witness certain private interest groups and segments of the population cheering from the sidelines.

This injustice was the primary reason I stood for Council in 2011. Since then, over the years we have seen farmers and landowners nationwide fighting against Government and local Councils to retain control of their land.

Many lost major portions of their farms to Communist-style Councils, with most eagerly enforcing the radical environmental policies for the former Labour Government. These Councils locked up private land under the Resource Management Act using the false pretense of environmental protection, stripping landowners of their rights.

To illustrate the tyranny of these policies, I will share my own experience.

My first "happy" interaction with the Council began with a letter declaring they had unilaterally identified an SNA on my property via an aerial study. The message was clear: "We are taking control, If you disagree, you must object within a limited time frame—or I would have to pay exorbitant legal fees to reverse the designation later." (A sum that would have bought a luxury car for the lawyers.)

Upon reviewing their so-called "expert" map, I discovered their highly paid bureaucrat had simply drawn a red line around the entire 3-hectare boundary of my property, including everything within it. To say I was "a little pissed off" would be the understatement of the century.

My first happy phone interaction with the planning office went like this:
Me: "What will I be allowed to do now with the land?"
Reply: "WE WILL LET YOU WALK THROUGH AND PICK UP THE FALLEN FIREWOOD."
They seemed to think their reply was funny, as they were trying not to break into laughter.

My next interaction with the Council came after I exposed their so-called "expert’s" incompetence. They sent another official to conduct a ground survey, which finally forced them to admit their colossal mistake. They agreed to redraw their arbitrary boundaries—only to screw it up again.

Their revised "red lines" were still incorrect—though, to their credit, they’d wisely excluded the gorse and blackberry thickets (apparently, even bureaucratic fools have standards).

Frustrated, I proposed a simple solution: Since I had an aerial map, I would draw the area they wanted to seize myself. They agreed—only for the Waikato District Council (apparently unaware of basic property rights) to intervene, wasting taxpayer money on helicopter surveys and ground inspections.

After six months of delays, I finally received their "final" gazetted paperwork (about a inch thick) yet again, their amateurish red lines still encroached on my driveway and shed.

When I confronted them, they tried to strong-arm me into paying legal fees to fix THEIR error.

That’s when I unleashed a verbal storm—forcing these bungling bureaucrats to finally fix their own disastrous mess… after squandering thousands of taxpayer dollars on their sheer incompetence and amateurish antics!.Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to identify and enforce SNAs nationwide, with 300,000–350,000 hectares been formally mapped or proposed as SNAs on private property nationwide.Federated Farmers' estimate is a $1.6 billion in equity loss for SNA landowners nationwide. and they estimate 500,000 hectares of private land could eventually fall under SNA rules once mapping completes (target: 2028). To many, this reflects the real-world cost of prioritizing international biodiversity frameworks over local economic realities.
Now the current government is implementing the NPSIB (including SNA mapping and rules) and reviewing legislation like the RMA, despite significant opposition from rural communities!