000mot_Someone built a house on the runway!

Building as a political act has been, historically, a legitimate means of architectural expression. blablablarchitecture recognises ‘talking through building’ as a form of media communication.

Someone has built a structure, presumably a house, on the komiti minuted, CAA NZ guided, Google map recognised airstrip on Motiti Island.

Granted this does not have the grandeur resonance say against the proposed planning of a third runway for Heathrow, but this simple timber frame structure is nonetheless a highly provocative protest placard. The structure, presumably a house given the skeletal timber frame seems compliant with NZS3604, has rather been deliberately been placed on the runway on Motiti Island. Yet by building this stealth structure over the course of a public holiday (Easter), planning barristers in NZ comment that they are ‘gob smacked’. The runway is now out of use. In doing so, the umbilical chord of the flight path is severed and thus some islanders are now stranded on the mainland, awaiting a clear landing path post-injunction.

SAY WHAT_!?

lonestar says:

2016-04-09 at 00:24

What a load of crap. Its not even an airstrip

EDITOR: Dear Lonestar: “The Civil Aviation Authority of NZ offers guidance: “In New Zealand, there are many hundreds of airstrips…. there are also 26 certificated aerodromes and about 140 non-certificated aerodromes. Pilots can also legally land on beaches, paddocks and other areas – provided they have assessed the landing site is safe.” The onus for declaring whether a site constitutes a landing strip this falls to the pilot.”
Wayne says:

2016-04-09 at 00:34

Rubbish, who ever wrote that comment has no idea what so ever blah blah

EDITOR: Dear Wayne, what comment?
lonestar says:

2016-04-09 at 00:34

Total fabrication. Its not even a real airstrip. There is a legal airstrip on the island that islanders use every day.

EDITOR: Dear Lonestar: The Civil Aviation Authority of NZ offers guidance: “In New Zealand, there are many hundreds of airstrips…. there are also 26 certificated aerodromes and about 140 non-certificated aerodromes. Pilots can also legally land on beaches, paddocks and other areas – provided they have assessed the landing site is safe.” The onus for declaring whether a site constitutes a landing strip this falls to the pilot.
Chris reti says:

2016-04-09 at 08:41

You no nothing John snow

JOHN SNOW: I know how to spell ‘know’…
Kapua Aukaha says:

2016-04-09 at 20:05

this airstrip is illegal by aviation standards,

EDITOR: Dear Kapua. Your comment could be correct but by NZ Civil Aviation Standards this is probably not the case: “In New Zealand, there are many hundreds of airstrips…. there are also 26 certificated aerodromes and about 140 non-certificated aerodromes. Pilots can also legally land on beaches, paddocks and other areas – provided they have assessed the landing site is safe.” The onus for declaring whether a site constitutes a landing strip this falls to the pilot.”
Rina Kerei Gray says:

2016-04-09 at 21:50

“WTF! This comes from 2 peoples having ownership of the Island.
1. Whose side was the runway on?
2. Lack of consultation with both parties (if this is the case)
3. My land, and I will do what I want with it attitude.
4. Lived away from the hau kainga and assumptions its my right, its my land!
5. Who gives a S___ attitude
Aroha. For those who have this attitude, when your in need the people you SHIT on will be there to help you. Why? Because they look beyond your attitude and carry the mana of their tupuna and the saying “When in need help your fellow man””

EDITOR: Dear Rina, We agree that the custom of maori hereditary land entitlement has problematised Motiti such that multiple landowners with disparate interests have effectively land-locked the island. It appears the way forward is probably not consultation given the plethora of interests and the range of ownerships: is it fair that a 0.01% shareholder should have the same voice as say a 10% shareholder? Consultation seems impotent given this complexity.
arty says:

2016-04-09 at 23:44

Thats what happens when you makr ab airstrip on someone elses whenua. Ohh well go by barge or better yet, MAKE AN AIRSTRIP ON YOUR LAND

EDITOR: Dear arty, Agreed.
One that helped build this structure says:

2016-04-10 at 06:50

Before anything else is written, do your research this airstrip is illegal!!

EDITOR: Thank you for your tip and research was undertaken. The Civil Aviation Authority of NZ offers guidance: “In New Zealand, there are many hundreds of airstrips…. there are also 26 certificated aerodromes and about 140 non-certificated aerodromes. Pilots can also legally land on beaches, paddocks and other areas – provided they have assessed the landing site is safe.” The onus for declaring whether a site constitutes a landing strip this falls to the pilot.
Wayne says:

2016-04-10 at 23:30

“What a load of rubbish, who ever wrote that story regarding that structure on the airship (which is not a legal airstrip) has not been used for a year or longer is not telling you the full story or they are ignorant and don’t want to tell all. So blah blah blah.”
EDITOR: What airship?
Paul Akuhata says:

2016-04-11 at 02:37

“You been pulled into a family argument… That is one airstrip that services the island, only one is stranded on the island or mainland. The people building the house are owners in that particular block of land.”
Pilot says:

2016-05-03 at 20:54

71.7 Application for designation and classification of
airspace
(a) Any person with a bona fide interest in airspace may apply to the
Director for a designation or classification of airspace under this Part.
(b) An applicant for an airspace designation or classification must
provide the following details:
(1) the name and contact details of the applicant:
(2) the type of designation or classification required:
(3) the reason for the designation or classification:
Civil Aviation Rules Part 71 CAA Consolidation
23 October 2008 8 CAA of NZ
(4) the dimensions or other boundary information for the airspace
that is required:
(5) the period for which the designation or classification is required:
(6) the contact details of any applicable administering authority or
using agency:
(7) any other applicable information required by the Director.
(c) Except for urgent requests that are associated with Police operations,
search and rescue operations, security, or other emergency situations, an
application for an airspace designation or classification must be submitted
to the Director not less than 90 days before the date on which the
designation or classification is to come into force unless a shorter period is
acceptable to the Director.
liza says:

2016-08-15 at 09:55

I am gob smacked at how 6 small share owners can place an airstrip on whenua owned by 83 owners and negotiate with the environment court to have the total block put in the district plan. It became clear at the owners meeting that these 6 people did not have consent and that the owners had no knowledge of what was happening. Granted it does not have the great impact of the Maori land confiscations of the 1800’s, but appears similar to land grabbing and greed. I hope you are sooo proud of your whanau!!!! for the underhanded and shameful actions that they have done, especially to their 86 year old aunty.
WHAT_architecture says:

2016-08-26 at 13:54

Dear Liza,
Thankyou for your comment which brilliantly raises a key issue, albeit by default. I too am gob-smacked how ‘size of shareholding’ and ‘number of shareholders’ can be so readily confused.
There are 41 shares in this block so whether there are 6 or 83 owners is meaningless without recourse to the size of each owner’s shareholding. Let me explain: 6 owners might own 50% whilst 83 owners might own the remaining 50%: simple mathematics tells us though this does not mean all owners, read shareholdings, are equal. Thus not all voices hold the same weight now matter how loud some might scream.
Liza: we believe you to be the lucky recipient of a vested shareholding bequeathed somewhat unusually before a tangi (funeral) and thus pre-emoting hereditary succession. Presumably this was a legal ploy, but not a Whanau (familial) custom, to create more voices in the courtroom. Or, rather, an elephant in the room.
We are all proud of our Whanau in providing a low-impact airstrip that serves all, rather than erecting a house-as-access-obstacle to serve a few. I suspect our 86 year old Aunty will despair at such land-grabbing greed as you wisely point out.

000mot_Someone built a house on the runway!

SAY WHAT_!?

Leave a Reply

ARCHIVE