Proposed tax irks forestry industry
Forestry workers are up in arms over a proposal to restrict heavy vehicles from using Rangitı¯kei roads unless compensation is paid for any damage they might cause.
The Rangitı¯kei District Council bylaw would provide officials with the scope to charge a fee based on the frequency of the road’s use – a power it did not previously have.
It could also charge a bond to cover the potential damage trucks may cause on unsealed roads, which are particularly vulnerable during winter months.
This fee would be charged directly to the logging company.
Those restrictions would create difficulties for landowners and truck drivers as forestry throughout the district required harvesting, Road Transport Forum chief executive Ken Shirley said.
Council chief executive Ross McNeil said heavy vehicles from forestry blocks caused extensive damage to low-volume, rural roads, but Shirley said they already paid enough road user charges.
Shirley said a regional road tax would be impossible to police and was not sustainable.
Instead, the council needed to target costs through a property tax, Shirley said.
‘‘It’s outrageous what they’re doing up in Rangitı¯kei. It’s absolute nonsense.
‘‘They’re going down a blind avenue.’’
He questioned introducing a charge based on the number of truck movements. While forestry logging was ‘‘intensive’’, they only operated on a particular patch every 30 years. Dairy tankers used the roads every day.
Marton-based forestry consultant John Turkington said such a bylaw would impose ‘‘unnecessary’’ and ‘‘unfair’’ costs to forest owners and transport providers.
He said the council could use the proposed tolls to benefit the roading network as a whole, while spending a minimum amount on the tolled roads.
This could lead to the council charging again through the proposed bond.
Many forestry blocks were on erosion-prone land, such as coastal sand and hill country, and were established with help from the Government and Horizons Regional Council.
The goal was to change the land use while providing an ongoing income stream from the land over a long timeframe.
‘‘The land owners, when establishing these forests, assumed free access to the public roading network,’’ Turkington said.
‘‘We feel that the toll proposed... adds uncertainty and risk to the forest industry and is an impediment to future forest development.’’
Land owners had paid rates for 25-30 years and it seemed unfair when road maintenance was required the council imposed an unspecified toll, Turkington said.
McNeil said the problem lay with harvesting in winter, when unsealed roads were prone to damage.
Although, based on forest locations, there were only a handful of unsealed roads where this would be an issue, he said.
The issue could be avoided if landowners, foresters and trucking companies co-ordinated to harvest in summer, he said.
‘‘The fundamental question here is – if roads are badly damaged as a result of intensive use, should the cost of repair or reinstatement be borne by all ratepayers or should those who created the damage bear some cost responsibility?’’
The council is reviewing public submissions on the proposal.