The Woodford community, particularly the people living along the Mt Dor Road, are completely perplexed by developments regarding their public road.
Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell insisted during a July 22, 2026 press briefing that the nearby Rayneau industrial development did not cause the road collapse. This assurance came despite widely shared photographs showing machinery within the industrial site removing boulders from directly beneath the road.
According to the Prime Minister, the road’s poor condition predated both his Government and Rayneau’s presence. He insisted there was no evidence linking the collapse to the construction site, brushing off critics as “mischievous.”
This is familiar territory for the Prime Minister – and we don’t mean the Mt Dor Road, which he doesn’t seem to know exactly where it is located. At the conclusion of his 2025 Budget Speech, he responded similarly to public criticism of the Woodford development, dismissing concerns raised as “mauvais langue and bacchanal.”
This week, however, the community is confronted with a remarkable new development: a ‘new’ road now runs directly through Rayneau’s industrial site, even though the Prime Minister confusingly said on July 22 that “Rayneau’s businesses run before and not after…” the Mt Dor Road.
Whatever the explanation, the new alignment raises fresh questions about the Prime Minister’s description of the relationship between the road and the industrial site – and increasingly blurs the line between public and private.
The old road has effectively been decommissioned. But the reconstruction has created another extraordinary situation: at least one resident of the Mt Dor Road has been left with no access to her home.
What is the name of the engineer who approved reconstruction of the road at a significantly lower level, leaving the entrance to this resident’s property literally marooned above it?
What assessment was made before excavation took place immediately below the property, potentially leaving it even more vulnerable to further land movement or collapse?
It is almost beyond comprehension that this situation is being allowed to continue without any response or intervention from the Planning and Development Authority. Even if PDA directors never leave the comfort of the boardroom, surely this image alone should cause them to ask: when is enough, enough?
Section 16 of the Physical Planning and Development Control Act 2016 provides that prior written planning permission is required for the development of land.
Section 17(1)(b) exempts certain works carried out by or on behalf of Government for the maintenance or improvement of a road, but limits that exemption to works carried out “on land within the boundaries of the road.”
From the photographs, the ‘new’ road appears to have been constructed outside the boundaries of the existing public road and across private land – clearly inside the Rayneau industrial site.
This fork in the road is not just a metaphor. The old road that separated public from private has been abandoned. The new road physically crosses that divide, blurring the line between where Government ends and where Rayneau begins.
Even more consequentially, what is the legal status of the land over which the ‘new’ road is being constructed, and who has responsibility for its safety and maintenance while the public are using it?
Is it Rayneau? Is it the Government? What arrangements are in place for this route to be opened to public traffic?
The community has made repeated attempts to contact officials to clarify the situation, but the many questions remain unanswered.
Chief Technical Officer Kimon Andrew has still not responded to an August 2026 letter from the Woodford Environmental Alliance for Community Transformation (WEACT) specifically raising these very questions.
The road has been moved onto private land. The ground has been excavated to a significantly lower level. A resident has been left without access to her home. Yet the community still does not know who authorised the works, who approved the design, or who is responsible for the consequences.
Which brings us back to where we started: WHO APPROVED THIS?
Kriss Davis