‘Kick in guts’: Path plan flak

“It’s clear the drive to remove this policy is simply a cost-cutting measure, purely to the benefit of the WCC and to the significant detriment of homeowners.”

Kate Jamieson, Brooklyn homeowner

Strong feelings of injustice are emerging from homeowners affected by Wellington City Council’s proposal to shed responsibility for paths leading to hilly properties.

The plan would see the council stop paying to maintain paths on land it owns, not used as thoroughfares. These paths are mainly on hills, and provide a route to otherwise inaccessible properties. Some are also used as retaining walls which could, according to the council, cost as much as $2 million to bring up to engineering standards.

In written submissions ahead of council hearings next week, residents on these so-called “half-cost paths” have described the policy change as a “kick in the guts”.

Public submitters were concerned that the council was attempting to hand over responsibility for maintenance of the paths, without passing on ownership. This would leave the homeowners in a position where they might have to undertake expensive engineering work for retaining walls without insurance or Earthquake Commission funding.

Hadleigh Petherick, from Wadestown, did not hold back in his submission, saying the proposal would open up the council to hundreds of civil lawsuits from each affected party.

“This policy is a kick in the guts during a cost of living crisis for many hard-working Wellingtonians and their families,” Petherick wrote.

Some homeowners suggested that the council should take full responsibility for the paths, as it had reaped the benefits of more housing in the city, while other submitters just want a continuation of the status quo – where homeowners and the council split the maintenance costs equally.

“It’s clear the drive to remove this policy is simply a cost-cutting measure, purely to the benefit of the WCC and to the significant detriment of homeowners,” wrote Brooklyn’s Kate Jamieson. The proposal would have an enormous impact on families across the city and “create more uncertainty, cost, stress and hardship”, she said.

Nuala O’Connor, who lives on a shared pathway in Karori but whose neighbours do not need the path for access, pointed out that neighbours sharing the maintenance costs could be difficult.

Property owners would “inherently have different views on how they value the path ... there is no incentive for a property owner with alternative access to financially contribute”, she said.

Alistair Stewart and Susan Warwood said the policy would “further damage the already battered spirit of Wellington city”.

There were also questions about how much the often run-down state of the paths could be traced back to council action and inactions.

“The burden should not be on the private resident to fund retaining which is required as a consequence of creating a piece of public infrastructure,” wrote Scott Austin.

“A road was cut on a steep hill on my boundary, creating a near-vertical bank, which is unstable and has never had any retaining, despite a long history of serious slips.” Just because the road was cut 100 years ago did not mean the onus should land on the present property owner.

“This isn’t right,” Austin said. Jennifer Cauchi was in a similar position. The council had widened a street near her Wadestown property in the 1970s without properly installing retaining walls, she said, leading to a situation where many homes were now experiencing slips. Passing the cost of preventing slips on to the homeowners now would be unfair, she believed.

Hearings on the half-cost paths policy will be held at the council next Thursday.