A New Plymouth couple have married, had two children, and buried two parents during the six years they have been trying to resolve a dispute over their retaining wall.
In March 2016, a subdivision beside Tim and Victoria Coleman’s New Plymouth home was cut so close to their boundary that they say it undercut their home.
Since then the couple have been fighting for a retaining wall they say will prevent the cut face, which is approximately 1.2 to 1.7m high, from eroding.
After years of going between the developer and the New Plymouth District Council, the latter agreed to pay for a retaining wall to be built, but the plans were changed and the job postponed, Victoria said.
READ MORE:
* The pensioner, the sinking house and the council running scared of setting a precedent if it helps
* Taranaki widow now renting after retirement property sank into the ground
* Third sinking home case comes to light in New Plymouth
Supplied/Stuff
The developer was undertaking earthworks in March 2016 when it made a bulk excavation vertical cut on the boundary between the complainants’ property and the subdivision. The cut face was approximately 1.2 to 1.7m high.
“The strain on us has been huge,” Tim added. “It’s one of our biggest worries, when we should be focusing on our children.”
The couple’s son, Levi, 4, was born with a rare bowel disorder and other issues that meant he has had eight surgeries already, and needs extra care.
The Colemans had a huge fence built to keep Levi and his little sister, Millie, safe from the steep drop.
ANDY MACDONALD/Stuff
Tim Coleman said battling to get a retaining wall has been extremely stressful on top of coping with their disabled son’s health issues.
The fence cost them around $17,000 because of the undercut, Victoria said, and it had been over-engineered to hold even if the bank crumbled.
They also paid for an engineer’s report and legal fees.
In June, a disciplinary committee acting for Engineering New Zealand censured and reprimanded the engineer in charge of the site for failing to take adequate steps to ensure health and safety.
The disciplinary committee found no evidence to suggest that the engineer had informed the developer about the risk posed by the cut and how it could affect the Colemans, and he was ordered to pay a fine and costs for a total of $10,389.
Earlier this year, an email from the council’s then-chief executive, Craig Stevenson, described the situation as “largely a neighbours-at-war matter, and it’s not easy to unpick”.
Stevenson wrote that he believed there were “some mis-steps by council many years ago”.
In May this year, Stevenson, told the couple the retaining wall would be built.
Diggers were brought in, a portaloo and equipment hired, and timber brought on site, but then the job was cancelled, Victoria said.
In a May 31 email, Stevenson told them he had “paused the works for two weeks while we undertake an internal review of the options/costs” because the estimated cost had risen from $30,000 to $35,000 to more than $60,000.
The couple heard no more, and since then Stevenson had resigned.
ANDY JACKSON/Stuff
New Plymouth Mayor Neil Holdom has asked the council’s interim CEO to meet the couple and try to find a way forward. (File photo).
“They keep saying we are being impatient,” Victoria said. “It’s billed as a neighbours at war, but that’s not what it is, and after six years we have been patient enough.”
New Plymouth District Mayor Neil Holdom said he had asked the council’s new interim CEO, Miriam Taris, to meet the Colemans “to put a fresh pair of eyes on the problem and see if we can find a way forward that works for everyone”..
“It’s disappointing we haven’t been able to resolve this as I am aware this dispute has been extremely stressful for the Colemans and their young children.
ANDY MACDONALD/Stuff
The view over the high fence that the Colemans had built along their boundary.
“With changes in staff over the last few months we haven’t managed to resolve the issue to date, in part because we are essentially trying to work between two neighbours who are not getting along.”
Kevin Strongman, NPDC group manager planning and infrastructure, said the council recognised the dispute had taken a long time to resolve.
“We have always maintained that this a civil matter between the two parties and that our ability to assist with this dispute is limited,” he said in a statement.
“Mrs Coleman has asked the council to assist her with her claim against the developer on several occasions.
“Our former infrastructure manager and chief executive tried to assist her in the past by exploring certain remediation options; it is not correct that any undertaking was provided by the council in this respect.
“As you can appreciate, the council doesn’t have a role in what is a private dispute.
“We are also not in a position to assist developers by undertaking development works on their behalf, where they fall short in taking all required actions to deal with aggrieved adjoining owners.”
