Thousands of locals could be stung with large yearly fees if Wellington City Council’s policy is changed.
THE council is consulting residents on a draft of the Road Encroachment and Sale Policy, which will determine how to charge the 6,000-odd Wellingtonians who have licenses or leases to use legal road or council land for car parking, property access, and outdoor living.
Currently, everyone using this kind of land pays a flat rate of $11.25 per square metre of encroached road.
 The council’s new idea is to set the rental fees in proportion to the value of land in the suburb.
A flood of submissions have raised concerns about the blanket approach.
Oriental Bay resident Con Flinkenberg isn’t impressed, and plans to make an oral submission on the matter.
“It’s a money grab. It looks like bad policy because it’s applying a one-size fits all approach,” he says. “You’re transferring the weight from the council to the individual.”
Flinkenberg’s main encroachment is the eave of his house, which projects 30cm over the footpath. He did the alteration before knowing about the possibility of new policy, and says it could now cost him hundreds of dollars a year to have the eave.
He is also unhappy about the council’s decision to redefine “structures” in the proposal. Until now, fences and hedges that prevent public access to council-owned land have not been included as a structure, and if a property owner has built such a structure around land enclosing less than 50 square metres, they pay no rental fees. Under the new policy, they would have to pay yearly fees.
A Karori resident made a submission to the council with concerns about this point. His family specifically bought a house with a fence because he has two young children.
Part of the front section of the house was on encroached land, but the house came with a license from the previous owner that allowed for fencing and planting.
Under this new definition of “structure”, the family would have to pay “several hundred dollars a year” for the fence, which they can’t afford.
To comply, they would have to rip up the existing fence, and build a new one a couple of metres closer to the house.
A Roseneath resident is also worried she will be unable to afford the changes. The owner, who doesn’t want to be named, is on a fixed income, but could be up for huge yearly cost for the car pad (which she inherited) if the policy changes.
“The council says it’s to bring fairness and equity because owners of more valuable land get more value out of it when the land is sold, [but] it would appear that the council really needs more money,” she says.
Encroachments like car pads could be considered a public service, because they keep roads clear of parked cars, she says.
“It costs significant amounts of money for people to erect car decks, so [if the policy went through], they are being doubly punished – people who park their cars on the road aren’t getting charged,” she says. “You could argue that what we should be paying for is a service – the right to take our cars off the road. Why should that be charged differently from one area to the next for that?”
One homeowner suggested to Capital Times that the council seemed to want two dips of the pot. He said that if the encroachments add value to the property, that property will be paying a bigger share of rates.  But the council is already charging for the encroachments on top of that added value.  
Councillor and urban development portfolio leader Andy Foster says no fee structure has been decided on yet. The first step is to take into consideration the oral submissions, (heard on July 29), and then decide on the process.
The options available are to maintain the current flat fee, the council’s preferred choice of rental fees being set in proportion to land value, or introduce a system where every homeowner is required to negotiate with the council.
“At this stage, we’re simply talking about the principles, and then we will consult on the actual dollar numbers next year,” says Foster. “There is an issue of equity here, and I dare say people living in higher value areas will say ‘we want a flat fee’, and those in lower value areas will say [the council preference] is ok.”