The popular policy of laying red-chip footpaths in Auckland City was dropped by senior officers 15 months ago without telling the public or politicians, council documents show.
The council introduced a new footpath policy in 2003 to stick with red-chip footpaths in mostly heritage and character areas after the public
voted red-chip tops when different materials were laid at a site in Sandringham.
Senior officers, including directors Dr Jill McPherson and Paul Sonderer, decided in November 2004 to stop using red-chip, according to documents obtained by the Herald under the Official Information Act.
They had become concerned about a colour clash between red-chip footpaths and white driveways, problems matching vehicle crossings, and matches between the new and old red colour.
The officers decided that in general all footpaths would be done in black with matching vehicle crossings.
Tree-lined streets with roots that disrupted the footpath would continue to be done in black asphalt, according to the documents obtained by the Herald.
They show that professional services manager Neill Forgie instructed the contractor, Fillmore Contracting, on November 19 to cease all work for seven days as there was a policy change.
The stoppage led to a $118,150 claim by Fillmore for "major disruption" to the planned work programme. Mr Forgie expressed "great disappointment" about the claim, but the council paid up.
The Eastern Bays and Western Bays Community Boards have voiced concerns at how the footpath policy was changed without the public or elected representatives being told.
The documents show that council chief executive David Rankin was also concerned that the issue could be perceived in the same way as Vulcan Lane: council officers overriding the wishes of the people.
The papers show that officers drafted a report for the council's transport committee last July to change the footpath policy to replace red-chip for black concrete footpaths and driveways but it never reached the committee.
Mr Rankin, who has stopped Dr McPherson speaking to the Herald on the issue, said it was unclear why officers had not brought the matter to councillors in 15 months.
"In retrospect it should have been progressed faster."
He was satisfied officers had not changed council policy but simply suspended it when they felt what was happening was not what the policy intended.
