Residents in the Arvida village claimed the closure breached obligations under their occupation rights agreements and the code of residents’ rights.
They complained about inadequate consultation and sought fence removal and pathway reinstatement.
But Arvida argued it had the right to close that path, which was not a designated common area, and that adequate consultation had occurred.
Disputes panellist David Carden heard the case and ruled in Arvida’s favour last August.
Arvida chief executive Jeremy Nicoll did not want to comment on the outcome.
Arvida Group CEO Jeremy Nicoll.
Arvida had the contractual right to remove or restrict amenities in common areas, including the pathway, as long as proper process was followed, the decision said.
The panel reviewed whether Arvida had met its obligations to consult affected residents.
“While not perfect, the consultation process met the required standards. The closure did not breach the applicants’ rights,” the decision said.
Arvida, represented by Lynne Van and general counsel Briar Malpas, applied for costs.
Residents would then have to pay for what the company incurred financially defending itself.
But that application was denied in the decision, issued on August 6 last year.
In the part of the village in this dispute, there are no footpaths but just roads. People had to walk down the roads with vehicles to get around the village on foot, it was noted.
The residents’ case was brought by Ian Davies and others, including Paul Whitehead, against Bethlehem Country Club Village, the decision said.
The disputed pathway was part of a longer path which runs from Bannockburn Lane to Te Anau Ave near the clubhouse.
The fence constructed now prevents direct access from Glenorchy Lane and Gibbstone Lane.
Entrance to the Arvida Bethlehem Country Club retirement village in Tauranga. Photo / Google Street View
The case indicated the fence had been put up to protect privacy.
In 2023, a new resident moved into a villa at the village and raised concerns about the use of that pathway by other residents, specifically in relation to disruption and privacy.
That resident has since moved out “for reasons including the concerns about disruption and privacy”, the decision said.
Residents have the right to occupy individual villas, which are surrounded by gardens and landscaping and have grassed areas meandering between them.
Over the years, paving has been laid and footpaths formed in parts of those grassed areas, the work being done either by residents or with the assistance of the village owner.
In 2024, the then village manager indicated the possible closure of the pathway, but emails were exchanged and a petition launched with feedback.
The complainants said the path had been used by residents, friends and staff for 14 years and was an integral connection between an avenue and a lane.
But the manager said the path was not a common area.
Eight residents provided witness statements at the hearing. Most of them were only identified by their villa number.
Arvida Group CEO Jeremy Nicoll. Photo / Arvida Group
Witness statements also came from Ian Davies and Merlyn Davies. Concerns were expressed about safety issues and traffic risk in having to use the road to walk on.
Carden decided that Arvida did have the right to shut the path and erect the fence. There was no justification under the Retirement Village Act for a disputes panel to order removal of the fence from the pathway as was sought, he said.
The village operator had the contractual right to remove or restrict amenities in common areas, including the pathway, provided proper process was followed.
In Carden’s separate costs decision, he said he exercised his discretion to decline awarding costs to the operator.
That is because he decided that “on balance, conduct in this dispute favours the applicants rather than the village operator”.
Arvida is owned by America’s Stonepeak, after a takeover two years ago.
The BBQ area of Condell Retirement Village, Christchurch. It was an allegation of alcohol in this area and subsequent emails which resulted in a complaint, published on the Retirement Commission’s website.
The case was one of only two posted on the Retirement Commission’s website for 2025.
The first case last year was a complaint brought by residents of a Christchurch retirement village, which was also rejected.
It concerned alcohol being banned at happy hour in a BBQ area.
Five residents of Condell Retirement Village in Bryndwr, Christchurch brought the case.
Most other disputes are settled without reaching that forum.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 26 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.
Stay ahead with the latest market moves, corporate updates, and economic insights by subscribing to our Business newsletter – your essential weekly round-up of all the business news you need.