A hearings panel met in Mosgiel late last month to consider a request by the Dunedin City Council for a "notice of requirement", which the council needed to take land from 33 properties under the Public Works Act if owners refused to sell.
The panel - comprising commissioners Allan Cubitt, John Lumsden and Peter Constantine - this week issued an interim decision, dated March 8, confirming it was "of a mind" to confirm the notice.
However, Mr Cubitt, the panel's chairman, said in a letter the decision was conditional on "substantial modifications" to the plan.
That included removing the proposed shared path - for use by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders - from the plan, as the panel was "not convinced" the path was needed as part of the road's upgrade, he said.
That, in turn, meant a new design plan for the road's upgrade would need to be drawn up, as removing the shared path would have a "significant impact" on the road's design and the amount of land required, he said.
Last month's hearing had been adjourned at its conclusion, but Mr Cubitt said the changes meant it was likely the hearing would also have to be reconvened to consider the revised plan's impact on submitters.
Commissioners were "mindful" of the drawn-out nature of the process, and the uncertainty caused to landowners, and so had asked the council to provide amended plans by April 9, Mr Cubitt said.
A date for reconvening the hearing would be set upon receiving the plans, he said.
Riccarton Rd West Safety Society chairman Brian Miller, a resident for about 25 years, told the Otago Daily Times he had expected a decision from the commissioners, which could then be taken to the next stage by residents willing to continue fighting the council's plans.
Instead, he felt the process was being dragged out further still, having been in the "too-hard basket" for 15 years.
"The whole thing is a . . . fiasco," he said.
Contacted yesterday, council city environment general manager Tony Avery said the council was in "the hands of the commissioners in terms of their decision-making".
Council staff were still considering the interim decision and their options, he said.
He declined to comment when asked if he agreed with the commissioners' position on removing the shared path, but said the timeline to complete a new design by April 9 was "tight".
"That's one of things we are looking at," he said.
