The Government and City of Hamilton are butting heads over who is responsible for the maintenance of a potentially dangerous section of wall on Court Street.

A section of the wall joining Sessions House recently crashed on to the sidewalk prompting The Royal Gazette to make inquiries. It has emerged that another section fell down recently and was removed by the corporation.

The City of Hamilton has said the wall is the property of the Government and the problem has arisen because of unattended tree roots — therefore, the Government should carry out any remedial works necessary.

However, the Ministry of Public Works said the work would be the responsibility of the City of Hamilton because of excavation works it carried out in the past.

A spokeswoman for the corporation initially said: “This wall is the property of the Government of Bermuda. However, the City has installed cones and barriers to alert the public to the issue, should there be further erosion.

“The deterioration of the wall has been caused by burrowing tree roots due to unattended foliage on that property. Two months ago, the City removed a larger rock which had fallen in that same area.”

When approached with this explanation, a spokesman for the Department of Public Works said: “Sessions House is recognised as Government property. The Corporation of Hamilton owns Court Street. As such, the ownership and maintenance of the wall in question fall within the purview of the corporation, not the Government.

“The rock cut at this location was created to lower Court Street below natural grade, while Sessions House remains at the original level. The law dictates that lateral support [including retaining walls] is a reasonable entitlement of a neighbouring land owner.

“Regrettably, this support has been compromised due to the excavation activities undertaken by the Corporation of Hamilton on Court Street.

“As a result, it is the responsibility of the corporation to undertake the necessary remedial actions to rectify the situation.

“The issue of ‘burrowing tree roots due to unattended foliage’ is not relevant to the current circumstances. The occurrence of tree root-related problems would not have transpired had the corporation not created the rock cut.”

However, the corporation stood by its original statement and pointed out that the excavation works in question were carried out about a century ago. It also provided a photograph of the tree roots in question.

The corporation spokeswoman said in a subsequent statement: “The excavation activities undertaken by the [then] Corporation of Hamilton on Court Street, to which the Ministry of Public Works refers, were carried out in the 1800s.

“At the end of the day, the property belongs to the Government of Bermuda who allowed deep-rooted vegetation to grow on their property and break apart the rock. The City stands by its original statement. Tree roots damaged the rock, not excavation work that took place over a century ago.

“The City does not disagree with the law regarding lateral support, as cited by the Government, but this particular case isn’t about supporting the property; the property was deemed sufficiently supported at the time of the excavation and has remained so ever since but, as with all properties, it required maintenance by the landowner.

“There is no direct link between the excavation and the failure of the rock cut some hundred years later. Support was not compromised due to the excavation — it was compromised due to the property owners allowing vegetation to grow for decades.”

The Royal Gazette has reached out again to both entities to try to ascertain which is responsible for the works.

The corporation spokeswoman said that the wall should be assessed for stability and any lose rocks removed and added that it had left the barriers up out of an abundance of caution.