Regulatory and Safety Committee

15 July 2025

Options Report for review of Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013

File No.: CP2024/15540

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To complete a statutory bylaw review and seek a decision on the preferred option in response to the review of Auckland Council's health and hygiene related bylaw and code.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw) and Health and Hygiene Code of Practice 2013 (Code) regulate health and beauty services in Auckland. This includes, for example, manicures, colon hydrotherapy, infusion therapy, laser treatment and tattooing.

3. The Regulatory and Safety Committee requested a report to complete a statutory review of the Bylaw and to develop options in response to the October 2024 review of the Code.

4. Staff used the October 2024 review findings, additional research and relevant Local Government Act 2002 criteria to inform the bylaw review and options (Attachment A).

5. The statutory bylaw review found that a bylaw is still required, and that the current Bylaw and Code has helped minimise risks to public health, but that their form could be improved.

6. The options report assessed the risk of physical harm from 31 health and beauty services in Auckland to recommend whether to confirm (Option A), amend (Option B), replace (Option C) or revoke the Bylaw and Code (Option D).

7. Staff recommend that the committee agree that Option B – Amend the Bylaw and Code is the most appropriate response to the review findings. Taking this approach will:

· meet council’s statutory obligation to improve, promote and protect public health

· improve the current Bylaw and Code to minimise the risk of physical harm from health and beauty services in Auckland, for example by:

o focusing on regulating services not already regulated (for example the Environmental Protection Agency regulates chemicals used by some exfoliation services)

o focusing higher levels of regulation on services that have a high-risk of harm (for example removing the licence requirement for moderate-risk manicure services)

o updating the general and specific standards in the Code to be practical, and to reflect current practices and technical advice

o regulating aspects of services within council’s area of expertise (for example ensuring all council-regulated services are hygienic and take safety precautions, and not for example to verify qualifications or competence).

8. There is a low reputational risk that stakeholders express concern about the recommended option. This risk is mitigated by public consultation before a final decision is made.

9. If approved, staff will prepare a statement of proposal and amended Bylaw and Code for approval of the Regulatory and Safety Committee and Governing Body by early 2026 for public consultation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) tuhi tīpoka / note that the committee completed a review of the Auckland Council Tikanga ā-Mahi Whakamaru Hauora 2013 | Health and Hygiene Code of Practice 2013 in October 2024, and decided to initiate a statutory bylaw review and options report.

b) whakaae / agree that a statutory bylaw review of the Auckland Council Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakamaru Hauora | Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 is complete, including that:

i) a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to minimise the risk of physical harm from health and beauty services in Auckland

ii) the current Bylaw does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

iii) the current Bylaw (and Code) is not the most appropriate form of bylaw, and could be improved.

c) whakaae / agree that Option B - Amend the Bylaw and Code in Attachment A of the agenda report is the most appropriate statutory response to the Bylaw and Code because it:

i) meets council’s statutory obligation to improve, promote and protect public health

ii) improves the current framework which has helped minimise the risk of physical harm from health and beauty services in Auckland

iii) reduces compliance costs by improving the content of standards and adjusting licence requirements to better reflect the risk of physical harm, any intention to burn, break or pierce the skin, any regulation by other agencies, and council’s area of expertise.

d) tuhi tīpoka / note that Option B in clause c) will give effect to the recommended responses for each service and Bylaw and Code improvements in Attachment A of the agenda report.

e) tono / request staff as delegated by the Chief Executive, to prepare a Statement of Proposal that amends the Bylaw and Code to give effect to Option B in clause c).

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw and Code seek to minimise harms from health and beauty services in Auckland

10. In 2013, Auckland Council made the Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakamaru Hauora | Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw) and Tikanga ā-Mahi Whakamaru Hauora | Health and Hygiene Code of Practice 2013 (Code) (GB/2013/66). The Bylaw was reviewed in 2018 (GB/2018/187).

11. The Bylaw and Code seek to minimise the risk of physical harm to consumers and operators from poor practices associated with ‘health and beauty services’ in Auckland.^{^[1]}

A 2024 Code review found both the Bylaw and Code helpful, but could be improved

12. In March 2022, the Regulatory Committee initiated the first review of the Code since it was made in 2013 (REG/2022/9), to determine if it was still ‘fit for purpose’.

13. The review identified opportunities to improve the Bylaw. Staff expanded the review to include the Bylaw to enable the committee to consider options for both the Bylaw and Code.

14. In October 2024, the Regulatory and Safety Committee endorsed the ‘2024 Review Findings Report: Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Code 2013’ (RSCCC/2024/70).

Summary of 2024 Review Findings Report: Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Code 2013

· Auckland Council has a duty under section 23 of the Health Act 1956 to improve, promote and protect public health in Auckland.

· The problem, objective and outcome can be defined as follows:

A blue background with black text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

· The Bylaw and Code help minimise the risk of physical harm from health and beauty services in Auckland.

· However, the Bylaw and Code could be improved as they contain parts that are inappropriate, outdated, impractical or difficult to enforce, for example:

o updating technical standards superseded since the Code was made

o clarifying where the Code is recommending best practice as opposed to setting standards

o addressing issues related to the difficulty of verifying whether operator qualifications are real and appropriate

o regulating new services not currently covered by the Bylaw (for example cryolipolysis)

o remove or reducing the level of regulation required for some services based on changes to risk or the wider regulatory framework (for example central government now regulates registered acupuncturists).

The committee decided to initiate a statutory bylaw review and request an options report

15. The Regulatory and Safety Committee, in response to the findings at the same meeting on 8 October 2024, requested a report to enable the completion of a statutory bylaw review and to identify preferred options in response to the findings (RSCCC/2024/70).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The 2024 review, additional research and criteria informed the bylaw review and options

16. Staff used the 2024 review findings, additional research and relevant Local Government Act 2002 criteria, to inform the completion of the ‘2025 Statutory Bylaw Review and Options Report: Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw and Code 2013’ in Attachment A.^{^[2]}

The statutory bylaw review confirmed the Bylaw is still required, but could be improved

17. The 2024 review findings provide sufficient information to make the necessary statutory bylaw review determinations under the Local Government Act 2002 that:

· a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the problem

· the current Bylaw does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

· the current Bylaw is not the most appropriate form of bylaw and that both the Bylaw and Code (which the Bylaw creates) could be improved.

18. Suggested improvements to the Bylaw and Code include:^{^[3]}

· amending the Bylaw to regulate each service at a level appropriate to the impact of its potential harms. For example, manicure services (with moderate impact harms) could be reduced from requiring a licence to complying with the Code’s general standards.

· amending the Code to ensure requirements are practical and reflect current practices and technical advice. This involves updating both general and specific standards.

· recognising council’s area of expertise is in ensuring the hygiene of operators’ premises and that operators have taken precautions for providing services safely. Aspects outside council’s expertise include verifying operator qualifications, operator competence, and specific technical aspects of each service.

· replacing most of the Code’s references to specific qualifications with a general standard that operators should be appropriately trained and competent.

Amending the Bylaw and Code is the most appropriate response to the Bylaw review

19. Section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires council to determine whether the most appropriate statutory response to a bylaw review is to confirm (Option A), amend (Option B), replace (Option C) or revoke (Option D) the Bylaw.

20. The review findings that a Bylaw and Code are still needed but could be improved, means further consideration of options to confirm (Option A) or revoke (Option D) the Bylaw and Code are not required.

21. To determine whether amending (Option B) or replacing (Option C) is the most appropriate response to the review findings, staff developed a framework to assess 31 health and beauty services in Auckland. The assessment included the identification of specific Bylaw and Code improvements. See Appendix 1 (assessment by service) and Appendix 3 (framework) in Attachment A for details.

22. The services assessment focused on identifying the most appropriate regulatory response (see diagram on following page) to each of the 31 services based on:

· the risk of physical harm (for example low-level harms such as blisters and fungal infections, moderate-level harms such as serious bleeding and temporary nerve damage, and high-level harms such as blood-borne diseases and skin cancer))

· whether the service intentionally burns, breaks or pierces the skin (for example tattooing intentionally pierces the skin while colon hydrotherapy does not)

· regulation by other agencies (for example the Environmental Protection Agency regulates chemicals with a risk of high impact harms in some exfoliation treatments)

· council’s area of expertise (for example council can check services are hygienic and take safety precautions, but is not able to verify qualifications or competence)

· statutory criteria in the Local Government Act 2002 related to effectiveness, efficiency and validity and risks.

23. The potential regulatory responses are arranged on a continuum from least regulation by council (Response 1) to most regulation (Response 4).

24. Table 1 below summarises the outcome of the services assessment in Appendix 1 of Attachment A.

25. Responses that retain the status quo are marked ‘(SQ)’. New services are marked ‘(New)’, and a change to the current response is marked as ‘(was Rsp#)’ (for example a service previously regulated by Response 4 would say ‘(was Rsp4)’.

Table 1: Summary of service assessment outcomes

Response 1: No bylaw

Response 2: General standards

Response 3: Specific standards

Response 4: Licensing with standards

· Traditional eyeliners and incense sticks (New, SQ)

· Automatic car washes (New, was Rsp1)

· Birthing pools (New, was Rsp1)

· Commercial sexual services (was Rsp1)

· Cryolipolysis (New, was Rsp4)

· Exfoliation (was Rsp4)

· Eyelash extensions and eyelash lifts (New, was Rsp1)

· Manicures and pedicures (was Rsp4)

· Massage (was Rsp3)

· Radiofrequency lipolysis (New, was Rsp1)

· Teeth whitening (New) (SQ)

· Thermal shock lipolysis (New, was Rsp4)

· Ultrasound fat cavitation (New, was Rsp1)

· Colon hydrotherapy (SQ)

· Hair removal (was Rsp4)

· Public swimming pools (SQ)

Services that only need to comply with general standards

· Acupuncture (was licensing with specific standards)

· Branding (New, SQ)

· Fibroblast therapy (New, SQ)

· IV drips / infusion therapy (New, SQ)

· Needleless dermal filler injections (New, SQ)

· Non-surgical butt lifts (New, SQ)

· Vampire facials (New, SQ)

Services that must comply with specific standards

· Beauty treatments that pierce the skin (SQ)

· Body piercing (SQ)

· Electrolysis, red vein treatment, needling (SQ)

· Pulsed light / laser treatment (SQ)

· Scarification (New, was Rsp4 – Licensing with general standards

· Sunbeds (SQ)

· Tattooing (with exemptions) (SQ)

26. The services assessment shows that the current Bylaw framework requiring some services to comply with standards in a Code and others to also be licensed continues to remain appropriate.

27. This means the option to amend (Option B) rather than replace (Option C) the Bylaw and Code is the most appropriate option.

Staff recommend the committee complete the statutory bylaw review, endorse the options, and request a proposal

28. Staff recommend the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

· make the necessary determinations to complete a statutory review of the Bylaw; including that a bylaw is still required, and that the Bylaw does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 but could be improved

· endorse the option to amend the Bylaw and Code to give effect to the recommended responses for each service and to improvements to the Bylaw and Code

· request staff develop a statement of proposal.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

30. The Bylaw and Code do not directly address the climate change goals in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan. For example, the Bylaw and Code focus on ensuring that health and beauty services are provided in ways that minimise the risk of physical harm to consumers and service providers, rather than regulating the environmental impact of the equipment and processes used to provide these services.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31. The Bylaw and Code are administered by the Licensing and Environmental Health Unit and impact the role of other council units such as the Building Consents team. Relevant units have provided feedback to the review and suggested improvements.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

32. The Bylaw and Code have no impact on local governance and generally low community interest. There is, however, specific interest in some local board areas in relation to culturally significant tattooing with traditional tools among Pasifika communities.^{^[4]}

33. Based on the agreed principles and processes in the Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, views will be sought from interested local boards on public feedback on any proposal to an appointed Bylaw Panel.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34. The Bylaw and Code support wairuatanga (spirituality and identity), kaitiakitanga (guardianship) and whanaungatanga (relationships) in Houkura | the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Schedule of Issues of Significance by providing regulation that supports promoting a sense of identity, uniqueness and belonging, and that ensures Māori cultural wellbeing is future-proofed.

35. The Bylaw exempts non-commercial tā moko given under authority of an Auckland marae and given in accordance with tikanga Māori. This recognises the status of tā moko as a taonga under te Tiriti o Waitangi.

36. As part of the 2024 review, staff notified 27 marae seeking views on how the tā moko exemption was working in practice and on the Code’s standards for traditional tools tattooing. No feedback was received. No further engagement was undertaken for this report.

37. Staff would seek feedback from mana whenua and mataawaka on the proposal during public consultation to ensure Māori are able to provide their views.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. The cost of developing the proposal will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39. The following risk and risk mitigation has been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
the proposal for public consultation does not reflect the views of the public	there is a low reputational risk that council may be perceived negatively in terms of the review process and engagement to date (for example, being unresponsive to stakeholder views).	Selected consultation and engagement to develop proposal and public feedback on proposal (including online, by phone, in-person and to an appointed Bylaw Panel) before a final decision is made.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. If approved, the next step is to develop a proposal as shown in the diagram below.

41. The proposal will be developed in consultation or engagement with selected businesses, public health agencies and other key stakeholders. This will include targeted engagement with tufuga ta tatau (Samoan master tattooists) on ways to provide safe tatau using tools made of traditional materials.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Statutory Bylaw Review and Options Report for Health and Hygiene Bylaw and Code

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Steve Hickey - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

Regulatory and Safety Committee

15 July 2025

Animal Management update including proposed requested changes to the Dog Control Act 1996

File No.: CP2025/11959

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on animal management activity and seek agreement on Auckland Council’s suggested changes to strengthen the Dog Control Act 1996 to ensure public safety, reduce the number of dangerous dog attacks, and provide councils with the tools they need to act.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The number and severity of dog attacks in Auckland is rising. Over the last year, there were reports of around 1400 attacks on people and 1600 attacks on other animals, with the attacks on people increasing over the last four years by over 10 per cent each year. Roaming and dangerous dogs are impacting public safety and community confidence in many parts of the region. In some areas, residents report being reluctant to walk in their neighbourhoods due to concerns about uncontrolled dogs.

3. Dogs are an important companion for many Aucklanders, and most owners are responsible. However, there are many irresponsible owners who are not taking adequate steps to ensure their dogs are kept under control. They let their dogs roam and do not provide the basic care and training. It is these irresponsible dog owners that are putting the community at risk.

4. The impact of dog attacks on the community is significant. Some dog attacks result in serious injuries requiring hospital care and extended recovery. Some victims are also impacted by emotional trauma from being attacked. In addition, many other pet owners are being negatively impacted as well. There are regular reports of uncontrolled dogs attacking other dogs and cats. Many of these result in severe injury or death to the other dog or cat.

5. Auckland Council is taking substantial steps to protect the community from attacks and dangerous dogs with an additional $5.9 million in Long-term Plan 2024-2034 funding towards additional Animal Management resourcing.

6. Auckland Council has increased its investment in expanding shelter capacity to manage the rising number of impounded dogs, particularly those assessed as dangerous or high risk. In parallel, an Animal Management Action Plan has been implemented to focus on community education, targeted enforcement, desexing initiatives, and infrastructure improvements.

7. The Animal Management Action Plan includes four areas of work:

a) Community education - building the awareness on the importance of responsible dog ownership and to shift behaviours of irresponsible dog owners to prevent dogs roaming and attacks.

b) Compliance - proactive, reactive and targeted compliance and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with the Dog Control Act 1996.

c) Controlling the dog population - desexing initiatives through in-house clinic and partnership measures to reduce the number of unwanted dogs.

d) Shelter capacity - short-term and long-term solutions to ensure future proofing for increasing impounding requirements and the growing dog population.

8. While the above steps help approach the issue with multiple interventions, the threat from roaming and dangerous dogs continues to grow and more is needed through changes to dog control laws.

9. The Dog Control Act 1996 has not kept up with the issues being faced. There is opportunity to modernise the law to protect communities, create more accountabilities for repeat offenders and bad practices, and empower councils with tools to help get the situation under control. Recommended reforms seek to focus on three outcomes:

a) keeping people safe – stronger post-attack powers, strengthened controls on dangerous dog, fencing standards, and mandatory incident reporting.

b) increased focus on irresponsible dog owners – including disqualification powers, stronger penalties, and local flexibility to set infringement fees.

c) controlling the dog population – including tools to support desexing, shortening shelter holding times, and the ability to apply local policies to reduce the number of unwanted dogs based on risk.

10. The proposed changes are intended to support councils to act more effectively and support safer communities, without overregulating responsible dog owners.

11. Auckland Council supports maintaining national consistency in the core provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996, while allowing for local flexibility to reflect different risk profiles and community needs.

12. Auckland Council will continue to deliver on its local responsibilities, but updated legislation amendments to the Dog Control Act 1996 is essential to support an effective response to dog-related harm.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) whakaae / agree that the increase in roaming and dangerous dogs presents a public safety risk and legislative change is required to support more effective enforcement and animal management under the Dog Control Act 1996.

b) whakaae / agree to the proposed direction for suggested legislative reform, which focuses on:

i) keeping people safe

ii) increased focus on irresponsible dog owners

iii) controlling the dog population.

c) tuhi tīpoka / note that Auckland Council will advocate to central government to develop amendments to the Dog Control Act 1996, in partnership where possible, and this work is considered urgent to ensure public safety.

d) tuhi tīpoka / note Auckland Council is taking active steps to address dog-related harm, including additional investment, increased shelter capacity, and the implementation of an Animal Management Action Plan, focused on education, compliance, desexing, and infrastructure.

Horopaki

Context

13. Auckland Council has a statutory role in managing dog-related harm under the Dog Control Act 1996. This includes promoting responsible dog ownership, responding to complaints, and enforcing compliance with dog control requirements.

14. Since the end of COVID-19 there has been a significant increase in the dog population across Auckland, particularly in areas where people are impacted by factors such as limited access to desexing and the ability to appropriately stop their dog from roaming due to insufficient fencing. The number of roaming and unregistered dogs has risen. Over the last 12 months, there have been around 42,000 requests for service to Animal Management, with 16,000 of these related to roaming. Attacks on people continue to climb with around 1400 over the last 12 months and 1600 on other animals.

Figure 1. Dog attack forecast 2024/2025 to 2026/2027

15. It must be noted that dogs are an important companion, and most owners are responsible and take the necessary steps to register, desex, keep their dog under control in public spaces and provide the necessary care. However, many of the incidents that are harming the community are due to irresponsible dog owners who let the dogs roam freely or do not keep the dogs under control in public spaces.

16. The impact of roaming dogs on the community is significant and poses a direct risk to Aucklanders. Many communities do not feel safe to walk in the streets, and there are frequent serious attacks on people and other animal animals. Some attacks result in hospital care and ongoing emotional trauma for the victims.

17. Additional funding has allowed for a further 54 Animal Management staff. This has supported picking up the additional dogs roaming, with impounds increasing by almost 2000 dogs over the last year. Only 12 per cent of the 10,000 plus dogs impounded over the past 12 months were desexed. This highlights the increased propensity for dogs that are not desexed and registered to roam. Over 6000 of these dogs have been euthanised due to owners failing to claim them. These dog owners often obtain replacements and repeat the same behaviour.

18. The increase in attacks, request for services and impounds are putting a strain on Auckland Council’s resources. The shelters are operating at full capacity year-round, and more time is being spent on prosecutions and investigations. This has a direct impact on being able to deal with less urgent complaints.

19. Auckland Council faces frustrations trying to enforce rules with legislative tools that are outdated, such as the Dog Control Act that was set in 1996.

20. A set of proposed legislative changes is presented to enable councils to act more effectively. These changes are intended to complement Auckland Council’s existing efforts to reduce dog-related harm.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. Auckland Council recognises that roaming dogs are putting the community at risk. In many parts of the region, residents report feeling unsafe in public spaces due to the presence of aggressive or uncontrolled dogs.

22. In response, Auckland Council has increased its investment in Animal Management through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, with an additional $5.9 million allocated. Additional shelter capacity is being built to accommodate more impounds and a comprehensive Animal Management Action Plan is also underway, focusing on four areas:

a) Community education – raising awareness on the importance of responsible dog ownership and encouraging behaviour change among owners to prevent dogs roaming and attacks.

b) Compliance – delivering proactive, reactive and targeted compliance and enforcement measures to comply with the Dog Control Act 1996.

c) Controlling the dog population – providing desexing services through the council veterinarian service and external partnership to reduce the number of unwanted dogs.

d) Shelter capacity – developing short-and-long-term solutions to accommodate increasing demand for impounds and housing of dangerous or unclaimed dogs.

23. While these efforts are underway, councils remain limited by the constraints of the current Dog Control Act, which was introduced in 1996. The legislation was developed nearly 30 years ago and does not reflect the challenges of today’s urban environment, including population growth, intensification, and higher rates of dog ownership in areas with fewer containment options.

24. Auckland Council is advocating for improved legislation to support three key changes:

a) keeping people safe – improving the tools available to manage dangerous dogs and responding more effectively when incidents do occur.

b) increased focus on irresponsible dog owners – stronger enforcement incentives to promote compliance.

c) controlling the dog population – by enabling councils to reduce the number of unwanted or high-risk dogs through more flexible policy tools.

25. Examples of the proposed changes to the Dog Control Act 1996 include:

Key change one: Keep people safe
a) Improve the powers to detain a dog after an attack, as in many cases, the dog can be released back to the owner if conditions are met	· This will ensure dogs involved in serious attacks are able to be detained in the shelter rather than being released back to the owner and putting the community at further risk.
b) Reduce the number of dangerous and menacing dogs	· Set an approach to “breed-out” menacing and dangerous dogs in New Zealand. · Stronger legislation with the ability to seize and destroy dangerous or menacing dogs that are not desexed or registered will create incentives for owners to make sure dogs that pose a high risk to the public are compliant.
c) Improve controls on dangerous dogs	· This includes improved controls such as signage on properties and identification of dangerous dogs in public as preventative measures to protect the public from harm.
d) Improve the prosecution process	· Councils do not have powers to destroy a dog that is involved in a serious attack or fine / disqualify the owner. This is done as a criminal prosecution through the district court. · Sentencing on a serious dog attack may take six to18 months. In some cases, this has extended to three years. · Many court sentences result in fines of around $2000 and a destruction order for the dog. During this time, the dog is either kept at home putting the community at risk or in the shelter (if it cannot be looked after at home). · Changes are needed to the prosecution process / approach given the timeframes and potential outcome for the attacking dog at the end of the lengthy process.
e) Provide councils the ability to set fencing standards and enforcement	· Noting each region is different (cities / rural / towns), councils should have the ability to set a fencing and enforcement policy to address the issues facing the region. Enforcement should include the ability to hold the dog in the shelter until these standards have been met.
f) All serious attacks must be reported to Animal Management	· Many cases are not reported to Animal Management, especially household attacks even when this involves medical treatment. · This would enable Animal Management to investigate and take appropriate action to prevent further community harm, especially for vulnerable groups such as tamariki.

Key change two: Increased focus on irresponsible dog owners
g) Enable councils to set an infringement schedule relevant to the issues in their area	· The ability for councils to set infringement fees to support shifting behaviours relevant to the issues in their area. For example, a region that is experiencing a high number of off-leash incidents, may want to set a higher penalty to discourage this behaviour in busy environments or where vulnerable groups may be at risk.
h) Improved enforcement powers against dog owners for non-payment of registration	· Have enforcement powers to incentivise owners to register their dogs. Dog registration is a legal requirement and supports Animal Management in identifying the owner of a lost dog or one that has attacked someone.
i) Improve powers of Animal Management Officers	· This includes changes for obstructing a Dog Control Officer and aligning this with other legislation where this is a criminal offence. · Provide powers of detention like a Fishery Officer. · A stronger penalty for failure to comply with a court order.

Key change three: Control the number of dogs
j) Allow councils to set a policy on mandatory desexing	· The dog challenges facing councils across New Zealand differ. In urban areas, there is a higher risk of dogs that are not desexed and that roam to have unwanted litters. · Councils should have the ability to set a policy on desexing to manage the number of unwanted dogs that is relevant to their area. Any policy should exempt registered breeders or if a dog is unable to be desexed for health reasons.
k) Desexing of impounded dogs before they are released back to the owner	· Councils should have the ability to desex a dog before it is released back to the owner. This will enable a gradual decrease in the number of unwanted dogs and dogs that are higher risk of having unwanted litters.
l) Reduce holding days in shelters from seven to five days	· To alleviate the shelter capacity issues, and the costs to hold unwanted and unclaimed dogs, councils should have the ability to destroy the dog after five days if it is unclaimed, the dog is not registered or micro-chipped or there is no ability to re-home the dog.

26. Auckland Council staff recommend central government adopt consistent national standards but allow local flexibility to different risk profiles.

27. The recommended reforms target irresponsible owners to protect Aucklanders and responsible pet owners.

28. Strengthened dog control laws will also improve overall efficiency in the delivery of Animal Management services to Auckland.

29. Auckland Council is advocating to work with central government to develop amendments to the Dog Control Act 1996 that will support addressing the dog issues facing Auckland.

30. With the current risk to Aucklanders, these changes are urgently required to keep the community safe.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31. There are no implications for climate change arising from this decision.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32. The recommended changes to the Dog Control Act 1996 were reviewed by Auckland Council’s legal team.

33. There is no material impact on the wider council group from this proposal.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

34. Many local boards have raised concerns of roaming dogs and attacks in their areas with Animal Management.

35. The proposed changes would support addressing the dog control challenges facing their communities and give Animal Management the tools necessary to address this complex and growing issue.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. Dog-related harm disproportionately affects some communities, including areas with higher Māori populations. He Whenua Mākurau 2025, the Issues of Significance report published by Houkura, highlights roaming dogs as a significant and persistent issue raised by mātāwaka communities. In these communities, the impacts of uncontrolled dogs include reduced safety, limited use of public spaces, and concerns for tamariki and kaumātua. The report reinforces the need for more responsive and better-resourced animal management services in high-risk areas.

37. Many of the high-risk areas have large Māori populations, making Māori one of the most at-risk communities impacted by the increase of roaming dogs, particularly vulnerable tamariki under the age of nine.

38. Future legislative reform and implementation should be developed in a way that recognises Māori aspirations and supports equitable outcomes across the region.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

39. There is no direct financial implication arising from the recommendations in this report.

40. Auckland Council has already committed $5.9 million in additional funding for Animal Management through the Long-term Plan 2024–2034. This investment supports the delivery of the Animal Management Action Plan, including increased staffing, expanded shelter capacity, and desexing initiatives.

41. The proposed legislative changes do not require additional funding at this stage. However, should the reforms be progressed by central government, implementation may involve changes to operational processes, service delivery models, or enforcement practices. These would need to be assessed as part of any future implementation planning.

42. If legislative reform does not proceed, the underlying issues could worsen, which could require further investment in resourcing, shelter infrastructure, and reactive enforcement responses over time

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. The following risks have been identified:

If	Then	Mitigation
The changes are not made to the Dog Control Act 1996	· The dog control issues will worsen, putting Aucklanders’ safety at risk.	· Additional resources will be required to compensate for the outdated enforcement rules.
The changes are made to the Dog Control Act 1996	· There may be a temporary implication on Animal Management resources to cover unwanted dogs and enforcement.	· Animal Management is working through improvements and options to increase resourcing and shelter capacity.
Councils are given too much power to set the specific infringements or rules on areas such as fencing or desexing	· Councils may overregulate dog owners.	· The proposed changes are to protect responsible dog owners and Aucklanders. Dog control issues impact local communities and this enables councils to set specific enforcement rules, and allows more flexibility based off community feedback.
Councils adopt a policy for mandatory desexing	· There will be an impact on veterinarian capacity to undertake the procedures and many Aucklanders may not be able to afford the cost.	· A policy could be implemented which could phase in the change and support desexing for those in need.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44. If the Regulatory and Safety Committee agrees to the proposed direction, staff will:

a) prepare a formal advocacy package to engage with relevant central government agencies and ministers, including a summary of the proposed legislative changes and supporting rationale

b) provide updates to the Regulatory and Safety Committee as engagement progresses and opportunities for formal submissions or input are confirmed.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Nikki Cripps – Acting Manager Animal Management

Authorisers

Daniel Haines - Executive Officer Maori Outcomes Lead

Robert Irvine - General Manager Licensing and Compliance

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

Regulatory and Safety Committee

15 July 2025

Objection to stormwater works at 18D MacMurray Road, Remuera

File No.: CP2025/12556

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine an objection to proposed stormwater works at 18D MacMurray Road, Remuera pursuant to section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A developer has obtained approval from the council to connect a new development at 127 and 131 Remuera Road to the public stormwater manhole that is located on 18 MacMurray Road, Remuera. This is a shared driveway that provides access to 18, 18D (vacant lot) and 18E MacMurray Road.

3. The proposed works will install an 18.4-metre-long pipe from 131 Remuera Road to the stormwater manhole at 18 MacMurray Road (shared driveway), which will pass through 18D MacMurray Road for a length of 16 metres. The work is estimated to take up to two weeks. Once constructed, this pipe will be vested in the council as a public stormwater asset.

4. The owner of 18D MacMurray Road has not agreed to allow the developer access to their property to complete the stormwater connection. Council-led efforts from August 2024 to the present to facilitate an agreement to access the property has been unsuccessful.

5. A site inspection and assessment for the pipe considered the following options:

· Option 1 (recommended): Extend the public network from the manhole in the driveway of 18 MacMurray Road, through 18D MacMurray, Remuera. (Refer to Attachment A.).

· Option 2: Install a kerb outlet discharge onto Remuera Road. This option is not recommended as it would require a tank and pump due to the road being at a higher level than the site.

· Option 3: Extend the public network from a manhole at 125 Remuera Road via a 93-metre pipe. This option is not recommended as it requires pipe alignment through several properties, close to buildings and existing services.

· Option 4: Extend the public network from the manhole at 12A MacMurray Road. This option is not recommended as it involves a trenchless installation of approximately 85 metres of pipe and a new manhole at 121 Remuera Road. This alignment runs through several properties and would be located too close to the building.

· Option 5: Extend the public network from the manhole at 133 Remuera Road. This option is not recommended as it would involve installation of an 18.3-metre pipe and would require raising the level of 127-133 Remuera Road or a tank with pump as the manhole is located above current site ground levels.

· Option 6: On-site soakage at 127 and 131 Remuera Road. This option is not recommended as it requires geotechnical and civil engineering investigation and is highly likely not to be viable.

· Option 7: Do nothing. This option is assessed to determine whether the developer can find another route or go back and negotiate with the neighbouring property owners. This is not recommended as the developer would need to abandon the project or seek a suboptimal connection.

6. Council staff have determined that the works constitute necessary public stormwater works. Council has issued a notice under section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 informing the landowners of its intention to construct the works as a council project as per option one.

7. The landowner of 18D MacMurray Road has lodged a written objection to the works, on the grounds that:

· installation of a pipe would limit the landowner from carrying out future development at 18D MacMurray Road

· the public 225mm pipeline under the shared driveway is already at capacity

· the new connection would compromise the structural integrity of the existing manhole and contamination risks from the existing wastewater line

· the landowner has not been reimbursed for costs of investigation and participation in the negotiation process and has concerns about future compensation by the developer.

8. Staff recommend that the Regulatory and Safety Committee resolve that Auckland Council proceeds with Option 1- proposed public stormwater works, at 18D MacMurray Road, to manage the stormwater effects of the approved consented development at 127 and 131 Remuera Road.

9. If the Regulatory and Safety Committee determines that the works should proceed, construction will begin in approximately three months (weather dependent). It is proposed that the pipe will be installed by opening trenching. The works will take approximately one to two weeks to complete.

10. It has been explained to all affected property owners that they have the right to claim injurious affection (if established) under the Public Works Act 1981. Note that the developer is required to arrange the bond in favour of the council to this effect and before the works commence.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) kohuki / hear and determine the objections by the owners of 18D MacMurray Road, Remuera according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002

b) tuhi tīpoka / note that the staff recommendation is to proceed with Option 1: Extend the public network from the manhole in the driveway of 18 MacMurray Road, through 18D MacMurray, Remuera and according to clause 1(e)(ii) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Horopaki

Context

11. Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience department is responsible for managing and maintaining the public stormwater network in Auckland, much of which is located on private land.

12. Section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 empowers the council to ‘construct works on or under private land or under a building on private land that it considers necessary for sewage and stormwater drainage’.

13. Such works require either the prior written consent of the owner of the land, or that the council follows the process set out in Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

14. Schedule 12 requires that affected owners and occupiers are provided with a description of the proposed works, including plans, and are given the opportunity to object to the works within one month of notification.

15. If an objection is made, a hearing must be arranged. After hearing objections, the council must then determine to either abandon the works proposed, or proceed with the works proposed, with or without any alterations that the council thinks fit.

Enabling stormwater management on 127 and 131 Remuera Road, Remuera

16. A developer has been granted resource consent by Auckland Council to develop a property at 127 and131 Remuera Road, Remuera. A condition of that resource consent is that the proposed development connects to the public stormwater system.

17. The developer has obtained Engineering Plan Approval to connect the site to an existing public stormwater manhole in 18 MacMurray Road, a shared driveway. The driveway at 18 MacMurray Road provides access to two properties, a dwelling at 18E MacMurry Road and a vacant lot at 18D MacMurray Road.

18. The proposed pipe will cross 18D MacMurray Road to connect to the public manhole, see Attachment B.

19. The Approved Engineering Plan was amended during the facilitation period to accommodate feedback from the affected party owners at 18D MacMurray Rd. The amendment is to include the installation of one additional manhole near to the existing manhole at 18 MacMurray Road, see Attachment A.

20. The proposed works at 18 and 18D MacMurray Road comprise the installation of approximately 16-meter length of pipe (total pipe length 18.4metres from 131 Remuera Road) and one additional manhole, using an open-cut trenching construction method. The works area within 18D MacMurray Road will be fully reinstated upon completion of the works. The expected duration to carry out the work is up to two weeks.

21. Upon completion the new pipe will be vested in Auckland Council as a public stormwater asset to be owned and maintained by Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience.

22. Auckland Council sent section 181 letters to 18, 18D and 18E MacMurray Road on 24 January 2024. On 30 October 2024, the letters were reissued to ensure that they reached the correct owners. No objections were received from 18 or 18E MacMurray Road.

Objection received from landowner at 18D MacMurray Road, Remuera

23. The owner of 18D MacMurray Road, Remuera has not agreed to allow the developer to connect to the stormwater network via their property. The developer applied to the council to engage with the property owners to enable access and adopt the proposed pipe installation as a council project.

24. The council undertook a desktop assessment, supported by site inspections, to identify and assess different options for servicing the development and optimising the public network.

25. Engagement with the landowner began in August 2022 and an email with plans describing the works and seeking feedback were sent to the lawyer acting for the owner of 18D MacMurray Road in August 2022. The owner’s representative responded to the email; however, no agreement was reached and engagement ceased in 2023.

26. The council assessed the proposed works and determined that the works are necessary public works, and that council would undertake the works itself as a council project under the powers of the Local Government Act 2002. The Act allows for public works to be undertaken on private land without the owner’s consent, provided the requirements of the Act are met.

27. Auckland Council resumed engagement with owner of 18D MacMurray Road and the developer in a period from February 2024 to November 2024. However, no agreement was reached.

28. The council issued a notice of their intention to construct the works to the affected landowner under section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002 on 28 January 2025.

29. Following the issue of this notice, the council has continued to communicate with the landowner, however it has not been possible to reach an agreement.

30. Pursuant to schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, the landowners had until 28 February 2025 to formally object to the section 181 notice. On 25 February 2025 an objection was received (Attachment C - Objection Letter.)

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

31. The council has powers under section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002 to construct works on private land that it considers necessary for stormwater drainage. When determining the best option, the council looks at a range of possible options to achieve the required stormwater outcomes for the public good, and at the same time, to carefully balance any impact on individual property owners.

32. The council analysed six alternative alignments for connecting the development at 127 and 131 Remuera Road, Remuera to the public stormwater system (see Attachment D).

33. These options were:

· Option 1 (recommended): Extend the public network from the manhole in the driveway of 18 MacMurray Road, through 18D MacMurray. The works are necessary to enable development at 127 and 131 Remuera Road, Remuera (Refer to Attachment A.)

· Option 2: Install a kerb outlet discharge onto Remuera Road requiring a tank and pump due to the road being at a higher level than the site.

· Option 3: Extend the public network from a manhole at 125 Remuera Road via a 93-metre pipe. This requires pipe alignment through several properties, close to buildings and existing services.

· Option 4: Extend the public network from the manhole at 12A MacMurray Road. This option involves a trenchless installation of approximately 85 metres of pipe and a new manhole at 121 Remuera Road. This alignment runs through several properties and would be located too close to the buildings.

· Option 5: Extend the public network from the manhole at 133 Remuera Road. This would involve installation of an 18.3-metre pipe and would require raising the level of 127-133 Remuera Road or a tank with pump as the manhole is located above current site ground levels.

· Option 6: On-site soakage at 127 and 131 Remuera Road, Remuera.

· Option 7: Do nothing: Council would walk away from the project and developer to continue negotiate access or abandon development.

34. The seven options were analysed against relevant criteria and can be found in Attachment E.

Analysing options for stormwater management on 127 and 131 Remuera Road, Remuera

35. Option 1 is the recommended option for the following reasons:

· the route does not interfere with any existing services

· the location of the works does not affect any existing structures on the landowners’ properties, resulting in minimal disturbance

· the land proposed to be crossed is a driveway and the front of a site which is currently vacant

· the pipe route is the most logical and direct to reach the connection point

· the route does not duplicate existing stormwater infrastructure

· the cost of installation is minor

36. Option 2 is not recommended for the following reasons:

· the development site is below the road level, which requires the installation of a stormwater pump, a substandard solution not supported by the council

· does not align with the Stormwater Code of Practice Version Four and would require consultation with and permission from Auckland Transport

· kerb discharges are avoided as they contribute to accelerated deterioration of the road structure.

37. Option 3 is not recommended for the following reasons:

· the stormwater pipe would need to be 93 metres long (approximately five times longer than option one) and installed by trenchless construction

· the stormwater pipe needs to pass through several properties and will be located close to an existing wastewater pipe and several buildings at 125, 123-121, 117 and 115 Remuera Road

· installation of the stormwater pipe would likely be unfeasible due to a basement carpark and retaining wall at 121-123 Remuera Road that would obstruct the path of the pipe.

38. Option 4 is not recommended for the following reasons:

· the stormwater pipe would need to be 85 metres long (more than four times longer than option one) and installed by trenchless construction

· the stormwater pipe needs to pass through several properties and will be located close to an existing wastewater pipe and several buildings at 125, 123-121, 117 Remuera Road and 12 MacMurray Road

· installation of the stormwater pipe would likely be unfeasible due to a basement carpark and retaining wall at 121-123 Remuera Road that would obstruct the path.

39. Option 5 is not recommended for the following reasons:

· it requires significant earthworks or the installation of a detention tank and pump to convey stormwater uphill into the public system

· planning rules may not permit the level of earthworks required to construct this option.

40. Option 6 is not recommended for the following reasons:

· further geotechnical and civil engineering investigation is required to confirm the viability of using soakage to manage stormwater at the site. There is a high risk that this option is not viable.

41. Option 7 is not recommended for the following reasons:

· it would involve the council walking away from the situation and leaving the developer to continue to negotiate with the neighbouring properties.

· the developer is likely to pursue other sub-optimal options.

Engagement with the landowners

42. Negotiations between the developer and the landowner of 18D MacMurray have been ongoing since early 2021, which resulted in no access being approved to carry out the works.

43. Auckland Council became involved from August 2021 at the request of the developer. Staff engaged with the owner of 18D MacMurray Road and offered advice on the proposed works and attempted to broker an agreement.

44. The engagement process was slow due to Covid 19 interruptions. Council staff had engaged extensively with the developer, the owner of 18D MacMurray Road and their representatives between August 2021 to August 2022. A formal facilitation process commenced on 2 August 2022 (see the attached correspondence log at Attachment F).

45. During the facilitation the council made amendments to the alignment of the proposed pipe installation to accommodate inputs from the owner of 18D MacMurray Road.

Summary of objections received

46. Table 1 below detail the grounds upon which the landowner objects to the works and the Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience response:

Table 1: Summary of objections

Objection Summary

Response from Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience

Future development

The proposed works undermine the development potential at 18D MacMurray Road.

The proposed works are sufficient distance away from the proposed building to not impact future development, as per the plans provided by the owner of 18D MacMurray Road

Stormwater management

Concerns about the capacity of the new pipe to accommodate peak stormwater flow and increase flood risk to surrounding properties.

Staff have assessed the preferred option as being the most efficient alignment for stormwater management.

The capacity concerns will be addressed by the installation of a stormwater detention tank.

Damage

Concern that the new connection to the existing manhole would compromise the structural integrity of the existing manhole.

Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience are satisfied that the new connection will not compromise structural integrity of the manhole.

Wastewater

Concern that wastewater pipe will be compromised or damaged.

Staff confirm that crossing the wastewater line is manageable and does not pose significant risk.

The existing line location will be investigated and exposed prior to the installation of the proposed works.

Compensation

The owner of 18D MacMurray Road has not been reimbursed by the developer for their costs.

Concern that compensation for disturbance and injurious affection has not been agreed.

The landowner seeks compensation from the developer. The council advised both the affected party and the developer to engage in resolving the potential compensation. Without prejudice the developer advised their willingness to pay a reasonable cost. Equally without prejudice the objector advised the possibility of withdrawing objection if a settlement is reached.

Upon meetings and discussion with both parties in the period from March to May 2025, the council advised both parties on the limit of this round of negotiations until the hearing dated scheduled for 14 July 2025.

No agreement was reached to date on this item

Injurious affection compensation has been acknowledged by the council in the section 181 notice letter. The letter provided guidance on an injurious affection claim process. This process cannot commence prior to the proposed works being installed.

Recommended stormwater management option

47. Staff recommend that the Regulatory and Safety Committee resolve to proceed with Option 1: Extend the public network from the manhole in the driveway of 18 MacMurray Road, through 18D MacMurray, Remuera. The works are necessary to enable development at 127 and 131 Remuera Road, Remuera and to meet the council’s stormwater standards. Works are expected to take up to two weeks to complete, and staff will work with the landowners to ensure minimal disruption occurs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

48. Auckland Council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan on 21 July 2020. Some of the key elements of the plan include how we will adapt to climate change, taking a precautionary approach and preparing for our current emissions pathway and the prospect of a 3.5 degrees warmer region.

49. One of the expected consequences of rising global temperatures is increased and more intense rainfall. To contribute to increasing Auckland’s resilience to climate change, the Auckland Council Stormwater Code of Practice Version Four requires all new infrastructure to be designed to deal with these expected impacts and severe weather events.

50. The proposed pipe has been designed to cater for 10 per cent annual exceedance probability (1 in 10-year average recurrence interval) storm events, including allowance for climate change. This has the effect of making the network more resilient to storm events and reducing the likelihood of flooding of properties.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

51. Watercare and Auckland Transport assets will not be impacted by the proposed works if Option 1 is undertaken. Other options will require consultation with Auckland Transport and Watercare to determine the impact to existing wastewater infrastructure and road networks.

52. The pipe, once constructed, will be vested in the council and will form part of the public stormwater network to be maintained by Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

53. The Ōrākei Local Board has not been consulted on the proposed stormwater works, as the pipe will be constructed on private land.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. The developer has not consulted local iwi on the proposed stormwater works outlined in this report. The proposed works are not qualifying to be notified.

55. Improved water quality for Tāmaki Makaurau is a priority for mana whenua. The recommended option will contribute to an effective functioning of the stormwater services.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56. The recommended option is the most cost-effective for the council, as it involves the shortest and most direct pipe alignment. If approved, the pipe will be constructed by the council, with costs of the works to be paid for by the developer upfront.

57. Auckland Council will be responsible for any proven injurious affection to private land pursuant to section 181(6) of the Local Government Act 2002, and the Public Works Act 1981. The likelihood of an injurious affection claim being brought is considered low.

58. To minimise any risk to council which may arise from a potential injurious affection claim, a $100,000 bond is held for up to two years from the developer following the completion of the works.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59. Staff have undertaken a systematic risk assessment. Key risks and the proposed mitigations relating to the endorsement of option one is shown in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Risks and mitigations arising from Option 1

Risk	Likelihood and consequence	Mitigation
Legal risk Objectors argue that this is in fact a private pipe and Auckland Council ought to use section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 instead of section 181 Local Government Act 2002.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Medium	The pipe will be vested in the council once constructed and will form part of the public stormwater system which the council is responsible for maintaining. It is being built to the council’s standards for public stormwater infrastructure and will serve a wider catchment as the area develops further.
Financial risk If the landowner appeals the Regulatory and Safety Committee’s decision, the council may become liable for the cost of defending a District Court case.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Medium	Given that the Regulatory and Safety Committee and District Court’s decision-making discretion is limited only to questions of the works being necessary and compliance with legal process, and no matters of compensation, it is considered unlikely that an appeal would be brought. Even if it was, the risk of the council losing on appeal is considered low, due to the works being necessary, and the section 181 process being followed correctly. If the landowner is unsuccessful in any legal challenge, they may be liable to pay court costs.
Injurious affection The landowner could seek injurious affection (if evidenced) through the Land Valuation Tribunal, arguing that the public works have reduced the value of their property.	Likelihood: Medium Consequence: Medium	The potential for an injurious affection claim is considered medium in this case for the following reasons: · the proposed pipe does not involve the taking of any land · the area affected by the works is currently a vacant construction site and a small part is located within a concrete driveway. The residential homes at 18 MacMurray Road are sufficiently far enough from the works and access may be temporarily affected. The contractor will endeavor to enable access during the works. No impact is envisaged in the long term. · the proposed methodology will cause minimal damage to the driveway and property which will be reinstated upon completion of the works. Council engineers have determined that the risk of collapse or future damage from these works is low. If the landowners are unsuccessful, they will be liable to pay court costs.
Infrastructure risk Low quality assets being vested to the council.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Medium	The works will be undertaken by an approved council contractor who will have in place sufficient insurances to cover the risk of failure.

Risk

Likelihood and consequence

Mitigation

Legal risk
Objectors argue that this is in fact a private pipe and Auckland Council ought to use section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 instead of section 181 Local Government Act 2002.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Medium

The pipe will be vested in the council once constructed and will form part of the public stormwater system which the council is responsible for maintaining. It is being built to the council’s standards for public stormwater infrastructure and will serve a wider catchment as the area develops further.

Financial risk
If the landowner appeals the Regulatory and Safety Committee’s decision, the council may become liable for the cost of defending a District Court case.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Medium

Given that the Regulatory and Safety Committee and District Court’s decision-making discretion is limited only to questions of the works being necessary and compliance with legal process, and no matters of compensation, it is considered unlikely that an appeal would be brought. Even if it was, the risk of the council losing on appeal is considered low, due to the works being necessary, and the section 181 process being followed correctly.

If the landowner is unsuccessful in any legal challenge, they may be liable to pay court costs.

Injurious affection

The landowner could seek injurious affection (if evidenced) through the Land Valuation Tribunal, arguing that the public works have reduced the value of their property.

Likelihood: Medium

Consequence: Medium

The potential for an injurious affection claim is considered medium in this case for the following reasons:

· the proposed pipe does not involve the taking of any land

· the area affected by the works is currently a vacant construction site and a small part is located within a concrete driveway. The residential homes at 18 MacMurray Road are sufficiently far enough from the works and access may be temporarily affected. The contractor will endeavor to enable access during the works. No impact is envisaged in the long term.

· the proposed methodology will cause minimal damage to the driveway and property which will be reinstated upon completion of the works. Council engineers have determined that the risk of collapse or future damage from these works is low.

If the landowners are unsuccessful, they will be liable to pay court costs.

Infrastructure risk

Low quality assets being vested to the council.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Medium

The works will be undertaken by an approved council contractor who will have in place sufficient insurances to cover the risk of failure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

60. If the Regulatory and Safety Committee determines to proceed with the project (under Schedule 12 clause 1(e)(ii)), the next step will be to notify the owner of 18D MacMurray Road in writing of the council’s intention to proceed with the works. The work is proposed to be undertaken within three months of approval.

61. The owner of 18D MacMurray Road has up to 14 days to lodge a further appeal to the District Court. If this occurs, then the council’s Legal Services team will support this process. If no appeal is lodged, the council will proceed with the work as planned.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Preferred pipe alignment
b ⇨	Engineering Plan Approval
c ⇨	Notice of objection
d ⇨	Alignment options
e ⇨	Analysis of options against relevant criteria
f ⇨	Facilitiation report

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Thomas Parsons - Intermediate Healthy Waters Specialist

Shaun McAuley - Manager Commercial and Property

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Resilience and Infrastructure

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

Regulatory and Safety Committee

15 July 2025

Objection to wastewater works at 51 Beechdale Crescent, Pakuranga Heights

File No.: CP2025/12003

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine an objection to proposed wastewater works at 51 Beechdale Crescent, Pakuranga Heights pursuant to section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A developer has obtained approval from the council to connect a new development at 52 Udys Road, Pakuranga Heights, to the public wastewater manhole that is located on the neighbouring property at 51 Beechdale Crescent, Pakuranga Heights.

3. The proposed wastewater works involves installing approximately two metres of wastewater pipe. The proposed pipe will connect to an existing wastewater manhole located within 51 Beechdale Crescent. The work is estimated to take up to 10 days. Once constructed, this pipe will be vested in Auckland Council as a public wastewater asset, see Attachment A – Engineering Planning Approval.

4. The owners of 51 Beechdale Crescent have not agreed to allow the developer access to their property to complete the wastewater connection. Council-led efforts from November 2024 to April 2025 to facilitate an agreement to access their properties have been unsuccessful.

5. A site inspection and assessment for wastewater pipe connections considered the following options:

· Option 1 (recommended): Installation at 51 Beechdale Crescent of a wastewater pipe extending two metres into the existing wastewater manhole within the affected property. This option is the most direct, the least disruptive and connects to the manhole (preferred).

· Option 2: Installation at 54 Udys Road of a new pipe from the existing wastewater manhole, extending three metres within the affected property. This option is not recommended as floor levels would need to be raised in the developed property, infringing height to boundary requirements under the Auckland Unitary Plan.

· Option 3: Installation at 54 Udys Road of three additional lateral pipe connections from the existing wastewater pipe at 54 Udys Road. This option is not recommended as it clashes with large trees and requires multiple large excavations.

· Option 4: Installation at 50 Udys Road of a pipe extending to the existing wastewater inspection point (16 metres), including an additional manhole for inspection. This would require a permanent wastewater pump which is a suboptimal solution.

· Option 5: Installation at 49 Beechdale Crescent of a five-metre pipe extending to the existing wastewater pipeline, including installing a new manhole. This option is not recommended due to the obstruction of a large retaining wall.

· Option 6 – do nothing: This option is assessed to determine whether the developer can find another route or go back and negotiate with the neighbouring property owners. This is not recommended as the developer would need to abandon the project or seek a suboptimal connection.

6. Council staff have determined that the work constitutes necessary public wastewater works. Council has issued a notice under section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 informing the landowners of its intention to construct the works as a council project as per option one.

7. The landowners of 51 Beechdale Crescent have lodged a written objection to the works, on the grounds that they are concerned that the wastewater leakage may contaminate their entire property (see Attachment B).

8. Staff recommend that the Regulatory and Safety Committee resolve that Auckland Council proceeds with Option 1 - Proposed public wastewater works at 51 Beechdale Crescent, to manage the wastewater requirements of the approved development at 52 Udys Road.

9. If the Regulatory and Safety Committee determines that the works should proceed, construction will begin August - September 2025 (weather dependent). It is proposed that the pipe will be installed via opening cut trenching methodology. A trenchless option was considered and found not feasible for a two metre length of pipe.

10. It has been explained to all the affected property owners that they have the right to claim injurious affection (if established) under the Public Works Act 1981. The developer is required to arrange the bond in favour of council to this effect and before the works commence.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) kohuki / hear and determine the objection by the owners of 51 Beechdale Crescent, Pakuranga Heights, according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002

b) tuhi tīpoka / note that the staff recommendation is to proceed with Option 1, extending the public wastewater network from the public manhole located at 51 Beechdale Crescent, Pakuranga Heights, to 52 Udys Road, Pakuranga Heights, according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002

Horopaki

Context

11. Watercare Services Limited provides reliable water and wastewater services to the people and businesses of Auckland and is council-controlled organisation wholly owned by Auckland Council.

13. Such works require either the prior written consent of the owner of the land, or that the council follows the process set out in Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Enabling wastewater management on 52 Udys Road, Pakuranga Heights

16. A developer has been granted resource consent by Auckland Council’s Planning and Resource Consents department to subdivide a property at 52 Udys Road, Pakuranga Heights. A condition of the resource consent is that the new development shall connect to both public wastewater and stormwater systems. The stormwater works are not subject to the objection, therefore not discussed further in this report.

17. The developer has obtained Engineering Plan Approval to connect the subdivision to the existing wastewater manhole located within the backyard of the property at 51 Beechdale Crescent (see Attachment A).

18. The proposed works includes the installation of a wastewater pipe extending for two metres from the existing public wastewater manhole at 51 Beechdale Crescent into 52 Udys Road. The preferred installation is by an open trench method. The construction works area will be fully reinstated upon completion of the works, including landscaping and fencing.

19. Upon installation, the new pipe will be vested in Auckland Council as a public wastewater asset to be owned and maintained by Watercare.

Objections received from landowners at 51 Beechdale Crescent

20. The owners of 51 Beechdale Crescent have not agreed to allow access to the developer to connect the wastewater pipe to the manhole on their property. The developer applied to the council to engage with the property owner to enable access and adopt the proposed pipe installation as a council project.

21. The council undertook a desktop assessment, supported by site inspections, to identify and assess different options for servicing the development and optimising the public network.

22. Engagement with the property owner began on 28 November 2024, and letters with plans describing the works and seeking feedback were delivered to 51 Beechdale Crescent. The affected owners responded, disagreeing with the works. No agreement could be reached.

23. The council assessed the works and determined they are necessary public works and meet the criteria for implementation as a council project under the powers of the Local Government Act 2002. This enables public works to be undertaken on private land without the owner’s consent, provided the requirements of the Act are met.

24. The council issued a notice of its intention to construct the works to the affected landowners under section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002 on 27 March 2025.

25. Pursuant to schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, the landowners had until 27 April 2025 to formally object to the section 181 notice. On 1 April 2025, the objection email from the owners of 51 Beechdale Crescent was received (see Attachment B).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

26. The council has powers under section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002 to construct works on private land that it considers necessary for wastewater drainage. When determining the best option, the council looks at a range of possible options to achieve the required wastewater outcomes for the public good, and at the same time, to carefully balance any impact on individual property owners.

27. The council analysed five options for connecting the development at 52 Udys Road to the public wastewater systems (see Attachment C):

· Option 1 (recommended): install a wastewater pipe extending for two metres from the existing wastewater public manhole within the affected property at 51 Beechdale Crescent into 52 Udys Road.

· Option 2: install a wastewater pipe from the existing wastewater manhole, extending approximately two metres within the affected property.

· Option 3: install three additional lateral pipe connections (six metres) from the existing wastewater pipe at 54 Udys Road. It requires multiple excavations within the affected property.

· Option 4: install a wastewater pipe extending for approximately 16 meters to the existing wastewater inspection point within the affected property. The inspection point would need to be replaced by a new manhole to facilitate this option. The ground level at 50 Udys Road is higher than the ground levels at 52 Udys Road, which may require a wastewater pump for the lower part of the development site.

· Option 5: install a five-metre wastewater pipe within 49 Beechdale Crescent from the existing wastewater pipeline, with a new manhole installed over the public pipe.

· Option 6 – do nothing: council would walk away from the project and developer to continue negotiate access or abandon development.

28. The five options were analysed against relevant criteria and can be found in Attachment D.

Analysing options for wastewater management for 52 Udys Road, Pakuranga Heights

29. Option 1 is the recommended option for the following reasons:

· the route does not interfere with any existing services

· the location of the works does not affect any existing structures on the landowners’ properties (except for a small section of fence) resulting in minimal disturbance

· the proposed land to be crossed is not land that could be developed for housing or other structures

· the pipe route is the most logical and direct to reach the connection point

· the route does not duplicate existing wastewater infrastructure

· the route connects directly to the manhole, which is preferred.

30. Option 2 is not recommended for the following reasons:

· a new fence has been built, and the installation of the new pipe will require removal of a segment of it and reinstatement

· an existing timber deck is close to the construction area.

31. Option 3 is not recommended for the following reasons:

· a new fence has been built, and the installation of the new pipe will require removal of a segment and reinstatement

· a large tree obstructs proposed wastewater lateral connection in the middle of the wastewater pipe

· shrubs and small trees are located around the lateral locations

· an existing timber deck is close to the lateral locations.

32. Option 4 is not recommended for the following reasons:

· an existing wastewater inspection point could not be identified on-site

· the levels at the development site are lower than the ground at 50 Udys Road, which may result in a need for wastewater pump for the lower part of the site.

33. Option 5 is not recommended for the following reason:

· retaining wall presents a significant obstacle.

34. Option 6 do nothing, is not recommended for the following reasons:

· this would involve the council walking away from the situation and leaving the developer to continue to negotiate with the owners.

· the developer is likely to pursue other sub-optimal options.

Engagement with the landowners

35. Negotiations were held directly between the developer and the landowners in April 2024, which resulted in no access being approved to carry out the works. As no agreement could be reached the developer applied to the council for assistance.

36. The council attempted to engage with landowners at 51 Beechdale Crescent in December 2024, by posting a draft business case with options analysis, seeking their response.

37. Feedback was received from the owners of 51 Beechdale Crescent, who objected to the works and refused access to enable the connection proposed at their property.

38. Attachment E shows the council’s response to the objection letter and further attempts to negotiate access with the owners of 51 Beechdale Crescent.

Summary of objections received

39. Table 1 below details the grounds upon which the landowner objects to the works and Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience response:

Table 1: Summary of objections

Objection summary

Response from Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience

Leakage

Our main concern regarding this project is that the manhole in our property is about three meters above the rest of the property. Therefore, any leakage is likely to contaminate our entire property.

This concern pertains to existing manholes, and the new connection would not increase this risk further.

Watercare has given Engineering Plan Approval which assessed network capacity.

Capacity constraints

“We wish you to draw your attention to the press release of Watercare regarding the limitations of the existing wastewater system in Pakuranga and Pakuranga Heights area and their suggestion of not allowing subdivision of the properties till new wastewater network is constructed in these areas (article by Nikki Preston dated 17 December 2024 in OneRoof. If you wish, I can send you the article and the map showing wastewater network constraints).”

Watercare assessed and gave Engineering Plan Approval for the works. Noting that the Watercare approval process takes into account capacity constraints.

Alternative option

“We request you to consider connecting the wastewater drainage of the 52 Udys Road property to [the] gently sloping wastewater network which is available on the Udys Road properties (which would have been the original way of connection to the past property).”

Several options have been analysed including the option along Uyds Road.

However, Option 1 is recommended as it is the most efficient for meeting both constructability and operational requirements.

Recommended wastewater management option

40. Staff recommend the Regulatory and Safety Committee resolve to proceed with Option 1: The installation of a wastewater pipe extending for two metres to the existing wastewater manhole within 51 Beechdale Crescent to connect 52 Udys Road, Pakuranga Heights to the wastewater network.

41. The works are necessary to enable development at 52 Udys Road, Pakuranga Heights and to meet Watercare’s wastewater requirements. Works will take up to 10 days and include removal of a short segment of fencing to access the works area from 52 Udys Road into 51 Beechdale Crescent, an open cut excavation, and reinstatement of the works area.

42. The contractor will keep noise and vibrations form machinery within allowable limits. Staff will work with the landowners to ensure minimal disruption occurs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

43. Auckland Council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan on 21 July 2020. Some of the key elements of the plan include how we will adapt to climate change, taking a precautionary approach and preparing for our current emissions pathway and the prospect of a 3.5 degrees warmer region.

44. The recommended option is in line with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri 2020 and the action to “reduce infrastructure carbon for water and wastewater assets and build their resilience in line with the latest climate projections.”

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

45. Watercare assets will be impacted by the proposed works and works will be carried out to comply with Option 1 the Engineering Plan Approval (see Attachment A).

46. Once constructed, the pipe will be vested to form part of the public wastewater network, which is owned and maintained by Watercare.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

47. The Howick Local Board has not been consulted on the proposed wastewater works, as the pipe will be constructed on private land.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

48. The developer has not consulted local iwi on the proposed wastewater works outlined in this report, as it is not required.

49. Improved water quality for Tāmaki Makaurau is a priority for mana whenua. The recommended option will contribute to adequate wastewater services in the area, hence reducing the impact of the development on water quality.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50. The recommended option is the most cost effective for the council, as it involves the most direct pipe alignment. If approved, the pipe will be constructed by the council, with costs of the works to be paid for by the developer upfront.

51. The council will be responsible for any proven injurious affection to private land pursuant to section 181(6) of the Local Government Act 2002, and the Public Works Act 1981. The likelihood of an injurious affection claim being brought is considered low.

52. To minimise any risk to council which may arise from a potential injurious affection claim, a $100,000 bond is held for up to two years from the developer following the completion of the works.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

53. Staff have undertaken a systematic risk assessment. Key risks and proposed mitigations relating to the endorsement of option one is shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Risks and mitigations arising from Option 1

Risk

Likelihood and consequence

Mitigation

Construction risks

Low quality assets being vested to the council/ Watercare and/or impact being sustained to the adjacent properties

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Medium

The work will be undertaken by an approved council contractor who will undertake the works to the appropriate standard.

The contractor will reinstate and remediate the properties, as far as practicable, to their pre-works condition. The contractor will have the appropriate insurances in place and the council remains responsible for any substantial injurious affected sustained.

In addition, the works will be supervised by the council and signed off by Watercare, to ensure the contractor meets the council’s requirements.

Financial risk

If the landowner appeals the Regulatory and Safety Committee’s decision, the council may become liable for the cost of defending a District Court case.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Medium

Even if it was appealed, the risk of the council losing on appeal is considered low, due to the works being necessary, and the section 181 process being followed correctly.

If the landowner is unsuccessful in any legal challenge, they may be liable to pay court costs.

Injurious affection

The landowner could seek injurious affection (if evidenced) through the Land Valuation Tribunal.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Low

The potential for an injurious affection claim is considered low in this case for the following reasons: the proposed works are minor in nature and are unlikely to cause any significant impact that would justify such claim.

Infrastructure risk

Low quality assets being vested to the council.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Medium

The work will be undertaken by an approved council contractor who will have in place sufficient insurances to cover the risk of failure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54. If the Regulatory and Safety Committee determines to proceed with the project (under Schedule 12 clause 1(e)(ii)), the next step will be to notify the landowner in writing of the council’s intention to proceed with the works. The work is proposed to be undertaken in August – September 2025.

55. The landowner has up to 14 days to lodge a further appeal to the District Court. If this occurs, then the council’s Legal Services team will support this process. If no appeal is lodged, the council would look to proceed with the works August – September 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Engineering plan approval
b ⇨	Objection recieved from landowners
c ⇨	Wastewater alignment options
d ⇨	Analysis of options
e ⇨	Engagement records

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Thomas Parsons - Intermediate Health Waters Specialist

Shaun McAuley - Manager Commercial and Property

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Resilience and Infrastructure

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Regulatory and Safety Committee Forward Work Programme - 15 July 2025
b	City Centre Community Safety Plan Update - 1 January to 31 March 2025
c	Hearings held, hearing panels and hearing outcomes July 2024 – June 2025

[1] Note: The term ‘health and beauty services’ is used to describe the majority of activities regulated in the Bylaw and Code. However, there are some services that arguably do not fit within this term that are also regulated. For example, birthing pools and commercial sexual services.

[2] Note: The options report excludes tatau (Samoan tattooing using traditional tools) because further engagement with tufuga ta tatau (Samoan master tattooists) is required. See Next Steps.

[3] See Appendix 1 of Attachment A for full list.

[4] For example, the Chair of the Māngere-Otahuhu Local Board presented to the Governing Body in November 2018 to advocate for an exemption for tufuga and further engagement with the Samoan community.

Chairperson	Cr Josephine Bartley
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Lotu Fuli
Members	Houkura Member Edward Ashby
	Houkura Member Ngarimu Blair
	Cr Julie Fairey
	Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM
	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Kerrin Leoni
	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
Ex-officio	Mayor Wayne Brown
	Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP

Resolution Number	Item	Status
RSCCC/2025/28	Adopt the draft Stormwater Code of Practice Version 4 as a control under Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015 / Stormwater Bylaw 2015	The Stormwater Code of Practice Version 4, is now online and has been operational from 1 July 2025 as a control under the Auckland Council Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015 / Stormwater Bylaw 2015.

Date	Subject
25/06/2025	Update on the City Centre Community Safety Plan for the period 1 January to 31 March 2025
30/06/2025	Hearings held, hearing panels and hearing outcomes July 2024 – June 2025

Author	Phoebe Chiquet-Kaan - Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Rachel Kelleher - Director Community