26 May 2026: New parking system, dog attacks, building issues
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: New inner city parking system coming online 1 July
Enquiry
Reporter sought an interview with Mayor Tapsell about the new parking system that will go live on 1 July
Response
Mayor Tapsell was interviewed and made the following key points:
Why is this overhaul needed?
Community told us they wanted change – and we have delivered this.
The new system is efficient, modern, and provides fair access to parking.
The new machines are a big improvement as well as bringing parking services back in-house so we can ensure excellent customer service.
Encourage people to give the new system a chance, lots of work has gone into ensuring the system is practical and affordable, and we’re always open to feedback.
Some inner city workers seem concerned this is an extra cost on top of at the pump and at home? Any worries it might impact these people disproportionately?
Managed parking isn’t about making money.
Through the new system we’ve ensured a range of affordable options, eg, parking permits. It will cost $11 per week for the most affordable permit and there are still 653 free car parks around the inner-city.
The change is aimed to increase turnover and potentially help hospo, but hospo workers will have to pay while workers who often spend on coffees lunch etc may not be able to now they have to find extra $ for parking? Is this a concern?
A main priority was to provide a financially sustainable parking model.
Any additional revenue from parking will be reinvested.
We have provided new permit options that are affordable.
Parking is also free after 3pm.
Personally believe we’re a lot cheaper than many other districts.
Have to find a balance, in the past when there has been lots of free parking in the inner city this is usually taken up by workers and businesses are then impacted due to there being no parking available for customers.
How important is assessing the data and impact after 6 months to fine-tune it?
We will be continuously reviewing how the new system is being used.
We’ve done lots of consultation and engaged with businesses to make sure we’re getting it right.
Different seasons will impact the way people use the parking system.
Managing parking in-house will also mean we have better access to data to determine if changes are needed.
Was it the intention to try and get people to use other forms of transport?
Public transport sits with Bay of Plenty Regional Council.
We are always encouraging people to think about alternative transport options especially with the current cost of fuel.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Rotorua Daily Post
Topic: Dog attack prosecutions
Enquiry
Reporter who sought information about dog attacks via a formal LGOIMA request said she had contacted one of the dog attack complainants for comments regarding the outcome of her complaints.
In light of what she has said to me, I need to give the Rotorua Lakes Council a right of reply
The complainant is Fiona Montgomerie from Mamaku district whose sheep were mauled by a dog during two separate attacks in October 2024 and February 2025,and believed the dog's owner should have been prosecuted and made to pay compensation.
Here are Ms Montgomerie's comments.
Mamaku resident Fiona Montgomerie, whose flock of heritage sheep has suffered from multiple dog attacks, said she was shocked at the low number of prosecutions.
She is calling for mandatory prosecution for all dog attacks that result in serious injury and/or death.
“People need to know that if they don’t keep their dogs under control, there are serious consequences.”
Montgomerie lost 23 Arapawa Island-breed sheep in 2024 and 2025, which she described as “absolutely terrifying” for her beloved “special pets”.
She said the first two attacks were linked to a dog and its owner, but she was told by the council that the DNA evidence was “inconclusive”.
She said the dog was later euthanised because it had earlier been classified as menacing.But said in her opinion, the owner should have been prosecuted and made to pay compensation.
However, Montgomerie has praised the council’s animal control staff for their support, including increasing patrols in the area following her two complaints.
“But, I think their hands may have been tied by the council’s policies and rules around enforcement actions.”
She aid she was “shocked” and disgusted by how few prosecutions there were in the past 5 years and wanted to see "mandatory prosecutions” for all attacks that result in serious injury and/or death.
“People need to know that if they don’t keep their dogs under control, there are serious consequences.”
She also suggested that some of the dog registration fees could be used to help fund more prosecutions and more desexing of dogs.
My questions for the council are as follows:
Q1.Is it correct that the dog that attacked Fiona Montgomerie's sheep in 2024 and 2025 was euthanised because it had previously been classified as menacing,?
Q2. Was the DNA evidence inconclusive? And if so, why was the dog euthanised?
Q3. What is the council's response to Ms Montgomerie's belief the seriousness of these attacks should have led to the owner being prosecuted and made to pay reparation?
Q4. Did the Rotorua Lakes Council previously partially subsidise the cost of desexing dogs along with the SPCA, and if so, why and when did that cease?
Q5. When did the $11 desexing rebate to reduce registration fees come into force?
Q6 What is the council's response to the suggestion that some of the dog registration fees could be used to fund more prosecution cases?
Q7. Is the Rotorua Lakes Council currently investigating a further attack by two dogs on Ms Montgomerie's sheep earlier this year, ?
If so, what stage is the investigation currently at?
Response
From Stephanie Kelly, Acting Group Manager Destination Development:
Q1.Is it correct that the dog that attacked Fiona Montgomerie's sheep in 2024 and 2025 was euthanised because it had previously been classified as menacing,?
The dog was classified as menacing on 28 February 2019 under the Dog Control Act 1996. There were no confirmed sightings of this dog attacking or killing sheep in 2024 or 2025, and no viable DNA evidence linking it to those incidents.
The dog was photographed on 9 July 2025 at a property where several sheep had been attacked but was not observed attacking livestock. The dog being on the property was not sufficient to link it to the attacks without supporting evidence, such as reliable DNA.
Under the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Solicitor‑General’s Prosecution Guidelines, enforcement and prosecution decisions must be based on sufficient, reliable evidence, including being able to identify the dog responsible.
Animal Control staff spoke with the dog’s owners and the decision to surrender the dog for euthanasia was made voluntarily by the owners. The euthanasia was not undertaken by Council as an enforcement action based solely on the dog’s menacing classification.
Q2. Was the DNA evidence inconclusive? And if so, why was the dog euthanised?
The DNA evidence was inconclusive and did not meet the evidential threshold required to link the dog to the livestock attacks.
In line with the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Solicitor‑General’s Prosecution Guidelines, Council must base enforcement action on reliable and admissible evidence. In this case, the absence of conclusive DNA evidence and the lack of any direct observation of the dog attacking sheep meant that evidential thresholds for further enforcement action were not met.
Following discussion with Animal Control officers, the owners expressed concern about the ongoing situation and the likelihood they would be held responsible for any future incidents. As a result, they chose to voluntarily surrender the dog, which was subsequently euthanised.
Separate to this, the owner was issued infringement notices under the Dog Control Act 1996 for failing to control the dog and for not having the dog registered.
Q3. What is the council's response to Ms Montgomerie's belief the seriousness of these attacks should have led to the owner being prosecuted and made to pay reparation?
Council acknowledges the seriousness and impact of livestock attacks.
However, under both the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Solicitor‑General’s Prosecution Guidelines, prosecution can only proceed where there is sufficient, reliable evidence to establish a reasonable prospect of conviction, and where prosecution is in the public interest.
Ms Montgomerie was advised that, due to the lack of conclusive DNA evidence and the absence of any direct observation linking the dog to the attacks, the case would not have met the evidential standards required for a successful prosecution. Thecost ofprosecution is also significant, reinforcing the need to ensure these thresholds are met before proceeding.
Council did take enforcement action within the available legal framework, including issuing infringement notices to the dog owner for non-compliance with their obligations under the Dog Control Act 1996.
Q4. Did the Rotorua Lakes Council previously partially subsidise the cost of desexing dogs along with the SPCA, and if so, why and when did that cease?
Rotorua Lakes Council has previously contributed to subsidising the cost of dog desexing. In the 2023/24 financial year, the rebate was $10.50, increasing to $11.03 in the 2024/25 financial year. Council continues to incentivise desexing of dogs.
While both Council and SPCA support the desexing of dogs and where possible joint communications, both also function as independent organisations.
Q5. When did the $11 desexing rebate to reduce registration fees come into force?
See above re the increase to $11.03.
Regarding when the rebate first came into force, we would need more time to source that information. Please let us know if you still want this.
Q6 What is the council's response to the suggestion that some of the dog registration fees could be used to fund more prosecution cases?
In this case, the issue was not a lack of funding, but a lack of sufficient evidence.
To date, Council has not been prevented from pursuing prosecutions specifically due to funding constraints. Rather, decisions not to prosecute have been driven by the need to meet the evidential threshold required to support a successful prosecution.
Dog registration fees fund a range of Animal Control services, including enforcement activities. These funds are not restricted in a way that would prevent them from being used for prosecution where appropriate. However, any prosecution must still meet the necessary evidential standards, regardless of available funding.
Q7. Is the Rotorua Lakes Council currently investigating a further attack by two dogs on Ms Montgomerie's sheep earlier this year?
No, this investigation has been closed. Ms Montgomerie was advised of this.
In this instance, there were no confirmed sightings of dogs attacking the sheep, and the DNA obtained was not viable due to wet weather conditions. As a result, the dogs responsible could not be reliably identified, which is a crucial requirement for any enforcement or prosecution action.
Without confirmed identification and sufficient supporting evidence, the evidential threshold required to progress the investigation or take further action could not be met.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: NZME (BOP Times and Rotorua Daily Post)
Topic: Building issues
Enquiry
I'm writing a story about a Rotorua family who have been impacted by a Tauranga building company, CB Built, going into liquidation earlier this month.
The family signed a contract in Jan 2025 for a six-month renovation. The building company stopped works in July 2025 and the house renovations have been left unfinished.
The home owner said work could not continue on the house because of the “builder’s defects” and that the council needed to sign off these defects being fixed before the renovations could be completed.
The property is [property address provided].
- Can the council confirm this is true/at what stage the property is at regarding council consent?
Response
We provided the following information:
We can confirm that a building consent was granted in 2024 and subsequent routine inspections failed and were non-compliant with the consent.
Once a building consent has been granted a number of routine inspections are undertaken throughout the building process. Gaining a code of compliance certificate at the end of the building process relies on passing inspections.
We are currently still in the inspections process
