6 Oct 2026: Sewerage Scheme court appeals, broken lakefront slide

Media: Local Democracy Reporter

Topic: Court appeals relating to Tarawera Sewerage Scheme

Enquiry

I am following up on a media release issued today by the Rotokākahi Board of Control [see attached] regarding Court of Appeal proceedings relating to the Tarawera sewerage pipeline.

The board says Rotorua Lakes Council has filed a cross-appeal seeking to overturn aspects of the High Court ruling.

Could council please respond to the following:

• Can council confirm it has lodged a cross-appeal in the Court of Appeal?
• Which findings of the High Court judgment is council seeking to challenge, and why?
• Why does council believe a cross-appeal is necessary following the High Court's decision?
• How much has Rotorua Lakes Council spent on legal costs associated with this litigation to date, and what additional costs does it expect to incur through the appeal process?
• The board says council's response to the High Court ruling has been to "reopen everything" rather than address the harm caused. How does council respond?
• What discussions are currently taking place between council and the Rotokākahi Board of Control, and does council remain open to a negotiated resolution?

Is there anything else council would like to add regarding the appeal proceedings?

MEDIA RELEASE
Rotokākahi Board of Control
For immediate release — Monday 5th October

Council found to have acted unlawfully, and now wants to fight it all again

Rotorua Lakes Council has cross-appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn the High Court’s findings that it acted unlawfully twice in progressing the Tarawera sewerage pipeline past Rotokākahi the tapu ancestral lake of Tūhourangi and Ngāti Tūmatawera

In August, the High Court declared unlawful both the Council's 2020 decision to proceed with the scheme without engaging the Board, and its 2025 section 87BB notice that let earthworks in the Rotokākahi Protection Area go ahead without resource consent.

"The Council was found to have broken the law, and its answer is to try to reopen everything," says Board chair Wally Lee. "It could have said: we got it wrong, and we will work with you to address the harm of forcing a pipeline past your tapu lake and through your ancestral burial grounds, harm that generations to come will have to live with. Instead it has chosen more litigation."

The Board's own appeal is narrow. It accepts the High Court's findings and challenges only the refusal to grant any real remedy. The High Court said "extremely strong reasons" are needed to decline relief, but then declined it for "good reasons". The Board asks the Court of Appeal to quash the notice as it applies to the surface earthworks, order the Council to reconsider its decisions properly, or return the question of relief to the High Court.

"We went to court to hold the Council to account, and we won," says Mr Lee. "But a finding of unlawfulness with no consequence tells every council in the country that if you build fast enough, the law can't catch you."

The Board says the Council has spent large sums of ratepayer money fighting it. The Council twice sought District Court injunctions against the Board and protesters who were standing against conduct now found unlawful. When the Board raised the need for resource consent, the Council issued itself the notice instead. It then completed the pipeline while that notice was under challenge.

"What the Board is asking for is redress for the harm done," says Mr Lee. "I believe it would likely cost less than the Council has already spent in court trying to prove its actions were lawful. That is ratepayers' money."

The Council's cross-appeal even argues it had other ways to authorise the earthworks that "do not require consultation with any person". That shows where their head is at.

The Board remains in discussions with the Council. "The Council's position is that it only needs to commit to keep talking," says Mr Lee. "Talking is what it should have done in 2020. It needs to put something real on the table."

Rotokākahi Board member Te Whatanui Skipwith says the High Court decision was significant, but the fight to protect Rotokākahi is not over.

Rotokākahi Board of Control v Rotorua District Council, CA 630/2026.

ENDS

Response

We provided the following information:

Following the High Court decision, the Board filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Council subsequently lodged a cross-appeal to preserve its position. As the matter is before the courts, we are unable to comment further.

Subsequent to receiving the above information the reporter asked if we could confirm the date RLC filed its cross appeal and whether a hearing date had yet been confirmed and if so, when. We provided the following information:

We filed on September 24, and a hearing date hasn't been allocated yet.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Media: Rotorua Daily Post

Topic: Broken slide at lakefront playground

Enquiry

Reporter had seen a post on a community Facebook page regarding part of the lakefront playground, specifically a slide, being closed for repairs and requested details.

Response

We provided the following information:

We know the closure of the large slide and climbing structure is disappointing for children and whānau who enjoy the lakefront playground.

Routine inspections identified cracking that made the equipment unsafe, so it will remain closed while our Open Spaces team works with the supplier on repairs.

Some replacement parts are already in New Zealand, while others must come from overseas. We cannot yet confirm a reopening date, but we will reopen the equipment as soon as repairs are complete and it is safe to use.

We appreciate the community’s patience and understand the inconvenience this causes. Signage and barriers are in place to keep everyone safe in the meantime.

The playground equipment was closed on September 24.