Editorial: Bad neighbour bylaw will be hard to enforce

Nobody wants to live beside an unkempt property that has become a private dump and breeding ground for pests and vermin. Photo / Thinkstock

Opinion

The idea that your home is your castle has never been entirely true. Urban plans restrict development of private property and neighbours also have rights if the property is neglected. The Auckland Council is considering a draft bylaw that will give it the power to order owners to clean up overgrown sections or derelict buildings that may present a health hazard to the neighbourhood.

The draft has been adopted by the council's by-laws committee and now goes to the full council to approve for public consultation. While it may mean more intrusive powers for council officers, it would be surprising if many people object.

Nobody wants to live beside an unkempt property that has become a private dump and breeding ground for pests and vermin.

It may be a surprise to most Aucklanders that the council receives more complaints about overgrown sections than it receives on any other subject except signage. A survey of 4000 residents in February found a third of them were concerned about an overgrown section in their locality in the past year. Bylaws against this form of nuisance are already in force on the isthmus and the North Shore, a legacy of their previous local government. In recent years there have been 1768 complaints about overgrown sections on the isthmus and 260 on North Shore.

Those bylaws will lapse in October unless they are confirmed by the Auckland Council. It proposes to consolidate them with an animal and pest control bylaw of the former Manukau City Council and impose a comprehensive rule across the city against nuisances and health risks on private property.

Many might wish the bylaw would go further than the council proposes. It will not apply to visual "amenity" damage. It will not be enough to complain that an overgrown section or its dilapidated house are an eyesore, detracting from the appearance of the street. The long grass, rubbish, abandoned vehicles and the like will need to be harbouring rats or other vermin, or emitting offensive odours or effluent on neighbours.

The Local Government Act does not allow councils to regulate unkempt private property purely because it is ugly. Owners are free to let weeds grow as wild as they like and to live in ramshackle houses if they want to, so long as these do not present a fire hazard or a health risk. It may be hard to complain of a fire risk unless the house is abandoned and used by street kids or transients, easier to argue the property is a health risk, especially if the occupant is feeding a large number of cats, fowl or feral creatures, or leaving organic rubbish lying around that will attract rats.

Writing a reasonable bylaw is always easier than enforcing it. Complaints will be investigated by a council officer who, if they are found justified, will ask the property owner to voluntarily remove the cause of the nuisance within a reasonable time. If the owner does not comply, it is not clear what the council can do. If it has to clean up the property itself, the council must add the cost to the owner's rates. At least a consistent bylaw for the entire city will mean no neighbourhood need tolerate squalor.