Wall built to protect billionaire’s house from eroding into sea deemed illegal

Wednesday, 10 June 2026

The 114m-long seawall was built along the toe of the cliffs beneath the home of Berridge Spencer and three adjoining properties owned by his company.

Billionaire Berridge Spencer has lost a legal dispute with Auckland Council after building a 114-metre rock masonry seawall at Stanley Point without a building consent.

The council issued a Notice to Fix ordering the wall's removal or compliance, stating that seawalls are not exempt from mandatory building regulations.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment rejected the company's appeal, ruling the permanent, engineered structure legally constitutes a building.

A 114m seawall built by a billionaire to protect his eroding Auckland property was constructed without a building consent, leading to a dispute with the council which the billionaire has lost.

Berridge Spencer’s company, Point Seventy Ltd, was granted resource consent by Auckland Council in December 2024 to construct a rock masonry seawall at the foot of cliffs beneath four properties in Stanley Point.

The 114m seawall was built along the toe of the cliffs beneath the home of Berridge Spencer and three other properties owned by his company.

The four properties are owned by the company and Spencer is listed as residing in one of them. Their combined rateable value is more than $26 million.

Spencer is on NBR’s Rich List with an estimated wealth of $1b, and is the son of the late John Spencer, a paper magnate who was once New Zealand’s richest man.

When Spencer’s company applied for resource consent for the seawall it submitted a coastal expert’s assessment which stated that unless the cliffs were protected, coastal erosion would result in the top of the cliff regressing between 18m and 27m and, if unaddressed, would reach Spencer’s house within 50 years.

The seawall under construction in December last year.

The seawall was to be at the foot of an 8-9m cliff to prevent erosion from wave action.

The toe of the cliffs is in the Common Marine and Coastal Area and is accessible to the public.

The wall was designed by a chartered engineer, with plans to consist of a foundation, facing, cemented mass of stone/rock, drainage and capping.

A coastal expert’s assessment stated that unless the cliffs were protected, coastal erosion would result in the top of the cliff regressing between 18m and 27m and, if unaddressed, would reach Spencer’s house within 50 years.

Work on the wall began in late 2025. It varied in height between 3.6m and 4.1m, with a foundation about 1.2m wide.

Council staff visited the site several times during construction.

In January the council issued the company a Notice to Fix because the seawall did not have a building consent.

The toe of the cliff is prone to erosion.

The construction of a seawall, like any structure, requires both a resource consent (which considers how an activity will affect the environment and community) and a building consent (which considers whether the structure is structurally sound and safe).

The Notice to Fix informed the company that it would have to remove the wall (and that its removal may require a building consent), or it would have to pursue another legal option, such as applying for a Certificate of Acceptance (which would involve the council assessing the seawall and verifying it complied with the Building Code).

The company disputed that a building consent was required. The council disagreed, so the company went to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for a determination on the matter.

The company told the ministry that the wall was a very simple combination of parts and therefore did not have the level of complexity required to meet the test for a “structure”.

The council disagreed, saying the seawall met the legal definition of a “building” because it was permanent and immovable, was a structure of constituent parts and complexity, and was “a substantial, engineered structure, designed to support a surcharge”.

In a determination reached this month, the ministry’s lead determinations specialist, Peta Herd, said that previous determinations had established that for something to be considered a “structure” it must have some elements or constituent parts, and/or be of some complexity.

She said the seawall was “a permanent, substantial, continuous construction” consisting of various parts, with “a level of complexity in terms of its structural design and function” and therefore it was a structure and, for the purposes of the Building Act, it was a building.

Herd said the Act stated that: “A person must not carry out any building work except in accordance with a building consent,” and seawalls were not exempt from this requirement.

Constructing the seawall without a building consent was a contravention of the Act and the council had acted appropriately by issuing the Notice to Fix, she said in her determination.

A council spokesperson said the council was unable to comment until an appeal period had expired later this month.

Spencer was not available for comment.