The handling of covenants is legally set out in the Property Law Act 2007 - subpart 5
Section 317 sets out how Court may modify or extinguish easement or covenant
(1) On an application (made and served in accordance with section 316) for an order under this section, a court may, by order, modify or extinguish (wholly or in part) the easement or covenant to which the application relates (the easement or covenant) if satisfied that—
(a) the easement or covenant ought to be modified or extinguished (wholly or in part) because of a change since its creation in all or any of the following:
(i) the nature or extent of the use being made of the benefited land, the burdened land, or both:
(ii) the character of the neighbourhood:
(iii) any other circumstance the court considers relevant; or
(b) the continuation in force of the easement or covenant in its existing form would impede the reasonable use of the burdened land in a different way, or to a different extent, from that which could reasonably have been foreseen by the original parties to the easement or covenant at the time of its creation; or
(c) every person entitled who is of full age and capacity—
(i) has agreed that the easement or covenant should be modified or extinguished (wholly or in part); or
(ii) may reasonably be considered, by his or her or its acts or omissions, to have abandoned, or waived the right to, the easement or covenant, wholly or in part; or
(d) the proposed modification or extinguishment will not substantially injure any person entitled; or
(e) in the case of a covenant, the covenant is contrary to public policy or to any enactment or rule of law; or
(f) in the case of a covenant, for any other reason it is just and equitable to modify or extinguish the covenant, wholly or partly.
(2) An order under this section modifying or extinguishing the easement or covenant may require any person who made an application for the order to pay to any person specified in the order reasonable compensation as determined by the court.
=====
NOTES
======
When applying for a covenant to be modified or extinguished, it is the onus of the person applying for the action to prove that there is good reason for the action to be taken. Those benefitting from the covenant do not need to prove anything. A lack of response by a benefitting person cannot be taken as an agreement. Those benefitting however may respond if a court decides in favour of the person making the application.
317 (1) (a) ((ii)
An attempt could be made to argue that subdivisions, elsewhere on PHD that are not under imposition of a similar covenant, have changed the character of the neighbourhood. See Siganporia v Auckland Council 2022.
317 (1) (d) "substantially injure any person entitled" refers to any financial loss arising for anyone currently benefitting from the covenant. With a meeting house this may occur, however with a dwelling it is unlikely that "injury" will be significant. See Chand v Auckland Council 2021,