Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 30 April 2025

Council

30 April 2025

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Octagon, Dunedin on Wednesday 26 March 2025, commencing at 10.00 am

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Jules Radich
Deputy Mayor	Cr Cherry Lucas
Members	Cr Sophie Barker	Cr David Benson-Pope
	Cr Christine Garey	Cr Kevin Gilbert
	Cr Carmen Houlahan	Cr Marie Laufiso
	Cr Mandy Mayhem	Cr Jim O'Malley
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Steve Walker
	Cr Brent Weatherall	Cr Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE

Sandy Graham (Chief Executive Officer), Robert West (General Manager Corporate Services), Jeanette Wikaira (General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation), Carolyn Allan (Chief Financial Officer), Scott MacLean (General Manager Climate and City Growth), David Ward (General Manager 3 Waters and Transition), Nicola Morand (Manahautū - General Manager Policy and Partnerships), Paul Henderson (Acting General Manager Customer & Regulatory), Karilyn Canton (Chief In-House Legal Counsel), Hayden McAuliffe (Financial Services Manager), Sharon Bodeker (Special Projects Manager), Dr Rula Talahma (Senior Policy Analyst), Nadia Wesley-Smith (Corporate Policy Manager), John Brenkley (Planning and Partnerships Manager), Katie Eglesfield (Parks and Recreation Planner) and Hilary Lennox, Shay van der Hurk and Anna Molloy (Otago Regional Council).

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Opening

Mosi, Andrew and Jensen Pesa opened with a karakia, prayer and song on behalf of the Baha’I Faith.

Cr Carmen Houlahan entered the meeting at 10.04 am.

2 Public Forum

2.1 Wildlife Hospital

Daniel Harmes spoke to his PowerPoint presentation and provided recap on accomplishments of the Wildlife Hospital in 2024. Mr Harmes thanked Council for their support.

Mr Harmes responded to questions.

2.2 Live Performance

Dr Dave Carter and Dr Catherine Hoad from the Massey University College of Creative Arts spoke to their PowerPoint presentation and provided a summary of their research on the economic and wellbeing value of live performance in Aotearoa.

Drs Carter and Hoad responded to questions.

3 Apologies

There were apologies from Cr Bill Acklin for absence and Cr Marie Laufiso for lateness.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Accepts the apologies from Cr Bill Acklin for absence and Cr Marie Laufiso for lateness.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/081)

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda with the following alteration:

That Item S2 – Draft Consultation Document for Local Water Done Well: Water Services Delivery Model, be taken before Item 12 – Sustainability Framework Update.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/082)

5 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

b) Confirms the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests.

c) Notes the proposed management plan for the Executive Leadership Team’s Interests.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/083)

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 26 February 2025

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held at 8.30 am on 26 February 2025 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/084)

6.2 Ordinary Council meeting - 26 February 2025

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 26 February 2025 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/085)

Reports

7 Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings
	A report from Civic provided an update on the implementation of resolutions made at Council meetings.
	The CEO (Sandy Graham), General Manager 3 Waters and Transition (David Ward) and General Manager Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Jim O'Malley): That the Council: a) Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council meetings. Motion carried (CNL/2025/086)

8 Forward Work Programme for Council - March 2025
	A report from Civic provided the updated forward work programme for the 2025 year.
	The CEO (Sandy Graham) spoke to the report and Cr Cherry Lucas provided an update on her presentation on behalf of the Dunedin City Council at the Otago Regional Council appeal.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Kevin Gilbert): That the Council: a) Notes the updated Council forward work programme. Motion carried (CNL/2025/087)

9 Te Awa Ōtākou- Issues and Opportunities Report
	A report from Parks and Recreation presented the Te Awa Ōtākou Issues and Opportunities Report. The report noted that Te Awa Ōtākou (Otago Harbour) was crucial to the cultural, social, and economic wellbeing of Dunedin (Ōtepoti) and the wider Otago region, and faced ongoing environmental pressures.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean), and Parks and Recreation Planner (Katie Eglesfield) and Otago Regional Council Representatives (Hilary Lennox, Shay van der Hurk and Anna Molloy) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
During discussion Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 11.29 am and returned at 11.32 am.
	Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Te Awa Ōtākou Issues and Opportunities report. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (11). Against: Crs Carmen Houlahan and Lee Vandervis (2). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 2 Motion carried (CNL/2025/088) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against

	Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: b) Requests staff arrange a meeting between the DCC and ORC Councillors to discuss governance matters related to Te Awa Ōtākou Issues and Opportunities report. Motion carried (CNL/2025/089) with Crs Lee Vandervis and Steve Walker recording their votes against.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 40 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.09 pm and reconvened at 12.49 pm.

Cr Marie Laufiso entered the meeting at 12.49 pm.

10 Supporting Documentation for the 9 year plan Consultation Document
	A report from Civic sought approval of the remaining supporting documentation to support the community engagement and consultation on the 9 year plan 2025-34. Some of the supporting documents had already been considered by the Council but had been updated to reflect decisions made by Council and feedback received by Audit New Zealand.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham), Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan), Financial Services Manager (Hayden McAuliffe) and Special Projects Manager (Sharon Bodeker) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Carmen Houlahan entered the meeting at 12.54 pm. Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 12.55 pm and returned at 12.57 pm.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Adopts for the purposes of developing the 9 year plan 2025-34 and consulting with the community, the i) Financial information as provided in Attachment A; ii) Significant forecasting assumptions as provided in Attachment B; iii) Financial Strategy as provided in Attachment C; iv) Infrastructure Strategy as provided in Attachment D Motion carried (CNL/2025/090) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against

11 Consultation Document - 9 Year Plan 2025-34
	A report from Civic advised that the 9 year plan 2025-34 consultation document (“consultation document”) explained the Council’s proposals for the nine year period from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2034. It was based on the decisions made by Council at its 10-11 December 2024 meeting, 28-30 January 2025 meeting and 26 February 2025 meeting.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham), Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan), Financial Services Manager (Hayden McAuliffe) and Special Projects Manager (Sharon Bodeker) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Mandy Mayhem left the meeting at 1.53 pm.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Approves the 9 year plan consultation document 2025-34. b) Delegates the Chief Executive the authority to make any minor editing required to the approved consultation document. c) Receives the ‘Independent Auditor’s Report’ from Audit New Zealand. d) Adopts the 9 year plan consultation document 2025-34. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (12). Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 12 votes to 1 Motion carried (CNL/2025/091)

S2 draft consultation document for Local Water Done Well: WATER SERVICES DELIVERY MODEL
	A report from 3 Waters sought approval for the draft Consultation Document for Local Water Done Well: Water Services Delivery Model.
	The General Manager 3 Waters and Transition (David Ward), Chief In-House Legal Counsel (Karilyn Canton), Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan) and Financial Services Manager (Hayden McAuliffe) spoke to the report.
Cr Mandy Mayhem returned to the meeting at 1.57 pm.
	Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: a) Approves the draft Consultation Document for public consultation. b) Delegates the Chief Executive the authority to make any minor editorial changes required to the approved Consultation Document. Motion carried (CNL/2025/092)

12 Sustainability Framework Update
	A report from Corporate Policy provided an update to Council on the progress of developing a United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN-SDGs)-based Sustainability Framework for the Dunedin City Council (DCC).
	The Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships) (Nicola Morand), Corporate Policy Manager – Acting (Nadia Wesley-Smith) and Senior Policy Analyst (Dr Rula Talahma) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Kevin Gilbert): That the Council: a) Adjourns Item 12 “Sustainability Framework Update” until the Council meeting on 24 June 2025 at 10.00 am and not be further discussed at this meeting. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (11). Against: Crs Christine Garey, Marie Laufiso and Lee Vandervis (3). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 3 Motion carried (CNL/2025/093)

13 Proposed Event Road Closures

A report from Transport sought approval for temporary road closure applications for the following events:

a) Hyde Street Party

b) Anzac Day Service and Parades - Mosgiel and Outram

c) Matariki Drone Show - Logan Park Drive

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Resolves to close the roads detailed below (pursuant to Section 319, Section 342, and Schedule 10 clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA 1974)):

i) Hyde Street Party

Saturday, 5 April 2025	5.30am to 8.30pm	· Albany Street, between Grange Street and Clyde Street
Saturday, 5 April 2025	5.30am (on Saturday) to 12.00pm, on Sunday, 6 April 2025	· Hyde Street, between Albany Street and Frederick Street

ii) Anzac Day Service and Parades – Mosgiel and Outram

Friday, 25 April 2025	9.15am to 10.15am	· Church Street, between Factory Road and Cargill Street
Friday, 25 April 2025	10.50am to 11.30am	· Hoylake Street, from Skerries Street to end of cul-de-sac

iii) Matariki Drone Show – Logan Park Drive

Saturday, 21 June 2025

6.00am (on Saturday) to 12.00pm, on Sunday, 22 June 2025 *

· Logan Park Drive, from Anzac Avenue to Butts Road

* Contingency date will be up to 9.00pm on Sunday, 22 June 2025

Motion carried (CNL/2025/094)

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, exclude the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Ordinary Council meeting - 26 February 2025 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). s48(1)(d) Check to make report confidential.	.
C2 Confidential Council Action List Update - March 2025	S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C3 Confidential Council Forward Work Programme - March 2025	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(d) The withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health and safety of members of the public. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C4 Proposal for Recruitment Agency for Dunedin City Holdings Group Directors	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C5 Appointment to Ice Sports Dunedin Board	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act, or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above after each item.

Adjourns the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/095)

The meeting moved into confidential at 2.11 pm and concluded at 4.50 pm.

..............................................

MAYOR

Council

30 April 2025

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Octagon, Dunedin on Thursday 03 April 2025, commencing at 10:03 a.m.

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Jules Radich
Deputy Mayor	Cr Cherry Lucas
Members	Cr Bill Acklin	Cr Sophie Barker
	Cr David Benson-Pope	Cr Christine Garey
	Cr Kevin Gilbert	Cr Carmen Houlahan
	Cr Marie Laufiso	Cr Mandy Mayhem
	Cr Jim O'Malley	Cr Lee Vandervis
	Cr Steve Walker	Cr Brent Weatherall
	Cr Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE

John Farrow and Michael Garbett (Anderson Lloyd) and Louise Green (Sheffield)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

The Mayor introduced the meeting.

1 Apologies
	There were no apologies.

2 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/081)

3 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

b) Confirms the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/082)

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, exclude the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 CEO End of Term Review	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C2 Supplementary Material Report	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C3 – Term Decision	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/083)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Approves John Farrow and Michael Garbett (Anderson Lloyd) be permitted to attend the meeting, after the public has been excluded because of their knowledge was of assistance on the topics to be discussed; and

b) Approves Louise Green (Sheffield) be permitted to remain in the meeting after the public had been excluded because of her knowledge to Items C1; C2 and C3. This knowledge, which would be of assistance in relation to the matters discussed, was relevant because they would be reporting on the item under consideration.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/084)

The meeting moved into confidential at 10.09 am

..............................................

MAYOR

Council

30 April 2025

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Octagon, Dunedin on Tuesday 15 April 2025, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Jules Radich
Deputy Mayor	Cr Cherry Lucas
Members	Cr Bill Acklin	Cr Sophie Barker
	Cr David Benson-Pope	Cr Christine Garey
	Cr Kevin Gilbert	Cr Carmen Houlahan
	Cr Mandy Mayhem	Cr Jim O’Malley
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Steve Walker
	Cr Brent Weatherall	Cr Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE

Sandy Graham (Chief Executive Officer), Robert West (General Manager Corporate Services), Scott MacLean (General Manager Climate and City Growth), and Paul Henderson (Acting General Manager Customer & Regulatory), Jackie Harrison (Manager Governance), Hayden McAuliffe (Financial Services Manager); Jeanine Benson (Group Manager Transport); Abbey Chamberlain (Senior Transport Planner); Helen Chapman (Senior Transport Planner); Jinty MacTavish (Principal Policy Advisor Sustainability); Chris Henderson (Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions) and Karen Gadomski (Waste Planning Advisor)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Apologies

There was an apology from Cr Marie Laufiso.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Accepts the apology from Cr Marie Laufiso.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/085)

2 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/086)

3 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

b) Confirms the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests.

c) Notes the proposed management plan for the Executive Leadership Team’s Interests.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/087)

Reports

4 DCC Submission on ORC Regional Public Transport Plan 2025-2035
	A report from Transport sought Council approval for a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission ( on the draft Otago Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) 2025-2035. The General Manager Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean), the Group Manager Transport (Jeanine Benson) and the Senior Transport Planner (Abbey Chamberlain) and (Senior Transport Planner (Helen Chapman) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Jim O’Malley entered the meeting at 9.37 am. Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 9.47 am and returned at 9.49 am.
	There was an indepth discussion on the submission with changes requested. It was agreed the revised submission would be presented to the 30 April Council meeting for approval.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the draft submission on the draft Otago Regional Public Transport Plan 2025-2035. b) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the submission as required and resubmit the submission to 30 April 2025 Council meeting. Motion carried (CNL/2025/088) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against

5 DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan & Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25 - Q1/2 reporting
	A report from the Sustainability Group presented the DCC’s organisational emissions (for sources with data available) for the period July 2024 – December 2024 , and progress reporting for actions in the DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan and Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25 over the same period. The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) and the Principal Policy Advisor Sustainability (Jinty MacTavish) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Steve Walker left the meeting at 10.12 am and returned at 10.14 am. Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 10.19 am and returned at 10.21 am.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes DCC’s Q1/2 2024/25 organisational emissions, and b) Notes the Q1/2 2024/25 reporting for the DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan, and the Zero Carbon implementation plan 2024/25. Motion carried (CNL/2025/089)

Moved Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Jim O’Malley:

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 10.49 am and reconvened at 10.58 am.

6 Pilot for a construction and demolition resource recovery system
	A report from Waste and Environmental Solutions provided an update on a proposed pilot for a construction and demolition resource recovery system in Dunedin. It noted that the proposal was established by the Environmental Innovation Centre, in partnership with industry, to service Dunedin construction and waste sectors. Approval was sought for a financial contribution towards the feasibility study. The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean), Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions (Chris Henderson) and Waste Planning Advisor (Karen Gadomski) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
During discussion Cr Bill Acklin left the meeting at 11.56 am and returned at 12.07 pm.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Supports in principle the proposed pilot construction and demolition resource recovery system. b) Approves the allocation of $33,000 from 2024/2025 waste levy funding to support the feasibility stage of the pilot project. c) Notes the outcomes of the feasibility study will be reported back to Council to consider whether to support and provide funding for the full pilot project. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (11). Against: Crs Sophie Barker, Cherry Lucas and Lee Vandervis (3). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 3 Motion carried (CNL/2025/090)

Cr Andrew Whiley left the meeting at 12.15 pm and returned at 12.17 pm.

7 Financial Report - Period ended 28 February 2025

A report from Finance provided the financial results for the period ended 28 February 2025 and the financial position as at that date.

The Financial Services Manager (Hayden McAuliffe) spoke to the report and responded to questions.

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Financial Performance for the period ended 28 February 2025 and the Financial Position as at that date.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/091)

esolution to Exclude the Public

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Bill Acklin):

That the Council:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, exclude the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered

Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

Reason for Confidentiality

C1 BIS Report

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/092)

The meeting moved into confidential at 12.35 pm and concluded at 1.34 pm.

..............................................

MAYOR

Reports

Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to show progress on implementing resolutions made at Council meetings.

2 As this report is an administrative report only, there are no options or Summary of Considerations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council meetings as attached.

discussion

3 This report also provides an update on resolutions that have been actioned and completed since the last Council meeting. Note that items on the Forward Work Programme are not included in the attached schedules.

4 The Memorandum of Understanding between the Dunedin City Council and Christchurch City Council as reported in the Action List, is attached for your information (Attachment A).

NEXT STEPS

5 Updates will be provided at future Council meetings.

Signatories

Author:	Lynne Adamson - Governance Support Officer
Authoriser:	Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Open Action List	40
⇩b	Closed Action List	45

Council

30 April 2025

Waka Kotahi / NZTA update on SH88 proposals for the Central City

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The New Zealand Transport Agency is preparing to consult on its Dunedin State Highway 88 project and proposed changes near the New Dunedin Hospital on SH1.

2 This report recommends that DCC notes the consultation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the NZTA is preparing to consult on its State Highway 88 project and proposed changes near the New Dunedin Hospital on SH1

BACKGROUND

3 The New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) is proposing changes to its State Highway network near the New Dunedin Hospital. This relates to the State Highway 88 (SH88) project and parts of the Dunedin State Highway 1 (SH1) project. Consultation on the SH1 project excluding the New Dunedin Hospital area is currently underway until 25 May 2025.

4 The NZTA SH88 project aims to ensure St Andrew Street delivers the safety, accessibility and travel choices people need to move to and from, and around the New Dunedin Hospital area. The project includes moving SH88 from St Andrew St and Anzac Avenue to Frederick St.

DISCUSSION

5 Both the SH1 and SH88 projects aim to provide a significant investment in the Dunedin Central City and the New Dunedin Hospital area.

6 NZTA will present on the emerging preferred options for SH88 and SH1 (Hospital area only) to seek support from Council to take these options for public consultation. These will be considered further and brought before Council later in the year.

7 Most of the proposed changes are on the state highway for which NZTA is the Road Controlling Authority. The SH88 project has identified the transfer of SH88 from St Andrew St and parts of Anzac Avenue to Frederick St as the emerging preferred option. A formal revocation process will be required which involves an agreement between NZTA and DCC to change ownership of the current alignment of SH88 to DCC. DCC will need to agree to the condition in which the road is handed over.

8 Should DCC support NZTA to take the emerging preferred options to public consultation, this would likely occur in May/June 2025. DCC would have the opportunity to submit on the consultation.

9 Following consultation, NZTA will complete both Single Stage Business Cases and put in a funding application for the pre-implementation and implementation work required for the project.

OPTIONS

10 As this is a noting report, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

11 Staff will continue to work with NZTA on both the SH88 and SH1 projects.

Signatories

Author:

Simone Handwerk - Transport Planning Team Leader

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

DCC will have an opportunity to submit on NZTA’s proposal

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	✔

Māori Impact Statement

This report is regarding works being proposed by NZTA.

Sustainability

Not applicable - This report is regarding works being proposed by NZTA.

Zero carbon

This report is regarding works being proposed by NZTA.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report is regarding works being proposed by NZTA, there are no implications for the LTP/ Financial Strategy or Infrastructure Strategy

Financial considerations

This report is regarding works being proposed by NZTA, there are no financial considerations.

Significance

This is considered low in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

NZTA continue to engage DCC Transport staff on transport network matters.

Engagement - internal

NZTA continue to engage DCC Transport staff on transport network matters.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no risks identified.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts identified

Community Boards

Parts of SH88 are within the West Harbour Community Board area, so the NZTA consultation will be of interest to them.

Council

30 April 2025

Submission on ORC Regional Public Transport Plan 2025-2035

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks Council approval for a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) on the draft Otago Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) 2025-2035.

2 The RPTP is the statutory document that sets high level strategic direction for public transport activity in the region.

3 The key points raised in the submission relate to:

a) DCC’s view that a network and service review be included in the RPTP

b) DCC’s view that there should be greater emphasis on the promotion of public and active transport in the RPTP

c) DCC’s view that there should be greater emphasis on emissions reduction and

d) DCC’s recommendations for additional service investigations.

4 A draft submission was presented for Council consideration on 15 April 2025, and amendments following this discussion have been incorporated into the updated submission in Attachment A.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves, with any amendments, the DCC submission on the draft Otago Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) 2025-2035.

b) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the submission if required.

c) Authorises the Mayor or his delegate to speak to the submission.

BACKGROUND

5 On 24 March 2025, Otago Regional Council (ORC) released the draft Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) 2025-35 for consultation. Consultation closes on 2 May 2025. A summary of the document is provided as Attachment B. The full draft RPTP is available from ORC.

6 The draft RPTP 2025-35 will replace the 2021 RPTP. The document guides how Otago Regional Council will invest time and money into public transport for the next ten years (2025-2035). The plan aims to provide public transport solutions that are easy to understand and meet communities’ diverse needs.

7 RPTPs are required to be prepared under part 5 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. Their purpose is to encourage Regional Councils and operators to work together, engage with the public on network design & operation, and to provide information about policies, services, information and infrastructure.

8 The new ORC RPTP will be given effect through ORC’s Long Term and Annual Plans, but at the time of adoption it does not commit to or provide funding.

DISCUSSION

9 DCC staff were invited to collaborate throughout the drafting process of this RPTP, with significant feedback provided at the 50% and 90% drafts of the document.

10 Changes in strategic priorities from Central Government, including a requirement for increased private share revenue for public transport, have played an important role in shaping the document. Examples within the document include discussion on:

a) Increasing the adult fare from $2.00 to $2.50

b) Retaining free fares for 5–12-year-olds

c) Charging higher fares for longer distances

11 Applications by ORC for funding public transport improvements in Dunedin were not successful and have not been included in the National Land Transport Programme 2024-2027 (NLTP).

12 Staff have drafted a final submission in line with current Council strategies and policies and included feedback from the Zero Carbon team, relating to DCC’s emissions reduction targets.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Approve the DCC submission, with any amendments, on the ORC’s draft 2025-35 RPTP

Impact assessment

13 There is no impact on debt, rates or DCC emissions.

14 Public transport has the potential to reduce city-wide emissions, however this submission does not have a direct impact.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· There is likely to be no impact on DCC’s emissions as a result of this submission.

· The principles outlined in the Draft RPTP, and the points raised in the submission align with DCC’s Zero Carbon Implementation plan.

Advantages

· Opportunity to show support and highlight pathways for working with the ORC, one of the DCC’s major strategic partners.

· Provide feedback on public transport provision in Dunedin, which is relevant to the DCC’s strategic and operational work.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not approve the submission

Impact assessment

15 There is no impact on debt, rates or DCC emissions.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· Not submitting on the RPTP would have no direct impact on DCC’s or the city’s emissions.

Advantages

· There are no advantages to this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to show support and highlight pathways for working with the ORC, one of the DCC’s major strategic partners.

· Missed opportunity to provide feedback on public transport provision in Dunedin, which is relevant to the DCC’s strategic and operational work.

NEXT STEPS

16 If Council approves this submission, the submission, with any amendments, will be finalised and submitted to ORC by 2 May 2025.

17 If DCC wishes to speak to the submission, hearings will be held in May, and the Mayor or his delegate will attend.

18 DCC staff will continue working collaboratively with ORC staff on public transport in Dunedin.

Signatories

Author:

Abbey Chamberlain - Senior Transport Planner

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft DCC Submission on RPTP	67
⇩b	RPTP - Summary Document for Consultation	71

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The RPTP helps shape public transport in the city, which is an important part of the transport system. Supporting public transport enables better access for the community, and improved transport outcomes.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Māori as a result of DCC’s submission. ORC are engaging separately with mana whenua.

Sustainability

The RPTP helps contribute positively to sustainability goals of the city.

Zero carbon

There is likely to be no impact on DCC’s emissions as a result of this submission. The principles outlined in the Draft RPTP, and the points raised in the submission align with DCC’s Zero Carbon Implementation plan.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications for consideration.

Significance

The submission is not significant. ORC has consulted extensively on the draft document.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement on the submission.

Engagement - internal

Feedback from Parks and Recreation Services, Events, Zero Carbon and Transport has been incorporated into the draft RPTP, and the submission.

Feedback from elected officials has been incorporated following presentation of the draft submission to Council on 15 April 2025.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards, however they can independently submit on the RPTP during the consultation period.

Council

30 April 2025

Draft DCC Submission on ORC’s Draft Regional Public Transport Plan 2025-2035

April 2025

RPTP Submissions

Otago Regional Council

Private Bag 1954

Dunedin 9054

Kia ora

Draft Otago Regional Public Transport Plan 2025-2035

1 Dunedin City Council (DCC) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Otago Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) 2025-2035. Dunedin is the largest population centre in Otago and an important destination for the wider region. Dunedin has the highest number of public transport trips in the region and is host to multiple key regional services including tertiary institutions and the largest hospital in the lower South Island.

2 The DCC supports the priorities and principles within the document and acknowledges the collaborative approach that the Otago Regional Council (ORC) has taken in developing the document, with DCC and the other territorial authorities across Otago.

3 The DCC also appreciates the support and partnership of the ORC on transport initiatives and acknowledges the ongoing partnership within the Zero Carbon Alliance.

4 The DCC has identified four aspects where we are seeking further consideration within the RPTP.

a) The DCC believes there should be greater emphasis placed on network and service planning in Dunedin, including considerations around school services, the Bus Hub and existing transport infrastructure.

b) The DCC would like to see greater action and emphasis on increasing patronage, through promotion and marketing of the services.

c) The DCC would like to see further emphasis placed on emissions reduction through the RPTP, including investigations into commuter services for regional centres in Otago.

d) The DCC would like to request ORC investigates service improvement options for the Northern Coast, and for the Central City.

Network and Service Planning in Dunedin

5 The Draft RPTP lists Dunedin as a medium-to low-growth city with a mature public transport network, and notes that any changes relating to this network will be focused on enhancing existing service areas. It is DCC’s view that this commentary does not reflect the demand on the network in Dunedin or the potential for further patronage growth, and the RPTP is instead focusing on serving the growth in Central Otago.

6 It is DCC’s view that there should be a stronger focus on network and service planning within Dunedin, addressing the challenges and limitations of the existing network, as well as opportunities for improvement.

7 The DCC has invested heavily in improving public transport infrastructure in recent years. To acknowledge the work undertaken and enable ongoing improvements, DCC recommends a network review be undertaken, to provide certainty about future routes and bus stops.

a) Undertaking a network review would provide a holistic understanding of where changes should be made to benefit the community, and the efficiency of the network.

b) A network review could be undertaken on a route basis, making incremental changes over a longer period, rather than trying to identify all issues on the network at one time. This could be managed through the procurement process when tendering new contracts.

8 The DCC requests the following be considered as part of the network review:

a) A review of existing routes and their timetables, bus stop spacing and utilisation, transfers and options for high-frequency corridors that could be implemented in the shorter term.

b) A review of the Dunedin Bus Hub, to identify potential constraints with location or capacity, with focus on the changes forecasted in the RPTP. As part of reviewing the Bus Hub, the DCC recommends consideration for how timetable modifications may impact operations.

c) A review of how schools are served utilising the existing urban network, and whether there are changes required to timetables, transfer options, or frequency, to better suit the needs of school students. As part of this, consideration should be given to the passenger capacity on these routes, and whether this is sufficient to meet demand.

d) Consideration of whether the new depot on Portsmouth Drive provides an opportunity to implement a new bus stop/transfer point for passengers, particularly in the context of the location of the Edgar Centre to the new depot.

Promotion

9 The DCC notes that there are limited actions relating to promotion of the service across the region. While DCC acknowledges the challenging funding environment that currently exists, promotion of public transport is paramount in growing patronage, reducing emissions, and reducing reliance on private vehicles.

10 The DCC acknowledges there has been a range of improvements for passengers in recent years, and alongside an increase in promotion of the service, we would like to see further development on the real time information available to passengers across the network.

11 As part of promoting public transport, DCC recommends additional actions be included around collaboration with DCC. This is an important aspect of our Connecting Dunedin partnership and DCC would like to see stronger initiative from ORC working with DCC’s sustainable travel team on public transport initiatives – including school travel planning.

Emissions Reduction

12 The DCC sees the provision of effective public transport services as critical to enabling greater transport choices for residents and reducing transport emissions. As set out in the DCC's Zero Carbon Plan, achieving a substantial reduction in the city’s emissions requires significant and sustained growth in public transport use. The DCC is committed to supporting the ORC to develop public transport services that are convenient and attractive (and subsequently used) which will help achieve emission reduction goals. Increasing use of public transport is particularly important in suburbs where residents have longer commute times.

13 The DCC continues to encourage and support:

a) ORC involvement in pre-application and consent processes for major subdivisions and developments to maximise potential integration with the public transport network

b) Planned shifts to low emission vehicles for contracted public transport services

c) Improved connections between modes, including at key transfer locations such as the Dunedin Bus Hub.

14 The DCC requests the following options be considered, which would contribute towards achieving the DCC’s Zero Carbon Plan:

a) Options for commuter services for residents of Ōamaru and Balclutha

b) Options for implementing a Dunedin Airport service, operated by ORC

c) Options for servicing the Edgar Centre, in particular to meet the needs of students travelling to after-school activities.

Areas for Service Implementation or Investigation

15 The DCC notes the extent of the plan to introduce changes over the next ten years through the RPTP.

16 In addition to the options for services aligning with DCC’s Zero Carbon Plan, the DCC also requests the following be considered in addition the planned network changes:

a) Options for a Central City Loop bus to complement existing services, including whether there is scope for this to be commercially operated to increase private share revenue

b) Options to increase frequency of service to the North Coast, including services to Waitati.

General Consultation Questions

Topic 1: Are we focusing on the right things in the plan?

17 The DCC agrees that the focus areas within the plan capture Otago’s transport priorities.

Topic 2: Should we support community transport services in smaller towns and rural areas?

18 The DCC agrees that ORC should have a role in supporting regional community transport services.

19 Dunedin is a primary centre for the smaller towns and rural areas, and providing access to essential services is something important for ORC to support. Currently many people in regional centres need to access healthcare in Dunedin, but have limited transport options to do so, with most people reliant on private transport.

20 Many residents from as far as Ōamaru and Balclutha also actively commute to Dunedin. The DCC supports an investigation into demand for commuter services from these communities in time for the next RPTP.

Topic 3: Should we increase our passenger fares?/ Topic 4: Should we charge more for longer trips?

21 The DCC acknowledges there is pressure from central government around Public Transport Authorities (PTAs) increasing their private share contribution.

22 The DCC wants to work with ORC to keep fares low, which aligns with DCC targets for lowering emissions and increasing mode shift. Fares are a key driver for mode shift, and keeping low fares helps make public transport affordable and accessible.

Topic 5: Should we keep our free fares for children (5-12 years)?

23 The DCC supports ORC retaining free fares for children ages 5-12 years.

24 Enabling and promoting children to use the bus from a young age helps foster confidence with using public transport and is likely to build lifelong habits. Supporting children to travel on public transport can reduce pressure on caregivers, helping reduce reliance on private vehicles at school gates (as an example).

25 The DCC supports ORC standardising the concession discount for youth aged 13-18 years.

Conclusion

26 The DCC appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft RPTP 2025-2035. We encourage ORC to consider the points raised in this submission, to help enable the ongoing growth and success of the Dunedin Public Transport network.

27 The DCC looks forward to continuing its collaboration with ORC to deliver on the actions outlined in the draft RPTP.

Council

30 April 2025

Speed Limit Reversal List to be Submitted Under the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report updates Council on the proposed list of speed limit reversals that are required to be submitted under the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024 (the Rule).

2 The Rule requires Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) to provide a list of specified roads to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA Waka Kotahi) by 1 May 2025 where speed limits must be reversed and in force by 1 July 2025.

3 The definition of a ‘specified road’ within the Rule refers to speed limits set since 1 January 2020 on urban connectors, and permanent 30km/h speed limits on local streets set because there is a school in the area.

4 Staff have assessed all local streets with a permanent speed limit of 30km/h and all urban connectors with a reduced speed implemented since 1 January 2020. The list of specified roads subject to automatic reversal is included as Attachment A.

5 The proposed list of specified roads minimises adverse effects on road safety and disruption to the community and minimises unbudgeted costs. The approach aligns with that taken by other major RCA’s such as Christchurch City and Hamilton City, as well as smaller Councils.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves submission of Attachment A of this report to the Director of Land Transport, as required by the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024.

BACKGROUND

6 Prior to 2022, speed limits were set using the speed limits bylaw process. Under this process the DCC, as the RCA, determined which roads were subject to speed limit changes and subsequently consulted and decided on proposed speed limit changes.

7 During 2021, NZTA Waka Kotahi started consultation on a new regulatory framework to set speed limits which would replace local bylaw processes. Public consultation was undertaken on this for nine weeks.

8 Workshops were run with RCAs across New Zealand and the outcome of this process was the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2022, which came into force on 19 May 2022. The Rule removed the ability for speed limits to be made under a bylaw and the DCC Speed Limits Bylaw was formally revoked at the 8 November 2022 Council meeting.

9 Under the 2022 Rule, the DCC proposed and consulted on an Interim Speed Management Plan (ISMP) that reduced speed limits outside schools, in surrounding neighbourhoods, and some urban centres. These speed limits aligned with the guidance and recommendations provided in NZTA Waka Kotahi’s Speed Management Guide Road to Zero edition. The consultation ran for four weeks, and 188 submissions were received. All ISMP speed limit changes were implemented by June 2023 at a cost of $670,000.

10 During 2023, the DCC proposed and consulted on a full Speed Management Plan (SMP), as required under the 2022 Rule. The SMP proposed reduced speed limits in some suburbs and rural settlements, and in many cases extended existing areas with reduced speed limits that were implemented under the ISMP. The consultation ran for three weeks, and 2030 submissions were received. Hearings were held for three days, with 151 submitters requesting an opportunity to present.

11 Following the change of government, the new Minister of Transport amended the 2022 Rule to remove the requirement to submit an SMP and wrote to councils advising them to halt work on SMPs and to await further guidance.

12 In June 2024, the Ministry of Transport released the draft Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024 with a public consultation period of four weeks. There were no workshops conducted ahead of the release of this Rule.

13 The new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 (Rule) came into force on 30 October 2024 and replaced the 2022 Rule.

14 The new Rule changes the process by which new speed limits are set, as well as requiring reversal of recent permanent speed limit reductions on specified roads. The prescribed speed limit reversal process does not require consultation with communities.

15 The Rule requires specified roads that have had speed limit reductions since 1 January 2020 to be reversed by 1 July 2025. The DCC must provide a list of specified roads for speed limit reversal to NZTA Waka Kotahi by 1 May 2025.

DISCUSSION

16 Through the ISMP, permanent 30km/h speed limits were implemented on local streets in a selection of neighbourhoods to improve amenity and safety outcomes. Many of these neighbourhood areas included a school, which required a permanent 30km/h speed limit outside the school gate to fit with the surrounding neighbourhood speed limit. Many of these changes were in areas where 30km/h is consistent with the local mean operating speed.

17 The neighbourhoods in the vicinity of schools were the starting point due to higher levels of pedestrian access and general amenity. Subsequently, this resulted in the DCC fulfilling the requirement to reduce speed limits around schools ahead of the deadline given in the 2022 Rule.

18 The slower speed neighbourhoods implemented in the ISMP formed the starting point from which the proposed full SMP would progress a 10-year vision for reduced speed limits, in line with the NZTA Waka Kotahi Road to Zero vision.

19 The definition of a ‘specified road’ within the 2024 Rule refers to urban connectors, and permanent 30km/h speed limits where a reason for setting that limit was because there was a school in the area. While many of the areas implemented in the ISMP included a school, the reduced speed limit in front of the school was done to align with the wider neighbourhood speed reductions.

20 Additionally, the definition of specified road in the Rule does not include the terms “outside a school gate” and “road adjoining the section of road outside a school gate” which are specifically provided for elsewhere in the Rule.

21 The Rule generally requires that the RCA must reverse the (previously made) amended speed limit and set a permanent speed limit for “specified roads”. However, the Rule enables an RCA to retain a permanent 30km/h speed limit for a road outside a school gate if that limit was already in force by 30 October 2024, the road adjoining this also has a speed limit of 30km/h, and neither the road outside the school gate or the adjoining road, are a specified road.

22 All local streets that have had permanent 30km/h speed limits implemented since 1 January 2020 have been assessed by staff against the Rule.

23 Based on the review, DCC proposes to retain most permanent 30km/h speed limits outside schools and in nearby neighbourhood streets. This interpretation is consistent with the approach of other major RCAs and smaller Councils when determining their list of specified roads.

24 There are six local streets around Abbotsford School that are included in the attached list of specified roads for reversal. Permanent 30km/h speed limits on these roads would be removed and changed to a variable 30km/h speed limit during school drop off and pick up times. The mean operating speeds on these roads indicate that the reduced speed limits implemented under the ISMP are not having the desired outcome and a variable speed limit with additional traffic calming measures would likely result in better compliance.

25 Staff have discussed the proposed changes with Abbotsford school and have received feedback that they would like to see infrastructure changes and electronic signs alongside the variable speed limits to improve compliance and therefore safety outcomes.

26 Six sections of road identified as ‘urban connectors’ with a reduced speed limit implemented since 1 January 2020 have been reviewed by staff against the definition within Schedule 3 of the Rule, which describes an urban connector as a street that provides for the movement of people and goods between different parts of urban areas, “with low levels of interaction between the adjacent land use and the street”.

27 These roads can retain lowered speed limits due to the difference in definitions between the One Network Framework and the speed limits classification table of the Rule. This is confirmed in the Speed Limit Guidance provided by NZTA Waka Kotahi.

28 In each case, the road environment was assessed to have medium to high levels of interaction between adjacent land use and the street. Reasons for this assessment included the presence of a shared path, community centres, parks, accesses to high density housing, proximity to businesses, and other local amenities requiring pedestrians to cross the road for access. For these reasons the reviewed roads are not included in the list for speed limit reversal.

29 For example, sections of Portobello Road through Macandrew Bay and Broad Bay are classed as an ‘urban connector’ by the One Network Framework. However, these sections of road do not meet the definition of urban connector within the Rule due to the shared path which promotes medium to high levels of interaction between the land adjacent to the road. Additionally, there are amenities such as shops, parks and beach access that promote the movement of people across the roadway. These sections of Portobello Road do not meet the definition of an ‘urban connector’ as defined in the Rule and are therefore not included for reversal.

OPTIONS

30 The DCC as an RCA must comply with the Rule and submit a list of speed limits for reversal. The Rule does not require the list of reversals to be approved by Council.

Option One – Recommended Option

Impact assessment

31 Council approves the list of specified roads to be submitted to NZTA Waka Kotahi by 1 May 2025.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· Due to the small scale of roads listed for speed limit reversals the greenhouse gas emissions are likely to stay the same with this option.

Advantages

· Minimises disruption to the community that would occur due to changing speed limits.

· Minimises unbudgeted costs.

· Minimises adverse safety outcomes that could occur due to increasing speed limits.

Disadvantages

· There is a risk that the list of specified roads in Attachment A would not align with the Ministry of Transport’s intention of the Rule. The consequence of this may be that staff are subsequently required by NZTA Waka Kotahi to re-evaluate the roads subject to reversal.

Option Two – Status Quo

Impact assessment

32 Council does not approve the list of specified roads and the DCC does not submit a list of specified roads to NZTA Waka Kotahi by the deadline.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· If no speed limit reversals are required, the greenhouse gas emissions will stay the same.

Advantages

· Minimises disruption to the community that would occur due to changing speed limits.

· Minimises unbudgeted costs.

· Minimises adverse safety outcomes that could occur due to increasing speed limits.

Disadvantages

· There is a risk that by not submitting a list of speed limit reversals, staff may be required by NZTA Waka Kotahi to re-evaluate the roads subject to reversal.

NEXT STEPS

33 The list of speed limit reversals in Attachment A will be submitted to NZTA Waka Kotahi.

34 The speed limit reversals will be implemented by 1 July 2025.

Signatories

Author:

Maddie Pascoe - Transport Analyst

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	List of specified roads for speed limit reversal	106

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Environment Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	✔

Ensuring Dunedin is a safe city is prioritised in the Social Wellbeing Strategy, Spatial Plan and Long-Term Plan as well as the Integrated Transport Strategy. Safer speeds are one of four pillars under the Safe System approach to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring on Dunedin’s road network.

Māori Impact Statement

The Rule acknowledges Māori as Treaty partners, and that Māori are involved in the development of SMPs and consulted on aspects of the plan that are important to them. Mana Whenua were engaged with during the Interim Speed Management Plan (ISMP). The speed limits implemented under the ISMP form the majority of speed limits required to be reviewed for reversal.

Sustainability

Reduced speed around urban areas and settlements makes it a safer environment to enable more people to walk and cycle. Lower speeds have a positive impact on our city’s carbon emissions.

Zero carbon

Reduced speed limits around urban areas and settlements makes it a safer environment to enable more people to walk and cycle. Lower speed limits have a positive impact on city-wide carbon emissions.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

The requirement to conduct speed limit reversals has not been budgeted for and while co-funding is available, DCC will incur costs if existing speed limits are reversed. A smaller number of speed limit reversals will have significant cost savings to the DCC.

Significance

This decision is considered medium in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

External legal advice has been sought regarding the proposed approach to speed limit reversals. Certain aspects of the Rule have been queried with NZTA Waka Kotahi for clarification.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with the Legal team.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The proposal is the most pragmatic interpretation of the Rule, and while NZTA Waka Kotahi could require staff to re-evaluate roads subject to reversal which would be at a cost to the DCC, there is no significant legal risk.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community boards were notified of the consultation on the draft Rule in 2024 and Transport staff conducted a meeting to discuss the implications. Community boards were encouraged to submit on the draft Rule.

Council

30 April 2025

Submission on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards

Department: 3 Waters

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks the Council’s approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) to Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Authority on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards.

2 The proposals are set out in ‘Consultation on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards: Discussion document’, published 25 February 2025 (discussion document). The discussion document is attached to this report as Attachment B. The discussion document and additional information (including fact sheets, FAQs and technical reports) is available online at: https://korero.taumataarowai.govt.nz/regulatory/wastewater-standards/.

3 The deadline for submissions on the discussion document was 24 April 2025. Taumata Arowai granted DCC an extension of time to 1 May 2025, to allow a draft DCC submission to be considered at the Council meeting on 30 April 2025.

4 The draft DCC submission notes that aspects of the proposals are uncertain because:

a) The legislative foundation for the proposals – via provisions in the Local Government (Water Services) Bill – is still progressing through the Parliamentary process and remains subject to change; and

b) The discussion document does not include actual draft standards.

5 The feedback provided in the draft DCC submission relates to:

a) Consultation on draft wastewater environmental performance standards;

b) The way the proposed standards would interface with the existing resource management system; and

c) Technical aspects of the proposals that the DCC considers require amendment and/or further clarification before a second round of public consultation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the draft DCC submission to Taumata Arowai on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards at Attachment A.

b) Authorises the Mayor and/or his delegate to speak to the submission.

c) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes if needed.

BACKGROUND

6 The Water Services Act 2021 empowers Taumata Arowai to make environmental performance standards for wastewater and stormwater networks. Amendments to those powers have been proposed through the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, which is currently before Parliament.

7 In February 2025, Taumata Arowai published the discussion document (Attachment B) and opened consultation on proposals to introduce wastewater environmental performance standards. The discussion document does not provide draft standards. Instead, the discussion document outlines matters the proposed standards would cover and how they would be implemented.

8 The proposals in the discussion document reflect the proposed amendments to the Water Services Act 2021 set out in the Local Government (Water Services) Bill. They envisage wastewater environmental performance standards setting single, nationally consistent standards for specified wastewater management activities undertaken by councils or their water services organisations. Regional Councils would implement the standards through resource consent conditions as existing consents are renewed or new consents are sought.

9 The intended purpose of the proposed standards-based approach is to create greater certainty for wastewater service providers when planning and consenting wastewater discharge activities. Taumata Arowai and the Government expect this will reduce consenting costs, as well as improve consistency and environmental outcomes across the country. The discussion document notes that the standards-based approach to regulating wastewater discharges is common in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada and Australia.

10 The discussion document outlines proposals for four wastewater environmental performance standards:

a) A proposed standard for wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges to water – this would cover WWTP discharges to both freshwater and coastal waters. It would establish standardised discharge quality limits for seven common contaminants, differentiated by type of receiving waterbody. It would also set out standardised monitoring and reporting requirements. Regional councils would be required to issue 35-year consents for discharges that comply with the standards.

b) A proposed standard for WWTP discharges to land – this would prescribe a consistent methodology for assessing the feasibility of land for wastewater discharge purposes and determining appropriate contaminant loadings. It would also set out standardised monitoring and reporting requirements. Regional councils would be required to issue 35-year consents for discharges that comply with the standards.

c) A proposed standard for the beneficial reuse of biosolids – this would set out a standardised grading system for biosolids and establish controls on how different grades of biosolids can be used. It would also set out standard monitoring and reporting requirements.

d) A proposed standard for network overflows and bypasses – this would enable all existing wastewater network overflow points and WWTP bypasses to be consented as controlled activities. It would set specific requirements for monitoring and reporting of overflows and bypasses based on public health and environmental risk. Wastewater system operators would be required to develop and implement a wastewater network risk management plan.

11 The discussion document sets out a programme of post-consultation next steps. These involve review of the feedback by Taumata Arowai and refinement of proposals before providing draft standards to Ministers for approval. Further public consultation on draft standards does not appear to be planned ahead of Ministerial review.

DISCUSSION

12 At present, the conditions of resource consents for wastewater discharges are determined on a site-specific, case-by-case basis. The consenting process takes into account at-place assessments of environmental effects, and locally and nationally determined resource management objectives and policies. It also provides opportunities for affected parties to participate in the process. The proposed shift to a standards-based approach would be a major change to New Zealand’s regime for regulating public wastewater systems.

13 Based on experience overseas and the case for change made out in the discussion document and associated material, staff consider a standards-based approach could – in principle – contribute to achieving the efficiency, consistency and cost-saving benefits sought. However, staff also consider the proposals are at an early stage of development. Further information is required to demonstrate that these benefits can be achieved without inappropriately compromising environmental, cultural and community values.

14 The key recommendation of the draft DCC submission is that Taumata Arowai undertakes a second round of public consultation on draft wastewater environmental performance standards after the Local Government (Water Services) Bill passes and comes into force and before draft standards are provided to Ministers for approval. Staff consider this would be appropriate due to the scale and significance of the changes proposed, as well as the range of technical matters in the current proposals that require further clarification.

15 The remainder of the draft DCC submission provides recommendations intended to assist Taumata Arowai with refining the proposals and developing draft standards for further consultation. The matters raised are informed by specific circumstances in Dunedin and Otago, and include:

a) clarification of how the standards would interface with the existing resource management system, including how the consenting process would work for DCC WWTPs and how established Mana Whenua and community preferences related to wastewater discharges in Otago would be recognised;

b) expansion of the scope of matters covered by the proposed standard for discharges to water;

c) clarification of the activity status for discharges to water and land; and

d) clarification of methods for assessing the risk in relation to overflows and bypasses.

16 The draft DCC submission expresses general support for aspects of the proposals that relate to standardising compliance monitoring and reporting requirements.

17 In addition, the draft DCC submission expresses support for the proposal to set 35-year consent terms for WWTP discharges and the proposal to provide a consenting pathway for wastewater network overflows and bypasses. These proposals are consistent with recommendations made in previous DCC submissions on regional and national resource management planning instruments and recognise the practical realities of managing complex public wastewater systems.

18 The draft DCC submission concludes by stating that DCC would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with Taumata Arowai and other interested parties more directly as the next phase of the development of draft standards progresses.

OPTIONS

Option One – submit on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards (Recommended Option)

19 Approve, with any suggested amendments, the draft submission to Taumata Arowai on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards (Attachment A).

Impact assessment

20 This submission does not have a direct impact on debt, rates, and city-wide and DCC emissions.

Advantages

· Opportunity to provide feedback on and shape the subsequent development of wastewater environmental performance standards.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not submit on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards

21 Do not approve the draft DCC submission (Attachment A).

Impact assessment

22 There is no impact on debt, rates, and city-wide and DCC emissions.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to provide feedback on and shape the subsequent development of wastewater environmental performance standards.

NEXT STEPS

23 If approved, the draft submission will be finalised and sent to Taumata Arowai by 1 May 2025.

Signatories

Author:

Scott Campbell - Regulation and Policy Team Leader

Authoriser:

Jared Oliver - Planning Manager

John McAndrew - Acting Group Manager, 3 Waters

David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft DCC submission on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards	114
⇩b	Taumata Arowai, Consultation on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards: Discussion document	124

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Environment Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

This report has been prepared with reference to Dunedin’s strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

The draft DCC submission recommends that Taumata Arowai designs wastewater environmental performance standards in a way that retains an appropriate level of opportunity for Mana Whenua to participate in wastewater discharge consenting processes. It also recommends that Taumata Arowai revises the proposals to appropriately recognise established resource management policy positions developed by regional councils together with Mana Whenua and communities.

Sustainability

The draft DCC submission recommends revisions to the proposed wastewater environmental performance standards intended to support environmental sustainability.

Zero carbon

There is no impact on city-wide or DCC emissions directly associated with this report and the decision to approve a draft DCC submission to Taumata Arowai.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report and the decision to approve a draft DCC submission have no direct implications for these plans and strategies.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications directly associated with this report and the decision to approve a draft DCC submission.

Significance

The decision to approve a draft DCC submission is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

3 Waters Group staff have participated in online information sessions on the proposed wastewater environmental performance standards hosted by Taumata Arowai.

Engagement - internal

Staff from across the 3 Waters Group were involved in the development of the draft DCC submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks directly related to a DCC submission on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards are likely to be interested in the DCC submission on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards.

Council

30 April 2025

Update on Bath Street Engagement and Design

Department: Portfolio and Project Support Office

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to update Councillors on stakeholder feedback on the Bath Street design and Rainbow Crossings, following a report to Council in December 2024.

2 Changes have been made to the design presented to Council in 2024 due to the need to remain within the available $1.5m budget. This includes removal of the rainbow crossings, reducing the amount of paving, planting and artistic lighting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Update on Bath Street Engagement and Design report

BACKGROUND

3 Staff presented the draft Bath Street upgrade plans to Council in December 2024. Council resolved the following:

Moved (Cr Mandy Mayhem/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Bath Street Amenity Upgrade report.

b) Approves the use of stock materials from other projects at no cost to the Bath St project in order to deliver a modest upgrade, while remaining in the $1.5m budget set for the project.

c) Notes staff would now develop a detailed design for Bath Street in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

d) Notes that any parking changes associated with the detailed design will be considered by the Hearings Panel in advance of above ground works beginning.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/242)

Moved (Cr Mandy Mayhem/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Council:

e) Confirms the installation of a rainbow crossing or crossings in Bath Street/George Street, subject to budget; and

f) Requests a report on the detailed design of the rainbow crossing to either Infrastructure Services Committee or Council as soon as possible in 2025.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/243) with Cr Bill Acklin voting against

DISCUSSION

4 Following the Council meeting of December 2024, staff have worked on refining the design based on updated pricing from contractors and feedback from stakeholders.

Reduced scope

5 Staff received pricing for the Bath Street design as presented to Council in December 2024. The cost estimate from the contractor was higher than the budget of $1.5 million. Staff went through a process of descoping the design to still achieve a balance between functionality, enhanced amenity, cultural narrative, and cost.

6 The descoping of the works in comparison to the plan presented to Council in December 2024 includes:

· A reduction of the paved areas by around 60% and refocusing paving around the entrances and seating/outdoor spaces opposite the food and beverage businesses

· A reduction in the amount of proposed artistic lighting projections

· Re-use of stock light poles rather than purchasing new

· A reduction of the amount of planting

· Removal of the Rainbow Crossings from the Bath St works (discussed further below)

7 After professional fees, including the original concept design and the updated (descoped) design, the remaining budget for physical above-ground works is approximately $1.1 million.

8 Staff are confident the descoped design can be achieved if no unforeseen ground conditions or delays are encountered (e.g., archaeological discoveries). There remains a risk that should unforeseen issues arise, further descoping of the design may be necessary to enable the project to remain with the available budget.

Public feedback

9 The updated design was included in the February Bath St newsletter noting feedback was sought on the design and inviting those interested to register for an update hui. There were corresponding social media posts on Facebook and LinkedIn.

10 The hardcopy newsletter was sent to 103 businesses and 44 property owners and an electronic version emailed to 55 businesses and 13 property owners.

11 Four written submissions were received. One was opposed to the Bath St works entirely, preferring to see budget allocated to the Octagon. Two suggested removal of the rainbow crossings (but no other changes to the proposed design), and one fully supported the rainbow crossings and Bath St design.

12 Some verbal feedback was given expressing concern over the loss of two carparks in Bath Street, however this did not feature in written submissions. Mitigation for the loss of the two carparks through the provision of additional variable time parking on George Street (outside the Civic Centre) will be consulted on in May.

13 Aside of the cost-related scope changes discussed above, no changes to the design are proposed following the public feedback received.

The Rainbow Crossings

14 Following the December 2024 Council meeting, staff were asked to engage directly with the disability sector and ensure NZTA were comfortable with a revised design of the proposed rainbow crossing.

15 A constructive meeting was held between the project designers and representatives of the disability sector in December 2024. Further time is required to refine these designs and undertake further engagement with the disability sector and Rainbow community to ensure the kaupapa and mana of the project remain intact and that concerns raised by the disability community have been adequately addressed.

16 It is not possible to deliver the rainbow crossings as part of the Bath Street project due to the budget envelope. The estimated cost to install the rainbow crossings as currently designed is $279,000.

17 Staff will continue to explore opportunities to install the crossings when undertaking other roading infrastructure upgrades in the immediate vicinity. An example of this is the planned road surface rehabilitation in the section of George Street between Moray Place and the Octagon, in the 2025-26 year.

18 Once a final design for the rainbow crossings has been agreed with NZTA and the disability and rainbow communities, a report will be presented to Council for consideration. This is expected to be towards the end of 2025.

OPTIONS

19 No options are presented.

NEXT STEPS

20 Staff will implement the attached design, noting further scope reductions may be required to remain in the $1.5m budget if unforeseen conditions arise.

21 A report will be brought back to update Council on the designs and costs for the rainbow crossings, as per the December 2024 resolution.

Signatories

Author:	Glen Hazelton - Project Director, CCP and Major Projects
Authoriser:	Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Revised plan	177

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

Thi This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	✔	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The Bath Street amenity upgrade contributes to key elements of Council’s Strategic Framework.

Māori Impact Statement

There has been a partnership with mana whenua to develop the proposed design.

Sustainability

Sustainability has been forefront in the design approach to Bath Street.

Zero carbon

During construction emissions are likely to increase, but over the long term a more pedestrian friendly central city could contribute to reducing emissions.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The Bath Street project is included in the Annual Plan and the Central City Plan is included in the LTP.

Financial considerations

There is a budget of $1.5 million to deliver the above-ground work in Bath Street.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been external engagement with stakeholders as detailed in the report.

Engagement - internal

The design team has worked closely with teams across the DCC to develop the plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The main risk identified relates to public reaction to the rainbow crossing and the potential for more abuse being directed to members of the LGBTQIA+ community as a result of debate/disagreement around the project. The design team will work with Communications on a plan for releasing this information.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There will be interest from all parts of the city, but no specific matters identified for Community Boards.

Council

30 April 2025

Review of Enterprise Dunedin Update Report

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the work undertaken to date on the review of Enterprise Dunedin.

2 The report outlines the approach being taken to review Enterprise Dunedin.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the content report.

BACKGROUND

3 On the 25th of November 2024 Council approved that a review of Enterprise Dunedin be undertaken.

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

a) Directs the CEO to review the operation of Enterprise Dunedin.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, Kevin Gilbert, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Lee Vandervis, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Andrew Whiley (10).

Against: Crs David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan and Marie Laufiso (4).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 10 votes to 4.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/235)

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

b) Consults with Dunedin stakeholders with a refresh of the previously commissioned 2018 Martin Jenkins Report as part of the Enterprise Dunedin review.

c) Presents a report back to Council by 30 June 2025.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, Kevin Gilbert, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Andrew Whiley (9).

Against: Crs David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso and Lee Vandervis (5).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 5.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/236)

4 Following the Council resolution, DCC auditors advised that the timeline for the report should be extended until 30 July 2025 to avoid crossover with the 9 Year Plan consultation. This was agreed by the Chair of the Economic Development Committee and the CEO.

5 Ernst & Young (EY) was initially contacted to explore the feasibility of conducting the Enterprise Dunedin review alongside the Dunedin Venues Management Limited (DVML) review. The aim was to leverage information already gathered in that process.

6 Whilst EY proposed a comprehensive scope, the associated costs were deemed prohibitive by the Chair of the Economic Development Committee and staff were advised to revise the approach.

Revised Approach – Phased Review

7 To ensure a thorough yet cost-effective review, the scope has been divided into two phases:

Phase 1: Focuses on assessing previous reports, stakeholder consultations, and defining strategic priorities.

Phase 2: Will provide recommendations on governance, operational models, and implementation strategies.

Phase 1 – Scope of Work

8 The consultancy firm My Governance has been engaged to lead Phase 1 of the review. Their key tasks include:

a. Document Review: Analysing key documents such as the Long-Term Plan (LTP), previous economic development (ED) strategies, and relevant reports.

b. Stakeholder Engagement: Conducting interviews with key stakeholders, including Councillors.

c. Issue Identification: Defining critical issues affecting Enterprise Dunedin.

d. Stakeholder Workshop: Facilitating a workshop with a broad group of stakeholders in Dunedin.

e. Current State Analysis: Assessing strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities.

f. Strategic Direction Setting: Developing a draft ambition for the Dunedin City Council (DCC) and the region concerning Enterprise Dunedin, including:

i. Focus Areas

ii. Priorities

iii. Mandate

g. Reporting & Recommendations: Drafting a report with recommendations and next steps.

Phase 1 - Deliverables:

a. Executive Summary

b. Terms of Reference

c. Stakeholder Engagement Summary

d. Background and Current State Assessment

e. Available Options Analysis

f. Recommendations

Phase 2 – Governance and Operational Review

9 Phase 2 will provide an analysis of governance structures and operational frameworks for consideration. The review will cover:

a. Governance Framework

b. Operating Model Assessment

c. Implementation Plan

d. Communications Strategy

10 This phased approach ensures a structured, data-driven evaluation of Enterprise Dunedin, allowing for well-informed decision-making regarding its future direction.

11 Phase 1 is now underway, with initial meetings already held with some of the key stakeholders. A broader group of local and regional stakeholders have been invited to participate in the review, either online or in person, and at workshops scheduled for the 4^th and 5^th of June.

12 Phase 2 will be contracted as Phase 1 nears completion.

13 The final report and recommendations will be presented to Council at its meeting on 30 July 2025.

Signatories

Authoriser:

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships)

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	✔	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua are a partner and will be engaged as part of the consultation process with stakeholders. Te Taki Haruru as a strategic framework guiding Council will be considered as part of the review process.

Sustainability

No implications

Zero carbon

Some travel will be required from the consultants who are not based in Dunedin, however travel will align with other work in the area and consultations will also take place online. 2 trips are planned for Phase 1.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Implications will be dependent on any decisions made by Council following the review report.

Financial considerations

The cost for consultation for Phase 1 is unbudgeted but will be managed within the budget of Enterprise Dunedin. The cost for Phase 2 is not yet known.

Significance

While this report is for noting only the review ensures thorough engagement which will be reflected in the options and recommendations in July 2025.

Engagement – external

A wide range of stakeholders will be engaged for this review, including the business, tourism, hospitality sectors, CCOs, University of Otago, Te Pūkenga, CODE and other local institutions and agencies with an interest in Economic Development and Enterprise.

Engagement - internal

Councillors will be engaged throughout the process including the staff in Enterprise Dunedin and other areas of Council.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No implications

Conflict of Interest

No implications

Community Boards

No implications

Council

30 April 2025

Hearings Committee Recommendations on Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents the recommendations of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) on the amended Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 following public consultation.

2 This report also summarises the requirements under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 for the Dunedin City Council in reviewing its Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020. The subsequent Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 (Draft WMMP 2025) has been informed by the Otago Regional Waste Assessment 2023, stakeholder engagement, public consultation, Dunedin’s Zero Carbon Plan 2030 and the national waste strategy.

3 This report provides the summarised feedback received from submitters who participated in the Special Consultative Procedure on the Draft WMMP 2025 from 30 January to 28 February 2025.

4 In response to submissions, this report recommends a further amendment to the Draft WMMP prior to adoption (Attachment A).

5 16 submissions were received during public consultation for the Draft WMMP 2025.

6 86% of the submissions received were overall supportive for the Draft WMMP 2025.

7 Central Government has released a new national Waste and Resource Efficiency Strategy, which we are legislatively required to give regard to in our WMMP, also leading to recommended amendments to the Draft WMMP 2025.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Adopts the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025, as amended (Attachment A).

b) Approves a review of the Waste Minimisation Grants Framework to be completed in time for the 2026/27 Financial Year.

c) Notes the Summary of Results from Submissions and the Summary of Recommendations from the Hearings Committee (Attachment B and C).

d) Notes that the Hearings Committee has heard and considered submissions on the Draft WMMP 2025.

e) Notes the minutes of the Hearings Committee (Attachment D).

BACKGROUND

8 The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) requires Territorial Authorities to review their WMMP at intervals of not more than six years.

9 Council’s current WMMP 2020 was adopted in May 2020 and was informed by the Waste Assessment 2018 and stakeholder engagement.

10 Council has the option to either retain the existing WMMP without changes, amend the existing WMMP, or revoke and replace the WMMP entirely.

11 The Infrastructure Services Committee resolved to proceed with an amendment to the existing Dunedin WMMP on 15 August 2023 (ISC/2023/035). Following this, a Steering Group including mana whenua representatives was established, and early stakeholder engagement was carried out to inform the Draft WMMP 2025.

12 The first Draft WMMP 2025 was presented to Council on 30 October 2024 and approved for public consultation following the Special Consultation Procedure alongside the 9 Year Plan. On 28 January 2025 Council approved revised consultation dates from 30 January to 28 February 2025.

13 Councils final Draft WMMP 2025 (Attachment A) has been prepared in accordance with the Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) Part 4: Responsibilities of territorial authorities in relation to waste management and minimisation. In particular:

· Section 43: Waste Management and Minimisation Plans

· Section 44: Requirements when preparing, amending, or revoking plans

· Section 50: Review of waste management and minimisation plans

· Section 51: Requirements for waste assessment

The Planning Process

14 The WMMP Steering Group consisting of Waste and Environmental Solutions staff, Zero Carbon staff, mana whenua representatives, and Councillors O’Malley and Weatherall developed the Draft WMMP 2025 drawing on information and data gathered for the Waste Assessment (WA) 2023, Dunedin’s Zero Carbon Plan 2030, and external stakeholder engagement.

15 Four external stakeholder engagement workshops were held, focussing on community and not-for-profit organisations, construction and demolition, private waste companies, and businesses. These were attended by approximately 120 people.

16 Further external engagement was carried out for Community Board members, the tertiary precinct, the Zero Carbon Alliance, two workshops with Councillors (1 August 2024 and 9 October 2024), and a Councillor meeting on 8 October 2024.

17 The WA 2023 followed the process prescribed in the WMA s(51) Requirements for waste assessment, and took a regional approach.

18 For the WA 2023, the most reliable data and information relates to services and facilities provided by DCC. It is more difficult to obtain data and information from private waste service providers due to issues around commercial sensitivity. The DCC data and the available data from private waste service providers informed the drafting of the WMMP 2025.

19 Fit with Waste Futures

The Draft WMMP 2025 complements the Waste Futures programme by containing actions that are part of the Waste Futures work programme such as developing resource recovery infrastructure to create more local capability. The WMMP is a legislative requirement, while Waste Futures is the work programme that is achieving the projects encompassed.

20 The Consultation Process

Media Placements Advertising the Public Consultation

21 Newspaper adverts: ODT 1, 15, 22 February, The Star 30 January, 13, 20 February.

22 ODT Online: (adverts shown in the digital ODT) 1 – 28 February, 124,935 impressions (this is how many times it was shown to viewers), 391 users clicked through to find out more about the consultation.

23 Facebook posts: 30 January, 14 February, 24 February, each boosted for maximum engagement.

24 Instagram posts: 30 January, 14 February, 24 February.

25 There was a total of 26,225 accounts that saw the content over the duration, and 689 engaged (i.e., liked, shared, reacted, or commented). 379 users clicked on the link to find out more about the consultation.

Consultation Outcomes

26 A total of 16 submissions were received on the Draft WMMP 2025.

27 There was good support for most of the proposed changes with 86% giving overall support for the Draft WMMP 2025.

28 The submissions talked directly, or in part, to topics such as transfer stations, rural waste and services, kerbside services, waste minimisation grants, community outcomes and localism. The topics commented on are in the attached Summary of Results from Submissions (Attachment B) and associated recommendations in Attachment C.

29 An overview of topics that the submissions made direct comments to, and how frequently, is provided in Table 1 below.

30 At the Hearings, the Committee agreed to accept a late submission. This report, Table 1, Attachment B, and Attachment C have been updated since the Hearings to incorporate this submission.

31 Three people spoke at the Hearings for their submissions. The main topics discussed mostly aligned with those most frequently raised as shown in Table 1. The Hearings raised transfer stations/resource recovery parks, rural waste and services, waste minimisation grants, and agricultural waste. The minutes for the Hearings are provided in Attachment D.

Table 1: A summary of topics that were commented upon in the submissions received for the Draft WMMP 2025.

Summary of Submissions
Submission Topics	Frequency
Transfer stations/Resource Recovery Parks	6
Kerbside services	5
Localism/community	5
Rural waste and services	4
Waste Minimisation Grants	4
Speed and efficiency	4
Agricultural waste	3
Vision	3
Construction and demolition	3
Liquid Paper Board (Tetrapaks)	2
Advocacy	2
Commercial waste	2
Regulation	2
Organic waste	2
Soft plastics	2
Waste to energy	1
Cost	1
Product stewardship	1
Education	1

For Noting

32 Since the public consultation and drafting of the WMMP 2025, on 7 March 2025 a new national Waste Strategy was released from central government. The ‘Waste and Resource Efficiency Strategy’ replaced ‘Te Rautaki Para | New Zealand waste strategy’ adopted by the previous Government in March 2023.

DISCUSSION

33 Amendments to the Draft WMMP 2025 have been proposed in Attachment A to reflect feedback received during submissions and hearings, and to give regard to the government’s Waste and Resource Efficiency Strategy.

Committee Recommendations

Hearings and deliberations

34 The Committee met on Tuesday 8 April, to consider submissions, hear from 3 submitters, and deliberate.

35 The Committee deliberated on all proposals, and recommended that the Council adopts the Draft WMMP 2025 with the amendments as per Attachment A. The Committee also recommended that the Waste Minimisation Grants Framework is reviewed to assign a budget to all waste levy funding to further enable community waste minimisation.

Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Sophie Barker):

That the Committee:

a) Recommends to Council that the Waste Minimisation Management Plan, as amended, be adopted.

b) Recommends to Council that the Waste Minimisation Grants Framework be reviewed in time for the 2026/27 Financial Year.

Motion carried (CH/2025/001)

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

Impact assessment

36 It is recommended that Council adopt the final WMMP 2025 with the suggested amendments as shown in Attachment A.

Zero carbon

· City wide and DCC’s greenhouse gas emissions are likely to decrease with this option, as many of the actions in the WMMP 2025 are also in the Zero Carbon Plan 2030, and would result in reducing emissions from solid waste.

Advantages

· The WMMP 2025 provides stronger direction and updated actions that account for work that has been completed or is underway.

· The amendments proposed give due consideration to community feedback received through the Special Public Consultation and hearings.

Disadvantages

· Existing funding provided by the Waste Levy may be insufficient to support all actions in the WMMP 2025.

Option Two – Status Quo

Impact assessment

37 Adopt the final WMMP 2025 without amendment.

Zero carbon

Advantages

· No changes would need to be made.

Disadvantages

· There is a risk the community will believe that their submissions on the Draft WMMP consultation have not been given due consideration with respect to communities being empowered to act locally.

NEXT STEPS

38 Once adopted by Council, the WMMP 2025 will be prepared for final publication and distribution.

Signatories

Author:	Jim O'Malley - Chairperson, Hearings Committee
Authoriser:

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Final Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 with amendments.	195
⇩b	Draft WMMP 2025 Public Consutlation - Results from Submissions	236
⇩c	Summary of Recommendations from Public Consultation	239
⇩d	Hearings Committee Minutes - WMMP 2025	242

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities. It also promotes the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

Dunedin’s Zero Carbon Plan 2030.

Māori Impact Statement

The WMMP 2025 has been prepared with input from the Steering Group which included representatives of mana whenua, and the Māori Partnerships Team to ensure the work aligns with te ao Māori, Te Taki Haruru, and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Sustainability

The WMMP 2025 will enhance outcomes for the environment by reducing waste being sent to landfill and avoiding harm upon the environment.

Zero carbon

If adopted and implemented, the WMMP 2025 will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and progress Dunedin towards a circular economy.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The WMMP 2025 contains actions which seek funding through Annual Plans and/or Long Term Plan processes.

Financial considerations

The WMMP 2025 contains actions which seek funding through Annual Plans and/or Long Term Plan processes.

Significance

This decision is considered to be medium in regard to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council has reviewed its WMMP and decided to amend it. This is not a new Plan.

Engagement – external

In preparation of the WMMP 2025, external engagement was carried out with; community, non-profit organisations, commercial businesses, private waste companies, the construction and demolition sector, the Zero Carbon Alliance, Community Boards, the University of Otago, and Otago Polytechnic, and representatives from Ōtākou marae and Puketeraki marae.

Public Consultation Media Placements

3 ODT Newspaper adverts

3 The Star adverts

3 Boosted Facebook posts

3 Instagram posts

There was a total of 26,225 accounts that saw the content over the duration, and 689 engaged (i.e. liked, shared, reacted or commented). 379 users clicked on the link to find out more about the consultation.

Engagement - internal

In preparation of the Draft WMMP 2025, internal engagement was carried out with Community Development, Events, City Development, Parks and Recreation, Building Services, City Planning, Corporate Policy, Māori Partnerships Team, Legal, Waste and Environmental Solutions, and the Zero Carbon team.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Following the Special Consultation Procedure is required for meeting our obligations as Territorial Authority under the WMA.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards had the opportunity to submit on the Draft WMMP 2025 during the special consultative procedure. The Waikouaiti Community Board and West Harbour Community Board submitted.

Council

30 April 2025

New Year's Eve celebration event options

Department: Events

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents two options for the New Year’s Eve (NYE) celebration event.

2 Following public feedback on recent NYE events, the Council is asked to decide whether to reinstate fireworks at a new location, or continue with the Octagon building projection display which in recent years has replaced the traditional fireworks.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Decides if it would like to reinstate fireworks from Robin Hood Park or continue with the building projection display in the Octagon for the New Year’s Eve celebration.

BACKGROUND

3 Fireworks were traditionally a key feature of the city’s New Year’s Eve celebrations in the Octagon until 2020/21. That year, the presence of scrim around the Civic Centre and Municipal Chambers posed a fire risk, leading to the discontinuation of the display.

4 Over the following three years, the event pivoted to feature light, and laser shows as an alternative. These shows received mixed reviews from the public, with local media coverage in the Otago Daily Times and online commentary reflecting this sentiment.

5 The cost to deliver projection mapping on buildings is comparable to fireworks due to the technical nature of this work and the equipment required to make it successful. Currently projection mapping for NYE costs $40,000. A new city-wide fireworks display has been quoted at $45,000. This cost could be accommodated in current budget provisions as part of the Refreshed Festivals and Events Plan.

6 Staff have been in discussion with the new fireworks contractor that Council works closely with for the Chinese New Year celebrations. These discussions have helped staff explore alternative options for reinstating a fireworks display for NYE.

7 The options considered included:

a) The Thomas Burns carpark currently used for the Chinese New Year display was considered but ruled out due to limited visibility from the Octagon where the current NYE is hosted.

b) The Filleul Street carpark was explored but deemed too high risk due to the potential for damage to nearby windows within the required exclusion zone.

c) Reinstating fireworks from the Civic Centre was reconsidered, however not pursued given the 2016 fireworks incident related to falling matter, and the potential fire hazard risk associated with this location.

d) Reinstating fireworks from a new location to help ensure public safety, while enhancing the appeal of the display so that it is viable, safe and low risk. This was the preferred option.

8 Based on discussions with the new fireworks contractor, a new site of Robin Hood Park, near the Beverly Begg Observatory was identified to accommodate the preferred option. This higher vantage point would accommodate a larger safety exclusion zone, significantly reducing risk, while enabling a broader, city-wide display. Importantly, the display will still be visible from the Octagon.

9 The proposed show would also feature larger pyrotechnic shells, increasing from four-inch to six-inch shells. This change would raise the display height from approximately 50–75 metres to around 150 metres, significantly improving visibility across the city.

10 Staff believe that the new fireworks option will be positively received by the public, particularly given the mixed feedback in recent years. It also provides the opportunity to create a spectacle visible from many residents’ homes, allowing for a city-wide experience, rather than an Octagon centric display.

11 Additionally, a city-wide fireworks display could encourage more people to remain in Dunedin over the New Year period. In recent years, Queenstown, the Catlins, and Timaru have actively promoted their New Year’s Eve fireworks as part of their destination campaigns.

12 There are no financial implications. The costs for a new city-wide fireworks display can be accommodated in the current budget, as part of the Refreshed Festivals and Events Plan

OPTIONS

13 Option One – Reinstate a Fireworks Display Reinstate the fireworks display, shifting it to Robin Hood Park and providing a city-wide display.

Advantages

· New location presents a low-risk option.

· Wider appeal for residents to celebrate New Year’s Eve collectively.

· Possible retention of locals that might otherwise leave the city by providing high-quality fireworks display.

· Possible attraction of out-of-town visitors providing high-quality fireworks display combined with the NYE Octagon activation.

· The cost for a new city-wide fireworks display can be accommodated in the current budget, as part of the Refreshed Festivals and Events Plan.

Disadvantages

· A shift away from the recent projection mapping display to a fireworks display could receive mixed public feedback.

14 Option Two – Status Quo Continue with Projection Mapping Display Council continues to provide the projection mapping display in the Octagon.

Advantages

· Members of public at the Octagon event will be up close to watch the projection mapping near them.

· Projection mapping offers less disruption in the form of noise.

Disadvantages

· The opportunity for a city-wide celebration is missed, with limited appeal for members of the public who are not attending Octagon-based activities.

· There is a risk of losing residents and visitors over the holiday period, as other South Island centres actively promote their own fireworks displays.

· The projection mapping display has a limited lifespan, as its novelty is diminishing.

NEXT STEPS

15 The next steps will depend on the decision that Council makes regarding their preferred option. Once confirmed, staff will manage the recommendation and deliver the required activities.

Signatories

Author:

Dan Hendra - Team Leader - Events

Authoriser:

Sian Sutton - Dunedin Destination Manager

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Robin Hood Park display map	250

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Arts and Culture Strategy	✔	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

This decision fits within the Council’s key strategies, and more recently its Refreshed Festivals and Events Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

No known impacts.

Sustainability

No known impacts.

Zero carbon

No known impacts.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

No implications.

Financial considerations

All options are budgeted.

Significance

This decision is considered a low assessment in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no risks aside from the very low risk of the exclusion zone for the display.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

30 April 2025

Dunedin Heritage Fund Activity Report 2023-2024

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update on the activity of the Dunedin Heritage Fund and the grants allocated in the 2023-2024 financial year.

2 In 2023-2024, a total of $894,200 was offered in heritage grants, which helped to facilitate just over $4.5 million in construction adaptive re-use, heritage repair and restoration projects across the city (as indicated by total project costs identified in applications).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Dunedin Heritage Fund Activity Report 2023-2024.

BACKGROUND

3 The Dunedin Heritage Fund (the Fund) is funded and administered by the DCC and managed by the Dunedin Heritage Fund Committee which has membership from DCC, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) and the Southern Heritage Trust (SHT). The purpose of the Fund is to encourage the retention, repair, preservation, and maintenance of historic places (buildings, structures, and sites) in Dunedin. From its establishment in 1993, the Fund has primarily focused on providing partial or incentive funding for repair, restoration, and conservation (including earthquake strengthening) projects for historic buildings and other heritage places.

4 From 2011, the Fund operated alongside two additional heritage re-use incentive schemes managed by Council (the Rates Freeze and Central City grants). These provided additional heritage regeneration support and incentives for private and commercial owners, and other groups requiring assistance. The DCC heritage grant schemes funding was amalgamated into the Dunedin Heritage Fund in July 2018. The Fund is supported with heritage advice from the DCC Heritage Advisor and advisors from HNZPT.

5 Council provides an annual grant to the Fund of $680,700. The Fund has been substantially oversubscribed in recent years. In the 2023-2024 year, requests for funding totalled over $2.28 million. This positive subscription rate has been achieved through active DCC/HNZPT promotion and relationship-building, information provided on the Council website and an increasing spread of knowledge between local developers and building owners.

6 The difference between the annual allocation ($680,700) and the amount allocated in the 2023-2024 financial year ($894,200) is accounted as interest paid on the funds held by Dunedin City treasury ($78,000), cancelled or surrendered grants, and monies remaining from the previous financial year.

DISCUSSION

7 In 2023-24, the Fund allocated $894,200 to a diverse range of heritage projects. This represents an average grant funding level of 19.8% of the total cost of the projects, – a 3% decrease on the previous year, leveraging a total of just over $4,506,672 (excl GST) in investment in heritage buildings in the city.

8 The grants contributed to both physical and planning work, including:

· conservation planning and condition reporting

· technical conservation repair work and architectural documentation

· larger-scale maintenance and repair work (mainly external)

· sensitive alteration and adaptive re-use work

· retrofit double-glazing to timber heritage windows

· earthquake strengthening of mainly commercial heritage buildings, and

· replacement of traditional historic roofing materials such as slate.

9 In 2023-2024, 44 grants were offered to the following heritage projects:

Address	Name of Building	Schedule #	Grant	Purpose
Round One – Committee Meeting 31 August 2023 ($249,000) 12 grants
200 Main Road, Waikouaiti	Former Bank of New Zealand	B746	$20,000	Preliminary architectural designs and documentation for restoration project
1 Royal Terrace	1 Royal Terrace	B518	$20,000	Exterior timber repairs
7 Crawford Street	Victoria Chambers	B786	$5,000	Preparation of fire engineer’s report
5 Mountfort Street	Former Bank of Otago	B646	$5,000	Retrofit double glazing and window repairs
9 Arden Street	Knox College	B006	$30,000	Replacement of tower’s membrane roof
1046 George Street	Victoria Terrace	B221	$3,000	‘Like for like’ replacement of parapet flashing
57 Baker Street	St Peter’s Vicarage	B828	$10,000	Exterior repairs and repainting
30 Hope Street	St Matthew’s Church	B551	$29,000	Exterior work on the bell tower
52 Tennyson Street	Hulme’s Court	B588	$10,000	Slate roof repairs
111D Cliffs Road	Cargill’s Castle	HS07 and B035	$75,000	Urgent stabilisation works
164 Maitland Street	Residential Building	CC552	$2,000	Manufacture of new replica front door and replacement of leadlight window
18 Princes Street	Hallenstein Bros Building	CC060	$40,000	Remove verandah and reinstate original design, ground floor earthquake strengthening works
Round Two – Committee Meeting 30 November 2023 ($199,700) 12 grants including 2 ‘out of round’
449 George Street	Knox Church	B161	$5,000	Emergency slate roof repairs (out of round application)
500 Hillside Road	St Peter’s Church	B828	$1,200	Emergency repairs to slate roof and ridge capping (out of round application)
2 Castle Street	Former Dunedin Prison	B269	$75,000	Restoration of central courtyard
21 Highgate	Roslyn Presbyterian Church	B334	$13,500	Detailed seismic assessment
420 George Street	Williden’s Buildings	B153	$40,000	Façade strengthening, repair, and restoration
371 North Road	Drake Family Home	N/A	$10,000	Repair to main gable, retrofit double glazing
2 Haig Street	Former Morning Star Lodge	N/A	$10,000	Exterior repairs and repainting
4 View Street	Residential Building	CC113	$20,000	Reroofing and guttering, window and gable repairs
20 Currie Street, Port Chalmers	Residential Building	B668	$10,000	Weatherboard repairs and repainting on street elevation
40 Ings Avenue	Residential Building	N/A	$2,000	New timber window to replace aluminium one
23 George King Memorial Drive, Outram	Former Oamaru Infant School Building	N/A	$3,000	Repairs and repainting one wall of the building
31 Serpentine Avenue	Residential Building	N/A	$10,000	Exterior repairs and repainting
Round Three – Committee Meeting – 29 February 2024 ($112,000) 8 grants
89 Union Place East	Former Home Science Building	B597	$39,000	Restoration/replacement of cast iron rainwater goods
60 Eastbourne Street	St Peter’s Cottage	B828	$10,000	Exterior repairs and repainting
4 Royal Terrace	Residential Building	B520	$13,000	Repair of bluestone retaining wall
16 Duncan Street	Residential Building	CC769	$2,000	Retrofit double glazing
141 Wairongoa Road	Salisbury	B745	$20,000	Retrofit double glazing and repair of sash windows
4-6 Adams Street	Residential Buildings	B850 and B851	$15,000	Roof replacement and recladding, reinstatement of metal gate and fence
54a and 54b Duncan Street	Residential Building	CC964	$8,000	Repair of decking membrane, replacement of balustrade and front door
2 Aurora Terrace, Port Chalmers	Former Ralph Hotere Studio	N/A	$5,000	Engineering report
Round Four – Committee Meeting – 11 June 2024 ($333,500) 12 grants
15 Duke Street	Residential Building	CC235	$5,000	Timber repairs relating to re-roofing
24 Mount Street, Port Chalmers	Iona Church	B704	$30,000	Installation of a glass balustrade to upstairs gallery
2 William Street	Former School	B618	$12,500	Roof and flashing repairs/replacement
1 Galloway Street	Mornington Presbyterian Church Sunday School	N/A	$40,000	Seismic strengthening and roof repairs
64 Melville Street	Former St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church (Coptic Church)	B028	$100,000	Like for like replacement of part of the corrugated sheet metal roof
22 Royal Terrace	Linden	B526	$22,000	Consultant reports for structural engineering, geotechnical analysis, architectural concept and soil analysis.
113 Russell Street	Residential Building	CC756	$5,000	Retrofit double glazing
38 Water Street	Former Union Steamship Company Building	B614	$30,000	Exterior plaster repairs and repainting, retrofit double glazing
Crossan Terrace, Wingatui	Former Wingatui Railway Station	B725	$15,000	Earthquake strengthening of two chimneys
453 Princes Street	Commercial Building	CC597	$30,000	Seismic strengthening
5 Robin Lane	Normanston (Residential Building)	B513	$4,000	Repair and repainting of front gable and bay window
33 Thomas Burns Street	Loan and Mercantile Building	B106	$40,000	Stone and plaster repairs and paint removal

OPTIONS

10 There are no options, as this report is for noting.

NEXT STEPS

11 The first meeting of the Fund for the 2024-2025 year was held in August 2024. There will be three further application rounds for the 2024-2025, to close at the end of October 2024, the end of January 2025, and the end of April 2025.

Signatories

Author:

Heather Bauchop - Heritage Advisor

Mark Mawdsley - Team Leader Advisory Services

Authoriser:

David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social, economic and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Future Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

The Dunedin Heritage Fund contributes to the Strategic Framework through supporting the Spatial Plan; supporting the goal of Dunedin as a memorable city with a distinctive built and natural character and contributes to social wellbeing, economic development and arts and culture outcomes.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for mana whenua and mātāwaka. Opportunities to support mana whenua and mātāwaka heritage projects are ongoing.

Sustainability

The re-use and restoration of heritage buildings contributes to the long-term sustainability of the Dunedin region in a positive and effective way.

Zero Carbon

The aspiration to increase retention and adaptive reuse of existing buildings aligns with zero carbon outcomes.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications from this report.

Financial considerations

The grant allocations are within budget.

Significance

This report is assessed as being of low significance in terms of DCC’s Significance Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement on this update report.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement on this update report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks from this report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest from this report.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards. Community Boards are asked to raise awareness of the Heritage Fund to their communities.

Council

30 April 2025

Request to Lift Alcohol Ban in Lower Octagon 05 July 2025

Department: Civic and Events

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Dunedin will host a rugby test match between the All Blacks and France on Saturday, 5 July 2025, with kick-off scheduled for 7:05pm.

2 The match is expected to sell out, drawing a crowd of around 29,000, including approximately 18,000 visitors from outside the city.

3 To enhance the event, staff are proposing the creation of an Octagon Hub featuring food and beverage offerings.

4 To enable this, staff are proposing Council consider a temporary suspension of the Alcohol Ban in the Lower Octagon from 12:00pm to 7:00pm on the day.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the temporary lifting of the Dunedin Alcohol Ban in the Lower Octagon on 5 July 2025 between 12.00 midday and 7.00pm.

BACKGROUND

5 Major events regularly attract over 15,000 out-of-town visitors, creating a vibrant city atmosphere. However, by midday, cafés, bars, and restaurants often reach full capacity, limiting the central city experience for both visitors and locals.

6 Over the past year, staff have consulted Octagon businesses on a proposal to manage visitor overflow through a new Octagon Hub. Feedback has been positive, with support for the initiative's potential to boost vibrancy and enhance the visitor experience. No objections have been received.

7 Staff have been developing a comprehensive visitor experience plan, which includes improved transport options such as park-and-ride services, Octagon shuttles, and Dunedin–Mosgiel train rides. The next phase is the proposed Octagon Hub, detailed in this report and attachment.

8 As part of planning, staff have consulted relevant regulatory agencies and now seek Council approval to proceed. The proposal includes partnering with an external supplier to implement an alcohol management plan, requiring a temporary lifting of the alcohol ban in the Lower Octagon for the trial.

9 A public RFP has been issued to find a supplier to manage the alcohol plan. The chosen supplier would be licensed to sell and supply alcohol within the Lower Octagon and responsible for managing alcohol-related aspects of the activation.

10 The activation aims to enhance Dunedin’s role as a major event host by offering a welcoming pre-event space. It would feature live music, food trucks, licensed beverages, and other activities. Security staff would be on-site to maintain safety and manage behaviour.

11 All alcohol sales, supply, and consumption in the activation area would cease by 7:00pm.

DISCUSSION

12 Dunedin is the host city for the upcoming international rugby test match between France and Dunedin will host the international rugby test match between France and New Zealand on 5 July 2025.

13 With support from Octagon businesses, staff propose establishing an Octagon Hub from 12:00pm to 7:00pm on test day. This trial aims to provide a relaxed and inclusive environment to accommodate the expected influx of visitors and is the result of extensive planning over the past year.

14 The Alcohol (Control of Alcohol in Public Places) Bylaw 2004 was introduced to reduce alcohol-related harm in the central city. It prohibits the consumption or possession of alcohol in designated public spaces unless it is unopened and being transported. As the bylaw was adopted by Council, it retains the authority to temporarily lift the ban for special occasions.

15 The selected supplier will be required to obtain a special licence to sell and supply alcohol during the event. They will manage the area as a licensed premise, including ensuring food is available and all licence conditions are met.

16 If the trial is successful, staff propose to apply this model to future major events in Dunedin if appropriate.

OPTIONS

17 There are two options available to Council.

Option One – Lift Alcohol Ban as proposed

18 The alcohol ban in the Lower Octagon will be lifted for a seven-hour period on 5 July 2025 between 12.00 midday and 7.00pm when will be controls in place to ensure intoxication does not become an issue.

Advantages

· Dunedin will be seen to provide a vibrant, friendly environment for visitors to the city centre.

Disadvantages

· No disadvantages identified.

Option Two – Status Quo

Impact assessment

19 The alcohol ban would remain in place.

Advantages

· Dunedin would treat the test as any other large game hosted by the city.

Disadvantages

· Dunedin may be seen to be less than visitor friendly.

NEXT STEPS

20 If approved a Request for Proposals (RFP) process to appoint a supplier to manage the alcohol plan during this period will progress.

21 If not approved, the RFP process will be cancelled.

Signatories

Author:

Kevin Mechen - Alcohol, Psychoactive Substances and Gambling Advisor

Dan Hendra - Team Leader - Events

Authoriser:

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships)

Robert West - General Manager Corporate Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Alcohol (Control of Alcohol in Public Places) Bylaw 2004	262
⇩b	Request for Proposals Alcohol Management and Octagon Hub Operations	267

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social and economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	✔
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	✔

If successful, this initiative will contribute to the Economic Development Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Māori.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

Zero carbon

The initiative will not impact the greenhouse emissions for the city.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the LTP or Annual Plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial considerations.

Significance

Not applicable

Engagement – external

Events staff have consulted with the Police and regarding this proposal.

Engagement - internal

Events staff have consulted with both Alcohol Licensing Inspectors regarding this proposal.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

30 April 2025

Proposed Event Road Closures

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The DCC has received temporary road closure applications relating to the following events:

a) May Graduation Parades

b) Dunedin Midwinter Carnival

2 This report recommends that Council approves the temporary closure of the affected roads.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Resolves to close the roads detailed below (pursuant to Section 319, Section 342, and Schedule 10 clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA 1974)):

i) May Graduation Parades

Saturday, 10 May 2025 AND Saturday, 17 May 2025	11.00am to 11.45am	· Great King Street, between Frederick Street and Albany Street
	11.10am to 12.00pm	· Frederick Street, between Great King Street and George Street · George Street, between Frederick Street and Moray Place
	11.10am to 12.30pm	· Moray Place, between George Street and Upper Stuart Street · Filleul Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street
	11.30am to 12.15pm	· Intersection of George Street and Moray Place

ii) Dunedin Midwinter Carnival

Friday, 27 June 2025

AND

Saturday, 28 June 2025

3.00pm to 10.00pm*

· Moray Place, between Lower Stuart Street and Princes Street

· Burlington Street, between SH1 and Moray Place

* Contingency dates will be Friday, 4 July 2025 and Saturday, 5 July 2025.
NOTE: All Blacks vs France Rugby Test is on Saturday, 5 July 2025 (noting these dates have coincided previously).

BACKGROUND

3 Council’s Dunedin Festival and Events Plan supports the goal of a successful city with a diverse, innovative, and productive economy and a hub for skill and talent.

4 The areas proposed to be used for these events are legal roads and can therefore be temporarily closed to normal traffic if statutory temporary road closure procedures are followed. The procedures are set out in Section 319 of the LGA 1974 and give Council the power to stop or close any road (or part of a road) within the parameters of Section 342 and Schedule 10 of the LGA 1974 (Schedule 10 is included as Attachment A).

5 These procedures include:

· Consultation with the New Zealand Transport Authority Waka Kotahi and the Police.

· Public notice being given of the proposal to close any road (or part of a road), and public notice of a decision to close the road.

· Council being satisfied that traffic is not likely to be unreasonably impeded.

6 A resolution of Council is required where a proposal to temporarily close a road relates to public functions.

7 Council is required to give public notice of its decision. This notice will be published after this meeting and prior to the event, if approved.

DISCUSSION

Consultation and Notification

8 The Police and the New Zealand Transport Authority Waka Kotahi have no objections to the proposed road closures.

9 On Saturday, 22 March 2025, the proposed temporary road closures were advertised in the Otago Daily Times (Attachment B) with a deadline for feedback.

10 The event organisers contacted those considered affected prior to submitting their application, and no objections were received.

11 Schedule 10 clause 11(e) states a road cannot be closed more than 31 days in the aggregate in any one year. This limit will not be exceeded by the approval of the proposed temporary road closures.

Traffic Impacts

12 The event locations of these events have had identical road closures for the same, or similar event(s) in prior years without causing unreasonable delays to the travelling public.

13 Emergency services and public transport services will be managed through the temporary traffic management process.

14 The Temporary Traffic Management Plan process ensures that other issues such as temporary relocation of certain parking (e.g. taxi, mobility and Authorised Vehicles Only) are managed.

OPTIONS

15 Note any amendment to this report’s recommendations cannot be implemented without further consultation with the affected parties, New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi, the Police, and verifying that traffic impacts are acceptable.

Option One – Recommended Option

16 That the Council closes the sections of road as recommended in this report.

Advantages

· Roads can be closed, and the event will be able to proceed.

· The closures will assist in realising the economic, social, and cultural benefits associated with the events.

Disadvantages

· There will be temporary loss of vehicular access through the closed areas. However, there are detours available, and safety can be assured using temporary traffic management.

Option Two – Status Quo

17 That the Council decides not to close the roads in question.

Advantages

· There would be no detour required for the travelling public, and the roads would be able to be used as normal.

Disadvantages

· The events would not be able to go ahead, and the benefits of the events would be lost.

NEXT STEPS

18 Should the resolution be made to temporarily close the roads, Council staff will accept the temporary traffic management plans that have been received for the events and notify the public of the closures.

Signatories

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 10	276
⇩b	ODT Advert - 22 March 2025	281

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Arts and Culture Strategy	✔	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

Events contribute to the Strategic Framework. Events contribute to the Economic Development Strategy, the Social Wellbeing Strategy. There is a Festival and Events Plan 2018-2023.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua have not been directly engaged with in relation to these road closures.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications, as the decision is a regulatory one and there are no direct costs to Council.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications. The cost of the proposed road closure is not a cost to Council.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been external engagement (as required by the LGA 1974), with the Police and New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi. Affected parties were notified and provided a time period for feedback.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with DCC Events and Transport. There is support for the events to proceed.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks should the recommended resolution be made.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

30 April 2025

Resolution to Exclude the Public

That the Council excludes the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting (pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987) namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Confirmation of the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 26 March 2025 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(d) The withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health and safety of members of the public.	.
C2 Confirmation of the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 15 April 2025 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	.
C3 Confidential Council Action List Update - April 2025	S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C4 Confidential Council Forward Work Programme - April 2025	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(d) The withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health and safety of members of the public. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C5 Appointment of District Licensing Committee Members	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C6 Confirmation of Minutes - Public Excluded	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 26 March 2025	18