Reports

Submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill

Department: Corporate Policy and Legal Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report seeks approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill (the RS Bill). The draft DCC submission is attached as Attachment A.

2          The RS Bill aims to improve the quality and transparency of regulation in New Zealand by introducing principles for responsible law-making and establishing an independent Regulatory Standards Board.

3          Submissions on the RS Bill close on 23 June 2025. The DCC has arranged an extension until 25 June 2025.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Approves the DCC submission, with any amendments, on the Regulatory Standards Bill.

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

c)         Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor amendments to the submission if needed.

BACKGROUND

4          The RS Bill is part of a broader national government initiative to improve the quality and transparency of regulation in New Zealand.

5          The Ministry for Regulation first consulted on the proposal in November 2024 through a public discussion document titled “Have your say on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill”. Feedback from this process informed the drafting of the RS Bill, which was introduced to Parliament on 19 May 2025. It passed its First Reading on 22 May 2025 and was referred to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee, with public submissions open until 23 June 2025.

6          The RS Bill aims to reduce unnecessary and poor-quality regulation by establishing a set of principles for responsible regulation. It requires Ministers and agencies to assess proposed and existing legislation against these principles and to publish explanations where inconsistencies are identified.

7          The RS Bill establishes a Regulatory Standards Board, which will independently review legislation for consistency with the principles and support the Ministry for Regulation’s oversight role.

DISCUSSION

8          The draft DCC submission recommends substantial revisions to ensure the RS Bill is inclusive, practical, and fit for purpose.

9          The RS Bill has the potential to affect the development, review, and implementation of bylaws and any other instruments made by local government that are considered “secondary legislation.”

10        The draft DCC submission:

a)         Submits that the RS Bill should not apply to local government instruments (such as bylaws or any other secondary legislation created by local government). Local authorities already operate under rigorous legislative frameworks. Applying the RS Bill would duplicate existing processes and undermine local autonomy. Additionally, if the RS Bill is to apply to local government instruments, then there needs to be certainty around what instrument would be affected.

b)        Expresses concern over the RS Bill’s silence on te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi. The absence of any reference to te Tiriti/the Treaty of Waitangi risks side-lining Māori interests and undermines meaningful engagement with hapū and iwi in law-making.

c)         Recommends further consideration is given to the principle of “Taking of property” under clause 8(c) of the RS Bill. Clarification is needed to define the ambit of “property” and what is meant by “impairment”. The DCC notes that there is already clear legislation about compensation so any reference to compensation in the RS Bill has the potential to cause dispute.

d)        Emphasises that good regulation requires not just sound policy but also effective implementation and ongoing stewardship. Recommendations include introduction of principles requiring regulators to plan for implementation before legislation is introduced.

e)        Questions the effectiveness of the proposed Regulatory Standards Board (Board). There is some risk that it may become a politicised forum without binding impact, adding bureaucracy without solving core issues. Additionally, the Board must reflect Aotearoa’s diversity and should include a range of expertise (such as in law, economics, Te Ao Māori, and local government).

OPTIONS

Option One – Submit on the Regulatory Standards Bill (Recommended Option)

11        Under this option, Council would:

a)         Approve the DCC submission, with any amendments, on the Regulatory Standards Bill.

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

c)         Authorise the Chief Executive to make any minor amendments to the submission if needed.

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

Advantages

·        Opportunity to express concerns and recommend changes to Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee on the RS Bill.

Disadvantages

·        There are no identified disadvantages to this option.

Option Two – Do not submit on the Regulatory Standards Bill

13        The Council does not approve the draft submission.

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

Advantages

·        There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

·        Missed opportunity to express concerns and recommend changes to Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee on the RS Bill.

NEXT STEPS

15        If approved, the draft submission will be finalised and sent to Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Select Committee by 25 June 2025.

Signatories

Attachments

Otepoti Dunedin Housing Plan Update

Department: Policy and Partnerships

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report is an update on the work towards the Ōtepoti Dunedin Housing Plan 2022 (The Plan) adopted by Council on 30 August 2022.

2          It outlines the progress made by staff against each of the 15 action points of the Plan’s second Implementation Plan 2024-2026 which was noted by Council on 25 November 2024.

3          Staff have initiated work against the 15 actions outlined in the Implementation Plan 2024 – 2026.  This report provides an update on work completed, started and/or progressed.

 BACKGROUND

4          The Implementation Plan 2024 - 2026 has 15 actions against six priority work areas.  The actions were developed and prioritised in consultation with stakeholders. 

5          The priority work areas for 2024-2026 are:

·    Complete the vulnerable people and DCC land use policies.

·    Create collaboration opportunities.

·    Progress ways to improve the quality of our housing.

·    Create mechanisms to utilise Dunedin City Council owned land to increase housing supply.

·    Continue work towards our functional zero approach to homelessness.

·    Continue the update of the website and easy to read resources.

6          The Implementation Plan 2024 – 2026 actions have been identified in consultation with groups and individuals in DCCs database.

DISCUSSION

Complete the vulnerable people and Dunedin City Council Land Use Policies.

Action 1 – complete policy work around managing homeless groups (including belongings) and DCC residential land use/disposal.

7          Both policies work are currently in the research phase. This includes:

·      Reviewing relevant bylaws and legislation, including clarifying legislative hierarchies.

·      Exploring national and international approaches.

·      Engaging with internal teams and external stakeholders.

8          The Corporate Policy team is supporting this work.

9          DCCs Principal Policy Advisor (the Advisor) Housing now convenes the national council group Te Kāuru, which collaborates with LGNZ and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. Lessons from this work will inform the policy.

Create Collaboration Opportunities.

Action 2 – lead engagement across NGOs, Central Government, community housing providers and developers to overcome barriers to building affordable homes.

10        Staff regularly meet with developers to connect them with landowners keen to build affordable or community/social housing.

11        Staff also participate in numerous external housing-related groups, including the Otago Housing Alliance.

Action 3 - Look for funding and collaboration opportunities for increasing housing stock in the city.

12        Staff continue to engage with local and national developers to discuss housing opportunities.

13        The upcoming DCC Land Use Policy will outline how council-owned residential land can support affordable, rental, and social housing development.

 Progress ways to improve the quality of our housing.

Action 4 - Co-ordinate the building incentives investigations across council.

14        Internal teams with existing or planned housing incentives have met to collate offerings. Work is temporarily paused to align with the 9-Year Plan but remains active.

Create mechanisms to utilise Dunedin City Council owned land to increase housing supply.

Action 5 – Design and implement mechanisms to enable development of housing on Dunedin City Council land.

Action 6 – Explore partnerships options with and between external groups to build affordable, accessible or social housing.

Action 7 – Create a communications plan to socialise land use options.

15        These actions rely on adopting the DCC Land Use Policy to ensure equitable housing outcomes aligned with the Ōtepoti Dunedin Housing Plan 2022: A Home for Everyone.

Action 8 – Continue to advocate for investment in housing in Dunedin City Council.

16        The Advisor has taken several advocacy opportunities, including presenting at the Aotearoa Homeless Summit and the Affordable Housing Development and Investment Summit. The Advisor highlighted the lack of Central Government investment and services in Dunedin, including:

·    Kāinga Ora pausing developments (e.g., a 41-unit build on Carroll Street),

·    Limited community housing providers and constrained funding access for smaller ones,

·    No Housing First provider or outreach funding,

·    Insufficient services such as shelters, hygiene facilities, and laundry.

17        The presentation prompted valuable conversations with summit participants.

Continue to work towards our Functional Zero approach to homelessness.

Action 9 – Review data collected, analyse and support advocation or advocate for services.

18        The Outcomes Star has 16 frontline staff across 10 agencies actively licenced.  There is already data coming from the initial interactions but the numbers at this point are still small which was anticipated. 

19        The Outcomes Star identifies, across the main factors that cause homelessness what an individual is ‘stuck’ on.  The graph attached identifies the current data.

Action 10 – Expand provider/agency involvement.

Action 11 – Run further Dunedin training.

20        An Outcomes Star training session was delivered in April, with participants from Budgeting Dunedin, Dunedin Night Shelter, and DCC.

21        Te Whatu Ora has chosen not to renew its licenses, citing limited value. However, it remains engaged, shares internal data, and continues to participate in the Community of Practitioners facilitated by council for frontline staff.

Action 12 – Create council-wide guidelines for interactions with our homeless citizens and their belongings.

22        Staff are progressing this initiative in collaboration with departments such as Parks, Parking, Property, and Libraries. Once completed, the approach will be shared across council and with the wider community, including those experiencing homelessness

Action 13 – Complete emergency planning response to extreme weather events, natural disasters and social emergencies for our homeless and vulnerable communities.

23        Council staff consulted with Christchurch City Council and will now convene a working group including Te Whatu Ora, FENZ, NZ Police, MSD, CDEM, and mana whenua.

24        The recent fire at a temporary shelter highlights the urgent housing crisis. The latest census indicates a 29.5% national increase in homelessness, with 267 Dunedin residents now unsheltered.

25        The census also reports 933 people in temporary housing, 792 in overcrowded conditions, and 2,100 in uninhabitable homes (e.g., due to mould or disrepair).

26        This brings the total number of Dunedin residents in urgent need of housing to 4,092.

27        These figures do not include individuals in housing stress due to high rents or mortgages.

28        Dunedin households spend 24.3% of income on rent (Infometrics, 20/05/2025).

29        Mortgage payments account for 44.1% of average income (Infometrics, 20/05/2025).

Action 14 – Facilitate a Homeless Hui.

30        This workstream has not yet been started.

Continue the update of the website and easy to read resources.

Action 15 – Finalise updated web-page and increase links

31        The webpage has been refreshed and will continue to be updated and expanded.

OPTIONS

32        There are no options as this report is for noting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Notes the update against the Ōtepoti Dunedin Housing Plan 2022 and its Implementation Plan 2024 – 2026.

NEXT STEPS

33        Staff will continue work against the 15 actions of the Implementation Plan 2024 – 2026.

Signatories

Attachments

Sustainability Framework Update

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.    The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of developing a United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN-SDGs)-based Sustainability Framework for the Dunedin City Council (DCC).

2.    A report was prepared for Council meeting on Wednesday, 26 March 2025, and adjourned to 24 June 2025.

3.    This report, and the report adjourned in March, seeks approval for staff to advance to the next phase which will focus on simplifying and refining the targets to reflect the Dunedin context. This more precise version will form a clear foundation for an actionable framework, supported by success indicators drawn from the DCC’s operational work.

4.    The report outlines the progress made to date since the last update report presented to Council on 26 February 2025, including:

a)    a second workshop for Councillors on 06 March 2025 following the August 2024 workshop, and

b)    a consolidation of feedback from staff across the DCC and alignment with an updated list of targets with the DCC strategies following the workshop.

5.    The workshop summarised how the SDGs at the goal level relate to the roles and workstreams of the DCC, while demonstrating the interconnectedness of the goals. Workshop slides are attached in Attachment A.

6.    The workshop produced some additional targets suggested for alignment with the DCC strategies from the 26 February report, bringing the total number of suggested targets for the DCC to 76 (out of 169 in the UN-SDG framework).

7.    Staff consolidated results from the workshop, merged that with feedback from different departments across the DCC, including further alignment with the DCC strategies. The updated consolidation sheet can be viewed in Attachment B and C.

8.    The report recommends that the Council approves the progression of the Sustainability Framework for the DCC through further refinement of targets for the Dunedin context, then working with staff to identify indicators of success derived from the operational aspects of the DCC’s work.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Approves the progression of the SDG-based Sustainability Framework for the DCC

b)        Notes the content of this report.

BACKGROUND

Report adjourned during Council meeting on 26 March 2025.

9.    This report was originally prepared and presented to Council on Wednesday, 26 March, 2025. Council adjourned this report to 24 June 2025.

Original report content.

10.  The Council had one externally facilitated workshop in August 2024, followed by two update reports on 10 December 2024 and on 26 February 2025.

11.  The latter report to the Council presented an analysis which can be summarised as follow:

·    A total of 45 targets across the 17 SDGs were identified and presented to Council as relevant to the role of the DCC.

·    All targets aligned at least with one or more of any of the four wellbeing strategies (Economic Development Strategy, Social Wellbeing Strategy, Ara Toi – Arts and Culture, and Te Ao Tūroa – Environment Strategy); the three infrastructure strategies (Transport, Three Waters, and Parks and Recreations); the Future Development Strategy, Zero-Carbon Plan, and Te Taki Haruru – the Māori Strategic Framework. The description of the principles of Te Taki Haruru are attached in Attachment D.

12.  On 26 February 2025 the Council approved the progress of the development of the SDG-based Sustainability Framework for the DCC based on the above analysis and alignment. The Council resolved: 

                   Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

                   That the Council:

a.    Notes the progress made so far in developing the SDG-based Sustainability Framework for the DCC, as summarised in this report.

b.    Progresses the development of the SDG based Sustainability Framework for the DCC based on the current analysis and alignment.

                   By Division

                   The Council voted by division

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

                   Against: Crs Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Lee Vandervis and Steve Walker (5).

                   Abstained:   Nil

     The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 5

                   Motion carried (CNL/2025/068)

13.  At a workshop on the 6th of March 2025 staff presented how the SDGs at the goal level connect to each other and relate to the roles and workstreams of the DCC. The presentation included examples and a review of the methodology used in the previous analysis. Presentation slides are found in Attachment A. 

14.  Councillors then split into two groups and received an even number of goals (with SDG 11 being common to both groups), with a balanced mix of economic, environmental,  and social domains covered in those goals.

15.  All the targets that were identified in previous analysis as relevant to the global local government context, were split between the two groups for discussion.

16.  The discussion filtered a list of targets from each group that Councillors found relevant to the DCC’s role. These highly overlapped with the previous analysis and resulted in a new list of 76 targets.

DISCUSSION

17.  Staff from teams across the DCC were then invited to comment on how the targets align to their specific strategies or plans, and to provide input into a draft localised wording for each target that captures the Ōtepoti Dunedin context.

18.  Corporate Policy received feedback from 12 teams (Enterprise Dunedin, City Development, Property Services, Parks and Recreation, Housing, Community Partnerships, Zero Carbon, Creative Services, Building Services, Food Security, Procurement and Contracts, and Transport).

19.  The feedback also incorporated input specific to some workstreams under a ‘parent-strategies’: Ōtepoti Dunedin Destination Management Plan (Economic), Food Security (Economic), Ōtepoti Youth Vision (Social); Housing Plan (Social); Procurement (Social/Environment/Economic whichever applies); and Building and Property Services (Future Development Strategy).

The consolidated results suggest a draft wording for each target:

20.  All targets that were identified in the previous work and the Council’s workshop were consolidated in Attachment B. It is suggested that weakly aligned targets are merged into more defined targets to focus the framework in the next steps.

21.  In Attachment C each target is aligned horizontally with the different strategies’ themes, or priorities, or chapters, wherever they apply, which thematically brought together similar areas of focus from each workstream guided by a strategy or a ‘parent-strategy’.

22.  Some of the feedback suggested fine-tuned contextual wording for some of the targets to remove parts that may not sit clearly under the role of the DCC. The contextualised wording can also strengthen the direction of the target due to a greater alignment with one strategy over others.

OPTIONS

Option One – Progress to a more refined and focused Sustainability Framework for the DCC with localised targets and indicators

23.  Under this option, Council would approve that staff continue progressing the SDG-based Sustainability Framework for the DCC based on the 26 February 2025 Council report and the subsequent March 2025 workshop:

i)          Merge any weakly-aligned targets with clearer ones to produce a focused framework without losing the intent of targets identified in previous iterations.

ii)         Refine and finalise the wording of proposed localised targets under each SDG as drafted in this report.

iii)        Continue to align the SDG localised targets with the values of Te Taki Haruru to ensure the Council’s commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.

iv)       Workshop with staff to identify indicators derived from the operational side of business.

Impact assessment

Advantages

a)         Progressing the DCC SDG-based Sustainability Framework to a draft document that brings all the analysis together.

b)        Progressing the DCC Strategic Framework Refresh programme which includes the Sustainability Framework.

c)         Producing indicators that are relevant to the work of the DCC.

d)        Identifying gaps in monitoring in some areas where a strategy may not have all the indicators developed.

e)        Providing future strategic line of sight for all strategies.

f)     Better preparing Ōtepoti Dunedin for the challenges of climate change and geo-political shifts that may impact the city’s ability to forecast and contingency plan for those changes.

Disadvantages

a)         There are no disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not progress to the next phase in the development of the Sustainability Framework 

24.  Under this option the Council would pause development of the Sustainability Framework.

Advantages

a)    No further resources would be required.

Disadvantages

a)    Missing opportunity to produce a focused and efficient Sustainability Framework for incorporation in to the Strategic Framework Refresh project.

b)    Missing opportunity to streamline and harmonise the Council’s two commitments towards sustainability and the treaty of Waitangi. 

NEXT STEPS

25.  If Council selects Option One, next steps will be:

i)          Merge any weakly-aligned targets with clearer ones to produce a focused framework without losing the intent of targets identified in previous iterations.

ii)         Refine and finalise the wording of proposed localised targets under each SDG as drafted in this report.

iii)        Continue to align the SDG localised targets with the values of Te Taki Haruru to ensure the Council’s commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi and sustainability are in harmony.

iv)       Workshop with staff to identify indicators derived from the operational side of business.

v)        Present a draft Sustainability Framework to the Council.

26.  If Council selects Option Two, staff will cease work on the SDG based Sustainability Framework.

Signatories

Attachments

Carbon Removals (Sequestration) Update

Department: Zero Carbon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report provides an update on work on carbon removal options for the DCC. It sets out

a)         key considerations for the DCC with respect to carbon removals,

b)        identified options for the DCC to support growth of carbon removals in Dunedin, and

c)         next steps

2          To achieve the target of ‘net zero’ emissions city-wide (excluding biogenic methane), Ōtepoti Dunedin needs to both significantly reduce the amount of emissions produced, and increase carbon removals (also known as ‘sequestration’).

3          Dunedin’s forests (indigenous and commercial exotic) already absorb a significant amount of carbon dioxide, and this is set to increase as the total amount of forested land in the city grows. However, additional carbon removals will be required to achieve a ‘net zero’ target in the near term.

4          There are six key considerations for DCC in relation to carbon removals:

a)         Carbon removals should be additional to emissions reduction efforts

b)        Carbon removals need to be considered at multiple scales

c)         There are many external factors influencing carbon removal activity in the city

d)        There are two high-level approaches to carbon removals, offsetting or insetting

e)        The carbon removals field is technical and evolving; and

f)         A focus on co-benefits and partnerships is needed to achieve removals at any scale.

5          Staff have identified six ways the DCC can support growth of carbon removals in Dunedin. Some of these could involve offsetting or insetting of DCC or DCHL emissions, with the potential to help balance out residual emissions at these scales too. Many approaches have the potential to deliver significant co-benefits.

6          Four of the six identified functions will be further explored or progressed a result of other Council decisions and Zero Carbon work programme activity:

a)         Planning and providing information (delivered through the Green and Blue Networks Plan)

b)        Insetting on DCC land (to be explored as part of scoping delivery of the Green and Blue Networks Plan, with options to be presented to Council for consideration as part of 10 year plan 2027-37)

c)         Supporting development of a Dunedin carbon removals platform (exploration underway as part of the Zero Carbon Alliance work programme).

d)        Advancing opportunities through DCHL (exploration underway under the DCHL Carbon Roadmap).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Notes the Carbon Removals (Sequestration) update, including information about:

i)          work to date

ii)         key considerations for Council with respect to carbon removals

iii)        potential roles for the DCC to support growth in Dunedin’s carbon removals

iv)       next steps.

BACKGROUND

The DCC is seeking to manage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at both the city and DCC scale

7          The DCC is seeking to manage and reduce emissions at two scales, as directed by the Zero Carbon Policy: city (Dunedin emissions) and organisational (DCC emissions).

8          At the DCC scale, the target is to reduce emissions 42% from a 2018/19 baseline by 2030/31. The organisation is so far tracking well towards this target, having achieved a 29.7% reduction from the baseline year in 2023/24.

9          At the city scale, the DCC has adopted a ‘Zero Carbon 2030’ city emissions reduction target, which is in two parts:

·        net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases other than biogenic methane by 2030, and 

·        24% to 47% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2050, including 10% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2030.

10        ‘Net zero emissions’ means that any greenhouse gases (excluding biogenic methane) emitted into the atmosphere in Dunedin are in balance with the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed out of the atmosphere (known as ‘carbon removals’, or ‘sequestration’). It can be visualised as a balanced seesaw:

11        'Carbon removals’ are activities that draw CO₂ from the air and store it in biological or geological reservoirs or in long-lived products[1]. Carbon removals can take many forms, but most often involve the use of trees to absorb and sequester carbon dioxide as they grow.

The Zero Carbon Plan includes a role for carbon removals to help achieve Dunedin’s ‘net zero’ target

12        In September 2023, Council adopted an emissions reduction plan for Dunedin: The Zero Carbon Plan 2030 (CNL/2023/210).

13        The Zero Carbon Plan sets out a pathway to achieve the city’s target, building on trends already underway[2]. It concludes that, to achieve ‘net zero’, Ōtepoti Dunedin needs to both significantly reduce the amount of emissions produced, and increase sequestration.

14        In 2021/22, Dunedin’s forests absorbed approximately 493,000tCO₂. Of this, 184,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO₂) was absorbed by indigenous vegetation, and a net 309,000tCO₂ by exotic forestry (once harvest emissions were accounted for). Approximately 30,000tCO₂ of this was absorbed on DCC-owned land.

15        In order for Dunedin to meet a net zero 2030 position, the Zero Carbon Plan identified that sequestration would need to increase 64% above 2018/19 levels by 2030:

16        As well as presenting a modelled path to ‘net zero’, the Zero Carbon Plan sets out the overall shifts Dunedin will need to make as a city to become a Zero Carbon city. The plan highlights that organisations, businesses and communities in Ōtepoti Dunedin will collectively need to pull all available levers to achieve the scale of change required.

17        The plan also sets out ‘action areas’ for the DCC prioritised by emissions reduction potential. Annual implementation plans are noted by Council and confirm the actions that will be undertaken in any given year.

18        Grow sequestration aligned with mana whenua and community values is a key shift in the plan. The related DCC action area (assessed as having high emissions reduction potential) is Support the growth of sequestration aligned with mana whenua and community values.

19        Zero Carbon implementation plans 2023/24 and 2024/25 included as an action: Explore options to encourage and support growth in sequestration that aligns with mana whenua and community values, including the role of DCC and DCHL offsetting (if any).

Zero Carbon Plan key shifts and action areas remain unchanged, despite changes in projected emissions

20        The national and local context has changed since the Zero Carbon was adopted. Updated emissions modelling and related staff advice was noted by Council in May 2026 (CNL/2025/113).

21        Updated modelling (reflecting the 2025 context including central government policy changes and improved data) indicated that by 2030/31:

a)         the ‘net-zero’ element of the city target is very unlikely to be achieved

b)        the biogenic methane element of the target is likely to be achieved, and

c)         the DCC organisational target is also anticipated to be achieved.

22        Updated staff policy analysis concluded that, despite the updated context, the Zero Carbon Plan key shifts and DCC action areas remain unchanged. All are still relevant to achievement of ‘net zero’ Dunedin emissions.

Exploration of carbon removals options for the DCC

23        Work on carbon removal options for the DCC has involved the following:

a)         A review of context and relevant guidance: Staff have reviewed international, national and regional context including requirements under common reporting frameworks (e.g ISO-14064 for organisations, the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories) and relevant relevant national and regional studies. A review of best practice was also undertaken (e.g. considering guidance under the Science-based Targets Initiative).

b)        Initial stakeholder engagement: Staff have engaged with relevant DCC teams, DCHL companies as part of the Carbon Roadmap, and key external stakeholders including Zero Carbon Alliance partners.

c)         An overview of policy options: The Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Panel were provided a policy directions memorandum in November 2024. The Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Panel requested a full Council workshop on carbon removals options, which was held on 4 June 2025.

d)        Initial carbon removals investment options as part Zero Carbon investment packages: The options included represented “no regrets” options for Council (i.e. well aligned with other DCC strategies and integrally linked to other work programmes) while work on carbon removals options continued. Council resolved to fund the development of a Green and Blue Networks Plan in 2025/26. This plan will identify specific restoration and enhancement projects, and opportunities to sequester carbon on DCC land.

DISCUSSION

24        Six key considerations with respect to carbon removals have been identified. These are set out and explained below.

Key consideration 1: Carbon removals should be additional to emissions reduction efforts

25        Best practice guidance, at all scales, emphasises gross emissions reduction over carbon removals. Because of this, even if an entity is fully offsetting residual emissions, “net neutral” claims may not be verifiable.

·    Reducing emissions reduces the amount of land required (and also the cost associated with doing so).

·    Carbon removals can help to buy time as organisations and communities transition, but without significant emissions reduction there will be insufficient land area to maintain ‘net zero’ emissions.

·    As such, best practice is for rapid, deep cuts in emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change, with carbon removals applied to balance residual hard-to-abate emissions.

Key consideration 2: Carbon removals need to be considered at multiple scales

26        The DCC is seeking to measure and manage emissions at the DCC scale, and the city scale. The DCC also has an interest in Dunedin City Holdings Limited emissions and carbon removals activity. DCC carbon removals activity may affect emissions and other outcomes at each of these scales.

27        Current emissions targets emphasise growing city-scale carbon removals:

·        At the Dunedin scale, a ‘net zero’ (excluding biogenic methane) target emphasises sequestration to balance out gross emissions.

·        At the DCC scale, a gross emissions target places no emphasis on sequestration.

·        The DCC’s Zero Carbon Policy also states that options that contribute most to city emissions reduction targets should be prioritised:

28        However, sequestration on DCC-owned land (within the Dunedin boundary) is one of the most direct ways the DCC could increase Dunedin’s carbon removals. Sequestration on DCC land could also be applied to balance out the DCC’s organisational emissions.

29        Sequestration occurring at the DCHL scale is also a consideration:

·        Some DCHL companies have ‘net zero’ targets, and are considering approaches to meet these targets.

·        City Forests has significant areas of commercial forestry registered under the government’s Emissions Trading Scheme (not counted against the City Forests emissions inventory). Some of this commercial forestry is within Dunedin, however City Forests has significant holdings outside the city boundary. The forestry within Dunedin city limits contributes to city targets, but forestry out of the district does not.

·        City Forests have areas of indigenous vegetation that are counted as sequestration in their emissions inventory.

Key consideration 3: There are many external factors influencing carbon removal activity in the city

30        There are many influences other than the DCC that are driving changes in forest cover and other carbon removals activity in Dunedin. These include:

·        land prices / profitability of primary industries

·        log prices

·        Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) carbon price / central government policy settings, and

·        growth in the voluntary carbon market.

31        As set out in the second national emissions reduction plan 2026–30 (ERP2), current central government policy favours a ‘lowest cost’ approach to achieving national emissions targets. The upfront investment required to reduce many emissions sources is relatively higher than the cost to plant trees to absorb emissions. Therefore, ERP2 relies more on tree planting to achieve emissions reduction targets.

·        As a result, national forecasts predict continued land-use changes from sheep and beef farms to exotic forestry. As shown in Figure 1, the extent of sheep and beef farms across New Zealand is forecast to reduce from 7.8 million hectares in 2020, to 6.3 million hectares in 2050. Exotic forestry cover will grow, increasing from 1.8 million hectares in 2020, to a predicted 2.8 million hectares in 2050.

Figure 1: Projected changes in land area by land-use type[3] (Source: Data from the second national emissions reduction plan)

·        To limit wholesale farm conversions, the Government has introduced legislation due to come into force in October 2025. This will place a moratorium on Land Use Capability (LUC) 1-5 land being registered as exotic forestry under the ETS, and a 15,000 hectare per annum limit on full conversions of LUC 6 land from farmland to exotic forestry under the ETS. However:

i)          Farmers are able to register up to a quarter of their LUC 1-6 land as exotic forestry without these limits applying

ii)         There are no limits for LUC 7 and 8 land

iii)        The limitation only applies to exotic forestry being registered in the ETS

iv)       This policy change does not prevent whole farm conversions to exotic forestry when landowners are registering those trees for carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market rather than the ETS

32        In light of central government policy and wider market conditions, as shown in Figure 2, 2025 city emissions modelling predicts a significant increase in exotic forestry over the years to 2035.

·        This has little impact on city-wide sequestration levels initially due to the time lag between planting and forestry sequestering carbon, with a 12% increase in 2018/19 sequestration levels predicted for 2030, climbing to a 42% increase by 2035.

Figure 2 – Dunedin city emissions projections under the modelled ‘Accelerated Ambition scenario’ (2025 modelling update)

Key consideration 4: There are two high-level approaches to carbon removals, offsetting and insetting

33        Offsetting involves paying someone else to take action on your behalf, and you claim the credit for the emissions reduction.

·        At this point in time, offshore/voluntary markets offsetting is a rapidly changing landscape with associated risks, such as the potential for fraud.

·        Closer-to-home options for the DCC may be less risky.

·        If pursuing offsetting, the DCC or a collective group of organisations including DCC would likely need to procure, vet and contract a supplier to deliver carbon offsets on DCC’s behalf.

34        Insettting involves doing the action to absorb carbon dioxide yourself, often by trees or vegetation.

·        Forests are the only type of sequestration in the ETS (measurable and verifiable).

·        Insetting with forests is possible for the DCC due to significant public landholdings, especially where tree planting is desirable for other reasons such as amenity, recreation and biodiversity benefits.

·        Many emerging methods are not easily measurable or verifiable. This includes marine carbon, blue carbon (i.e. wetlands), and increasing soil carbon.

Key consideration 5: The carbon removals field is technical and evolving

35        The DCC’s Zero Carbon Policy states the DCC will adhere to international best practice. There are a range of relevant technical considerations and accounting ‘rules’ for measuring carbon removals.

36        Accounting rules differ at each scale. Removals that contribute to a target at one scale may or may not at another. For example:

·        Carbon removals to balance emissions at the DCC scale can be located anywhere, but cannot be claimed by other organisations or schemes (such as under the ETS).

·        Carbon removals to balance city-scale emissions must be in-district, but include any forestry registered in the ETS or in voluntary carbon markets.

37        Designing DCC-led carbon removals to align with verification standards is best practice and would ensure accountability (minimising risks of perceived ‘greenwashing’). However, any future decisions to progress with verification should consider the costs and benefits:

·        Making ‘net zero’ claims is a multi-step and complex process, with evolving best practice.

·        There are several risks to be aware of, including reputational, physical and financial liability such as in the event of forest fires.

·        Verifying carbon removals may add cost to implementation.

38        Afforestation (tree planting) is the most measurable and verifiable type of carbon removal. There is a time lag between planting trees, and trees sequestering carbon at a significant rate. This time lag also varies depending on the type of trees planted. Figure 3 below shows the annual sequestration per hectare for Otago pine, indigenous forest and exotic hardwoods:

Figure 3: Indicative annual sequestration rate per hectare of Otago pine, exotic hardwoods, and indigenous forest over 30 years[4]

39        Science is also evolving, as more is learnt about sequestration and how it can be achieved and measured. It is currently more difficult to measure and verify non-forest sequestration with confidence, as there are no clear standards available.

Key consideration 6: A focus on co-benefits and partnerships is needed to achieve removals at any scale

40        Balancing city emissions with in-district removals in the near term would require resourcing at levels beyond the DCC’s capacity to resource on its own. This is illustrated by the modelling presented in paragraphs 44-51, below. Working with partners and stakeholders to design an approach that involves others’ investment would unlock larger-scale sequestration opportunities.

41        A carbon removals programme that is aligned with community values is more likely to be supported and sustained.

·        Removals can be managed in a way that derives co-benefits e.g. improved biodiversity, enhanced recreation opportunities or increased revenue. Certain types of carbon removals align well with various DCC strategies, e.g. Te Ao Tūroa, Parks and Recreation Strategy, and the Economic Development Strategy. Maximising co-benefits would likely preference:

i)          In-district carbon removals (i.e. trees planted within Dunedin city limits);

ii)         Indigenous vegetation over exotic forestry;

iii)        Enhancements to existing public land; and

iv)       Opportunities to work with iwi, community groups or landowners.

·        Removals can also negatively affect other values. For example, expansion of forestry can have impacts on rural communities, landscape values, and cultural values (depending on scale and location).

42        Staff have sought advice from Aukaha regarding mana whenua interest in carbon removals. Initial feedback includes:

·        The topic needs to be discussed with rūnaka to gauge level of interest/willingness to input.

·        Priority areas or catchments for sequestration will be able to be identified.

·        There are likely to be aspirations to be involved in any carbon removals projects.

·        Rūnaka should have a seat, or seats at the table in relation to this kaupapa moving forward.

43        There is strong Zero Carbon Alliance (ZCA) interest in carbon removals. Opportunities for ZCA members to work together on sequestration are being explored as part of the work programme. Staff are also aware of a range of other stakeholders with strong interest in this area of work.

Indicative scale of removals required to meet Dunedin’s ‘net zero’ target[5]

44        The scale of planting required to meet a ‘net zero’ 2030 city target is unachievable. This is due to a combination of projected gross emissions, and the limited time between now and 2030 for any trees planted to grow and absorb carbon dioxide.

45        The scale required to meet ‘net zero’ in 2035 is significantly lower, due to predicted reductions in gross emissions, and more time for the trees to grow and absorb carbon dioxide. However, the land area required is still very large.

46        Table 1 provides an indication[6] of the scale of plantings required[7] to meet a ‘net zero’ 2035 target, under modelled ‘BAU’ and ‘Accelerated Ambition’ city emissions reduction scenarios (for modelling parameters, refer Attachment A):

Table 1: Indicative area of planting required to meet a 2035 Dunedin ‘net zero’ all greenhouse gases (excluding biogenic methane) target

47        To put the extent of planting outlined in Table 1 into context, there are currently 17,005 hectares of commercial exotic forests in Dunedin[8].

Indicative scale of plantings required to meet a balance the DCC’s projected residual emissions

48        The DCC’s organisational emissions reduction target focuses on gross emissions reductions and rather than a ‘net zero’ position. However, DCC offsetting of residual emissions is one possible action that would support achievement Dunedin’s target.

49        Table 2 provides an indication[9] of the scale of plantings required[10] to balance DCC’s organisational emissions in 2030/31 and 2035/36.

Table 2: Indicative area of planting required to balance residual DCC emissions in 2030/31 or 2035/36

50        The scale of plantings required to balance the DCC’s 2035 emissions would be significantly lower than those required to meet a 2030 ‘net zero’ target, due to both the longer time available for the trees to grow, and the longer time available for DCC to reduce gross emissions.

51        If DCC undertook to balance near-term DCC emissions with tree planting, after the target year DCC would become a ‘net negative’ emissions organisation for decades. This is because the carbon sequestered per annum continues to grow as the trees mature.

Identified options for the DCC to support growth of carbon removals in Dunedin

52        Staff have identified six ways the DCC can support growth of carbon removals in Dunedin. Some of these could involve offsetting or insetting of DCC or DCHL emissions, with the potential to help balance out residual emissions at these scales. A description of each option and the scale(s) at which the activity might impact emissions reduction targets, is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of identified options for the DCC to support growth of carbon removals in Dunedin

53        As a result of other Council decisions and work programme activity, work is already underway to explore or progress three of the six identified roles:

a)         Planning and providing information: The Green and Blue Networks Plan, funded as part of the 9 year plan, will establish where and how sequestration projects can maximise co-benefits, including for biodiversity/recreation and alignment with mana whenua values. Making this information accessible to interested parties and the public will be a priority following completion.

b)        Supporting development of a Dunedin carbon removals platform: Work is underway as part of the Zero Carbon Alliance work programme. This action has the potential to support high-value in-district removals that align with community and mana whenua values, without the need for DCC ratepayers to provide direct funding. It could maximise third party revenue for in-district sequestration, that would otherwise be used to fund carbon sequestration projects in other parts of New Zealand or overseas. It would also provide a local solution for local businesses wishing to secure high quality offsetting opportunities. It is being explored in collaboration with other partners and has the potential to deliver local co-benefits (biodiversity/economic development)

c)         Advancing opportunities through DCHL: Work is underway under the DCHL Carbon Roadmap. Identified roles for DCHL may align well with corporate goals and/or provide opportunities for increased revenue. The DCHL Carbon Roadmap provides an opportunity for these to be considered, prioritised, and any trade-offs to be transparently worked through with the Council.

54        Insetting on DCC land will also be further scoped as the Green and Blue Networks Plan progresses. The plan will identify potential sites and appropriate forest types for sequestration on DCC land; potential delivery approaches will then be identified and costed, with these reported to Council for consideration as part of the 10 year plan 2027-37.

55        Insetting on DCC land has the potential to deliver comparatively cost-effective carbon removals by leveraging land owned by the DCC, and relationships with community groups. It would also align well with other DCC strategies, deliver significant co-benefits (biodiversity/recreation), and could be delivered in a way that responds to both mana whenua and community aspirations.

56        No further work is proposed on the last two options:

a)         Offsetting on private land, in-district: Insetting on DCC land is a more straight-forward and cost-effective alternative option, with stronger co-benefits.

b)        Incentivising carbon removals on private land: This option is challenging to advance in the context of Resource Management Act reforms and the DCC’s Grants Review. There are existing policies in place to encourage indigenous revegetation, and funding available through the Dunedin Biodiversity Fund. There are also other funding options available for private landowners (such as the Otago Regional Council’s Eco Fund, and a recently established fund for larger-scale biodiversity initiatives).

57        Consideration was also given to offsetting DCC emissions outside of the district (paying for offsets on the voluntary carbon market, elsewhere in New Zealand, or overseas). However, this would not contribute to the achievement of Dunedin’s emissions reduction target, so has not been included as an option.

Related issues for consideration in the future

58        An important future consideration for Council will be how much emphasis to place on carbon removals, particularly if there is a trade-off between investment in carbon removals and investment in projects that will achieve gross emissions reduction.

59        Key decision-points for Council are as follows:

a)         In early 2026 a target options report will be presented to Council for consideration:

·        Reconfirmation of a ‘net zero’ emissions target (particularly a near-term target) at either the Dunedin or DCC scale would emphasise strategic action to grow carbon removals.

b)        In late 2026/early 2027 Council will consider draft budgets for 10 Year Plan 2027-2037

·        Carbon removal options with budget implications will be presented to Council for consideration as part of this process.

60        If Council retains a ‘net zero’ emissions target at either scale, staff will seek direction on whether a single target year, or a multi-year target, is preferred.

·        The current ‘net zero’ Dunedin target relates to a single target year, but commercial forestry cycles mean the amount of sequestration can vary significantly year to year.

·        At a national level, to balance out the cyclical nature of sequestration and any cyclical emissions sources, a multi-year budget (for example 2030-2035) is used. DCC could adopt a similar approach.

OPTIONS

As this report is for noting, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

61        Staff will:

a)         progress work on the Green and Blue Networks Plan, with potential delivery approaches identified, costed, and reported to Council for consideration as part of the 10 year plan 2027-37.

b)        continue to work with Zero Carbon Alliance partners to explore development of a local carbon removals platform.

c)         submit identified sequestration opportunities to DCHL and subsidiaries for their consideration as they advance the DCHL Carbon Roadmap

d)        provide advice on target refresh options to Council in early 2026, following completion of an updated Dunedin emissions inventory.

Signatories

Attachments

New Zealand Masters Games Delivery Plan - 2026

Department: Events

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report provides the Council with an overview of the plan for the delivery of the 2026 New Zealand Masters Games.

2          The plan has been developed to ensure the events sustainability in response to the financial loss incurred during the 2024 New Zealand Masters Games.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Notes the New Zealand Masters Games Delivery Plan

BACKGROUND

3          In 2024, the New Zealand Masters Games experienced a financial deficit due to lower than anticipated registrations and a decrease in sponsorship.

4          On 31 July 2024, a report from Events provided Council with a summary of the 2024 New Zealand Masters Games (Games), including participant statistics and financial results. This resulted in the Council agreeing to write off an outstanding debt of $148,364.03.

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Bill Acklin):

That the Council:

a)         Notes the 2024 New Zealand Masters Games Final Report.

b)        Writes off the outstanding debt of $148,364.03 (excluding GST) for the 2024 New Zealand Masters Games.

c)         Agrees that the Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust would collaborate with the Council to ensure the event's future sustainability.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/138)

DISCUSSION

5          Given the financial loss, the Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust (Trust) committed to collaborating with the Dunedin City Council (DCC) to develop an events plan for the Games, focussing on financial sustainability and strengthening future events. This included conducting ​a comprehensive evaluation of the 2024 event delivery model to address current issues​.

6          The evaluation focused on multiple aspects of the event, including:

·        Event Timing: Consideration of scheduling around Waitangi Day, university schedules, and other major events to optimise participation.

·        Venue Selection: Reviewing the suitability of the University Union as the Games Hub versus alternative venues such as the Edgar Centre.

·        Entertainment and Games Hub Model: Assessing whether the traditional Games Hub with nightly entertainment remains viable, considering participant behaviour and financial constraints.

·        Fee Structure: Evaluating whether entry fees should be adjusted in response to budget constraints and competitor pricing.

·        Sports Program: Reviewing the number and variety of sports offered and the responsibilities of sporting partners.

·        Marketing and Promotion: Exploring stronger local marketing efforts, early promotion strategies, and corporate engagement initiatives.

7          Feedback and stakeholder engagement played a crucial role in the evaluation process, ensuring that decisions were informed by a broad range of perspectives. Insights were gathered through participant surveys, which were analysed to identify key trends and areas for improvement. Structured consultations were held with sporting organisations, sponsors, and other key partners to understand their experiences, challenges, and expectations.

8          The Trust also facilitated discussions and a brainstorming session, to review the feedback, assess the effectiveness of the current event model, and explore opportunities for improvement.

9          This collaborative approach helped shape strategic decisions aimed at enhancing participant experience, strengthening partnerships, and ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of the Games.

10        Following the evaluation, the following key decisions were made by the Trust for the 2026 event:

·        Games Hub Redesign: Traditionally, the Games Hub served as a central venue for participant check-ins, social gatherings, and nightly entertainment throughout the nine-day event. However, feedback indicated that attendance at the Hub was inconsistent, particularly on weekday nights. To address this, the decision was made to eliminate nightly entertainment and instead focus on a more streamlined check-in centre and administrative hub. Entertainment will be reduced to select nights working with local venues, ensuring a more vibrant atmosphere while reducing overhead costs associated with maintaining a dedicated entertainment space for the entire duration of the Games.

·        Venue Relocation: A major shift in event operations involves moving key functions from the University Union to the Edgar Centre, a large multi-purpose indoor venue. This move is intended to consolidate event operations, as the Edgar Centre is already a hub for several sporting events during the Games. The venue will host opening and closing ceremonies in its FM Arena, leveraging existing infrastructure such as permanent seating and meeting rooms to eliminate the need for costly temporary structures. Additionally, this shift allows for integrated catering services, with food trucks stationed at both the Edgar Centre and key sporting venues like Logan Park and Hancock Park, providing a more cohesive experience for participants while reducing logistical costs​.

·        Fee Structure Retained: While some stakeholders suggested reducing participant registration fees in light of cost-saving measures, the Trust determined that maintaining the 2024 pricing structure was the best approach. Lowering fees could risk devaluing the event and reducing perceived quality, potentially impacting participation numbers. The current pricing remains competitive compared to other Masters Games events in New Zealand and Australia, and registration fees remain a crucial revenue source, accounting for approximately 42% of the event’s income​. Instead of lowering fees, the Trust will focus on cost-saving initiatives, such as venue consolidation and revising the Games Hub model, to enhance financial sustainability.

·        More Support for Sports Partners: Given the financial constraints and the need to increase participation, the Trust is shifting greater responsibility to sports partners for both marketing and social event organisation. Previously, the Games took on a larger role in promoting individual sports, but moving forward, sports organisations will be expected to actively market their own events to their existing databases and networks. Additionally, partners will be encouraged to host social gatherings at their respective venues, providing participants with more organic and sport-specific entertainment options. This shift not only helps reduce the burden on the central organising team but also ensures that sports-specific communities remain actively engaged.

·        Targeted Promotion Strategies: To boost participation and sponsorship revenue, the Trust is implementing a stronger local marketing push, with Enterprise Dunedin and Events Team playing a greater role in event promotion. Planned initiatives include on-bus advertising, banner placement in high-traffic areas, and a strategic review of media coverage to maximise exposure. Additionally, early outreach efforts will focus on sports clubs, businesses, and large institutions to encourage team registrations well in advance.

11        These strategic changes are designed to reduce costs, improve financial sustainability, and enhance participant engagement, ensuring the long-term success of the New Zealand Masters Games in Dunedin.

12        The revised delivery model has removed the traditional Games Hub, reducing costs by approximately $100,000.

13        Staff will continue to refine event structure and confirm delivery aspects and is working towards a breakeven budget, based on the 2024 participants numbers ensuring financial viability without assuming significant growth.

14        The budget includes assumptions in revenue that if not achieved, adjustment can easily be made in planned expenses especially in marketing costs.

OPTIONS

15        The report is for noting so there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

16        The Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust will continue its management, event planning and delivery of the 2026 New Zealand Masters Games as delegated by the DCC.

Signatories

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

LGNZ Annual General Meeting Remits

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) 2025 Annual General Meeting (AGM) is to be held on 15-17 July in Christchurch.   

2          At that meeting, consideration will be given to five remits that have been submitted by local authorities.  The remits have received either formal support from Councils or support from at least one zone or sector group meeting prior to being submitted and have been screened through the LGNZ Remits Screening Policy.  The DCC delegate will vote on DCC’s behalf on each. 

3          The purpose of this report is to decide how Council wishes to determine which (if any) of the remits it wishes to support. 

4          As this is an administrative report there is no summary of considerations.

BACKGROUND

5          This year, five remits have been accepted for consideration at the LGNZ AGM.  Attachment A provides the details of each of those remits.

6          The Mayor, Cr Lucas and Cr Houlahan will attend the AGM on behalf of Council. 

DISCUSSION

7          The DCC voting delegate attending the LGNZ AGM will have the opportunity to vote on the remits.  Council needs to determine how it wishes to vote on each remit.

8          Previously, the Mayor as the voting delegate has decided how they will exercise the vote.

9          Councils speak briefly to their remits, so delegates at the AGM may be in a more informed voting position than councillors are prior to the AGM.

10        A summary of each of the remits to be considered at the LGNZ AGM is presented below.  Staff have included brief comments where appropriate. 

11        Remits already endorsed by Council are listed first, followed by remits that support current DCC policy positions and finally remits where there is no current DCC view.

REMITS THAT SUPPORT CURRENT DCC POLICY POSITION

12        Remit 4 – Aligning public and school bus services

That LGNZ:

·   Advocate for the reform of the Ministry of Education funded school bus services to provide an improved service for families and to better integrate the services with council provided public transport services, including the option of Public Transport Authorities (e.g. regional and unitary councils) managing such services (with appropriate government funding), noting that:

a.    councils better know their local communities; and

b.    the potential to reduce congestion from better bus services for schools; and

c.     the efficiency gains realised from integrating these two publicly funded bus services

d.    the outdated and inflexible rules of the current centralised school bus system  

Proposed by:           Nelson City Council

Supported by:         LGNZ Regional Sector

                         Staff comment:      Aligns with DCC submission to Otago Regional Council’s Regional Land                                                 Transport Plan (RLTP) in April 2025, and with DCC submission to the                                          Ministry of Transport on the revision of the Public Transport operating                                              Model (PTOM)/Sustainable Transport Framework (SPTF) in April 2023.

REMITS WITH NO CURRENT DCC POLICY OR OPERATIONAL POSITION

13        Remit 1 – Security System Payments

That LGNZ:

Advocates for security system payments to be included as an allowance under the Local Government Members Determination, in line with those afforded to Members of Parliament.

Proposed by:           Far North District Council and Otago District Council

Supported by:         Zone 6 and Zone 1

14        Remit 2 – Improving Joint Management Agreements

That LGNZ:

·   Advocate to Government for: a) legislative change to make the Joint Management Agreement (JMA) mechanism more accessible for councils to use with iwi/hapū, b) for the provision of technical, legal and financial support to facilitate the use of JMAs for joint council and iwi/hapū environmental governance, and c) for a mechanism such as JMAs to be included in the Government’s new resource management legislation. 

Proposed by:           Northland Regional Council

Supported by:         LGNZ Zone 1

15        Remit 3 – Alcohol Licensing Fees

That LGNZ:

·   Advocates for the government to update the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 18 December 2013 to account for inflation and include a mechanism for automatic annual inflation adjustments. 

Proposed by:           Far North District Council

Supported by:         LGNZ Zone 1

16        Remit 5 – Review of local government arrangements to achieve better balance

That LGNZ:

·   Works with the Government and Councils to review current local government arrangements, including the functions and structure of local government, to achieve a better balance between the need to efficiently and effectively deliver services and infrastructure, while enabling democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

Proposed by:           Tauranga City Council

Supported by:         LGNZ Metro Sector

OPTIONS

17        There are two options.  Council can give direction on the DCC’s voting position for each for the remits, or not on specific remits, to the Mayor.

Option One – Council gives direction to voting delegate

Advantages

·        The voting delegate is aware of the preference of Council.

Disadvantages

·         Council gives direction without being fully informed of the discussion that will take place at the AGM about the remits.

Option Two – decisions on the voting position on the remits remains with the voting delegate

Advantages

·        The voting delegate is privy to additional information and debate at the AGM.

Disadvantages

·        The voting delegate is not aware of the preference of Council regarding the remits.

NEXT STEPS

18        The DCC delegate at the LGNZ AGM will vote on the remits in accordance with the decisions made.

Signatories

Attachments

9 year plan 2025 - 2034 Update Report

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for updated significant forecasting assumptions relating to Green Island landfill, interest rates and 3 waters, which are to be used in the completion of the draft 9 year plan 2025-34 (the 9 year plan).

2          A copy of the updated Significant Forecasting Assumptions is at Attachment A.

3          This report also provides, for Councillors information, the revised wording of the Revenue and Financing Policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Approves the updated significant forecasting assumptions at Attachment A, to be used in the completion of the draft 9 year plan 2025-34.

b)        Notes the updated wording in the Revenue and Financing Policy, as presented in paragraph 17 of this report.

BACKGROUND

Significant Forecasting Assumptions

4          To date, five reports have been presented to Council and the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee, seeking approval of significant forecasting assumptions to be used in the development of the 9 year plan as follows:

·    Growth and economic projections - Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee meeting on 16 October 2024

·    Climate change projections – Council meeting on 25 November 2024

·    Financial assumptions – Council meeting on 10 December 2024

·    NZTA Waka Kotahi funding rates update – Council meeting of 28 January 2025

·    3 Waters, levels of service and legislative changes – Council meeting of 11 February 2025.

DISCUSSION

Significant Forecasting Assumptions

5          The assumptions that are proposed to be updated relate to Green Island landfill, interest rates and 3 waters. 

Green Island landfill

6          At its meeting on 30 January 2024, Council confirmed a significant forecasting assumption relating to a pending application for consent extension for Green Island landfill, which would enable it to continue operating.

7          The consent extension application for Green Island landfill was granted in May 2025.

8          For the purposes of completing the 9 year plan, it is proposed that the significant forecasting assumption relating to waste disposal is updated to remove reference to the pending consent.

Interest rates

9          At its meeting on 30 January 2024, Council confirmed a significant forecasting assumption relating to borrowing costs over the duration of the 9 year plan. In May 2025, the Year 1 interest rate was revised to 4.00%.

10        Following the updates above, DCTL revised its projections on the interest rate assumptions for the whole 9 year period. After considering these projections, the revised assumptions for the 9 year plan are proposed as follows:

3 Waters

11        At its meeting on 11 February 2025, Council confirmed a significant forecasting assumption relating to its preferred option of delivering water services using an in-house model.

12        Following community engagement from 31 March to 30 April 2025, Council confirmed its preferred water services delivery model at its meeting on 26 May 2025.

13        For the purposes of completing the 9 year plan, it is proposed that the significant forecasting assumption relating to water services is updated, to reflect the decision to deliver water services using an in-house model, dependent on acceptance of Council’s Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) by the Secretary for Local Government no earlier than September 2025.

Revenue and Financing Policy

14        The Revenue and Financing Policy (the Policy) sets out each activity of Council, how operating and capital expenditure will be funded, and the sources of those funds.

15        At its meeting on 26 May 2025, Council resolved:

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Mayor Jules Radich):

That the Council:

a)        Amends the “Policy details” in the Revenue and Financing Policy for debt to add in the following:

c)     Debt may be used to fund operating expenditure where it is providing a one-off grant to an external community organisation that is constructing or upgrading a building such as a community facility that provides enduring economic and wider community benefits. 

b)        Notes that the Financial Strategy would be updated to reflect this change for            debt raising and potential impacts on the balanced budget.

c)         Notes that a debt repayment policy would be developed, and would be presented to Council prior to the 2026/27 Annual Plan.

d)        Notes that prior to the development of the debt repayment policy, any debt raised for the purpose of providing a one-off grant to an external community organisation that is constructing or upgrading a building as a community facility that provides enduring economic and wider community benefits, would be repaid over 20 years. 

Motion carried (CNL/2025/136)

16        Both the 2021-31 Revenue and Financing Policy and the 2025-34 Policy allows debt to be used to fund operating expenditure.  The resolution was discussed with Audit NZ, and it was recommended that further wording be included in the Policy to put more context and clarity around Council’s ability to use debt to fund operating expenditure.  

17        The wording of the “Policy details” has now been updated, noting the new wording is provided in c) as follows:

1.         Policy details

a)    The Dunedin City Council’s policy to fund operating expenditure is based on the extent to which the provision of a service by the Council is a public or private good.

b)    Debt may be used to fund capital expenditure, along with funded depreciation, capital grant revenue and development contributions.

c)    Council generally plans to fund all operating expenditure from sources other than debt, however debt may be used to fund operating expenditure where the expenditure provides benefits to the community, such as community grants for assets (defined below), or where Council decides it is prudent to do so.  For example:

·    Council may use debt funding if unexpected events occur (e.g., pandemic, natural disaster) that create the need for debt funding some operating expenditure due to changes in expected revenue and or expenditure. 

·    Council may use debt funding for operating expenditure where it is providing a one-off grant to an external community organisation that is constructing or upgrading a building such as a community facility that provides enduring economic and wider community benefits.

18        The revised wording has been agreed with Audit NZ.

OPTIONS

19        There are no options. 

NEXT STEPS

20        The 9 year plan will be completed and presented to the 30 June 2025 Council meeting for adoption.

Signatories

Attachments

Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan - Notice of intent

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report seeks approval to commence the public consultation process described in section 41(5) of the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act) to proceed with review of the Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan (the Plan)

2          The Plan (Attachment A) has not been comprehensively reviewed since it was adopted in May 2012.

3          Although the land within the Plan is not classified reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, staff intend to adopt the Act’s review process to provide consistency with other management plan reviews currently in progress.

4          Management plans are formed to ensure activities within public land provide for the use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection, development and preservation of the land, as the case may require.

5          A Statement of Proposal (Attachment B) provides background information on the Hereweka / Harbour Cone land, the existing management plan and details of the review process.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Approves the Statement of Proposal and commencement of the public consultation process described in section 41(5) of the Reserves Act 1977.

BACKGROUND

6          In January 2008, the Dunedin City Council approved purchase of the 328-hectare property on the Otago Peninsula that has become known as Hereweka, or Harbour Cone. The Council purchased the land to protect its significant landscape, ecological, heritage and cultural values and in recognition of its potential recreational and tourist values.

7          The Plan was adopted in May 2012 to provide a policy framework to integrate the multiple objectives that the Dunedin community had for this property, while ensuring that management and enhancements were based on sound principles and in alignment with the values of the property.

8          The Council steering committee charged with developing an appropriate management model for the property determined that the best vehicle to manage the land in accordance with the Plan would be an independent charitable trust.

9          On 28 July 2015 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attachment C) was formed between the Dunedin City Council and Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Trust Board Incorporated (the Trust). The MOU describes the roles and obligations of Council and the Trust, including with regard to administration and review of the Plan.

10        The MOU states that the Trust will jointly lead review of the Plan, with Council, and this must be initiated within 10 years of the date of the existing Plan.

11        The Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee revised the schedule of reserve management plan reviews at its meeting on 16 October 2024, elevating the review of the Plan to a higher priority:

Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Committee:

a) Approves the attached Reserve Management Plan Schedule with the following amendments:

Hereweka/Harbour Cone Reserve Management Plan to be item 8; and

Sports Ground Management Plan 1999 to be item 9

 Motion carried (SPECC/2024/052)

DISCUSSION

12        A comprehensive review of the Plan would ensure that it is up to date and relevant with regard to issues, opportunities, technology, and best practices.

13        Staff intend to adhere to the section 41 requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 that apply to the review process of reserve management plans. Though the land within Hereweka / Harbour cone is not classified reserve under the Act, staff believe the section 41(5) process will provide consistency with other reserve management plans currently in process and ensure robust public consultation and participation.

14        Section 41(5) requires Council to give public notice of its intention to prepare a reserve management plan, or of its intention to review a reserve management plan comprehensively.  This public notice must “invite persons or organisations interested to send the administering body written suggestions within a time specified in the notice” (s41(5)(b) Reserves Act 1977).

15        Community engagement is carried out in two stages – the first stage seeks community input on new or current plans that need updating.  Staff have allocated 20 working days for this initial engagement period. The stage 1 feedback guides and influences the writing of the draft management plan.

16        Using feedback received during stage 1 of engagement, a draft reserve management plan is prepared.  Staff then report back to Council (or Committee) to seek approval as per Section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977, to “give public notice… stating that the draft plan is available for inspection at a place and times specified in the notice, and calling upon persons or organisations interested to lodge with the administering body written objections to or suggestions on the draft plan before a specified date, being not less than 2 months after the date of publication of the notice; and give notice in writing as far as practicable, to all persons and organisations who or which made suggestions to the administering body under subsection (5)..”

17        In the second stage, submitters can provide feedback on the draft management plan. The stage 2 feedback is considered by the Hearings Committee and is assimilated into the final plan.

18        This report seeks approval of the Statement of Proposal and commencement of Stage 1 of community engagement.

OPTIONS

19        <Enter text>

Option One – Recommended Option

20        Council approves the proposal to publicly notify its intention to prepare a Management Plan for Hereweka / Harbour Cone, as described by section 41(5) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Debt

·        No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

·        There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

·        Initiating review of the Plan will not have an impact on carbon emissions.

·        The review process may provide opportunities to explore carbon sequestration opportunities through site planting and reduce carbon emissions through emissions-conscious operating procedures.

Advantages

·        Staff can begin the public consultation process, as described by section 41(5) of the Reserves Act 1977, allowing interested persons and organisations to provide written suggestions on the proposal.

Disadvantages

·        There are costs and staff resource associated with the public notification, and subsequent preparation of a Management Plan.  These are covered within existing budgets.

Option Two – Status Quo

21        Council rejects the proposal to publicly notify its intention to review the Hereweka /Harbour Cone Management Plan and does not initiate a public consultation process.

Debt

·        No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

·        There is no impact on rates.

Zero carbon

·        There is no impact on carbon emissions if Council rejects the proposal to publicly notify its intention to review the Plan.

·        There may be a missed opportunity for a review process to consider carbon emission issues within the Plan.

Advantages

·        Costs and staff resource associated with the public notification, and subsequent preparation of a management plan are not required.

Disadvantages

·        Hereweka / Harbour Cone would continue to be managed under the 2012 management plan.

·        Council would not meet its obligations under the MOU to jointly review the Plan with the Trust.

NEXT STEPS

22        If approved, staff will follow the public consultation process described by section 41(5) of the Reserves Act 1977.

·        There will be a public notice appearing in the Otago Daily Times and a media release for the wider media outlets.

·        There will be notices on Council’s social media channels. 

·        The preparation of the management plan will be listed as a consultation project on Council’s website.

·        Known key users and stakeholders of the Hereweka / Harbour Cone will be engaged with directly.

Signatories

Attachments

Statement of Proposal

Review of Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan 2012

Introduction

The Dunedin City Council (DCC) will review the Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan 2012 (the Plan).

This statement of proposal sets out background information, what is being proposed, reasons for the proposal, how submissions on the proposal may be made and how long the consultation period will run for.

Management plans are used to ensure that the management, administration, use and development of a Council property is consistent with the property’s natural, cultural, recreation, heritage or other values.

Background

In January 2008, the Dunedin City Council approved purchase of the 328-hectare property on the Otago Peninsula that has become known as Hereweka, or Harbour Cone. The Council purchased the land to protect its significant landscape, ecological, heritage and cultural values and in recognition of its potential recreational and tourist values.

The Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan 2012 was adopted by Council in 2012 to provide a policy framework to integrate the multiple objectives that the Dunedin community had for this property, while ensuring that management and enhancements were based on sound principles and in alignment with the values of the property.

Management plans are formed to ensure activities within public land provide for the use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection, development and preservation of the land, as the case may require.

After the Plan was adopted, Council determined that the best vehicle to manage the land in accordance with the Plan would be an independent charitable trust. In July 2015, a Memorandum of Understanding was formed between the Dunedin City Council and Hereweka/Harbour Cone Management Trust Board Incorporated. The MOU describes the roles and obligations of Council and the Trust, including with regard to administration and review of the Management Plan. The MOU states that the Trust will jointly lead review of the Plan, with Council.

What we are proposing

Although the property within the Plan is not classified as reserve, Council will use the review process described in section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977. This will maintain consistency with review of Council’s other management plans and ensure a robust public consultation process.

The Reserves Act requires Council to give public notice of our intention to review the Plan and invite interested people and organisations to provide feedback.

As well as advertising in the Otago Daily Times public notices section of our intention to review the Plan we will notify media and call for feedback on social media and DCC’s website.  Parks and Recreation Services staff will be available to discuss the proposal and how submissions can be made.

Have your say

We’re seeking your feedback on the current Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan (2012). In particular, we’d like to hear your thoughts on how the Plan could be updated to better reflect the changes, challenges, and opportunities that have emerged over the past decade.

We’re also interested in your ideas for the future use and management of Hereweka / Harbour Cone. How do you think this important landscape should be protected, enjoyed, and cared for into the future?

Your input will help shape a revised draft management plan, which will be shared for further public feedback in late 2025.

How to give feedback

Fill in the feedback form here

Or feedback forms can be:

•             Emailed to: parksconsulting@dcc.govt.nz

•             Posted to:

Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan 2012

Parks and Recreation Services

Attention: S Hogg

Dunedin City Council

PO Box 5045

Dunedin 9054

•          Delivered to a DCC service centre or library.

For any queries, please email parksconsulting@dcc.govt.nz

What happens next?

•             The submission period is from Monday, 21 July 2025 until Monday, 18 August 2025 at 5 pm.

•             Parks and Recreation staff will review feedback and prepare a draft Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan.

•             Later in 2025, the draft Plan will be notified for public consultation, with details about how to make submissions.

Please note: Your name and submission will be made public as part of the DCC’s decision-making process.  This information will be included in papers available to the public and the media but will only be used for the Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan consultation.

Late submissions may not be accepted.

Thank you for your submission.

Freedom Camping 2024/25 End Of Season Report

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report provides a summary of 2024/25 Freedom Camping Season Statistics (Attachment A).

2          Freedom camping in Dunedin is managed through education and enforcement of the Camping Control Bylaw 2015 (the Bylaw).

3          Nightly freedom camping compliance patrols during the 2024/25 season were conducted over a three-month patrol period between 18 December 2024 and 17 March 2025 of known freedom camping sites. Compliance officers also responded to individual complaints of non-compliant freedom camping outside this period.

4          Data collected during nightly compliance patrols showed an 8% decrease in freedom camper numbers compared with data collected during the 2023/2024 freedom camping season.

5          Ten thousand, five hundred and forty-one (10,541) freedom camping vehicles were counted across Dunedin City during the period 18 December 2024 to 17 March 2025. Over the extent of the camping season (1 November 2024 – 31 May 2025), 42 Bylaw infringement notices were issued and 70 complaints regarding freedom camping were made to Dunedin City Council (DCC) staff.

6          New self-containment standards for rental camping vehicles came into effect on 7 December 2024. The Ministry for Business Employment and Innovation (MBIE) announced an extension to the transition period for privately owned camping vehicles, which will now need to comply to the new standards by 7 June 2026.

7          Due to consistently high levels of Bylaw compliance over successive seasons, compliance patrols will transition to a response-based model during the 2025/2026, in which officers will only attend sites in which Bylaw offences have been reported.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Notes the Freedom Camping 2024/25 End of Season Report.

BACKGROUND

Management of the Camping Control Bylaw

8          The Bylaw permits freedom camping in certified self-contained vehicles on hard-stand (gravelled or sealed) DCC parking spaces, excluding scheduled prohibited areas.  The Bylaw also provides freedom camping for all vehicle types at three unrestricted sites: the Warrington Domain, Thomas Burns Street carpark (from 1 November to 30 April each year) and Ocean View Reserve.  Camping is permitted for up to two consecutive nights at all sites and campers must obey on-site signage to be Bylaw-compliant.

9          Freedom camping compliance officers patrol known camping sites nightly during the freedom camping season. If Bylaw non-compliance is encountered, officers may issue infringement notices.

10        Complaints of non-compliant freedom camping received by DCC are referred to compliance officers for investigation. Officers investigate all complaints, during daylight hours or as part of their nightly patrols, depending on the nature of the complaint and the availability of resources.

11        In addition to the freedom camping compliance programme, the DCC, in partnership with the Department of Conservation (DOC), employs three Community Rangers between 27 October  and 30 April  as part of a joint education initiative.

12        The Community Rangers visit known freedom camping sites during the day to provide campers with freedom camping regulatory information. The seasonal Community Ranger programme has been operational since 2018.

13        Both the Community Ranger programme and the camping compliance programme gather data on camper numbers and behaviour.  These data sets inform future management programmes.

Self-Contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Act 2023

14        The Self-Contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Act (SCMVLA) received Royal Assent on 6 June 2023. The Act amended the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006 to reduce the adverse effects of freedom camping. The major changes introduced by the Act include:

a) The requirement for vehicle-based freedom campers to use a certified self-contained vehicle when staying on council land, unless the council designates a site as suitable for non-self-contained vehicles through a bylaw;

b) The establishment of a regulated system for the certification and registration of self-contained vehicles;

c) An amendment to the definition of freedom camping to prohibit enforcement action against homeless people;

d) A requirement for vehicles to have a fixed toilet to be certified as self-contained;

e) Strengthening of the infringement system and an increase in infringement fees;

f) An extension of the Freedom Camping Act to include land managed by Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency and Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand.

15        Existing self-containment certificates are being phased out over a transition period, allowing vehicle owners time to modify their vehicles to meet the new certification requirements. Rental vehicles were required to comply by 7 December 2024, while private vehicle owners were initially given until 7 June 2025. Certification standards have changed from blue warrant certificates to green warrant certificates.

16        As of 7 December 2024, the transition period for rental vehicle providers ended. All rental camping vehicles must now display a green certificate as proof of compliance with the new self-containment requirements.

17        On 27 February 2025, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) announced an extension of the transition period for private vehicle owners, pushing the compliance deadline out to 7 June 2026.

DISCUSSION

18        Compliance officers patrolled known freedom camping sites nightly over the three-month period from 18 December 2024 to 17 March 2025 and issued infringement notices for Bylaw offences. Officers also investigated reports of non-compliant freedom camping, outside of their standard patrol areas.

19        Three Community Rangers were employed under a joint agreement with the Department of Conservation (DOC). The 2024/2025 Community Ranger programme was shortened to reduce costs, with Rangers patrolling from 18 November 2024 to 4 April 2025.

20        Community Rangers provided freedom campers with Bylaw information and guidance on the changes brought forth by the SCMVLA during daily patrols of popular sites, with focus on the recent increase in infringement fees and changes to self-containment requirements.

21        Community Rangers conducted a survey of private self-contained vehicle owners to gain insight into awareness of the transition to green certificate self-containment requirements.

22        Of 190 private vehicle owners surveyed:

a)         171 (90%) were aware that certification requirements for their vehicles were changing

b)        112 (59%) planned to obtain green certification, making changes to their vehicles as necessary

c)         10 (5%) believed their vehicle would not need modifying to obtain green certification

d)        33 (17%) experienced difficulty understanding the green certification requirements, or were struggling to meet the costs of modifying their vehicles

e)        68 (36%) planned to sell their vehicle without obtaining green certification and return to their home country

23        Community Rangers reported a high level of compliance with rental vehicles displaying green certification. In cases of non-compliance, campers were warned of potential infringements and encouraged to discuss the issue with the vehicle provider.

24        Compliance officers counted ten thousand, five hundred and forty-one (10,541) freedom camping vehicles across Dunedin City during the period 18 December 2024 to 17 March 2025.

25        This was an 8% decrease in vehicles counted over the same period during the 2023/2024 season (11517 vehicles counted), marking the first seasonal decrease in camping vehicle numbers since the 2020/2021 season, which was affected by Covid-19 lockdowns and border restrictions.

26        Peak vehicle numbers over the December – March period (15,375) were observed during the 2019/2020 season, shortly before Covid-19 travel restrictions were introduced.

27        Information provided by Stats NZ shows increases in overseas visitor arrivals over the 2024/2025 freedom camping in season, when compared to the 2023/2024 season. 

28        The DCC’s three unrestricted freedom camping sites remained popular with campers and accommodated 6,181 (59%) of the vehicles counted.  The Warrington Domain was the most popular with 2,710 vehicles; the Thomas Burns Street carpark accommodated 2,253 vehicles and the Ocean View Reserve, 1,219 vehicles.

29        Camper numbers at the Thomas Burns Street site decreased, while numbers at the Warrington Domain and Ocean View Reserve increased when compared to the previous season.

30        Of the vehicles staying at unrestricted sites, 2957 (48%) were certified self-contained. This was a decrease from 54% self-contained during the previous season.

31        The Brighton Domain and St Clair Esplanade were the most popular restricted sites with 1,571 and 600 vehicles counted, respectively.  The Kensington Oval saw an 83% decrease in freedom camping vehicle numbers, from 775 during the 2023/2024 season, to 129 during the 2024/2025 season.

32        Vehicles staying at restricted sites must display an NZS 5465:2001 self-containment certificate to be Bylaw-compliant.

33        Forty-two (42) infringement notices were issued for non-compliant camping during the 2024/25 season, of which, 14 were subsequently waived. This is an increase from 7 notices issued during the 2023/2024 season in which compliance officers were tasked with an education-first approach, due to recent changes in legislation. Infringement notices peaked during the 2018/19 season with 682 issued.

34        The majority of infringement notices were issued to vehicles camping in a restricted area without displaying a valid self-containment certificate (25 infringements issued) and to vehicles exceeding the two-consecutive-night maximum permitted stay (15 infringements issued).

35        Seventy (70) complaints of non-compliant freedom camping were received between 1 November 2024 and 14 May 2025.  This equates to 0.7 complaints per 100 freedom camping vehicles counted. 

36        The definition of freedom camping was amended under the SCMVLA to exclude people who are ‘unable to live in appropriate residential accommodation’ from enforcement action, provided they are not in New Zealand on a visitor visa.

37        MBIE is currently seeking feedback from Councils on the effects of this amendment, as part of a review required by the SCMVLA.

38        Compliance officers that encounter homeless campers provide information regarding the Ministry of Social Development’s Emergency Housing service in the first instance, with personal details then referred to DCC’s team for follow-up, if these details have been provided.

39        Year-to-date freedom camping compliance costs totalled $116,472.

OPTIONS

40        As this report is for noting only, no options are presented.

NEXT STEPS

41        Staff will commence planning for the upcoming 2025/2026 freedom camping season. Focus points will include:

a)         Continued education of campers regarding the new requirements of the SCMVLA through the Community Ranger program

b)        Monitoring the effects of the SCMVLA on camper numbers at Council’s unrestricted freedom camping sites

42        Compliance officers will transition to a reactive patrol function during the 2025/2026 freedom camping season. This is expected to reduce enforcement costs by only deploying enforcement officers to address specific reports of non-compliant freedom camping.

Signatories

Attachments