Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 30 July 2025

Council

30 July 2025

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Octagon, Dunedin on Tuesday 24 June 2025, commencing at 09.01 am

PRESENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Sandy Graham (Chief Executive Officer), Carolyn Allan (Chief Financial Officer), Scott MacLean (General Manager Climate and City Growth), Mike Perkins (General Manager 3 Waters and Transition - Acting), Nicola Morand (Manahautū - General Manager Policy and Partnerships), Paul Henderson (Acting General Manager Customer & Regulatory), Cam McCracken (Acting General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation), Gill Brown (Principal Policy Advisor Housing), Karilyn Canton (Chief In-House Legal Counsel),Jackie Harrison (Manager Governance) Vicki Kestila (Masters Games Manager); John Brimble (NZMG Dunedin Chairman); Stephen Hogg (Parks Policy Analyst); Jinty MacTavish (Manager Zero Carbon); Nadia Wesley Smith (Corporate Policy Manager)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Opening

Rev Filimone Uili, Tongan Methodist Minister opened the meeting with a prayer.

Cr Marie Laufiso entered the meeting at 9.06 am

The Mayor commented on the tragic house fire which occurred in the early hours of Saturday 21 June 2025. He acknowledged the family who were all known to Council, the bravery displayed and gratitude that they all had escaped the fire.

Cr Kevin Gilbert echoed the Mayor’s sentiments and spoke of the courage of a family member being at work for the Council meeting.

2 Public Forum

There was no Public Forum.

3 Apologies

There were apologies from Mayor Jules Radich and Crs Andrew Whiley and Kevin Gilbert for early departure and from Crs Marie Laufiso and Carmen Houlahan for lateness.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Accepts the apologies from Mayor Jules Radich and Crs Andrew Whiley and Kevin Gilbert for early departure and Cr Marie Laufiso for lateness.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/169)

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/170)

5 Declarations of interest

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

Cr Christine Garey provided an update to her Interest Register.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Amends the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

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

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

Motion carried (CNL/2025/171)

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 26 May 2025

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

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

Motion carried (CNL/2025/172)

Reports

8 Otepoti Dunedin Housing Plan Update
	A report from Policy and Partnerships provided an update on the work towards the Ōtepoti Dunedin Housing Plan 2022 and outlined the progress made by staff against each of the 15 action points of the Plan’s second Implementation Plan 2024-2026.
	The Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships) (Nicola Morand) and Principal Policy Advisor Housing (Gill Brown) and General Manager Customer and Regulatory Acting (Paul Henderson) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
During discussion, Cr Sophie Barker left the meeting at 9.43 am and returned at 9.46 am. Crs Carmen Houlahan and Brent Weatherall entered the meeting at 9.50 am.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the update against the Ōtepoti Dunedin Housing Plan 2022 and its Implementation Plan 2024 – 2026. Motion carried (CNL/2025/173)

7 Submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill
	A report from Corporate Policy and Legal Services sought approval of a submission to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill.
	The Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships) (Nicola Morand) and Chief In-House Legal Counsel (Karilyn Canton) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
During discussion Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 10.44 am and returned at 10.47 am.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr David Benson-Pope): That the Council: a) Approves the DCC submission, with amendments to include an additional section on the impacts on the environment, 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 minor amendments discussed at the meeting to the submission. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (13). Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 13 votes to 1 Motion carried (CNL/2025/174)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 15 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 11.00 am and reconvened at 11.16 am.

9 Sustainability Framework Update
	A report from Corporate Policy provided an update on the progress of developing a United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) based Sustainability Framework for the Dunedin City Council.
	The Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships) (Nicola Morand) and Corporate Policy Manager (Nadia Wesley-Smith) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Approves the progression of Sustainability Framework with localised targets and indicators as follows: i) Refine targets (via a councillor workshop) to 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. b) Notes that once targets had been refined, staff would identify draft indicators derived from the operational side of business c) Notes that staff would 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. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, Kevin Gilbert, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (8). Against: Crs David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Lee Vandervis and Steve Walker (6). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 8 votes to 6 Motion carried (CNL/2025/175)

10 Carbon Removals (Sequestration) Update
	A report from Zero Carbon provided an update on work on carbon removal options for the DCC. It set out the key considerations for the DCC with respect to carbon removals, identified options for the DCC to support growth of carbon removals in Dunedin, and provided the next steps.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) and Manager – Zero Carbon (Jinty MacTavish) provided an update to figures outlined in Table 2 – Indicative area of planting required to balance residual DCC emissions in 2030/21 or 2035/36 and responded to questions.
During discussion Cr Andrew Whiley left the meeting at 12.07 pm and returned at 12.09 pm.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Kevin Gilbert): 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. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Jules Radich (11). Against: Crs Cherry Lucas, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (3). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 3 Motion carried (CNL/2025/176)

Crs Andrew Whiley and Kevin Gilbert left the meeting at 12.26 pm.

11 New Zealand Masters Games Delivery Plan - 2026
	A report from Events provided an overview of the plan for the delivery of the 2026 New Zealand Masters Games and noted that the plan had been developed to ensure the events sustainability in response to the financial loss incurred during the 2024 New Zealand Masters Games.
	The Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships (Nicola Morand), Masters Games Manager (Vicki Kestila) and the Manager, Masters Games Trust (John Brimble) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Lee Vandervis/Cr Bill Acklin): That the Council: a) Notes the New Zealand Masters Games Delivery Plan. Motion carried (CNL/2025/177)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 40 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.50 pm and reconvened at 1.30 pm.

Mayor Jules Radich left the meeting at 12.50 pm and Deputy Mayor Cherry Lucas assumed the Chair.

12 LGNZ Annual General Meeting Remits
	A report from Civic noted that the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) 2022 Annual General Meeting (AGM) would be held on 15 – 17 July 2025 in Christchurch. At that meeting, consideration would be given to five remits that had been submitted by local authorities. The Council needed to determine which (if any) of the remits it wished to support. The DCC delegate would vote on DCC’s behalf on each remit.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Bill Acklin): That the Council: a) Delegates to the voting delegate (the Mayor) the authority to determine the DCC’s voting position for the remits submitted to the LGNZ AGM. Motion carried (CNL/2025/178) with Crs Christine Garey; Marie Laufiso and Lee Vandervis recording their votes against.

13 9 year plan 2025 - 2034 Update Report
	A report from Civic sought approval for updated significant forecasting assumptions relating to Green Island landfill, interest rates and 3 waters, which would be used in the completion of the draft 9 year plan 2025-34.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham), Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan), Financial Services Manager (Hayden McAuliffe) and Special Projects Lead (Sharon Bodeker) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Steve Walker): 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 the report. Motion carried (CNL/2025/179)

14 Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan - Notice of intent
	A report from Parks and Recreation sought approval to commence the public consultation process described in section 41(5) of the Reserves Act 1977 to proceed with review of the Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) and Parks and Recreation Planner (Stephen Hogg) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): 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. Motion carried (CNL/2025/180)

15 Freedom Camping 2024/25 End Of Season Report
	A report from Parks and Recreation provided a summary of 2024/25 Freedom Camping Season Statistics.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) and Parks and Recreation Planner (Stephen Hogg) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Christine Garey/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Notes the Freedom Camping 2024/25 End of Season Report. Motion carried (CNL/2025/181)

16 Approval to Grant Electricity Easement to Aurora Energy Limited - Part Ocean Beach Domain - Local Purpose Reserve (Coastal Conservation), Dunedin
	A report from Parks and Recreation discussed an application by Aurora Energy Limited for the grant of an electricity easement over part of Ocean Beach Domain - Local Purpose Reserve (Coastal Conservation) in Dunedin.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) and Senior Leasing and Land Advisor (Owen Graham) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Lee Vandervis/Cr Carmen Houlahan): That the Council: a) Grants, as owner of Ocean Beach Domain - Local Purpose Reserve (Coastal Conservation), pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, an easement in gross to Aurora Energy Limited for an electricity transformer and installation of new electricity equipment and any associated cabling over part of the Ocean Beach Domain - Local Purpose Reserve (Coastal Conservation), contained in Record of Title 266834. The easement terms and conditions will be those outlined in this report. b) Decides the criteria for exemption from public notification has been met. c) Acting under its delegation from the Minister of Conservation dated 12 June 2013 and pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, approves an easement in gross to Aurora Energy Limited for an electricity transformer and installation of new electricity equipment and any associated cabling over part of the Ocean Beach Domain - Local Purpose Reserve (Coastal Conservation), contained in Record of Title 266834. Motion carried (CNL/2025/182)

17 Resolution to Stop Part of Whites Road, Waikouaiti
	A report from Property and Legal Services recommended concluding the road stopping process for 0.4752 hectares of land at Whites Road, near Waikouaiti, as the public notification process had been completed and no objections were received.
	The Chief In-House Legal Counsel (Karilyn Canton), Group Manager, Property Services (Anna Nilsen) and Strategic Property Advisor (Paula Dickel) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Lee Vandervis/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: a) Resolves that under Section 342 of the Local Government Act 1974 the part of unformed road described as Sections 2 and 3 SO 592616 is stopped. b) Notes that no objections were submitted during the notice period and the consent of the Minister of Land has been obtained. c) Authorises a public notice declaring that the road was stopped. Motion carried (CNL/2025/183)

18 Declaring Gift of Land at Portobello from The Otago Peninsula Agricultural and Pastoral Society to be Reserve
	A report from Parks and Recreation sought approval to declare approximately 1.1734 hectares of land owned by The Otago Peninsula Agricultural and Pastoral Society (the Society) and being gifted to the Council to be a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977, and further to classify that land to be recreation reserve.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) and Senior Leasing and Land Advisor (Owen Graham) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Christine Garey/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: a) Notes the information contained in this Report. b) Resolves to declare the land contained in Records of Title OT8A/574, OT185/76, OT324/9, OT8A/575, OT312/56, OT220/89, OT405/76, OTA1/1440 and OT8B/525 comprising approximately 1.1734 hectares, owned by The Otago Peninsula Agricultural and Pastoral Society and being gifted to the Council, as a reserve held for the purposes of recreation under section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977 and further; c) Resolves to classify the land contained in Records of Title OT8A/574, OT185/76, OT324/9, OT8A/575, OT312/56, OT220/89, OT405/76, OTA1/1440 and OT8B/525 comprising approximately 1.1734 hectares, owned by The Otago Peninsula Agricultural and Pastoral Society and being gifted to the Council, as a recreation reserve under section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977. Motion carried (CNL/2025/184)

19 Proposed Event Road Closures

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

i) Motorsport Event - Silverstream Valley / Flagstaff Whare Flat Roads

ii) Emersons Dunedin Marathon - Various Streets

iii) Motorsport Event - Dukes Road North

The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) spoke to the report and responded to questions.

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

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

i) Motorsport Event - Silverstream Valley / Flagstaff Whare Flat Roads

Saturday, 6 September 2025

8.00am to 6.00pm

· Silverstream Valley Road, between 345 Silverstream Valley Road and Flagstaff Whare Flat Road

· Flagstaff Valley Road, between Silverstream Valley Road and 83 Flagstaff Whare Flat Road

ii) Emersons Dunedin Marathon - Various Streets

Saturday, 13 September 2025	5.00pm to 11.59pm	· Ward Street overbridge - entire length
Sunday, 14 September 2025	12 midnight to 3.00pm	· Ward Street overbridge - entire length
Sunday, 14 September 2025	8.30am to 1.00pm
· Portobello Road, between Shore Street and 430 Portobello Road (Glenfalloch) · Marne Street, between Portobello Road and Larnach Road · Doon Street, between Portobello Road and Glengyle Street · Fryatt Street and Wickliffe Street - full length · Kitchener Street and Birch Street - full length · Anzac Avenue, between Union Street East and Ravensbourne Road, · Logan Park Drive - full length · Butts Road, between Dundas Street and Anzac Avenue

iii) Motorsport Event - Dukes Road North

Sunday, 2 November 2025

8.00am to 6.00pm

· Dukes Road North, between Sinclair Road and Carncross Street

Motion carried (CNL/2025/185)

20 Development Contributions Options Report
	A report from Civic advised that the Draft Development Policy was consulted on as part of the 9 year plan. There were 15 submissions on the draft policy, 13 of which were opposed to the increases in the proposed development contribution charge.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Bill Acklin): That the Council: a) Approves capping to $27,170 development contribution charges for the Warrington, Seacliff, Karitane, Waikouaiti, and Middlemarch areas of benefit, to align with the Dunedin Central Greenfields area of benefit. b) Approves phasing in increases in development contribution charges of $6,000 or more. c) Approves phasing increases in development contributions over a three year period. d) Notes that following a decision by Council, the Development Contributions Policy will be updated to reflect the decisions made by Council. Motion carried (CNL/2025/186)

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

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

General subject of the matter to be considered

Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

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

Reason for Confidentiality

C1 Ordinary Council meeting - 26 May 2025 - Public Excluded

s48(1)(d)

Check to make report confidential.

C2 Appointment of Director to Dunedin City Holdings Limited

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

S48(1)(a)

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

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

Adjourns the meeting

Motion carried (CNL/2025/187)

The meeting moved into confidential at 2.10 pm and concluded at 2.23 pm.

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

MAYOR

Council

30 July 2025

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Octagon, Dunedin on Monday 30 June 2025, commencing at 9:00 am

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Jules Radich
Deputy Mayor	Cr Cherry Lucas
Members	Cr Bill Acklin	Cr Sophie Barker via zoom audio visual link
	Cr Christine Garey	Cr Kevin Gilbert via zoom audio visual link
	Cr Carmen Houlahan	Cr Mandy Mayhem
	Cr Jim O’Malley	Cr Lee Vandervis
	Cr Steve Walker via zoom audio visual link	Cr Brent Weatherall
	Cr Andrew Whiley via zoom audio visual link initially

IN ATTENDANCE

Sandy Graham (Chief Executive Officer), Robert West (General Manager Corporate Services), Carolyn Allan (Chief Financial Officer), Scott MacLean (General Manager Climate and City Growth), David Ward (General Manager 3 Waters and Transition), Paul Henderson (Acting General Manager Customer & Regulatory), Cam McCracken (General Manager Art, Culture & Recreation – Acting) and Jackie Harrison (Manager Governance), Sharon Bodeker (Special Projects Manager), Hayden McAuliffe (Financial Services Manager), Serge Kolman (Procurement and Contracts Manager), Dominika Bizak-Kochan (Capital Delivery Manager), Tim Loan (Chairman, DCHL)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Opening

Rev Te Ata Roy, Māori Chaplain for the University of Otago and Otago Polytechnic opened the meeting with a prayer.

2 Public Forum

There was no Public Forum.

3 Apologies

There was an apology for lateness from Cr Marie Laufiso.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Accepts the apology for lateness from Cr Marie Laufiso.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/188)

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/189)

5 Declarations of interest

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

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

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

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

Motion carried (CNL/2025/190)

Reports

6 Adoption of the 9 year plan 2025-34
	A report from Civic and Finance recommended the adoption of the 9 year plan 2025-34 and described changes made to the plan since it was approved for consultation on 26 March 2025.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham), Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan), Financial Services Manager (Hayden McAuliffe) and Special Projects Manager (Sharon Bodeker) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Andrew Whiley entered the meeting at 9.12 am. Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 10.04 am and returned at 10.07 am.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Adopts the Revenue and Financing Policy for inclusion in the 9 year plan 2025-34. b) Approves the 9 year plan 2025-34. c) Receives the Independent auditor’s report on the Dunedin City Council’s 9 year plan 2025-34. d) Adopts the 9 year plan 2025-34. e) Authorises the Council’s Chief Executive Officer to make any minor editorial changes resulting from the final quality checks that would occur prior to the printing of the 9 year plan 2025-34 document. f) Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to drawdown debt up to total debt of $800 million in the 2025/26 year. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (12). Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 12 votes to 1 Motion carried (CNL/2025/191)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 15 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 10.22 am and reconvened at 10.39 am.

Crs Sophie Barker and Kevin Gilbert left the meeting during the break.

7 Setting of Rates for the 2025/26 Financial Year

A report from Finance advised that following adoption of the 9 year plan 2025-34, the Council needed to set the rates as provided in the Funding Impact Statement for the 2025/26 year.

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

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing 1 July 2025 and ending on 30 June 2026.

1. General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 made on every rating unit, assessed on a differential basis as described below:

· A rate of 0.3077 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "residential" category.

· A rate of 0.2923 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "lifestyle" category.

· A rate of 0.7693 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial" category.

· A rate of 0.5385 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "residential heritage bed and breakfasts" category.

· A rate of 0.2462 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "farmland" category.

· A rate of 0.0563 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on the “stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity” category.

2. Community Services Rate

A targeted rate for community services, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· $121.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories.

· $121.00 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "commercial and stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity" categories.

3. Kerbside Collection Rate

A targeted rate for kerbside collection, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· $343.40 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories.

· $343.40 (including GST) per rating unit for rating units in the "commercial" category.

4. Drainage Rates

A targeted rate for drainage, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· $884.40 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

· $442.20 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

· $884.40 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "commercial, residential institutions, schools and stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity" categories and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

· $442.20 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "commercial, residential institutions and schools" categories and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

· $102.25 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "church" category and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

Rating units which are not "connected" to the scheme, and which are not "serviceable" will not be liable for this rate. Drainage is a combined targeted rate for sewage disposal and stormwater. Sewage disposal makes up 78% of the drainage rate, and stormwater makes up 22%. Non-rateable land will not be liable for the stormwater component of the drainage targeted rate. Rates demands for the drainage targeted rate for non-rateable land will therefore be charged at 78%.

5. Commercial Drainage Rates – Capital Value

A targeted rate for drainage, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· A rate of 0.3018 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial and residential institution" category and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

· A rate of 0.1509 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial" category and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

· A rate of 0.2264 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "school" category and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

· A rate of 0.1132 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "school" category and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

· A rate of 0.0206 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on the “stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity” category.

This rate shall not apply to properties in Karitane, Middlemarch, Seacliff, Waikouaiti and Warrington. This rate shall not apply to churches. Drainage is a combined targeted rate for sewage disposal and stormwater. Sewage disposal makes up 78% of the drainage rate, and stormwater makes up 22%. Non-rateable land will not be liable for the stormwater component of the drainage targeted rate. Rates demands for the drainage targeted rate for non-rateable land will therefore be charged at 78%.

6. Water Rates

A targeted rate for water supply, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· $671.80 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of any "connected" rating unit which receives an ordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws excepting properties in Karitane, Merton, Rocklands/Pukerangi, Seacliff, Waitati, Warrington, East Taieri, West Taieri and North Taieri.

· $335.90 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of any "serviceable" rating unit to which connection is available to receive an ordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws excepting properties in Karitane, Merton, Rocklands/Pukerangi, Seacliff, Waitati, Warrington, East Taieri, West Taieri and North Taieri.

· $671.80 (including GST) per unit of water being one cubic metre (viz. 1,000 litres) per day supplied at a constant rate of flow during a full 24 hour period to any "connected" rating unit situated in Karitane, Merton, Seacliff, Waitati, Warrington, West Taieri, East Taieri or North Taieri.

· $335.90 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of any "serviceable" rating unit situated in Waitati, Warrington, West Taieri, East Taieri or North Taieri. This rate shall not apply to the availability of water in Merton, Karitane or Seacliff.

7. Fire Protection Rates

A targeted rate for the provision of a fire protection service, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· A rate of 0.0860 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on all rating units in the "commercial" category. This rate shall not apply to churches.

· A rate of 0.0645 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on all rating units in the "residential institutions" category.

· A rate of 0.0084 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on the “stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity” category.

· $201.54 (including GST) for each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit within the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" category that is not receiving an ordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws.

8. Water Rates – Quantity of Water

A targeted rate for the quantity of water provided to any rating unit fitted with a water meter, being an extraordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws, set under section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, according to the following scale of charges (GST inclusive):

	Annual Meter Rental Charge
20mm nominal diameter	$186.93
25mm nominal diameter	$239.98
30mm nominal diameter	$266.51
40mm nominal diameter	$301.86
50mm nominal diameter	$611.32
80mm nominal diameter	$755.30
100mm nominal diameter	$796.30
150mm nominal diameter	$1,145.58
300mm nominal diameter	$1,486.60
70mm Hydrant Standpipe	$740.15
Reconnection Fee – includes the removal of water restrictors installed due to non-compliance of the water bylaw	$520.98
Special Reading Fee	$70.80
	Backflow Prevention Charge
Backflow Preventer Test Fee	$147.94
Rescheduled Backflow Preventer Test Fee	$88.30
Backflow Programme - incomplete application fee (hourly rate)	$51.94
	Water Charge
Merton, Hindon and individual farm supplied Bulk Raw Water Tariff	$0.15 per cubic metre
All other treated water per cubic metre	$2.55 per cubic metre
	Network Contributions
Disconnection of Water Supply – AWSCI to excavate	$290.12
Disconnection of Water Supply – DCC contractor to excavate	$1,136.73

Where the supply of a quantity of water is subject to this Quantity of Water Targeted Rate, the rating unit will not be liable for any other targeted rate for the supply of the same water.

9. Allanton Drainage Rate

A targeted rate for the capital contribution towards the Allanton Wastewater Collection System, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $411.00 (including GST) per rating unit, to every rating unit paying their contribution towards the scheme as a targeted rate over 20 years. Liability for the rate is on the basis of the provision of the service to each rating unit. The Allanton area is shown in the map below:

10. Blanket Bay Drainage Rate

A targeted rate for the capital contribution towards the Blanket Bay Drainage System, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $636.00 (including GST) per rating unit, to every rating unit paying their contribution towards the scheme as a targeted rate over 20 years. Liability for the rate is on the basis of the provision of the service to each rating unit. The Blanket Bay area is shown in the map below:

11. Curles Point Drainage Rate

1 A targeted rate for the capital contribution towards the Curles Point Drainage System, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $749.00 (including GST) per rating unit, to every rating unit paying their contribution towards the scheme as a targeted rate over 20 years. Liability for the rate is on the basis of the provision of the service to each rating unit. The Curles Point area is shown in the map below:

12. Warm Dunedin Targeted Rate Scheme

A targeted rate for the Warm Dunedin Targeted Rate Scheme, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, per rating unit in the Warm Dunedin Targeted Rate Scheme.

The targeted rate scheme provides a way for homeowners to install insulation and/or clean heating. The targeted rate covers the cost and an annual interest rate. The interest rates have been and will be:

Rates commencing 1 July 2013 and 1 July 2014 8%

Rates commencing 1 July 2015 and 1 July 2016 8.3%

Rates commencing 1 July 2017 7.8%

Rates commencing 1 July 2018 7.2%

Rates commencing 1 July 2019 6.8%

Rates commencing 1 July 2020 5.7%

Rates commencing 1 July 2021 4.4%

13. Private Street Lighting Rate

A targeted rate for the purpose of recovering the cost of private street lights, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· $156.80 (including GST) per private street light divided by the number of separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential and lifestyle" categories in the private streets as identified in the schedule below.

· $156.80 (including GST) per private street light divided by the number of rating units for all rating units in the "commercial" category in the private streets as identified in the schedule below.

Differential Matters and Categories

b) Adopts the following differential categories for the 2025/26 financial year.

The differential categories are determined in accordance with the Council's land use codes. The Council's land use codes are based on the land use codes set under the Rating Valuation Rules 2008 and are set out in Attachment A. In addition, the Council has established categories for residential institutions, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, the stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity, churches, and schools.

1. Differentials Based on Land Use

The Council uses this matter to:

· Differentiate the General rate.

· Differentiate the Community Services rate.

· Differentiate the Kerbside Collection rate.

· Differentiate the Private Street Lighting rate.

· Differentiate the Fire Protection rate.

The differential categories based on land use are:

· Residential – includes all rating units used for residential purposes including single residential, multi-unit residential, multi-use residential, residential special accommodation, residential communal residence dependant on other use, residential bach/cribs, residential carparking and residential vacant land.

· Lifestyle – includes all rating units with Council's land use codes 2, 20, 21, 22 and 29.

· Commercial – includes all rating units with land uses not otherwise categorised as Residential, Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts, Lifestyle, Farmland or Stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity.

· Farmland - includes all rating units used solely or principally for agricultural or horticultural or pastoral purposes.

· Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts – includes all rating units meeting the following description:

· Bed and breakfast establishments; and

· Classified as commercial for rating purposes due to the number of bedrooms (greater than four); and

· Either:

· the majority of the establishment is at least 80 years old, or

· the establishment has Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Registration, or

· the establishment is a Dunedin City Council Protected Heritage Building as identified in the District Plan; and

· The bed and breakfast owner lives at the facility.

· Stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity – this includes land at 130 Anzac Avenue, Dunedin, Assessment 4026695, Valuation reference 27190-01403.

2. Differentials Based on Land Use and Provision or Availability of Service

The Council uses these matters to differentiate the drainage rate and the commercial drainage rate.

The differential categories based on land use are:

· Lifestyle - includes all rating units with Council's land use codes 2, 20, 21, 22 and 29.

· Farmland - includes all rating units used solely or principally for agricultural or horticultural or pastoral purposes.

· Commercial – includes all rating units with land uses not otherwise categorised as Residential, Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts, Lifestyle, Farmland, Residential Institutions, Stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity, Churches or Schools.

· Stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity – this includes land at 130 Anzac Avenue, Dunedin, Assessment 4026695, Valuation reference 27190-01403.

· Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts – includes all rating units meeting the following description:

· Bed and breakfast establishments; and

· Classified as commercial for rating purposes due to the number of bedrooms (greater than four); and

· Either:

• the majority of the establishment is at least 80 years old or

• the establishment has Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Registration or

• the establishment is a Dunedin City Council Protected Heritage Building as identified in the District Plan; and

· The bed and breakfast owner lives at the facility.

· Residential Institutions - includes only rating units with the Council's land use codes 95 and 96.

· Churches – includes all rating units used for places of religious worship.

· Schools - includes only rating units used for schools that do not operate for profit.

The differential categories based on provision or availability of service are:

· Connected – any rating unit that is connected to a public sewerage drain.

· Serviceable – any rating unit that is not connected to a public sewerage drain but is capable of being connected to the sewerage system (being a property situated within 30 metres of a public drain).

3. Differentials Based on Provision or Availability of Service

The Council uses this matter to differentiate the water rates.

The differential categories based on provision or availability of service are:

· Connected – any rating unit that is supplied by the water supply system.

· Serviceable – any rating unit that is not supplied but is capable of being supplied by the water supply system (being a rating unit situated within 100 metres of the nearest water supply).

Minimum Rates

c) Approves that where the total amount of rates payable in respect of any rating unit is less than $5.00 including GST, the rates payable in respect of the rating unit shall be such amount as the Council determines but not exceeding $5.00 including GST.

Low Value Rating Units

d) Approves that rating units with a capital value of $8,500 or less will only be charged the general rate.

Land Use Codes

e) Approves that the land use codes attached to this report are adopted as the Council's land use codes for the purpose of the rating method.

Separately Used or Inhabited Part of a Rating Unit

f) Adopts the following definition of a separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit:

"A separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit includes any portion inhabited or used by the owner/a person other than the owner, and who has the right to use or inhabit that portion by virtue of a tenancy, lease, licence, or other agreement.

This definition includes separately used parts, whether or not actually occupied at any particular time, which are provided by the owner for rental (or other form of occupation) on an occasional or long term basis by someone other than the owner.

For the purpose of this definition, vacant land and vacant premises offered or intended for use or habitation by a person other than the owner and usually used as such are defined as 'used'.

For the avoidance of doubt, a rating unit that has a single use or occupation is treated as having one separately used or inhabited part."

Lump Sum Contributions

g) Approves that no lump sum contributions will be sought for any targeted rate.

Rating by Instalments

h) Approves the following schedule of rates to be collected by the Council, payable by four instalments.

The City is divided into four areas based on Valuation Roll Numbers, as set out below:

Area 1	Area 2	Area 3	Area 3 continued
Valuation Roll Numbers:
26700	26990	26500	27550
26710	27000	26520	27560
26760	27050	26530	27600
26770	27060	26541	27610
26850	27070	26550	27760
26860	27080	26580	27770
26950	27150	26590	27780
26960	27350	26620	27790
26970	27360	26640	27811
26980	27370	26651	27821
27160	27380	26750	27822
27170	27500	26780	27823
27180	27510	27250	27831
27190	27520	27260	27841
27200	27851	27270	27871
	27861	27280	27911
	27880	27450	27921
	27890	27460	27931
	27901	27470	27941
	28000
	28010
	28020

Area 4 comprises ratepayers with multiple assessments who pay on a schedule.

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

i) Approves the due dates for all rates with the exception of water rates, which are charged based on water meter consumption, will be payable in four instalments due on the dates below:

	Area 1	Area 2	Area 3	Area 4
Instalment 1	29/08/25	12/09/25	26/09/25	12/09/25
Instalment 2	21/11/25	05/12/25	19/12/25	05/12/25
Instalment 3	20/02/26	27/02/26	13/03/26	27/02/26
Instalment 4	15/05/26	22/05/26	05/06/26	22/05/26

Water meter invoices are sent separately from other rates. Where water rates are charged based on metered consumption using a meter other than a Smart Water Meter, invoices are sent on a quarterly or monthly basis and the due date for payment shall be on the 20th of the month following the date of the invoice as set out in the table below:

Date of Invoice	Date for Payment
July 2025	20 August 2025
August 2025	20 September 2025
September 2025	20 October 2025
October 2025	20 November 2025
November 2025	20 December 2025
December 2025	20 January 2026
January 2026	20 February 2026
February 2026	20 March 2026
March 2026	20 April 2026
April 2026	20 May 2026
May 2026	20 June 2026
June 2026	20 July 2026

Penalties

j) Resolves to charge the following penalties on unpaid rates:

1 A charge of 10% of the unpaid rates instalment will be added to the amount of any instalment remaining unpaid the day after the instalment due date set out above.

2 Where a ratepayer has not paid the first instalment by the due date of that instalment, and has paid the total rates and charges in respect of the rating unit for the 2025/26 rating year by the due date of the second instalment, the 10% additional charge for the first instalment shall be remitted.

3 For amounts levied in any previous financial year and which remain unpaid on 1 October 2025, 10% of that sum shall be charged, including additional charges (if any).

4 For amounts levied in any previous financial year and which remain unpaid on 1 April 2026, 10% of that sum shall be charged, including additional charges (if any).

Assessing and Recovering Rates

k) Approves that the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Rates and Revenue Team Leader be authorised to take all necessary steps to assess and recover the above rates.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/192) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against.

The Mayor noted apologies had been received from Crs Sophie Barker and Kevin Gilbert for early departure and from Cr David Benson-Pope for absence.

Moved (Mayor Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

a) Accepts the apologies from Crs Sophie Barker and Kevin Gilbert for early departure and from Cr David Benson-Pope for absence.

Motion carried

8 Christchurch City and Dunedin City Council Shared Services Update Report
	A report from 3 Waters and Procurement provided an update on the progress of investigating potential shared service arrangements between Christchurch City Council and Dunedin City Council. It summarised key areas identified for further exploration and outlined the recommended next steps.
	The General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition (David Ward) and Procurement and Contracts Manager (Serge Kolman) and Capital Delivery Manager (Dominika Bizak-Kochan) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 11.01 am and returned at 11.04 am.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Jim O'Malley): That the Council: a) Notes the progress in exploring shared service opportunities between Dunedin City Council and Christchurch City Council. Motion carried (CNL/2025/193)

9 Dunedin City Holdings Group Companies - Statements of Intent 2025/26
	A report from Civic discussed the 2025/26 Statements of Intent of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) group companies which had been adopted by their respective boards and endorsed by the board of DCHL. The report recommended that Council agreed to the Statements for DCHL and its group companies for the 2025/26 year.
	The Dunedin City Holdings Ltd Chair (Tim Loan) and General Manager (Peter Hocking) spoke to the report and Statements of Intent and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Agrees to the completed 2025/26 Statements of Intent of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd and its subsidiary and associate companies. Motion carried (CNL/2025/194) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against.

10 Dunedin City Holdings Limited Share Capital
	A report from Finance noted that following adoption of the 9 year plan 2025-34 and agreement of the 2025/26 Statements of Intent of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) and its subsidiary and associate companies, the Council now needed to increase the level of DCHL uncalled share capital. This was because the current DCC Group borrowing arrangements required the level of DCHL uncalled share capital to be greater than DCC Group debt. The report sought approval to increase that uncalled capital from the current $1.600 billion to $1.900 billion and noted that this level of uncalled capital aligned with the forecast group debt as at 30 June 2028 as set out in the 2025/2026 Statement of Intent for DCHL.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) and Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Jim O’Malley left the meeting at 11.41 am.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Approves the required increase in share capital of Dunedin City Holdings Limited to provide $1.900 billion of uncalled capital. b) Authorises the Dunedin City Council to execute the required shareholder resolution(s) and associated documents to achieve the increase in share capital noted in (a). c) Notes that this level of uncalled capital aligns with the forecast group debt as at 30 June 2028 as set out in the approved 2025/2026 Statement of Intent for Dunedin City Holdings Limited. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (9). Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 1 Motion carried (CNL/2025/195)

Cr Jim O’Malley returned to the meeting at 11.57 am.

11 Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings
	A report from Civic provided an update on the progress on implementation of resolutions made at Council meetings.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council meetings. Motion carried (CNL/2025/196)

12 Forward Work Programme for Council - June 2025
	A report from Civic provided the updated forward work programme for the 2025 year.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the updated Council forward work programme. Motion carried (CNL/2025/197)

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

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

General subject of the matter to be considered

Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

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

Reason for Confidentiality

C1 Confidential Council Forward Work Programme - June 2025

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

S7(2)(d)

The withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health and safety of members of the public.

S7(2)(g)

The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

S7(2)(h)

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

S7(2)(i)

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

S48(1)(a)

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

C2 Confidential Council Action List Update - June 2025

S7(2)(b)(ii)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

S7(2)(g)

The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

S7(2)(h)

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

S7(2)(i)

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

S48(1)(a)

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

Motion carried (CNL/2025/198)

The meeting moved into confidential at 12.02 pm and concluded at 12.30 pm.

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

MAYOR

Council

30 July 2025

South Dunedin Future – Programme Update and Community Engagement Results

Department: Climate and City Growth

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of the paper is to present the key findings from the recent community engagement activities relating to the South Dunedin Risk Assessment and seven Potential Adaptation Futures for South Dunedin; and to provide an outline of the workplan and schedule through to completion of the South Dunedin Future programme in December 2026.

2 The South Dunedin Future (SDF) programme is a joint initiative between the Dunedin City Council (DCC) and Otago Regional Council (ORC) to develop a climate change adaptation plan for South Dunedin. The programme vision is “a safer and better South Dunedin, where sustainable urban regeneration leads to improved community resilience and wellbeing”. The programme remains on track to deliver the final climate adaptation plan by the end of 2026.

3 In March 2025, the councils released technical reports relating to the risk assessment and potential adaptation futures for South Dunedin. These reports formed the basis for a subsequent period of community engagement from 29 March to 11 May 2025, which consisted of community workshops, drop in events, online surveys, and targeted stakeholder engagement.

4 Feedback was received from over 1,200 individuals and organisations, including over 300 residents, 200 business stakeholders, 250 students and educators, iwi and community groups, among other stakeholders. Feedback represented a broad range of perspectives and the demographics of responders broadly matched census 2018 data for the South Dunedin area.

5 Feedback indicated a range of views, though some key themes were also evident. There appears a strong desire for change in South Dunedin, with almost 73% of responses indicating that Future 1 – Status quo (keep doing what we are doing) is taking South Dunedin in the wrong direction. Future 4 - Space for water (waterways and wetlands) attracted the most support, with almost 60% of responses agreeing this would take South Dunedin in the right direction. Future 7 – Let water in (large scale retreat) was the least popular, with 47% of responses indicating this future would take South Dunedin in the wrong direction. Respondents were also asked to comment on whether each future provided choice for where and how people live, what impact each future would have on their overall quality of life, and which future should we aim for.

6 A range of views were also collected on the community’s tolerance of flooding, including location and duration, and who should pay for actions taken to reduce flood risk now and in the future. Targeted dialogue with infrastructure, insurance, banking, property, and social service stakeholders underscored the need for a clear long-term strategy, coordinated planning, risk-based decision-making, and a focus on delivering equitable and financially viable outcomes.

7 Analysis of engagement findings, along with further technical and economic work, will be used to develop a shortlist of three potential adaptation futures for South Dunedin, which will be competed in late-2025 and presented to Councils in early-2026.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the South Dunedin Future Engagement Report – Stage 4 Engagement: 7 Potential Adaptation Futures for South Dunedin.

b) Notes the community engagement results will be combined with further technical and economic analysis to assess the 7 Potential Adaptation Futures for South Dunedin, to produce an initial shortlist of futures for further investigation.

c) Notes a fully developed shortlist of potential adaptation futures for South Dunedin is expected to be completed in late-2025 and presented to Councils in early-2026.

d) Notes the work plan and schedule for the final two phases of the South Dunedin Future programme, which is expected to be completed by December 2026.

BACKGROUND

8 The South Dunedin Future (SDF) programme is a joint initiative between the Dunedin City Council (DCC) and Otago Regional Council (ORC) to develop a climate change adaptation plan for South Dunedin. A programme plan, which outlined the high-level approach for delivering the SDF programme was approved by DCC and ORC Council Committees in July 2022 (refer Part A Item 9, Planning & Environment Committee, 6 July 2022).

9 The SDF programme vision is “a safer and better South Dunedin, where sustainable urban regeneration leads to improved community resilience and wellbeing”. The purpose of the programme is to enable South Dunedin to prepare for, and adapt to, the impacts of climate change, while also realising the opportunities that come with change. Broader strategic objectives of the programme relate to just transition, community safety, environmental and cultural restoration, social and economic resilience, and sustainable urban development (refer Item 10, DCC Council Meeting, 28 November 2023).

10 The SDF programme has been broken into five phases, five workstreams, and a number of programme actions. The workstreams include: (i) natural hazards; (ii) strategy and programme management; (iii) communications and community engagement; (iv) risk assessment; and (v) adaptation planning. This breakdown has been explained more fully in previous Council papers and workshops but is also illustrated in the A3 SDF Programme Overview (Attachment A).

11 In March 2025, the councils released technical reports relating to the risk assessment and potential adaptation futures for South Dunedin, including:

a) South Dunedin Risk Assessment – Provides the first comprehensive overview of the area’s current and future flood-related and other risks through to 2100.

b) Potential Adaptation Futures for South Dunedin – Background Context Report – Sets out the technical and strategic foundations for long-term planning.

c) Potential Adaptation Futures for South Dunedin – Micro Business Cases – Presents a range of possible adaptation scenarios, shaped by technical and economic analysis, and early community input.

12 These reports formed the basis for community engagement during the period 29 March to 11 May 2025, which sought community feedback on the impacts of both the identified risks and the potential options for managing and mitigating them.

DISCUSSION

Why is community engagement important?

13 In 2023, Councils commissioned the University of Otago’s Centre for Sustainability to review the latest academic research and best practice in community engagement for climate adaptation. The resulting research summary noted a fundamental requirement for effective adaptation is for councils to work together with the community to solve problems and build social cohesion. Long term council-community relationships are essential as climate change impacts will keep evolving. If care is not taken, existing issues such as inequalities may be perpetuated or worsened by climate change and/or by adaptation actions. Effective engagement can mitigate such injustices and have positive flow-on effects, with many benefits for both the community and the local authority. Poor engagement (or lack of engagement) brings risks of alienating the community and producing inappropriate adaptation plans[1].

14 Councils are committed to a fair, inclusive, and transparent adaptation planning process for South Dunedin. The area faces complex challenges related to climate change and long-term resilience, so it is important that the views of all those who live, work, and have a connection with the area are heard and understood.

Engagement on South Dunedin Risk Assessment and 7 Potential Adaptation Futures

15 In March 2025, the councils released three technical reports relating to the risk assessment and potential adaptation futures (‘Futures’) for South Dunedin. These reports formed the basis for community engagement during the period 29 March to 11 May 2025. This engagement aimed to deepen council’s understanding of what matters most to the South Dunedin community — not only in terms of physical assets and infrastructure, but also the social and cultural connections people hold to place. This included seeking to better understand how partners and stakeholders perceive risk, their likely response to increasing risk, and supporting them to make more informed decisions about their future. The results of the engagement are captured in a report, included as Attachment B.

16 While this engagement was not intended to be a vote or referendum on any particular Future for South Dunedin, it nonetheless offered valuable insights into the community’s views, priorities, and thresholds for change. This helps ensure the development of Futures and associated pathways that are both technically sound and socially grounded — creating the best possible plan for everyone, now and into the future.

What was the focus of this engagement?

17 During this engagement phase, the community was asked to consider and provide feedback on seven potential adaptation futures. For each Future, participants were invited to reflect on:

a) whether that Future takes South Dunedin in the right direction (rated from strongly agree to strongly disagree);

b) whether that Future provides people with meaningful choices about where and how they live (rated from strongly agree to strongly disagree); and

c) how their overall quality of life might change compared to the present (rated from increase significantly to decrease significantly).

18 Participants were also asked a direct question: “What Future do you think we should aim for?” This direct questioning helped identify preferred directions and priorities for the area.

19 To explore tolerance for change and risk, respondents were asked questions about when they believed South Dunedin would become ‘unliveable’ for them — using a range of scenarios related to the frequency of flood events and the potential impacts of those events, such as flooding of homes, garages, gardens, roads, and constraints accessing local shops.

20 Finally, community views were sought on potential sources of funding for implementation of whichever Future is preferred at the end of the SDF programme. Questions included:

a) who should pay for adaptation?

b) If rates were to be used, what level of rates increase would be acceptable?

21 This range of questions sought to help build a better understand community preferences, values, and thresholds — critical factors in planning for a safer and better future for South Dunedin.

Who participated in the engagement?

22 The engagement reached over 1,200 individuals and organisations, collecting a diverse range of feedback, from an extensive range of participants across South Dunedin and beyond, including:

a) over 300 residents who provided input through online surveys and in-person events,

b) more than 200 business and commercial sector representatives, including property owners, insurers, banks, and infrastructure providers,

c) around 250 students and educators from local schools and universities,

d) community groups and organisations, including representatives from disability advocacy, Māori groups, and cultural and religious networks,

e) public attendees at festivals, workshops, and community events numbering over 400 participants,

f) broad online and media reach with over 190,000 social media views, nearly 2,000 website users, and email newsletters sent to over 500 subscribers.

23 This inclusive and multi-channel approach ensured a wide spectrum of views and voices were collected and will now inform the adaptation planning process.

*Feedback received - v**iews on the 7 Potential Adaptation Futures*

24 The engagement focussed primarily on the community’s response to the seven potential adaptation futures for South Dunedin. The engagement results contain a wide range of views and perspectives; however, they also illustrate some clear convergence in certain areas. Table 1 below seeks to summarise and simplify community sentiment in relation to the broader question of whether each Future takes South Dunedin in the right direction?

Future	Takes South Dunedin in the right direction			Net Score[2]	Rank
Future	Disagree	Neutral/unsure	Agree	Net Score[2]	Rank
1	73%	13%	15%	-79.07	7th
2	35%	13%	51%	17.57	2nd
3	33%	18%	48%	12.46	4th
4	25%	16%	59%	39.39	1st
5	34%	18%	48%	13.00	3rd
6	37%	16%	47%	9.36	5th
7	47%	15%	38%	-13.24	6th

Table 1 – Community feedback: Does this Future take South Dunedin in the right direction?

25 Some key themes or takeaways from these results include:

a) Future 1 – Status quo (keep doing what we are doing) was the least supported, with 73% of respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that it would take South Dunedin in the right direction. Many respondents commented that this Future lacks ambition, would result in wasted investments, and no long-term effectiveness. This feedback suggests a strong public mandate for change from the current approach.

b) Future 4 – Space for water (waterways and wetlands) was the most preferred overall, with 59% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that it would take South Dunedin in the right direction. It was also viewed as being the most well-balanced and cost-effective approach, though there was concern about high residual flood risk.

c) Future 7 – Let water in (large scale retreat) was the only other Future to receive a negative net score, with 47% of respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that it would take South Dunedin in the right direction. It was viewed as being very disruptive, expensive, and the displacement would have negative impacts on community wellbeing and inequality. That said, some felt it was the most sensible long-term solution.

d) Futures 2, 3, 5, and 6 received mixed support, though all had positive net scores (between +17.57 and +9.36), indicating respondents saw a range of merits in these different approaches. This suggests an openness from community and stakeholders to different approaches for managing risk and adapting to the impacts of climate change.

26 No single Future stood out as strongly providing choice about where people live, although Futures 2, 3, and 4 were seen as offering more flexibility in that regard. Futures 1, 6, and 7 were viewed as offering limited choice.

27 When asked how each Future might impact quality of life, most respondents thought Futures 1–5 would lead to life staying about the same. Futures 4 and 5 had a significant number of respondents expecting some improvement in quality of life. Futures 6 and 7 were largely seen as likely to significantly reduce quality of life.

28 When asked a more direct question about which Future respondents felt we should be aiming for, Futures 2 (27%) and 4 (29%) were most preferred; while Futures 1 (2%) and 3 (7%) were least preferred. While this more direct line of questioning resulted in Futures 4 and 1 retaining their positions as most and least preferred respectively, results for other Futures varied.

29 Two prominent themes emerged in the feedback across all futures, including that council should build more infrastructure in the short term, to reduce present day flood risk, and that stakeholders wanted more information about any potential managed retreat process, including in regard to location, timing, and policy and process for property buy-outs.

Tolerance of flooding

30 A series of questions were asked to understand respondent’s experiences with flooding and whether they had been affected before, how often flooding occurs, and under what circumstances. Respondents were also asked when they believe South Dunedin might become ‘unliveable’ due to flooding. These questions were aimed at better understanding tolerance for flooding, which helps inform design of potential adaptation actions, for example, seeking to limit flooding in buildings to once every 50 years (versus shorter or longer timeframes).

31 Respondents had the least tolerance for flood water entering their homes, with 83% of the 270 responses indicating that South Dunedin would become ‘unliveable’ if flood water entered their homes (with responses spanning periods from 1-50 years). Almost 20% of respondents indicated their home had previously flooded. Most respondents said that flood water ponding on their lawn, local sports fields, and in public car parking areas would never make South Dunedin unliveable – suggesting increased tolerance of ‘nuisance’ flooding, but clear intolerance of flooding entering homes.

Who should help pay?

32 When asked who should help pay to fund South Dunedin’s future, most respondents selected Central Government (24%) and Local Government (22%). This was followed by property developers (15%), and Dunedin residents and businesses (13%). Respondents had the option of selecting multiple answers.

33 When asked whether they would support rates increases to reduce flooding, responses varied:

a) if rates were the only source of funding, 50% of respondents said they would support a 10% rates increase and 10% supported a 25% increase, while 26% said they would not support any increase; however

b) if rates were to cover the full cost, support dropped, with 39% of respondents supporting a 10% rates increase and 18% supporting a 25% increase, while 30% said they would not support any increase.

34 These results suggest that while many respondents are open to contributing through rates, support is higher when costs are shared more broadly.

Targeted stakeholder engagement

35 In addition to public surveys, workshops, and drop-in sessions, a series of targeted engagements were undertaken with key sectors, including infrastructure providers, financial institutions, property stakeholders, government agencies, and community representatives. These stakeholders brought specific insights based on commercial interests, operational responsibilities, asset holdings, or community services and connections.

36 Common themes included a strong call for clear direction, coordinated planning, and timely investment from council to build confidence in whatever strategic direction results from the South Dunedin Future process. Infrastructure providers highlighted the importance of information and data sharing, to support more informed investment decisions, and the need to align asset maintenance and renewal cycles with any anticipated changes in land use and infrastructure levels of service. Property groups, including investors and developers, sought certainty, including clear plans and actions from council that actively manage identified risks, while at the same time promoting and enabling investment opportunities in lower risk areas. Social service agencies and community groups stressed the importance of equity, accessibility, and inclusive planning, particularly for renters, disabled people, and low-income communities.

37 The insurance sector acknowledged South Dunedin’s high flood risk and signalled support for a broad risk management approach. This includes improved three waters network maintenance, infrastructure investment, and property-level interventions in the shorter term, while making risk-based decisions about land use and infrastructure in the longer term that include insurability as a central consideration. Banks raised concern over the tension between short-term insurance cover and long-term mortgage lending risk, referencing the need for standardised hazard data and better risk information to support more informed lending decisions. It was also signalled that banks may need to take steps in the near future to better reflect natural hazard and climate-related risks, including, for example, via increased loan to value ratios for higher risk properties.

38 While the commentary above, and the attached engagement report, focus primarily on feedback received during the period 29 March – 11 May 2025, engagement with a wide range of stakeholders continues on a week-to-week basis, and further rounds of formal engagement are planned in future stages of the SDF programme.

OPTIONS

39 There are no options presented for this report.

NEXT STEPS

Closing off latest round of engagement

40 The attached engagement report and a 1-2 page ‘plain English’ summary (currently in development) will be uploaded to the SDF programme web page and key findings will be conveyed to stakeholders via an e-newsletter and regular stakeholder interactions.

Developing a shortlist of potential adaptation futures for South Dunedin

41 The next step in the adaptation planning process is to complete an initial multi-criteria assessment (MCA) of the seven Futures. This assessment will utilise the community engagement results, and involve technical and economic assessments by council and consultant teams, using the decision-making framework previously noted and endorsed by Councils (refer Item 7, Council Meeting, 18 March 2025). This assessment will refine the longlist of seven Futures to produce an initial shortlist of three Futures. The results of this initial shortlisting process will be presented to Councils in August 2025.

42 Modelling will then be undertaken on the three short-listed Futures, to test the efficacy of each and determine the optimised balance of infrastructure, nature-based solutions, and managed retreat required to manage risk to acceptable levels. This modelling will, for example, indicate how risk would be managed in each of the short-listed Futures, the likely size, location, and cost of adaptation actions, and the resulting residual risk (i.e. risk remaining even after various adaptation actions have been implemented).

43 The modelling will inform further technical and economic analysis and enable development of pathways for each of the three shortlisted Futures. These pathways will show anticipated change at different intervals, likely periods of 25 years, including at 2050, 2075, 2100 and beyond. The shortlisted Futures will include more detailed information on the useful life of adaptation actions, linking together different actions such as infrastructure investment, creating green space, and potential managed retreat, into viable pathways, where changes in approach result from pre-agreed signals and triggers, so change only occurs if or when necessary to manage risk.

44 The fully-developed shortlist of potential adaptation futures for South Dunedin is expected to be completed in late-2025 and presented to Councils in early-2026.

Signatories

Author:	Jonathan Rowe - Programme Manager, South Dunedin Future
Authoriser:	Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	South Dunedin Future Engagement Report – Stage 4 Engagement: 7 Potential Adaptation Futures for South Dunedin	79
⇩b	SDF Programme Overview A3	183

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

The SDF Programme is a horizontal initiative, working across a range of strategies, groups, and budgets.

Māori Impact Statement

Accurately reflecting and integrating the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and Crown’s partnership with Māori, is a central element of the SDF Programme.

Sustainability

Sustainability will be a central component of the SDF Programme as it seeks to develop climate change adaptation options for South Dunedin over short-, medium- and long-term timeframes. This work will be integrated with the wider climate change work programme, including aligning with DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan 2022 and Zero Carbon Plan 2023.

Zero carbon

Adapting to the impacts of climate change in South Dunedin has the potential to materially increase or decrease both city-wide and DCC emissions, depending on the adaptation option selected. The criteria for assessing each potential adaptation future includes carbon emissions and waste, meaning options that act to reduce emissions will receive more positive assessments (for that specific criteria).

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The SDF programme has dedicated resourcing in the current 9-year plan (2025-2034). Selected activities that result from the SDF programme, including mid-scale and medium-term investments in 3 waters infrastructure (for example), are also included in the 9YP. It is anticipated that the adaptation master plan for South Dunedin, scheduled for completion in December 2026, will inform a range of strategic land use-, finance-, and infrastructure-related decisions for South Dunedin as part of future 10-year planning processes.

Financial considerations

The cost of the SDF programme is fully budgeted for within the existing SDF programme budget. No decisions have been made about funding for potential adaptation work that may arise from the SDF programme.

Significance

This issue is considered high in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Community engagement is and will continue to be a central element of the SDF Programme, and extensive engagement is planned in future stages, in accordance programme plan and with relevance council polices.

Engagement – external

Extensive external engagement has been undertaken with a range of partners, stakeholders, and affected communities on the topics covered in this paper. Mana whenua have partnered with SDF throughout the development of the programme. Engagement has included (but is not limited to): central government departments, state owned enterprises, crown research institutes; private sector organisations and industry groups; community groups and affected communities.

Engagement - internal

A large number of internal individuals, teams, and departments across DCC and ORC have been engaged in development of the SDF programme strategy and related work described in this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no anticipated legal or health and safety risks associated with this report. Risks relating to the SDF Programme are described in this or previous Council reports.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest identified.

Community Boards

Community Boards have not been directly involved with the development of this report; however, all Community Boards have an interest in climate adaptation.

Council

30 July 2025

231 Stuart Street - Options

Department: Property and Legal Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to ask Council to consider options for the future of 231 Stuart Street (“the Property”). ccc

2 The 9 Year Plan consultation document proposed removing 231 Stuart Street from the Significance and Engagement Policy and asked;

· Should we remove 231 Stuart Street (formerly the Fortune Theatre) from the list of strategic assets in our Significance and Engagement policy?

3 There were 551 responses, 65% (358) stated ‘yes, remove 231 Stuart Street from the list of strategic assets and 35% (193) stated ‘no, keep 231 Stuart Street as a strategic asset’. A further two responses were neutral.

4 Council subsequently resolved to remove the Property at 231 Stuart Street (formerly known as the Fortune Theatre) from Schedule 2 of the Significance and Engagement Policy, and asked staff to report on options for the building, incorporating options presented by submitters and any potential sale.

5 This report responds to that resolution and asks Council to direct staff on their preferred option for the future of the Property.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Directs staff to prepare the property at 231 Stuart Street legally described as 468 square metres more or less being part Section 16, Block XIV, Town of Dunedin all Record of Title OT287/25, for sale.

b) Notes that staff will provide a further report to Council and records that it will not be making a final decision regarding a potential sale of the Fortune Theatre until it has received the further report from staff.

BACKGROUND

details about the Property

6 The Property is 468 square metres in area, held in fee simple in Record of Title OT287/25 and contains no encumbrances.

Heritage NZ Category Status and District Plan

7 231 Stuart Street is identified in the heritage schedule (B574) of Dunedin City Council Second Generation District Plan (2GP). The ‘entire external building envelope’ of the former church is subject to heritage protection. Additionally, the building is identified by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as a Category 1 historic place (List Number 3378).

8 The 2GP requires a resource consent prior to any external alterations/additions, restoration (to an earlier known form), earthquake strengthening, or demolition that affects the exterior of the building. Repairs and maintenance, or alterations to the interior, will not require resource consent. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga will be required to provide ‘affected party approval’ for any resource consent.

9 The Property’s location in the CBD zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, recreational, residential, community support, large scale retail, licensed premises, and commercial residential activity. It allows for repairs and maintenance and restoration of a scheduled heritage building but any other additions or alterations are a restricted discretionary activity. Demolition is a non-complying activity

Condition of the Building

10 The following represents an overview of what is known about the Property, so Council might fully consider the work required if they choose to repurpose the Property.

11 A seismic assessment was undertaken in 2011. This determined that the building was 67% of the New Build Standard. New legislation is now in place which includes the assessment of features such as parapets and turrets. If Council were to continue to own the Property a new assessment would be required.

12 The structure comprises corbelled brick/stone and concrete slabs and foundations, local solid stone external wall construction, and steel, and timber joinery under a pitched slate and flat copper roofs.

13 The building is on three levels, basement, ground floor and a mezzanine area.

14 A condition report was undertaken by Flanders Marlow Limited in 2024.

15 The building is not fit for occupancy in its current state and the following summarises key areas of concern.

· Roof - leaks have been repaired and there are currently no new leaks. There are various roof types, metal flashings and rainwater disposal systems which need to be managed and some parts need replacement/nearing replacement.

· Exterior walls - structure and windows have defects and are subject to continual wetting. There is moisture staining and efflorescence to the interior faces.

· Internal dampness – known leaks have been repaired and moisture egress is being managed through the use of dehumidifiers. Expert advice is needed to confirm how best to take moisture away from the subterranean rear walls.

· External joinery, windows, doors, and flashings - entrance doors would benefit from easing and checked for weather tightness. The replacement of the double entry doors on Stuart Street should be considered.

· Windows - are single glazed leaded steel and timber in average condition. Corrosion is noted to the steel window frames and putty to some glazing needs replacement and painting. Specialist advice is required.

· Ceilings - to the main theatre are in reasonable condition while those in other areas are in poor condition, there is some damage due to moisture ingress. Some remedial and strengthening works will be required in areas.

· Floor coverings – soft floor coverings have been removed. Floors are level apart from the bar area. Remaining vinyl and tiles will need to be removed and/or replaced.

· Internal walls and partitions - are in average condition, with the interior of the basement being in poor condition. There is peeling paint, efflorescence, defective paint, and plaster to the inside of external brick walls.

· Internal Joinery - in average to poor condition. Some specialist advice is required in terms of the stonework. Moisture ingress needs to be addressed to prevent further deterioration.

· Stairs to the north-western stairwell require reinstatement. The remaining timber balustrading and handrails generally appear in reasonable condition.

· Kitchen – Depending on the future use of the building the kitchen needs to be redesigned and refurbished in accordance with the Food Act and Food Regulation Requirements.

· Toilets and sanitary fittings require upgrades including improvements to the ventilation systems.

· Electrical services - are ‘haphazard’ in places and need to be checked by a suitably qualified person and likely need upgrading/replacing.

· Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) - the installation appears makeshift and requires a specialist to review as to its condition and suitability, it is likely to require replacement.

· Plumbing and drainage - will require inspection and comment from a suitably qualified person.

Building Compliance

16 The building has a current Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF). Emergency Warning Systems are compliant as is the emergency lighting – it is compliant based on the building being vacant.

17 If the use of the Property was changed ie it was no longer vacant, or if building consent were was required for any reason, the regulatory authority would likely require the compliance systems to be upgraded.

18 A building compliance review was undertaken by Logic Group Ltd in 2018. This has been reviewed and remains largely unchanged. The report highlights the following for consideration.

· BWOF (Building Warrant of Fitness) this is current and based on a vacant building.

· Emergency Warning Systems Type 5 alarm, compliant but future upgrade (to the building or use change) may be required.

· Emergency Lighting Compliant but future upgrade may be required.

· Ventilation Fresh Air supply to the theatre, toilets, and lounge bar but this is missing from the compliance schedule and maintenance regime.

· Signage (Evacuation) complies however if the number of occupants are greater than 50 upgrades should be completed.

· Smoke Separations existing separations to NW/SW stairwells have been compromised – repairs are required prior to adding this to the compliance schedule.

· Toilets there are no accessible toilet facilities, future upgrade will be required dependent on use and numbers.

· Access handrails to stairs are non-graspable and upgrade would be required.

· Lifts there are no passenger lifts in the building, dependent on future use and access to accessible facilities a lift may be required.

DISCUSSION

19 The Property has been in a “holding” state since it was vacated. Urgent repairs have been made where necessary and emergency systems are functioning, however it is not suitable for occupation in its current state.

20 On 26 May 2025, Council resolved;

Moved (Cr Bill Acklin/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

a) Removes the Property at 231 Stuart Street (formally known as the Fortune Theatre) from Schedule 2 of the Significance and Engagement Policy

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Bill Acklin, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (12).

Against: Crs Sophie Barker, Kevin Gilbert and Lee Vandervis (3).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 12 votes to 3

Motion carried (CNL/2025/107)

Moved (Cr Bill Acklin/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

b) Requests a staff report on options for the building, incorporating any options presented by submitters, and a possible sale.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/108)

21 The Property has now been removed from the Significance and Engagement Policy and staff have considered options for the future of the Property.

22 As part of the 9 Year Plan consultation feedback, submitters made suggestions for the future reuse of the Property. 62 submissions explicitly supported the sale of the Property, 15 supported its revitalisation as a theatre and others suggested it could be used as a community space for youth or the arts. One submitter requested Council support a member of the public to return the Property to a theatre and operate it. [

23 The following discussion considers three broad options for the future of the Property.

1. Continue to hold the Property in its current state,

2. Establish a community use for the Property,

3. Prepare the Property for sale.

Option One – Continue to hold the Property in its current state (status quo).

24 The Property has significant exterior, interior and compliance issues that would require continued financial input if it was retained in its current state.

25 The Property has not generated revenue since closure in 2018 and has an annual operating budget of $122,000 for rates, electricity, insurance, depreciation, and maintenance (dehumidifiers and ventilation to prevent mould growth).

26 There is also an ongoing cost of staff resource. The building needs regular attention, in particular managing water ingress/dampness issues.

27 Staff view is that leaving it in its current state is not financially sustainable and will contribute to the deterioration of the building. Therefore, this option has not been considered further in this report.

Option Two – Establish a community use for the Property.

28 As part of the 9 Year Plan consultation feedback, 15 submissions specifically supported the idea that the Property be revitalised for the purpose of a theatre and one member of the public has requested Council support a member of the community to return the Property to a theatre. Other submissions suggested the Property could be used as a community space for youth or the arts.

29 Staff have considered options for the building, incorporating options raised by the submitters.

30 If Council leased the Property to a theatre or community-based group, then Council as landlord would be responsible for ongoing exterior maintenance, and for the work to return the Property to an occupied and compliant state.

31 The improvements that are needed to address building compliance issues and return the Property to a basic tenantable state are extensive. Work is likely to involve;

· heating and ventilation,

· Installation of a passenger lift,

· electrical,

· plumbing,

· waterproofing to foundation walls and floors,

· detailed seismic assessment,

· roof, spouting and downpipe repairs,

· exterior walls, windows and door repairs,

· internal wall reinstatement,

· bathroom facilities,

· external scaffolding,

· and kitchen replacement.

32 And improvements to the fire and safety systems would be likely to involve;

· emergency warning system,

· emergency lighting,

· installation of fire separations particularly to exits/stairs and between the floors,

· installation of smoke separations

· Nothing that since the ‘final exit’ doors opens inwardly, a new building consent may reduce the total allowed occupancy.

33 This work has been estimated by a quantity surveyor, with experience working with heritage properties, at $2.4 million including contingency. This estimate excludes professional fees and tenant fit out ie theatre requirements or office spaces (Attachment A).

34 This is an estimate and would require more detailed planning, which would be dependent on the tenants intended use.

35 One submitted requested Council support a member of the public to return the Property to a theatre and operate it.

36 The structural features of the building restrict its use as a theatre in that there is a lack of wing space and foyer/bar space. Poor availability for drop off parking, poor accessibility, and access for production staff. In addition, there is sound leakage from Stuart Street, and within the building.

Option Three – prepare the Property for sale.

37 62 submitters commented in support of selling the Property as part of the 9 Year plan.

38 The Property is well located, with a strong presence on the corner of Moray Place and Stuart Street. The Heritage design elements of the building provide an instant iconic branding opportunity for businesses looking to create a truly unique experience in terms of food, entertainment, retail, accommodation, or commercial office.

39 Feedback from the 9 Year plan recognised the heritage value of the Property and submitters expressed a desire to protect the Property from neglect.

40 Staff have considered this feedback and if Council directs staff to prepare the Property for sale, staff will seek a report on whether there is any offer back obligation under the Public Works Act 1981. This is considered highly unlikely, but nevertheless it is an important step in progressing towards a potential sale.

41 Staff would appoint an appropriate agent to market the Property and would return to Council with a further report detailing any options for a potential sale, any Public Works Act implications, a discussion on use of the proceeds of sale, any consultation requirements and any further information that may be required so that Council can decide whether it wants to declare the Property surplus and sell the Property.

42 The Property is protected via its Heritage Category 1 rating and the District Plan whether it is owned by the Council or not. Staff would work with potential purchasers to further protect the heritage values of the Property through either proposed terms of sale, or a proposed covenant to be registered on the Record of Title.

43 Preparing the Property for sale would not prevent a community led organisation from approaching Council to purchase the Property for community use.

44 A recent valuation has been received from Colliers. The valuation is included as a separate attachment in the non-public section of the meeting.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option, prepare the Property for sale

Impact assessment

45 The Property generates no revenue and has an annual operating budget of $122,000 for rates, electricity, insurance, depreciation, and maintenance (dehumidifiers and ventilation to prevent mould growth).

46 A sale of the Property would mean no further impact, costs, or staff time for Council.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· Under the option, Council would receive the proceeds from any sale. A subsequent report to Council would consider the use of any sale proceeds.

Zero carbon

· Emissions considerations are not applicable to this report.

Advantages

· The Property no longer contributes to the strategic goals of the Council or any growth strategy, structure plan, asset management plan or similar,

· ongoing costs to maintain the Property are removed from operating budgets,

· disposing of the Property could be of financial benefit to the Council,

· heritage values could be enhanced by sympathetic redevelopment/reuse of the building by a private owner,

· staff resource would no longer be required for the Property,

· the building will no longer be vacant,

· community groups are not excluded from approaching Council with an option to purchase.

Disadvantages

· the Property would not be available to the Council for community use or any other use.

Option Two – Establish a community use for the Property Impact assessment

47 Council as landlord would be responsible for ongoing exterior maintenance, and for the work to return the Property to a tenantable and compliant state.

48 The cost for renovation work would be debt funded. Interest, depreciation and ongoing maintenance would be rates funded.

Debt

· Capital costs of between $3 - $4 million would be debt funded, dependant on the tenants intended use and final scope of work.

Rates

· Interest, depreciation, and ongoing maintenance would be rates funded.

Zero carbon

· Emissions considerations are not considered part of this report.

Advantages

· a community group would benefit from reduced rental and central city, dedicated community space.

Disadvantages

· there will be an increase to rates and Council debt.

· additional staff resource to manage the tenancy and building.

NEXT STEPS

49 Staff will either:

a) prepare the Property for sale and appoint an appropriate agent to market the Property. Staff would return to Council with options for a potential sale, and a report that considers proceeds of sale and any Public Works Act implications.

b) OR consider how the Property could best be reused as a community Property. Staff would work with Community and Creative Partnerships to identify potential community tenants and return to Council with options to consider. Options would consider potential tenants, their purpose, potential scope of work and potential to contribute rental.

Signatories

Author:

Maria Sleeman - Property Officer - Community and Civic

Anna Nilsen – Group Manager Property

Authoriser:

Robert West - General Manager Corporate Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	231 Stuart Street Estimate	196

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

The Property no longer supports Council strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

The impact on Māori is dependent on Council’s decision and will be considered more fully as part of next steps.

Sustainability

The sale of the Property will allow for sustainable investment in other assets for the future and limit any further unknown consequences and expenses.

Zero carbon

There is no known impact for city-wide and DCC emissions.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The Property is currently vacant and there are no known implications on current levels of service.

Financial considerations

The cost of the recommended option is likely to be an unbudgeted net benefit to Council. Option two will require increases to the capital and operating budgets.

Significance

The Property has been removed from the Significance and Engagement Policy and this decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as there will be a subsequent report to Council based on what direction Council provides under this report.

Engagement – external

This report presents options for consideration that were first raised through the 9 year plan consultation document.

Engagement - internal

Engagement has been undertaken with Ara Toi, Property, Legal and Heritage Advisory teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks arising from the recommendation in this report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Property does not fall within a Community Board area.

Council

30 July 2025

Town Hall & Municipal Chambers Programme - Update Report

Department: Property

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Council owns the Dunedin Centre (‘the Property’), which includes the Municipal Chambers, Dunedin Town Hall and Glenroy Auditorium, at 48 The Octagon Dunedin. The Property sits within the Operational Property Portfolio and is a Strategic Council Asset.

2 Council has service level agreements with Dunedin Venues Management Limited (DVML) and most of the property is managed as a conference and events venue. The venue is well used for the arts, conferencing, and one-off special events. It has a mixture of auditorium space, conference rooms and performing arts settings.

3 The Municipal Chambers are part of the property and they house two conference rooms which are part of the DVML agreement, alongside Council facilities that are managed by DCC staff.

4 The Property comprises three buildings that were constructed between 1880 and 1930.

5 The interior of the Property has undergone numerous improvements, including modifications to the layout and decorative enhancements. Some structural work has also been carried out; however, the building’s seismic resilience is not well understood. Additionally, some interior fixtures and mechanical systems are either in poor condition or approaching the end of their serviceable life.

6 Over time parts of the exterior facade have been renewed. However, the exterior is now at a stage where a more wholesale restoration is required.

7 There are two streams of work underway on the Property now. An Exterior Heritage Restoration project and Seismic Investigation and Strengthening work. These are separate, but interlinked projects. Staff are considering them together to ensure their interdependencies are managed.

8 Staff have also considering the work that is needed to address interior plant and fixtures, but those projects have not formally begun. The interior plant and fixtures renewal projects will be planned in collaboration with DVML and will come to Council for consideration in due course.

9 The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the forward work programme of the Exterior Heritage Restoration project, and Seismic Investigation and Strengthening project.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Town Hall & Municipal Chambers Programme - Update Report.

b) Notes that a seismic strengthening options report will come to Council for consideration in time for consideration as part of Annual plan 2026-2027.

BACKGROUND

10 The Municipal Chambers Building at 48 the Octagon was officially opened in 1880. This was followed by the Town Hall and Concert Chamber (Glenroy Auditorium) opening in 1930.

11 The Municipal Chambers and Town Hall are among Dunedin’s most significant heritage structures and are formally known as the Dunedin Centre (the Property).

12 The Property operates primarily as a conference and event venue and is also home to Council’s Municipal Chamber and supporting rooms. In the past the Property has been used to host the Town Hall, council administration, visitor information centre, short term office accommodation for events such as the master’s games, and even a restaurant at one point.

13 The Municipal Chambers and Town Hall are largely constructed of Oamaru stone and brick.

14 The Municipal Chambers walls are constructed with an Oamaru Stone façade, a red brick internal structure, with stone rubble filling a cavity between the inner and outer skins.

15 Construction of the Town Hall is similar with stone and brick walls. However the cavity in the Town Hall is filled with unreinforced concrete. Another significant difference is the Town Hall roof structure which is built using steel trusses supported on steel columns encased in concrete. The Municipal Chambers is a traditional timber framed roof.

16 Both buildings are topped with Welsh slate. The total footprint of the Property is approximately 3,500m².

Previous Work

17 In 1964 there several incidents including one in which a cast iron finial became detached from the structure, fell through the slate roof, and came to rest on a ceiling joist directly above the Mayor’s office. This contributed to concerns regarding the structural integrity of the Clock Tower and the deteriorating condition of the exterior of the Municipal Chambers.

18 Substantial alterations were made to the Property and a decision was made to remove the upper section of the Clock Tower. The belfry (structure housing the bells) was enclosed in a zinc clad vaulted cloister style roof as illustrated in image 1 below.

Image 1 -

19 In 1985 the Concert Chamber (now the Glenroy Auditorium) was redeveloped to include an entrance from Harrop Street and the addition of the oval stairwell which is still in use today.

20 In 1989, as part of an upgrade to the Municipal Chambers, the Clock Tower was reconstructed in its original form using reinforced concrete. During the same period, alterations were made to the Council Chamber which included the addition of public and media galleries. Internal partitions were removed to create the Edinburgh Room, and new restroom facilities were installed. The Octagon entrance was modified, featuring the introduction of a new staircase designed to replicate the main entry stairs of the building’s original design.

21 In 2010 a further upgrade of the Property was undertaken. This project aimed to enhance the functionality of the complex as a venue for events and conferences, while also improving the physical connection between the Municipal Chambers and the Town Hall.

22 New lifts were installed, and dedicated plant rooms were constructed to accommodate updated mechanical systems, resulting in improved heating, cooling, and ventilation within the Town Hall. Linking corridors were opened between the Glenroy Auditorium and the Municipal Chambers on multiple levels, enhancing access between the various conference spaces.

23 The 2010 upgrade included substantial structural enhancement of the Property. Construction drawings and photographs taken during the 2010 upgrade are now providing valuable information for the current programmes of work.

Heritage New Zealand Category Status

24 The Municipal Chambers is identified as a scheduled heritage building in the 2GP (B593). Protection is afforded to the ‘Entire external building envelope and Council Chamber interior’. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga identify the building as a Category 1 historic place (#2197).

25 Dunedin Town Hall and Concert Chambers is also identified as a scheduled heritage building in the 2GP (B410). Protection is afforded to the ‘Facade and bulk appearance to Moray Place, excluding recent canopy’. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga identify the building as a Category 2 historic place (#2150).

26 Both buildings are located within The Octagon Commercial Heritage Precinct.

DISCUSSION

Exterior Heritage Restoration project

27 On completion of the 2010 Town Hall Redevelopment, staff understand that a project to restore the exterior of the Property was considered but not progressed.

28 In 2018 Origin Heritage were engaged to complete an in‐depth external assessment of the Property after concerns about the deteriorating condition of the exterior of the buildings were raised.

29 In October 2020 pieces of the Oamaru stone façade fell from the building, landing in Municipal Laneway. A scaffolding gantry that acted as a catch-fan was erected to the perimeter of the property to provide pedestrians protection until exterior repairs could be scoped and carried out. Since this incident there have been further occasions where stone, slate and cast-iron balustrades have fallen from the building.

30 Oamaru Stone has relatively low compressive strength, and the softness of the stone leaves it vulnerable to erosion due to weathering and exposure to contaminates, refer to Images 3 and 4.

31 Water can penetrate the pores of the Oamaru stone and can freeze and cause some areas of stone to “spall” or fall from the building as described above and shown in Images 6 and 7.

32 Historically, it was believed that applying a sealant to the surface of the Oamaru stone was the most effective means of protecting it. While this approach was a common practice for the time, the types of sealants used did not allow the stone to breathe. This resulted in the formation of a surface film/skin over the stone, that which blackens over time and traps moisture beneath the sealed layer, which over time dissolves the stone. This is illustrated in Image 5.

Image 3 Image 4 Image 5

Image 6 Image 7

33 Staff approached the market in 2021 to procure a heritage consultant and a main contractor to scope and cost the restoration work. Origin Heritage Consultants and Naylor Love were engaged after a procurement process.

34 $3.5m was included in the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 for Town Hall/Municipal Chamber Exterior and Lift. This was a placeholder budget to enable detailed planning to commence.

35 At the beginning of 2023 the scaffolding gantry was replaced with a new construction barrier. The construction barrier provides an improved safety zone to the entire perimeter of the Property, and a more visually appealing alternative to the ‘catch fan’. Access to the Bell Tower has also been restricted due to the deteriorating state of the exterior decking.

Project Staging

36 The Exterior Heritage Restoration project has been broken into 7 Stages which are illustrated in Image 8 below.

37 There is detailed discovery process for each stage of work to clearly identify the scope and inform the cost before progressing with that stage. Staff expect that the discovery and planning phases for each stage will go faster as the project progress’ and our understanding of the building improves.

Image 8: DRAFT Staging Plan.

38 Stage One includes the façade of the Municipal Chambers along the Municipal Lane and Octagon elevations up to, but not including the Clock Tower. The restoration of Pavilions one and two are included in this stage along with the Oamaru stone rooftop balustrades. Refer to Image 9.

39 Stage Two includes the Octagon and Harrop street facades of the Municipal Chambers and is a mirror image of stage one including all aspects described in that stage.

Stage One Progress

40 A plan for Stage One was completed in January 2025 and a detailed schedule of work, was produced by Origin Consultants. The schedule of work itemised all aspects of the work for Stage One.

41 Staff and representatives from Origin Heritage met with Heritage New Zealand staff to review the detailed documentation of Stage One as part of the Outline Plan application. The scope of the proposed work was supported by Heritage New Zealand.

42 The Property is in a designated area according to the District plan, which makes provision for certain approved activities, therefore an Outline Plan application was required rather than a Resource Consent.

43 The Outline Plan for Stage One was approved by the Dunedin City Council Senior Planner on 19 March 2025.

44 The work required to restore the exterior includes the repair, or replacement of heavily eroded or deteriorated.

· Oamaru Stone,

· Port Chalmers Breccia,

· slate roof cladding,

· lead Flashings,

· timber flag poles,

· timber window joinery and

· cast iron balustrading.

45 Much of the work involved is highly specialised, including the preparation and installation of lead flashings, roofing slate, and stone masonry. The availability of skilled tradespeople in these areas is extremely limited; however, this project benefits from the opportunity to build upon the expertise developed during the restoration work at the Dunedin Railway Station.

46 The scope of work was issued to Naylor Love for pricing and the submitted price was reviewed by the appointed Quantity Surveyor, Chas. E. George.

47 After negotiations a final quote for Stage One has been confirmed at $2.7million including contingency of 10% and this is included in the 9 Year Plan 2025-2034.

Image 9: Stage One of the Exterior Heritage Restoration.

Future Stages

48 As Stage One restoration work progresses, the later stages of the project are being investigated and planned for. Staff expect to have a more informed timeline and costing for completion of the project by early 2026.

49 Early indications are that the Exterior Heritage Restoration project is expected to continue until at least 2028.

Funding

50 Total cost for the Exterior Heritage Restoration will not be confirmed until the discovery and planning stages are completed.

51 Table 1 below includes a breakdown of the $14m capital funding in the 9 Year Plan 2025-2034. This includes funding for the Exterior Heritage Restoration project as well as other planned future work on interior plant and fixtures.

52 Stage One has been estimated at $2.7m and the budget in the 2025-2026 year reflects this. Indicative amounts are also included in the later years of the 9 Year Plan 2025-2034 and these will be need to be updated as the discovery and planning stages are completed, and approval will be sought from Council as required.

Table One – Town Hall and Municipal Chambers Budgeted Capital Expenditure

Structural INVESTiGATIONS AND strengthening

53 In April 2013 Hadley and Robinson, consulting civil and structural engineers, provided a letter describing earthquake assessments for the Town Hall, Glenroy Auditorium, and Municipal Chambers. The letter concluded that the Town Hall and Glenroy Auditorium were assessed as being 100% NBS (New Building Standard) and the Municipal Chambers was assessed as being 70% NBS.

54 During the initial investigations (as part of the Exterior Heritage Restoration project), consultants WSP developed a report outlining their initial findings. This was based on a review of available historic information on the Municipal Chambers building. The WSP report is included as Attachment A.

55 The WSP report compares the Municipal Chambers to the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament in Christchurch that was largely destroyed in the February 2011 earthquake. The proportions of the Municipal Chambers are like the cathedral with the exception of the clock tower.

56 WSP highlighted the primary areas of concern as the pavilions and clock tower, and the wall construction comprising of brick and stone leaves with rubble infill. The WSP report concluded that due to the size, shape, and construction methodology, the building would perform poorly in a significant seismic event.

57 The legislation for Earthquake Prone buildings has changed since the Hadley & Robinson letter was issued in 2013, and the 2017 Amendment Act Earthquake Prone Buildings is now the standard. Improved knowledge around how buildings behave during an earthquake, and the findings of the WSP Report, mean that an updated Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) is needed.

58 In 2025 WSP were engaged to develop a DSA of the Property. To ensure the DSA is independently reviewed and tested, Egis Limited have also been engaged to Peer Review the DSA.

59 The DSA is underway and expected to be completed and reviewed by the end of 2025. The DSA will inform the development of potential strengthening schemes for the property. The potential schemes will be costed, and it is staff’s intention to return to Council with an options report for consideration in early 2026.

60 The construction issue drawings from previous work and photographs taken during the 2010 upgrade are providing valuable information during the development of the Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA).

Use of Technology

61 Advances in construction technology have significantly improved in recent years, especially for large-scale, multidisciplinary projects. The project team is actively collaborating with industry peers across the country to share knowledge and apply proven methods to the Town Hall and Municipal Chambers projects.

62 One key technology being used is 3D scanning, also known as Pointcloud scanning. A Pointcloud is a digital collection of millions of individual points in 3D space, captured using laser scanning or photogrammetry. Each point represents a precise location on the surface of the building. Together, these points form an incredibly detailed 3D representation of the structure’s shape and surface features.

63 This methodology provides highly accurate digital records of the building’s current condition—within millimetres—which is essential for tracking changes over time and supporting heritage documentation, conservation, and restoration efforts.

64 A complete 3D scan of both the exterior and interior of the property was carried out early in the planning phase. The scan data was then converted into a Revit model, a digital 3D representation of the building. This model serves as the foundation for both the architectural design of the Exterior Heritage Restoration and the development of structural and seismic assessments.

65 The Revit model is accessible to the entire project team and plays a central role in collaboration, coordination, and planning between trades. Similar technology has been successfully implemented in other major heritage and infrastructure projects, including the Christchurch Hospital redevelopment, the Christchurch Cathedral restoration, and the Wellington Town Hall restoration.

66 This technology was also instrumental in the seismic strengthening of the Timaru Catholic Basilica. Engineers used the 3D model with the LS-DYNA crash simulation tool to run virtual earthquake scenarios. This allowed them to identify likely failure points in the structure and develop a targeted strengthening strategy, rather than applying a generic approach across the entire building.

67 Investing early in advanced technology and detailed site data gives the project team a much deeper understanding of how the building may perform during an earthquake. The use of LS-DYNA crash modelling enables engineers to simulate and refine strengthening solutions digitally before physical work begins—helping optimise investment, improve safety outcomes, and support precise planning.

Image 10: Above, Pointcloud Model Scan Data Image 11: Above 3D “Revit” Model.

68 The digital model becomes a valuable asset for long-term facilities management, maintenance planning, and future heritage conservation work.

Funding

69 The Seismic Investigation and Strengthening Project is funded from Property Services Capital and Operational budgets. The 9 Year Plan 2025-2034 includes funding of $750,000 under Operational Asset Renewals, to cover the cost of the DSA, peer review, modelling tools, and the development of possible strengthening options.

70 There is currently no funding in the 9 Year Plan 2025-2034 for strengthening the Property. Potential strengthening options, along with funding implications will be presented to the Council in early 2026 for consideration.

OPTIONS

71 No options for consideration as part of this report.

NEXT STEPS

72 Work is proceeding on Stage One of the Exterior Heritage Restoration project with an expected duration of 14 months. While Stage One work is underway, the discovery and planning of Stage Two will be undertaken.

73 Staff will update Council on the Exterior Heritage Restoration through reports and workshops. Staff will return to Council with an update and options report on the Seismic Investigation and Strengthening project in early 2026.

Signatories

Author:

Mike Restall - Project Manager

Anna Nilsen - Group Manager, Property Services

Authoriser:

Robert West - General Manager Corporate Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Municipal Chambers Progress Report	215

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Māori.

Sustainability

The exterior restoration of the property supports the longevity of a significant heritage asset.

Zero carbon

The report does not include options.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Funding for the Exterior Heritage Restoration is included in the 2025 – 2034 Long Term Plan.

Financial considerations

The costs for Stage 1 Exterior Heritage Restoration and the DSA are included in the Long Term Plan.

Significance

The matter in this report is consider low in terms of Council’s significance and engagement policy.

Engagement – external

Staff have engaged with representatives from Heritage New Zealand, the Wellington City Council Town Hall Restoration Project and the Christchurch Cathedral project and Christchurch Hospital redevelopment project.

Engagement - internal

Property Services have engaged with the DCC Advisory Team and Legal Services.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no decisions as part of this report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The restoration and potential strengthening of the property will be of interest to all Community Boards.

Council

30 July 2025

Centres Upgrade and Minor Amenity Improvements Programme

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Centres Upgrade and Minor Amenity Improvements Programme aims to ensure Dunedin’s Centres Zones are great places for their communities and local businesses. The programme will deliver amenity upgrades to the public spaces in Dunedin’s suburban/neighbourhood centres.

2 Funding for the Centres Upgrade Programme has been included in the Long Term Plan (LTP). Funding for the first two years of the LTP is to deliver minor amenity improvements to small-scale centres in order to establish the programme and align it with concurrent work within the Transport capital programme in subsequent years.

3 This report requests that the Council note the locations to be upgraded in the first two years (2025/26 and 2026/27) of the LTP period.

4 A further report will be presented to Council in 2026 to confirm the centres that will be upgraded during the following two years of the LTP period (2027/28 and 2028/29), covering the triennium from 2025 to 2028.

5 The Zero Carbon package includes funding for the Centres Upgrade and Minor Amenity Improvements Programme from year three of the LTP. Overall funding for the Centres Upgrade and Minor Amenity Improvements Programme increases in year four of the LTP.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the Musselburgh and Wakari neighbourhood centres have been selected for the first two years (2025/26 and 2026/27) of the Centres Upgrade and Minor Amenity Improvements Programme.

b) Notes that a report will be presented to Council in 2026 to confirm the centres that will be upgraded in the following two years of the LTP period (2027/28 and 2028/29) to cover the triennium from 2025 to 2028.

BACKGROUND

6 The Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP) describes Centres Zones as a range of different-sized commercial centres that are spread throughout the urban area of Dunedin and within outlying towns. Principal, suburban, and rural centre zones are social and economic hubs for suburban and rural communities.

7 The 2GP also refers to Neighbourhood Centre Zones, which serve the day-to-day needs of individual neighbourhoods. The Neighbourhood Destination Centre and the Neighbourhood Convenience Centre Zones serve visitors’ needs and passing motorists' needs, respectively.

8 The Centres Upgrade and Minor Amenity Improvements Programme aims to ensure Dunedin’s Centres Zones are great places for their communities and local businesses, in terms of traffic safety, accessibility, and amenity. Individual centres are identified in the ‘Location of Centres and 2GP Zoning’ table (Attachment A). Generally, small-scale centres are listed in the 2GP as either ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ or ‘Neighbourhood Convenience Centre’. Larger centres are listed as ‘Principal Centre’, ‘Suburban Centre’, ‘Neighbourhood Destination Centre’, or ‘Rural Centre’.

Funding in the 2025-2034 LTP

9 Staff presented a ‘Centres Upgrade Programme’ report (Attachment B) to Council on 28 Jan 2025. The next steps of this report note that Staff would prepare a report to Council or Committee will confirm the priority projects to be delivered in the first years of the programme.

10 The overall programme will be funded through a combination of the Minor Amenities Improvements budget and the Centres Upgrade Programme budget as itemised in Table 1.

11 The Minor Amenity Improvements (MAI) budget will be used for the first three years of the overall programme. The intention is to upgrade small-scale centres using this budget.

12 The Centres Upgrade Programme (CUP) budget will be used for more comprehensive upgrading of the larger-scale centres. The CUP budget has funding for years four to seven of the LTP.

13 The Zero Carbon Package also includes funding from year three of the LTP. This funding is itemised in Table 1 below and is specifically for transport improvements in priority suburban centres to complement amenity upgrades.

		2025/26	2026/27	2027/28	2028/29	2029/30	2030/31	2031/32	2032/33	2033/34
City Development	CUP	-	-	-	990	990	990	990	-	-
City Development	MAI	300	300	300	-	-	-	-	300	300
Transport (Zero Carbon)				500	500	1,000	1,000
Total		300	300	800	1,490	1,990	1,990	990	300	300

Table 1: Proposed Budget 2025 -34 9 year plan (in $’000)

Note: Centres Upgrade Programme Budget (CUP), Minor Amenity Improvement Budget (MAI)

DISCUSSION

14 Work on the Centres Upgrade Programme commences this financial year, with the first project due to be completed before July 2026.

15 The first and second years of the LTP period are allocated the same budget. This work will focus on renewing existing street furniture and landscaping. The first two upgrades (2025/26 and 2026/27) will focus on small-scale centres.

16 The upgrade work for the subsequent years will be more comprehensive and/or extend over a larger area. It is anticipated that work for these years will focus on the large-scale centres. A subsequent report will be presented to Council in 2026 to confirm the centres that will be upgraded during the years 2027/28 and 2028/29 of the LTP period, to cover the triennium from 2025 to 2028.

17 Staff have identified the centres that have an approximate area of footpath and reserve space less than 1000 sqm and categorised them as small-scale centres.

18 The assessment of the small-scale centres considers:

· current and planned housing growth.

· the community impact of public space amenity improvements.

· the amenity of the private property in the centres, specifically if non-residential buildings are occupied.

· the presence and condition of street furniture and/or landscaping.

The findings of this assessment are summarised in Attachment C.

Active Community/Neighbourhood Groups and Community Boards

19 Staff are aware that community groups have approached both Councillors and staff to advocate for upgrading their centres. Staff are aware of active community groups operating in Brockville, Green Island, Port Chalmers, South Dunedin, and Waikouaiti.

20 The Strath Taieri and West Harbour Community Boards submitted on Council’s 9 year plan, requesting amenity improvements for their centres. The Waikouaiti Community Board also submitted on Council’s 9 year plan, requesting support from the Urban Design team to revitalise their centre.

Planned work that will complement the Centres Upgrade and Minor Amenity Improvements Programme.

21 DCC Transport is planning ‘low-cost-low-risk work’ within the operational budgets. Some of this work will occur in centre zones and will primarily focus on renewals and minor safety upgrades. There is an opportunity for the Centres Upgrade and Minor Amenity Improvements Programme to complement this work.

22 There are several other larger initiatives/projects planned that will occur within or affect various centres i.e. South Dunedin Future, Caversham Tunnel Trail. It is not proposed to align the Centres Upgrade Programme with this work for the first two years of the LTP as the scale of these initiatives/projects is too large for the Centres Upgrade Programme budget.

Constraints

23 Some of the centres are located on state highways. Changes within the road corridor (excluding the footpath) of a state highway will require approval from an external agency. The first project is to be delivered before July 2026, therefore, the location and/or scope of the upgrade should be planned to avoid requiring approval from an external agency that may prolong the planning and approval stages.

OPTIONS Option One – Select two centres to that will benefit the most from amenity improvements.

24 Based on the assessment of the small-scale centres, the following centres are proposed for upgrading in the first two years of the Centres Upgrade and Minor Amenity Improvements Programme under this option:

a) Musselburgh in FY25/26 – Specifically the commercial area centred around the intersection of Musselburgh Rise, Moana Crescent, and Cavell Street.

b) Wakari in FY26/27 – Specifically the commercial area centred around the intersection of Taieri and Helensburgh Roads.

Advantages

· The work in the next two years will focus on uplifting the amenity of two small centres.

· The upgrades will occur in locations where the community impact is maximised.

· In conjunction with ‘low-cost, low-risk’ transport improvement work completed separately, a greater number of centres across the city will benefit from transport or amenity upgrades.

Disadvantages

· The opportunity to complement ‘low-cost, low-risk’ work undertaken by the DCC Transport Team work will be lost.

Option Two – Select two centres to complement planned transportation upgrade work.

25 DCC Transport is planning works a range or permanent and temporary works to reinforce recently lowered speed limits. The Centre Upgrade Programme would complement this planned ‘low-cost, low-risk’ work. There are cost benefits and efficiency to be gained by delivering the work in conjunction with the low-cost, low-risk work; however, work is planned in more than two centres.

26 Low-cost, low-risk work is planned is some of the large centres. Given the modest budget, work in the next two years would need to focus on a small defined area of a large centre i.e. an intersection. The Centres Upgrade programme would need to return to these centres in a later year when more budget is available to upgrade the centre comprehensively.

27 Low-cost, low-risk work is planned for small centres where the existing visual amenity of the neighbourhood centre is considered satisfactory. These locations are considered a lesser priority than other centres for the initial years of the Centres Upgrade programme.

Advantages

· The extent of the completed upgrade will be greater, and more visible to the public, than if it was not completed in conjunction with ‘low-cost, low-risk’ work.

· Contractors engaged by the DCC Transport Team can be used for the Centres Upgrade Programme work. Delivering the work in one stage is likely to be more economical.

Disadvantages

· The Centres Upgrade Programme funding can be used a large centre; however, the budget is too small to upgrade these centres comprehensively. Returning to these centres in a later year, when more budget is available, will mean that a small centre is delayed.

· The ‘low-cost, low-risk’ work is prioritised over amenity considerations. The work in the next two years will not focus on the centres that will benefit the most from amenity improvements.

· If the planned ‘low-cost, low-risk’ work does not proceed, the Centres Upgrade Programme budget will not have sufficient value to achieve meaningful amenity improvements.

NEXT STEPS

28 Staff will progress work to upgrade the centres selected for the first two years (2025/26 and 2026/27) of the LTP period.

29 A report will be presented to the new Council in 2026 to confirm the centres that will be upgraded in the following two years of the LTP period (2027/28 and 2028/29) to cover the triennium from 2025 to 2028.

Signatories

Author:	Mark Mawdsley - Team Leader Advisory Services
Authoriser:	David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Location of Centres and 2GP Zoning	236
⇩b	Report to Council 28 Jan 2025	237
⇩c	Assessment of Amenity Needs & Community Impact	247

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

Māori Impact Statement

An overall cultural narrative for the Centres Upgrade Programme will be worked through with mana whenua. Additionally, any site-specific opportunities will be identified.

Sustainability

There will be a focus on sustainability as part of the project outcomes. Options of how to reduce the environmental impacts of the construction elements will be considered.

Zero carbon

The Zero Carbon Plan explains the importance of strengthening neighbourhood centres and nurturing low-emission urban form, including by encouraging and supporting activity in centres. The options section in this report identifies how each option may impact DCC and city emissions.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report provides three options for funding centre upgrades. These options have funding implications.

Financial considerations

Centres and minor amenity improvements are currently funded in the draft 9-year plan 2025-34.

Significance

The report is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

An engagement plan will be developed for each Centre if work progresses.

Engagement - internal

A cross-departmental working group is in place to ensure internal engagement across all appropriate DCC departments, including City Development, Transport, and 3 Waters.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks. A risk register will be developed for each of the respective component projects.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The relevant Community Boards will be involved in relation to the individual centres.

Council

30 July 2025

Submission on updated RM national direction - Packages 1 to 3

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The New Zealand Government is currently engaging with the public on significant reforms to national direction under the Resource Management Act (RMA). This engagement involves consulting on proposed changes to national policy statements, national environmental standards, and national planning standards. The changes are grouped into four consultation packages: Infrastructure and Development, Primary Sector, Freshwater, and Going for Housing Growth.

2 This report seeks retrospective approval of the Dunedin City Council (DCC) draft submission on the Infrastructure and Development, Primary Sector, and Freshwater packages. The DCC draft submission, that has already been submitted to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), is attached as Attachment A.

3 Submissions on the discussion documents on packages 1 to 3 closed on 27 July 2025. Staff provided the draft submission to MfE prior to the deadline, however, MfE were advised that DCC may submit a replacement submission if changes are made through the Council meeting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the DCC draft submission, with any amendments, on the first three packages of the updated national direction on Resource Management.

BACKGROUND

4 The Government is implementing resource management reform through a comprehensive three-stage process designed to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

5 The first stage involved the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024, which came into effect in February 2025, giving ministers broad powers to approve certain infrastructure and development projects through a streamlined process.

6 The second stage includes other legislative changes to the RMA, as well as changes to national direction under the RMA.

7 The Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2024 made targeted amendments to the RMA and various national direction instruments. The DCC submitted on that legislation, which came into force on 25 October 2024.

8 A second RMA amendment bill focusing on consenting and other system changes passed its first reading in December 2024 and had its report back from Select Committee in June. Recently there were announcements that provisions to stop any plan changes that are not yet at the hearings stage (with a few exceptions) are to be included in this legislation.

9 The Government is currently engaging with the public on significant reforms to national direction under the Resource Management Act (RMA). This engagement involves consulting on proposed changes to national policy statements, national environmental standards, and national planning standards. The changes are grouped into four consultation packages: Infrastructure and Development, Primary Sector, Freshwater, and Going for Housing Growth.

10 Submissions on the Infrastructure and Development, Primary Sector, and Freshwater packages were due on 27 July 2025:

· Package 1 Infrastructure and development: aims to make it easier for councils to plan and deliver infrastructure by making four new national direction instruments and amending four existing national direction instruments. 

· Package 2 Primary sector: aims to enable growth in the primary sector by making changes to eight existing national direction instruments. 

· Package 3 Freshwater: proposes options to amend freshwater national direction to better reflect the interests of all water users.  

11 Councillors were engaged on the national direction changes at a councillor workshop on 8 July 2025 and had the opportunity to provide input on the draft submission via email before the MfE deadline.

12 The Going for Housing Growth discussion document (package 4) is not proposing any immediate changes to national direction and seeks feedback on proposals to integrate housing growth objectives into the new resource management system. Staff are currently preparing a draft submission on this discussion document, which will come to Council for approval to submit on 12 August.

13 The third and most significant stage of reform involves completely replacing the RMA with two new pieces of legislation: the Planning Act and the Natural Environment Act. The timeline for this legislation is late 2025.

DISCUSSION

14 The DCC's submission on packages 1 to 3 emphasises four key themes regarding the proposed RMA national direction changes. First, while DCC supports robust national direction to promote consistency and reduce costs, it stresses that these benefits are only realised when direction is clear, precise, and complete. The submission warns against poorly drafted frameworks that create uncertainty and legal challenges, citing DCC's own costly experiences with the National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land. The submission strongly urges comprehensive, integrated national direction drafted to the highest legal standards, with adequate scrutiny by experienced practitioners before finalisation.

15 The submission acknowledges the need to rebalance environmental protection with enabling development but cautions against shifting too far toward development at the expense of environmental values, noting these underpin New Zealand's tourism economy and liveability. The submission highlights that Dunedin's tourism sector employs nearly 5,000 people and contributes $379 million to GDP, with visitors prioritising outdoor and natural environments.

16 The submission urges that all national direction explicitly recognise tangata whenua rights and interests, and require active, ongoing, and culturally appropriate engagement that goes beyond mere consultation.

17 Regarding implementation of the new national direction, the submission supports the pragmatic "as soon as practicable" approach that avoids costly immediate plan changes for potentially short-lived work. However, the submission raises significant concerns about the broader resource management reforms, particularly the substantial shift of policy-setting from local to central government that risks undermining local democracy and communities' ability to shape outcomes that directly affect them. The submission emphasises the critical need for enduring, bipartisan legislation to provide stability for long-term planning and investment, warning that constant legislative change with successive governments creates costly uncertainty that the country cannot afford.

18 The submission then provides detailed feedback across all three packages. For infrastructure and development, the submission supports the intent but seeks stronger environmental protections and clearer guidance on managing trade-offs. For primary sector instruments, DCC opposes removing afforestation management plans from the forestry standards and has significant concerns about proposed changes to the Highly Productive Land policy, particularly the blanket removal of LUC Class 3 protections and unworkable transition arrangements. For freshwater management, DCC supports retaining the hierarchy of obligations with modifications to enable large public drinking water suppliers, and advocates for making drinking water supply a compulsory value in the National Objectives Framework rather than optional.

19 The submission concludes by emphasising the critical importance of quality over speed, recommending that if faced with implementing uncertain direction quickly versus taking time to ensure clarity and robustness, the Ministry should prioritise doing it "once and right" to avoid the significant costs and uncertainty that flow from poorly conceived national direction.

OPTIONS

Option One – Submit on Package 1 to 3 of the updated RM National Direction (Recommended Option)

20 Under this option, Council would approve the DCC submission, with any amendments, on Package 1 to 3 of the updated RM National Direction.

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

Advantages

· Opportunity to influence national direction so it reflects local needs.

· Support more balanced decisions that consider environmental, cultural, and economic priorities.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages.

Option Two – Do not submit on Package 1 to 3 of the updated RM National Direction

22 Under this option, the Council does not approve the draft submission.

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

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to influence national direction so it reflects local needs.

· Missed opportunity to support more balanced decisions that consider environmental, cultural, and economic priorities.

NEXT STEPS

24 If Council approves the submission, staff will advise MfE that the submission is final or if the submission is approved with amendments, staff will provide MfE with an amended version. If the submission is not approved, staff will withdraw the submission.

25 A draft submission on package 4, Going for Housing Growth, will be presented to Council for approval on 12 August 2025.

Signatories

Author:	Dr Anna Johnson - City Development Manager
Authoriser:	David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft submission on RM reform National Direction Packages 1 to 3	255

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

The Resource Management Act reform package has significant impacts on local government operations, including on strategic planning, resource management and sustainability goals.

Māori Impact Statement

The submission advocates for stronger, culturally appropriate, and early engagement with takata whenua across all stages of infrastructure planning and decision-making. It recognises the vital role of takata whenua as kaitiaki and Treaty partners and calls for planning processes that uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and support mana whenua in exercising their rangatiratanga.

Sustainability

The submission highlights the need for sustainability to be embedded across all aspects of the RM reform packages. It supports national direction that balances environmental protection with enabling growth, ensuring that development does not compromise the life-supporting capacity of natural systems or the wellbeing of future generations.

Zero carbon

The submission reinforces its commitment to achieving its Zero Carbon 2030 goal by advocating for national direction that supports low-emissions infrastructure, climate-resilient development, and integrated planning frameworks.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The proposed changes in national direction will influence infrastructure investment priorities, spatial planning and environmental management.

Financial considerations

No direct impacts from submitting on package 1 to 3 of the RM national direction proposals.

Significance

This decision is considered of low significance, as it aligns with current policies and strategies and does not have direct impacts on the Council finances or planning.

Engagement – external

The ORC have been consulted on relevant aspects of the submission.

Engagement - internal

City Development, Corporate Policy, Mana Ruruku and 3 Waters teams have had input to the development of the draft submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There a no implications for Community Boards.

Council

30 July 2025

Confirmation of South Dunedin Community Library Name

Department: Arts and Culture

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report is to update Council that following a targeted community consultation process, South Dunedin Community Library, is the preferred name for the new library.

2 The new South Dunedin Library and Community complex is currently under construction and is scheduled to open in spring 2025.

3 In June 2025, the Civic Affairs Committee gratefully accepted the gifted name Te Whata o Kaituna for the new complex, as provided by mana whenua. The Committee also requested that staff engage with the community regarding a name for the library within the complex.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Confirms South Dunedin Community Library as the name for the new library housed in the new Te Whata o Kaituna complex.

BACKGROUND

4 The new library and community complex at 148 Great King Street, South Dunedin is currently under construction.

5 The exterior and interior design of the building refers to imagery, including flora and fauna, that acknowledges the history, ecology, and culture of South Dunedin.

6 Once an estuary abundant with shellfish, fish, birds and other wildlife, South Dunedin was traditionally where tuna, or eels, were harvested as an important food source by Kāi Tahu, and the area was known as Kaituna.

7 The imagery serves as a reminder of the importance of knowledge, climate change and mahika kai (food gathering practices and locations).

8 At recent Te Pae Māori meetings, mana whenua formally gifted the name Te Whata o Kaituna for the South Dunedin library and community complex.

9 A report to the Civic Affairs Committee meeting on 17 June 2025 presented Te Whata o Kaituna as the name offered by mana whenua for the new complex. At this meeting the Committee resolved the following:

Moved (Cr Bill Acklin/Cr Marie Laufiso):

That the Committee:

a) Accepts with gratitude the name of “Te Whata o Kaituna” for the name of the building in South Dunedin.

b) Recommends “South Dunedin Community Library” as the preferred name for the new library and asks staff to consult with the community on the preferred name and report back to the July 2025 Council meeting.

The Committee voted by division

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Mayor Jules Radich, Lee Vandervis, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Bill Acklin (13).

Against: Cr Brent Weatherall (1).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 13 votes to 1

DISCUSSION

10 Following the Council’s acceptance of Te Whata o Kaituna as the gifted name for the building housing the South Dunedin library and community complex, staff have completed a process of targeted engagement to understand community views on the proposed use of South Dunedin Community Library as the functional name for the library service housed within the complex.

11 Staff sought feedback from key stakeholders who have been closely involved in the development of the new building, including representatives of the community, local businesses, Pasifika communities and groups representing older adults.

12 The majority of respondents expressed support for the use of South Dunedin Community Library, citing familiarity, ease of use, and clarity for wayfinding.

13 Most respondents also noted the cultural significance of the gifted te reo building name and its relevance to the concept of the library itself.

14 Across all groups, there is strong anticipation and enthusiasm for the library opening and the valuable role it will play in the South Dunedin community.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Confirm the South Dunedin Community Library as the name for the new library in South Dunedin.

15 As noted by the majority of respondents, the name South Dunedin Community Library is a functional and clear name for the new library.

Impact assessment

16 There are no impacts on debt, rates or carbon emissions if this name is confirmed for the new Library.

Advantages

· There is clarity for the community about the name of the new library in South Dunedin.

· Aligns with the community feedback received, supporting the proposed name for the new library.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages.

Option Two – Do not confirm the South Dunedin Community Library as the name for the new library in South Dunedin, and direct staff to find an alternative name.

17 This option would require further work to be undertaken to identify an alternative name for the new library.

Impact assessment

18 There are no impacts on debt, rates or carbon emissions if an alternative name is to be found for the new Library.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages.

Disadvantages

· Would not align with the community feedback received, supporting the proposed name for the new library.

· Identifying a new name would require further consultation with the community.

NEXT STEPS

19 If confirmed by Council, staff will begin producing all planned signage and wayfinding materials featuring the new library name and will include it in all future library-related marketing and communications.

Signatories

Author:	Cam McCracken - General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation (Acting)
Authoriser:	Robert West - General Manager Corporate Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

The new South Dunedin Community Library will have a significant positive impact for the communities in South Dunedin and beyond. The Library service contributes to the economic, cultural, economic and social wellbeing of the communities it serves.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua have had significant involvement in the development of the Te Whata o Kaituna South Dunedin Library and Community complex. The naming of the building demonstrates the application of Te Taki Haruru, the expression of the DCC’s commitment to te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi.

Sustainability

Te Whata o Kaituna, the new South Dunedin Library and Community complex, will have a positive social, cultural and economic impact for its community of users.

Zero carbon

The naming of the Library in South Dunedin will have no tangible implications on city-wide or DCC emissions.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Targeted external engagement has been undertaken with stakeholder communities involved in the development of the new complex.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with DCC Library, Property, Māori Partnerships, Finance, Marketing and Communications teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

30 July 2025

Appointment of Chair, Music Advisory Panel

Department: Ara Toi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to recommend the Community Services Committee appoints a Chair for the Music Advisory Panel.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Appoints a Chair for the Music Advisory Panel

BACKGROUND

2 At the Community Services Committee meeting on 20 August 2024, the Committee approved the following:

Moved (Cr Marie Laufiso/Cr Bill Acklin):

That the Committee:

a) Approves, the draft Terms of Reference for the Music Advisory Panel with the following amendments:

i) (5.4.4) the membership to consist of two councillors.

ii) (5.7) The Quorum is five members, one must be a councillor.

b) Notes that if the draft Terms of Reference for the Music Advisory Panel is approved, that next steps include:

i) A public notification process will be undertaken to receive expressions of interest for potential members for the Music Advisory Panel.

ii) Following the public notification process, staff will prepare a further report for the Community Services Committee to consider nominees for the Music Advisory Panel.

c) The Chief Executive is authorised to make minor amendments, as necessary.

Motion carried (CSC/2024/020) Cr Vandervis recorded his vote against.

3 As per clause 5.6 of the Terms of Reference for the Music Advisory Panel, a Chair will be appointed by the Community Services Committee.

5.6 The Chair is appointed by the Community Services Committee.

4 Expressions of Interest for positions on the Panel were sought from the public. A total of 17 applications were received for the five community places and the following were approved:

· Francisca Griffin

· Abby Wolfe

· Karl Brinsdon

· Dave Bennett

· Stephen Stedman

· Charlie Brough (youth representative)

5 Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and Te Rūnaka o Kāti Huirapa ki Puketeraki were approached to provide a mana whenua representative. Both Rūnaka have insufficient capacity to fill this position at present.

6 Councillors Walker and Mayhem were appointed as the two Councillors on the Panel.

7 The Community Services Committee has not met since the community Panel members were appointed, so has not had an opportunity to appoint a Chair.

DISCUSSION

8 The Panel has met three times to date, with the Team Leader, Creative Partnerships attending in support.

9 With the Community and Council Panel appointments now confirmed, the Community Services Committee may now consider the appointment of a Chair.

10 The appointment of a Chair will ensure that the Panel is constituted in accordance with the Terms of Reference and will provide leadership for Panel meetings.

OPTIONS

11 Option One – Recommended Option The Community Services Committee appoints a Chair for the Music Advisory Panel.

Impact assessment

· This option has no impact on debt, rates, or city-wide and DCC emissions.

Zero carbon

· This option has no impact on city or DCC greenhouse emissions.

Advantages

· The Music Advisory Panel is constituted according to the Council-approved Terms of Reference.

· The Music Advisory Panel meetings proceed with a Chair in place.

Disadvantages

· There are no perceived disadvantages.

Option Two – Status Quo

12 The Community Services Committee does not appoint a Chair for the Music Advisory Panel.

Impact assessment

· This option has no impact on debt, rates, or city-wide and DCC emissions.

Zero carbon

· This option has no impact on city or DCC greenhouse emissions.

Advantages

· There are no perceived advantages.

Disadvantages

· The Music Advisory Panel continues to operate without a Chair.

· The Music Advisory Panel Terms of Reference are not met.

NEXT STEPS

13 Members of the Music Advisory Panel will be advised if a Chair is appointed.

Signatories

Author:	Lisa Wilkie - Kaiarahi - Team Leader Creative Partnerships
Authoriser:	Cam McCracken - Director DPAG, Toitū, Lan Yuan and Olveston

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables community engagement with local decision-making. It also promotes the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

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

This decision supports the implementation of the Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan

Māori Impact Statement

Te Taki Haruru, DCC’s Māori Strategic Framework was taken into consideration in the development of the terms of reference for the Music Advisory Panel. A mana whenua representative will be appointed on to the Music Advisory Panel. Mana whenua engagement was undertaken in the development of the Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan.

Sustainability

The Music Advisory Panel helps the local live music ecosystem to develop in ways that are creatively, socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable.

Zero carbon

This option has no impact on city or DCC greenhouse emissions.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

No implications

Financial considerations

No implications

Significance

This report is considered to be of low significance in terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy

Engagement – external

The Music Advisory Panel provides an avenue for ongoing engagement with local music stakeholders.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement has included Creative Partnerships and Governance Support

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The functioning of the Music Advisory Panel will be of interest to all Community Boards as the Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan supports all forms of live music across the city.

Council

30 July 2025

Performing Arts Advisory Panel - Terms of Reference

Department: Ara Toi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval for a Terms of Reference to establish an Ōtepoti Performing Arts Advisory Panel to oversee the development of a Performing Arts Action Plan for Ōtepoti Dunedin.

2 Approval of the Terms of Reference will enable the Ōtepoti Performing Arts Advisory Panel to be formally established.

3 The proposed Terms of Reference is attached as Attachment A.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the draft Terms of Reference.

BACKGROUND

4 As part of its 9 year plan 2025-34 deliberations in May 2025, Council considered a range of options to support the performing arts in Ōtepoti Dunedin including funding support for a three-venue proposal to meet the needs of the performing arts sector.

5 At this meeting on 26 May 2025, Council resolved the following:

Moved (Cr Carmen Houlahan/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

a) Establishes a Performing Arts Governance Group to oversee the development of a Theatre Action Plan.

b) Notes the proposed Terms of Reference for the group would be presented to the July 2025 Council meeting.

c) Notes the group would include members of the performing arts community and councillors and would be supported by staff.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/137)

AND

Moved (Cr Carmen Houlahan/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

d) Allocates $75k to the Ara Toi budget to support the development of the Theatre Action Plan.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/138)

DISCUSSION

6 In preparing the draft the Terms of Reference [ToR], staff recommend the new group is referred to as a ‘panel’, have an advisory role rather than governance, and its remit is broadened to include the performing arts, as well as theatre.

7 The ToR for a new Ōtepoti Performing Arts Advisory Panel [the Panel] follows guidelines set out in the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual.

8 The Panel’s purpose includes overseeing the development and long-term implementation of the Performing Arts Action Plan [the Action Plan].

9 To maintain continuity and forward momentum, the Panel will build upon the relationships that have been developed between DCC and key performing arts groups and individuals over time. This will ensure that the Action Plan’s development is informed by appropriate sector expertise from Ōtepoti Dunedin’s key performing arts organisations and disciplines including theatre, dance, music[3].

10 The Panel will keep Council and the wider performing arts communities informed about the progress of DCC performing arts related initiatives and activities as the Action Plan is developed and implemented.

11 Panel members will contribute to future reviews of the Action Plan to ensure it meets the changing needs of performing arts communities.

OPTIONS

12 Approval is sought for the draft ToR. Two options have been identified.

Option One – Council approves the draft Terms of Reference for an Ōtepoti Performing Arts Advisory Panel (Recommended Option)

Impact assessment

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· Rates funding of $75,000 in 2025-26 is required to fund this option; this has been approved in the 9 Year Plan 2025-2034.

Zero carbon

· This option has no identified impact on city-wide or DCC greenhouse emissions.

Advantages

This option:

• Enables the formal establishment of an Ōtepoti Performing Arts Advisory Panel.

• Provides a framework for the performing arts communities to continue to directly advise, support, and oversee the development and implementation of the Performing Arts Action Plan.

• Strengthens relationships between Council, staff and performing arts communities in the city.

Disadvantages

• There are no identified disadvantages.

Option Two – Council does not approve the proposed Terms of Reference for a Performing Arts Advisory Panel (Status Quo)

Impact assessment

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· No rates funding is required for this option.

Zero carbon

· This option has no identified impact on city-wide or DCC greenhouse emissions.

Advantages

• No identified advantages.

Disadvantages

• The establishment of the Panel is delayed.

• The development of the Action Plan is not informed by sector-specific, expert knowledge, and may also be delayed.

• It may be more difficult for performing arts communities to advise Council and contribute to the development and implementation of the Action Plan.

NEXT STEPS

13 If approved, the recommended next steps are as follows:

• Staff will invite key performing arts groups to submit expressions of interest, or nominations for membership of the Panel.

• Staff will invite mana whenua to provide member(s) for the Panel.

• Following this process, staff will prepare a further report for Council presenting the nominees from the performing arts community for Council’s consideration and to make appointments to the Panel.

• Council will also select two Councillor representatives to be members of the Panel and select the Panel Chair.

Signatories

Author:	Lisa Wilkie - Kaiarahi - Team Leader Creative Partnerships
Authoriser:	Cam McCracken - General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation (Acting)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Ōtepoti Performing Arts Advisory Panel Terms of Reference DRAFT	302

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables community engagement with local decision-making. It also promotes the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

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

A vibrant performing arts ecosystem contributes to the economic, cultural, and social wellbeing of communities in Ōtepoti Dunedin and the strategies that promote these wellbeings.

Māori Impact Statement

Te Taki Haruru, DCC’s Māori Strategic Framework has informed the development of the Terms of Reference for the Ōtepoti Performing Arts Advisory Panel. At least one Panel member will be mana whenua.

Sustainability

The establishment of an Ōtepoti Performing Arts Advisory Panel helps the local performing arts ecosystem to develop in ways that are creatively, socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable.

Zero carbon

No impacts on city-wide or DCC greenhouse emissions have been identified.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Council approved the establishment of an Ōtepoti Performing Arts Advisory Panel, associated funding, and the development of a Performing Arts Action Plan in the 9 Year Plan 2025-34.

Financial considerations

Council approved $75K funding to support the development of the Performing Arts Action Plan in May 2025.

Significance

This report is considered low significance in terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been ongoing engagement with performing arts communities regarding the performing arts ecosystem since 2019. This includes formal engagement as part of the Charcoalblue Performing Arts Venue Feasibility Studies (2019-2021).

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with Governance, Legal, and Ara Toi teams regarding the development of the Terms of Reference.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Performing Arts Action Plan will interest all Community Boards as it will support performing arts activities across the city.

Council

30 July 2025

Dunedin Festivals and Events Plan 2025 Adoption

Department: Enterprise Dunedin

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks formal adoption of the Dunedin Festivals and Events Plan 2025, along with the accompanying Major and Regional Events and Community and Local Events Implementation Plans.

2 An overall budget of 4.4 million over the next four years to support the implementation plans was approved through the nine-year plan.

3 Minor amendments have been made to the plan following broad stakeholder and community engagement.

4 The delivery years for a previously discussed major event have been adjusted from 2026/2028 to 2027/2029. (Event details remain confidential).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the formal adoption of the Dunedin Festivals and Events Plan 2025 in its final version following public feedback resulting in minor amendments.

b) Agrees to adjust the approved budget for a planned major event from 2026 and 2028 to 2027 and 2029.

BACKGROUND

5 On 28 January 2025 a report from Enterprise Dunedin provided an update on community feedback received on the Draft Festivals and Events Plan through the 9 year plan 2025-2034 consultation process.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Laufiso)

That the Council:

Moved (Cr Bill Acklin/Cr Andrew Whiley):

That the Council:

a) Approves that $4.4 million be added to the draft budgets for the implementation of the Community Events and Major Events Implementation Plan for consultation purposes as follows:

i. $800k in year 2025/26

ii. $1.2m each year from 2026/27 to 2028/29

b) Notes that the additional budget for the implementation of the plan will funded by rates.

c) Notes that a report on the benefits and realisations will be presented to council in time for the 10 year plan 2027-37.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (13).

Against: Crs Cherry Lucas and Lee Vandervis (2).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 13 votes to 2

Motion carried (CNL/2025/001)

6 The decision finalised the overall budget allocation for the delivery of the plan over the next four years and next steps to formally adopt the plan.

DISCUSSION

7 Staff held workshops in August and September 2024 with 74 representatives from diverse sectors focusing on community and major events. Included in discussions were Government agencies including NZ Major Events and the New Zealand Events Association.

8 Ideas incorporated the Plan following Councillor and community workshops are noted below:

What we heard	What we incorporated into the plan
You’d like a clear direction for events in Dunedin	We incorporated a vision statement for events to support the City’s goal of being one of the great small cities in the world.
You’d like greater cultural integration into the plan	We connected with the DCC Maori Partnerships team to incorporate Te Taki Haruru values and key intents into the plan
The current festivals and events plan lacks clear pathways and realistic budgets	One overarching plan supporting by two costed implementation plans were developed
You’d like it to be easier to put on great events in Dunedin	We developed targeted ways to help with regular networking and collaboration between event organisers
You’d like Dunedin’s unique characteristics to be celebrated	Dunedin’s city identity and characteristics were celebrated throughout the document

9 A draft plan, informed by stakeholder feedback, was released for public consultation, which closed on Monday, 20 January 2025. Council received 46 submissions on the plan. Submitters acknowledged the plan’s strategic, forward-thinking direction and praised its comprehensive and inclusive approach. Many welcomed the adoption and incorporation of Te Taki Haruru, while also recognising the challenges faced by event organisers and the need to simplify processes.

10 Of the 46 submitters, 8 requested to speak at hearings. During the 9-Year Plan hearings, 3 submitters spoke specifically to the Festivals and Events Plan: the Dunedin Fringe Arts Trust, the Dunedin Wildlife Trust, and the Otago Sports Car Club.

11 Additional changes incorporated into the plan following feedback on the draft are noted below:

What we heard	What we changed
No example of a Major Event in Dunedin provided in the plan	An example of a Major Event was added to the plan
You felt terminology and wording around city wellbeing and diversity, and inclusiveness was not well defined in the plan.	We clarified terminology and strengthened links throughout the plan to the DCC Strategic Framework. Changed wording to reflect that our portfolio of events was diverse in its offerings, accessible and inclusive for all.
Language around the goal “events made easy” needed to be clarified	We strengthened wording in the plan to emphasise that we are a proactive/collaborative partner in events - “making it easier for organisers to put on great events by being a proactive and solutions-focused partner”
Goal 1 – submitters wanted it to acknowledge that prosperity includes both social and economic factors	Wording changed to acknowledge that our portfolio of events would balance the benefits of major and high-profile events for economic growth, with community-led and local events for social prosperity.
A general feeling that Goal 3 “an event ready city” was limiting in its definition and didn’t incorporate the concept of the Council taking leadership in event readiness.	This goal was broadened to demonstrate the DCC took a city-wide approach to events including coordinating risk, leading strategic city activation and readiness.
Event Categories Page: - You wanted to see how local events and festivals would continue to be supported under a model based on national definitions. - You wanted to see a clearer pathway showing how events could progress in this model - You felt there was an overemphasis of large/national events - You wanted to see transparency around how funding would work in under this model.	- We updated the text and design to better emphasise the value of local and community events in Dunedin. - Design changes were used to highlight the funding support available for all event types. - We added an example of a major event held in Dunedin. - We did not include operational details on funding processes, as these sit outside the scope of this document.

OPTIONS

12 There are no options.

NEXT STEPS

13 The Dunedin Festivals and Events Plan 2025 will be published and shared with key stakeholders and implementation of the Plan will formally commence.

Signatories

Author:

Sian Sutton - Dunedin Destination Manager

Authoriser:

Mike Costelloe - Manager Enterprise Dunedin

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Dunedin Festivals and Events Plan 2025	310
⇩b	Major Events Implementation Plan	342
⇩c	Community Events Implementation Plan	354

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

Māori Impact Statement

Adoption of the Plan would provide opportunity for greater outcomes for Māori through closer collaboration with mana whenua and more cultural expression in our events portfolio.

Sustainability

Waste and Environmental Solutions have been involved in the drafting of the Festival and Events Plan and the two costed Implementation Plans and feedback has been integrated throughout.

Adoption of the Plan would likely provide better economic, social, and environmental outcomes for the city.

Zero carbon

Zero Carbon have been involved in the drafting of the Festival and Events Plan including the two costed Implementation Plans and feedback has been integrated throughout. Additional major events may increase city emissions. Community events are not likely to materially impact on city emissions. The Festival and Events Plan includes clear links to the Zero Carbon Policy and actions to minimise emissions, including some actions that have been assessed as a priority for Zero Carbon investment.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The current proposed budget is included in the LTP.

Financial considerations

An investment of $4.4 over the four year period.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

In drafting the Festival and Events Plan there has been considerable consultation with public including hosting three workshops with the events, business industries, and the wider community with 74 representatives attended. Feedback from these groups have been incorporated into the Plan. The budget was included in the draft LTP consultation document and received support via hearings.

Engagement - internal

In August and September 2024 staff engaged in a number of workshops to get guidance on the strategic direction and themes that were then raised through public consultation workshops. There were also numerous internal workshops across departments that could be involved in areas of the events industry. Māori Partnerships has been involved in the drafting of the Festival and Events Plan and the two costed Implementation Plans. Integration of Te Taki Haruru has been included which Māori Partnerships gave advice and approved. Feedback from these groups have been incorporated into the Plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified.

Community Boards

Communities across the city would benefit if the Plan were adopted.

Ōtepoti Pathways Plan update

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks council endorsement of the draft vision, goals, strategic networks and priority areas of the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan to enable public engagement to occur in early 2026.

2 The report notes that funding to progress the projects emerging from the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan is included from 2027/28 in the 9 year plan.

3 The report notes that staff are currently developing an engagement document which will come back to Council early 2026 seeking approval for public engagement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the draft vision and goals of Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways: A walking and cycling plan set out in Attachment A.

b) Approves the draft strategic walking and cycling networks, and priority areas shown in Attachment B.

c) Notes that staff are currently developing an engagement document and will come back to Council in early 2026 to seek approval for public engagement.

d) Notes that funding for planning and delivery of projects identified in Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways is included in the 9 year-plan from 2027/28.

e) Notes that New Zealand Transport Agency co- funding for prioritised projects included in Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways will be sought through the 2027-31 Regional Land Transport Plan and National Land Transport programme.

BACKGROUND

4 A review of Dunedin’s strategic walking and cycling networks is necessary to provide the strategic case to apply for NZTA co-funding in the future. The draft Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways Plan aligns with DCC’s Integrated Transport Strategy, the Zero Carbon Plan and the Future Development Strategy.

5 In late 2022, staff commenced a review of Dunedin’s strategic walking and cycling networks using the NZTA programme business case process. As part of this process, early engagement occurred with stakeholders early 2023. A draft business case was completed in late 2023, but due to changes in the strategic and funding environment following the 2023 general election, work was paused to await the outcome of the 2024 Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS).

6 The GPS (2024) signalled significant decreases in NZTA co-funding for cycling and walking. In response to this staff prepared a programme with reduced scope to reflect the new funding environment.

7 On 25 November 2024, a report on the review of the strategic walking and cycling network was presented to Council. The report outlined previous and planned investment in cycleways, the review process and the updated programme of projects that would form the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan. Council considered the update and resolved:

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Notes the update on the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan.

b) Notes that capital funding for the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan was not provided for in Transport’s draft Capital budget but elements of the programme would be included in the Zero Carbon high and medium investment packages for consideration as part of the 9 year plan.

Moved (Deputy Mayor Cherry Lucas/Cr Marie Laufiso):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 2 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 11.47 am and reconvened at 11.48 am.

The resolution was then put:

Motion carried (CNL/2024/217) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against.

8 Following this, projects from the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan were included in the Zero Carbon investment package. These projects were prioritised based on readiness to deliver and mode shift potential.

9 On 28 January 2025, Council considered the Zero Carbon high and medium investment packages including funding for a number of Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways projects and decided not to include either high or medium options in the draft 9 year plan. Instead, Council requested a further report on modelling of the Zero Carbon impacts of the draft budget as part of deliberations in May, resolving:

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Council:

c) Decides not to include either high or medium options in the Draft 9 year plan because all the papers considered by Council as part of the 9 year plan had Zero carbon assessments.

d) Requests an update report from the CEO at the 9 year plan 2025-2034 deliberations meeting in May 2025. The report is to include:

1. Modelling of the Zero Carbon impacts of the draft budget

2. Alignment of the Council’s position and OAG advice

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, Kevin Gilbert, Cherry Lucas, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (8).

Against: Crs David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley and Steve Walker (7).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 8 votes to 7

Motion carried (CNL/2025/046)

10 On 26 May 2025, as part of deliberations on the 9 year plan Council included $64.4 million capital and $3.3 million operational expenditure for the transport items included in the Zero Carbon high package (excluding the Tunnels Trail) with expenditure starting from 2027/2028. Council resolved:

Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr David Benson-Pope):

That the Council agrees that additional funding would be included in the resolution as follows:

a) Includes funding of $151,000 for the blue/green network work in the city planning budget, for 2025/26.

b) Includes funding of $64.440m for the high transport capital items in the capital budgets, excluding the tunnels trail, the programme of work to commence from 2027/28.

c) Notes that the tunnels trail is subject to a separate resolution later in the meeting.

d) Includes funding of $3.118m for the high transport operating items in the operating budget, the programme of work to commence from 2027/28.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley and Steve Walker (9).

Against: Crs Bill Acklin, Cherry Lucas, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (6).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 6

Motion carried (CNL/2025/130)

Cr Lee Vandervis left the meeting at 2.46 pm and apologised for the remainder of the meeting.

The substantive resolution was then moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Zero Carbon 9 year plan 2025-2034 update, including information about:

i) city and DCC emissions modelling,

ii) alignment with OAG climate change advice,

iii) submissions relating to Zero Carbon investment packages, and

iv) updates to Zero Carbon investment options and packages.

c) Includes funding of $151,000 for the blue/green network work in the city planning budget, for 2025/26.

d) Includes funding of $64.440m for the high transport capital items in the capital budgets, excluding the tunnels trail, the programme of work to commence from 2027/28.

e) Notes that the tunnels trail was subject to a separate resolution later in the meeting.

f) Includes funding of $3.118m for the high transport operating items in the operating budget, the programme of work to commence from 2027/28.

g) Includes Level of Service B as a new Level of Service for the 9 year plan 2025-2034:

LoS B: The DCC reports on actions to reduce Dunedin’s emissions

Progress on Zero Carbon Plan implementation is publicly reported

An annual Zero Carbon Plan update report is published.

h) Notes that staff would further update modelling and provide advice on city emissions target options following completion of the 2024/25 Dunedin emissions inventory.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley and Steve Walker (9).

Against: Crs Bill Acklin, Cherry Lucas, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (5).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 5

Motion carried (CNL/2025/131)

The following Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways projects were included in the Zero Carbon high investment package resolution as part of the 9 year plan deliberations.

a) Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways – pedestrian improvements ($1m for small scale improvements)

b) Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways – cycling improvements ($1m for small scale improvements)

c) Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways – George/Bank St improvements

d) Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways – Vogel Street improvements

e) Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways – Caversham to Centrals city tunnels trail link

f) Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways – Town Belt link

g) Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways - Hill suburbs link

h) City to waterfront bridge

i) Shore Street/Portsmouth Drive/Portobello St intersection

11 NZTA are currently reviewing their Programme Business Case (PBC) approach and have indicated that a Council endorsed strategic document will be required instead of a PBC going forward. That means finalising the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan is required for attracting NZTA co-funding in the future.

DISCUSSION

Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways draft vision, goals, strategic networks and priority areas

12 The Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways business case identified a draft vision of:

Ōtepoti Dunedin is safe and easy for people of all ages and abilities to choose to walk, cycle, or scoot for their every day trips”

13 Subsequent work has developed five draft goals with actionable steps and community outcomes to support this vision. The draft goals are:

a) Comfort: Provide comfortable low stress walking and biking routes for everyone

b) Independence: Everyone from the age of eight can travel independently to school, sports, shopping locations and cultural destinations

c) Accessibility: Everyone, including the elderly and people with disabilities have freedom through transport choice

d) Connectivity: Continue to build a safer, more connected, and attractive network for walking, cycling and other micromobility

e) Education: Support people, workplaces and schools to try new ways of traveling.

Further detail on the draft goals is shown in Attachment A.

14 On 8 July 2025, the draft vision and goals were brought to a workshop for council input. Council requested a change to the draft vision to ensure that this encompassed mobility devices and other micro-mobility options. The updated draft vision for endorsement is:

Ōtepoti Dunedin is safe and easy for people of all ages and abilities to choose to walk, cycle or wheel for their every day trips”

15 The business case developed strategic walking and cycling networks and identified the priority areas for council investment in the short to medium term. The networks show indicative routes that will be refined at a project level. The priority areas have been identified based on mode shift potential. The strategic networks and priority areas are shown in Attachments B and C.

16 Some of the routes are long distance trails, that may not be delivered through DCC Transport budgets. By including these routes in the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan, it demonstrates that these routes are important to Dunedin, part of the strategic network and it helps to unlock other forms of funding.

17 There is a need to engage with our partners, stakeholders and the community on the draft vision, goals, strategic networks, and priority areas to gauge support and test whether these are fit for purpose. This will not include consultation on individual projects, as this will occur on a more targeted basis once funding is available.

18 Having a clear signal of the level of community support for the overall vision, and priority areas will help to determine the next steps for the programme. Next steps will likely include a mix of smaller interventions that could be delivered quickly once funding is available and more complex projects that require the development of business cases.

NZTA co-funding

19 At the 27 May 2025 meeting Council expressed a desire to seek NZTA funding for Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways projects in the 9 year plan from 2027/28 onwards if it is available. The implication of this is that there is no budget to progress planning work or deliver walking and cycling improvements in the interim.

20 There is also uncertainty about what level of NZTA co-funding may be available from 2027/28- onwards until the next draft GPS is released. Even if the GPS (2027) is more favourable to walking and cycling there is no certainty that projects will be funded. With no operational funding to progress planning work until 2027/28, larger scale projects requiring business cases will not be well positioned to bid effectively for co-funding and are unlikely to be deliverable before 2029/30. Staff will consider this further and bring any proposals for additional operational funding forward during the next Annual Plan process should Council wish to be better positioned to take advantage of a change in the funding environment.

OPTIONS

21 There are no options presented in this report.

Zero carbon

· The Zero Carbon Plan identified that transport emissions needed to be reduced by at least 42% from 2018/19 to achieve the net carbon zero city wide target. Shifting to low carbon transport through developing convenient and attractive cycling and walking networks and public transport services is a key focus identified in the Zero Carbon Plan.

· Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways projects are identified in the Zero Carbon implementation plan. These will reduce emissions by enabling more people to walk or cycle for everyday transport trips reducing travel by light vehicles.

NEXT STEPS

22 If council endorse the draft vision, goals, strategic networks, and priority areas staff will prepare a public engagement document and bring it to council for approval in early 2026.

23 Following public engagement, a final version of Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan will be prepared for council approval and publication.

24 Once council have approved the plan, staff will submit projects for inclusion in the 2027 Otago Southland Regional Land Transport Plan which forms the regional bid for NZTA co-funding from the National Land Transport Programme 2027-2030.

25 Staff will advance the planning and engagement for projects included in the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan.

26 Implementation of walking and cycling improvements will be paused until capital funding becomes available in 2027/28.

Signatories

Author:

Simone Handwerk - Transport Planning Team Leader

Helen Chapman - Senior Transport Planner

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Ōtepoti Pathways draft vision and goals	401
⇩b	Draft strategic walking network map	403
⇩c	Draft strategic cycling network map	404

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

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

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

This decision fits with the Social Wellbeing Strategy, Economic Development Strategy, Environment Strategy, Future Development Strategy and Integrated Transport Strategy. The Ōtepoti pathways plan form part of the Zero Carbon implementation plan.

Māori Impact Statement

Māori are overrepresented in transport crashes and death and serious injury number. They are also part of the transport disadvantaged group, which is individuals who face challenges in accessing transport due to various factors such as low income and health. Improving our walking and cycling networks will improve safety and access for Dunedin’s transport system.

Sustainability

This plan has long term implications of improving the sustainability of our city, as it would result in more people walking and cycling and less crashes and injuries.

Zero carbon

This plan would positively impact on both city wide and DCC emissions as it would result in more people walking and cycling and less crashes and injuries.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Projects are included in the Long Term Plan from year 3

Financial considerations

There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Significance

Engagement – external

External high level engagement occurred with key stakeholders in early 2023.

Engagement – internal

Internal engagement occurred with the Parks Department, the Zero Carbon Team and the City Development team throughout the development of the plan. The strategic networks have been included in the Future Development Strategy.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Risk associated with the decision is low as this paper is only asking for endorsement of draft visions, goals and networks which are subject to consultation.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest

Community Boards

This will be of interest to Community Boards as the strategic networks are covering Dunedin as a whole.

Council

30 July 2025

Hearings Committee Recommendations - Proposed Parking Changes June 2025

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents recommendations of the Hearings Committee meeting (Attachment A - Minutes of Hearings Committee meeting), held on 27 June 2025 on proposed changes and corrections to parking restrictions.

2 The Hearings Committee (the Committee) recommends that the proposed parking restrictions presented in this report be approved.

3 If approved by Council, the changes recommended by the Hearings Committee, will be included in the GIS database and become part of the Dunedin City Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2010.

4 The proposed changes in parking and traffic restrictions are presented in two sections:

a) general minor parking changes which include requests from residents, changes made to enhance safety or amenity, and suggestions from officers. These changes include:

i. the new parking layout for Bath St, following the pipe upgrade works

ii. bus stop improvements in South Dunedin

iii. introduction of various no stopping areas following safety assessments

iv. introduction of time restricted parking in St Clair on Forbury Road, the Esplanade and Second Beach Road

v. creation of seven new parks and one motorcycle park on Crawford Street

b) corrections to the bylaw database to ensure it matches existing marking and signage

5 Consultation has been undertaken separately for all the proposed changes discussed in this report.

6 At the Committee meeting 11 people spoke to submissions.

7 The Committee recommended staff remove proposed changes for 113-115 Ravenswood Road and investigate other safety improvement options for the area.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Adopts the proposed changes to parking and traffic restrictions shown in the June 2025 update of the Dunedin City Council's traffic and parking restrictions database: Dunedin Parking Controls - July 2025 (TPC50 and TPC51)

b) Notes that the Hearings Committee has considered feedback from consultation on the proposed changes relating to changes and restrictions.

c) Notes that all parking restrictions previously approved by the Council remain unchanged.

BACKGROUND

Traffic and parking controls

8 Traffic and parking controls contribute to the objectives of the Dunedin Integrated Transport Strategy 2013, by helping to achieve a safe, efficient, and accessible transport network.

9 Council maintains a Geographic Information System (GIS) map database of traffic and parking restrictions (the database) that reflects all on-street parking restrictions that are implemented with markings and/or signs.

10 Parking controls are made under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw. The Committee has the delegation to consider changes to parking controls and to make recommendations to Council that can approve traffic restrictions and parking controls.

Context for proposed changes

11 Council often receives requests to change parking restrictions from individuals and businesses. When considering these requests, officers assess a range of factors including safety concerns, commuters’ needs, commercial users’ needs, road width and topography, traffic flow, neighbouring on-street parking spaces, visibility concerns and crash statistics. If a proposed change is supported by officers, consultation is undertaken with affected residents, businesses, and property owners to demonstrate support for the requested change.

12 The proposed changes in parking and traffic restrictions are presented in two sections:

a) general changes – this section includes parking changes arising from requests from the public and businesses to change parking restrictions and other general changes, safety and infrastructure changes and

b) corrections to parking restrictions.

DISCUSSION

13 The proposed general parking changes are shown in Dunedin Parking Controls - July 2025 (TPC50 and TPC51) and are detailed in Attachment B – Minor General Parking Changes. The GIS layer includes a bookmark feature which links the numbered cases presented in the tables of Attachment B, to their specific location.

14 Summaries of consultation undertaken with affected parties, including owners, residents and businesses are presented in Attachment C – Consultation Period Feedback.

General Minor Changes – TPC-50

Bath St – New Parking Layout

15 Parking restriction changes are proposed for Bath Street and George Street, following the Bath Street upgrade work.

16 For Bath Street, the changes include a reduction in 5-minute parking, in favour of 1-hour paid parking and the introduction of an authorised vehicle only (AVO) space for deliveries. The Bath Street parking layout is similar to the previous layout, including the retention of a mobility park.

17 For George Street, the introduction of a variable zone is proposed. The variable zone supports coach/bus parking when there is tourism demand and allows the space to be designated as parking for other purposes, including short-medium stay general parking when required.

18 Consultation was undertaken in May 2025, with letters sent to affected property owners, residents and businesses. The proposal was also published on the Dunedin City Council website and signs were installed in the area.

19 During consultation, 19 pieces of feedback were received, with 6 in support, and 13 opposing the proposed changes.

20 Feedback centres largely on the new variable zone and removal of the coach park, with support from adjacent businesses and opposing feedback from tour operators.

21 No modifications are suggested for the proposed layout following consultation.

Bus Stop Improvements – South Dunedin

22 This report presents changes to two bus stops by Cargill’s Corner on King Edward Street. Both changes are to support the Otago Regional Council’s (ORC) public transport network improvements.

23 From June 30, 2025, the ORC increased the frequency of buses travelling from the bus hub to South Dunedin. Almost all buses that previously travelled along Andersons Bay Road, now go along Princes Street and King Edward Street. The buses that would normally travel along Andersons Bay Road now use Macandrew Road to connect on Andersons Bay Road.

24 The change to bus routes and stops supports improved connectivity between the central city and South Dunedin. The map below illustrates the routes buses now travel and indicates the bus stop locations mentioned in this report.

25 This report includes making the trial inbound bus stop on King Edward Street permanent and lengthening the outbound stop on King Edward Street. The bus stop needs lengthened to accommodate two buses to mitigate the risk of buses stacking into the intersection with Hillside Road.

26 The proposed bus stop changes were initially signalled through the South Dunedin Library consultation. ORC has also discussed the broader network changes with Grey Power, who are supportive.

27 It should be noted that ORC is also trialling several new stops, and removing some from service as part of the route changes. These trial stops are not presented in this report as they will be in place under Temporary Traffic Management (TMP) for the short-medium term and will only be brought to the Committee for consideration once the final locations are confirmed.

28 Transport undertook consultation in May 2025, with letters sent to affected property owners, residents, and businesses. The proposal was also published on the Dunedin City Council website and a sign was installed in the area during the consultation period.

29 During consultation, 3 pieces of feedback were received for the outbound bus stop, with 2 in support, and 1 opposing the proposal. No feedback was received regarding the trial stop becoming permanent.

30 Staff modified the proposal to include an AVO park because of feedback received. During the Hearings Committee, staff presented an adjustment to the layout on King Edward Street, relocating an existing AVO park to mid-block (at the end of the bus stop), and converting the existing AVO into a P5 space. This change is reflected in the GIS map and provides the requested AVO park in a reasonable location and provides one additional short-term carpark near the new library.

No Stopping Areas – Safety Assessments

31 Following safety assessments, new ‘no stopping’ areas are proposed in the following areas:

a) Lachlan Avenue, near Warrender Street

b) Bank Street, near Ramsay Street

c) North Road, near Uxbridge Street

d) Highgate, at the intersections of Dunblane and Pacific streets.

32 Safety assessments were undertaken by Transportation Engineers at each of these locations following staff recommendations or requests from the community, and the installation of no stopping areas is proposed to improve safety outcomes in these locations.

33 Changes proposed on Lachlan Avenue also include removal of one unrestricted carpark. Changes in this area were introduced following recent vehicle crashes, and concerns raised by residents and New Zealand Police.

34 One person spoke at the Committee meeting regarding the changes proposed for 113-115 Ravenswood Road. Following this, the Committee asked staff to investigate options to improve safety on this section of road instead of proceeding with the proposed changes.

St Clair – Introduction of Time Restricted Parking

35 This report proposes to introduce unpaid time restrictions in St Clair, converting unrestricted parking to a mix of P5, P120 and P240 parks, variable parks and an AVO park.

36 There are a range of parking demands in St Clair due to its importance as an area for recreation, retail, hospitality, and leisure purposes. The current parking layout, which has few restrictions, does not encourage parking turnover to support businesses or short-term visitors to the area.

37 The lack of short-term parking also contributes to dangerous parking behaviour. Vehicles frequently double park, park on yellow lines or on the footpath. They also drive the wrong way along the Esplanade.

38 To reduce incidents of dangerous parking, staff propose adding three 5-minute restrictions and an AVO space on Forbury Road.

39 Some businesses in the area requested parking options that would cater for a range of visitors, which includes short term parking for takeaways, longer term parking for dining and retail, and AVO parking for deliveries.

40 As well as supporting businesses, the changes support use of the refurbished St Clair playground, DCC Hot Salt Water Pool, beach, and surfing.

41 Staff propose a mix of P120 and P240 restrictions to support hospitality and retail and provide options for recreational activity.

42 In addition to the short- and medium-term parking options, two variable parks are proposed, with the potential to be used for mobile trading areas during peak seasons. These parks could be bookable spaces for registered mobile traders.

43 Staff are proposing most restrictions apply 7-days a week, from 8am-6pm. The exceptions to this being: the P5, AVO, and mobility parks, which are proposed as ‘at all times’.

44 Consultation was undertaken in May 2025, with letters sent to affected property owners, residents, and businesses. The proposal was also published on the Dunedin City Council website, promoted via social media channels and signs were installed in the area during consultation. Staff also spoke with the South Coast Boardriders Committee.

45 During consultation, 177 pieces of feedback were received, with the feedback split as 47% supportive and 53% opposed to the proposal.

a) Many responses received did not support or oppose the proposal, but offered other suggestions, or were opposed to specific parts of the proposal (e.g. some thought the entire area should be restricted to 2-hour parking as 4-hours is too long).

b) Some themes in the feedback include, a lack of parking, concerns around paid parking, confusion surrounding P5s, concern for resident parking, freedom camping questions, questions about enforcement, and concern for the surfing community.

46 Two changes have been made to the proposal following feedback following feedback from the Disabled Persons Assembly and businesses. Those changes are the installation of one AVO space on Forbury Road, a change to the time limit on the Second Beach Road mobility parks to 4-hours.

47 At the 27 June meeting, the Hearings Committee selected a preferred option for parking restrictions, which is detailed as change numbers TPC 50 - 21A, 21B and 21C in the GIS map here: Dunedin Parking Controls - July 2025 (TPC50 and TPC51).

Introduction of new carparks on Crawford Street

48 Following the development of the site at 229 Crawford Street, a number of previously utilised vehicle crossings are now no longer required. The removal of the redundant crossings allows new parking to be created. In this report, the redundant crossings here provide seven new carparks and one motorcycle park.

Parking Counts

49 In total, it is proposed that there will be a loss of approximately 8 restricted parks and a gain of approximately 10 unrestricted parking spaces across the city, resulting in a net gain of 2 car parks. Detail is provided in Table A - Parking Counts.

50 In addition to this, 66 parks are proposed to have a change in restriction type, including 57 parks in St Clair.

TABLE A - PARKING COUNTS
ALL PARKING CHANGES – TPC-50
Restricted Carparks	Unrestricted Carparks	Change In Restriction Type
-8	10	66

Corrections to the bylaw database – TPC-51

51 Corrections of parking restrictions are detailed in Table B below. They do not change current parking restrictions but include corrections to the database that have been made to accurately reflect the actual parking restrictions.

TABLE B - CORRECTIONS TO THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING BYLAW
CORRECTIONS TPC-51
Number	Location	Detail
1	846 Cumberland St North	Update bylaw layer to reflect missing no stopping lines from when NZTA cycleway was constructed
2	46 Factory Rd (High St)	Update bylaw layer to remove redundant bus stop
3	274 Stuart St	Update bylaw layer to correct location of the Clearway on Lower Stuart Street
4	Andersons Bay Rd (by Mitre 10)	Update bylaw layer to correct location of unrestricted parking
5	260 Cumberland St (by Stuart St)	Update bylaw layer to reflect accurate capacity of 2
6	53 Cutten St Resident Park	Update bylaw layer to remove redundant resident parking space
7	High St (1 Stuart St)	Update bylaw layer to reflect accurate capacity of 2
8	Howden St /Kirkland St intersection	Update bylaw layer to reflect no stopping lines that have been on the road for many years
9	13-27 Napier St Resident Park	Update bylaw layer to remove redundant resident parking space
10	146 Queen St	Update bylaw layer to reflect no stopping/turning area
11	470 Moray Pl	Update bylaw layer to reflect accurate capacity of 1
12	333 Princes St	Update bylaw layer to reflect AVO space in place for many years, and correct P60 capacity to 5

OPTIONS

52 Two options are proposed for general parking changes. The recommended option (Option One) is to proceed with some or all of the proposed changes to the GIS database, and Option Two is maintaining the status quo.

Option One – Recommended Option

53 That the Committee approves the proposed changes to the traffic and parking controls database.

Impact assessment

54 Overall, this option is likely to marginally decrease city emissions, with no anticipated impact on DCC emissions.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

55 Parking management has a material impact on travel choices, and through that, city transport emissions. Key considerations are as follows:

· Parking changes presented in this report are unlikely to increase city emissions. Changes proposed in St Clair may provide some zero carbon benefits, with a decrease in circling traffic seeking available parks.

· Other proposed changes are unlikely to materially impact city emissions.

Advantages

· Improves safety, efficiency, and access on the transport network by:

- enabling property access by prohibiting obstructive parking, making existing parking controls clearer, and providing for access to new driveways

- providing an improved and enforceable framework of parking restrictions

- providing appropriate length of parking stay according to the surrounding land uses

· Contributes to achieving an integrated, affordable responsive, effective and safe transport network

Disadvantages

· Costs of installation

Option Two – Status Quo

56 Do nothing.

Impact assessment

57 There are no impacts identified with this option.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

58 Parking management has a material impact on travel choices, and through that, city transport emissions. If no parking changes are supported by The Committee, there will be no change to either DCC or city-wide emissions.

Advantages

· Council resources can be allocated to other transport projects

Disadvantages

· Does not improve efficiency and access to the transport network

· Does not improve safety or reduce conflict points

· Does not contribute to the Integrated Transport Strategy goals

NEXT STEPS

59 If Council adopts the recommended changes to parking restrictions, these will be implemented through appropriate signs and road markings and restrictions will be enforced under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.

60 The updated parking bylaw layer will be updated following the Council meeting.

61 Signs and markings will be scheduled for installation before the end of August 2025, where contractor and weather availability allows.

Signatories

Author:

Abbey Chamberlain - Senior Transport Planner

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Minutes of Hearings Committee Meeting	416
⇩b	Minor General Parking Changes	421
⇩c	Consultation Period Feedback	433

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

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

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

Improvements to traffic and parking restrictions supports a safe, efficient and accessible transport network, and supports the social and economic wellbeing of Dunedin communities.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua have expressed support for a safe and efficient transport network.

Sustainability

Parking control changes improve efficiency and access to the transport network, which contribute to sustainability goals.

Zero carbon

Parking changes proposed in St Clair will help to marginally reduce city emissions and vehicle circling in the area. DCC emissions would not be affected.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

Costs for implementing the proposed changes are covered by existing budgets.

Significance

The report is considered of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been engagement with affected parties, including residents, landowners and business owners adjacent to changes. There has been engagement with Otago Regional Council with regard to the public transport network.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with Transport, Property and Parks and Recreation Services staff. Consultation was undertaken with the i-Site from a local tourism perspective for the George Street changes. Transport staff will work with i-Site on implementing appropriate restrictions based on the time of year should the variable zone be approved.

Parks and Recreation staff consider the changes for St Clair to be appropriate and beneficial for the area.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Many of the proposed changes aim to improve safety of vulnerable users of the transport network.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards as part of this report.

Council

30 July 2025

Naming of One Private Right of Way in North East Valley

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks for the naming of one private right of way in North East Valley, Dunedin.

2 The new road name proposed for the private right of way at 50 Leicester Street is ‘Theomin Close’.

3 An alternative name proposed by the developer is ‘Burton Close’.

4 Both options comply with the DCC Road Naming Policy and were approved as part of the Road Name Register by the Infrastructure Services Committee on 10 April 2017.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the naming of the new private right of way at 50 Leicester Street as ‘Theomin Close’ or ‘Burton Close’.

BACKGROUND

5 The DCC Road Naming Policy provides the framework for timely and consistent naming of roads that reflect the identity of the local community. For reference, the DCC Road Naming Policy and Procedure can be accessed on the DCC website at www.dunedin.govt.nz/road-naming

6 A ‘legal road’ is any road legally vested in the council for the purpose of a road.

7 A ‘private way’ is a privately owned driveway, lane, or access way which serves as access from private properties to a public road.

8 DCC has a selection of pre-approved names published on the DCC Road Name Register.

DISCUSSION

9 The table presented below provides the preferred and alternate road name proposed for this subdivision. A map of the new private right of way is provided in Attachment A.

10 A full assessment of the road names has not been undertaken as they are selected from the DCC Road Name Register as approved in 2017.

11 Staff consider the road names to be appropriate for this development.

SUB-2023-159

50 Leicester Street

Location of road

Proposed road name

Recommended road name

New private right of way access off 50 Leicester Street.

Theomin Close (preferred)

Burton Close (alternate)

‘Theomin Close’ As selected from the Road Name Register

12 The developers for 50 Leicester Street have selected the name ‘Theomin’ from the road name register, in reference to Dorothy Theomin (1888 – 1966) as their preferred name.

13 Born in Dunedin, Dorothy travelled widely with her parents in her early years, returning to Dunedin to the newly completed Olveston. She became deeply involved in her family’s philanthropic activities and had a lifelong interest in the arts. She never married and, on her death, left Olveston and its contents to the people of Dunedin.

14 The developers have chosen this name as they consider the work of their company to be philanthropic, and this is the company’s first subdivision.

15 The developers for 50 Leicester Street have selected the alternative name ‘Burton’ from the road name register, in reference to Alfred Burton (1833/35 – 1914).

16 Alfred, recognised as one of New Zealand’s most important photographers of the 19th century, was born in Leicester and immigrated to New Zealand in 1868. Upon arrival, he established a photographic studio in Dunedin and went on to document much of the lower South Island’s landscape. In 1884, his work extended to the Pacific Islands. From 1885 until his retirement in 1896, Alfred travelled throughout New Zealand, capturing the country’s environments and communities through photography.

17 The developer has proposed this alternative name in recognition of Alfred Burton’s connection to Leicester, aligning with the development’s location on Leicester Street

18 Staff consider the suffix ‘Close’ to be appropriate for this private right of way.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

19 Approve the proposed name of ‘Theomin Close’ or the alternate name ‘Burton Close’ for the Private Right of Way located at 50 Leicester Street.

Impact assessment

20 There are no impacts identified with this option.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There is no impact on rates.

Zero carbon

· There will be no changes to either the city-wide or DCC’s emissions profile.

Advantages

· The road will be named, and landowners gain a street address allowing them to progress with building and access to services.

Disadvantages

· There are no disadvantages identified with this option.

Option Two – Status Quo

21 Reject the proposed names of ‘Theomin Close’ and ‘Burton Close’ for the Private Right of Way located at 50 Leicester Street.

Impact assessment

22 There are no impacts identified with this option.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· There will be no changes to either the city-wide or DCC’s emissions profile.

Advantages

· There are no advantages identified with this option.

Disadvantages

· The road will not have a name until new options are presented. This may inconvenience new or potential new property owners within the subdivision.

NEXT STEPS

23 Staff will process the required documentation and advise the developer and Land Information New Zealand of the new road name.

24 Staff will update the Road Name Register, noting the chosen name as assigned.

Signatories

Author:

Abbey Chamberlain - Senior Transport Planner

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Site map - 50 Leicester Street	457

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

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

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

This is an administrative function.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known identified impacts for Māori.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

Zero carbon

There are no changes to Dunedin’s emissions profile.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the 1-year plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been engagement with the developers.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement within the Transport Group, Māori partnerships, Business Information Services and Elected Officials through the process of adding names to the road name register.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

50 Leicester Street does not fall in an area with a Community Board.

Council

30 July 2025

Naming of One Private Way in Kaikorai Valley

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval for the naming of one private right of way for the subdivision located at 410 Kaikorai Valley Road.

2 The new road names (for the private way) as proposed by the developer are:

‘Fred Fox Close’ as the preferred name with the alternative names proposed being ‘Fox Close’, ‘Danissa Close’ and ‘Wallace Close’.

None of the names provided fully comply with the DCC Road Naming Policy due to similarities with existing road names in Dunedin or a lack of historical significance for the area.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the naming of the private way located at 410 Kaikorai Valley Road as ‘Fred Fox Close’ or ‘Fox Lane’ or ‘Danissa Close’ or ‘Wallace Close’.

BACKGROUND

3 The DCC Road Naming Policy provides the framework for timely and consistent naming of roads that reflect the identity of the local community. For reference, the DCC Road Naming Policy and Procedure can be accessed on the DCC website at www.dunedin.govt.nz/road-naming

4 A ‘legal road’ is any road legally vested in the council for the purpose of a road.

5 A ‘private way’ is a privately owned driveway, lane, or access way which serves as access from private properties to a public road.

DISCUSSION

6 The table presented below provides the road name proposed for this subdivision. A detailed assessment of each of the proposed road names is provided as Attachment A. Maps of the approved plans are provided as Attachment B.

SUB-2021-141-A

410 Kaikorai Valley Road

Location of road

Proposed road name

Alternative road names

Recommended road name

A private way accessed from 410 Kaikorai Valley Road

Fred Fox Close

Fox Lane

Danissa Close

Wallace Close

Fred Fox Close

7 It should be noted that the Road Naming Policy places less weight on the appropriateness criteria with respect to private ways.

8 The developer’s preferred name ‘Fred Fox Close’ complies with the DCC Road Naming Policy’s appropriateness criteria. Frederick George Fox has a connection with the area itself as he is understood to have owned a considerable amount of the nearby land. He sold a parcel of land which became part of the Mt Grand Water Reservoir in the 1990s. He also has a connection to the developer who used to lease grazing land from him.

9 Although the name is similar to other road names in Dunedin, including ‘Wattie Fox Lane’ in Kenmure, it is unlikely to cause confusion for emergency services if a different suffix is selected. Staff consider Close to be the most appropriate suffix as the road is a short cul-de-sac.

10 One of the reasons naming similarities are usually avoided is to minimise confusion for emergency services. Staff have consulted with New Zealand Police, Hato Hone St John and Fire and Emergency New Zealand regarding the naming similarities and have confirmed that the proposed name is unlikely to cause confusion.

11 The alternate name ‘Fox Lane’ complies with the DCC Road Naming Policy’s appropriateness criteria but is too similar to existing roads in Dunedin, including ‘Wattie Fox Lane’ and ‘Fox Street’.

12 The alternate name ‘Wallace Close’ is non-compliant with the DCC Road Naming Register, as it is similar to existing roads in Dunedin, including ‘Wallace Street’ and ‘Wallace Ford Road’. The proposed name ‘Wallace’ is also the surname of the majority shareholders of HWH Properties Limited, the developers of this road.

13 The alternate name ‘Danissa Close’ is non-compliant with the DCC Road Naming Policy’s criteria as it is an amalgamation of two names of direct family members of the developers.

14 As the road has already been built, and properties on it are already for sale, an interim solution for naming the road was required for the properties to be addressed and rates issued. This interim solution is creating issues for the marketing of the properties, and the road requires a permanent name.

OPTIONS

Option One –

15 Approve one of the proposed names of for the Private Way located at 410 Kaikorai Valley Road.

16 Proposed name options being: ‘Fred Fox Close, ‘Fox Lane’, ‘Danissa Close and ‘Wallace Close’.

Impact assessment

17 There are no impacts identified with this option.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There is no impact on rates.

Zero carbon

· There will be no changes to either the city-wide or DCC’s emissions profile.

Advantages

· The road will be named, and sections of landowners gain a street address allowing them to progress with building and access to services.

· Staff will not be required to spend additional time on naming this road.

Disadvantages

· Several of the names proposed do not comply with the Road Naming Policy.

Option Two – Status Quo

18 Council does not support any option proposed for the development at 410 Kaikorai Valley Road.

Impact assessment

19 There are no impacts identified with this option.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There is no impact on rates.

Zero carbon

· There will be no changes to either the city-wide or DCC’s emissions profile.

Advantages

· There are no advantages identified with this option.

Disadvantages

· The road will not have a name until new options are presented. This will impact the sale of properties and new or potential new property owners within the subdivision.

· The road naming will require more staff time.

NEXT STEPS

20 If the new road names are approved, staff will process the required documentation, and advise the developer and Land Information New Zealand of the new road names.

Signatories

Author:

Abbey Chamberlain - Senior Transport Planner

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Proposed Road Name Assessment	464
⇩b	Approved Plans - SUB-2021-141A - 410 Kaikorai Valley Road Dunedin	468

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

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

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

This is an administrative function.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Māori. The developer has not presented any information relating to this as part of the application.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

Zero carbon

There are no changes to Dunedin’s emissions profile.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the 9-year plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been engagement with the developers. Staff have consulted with Emergency Services (Fire and Emergency, NZ Police and Hato Hone St John) on the naming similarities between ‘Fred Fox Close’, ‘Wattie Fox Lane’ and ‘Fox Street’ and confirmed that the name is sufficiently different to the existing names when responding to emergency situations.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement within the Transport Group, Māori partnerships, Business Information Services and Elected Officials through the process of adding names to the Road Name Register.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

410 Kaikorai Valley Road does not fall in an area with a Community Board.

Council

30 July 2025

Dunedin City Council proposed road name assessment

Assessment for roadway at 410 Kaikorai Valley Road

Proposed road name	Fred Fox Lane or Close (Preferred option)
Description	Named after Frederick George Fox, a resident of Dunedin that owned land near the development
Road Naming Policy criteria	Complies	Transport comment
New road names shall not be the same as, or similar to, existing road names within the city	No	“Fred Fox” has similarities to “Wattie Fox Lane” and “Fox Street” both within Dunedin.
Roads are to have only one name	Yes	‘’Fred Fox” complies. The road has no other name.
Roads names must be spelled correctly, interpreted correctly, and not be offensive. Names must reflect historical, geographical or cultural significance associated with the area, a common or established theme in the area or the name of a noteworthy person.	Yes	Frederick George Fox has a connection with the area itself as he is understood to have owned a considerable amount of the nearby land. He sold a parcel of land which became part of the Mt Grand Water Reservoir in the 1990s. He also has a connection to the developer who used to lease grazing land from him.
Roads should not be named after any commercial organisation or any living or recently deceased person	Yes	“Fred Fox” does not appear to be named after any commercial organisation or any living or recently deceased person.
Road names must not be anagrams, amalgamations or derivatives of people's names	Yes	No anagrams or amalgamations found.
Names should be 15 characters or less including spaces but excluding suffix	Yes	“Fred Fox” complies.
Short names should be proposed for short streets for mapping purposes	N/A	Not considered to be a short road.
Road name suffix	Yes	Applicant proposes ‘Lane’ or ‘Close’ as the potential suffix. ‘Close’ is defined as “A short enclosed road; cul-de-sac.” Staff consider ‘Close’ to be an appropriate suffix for the road. This makes the road distinct from nearby ‘Wattie Fox lane’
Community Board	N/A	Development is outside of the Community Board areas.
Consultation	N/A	Staff do not consider consultation necessary as the area lies outside of Community Board areas and as it is a new road it will not significantly affect residents.
Overall assessment	“Fred Fox” does not comply with the Road Naming Policy, however staff deem the name different enough from existing streets that with a different suffix this will be acceptable.

Proposed road name	Fox Lane (Alternative option)
Description	Named after Frederick George Fox, a resident of Dunedin that owned land near the development
Road Naming Policy criteria	Complies	Transport comment
New road names shall not be the same as, or similar to, existing road names within the city	No	“Fox” has similarities to “Wattie Fox Lane” and is the same name as “Fox Street” both within Dunedin. Staff do not consider “Fox” to comply with this policy criteria.
Roads are to have only one name	Yes	’Fred Fox” complies. The road has no other name.
Roads names must be spelled correctly, interpreted correctly, and not be offensive. Names must reflect historical, geographical or cultural significance associated with the area, a common or established theme in the area or the name of a noteworthy person	Yes	Frederick George Fox has a connection with the area itself as he is understood to have owned a considerable amount of the nearby land. He sold a parcel of land which became part of the Mt Grand Water Reservoir in the 1990s. He also has a connection to the developer who used to lease grazing land from him.
Roads should not be named after any commercial organisation or any living or recently deceased person		“Fox” does not appear to be named after any commercial organisation or any living or recently deceased person.
Road names must not be anagrams, amalgamations or derivatives of people's names	Yes	No anagrams or amalgamations found.
Names should be 15 characters or less including spaces but excluding suffix	Yes	“Fox” complies
Short names should be proposed for short streets for mapping purposes	N/A	Not considered to be a short road.
Road name suffix	No	Applicant proposes ‘Lane’ as the potential suffix. The Road Naming Policy defines ‘Lane’ as “A narrow way, path, country road or street. A narrow passage between hedges or buildings. Also used for service lanes.” Any suffix applied to this road could cause confusion with other road names
Community Board	N/A	Development is outside of the Community Board areas.
Consultation	N/A	Staff do not consider consultation necessary as the area lies outside of Community Board areas and as it is a new road it will not significantly affect residents.
Overall assessment	“Fox” does not comply with the Road Naming Policy

Proposed road name	Danissa, Suffix: Close, Lane or Heights (Alternate option)
Description	Named for unknown Danissa, no background given.
Road Naming Policy criteria	Complies	Transport comment
New road names shall not be the same as, or similar to, existing road names within the city	Yes	Not similar to other roads in Dunedin.
Roads are to have only one name	Yes	‘’Danissa” complies. The road has no other name.
Roads names must be spelled correctly, interpreted correctly, and not be offensive. Names must reflect historical, geographical or cultural significance associated with the area, a common or established theme in the area or the name of a noteworthy person		“Danissa” appears to be named after family of the developer but no background information has been provided. Not known to be offensive.
Roads should not be named after any commercial organisation or any living or recently deceased person		Unknown
Road names must not be anagrams, amalgamations or derivatives of people's names	No	“Danissa” appears to be an amalgamation of family names of the developer (HWH Properties Ltd).
Names should be 15 characters or less including spaces but excluding suffix	Yes	“Danissa” complies
Short names should be proposed for short streets for mapping purposes	N/A	Not considered to be a short road.
Road name suffix	Yes	Applicant proposes ‘Heights’, ‘Lane’ or ‘Close’ as the potential suffix. The Road Naming Policy defines ‘Heights’ as a “A roadway traversing high ground”. The policy defines ‘Lane’ as “A narrow way, path, country road or street. A narrow passage between hedges or buildings. Also used for service lanes.” ‘Close’ is defined as “A short, enclosed road; cul-de-sac.” Staff consider ‘Heights’, ‘Lane’ or ‘Close’ to be appropriate suffixes for the road, with a preference for ‘Close’.
Community Board	N/A	Development is outside of the Community Board areas.
Consultation	N/A	Staff do not consider consultation necessary as area lies outside of Community Board areas and as a new road will not significantly affect residents.
Overall assessment	“Danissa” does not comply with the Road Naming Policy

Proposed road name	Wallace, Suffix: Lane or Close (Alternate option)
Description	Named for unknown Wallace, no background given.
Road Naming Policy criteria	Complies	Transport comment
New road names shall not be the same as, or similar to, existing road names within the city	No	Proposed name “Wallace” is the same as nearby Wallace Street and similar to Wallace Ford Road. Staff deem “Wallace” does not comply with the policy.
Roads are to have only one name	Yes	“Wallace’” complies. The road has no other name.
Roads names must be spelled correctly, interpreted correctly, and not be offensive. Names must reflect historical, geographical or cultural significance associated with the area, a common or established theme in the area or the name of a noteworthy person		“Wallace” appears to be a surname linked to the developers. However no background information has been provided.
Roads should not be named after any commercial organisation or any living or recently deceased person	No	‘Wallace’ is the surname of the majority shareholders of HWH Properties Limited, the developers of this road. Staff therefore determine ‘Wallace’ to not comply with the policy.
Road names must not be anagrams, amalgamations or derivatives of people's names	No	As above ‘Wallace’ is the surname of the majority shareholders of HWH Properties Limited.
Names should be 15 characters or less including spaces but excluding suffix	Yes	“Wallace” complies
Short names should be proposed for short streets for mapping purposes	N/A	Not considered to be a short road.
Road name suffix	Yes	Applicant proposes ‘Lane’ or ‘Close’ as the potential suffix. The Road Naming Policy defines ‘Lane’ as “A narrow way, path, country road or street. A narrow passage between hedges or buildings. Also used for service lanes.” ‘Close’ is defined as “A short enclosed road; cul-de-sac.” Staff consider ‘Lane’ or ‘Close’ to be appropriate suffixes for the road, with a preference for ‘Close’.
Community Board	N/A	Development is outside of the Community Board areas.
Consultation	N/A	Staff do not consider consultation necessary as area lies outside of Community Board areas and as a new road will not significantly affect residents.
Overall assessment	“Wallace” does not comply with the Road Naming Policy

Council

30 July 2025

Proposed Event Road Closures

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

i) Red Bull Baldwin Bolt - Baldwin Street

ii) Special Rigs for Special Kids - Various Street

iii) Hot Wheels Monster Trucks - Stadium - Various Streets

iv) August Graduation Parade - Various Street

v) September Graduation Parade - Various Streets

vi) December Graduation Parades - Various Streets

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

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

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

i) Red Bull Baldwin Bolt - Baldwin Street

Friday, 15 August 2025

12.00pm to 5.00pm

· Baldwin Street, from North Road to end, affecting Buchanan and Lennox Streets

ii) Special Rigs for Special Kids - Various Streets

Sunday, 31 August 2025

6.00am to 6.00pm

· Midland Street, between Timaru Street and Portsmouth Drive

· Otaki Street, between Midland Street and Teviot Street

· Teviot Street, between Portsmouth Drive and Timaru Street, will be temporarily closed for 20 minutes to allow the convoy to leave

iii) Hot Wheels Monster Trucks - Stadium - Various Streets

Saturday, 20 September 2025

AND

Sunday, 21 September 2025

1.30pm to 7.00pm

· Butts Road, entire length

· Union Street East, between Harbour Terrace and Anzac Avenue

· Anzac Avenue, between Minerva Street and Butts Road

· Dundas Street, between Harbour Terrace and Butts Road

· Logan Park Drive, entire length

iv) August Graduation Parade - Various Streets

Saturday, 23 August 2025	11.00am to 11.45am	· Great King Street, between Frederick Street and Albany Street
	11.10am to 12.00pm	· Frederick Street, between Great King Street and George Street · George Street, between Frederick Street and Moray Place
	11.10am to 12.30pm	· Moray Place, between George Street and Upper Stuart Street · Filleul Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street
	11.30am to 12.15pm	· Intersection of George Street and Moray Place

v) September Graduation Parade - Various Streets

Friday, 12 September 2025

10.30am to 11.10am

· Great King Street, between Frederick Street and Albany Street

10.40am to 11.30am

· Frederick Street, between Great King Street and George Street

· George Street, between Frederick Street and Moray Place

10.40am to 12.00pm

· Moray Place, between George Street and Upper Stuart Street

· Filleul Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street

vi) December Graduation Parades - Various Streets

Saturday, 6 December 2025 AND Wednesday, 10 December 2025 AND Saturday, 13 December 2025	11.00am to 11.45am	· Great King Street, between Frederick Street and Albany Street
	11.10am to 12.00pm	· Frederick Street, between Great King Street and George Street · George Street, between Frederick Street and Moray Place
	11.10am to 12.30pm	· Moray Place, between George Street and Upper Stuart Street · Filleul Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street
	11.30am to 12.15pm	· Intersection of George Street and Moray Place

BACKGROUND

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

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

5 These procedures include:

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION

Consultation and Notification

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

9 On Saturday, 21 June 2025 the proposed temporary road closures were advertised in the Otago Daily Times (Attachment B) with a deadline for feedback.

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

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

Traffic Impacts

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

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

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

OPTIONS

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

Option One – Recommended Option

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

Advantages

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

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

Disadvantages

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

Option Two – Status Quo

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

Advantages

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

Disadvantages

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

NEXT STEPS

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

Signatories

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 10	479
⇩b	ODT Advert - 21 June 2025	484

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

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

Māori Impact Statement

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

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

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

Financial considerations

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

Significance

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

Engagement – external

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

Engagement - internal

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

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

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

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

[1] Barth, J., Bond, S. & Stephenson, J. (2023) Community engagement for climate change adaptation. Research Summary for the South Dunedin Future Programme. Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago.

[2] Net scores were calculated by applying the following factors to each of the six potential responses (strongly disagree [-1.5], disagree [-1.0], neutral or unsure [0.0], agree [+1.0], strongly agree [+1.5]), summing the totals, and then combining the six responses to three simpler categories.

[3] “Performing arts includes theatre (eg comedy, drama, musical theatre, fale aitu, circus, theatre for children,

and karetao), dance (eg haka, Pasifika dance, hip hop and ballet), and music (eg contemporary music gigs

or performances of choirs, orchestras, and taonga puoro).” New Zealanders and the Arts, Ko Aotearoa me ōna Toi. Creative New Zealand, 2023, p5.

	Title	Page
⇩a	Dashboard Summary Financial Information	365
⇩b	Debt Graph	366
⇩c	Statement of Financial Performance	367
⇩d	Statement of Financial Position	368
⇩e	Statement of Cashflows	369
⇩f	Capital Expenditure Summary	370
⇩g	Capital Expenditure Detailed Programme	371
⇩h	Operating Variances	378
⇩i	Detailed Financial Update	379

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 24 June 2025	6

Author:	Hayden McAuliffe - Financial Services Manager
Authoriser:	Carolyn Allan - Chief Financial Officer

Why is community engagement important?

What was the focus of this engagement?

Who participated in the engagement?

Feedback received - views on the 7 Potential Adaptation Futures

Tolerance of flooding

Who should help pay?

Targeted stakeholder engagement

*Feedback received - v**iews on the 7 Potential Adaptation Futures*