Agenda of Council - Tuesday, 12 August 2025

Council

12 August 2025

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, the Octagon, Dunedin on Wednesday 30 July 2025, commencing at 9.00 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 Jim O'Malley	Cr Lee Vandervis
	Cr Steve Walker	Cr Brent Weatherall
	Cr Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE

Sandy Graham (Chief Executive Officer), Robert West (General Manager Corporate Services), Carolyn Allan (Chief Financial Officer), Scott MacLean (General Manager Climate and City Growth), David Ward (General Manager 3 Waters and Transition), Nicola Morand (Manahautū - General Manager Policy and Partnerships), Cam McCracken (General Manager Arts, Culture & Recreation (Acting)), Jonathan Rowe (Programme Manager, South Dunedin Future), Anna Nilsen (Group Manager Property), Hayden McAuliffe (Financial Services Manager) and Jackie Harrison (Manager Governance)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Opening

Jane Beecroft (Jambavardi), leader of the Dunedin Hare Krishna Community opened the meeting with a prayer.

Cr David Benson-Pope entered the meeting at 9.05 am.

TRIBUTES

The Mayor paid tribute to Ms Jo Millar, President of Grey Power Otago who died recently. Ms Millar was a regular attendee at Dunedin City Council meetings and fought for Grey Power and had advocated for the Dunedin community for the past 20 years.

The Mayor noted that this was the last Council meeting that Robert West, General Manager Corporate Services) would attend as he was leaving Council on Friday 1 August 2025 following 7.5 years at Council as both Group Manager – Parks and Recreation and then General Manager Corporate Services. He thanked Mr West for his contribution to Council and wished him well for the future.

2 Public Forum

2.1 Darryl Sycamore, Terramark

Mr Sycamore spoke on behalf of Terramark, Paterson Pitts, TL Surveys and the Otago Property Investors Group on how the Dunedin City Council applied the NES for contaminated soils inconsistently to other Councils and the adverse effects this had on development.

Mr Sycamore responded to questions.

2.2 Amanda Dyer, Zoe Eckhoff and Pip Eckhoff – Rental Properties

Ms Dyer, Miss Zoe Eckhoff and Ms Pip Eckhoff spoke on their experience with the poor condition of a rental property and the unsatisfactory behaviour they encountered with a landlord in Dunedin. They requested that the Council expanded its capacity to provide independent house condition reports with would help future prospective tenants and provide information on problem landlords.

Miss Eckhoff responded to questions on the toll this had taken on herself and flatmates commented that only after taking their landlord to the Tenancy Tribunal and mediation were they able to end the tenancy. They advised that this particular landlord had other rental properties in similar condition.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Extends the Public Forum beyond 30 minutes.

Motion carried

2.3 Aaron Hawkins, Otago Housing Alliance

Mr Hawkins spoke on behalf of the Otago Housing Alliance on the poor conditions of some flats in Dunedin. He commented on the vulnerability of renters and that a regulatory system that relied on tenant complaints would never be sufficient. There needed to be proactive compliance, monitoring and enforcement of healthy home standards.

Mr Hawkins invited Councillors to the next housing hui to be held on Monday 4 August. He then responded to questions.

2.4 Anna Knight – Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill

Ms Knight read community feedback on the Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill.

Ms Knight responded to questions.

3 Apologies
	There were no apologies.

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/199)

5 Declaration 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 Kevin Gilbert provided an amendment to his Interest Register.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Amends 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/2025/200)

5 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 24 June 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 24 June 2025 as a correct record. Motion carried (CNL/2025/201)
6.2 Ordinary Council meeting - 30 June 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 30 June 2025 as a correct record. Motion carried (CNL/2025/202)

Reports

7 Actions From Resolutions of Council and Committee Meetings
	A report from Civic provided an update on the implementation of resolutions made at Council and Committee meetings.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham); Manahautū - General Manager Policy and Partnerships (Nicola Morand) and General Manager Arts, Culture & Recreation (Acting) (Cam McCracken) responded to questions on the action list.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council and Committee meetings as attached. Motion carried (CNL/2025/203)

8 Forward Work Programme for Council - July 2025
	A report from Civic provided the updated forward work programme for Council and Committees for the 2025 year.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) and General Manager Corporate Services (Robert West) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the updated Council and Committee forward work programmes. Motion carried (CNL/2025/204)

9 South Dunedin Future – Programme Update and Community Engagement Results
	A report from Climate and City Growth presented 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 provided an outline of the workplan and schedule through to completion of the South Dunedin Future programme in December 2026.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) and Programme Manager, South Dunedin Future (Jonathan Rowe) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): 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 would 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 was 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 was expected to be completed by December 2026. 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, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (14). Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 14 votes to 1 Motion carried (CNL/2025/205)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 15 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 11.01 am and reconvened at 11.14 am.

10 231 Stuart Street - Options
	A report from Property provided an update on the 9 year plan consultation document which proposed the removal of 231 Stuart Street (the Property) from the Significance and Engagement Policy and sought a decision on the preferred option for the future of the Property.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham), General Manager Corporate Services (Robert West), Chief In-House Legal Counsel (Karilyn Canton), Group Manager Property (Anna Nilsen), Property Manager (David Arlidge) and Team Leader – Advisory Services) Mark Mawdsley spoke to the report. Ms Nilsen provided a correction to paragraph 33 of the report– it currently read $2.4 million when it should be $3.8 million. Staff responded to questions.
Cr Jim O’Malley left the meeting at 11.40 am and returned at 11.42 am. Cr Christine Garey left the meeting at 12.08 pm and returned at 12.10 pm.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Brent Weatherall): 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 would provide a further report to Council and records that it would not be making a final decision regarding a potential sale of 231 Stuart Street until it had received the further report from staff. 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/2025/206)

Cr Andrew Whiley left the meeting at 12.21 pm.

Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 12.22 pm and returned at 12.24 pm.

11 Town Hall & Municipal Chambers Programme - Update Report
	A report from Property provided an update on the forward work programme of the Exterior Heritage Restoration project and Seismic Investigation and Strengthening project for the Dunedin Centre (the Property) which included the Municipal Chambers, Dunedin Town Hall and Glenroy Auditorium, at 48 The Octagon Dunedin. The report noted that the Property sat within the Operational Property Portfolio and was a Strategic Council Asset.
	The General Manager Corporate Services (Robert West), Group Manager Property Services (Anna Nilsen) and Project Manager (Mike Restall) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Town Hall & Municipal Chambers Programme - Update Report. b) Notes that a seismic strengthening options report would come to Council for consideration in time for consideration as part of Annual Plan 2026-2027. Motion carried (CNL/2025/207)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 45 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.47 pm and reconvened at 1.31 pm.

Cr Carmen Houlahan entered the meeting at 1.32 pm.

12 Centres Upgrade and Minor Amenity Improvements Programme
	A report from City Development noted that the Funding for the Centres Upgrade Programme had been included in the 9 year plan. Funding for the first two years of the 9 year plan was 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. The report requested that the Council noted the locations to be upgraded in the first two years (2025/26 and 2026/27) of the 9 year plan period.
	The General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition (David Ward) and Team Leader Advisory Services (Mark Mawdsley) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes that the Musselburgh and Wakari neighbourhood centres had 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 would be presented to Council in 2026 to confirm the centres that would be upgraded in the following two years of the 9 year plan period (2027/28 and 2028/29) to cover the triennium from 2025 to 2028. Motion carried (CNL/2025/208)

13 Submission on updated RM national direction - Packages 1 to 3
	A report from City Development sought retrospective approval of the Dunedin City Council submission on the Infrastructure and Development, Primary Sector, and Freshwater packages that had already been submitted to the Ministry for the Environment. The report noted that submissions on the discussion documents on packages 1 to 3 closed on 27 July 2025. Staff had provided the draft submission to MfE prior to the deadline, however, MfE were advised that the DCC may submit a replacement submission if changes were made through the Council meeting.
	The General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition (David Ward) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
During discussion Cr Bill Acklin returned to the meeting at 1.54 pm. Cr Andrew Whiley returned to the meeting at 1.58 pm.
	Moved (Cr Mandy Mayhem/Cr Kevin Gilbert): That the Council: a) Approves the DCC draft submission on the first three packages of the updated national direction on Resource Management. Motion carried (CNL/2025/209) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against

14 Submission for the amendments proposed to waste legislation
	A report from Waste and Environmental Solutions sought approval of the final submission made by the Dunedin City Council for the amendments proposed by the Ministry for the Environment to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979. The report noted that the joint submission was drafted with other Councils in the Otago region and was co-ordinated by the Otago Regional Waste Officer.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean), Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions (Chris Henderson) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the submission made by the Dunedin City Council to the Ministry for Environment on the proposed amendments to waste legislation. Motion carried (CNL/2025/210)

15 Confirmation of South Dunedin Community Library Name
	A report from Arts and Culture noted that In June 2025, the Civic Affairs Committee had 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. The report advised that following a targeted community consultation process, South Dunedin Community Library, had been selected as the preferred name for the new library.
	The General Manager Corporate Services (Robert West) and General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation (Acting) Cam McCracken spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Lee Vandervis/Cr Bill Acklin): 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. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Cherry Lucas, Jim O'Malley, Lee Vandervis, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (9). Against: Crs David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Steve Walker and Brent Weatherall (6). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 6 Motion carried (CNL/2025/211)

Cr Sophie Barker left the meeting at 2.19 pm and returned at 2.21 pm.

16 Appointment of Chair, Music Advisory Panel
	A report from Ara Toi recommended the appointment of a Chair for the Music Advisory Panel.
	The General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation (Acting) (Cam McCracken) and Kaiarahi – Team Leader Creative Partnerships (Lisa Wilkie) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Christine Garey/Cr Lee Vandervis): That the Council: a) Defers a decision on the appointment of a Chair for the Music Advisory Panel until after the 2025 triennial election. Motion carried (CNL/2025/212)

17 Performing Arts Advisory Panel - Terms of Reference
	A report from Ara Toi sought 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.
	The General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation (Acting) (Cam McCracken) and Kaiarahi – Team Leader Creative Partnerships (Lisa Wilkie) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Approves the Terms of Reference for the Ōtepoti Performing Arts Advisory Panel. Motion carried (CNL/2025/213)

18 Dunedin Festivals and Events Plan 2025 Adoption
	A report from Enterprise Dunedin sought 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.
	The Manager Enterprise Dunedin (Mike Costello) and Dunedin Destination Manager (Sian Sutton) and Events and Special Projects Coordinator (Tammy Jackman) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Kevin Gilbert left the meeting at 2.36 pm and returned at 2.38 pm.
	Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Bill Acklin): 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. Motion carried (CNL/2025/214) with Cr Marie Laufiso recording her vote against.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

Extends the meeting beyond six hours.

Motion carried

19 Financial Report - Period ended 31 May 2025
	A report from Finance provided the financial results for the period ended 31 May 2025 and the financial position as at that date.
	The Chief Financial officer (Carolyn Allan) and Financial Services Manager (Hayden McAuliffe) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Mayor Jules Radich): That the Council: a) Notes the Financial Performance for the period ended 31 May 2025 and the Financial Position as at that date. Motion carried (CNL/2025/215)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr David Benson-Pope):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 10 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 3.20 pm and reconvened at 3.31 pm.

Crs Steve Walker and Bill Acklin left the meeting at 3.20 pm.

20 Ōtepoti Pathways Plan update
	A report from Transport sought 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. The report noted that funding to progress the projects emerging from the Ōtepoti Dunedin Pathways plan was included from 2027/28 in the 9 year plan.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean); Group Manager Transport (Jeanine Benson), and Transport Planning Team Leader (Simone Handwerk) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Mandy Mayhem): 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 were currently developing an engagement document and would 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 was 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. 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 Andrew Whiley (9). Against: Crs Cherry Lucas, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Jules Radich (4). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 4 Motion carried (CNL/2025/216)

21 Hearings Committee Recommendations - Proposed Parking Changes June 2025
	A report presented recommendations of the Hearings Committee meeting held on 27 June 2025 on proposed changes and corrections to parking restrictions.
	The Chair of the Hearings Committee (Cr Jim O’Malley), General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean); Group Manager Transport (Jeanine Benson) and Senior Transport Planner (Abbey Chamberlain) spoke to the changes and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Jim O'Malley/Cr Cherry Lucas): 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 had 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. Motion carried (CNL/2025/217)

22 Naming of One Private Right of Way in North East Valley
	A report from Transport sought approval for the naming of one private right of way in North East Valley, Dunedin. The new road name proposed for the private right of way at 50 Leicester Street was ‘Theomin Close’ with an alternative name proposed by the developer was ‘Burton Close’. The report noted that both options complied 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.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean), Group Manager Transport (Jeanine Benson) and Senior Transport Planner (Abbey Chamberlain) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Lee Vandervis/Cr Christine Garey): That the Council: a) Approves the naming of the new private right of way at 50 Leicester Street as ‘Theomin Close’. Motion carried (CNL/2025/218)

23 Naming of One Private Way in Kaikorai Valley
	A report from Transport sought approval for the naming of one private right of way for the subdivision located at 410 Kaikorai Valley Road. The new road names (for the private way) as proposed by the developer were ‘Fred Fox Close’ as the preferred name with the alternative names proposed being ‘Fox Close’, ‘Danissa Close’ and ‘Wallace Close’. The report noted that none of the names provided fully complied with the DCC Road Naming Policy due to similarities with existing road names in Dunedin or a lack of historical significance for the area.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean), Group Manager Transport (Jeanine Benson) and Senior Transport Planner (Abbey Chamberlain) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr David Benson-Pope): That the Council: a) Approves the naming of the private way located at 410 Kaikorai Valley Road as ‘Fred Fox Close’. Motion carried (CNL/2025/219)

24 Proposed Event Road Closures

A report from Transport sought approval for 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

The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) advised that the Red Bull Baldwin Bolt had been cancelled.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Andrew Whiley):

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) 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

ii) 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

iii) 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

iv) 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

v) 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

Motion carried (CNL/2025/220)

25 Notice of Motion - Enforcement and Monitoring of Healthy Homes Regulations

Cr Carmen Houlahan withdrew from this item.

In accordance with Standing Order 26.1, a Notice of Motion had been received from Cr Marie Laufiso.

Cr Marie Laufiso spoke to her Notice of Motion.

Moved (Cr Marie Laufiso/Cr David Benson-Pope):

That the Council:

a) Requests with urgency MBIE’s planned approach to the monitoring and enforcement of the Healthy Homes regulations in Ōtepoti Dunedin that would ensure fixed term tenancies commencing in January 2026 are fully compliant.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (11).

Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 1

Motion carried (CNL/2025/221)

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 Ordinary Council meeting - 24 June 2025 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	.
C2 Ordinary Council meeting - 30 June 2025 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(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).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.	.
C3 Confidential Council Action List Update - July 2025	S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C4 Confidential Council Forward Work Programme - July 2025	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(d) The withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health and safety of members of the public. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C5 Directors Remuneration - Dunedin City Holdings Limited Group Companies	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.	The information contained in this report remains confidential until Council has determined the level of fees and advised Dunedin City Holdings Limited of the outcome at which point the information can be made public..
C6 Community Partnerships Grant	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.
C7 231 Stuart Street - Confidential Attachment	s48(1)(d) Check to make report confidential.	s48(1)(d) The exclusion of the public from the part of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation.	Commercial Sensitivity.

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.

That Messrs Tim Loan and Peter Hocking (DCHL) be permitted to attend the meeting after the public had been excluded, because of their knowledge of Item C5. This knowledge, which would be off assistance in relation to the matters discussed, was relevant because they would be reporting on the item under consideration.

Adjourns the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/222)

The meeting moved into confidential at 5.13 pm and concluded at 6.05 pm.

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

MAYOR

Council

12 August 2025

Reports

Business Case for Strategic Investment into the Reduction of Construction and Demolition Waste in Dunedin

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents the findings of the business case for strategic investment into the reduction of construction and demolition waste in Dunedin and seeks approval to move forward with costing priority projects and potential incentives.

2 The targets and actions in the Zero Carbon Plan 2030 include a commitment to support construction and demolition (C&D) industries to reduce waste, and “increase the city’s ability to store, process, and reuse C&D waste”. The adopted Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 includes objectives, targets and four actions that specifically require focus on reducing C&D waste (and emissions), alongside “improving local infrastructure and services to make good practice in waste minimisation convenient and easy”.

3 Extensive engagement has been undertaken with representatives of the construction and demolition industry and the waste management industry throughout 2024/25 and is ongoing through networking events and a construction and demolition working group with cross-sector representation. The issues and problems to be addressed have been defined and a potential strategic investment approach identified.

4 The preferred option for future project planning is to develop a collaborative approach with the community and the private sector, which envisages a central resource recovery hub site that includes C&D, giving access to commercial and community partners alike. It will be a focal point for diverse community organisations working in resource recovery and waste diversion. This approach will be fully integrated with the ‘sister’ project to enable the development of three community resource recovery /recycling centres (which is the subject of a separate report on this committee agenda). All of these sites will together form a resource recovery network, which over time will provide pathways for materials that are not currently being reused or reprocessed by the commercial waste sector.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the Business Case recommended option one, ‘Collaboration with Community and Private Sector’, for Strategic Investment into the Reduction of Construction and Demolition Waste in Dunedin.

b) Notes that the costing of priority projects and potential incentives will be reported to Council in December 2025.

BACKGROUND

5 An update on the Community Led Resource Recovery and Construction Industry Waste Reduction work was presented to Council at its meeting on 10 December 2024 –

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

That the Council:

Notes the Community Led Resource Recovery and Construction Industry Waste

Reduction Update.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/241)

6 The 10 December 2024 report outlined the intention to prepare business cases for the two linked projects and to present these to the Infrastructure Services Committee before the end of June 2025.

7 A further report on a proposed Pilot for a Construction and Demolition Resource Recovery System was considered on 15 April 2025 –

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

a) Supports in principle the proposed pilot construction and demolition resource

recovery system.

b) Approves the allocation of $33,000 from 2024/2025 waste levy funding to support

the feasibility stage of the pilot project.

c) Notes the outcomes of the feasibility study will be reported back to Council to

consider whether to support and provide funding for the full pilot project.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Bill Acklin, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (11).

Against: Crs Sophie Barker, Cherry Lucas and Lee Vandervis (3).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 3

Motion carried (CNL/2025/090)

8 Also relevant to this report is the resolution to adopt the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025, at Council on 30 April 2025 –

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

That the Council:

a) Adopts the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 as amended.

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

c) Notes the Summary of Results from Submissions and the Summary of Recommendations from the Hearings Committee.

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

e) Notes the minutes of the Hearings Committee.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/100) with Cr Vandervis recording his vote against.

DISCUSSION

9 Construction and demolition (C&D) waste includes materials such as concrete, plasterboard, wood, steel, brick, cardboard, metals, plastic and glass. It comprises ‘waste generated from the construction or demolition of a building including the preparation and/or clearance of the property or site. This excludes materials such as clay, soil and rock when those materials are associated with infrastructure such as road construction and maintenance but includes building-related infrastructure’ (Otago Waste Assessment, 2023).

10 It has been estimated that 4.5 tonnes of material are wasted for every new residential build in New Zealand, which equates to a cost of over $31,000 per home (2015 figures). Around 15% of materials arriving on site are likely to be wasted, whether through off-cuts arising from design decisions, or through over-ordering of components. Nationally, it is estimated that 50% of all waste generated in New Zealand comes from the C&D sector, comprising 20% of all waste going to landfill, and 80% of all waste going to cleanfill (BRANZ, 2014 in Kennerly, 2020).

11 Construction and demolition waste can contribute to greenhouse gas emissions through several pathways, including: the production and transportation of building materials; energy used during construction; and landfill emissions. When organic materials like wood and cardboard end up in landfills, they break down and produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas 273 times more potent than carbon dioxide. C&D waste disposal and / or poor waste management can have a negative impact on the environment, such as rapidly filling up landfills, resource use that is linear rather than circular, release of plastics and other harmful or potentially hazardous wastes into the environment.

12 A solid waste audit was undertaken in November 2022 to inform the Otago Regional Waste Assessment. This indicated that a total of 57 tonnes currently classified as C&D waste is disposed of at Green Island landfill every week, of which around 72% is timber waste and 10% is rubble (including plasterboard).

13 Green Island only accounts for an estimated 15% of the total C&D waste to Dunedin landfills. The remainder goes elsewhere, including a privately owned C&D landfill at Burnside. Commercial data is not publicly available for privately owned and managed landfills.

14 The consented design for the new Resource Recovery Park at Green Island provides for a C&D sorting pad, associated with a new Bulk Waste Transfer building. This stage of the consented development is expected to be completed around 2027-28.

Central government and the private sector are focused on reducing C&D waste.

15 Reducing C&D waste overall and diverting it from landfill towards more resource efficient and circular pathways, such as recycling and reuse, has been a key focus of government, as indicated in the New Zealand Waste Strategy (2025), the government’s waste work programme (2025) and Waste Minimisation Fund, and in the first Emissions Reduction Plan (2022-2025) and Second Emissions Reduction Plan (2026-2030).

16 To improve the reliability of data and evidence around C&D waste generation, disposal, and diversion, a national C&D waste baseline measurement and tracking methodology has been commissioned. The final report is due to be released by the Ministry of the Environment in mid-2025 and will provide the evidence base for future national policy and regulatory work.

17 Achieving C&D waste credits as part of an approved building accreditation scheme (e.g., Green Star), has been required for all new central government non-residential build projects (over $9 million). In the private sector, there is increasing pressure for reducing emissions from waste and in construction activities as well as achieving a sustainable building certification which incorporates C&D waste minimisation. This is increasingly driven by reporting on Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) performance and regulated reporting on climate-related disclosures.

Acting at a local level

18 The targets and actions in the Zero Carbon Plan 2030 include a commitment to support construction and demolition industries to reduce waste, and “increase the city’s ability to store, process, and reuse C&D waste”. The adopted Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 includes objectives, targets and four actions that specifically require focus on reducing C&D waste (and emissions), alongside “improving local infrastructure and services to make good practice in waste minimisation convenient and easy”.

19 Since the update report to Council on 10 December 2024, the following activity has taken place:

· On-going engagement with the local construction sector, national industry organisations and the tertiary sector.

· An evening networking event in mid-February, with a presentation about the Waste Minimisation Fund from locally based Ministry for the Environment Investment Managers. The event was attended by 35 people from across the construction, waste and tertiary sectors.

· A coordinated series of C&D events across the Otago region, including a ‘Building in Change’ webinar (25 February) and in-person breakfast events throughout the first week of March, including:

o A site visit to the Applied Science Building at the University, hosted by Cook Brothers construction (who are undertaking the refurbishment and were able to talk about their approach to on-site waste separation)

o A ‘Design in Change’ breakfast event, with presentations from DCC’s Eco-Design Advisor and from Preformance/Southbase Group.

(Both events were attended by 25 people from across the construction and waste sectors.)

· Several meetings of the internal staff Project Control Group (PCG), including an Investment Logic Mapping Workshop to define the issues to be addressed, desired outcomes, and proposed investment objectives. The terms of reference for the PCG is appended at Attachment A.

· Further meetings of the C&D cross-sector working group, to discuss priorities for action and ideas for future events. The terms of reference for this group is appended at Attachment B.

· Commencement of a Dunedin Waste Tracking trial, involving six sites that are being provided with training, software and support by WasteXpert^TM.

20 Further to Council resolution CNL/2025/090 (15 April 2025) a feasibility study will commence on 1 July 2025 that will determine economic, social, and environmental drivers and barriers for construction waste collection, reuse and upcycling. This will include developing industry, local government, and community connections, and will set out the parameters for an on the ground pilot trial. The feasibility study will investigate market needs, availability of recyclable material, rail network logistics and intermodal transport solutions.

Defining the issues to be addressed in a business case

21 The purpose of the business case is to make the case for change, including defining the issues to be tackled and options for addressing these. Approval of the business case, including the preferred option, initiates the formal project planning stage and the preparation of a Project Management Plan.

22 This business case is only concerned with addressing C&D waste that ends up at Classes 1 and 2 landfills. This waste comprises wood products, plasterboard, plastics, metals, and rubble/aggregates such as concrete, bricks and asphalt. In Dunedin, there are resource recovery options for metals, aggregates, and untreated timber. There is scope for local processing of new plasterboard offcuts as gypsum and soil conditioner. Construction plastics and treated timber currently need to be sent elsewhere for reprocessing, and there are limited onshore recycling markets.

23 This project seeks:

· A significant and measured reduction in C&D waste to landfill.

· Agreed council actions that will support and continue behaviour change in C&D waste.

· Identification of best practice in C&D waste minimisation, and its promotion both regionally and nationally.

· Delivery of the eleven construction waste actions in the Zero Carbon Plan and the four construction and demolition actions in the WMMP 2025 (as well as the various related and overarching actions).

· Creation of a fully costed implementation plan for key initiatives, in the medium (two to five years) and the longer term (post five years).

24 Engagement with construction and waste sector stakeholders was undertaken in February 2024, to inform the preparation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025. Issues raised during this engagement process were further considered and then embodied as ‘problem statements’ by the PCG through Investment Logic Mapping (appended at Attachment C.) The problem statements were defined as:

P1: Lack of Coherent Sector-Wide Approach. There is no unified approach or shared knowledge about refurbishment, reuse and recycling options in the construction and demolition sector. The involvement of numerous businesses, from design to construction to deconstruction, leads to a perceived lack of control and oversight. This segmentation makes decision-making and communication challenging, due to inconsistent and fragmented access to reliable and relevant information, which can result in delays in project timelines and increased costs due to inefficiencies.

P2: Insufficient Local Reprocessing Infrastructure. Ōtepoti lacks comprehensive local reprocessing infrastructure, and the high cost of transporting materials to larger centres limits the options for diverting materials from landfill. This increases transportation costs and adds logistical complexities, contributing to higher carbon emissions and missed opportunities for local economic growth. Local businesses face operational inefficiencies and environmental impacts due to the absence of nearby facilities.

P3: Multiple Barriers to Change. Over-packaging of materials and components, reliance on bespoke design and imported materials, and the time needed for on-site sorting of waste, are all viewed as barriers to change. These factors contribute to financial burdens and challenges in sourcing sustainable materials, making it difficult for construction teams to implement effective waste management practices.

P4: Regulatory mechanisms favour new materials. It is currently simpler and more convenient to use new products when aiming to achieve building code compliance. There is a lack of information about how to easily incorporate refurbished, reused, and recycled materials into construction projects.

Desired Outcomes

25 The overarching desired outcome is to enable Dunedin’s construction and waste sector to reduce its C&D waste and its greenhouse gas emissions, and to stimulate circular economy opportunities, in line with DCC’s strategic direction for priorities set in the Zero Carbon Plan 2023, the 9-year Plan 2025-2034, and the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025.

26 Based on the four ‘problem statements’, the following outcome/benefit statements have been agreed by the PCG:

O1: An inclusive and resilient network fosters sector-wide connections and facilitates the sharing of best practice.

O2: Reuse, repurposing, and repair of diverted materials and resources are actively supported and promoted.

O3: Local reprocessing options are maximised, and carbon efficient pathways are established for hard to recycle materials.

O4: Clear economic benefits drive and motivate positive behaviour changes.

27 Arising from the outcome statements, four investment objectives were then identified:

IO1: Enhance networks, education and training opportunities.

IO2: Support and enable fit for purpose and accessible infrastructure for C&D waste sorting and storage.

IO3: Incentivise actions to manage and minimise construction waste.

IO4: Identify pathways for materials.

28 The PCG then examined options that could deliver these objectives, realise the outcomes, and respond to the problem statements. The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of each option were worked through, and then refined options were assessed using multi-criteria analysis.

OPTIONS

29 Three options have been assessed as offering scope to deliver the investment objectives. These are detailed below and include the ‘current roadmap’ as the baseline option, with choices then considered around a more transactional ‘regulations and incentives’ approach, or a more collaborative and proactive approach.

Option One – Collaboration with Community and Private Sector - Recommended Option

Impact assessment

30 This option builds on the ‘current roadmap’ baseline and envisages a central resource recovery hub site that includes C&D, giving access to commercial and community partners alike. It will be a focal point for diverse community organisations working in resource recovery and waste diversion. This approach will be fully integrated with the ‘sister’ project to enable the development of three community resource recovery /recycling centres. These sites will together form a resource recovery network, which over time will provide pathways for materials that are not currently being reused or reprocessed by the commercial waste sector.

31 This collaborative option envisages that the bulk materials for reprocessing (aggregates, metals, plasterboard, some timber) will be handled by the private sector, with the items/materials that can be re-used or repurposed being diverted through the community resource recovery network.

32 The scope for regional collaborative projects would broaden under this option. Working with the construction and waste sectors across administrative boundaries will enable additional market solutions to be found for C&D materials.

Debt

· The cost of this option includes the $3,520,000 Capex budgeted for the C&D facility at Green Island in the draft 9-year plan (2025-2034) and $1,560,000 for a Central City Hub (years 2 and 3 of 9 year-plan), and $660,000 across the 9YP period for community resource/recycling centres.

Rates

· Further investigation of potential financial incentives may impact upon income from fees and charges, however an option exists for operational costs for the resource recovery network to be funded from Waste Levy income.

Zero carbon

· The preferred option is likely to decrease city emissions by reducing the amount of construction and demolition waste ending up in Dunedin’s landfills, in part through supporting the community and private sector to act. As waste to landfill accounts for a significant portion of DCC’s emissions footprint, DCC’s emissions would likely decrease ongoing.

· This option is also likely to reduce production and transport emissions associated with manufacturing construction materials and transporting them to Dunedin, through greater re-use of existing materials salvaged and then sold at community led resource/recycling centres.

Advantages

· Waste companies can continue to develop business opportunities and be supported by DCC investment in behaviour change.

· Community organisations will be enabled to deliver local resource recovery infrastructure and services to provide for the higher tiers of the waste hierarchy.

· Likely to deliver more employment opportunities and volunteering opportunities.

· Greater cumulative impact, with more participants involved, a wider catchment of stakeholders, enabling different groups to play to their strengths and regional markets to be optimised.

Disadvantages

· Collaboration takes effort and willingness to engage, working together must be a sustained effort over time. Clarity is therefore needed on implementation mechanisms, roles/responsibilities, and beneficiaries.

· Availability of commercial waste diversion data may be limited, unless sharing agreements can be entered into in exchange for other forms of support.

· Without further measures, this option doesn’t offer a clear pathway to re-use or recycling for all materials, for instance difficult to recycle materials such as treated timber and construction plastics.

· Site requirements are more specific for a fully collaborative hub site, which could lead to increased costs or exploration of alternative delivery mechanisms if a suitable site cannot be identified.

Option Two – Regulation and Incentives

Impact assessment

33 This option builds on the ‘current roadmap’ baseline and envisages that private waste operators/collectors take the lead on materials sorting and storage. DCC’s role would be to incentivise behaviour change for builders and trade-persons, through financial mechanisms such as reduced consent fees, regulatory mechanisms (through a bylaw), extending the provision of information and good practice guidance, and leading by example with Council projects.

34 An emphasis on regulations and incentives would seek to trigger market mechanisms to deliver C&D waste minimisations outcomes.

Debt

· The cost of this option includes the $3,950,000 of capital funding budgeted for the C&D facility at Green Island in years 1-2 of the draft 9-year plan (2025-2034). It is also linked to the budgeted funding for the community resource recovery ‘sister’ project for which $1,500,000 is identified for a Central City Hub in years 2 and 3 and $660,000 for community resource recovery/recycling centres across the 9YP period.

Rates

· Operational costs for resource recovery network can be funded from Waste Levy income. Additional operational costs will need to be calculated. These could include the costs of compliance and enforcement of regulations, and/or the reduction in fees and charges revenue resulting from incentives. Compliance costs for a regional bylaw would generally fall to individual councils, but some resources could potentially be pooled.

Zero carbon

· The preferred option is likely to decrease city emissions by reducing the amount of construction and demolition waste ending up in Dunedin’s landfills, in part by encouraging industry to act. As waste to landfill accounts for a significant portion of DCC’s emissions footprint, DCC’s emissions would likely decrease ongoing.

· If there is significant market uptake, this option may reduce production and transport emissions associated with manufacturing construction materials and transporting them to Dunedin, through greater re-use of existing materials salvaged and then sold at community led resource recovery/recycling centres.

Advantages

· Some local waste operators already have plans to extend waste sorting and are considering applying for national waste minimisation grants (any funding applications should be supported by DCC under this option).

· Market led change could positively influence buy-in from the private sector.

· Greater community and business access to materials from any privately run retail (salvage yard opportunities).

Disadvantages

· May be resource intensive for DCC, in terms of preparing and enforcing regulations, reviewing site waste management plans and administering incentives packages, and offering financial incentives may reduce revenue.

· Commercial sensitivities will mean a lack of transparency and access to data on diversion rates, both total quantities and by material types.

· Distance from main materials manufacturers will impact transport costs for individual operators.

· Without further measures, this option doesn’t offer a pathway to re-use or recycling for all materials, for instance difficult to recycle materials such as treated timber and construction plastics.

· This approach does not align with the enabling aim for community resource recovery.

Option Three – Current Roadmap

Impact assessment

35 The current roadmap represents the committed level of expenditure and input to maintain the levels of service planned in the LTP. It assumes that the Waste Futures programme proceeds as planned. This option includes developing a C&D resource recovery facility at Green Island which will serve as a consolidation point in the future.

36 It assumes a continuation of the current levels of education and awareness raising through the DCC website, regular planned events, and preparation of case studies and best practice notes. Collaborative work across the Otago region (and with Southland) has commenced and will continue.

Debt

· The cost of this option is $3,950,000 Capex for the C&D facility at Green Island included in years 1-2 of the 9-year plan (2025-2034).

Rates

· Operational requirements for running the Green Island facility are incorporated within current operational funding. Ongoing events, case studies and awareness raising can be funded from Waste Levy income.

Zero carbon

· In order to reduce emissions from waste, Ōtepoti Dunedin needs to make resource use more circular and divert more waste from landfill. The ‘current roadmap’ contributes to two key action areas for the DCC in the Zero Carbon Plan: enable construction waste to be reduced, reused and recycled, and enable communities to reuse and recycle resources.

· This option is likely to decrease city emissions by reducing the amount of construction and demolition waste ending up in Dunedin’s landfills, including through supporting the community to act. Waste to landfill accounts for a significant portion of DCC’s emissions footprint, DCC’s emissions would decrease ongoing.

Advantages

· No changes to plans are required – the Green Island facility has resource consent, thereby the main location is known and staffed.

· There are some education and awareness initiatives already in place, and regional collaboration is developing.

· There will be an opportunity for greater community access to C&D materials, as the Green Island sorting facility can provide materials to the existing Rummage store.

Disadvantages

· The RRP is not yet constructed, and the C&D facility is not expected to be completed until around 2028. Green Island doesn’t deliver a central point within a wider resource recovery network.

· There are other local landfill options for disposal of C&D waste, which will limit DCC’s level of control and access to data.

· There will be limited opportunities for meaningful participation by the construction industry, and other waste management operators.

· Without further measures, this option doesn’t offer a pathway to re-use or recycling for all materials, for instance difficult to recycle materials, such as treated timber and construction plastics.

· There are limited locations for potential hub sites to serve the multi-use purpose of C&D and community resource recovery.

NEXT STEPS

37 Upon approval of the business case and preferred option, project planning will commence, and detailed costings will be prepared for any potential financial incentives (including estimated loss of revenue). Any projected financial impact will be addressed through recommendations on the Annual Plan 2026/27.

38 Priority projects for delivery will be identified, and active pathways for materials/resource recovery will be determined. A further report will be presented to Council in December 2025.

Signatories

Author:

Karen Gadomski - Waste Planning Advisor, Construction and Demolition

Authoriser:

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Project Control Group terms of reference	52
⇩b	Dunedin Construction and Demolition Working Group terms of reference	54
⇩c	Investment Logic Map for waste reduction in the construction and demolition sector	56

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.

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.

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	✔	☐	☐

Other strategic projects/policies/plans:

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, Zero Carbon Policy, Zero Carbon Plan,

DCC Emissions Management & Reduction Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

Engagement with Māori to date on the issues addressed by the business case have been as part of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan process. All business case options were considered to offer opportunities for Māori to thrive and to benefit, in terms of economic prospects and environmental gains. Moving into the project planning stage, targeted engagement will be undertaken with mana whenua and mātāwaka, though Rūnaka representatives and through Aukaha.

Sustainability

A sustainability impact assessment (SIA) has been undertaken as part of the development of this business case and will inform the sustainability management plan as the project moves to the next stage of the project lifecycle (the Plan phase). The options assessment included consideration of the sustainability impacts and benefits for each of the three options.

Zero carbon

City emissions are likely to decrease because of the reduction of construction and demolition waste ending up in Dunedin’s landfills, particularly timber waste. As waste to landfill accounts for a significant portion of DCC’s emissions footprint, DCC’s emissions would likely decrease ongoing. There is also likely to be a decrease in emissions arising from production and transport associated with manufacturing construction materials and transporting them to Dunedin. This would be achieved through greater re-use of salvaged materials.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for current levels of service or performance indicators at this stage of the project.

Financial considerations

Capital funding for the C&D facility at Green Island ($3,950,000), the central city hub ($1,500,000), and community resource recovery centres ($660,000) is budgeted for in the draft 9-year Plan. Operational funding will be provided from waste levy revenue.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Engagement has been undertaken with a wide range of construction sector representatives, waste management sector representatives, and community groups and organisations. A C&D sector working group facilitated by the project lead met monthly in late 2024 and early 2025.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement has been undertaken through a Project Control Group, comprising Building Services, Communications and Marketing, Housing Policy/Building Incentives, Procurement, Property Projects, Waste and Environmental Solutions, and Zero Carbon. An initial Investment Logic Mapping workshop was followed by meetings every four to six weeks.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No legal implications have been identified at this stage of the project; however, service level agreements and other mechanisms may be required in future.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest has been identified.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards at this stage of the project, although interest in the resource recovery network is expected to be high.

Council

12 August 2025

Strategic Investment in Community Resource Recovery

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update on the planning and activity for community resource recovery, plus recommended next steps, determined from extensive engagement with relevant community members and organisations and research i.e., collective impact, legislation, local and national examples.

2 This report recommends procurement for community resource recovery partnerships and the development of a central city site for resource recovery in collaboration with the Construction and Demolition ‘sister’ project, which is the subject of a separate report to Council. It describes a plan for waste to be reduced, reused, and recycled in the community; in accordance with the action areas in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 and Zero Carbon Plan 2030.

3 The key findings of the engagement include the need for appropriate, available, and affordable space; collaborative and resilient relationships for security and sustainability of operations; qualified and/or experienced paid staff, local community-led approaches; flexibility to adjust to the fast-paced waste processing environment and community need; established and shared processes for learning, data collection, and building capability and capacity.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves option one ‘Collaborative Approach’.

b) Notes the detailed costings, collaboration options and expected timeline for Community Resource Recovery Centres will be reported to Council in December 2025.

BACKGROUND

4 A fixed term position was created in late 2023 to accelerate the delivery of the Zero Carbon Implementation Plan actions pertaining to community-based resource recovery. This was one of 13 priority areas identified for action. The Zero Carbon plan describes how support for collaboration for circular resource use has a moderate impact to emission reductions. Specifically, the Zero Carbon Plan 2023 (appendix B) references:

· R1.1.2; Develop a central city location for collection of recyclable materials and sale of diverted items (a 'second Rummage store')

· R1.1.4; Work with community partners to support three or more communities to establish new community-led resource/recycling centres in local neighbourhoods.

· R1.1.5; Complete business case for a wider network of community-led resource/recycling centres in local neighbourhoods

· R1.1.6; Support communities to operate and develop community-led resource/recycling centres into self-sustaining operating model.

· R1.1.7; Work with community partners to progressively expand the network of community-led resource/recycling centres.

· R1.2.1; Expand supports for waste minimisation education, projects, facilities, and services to include initiatives that support resource circularity, and to ensure that key services can access multi-year funding.

5 An update on both the Community Resource Recovery and Construction Industry Waste Reduction workstreams was presented to Council at its meeting on 10 December 2024:

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

That the Council:

Notes the Community Led Resource Recovery and Construction Industry Waste

Reduction Update.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/241)

6 The 10 December report outlined the intention to prepare business cases for the two linked projects and to present these to the Infrastructure Services Committee before the end of June 2025.

7 The background research around community resource recovery, alongside the Otago Regional Waste Assessment (2023), includes liaison with other Territorial Authorities for strategic approaches, operational information, impacts, processes; Local, national, and light touch international current best practice in community-led and collective impact; investigation of the capabilities required for resource recovery; review of council owned property to identify possible sites; agile procurement practices for collaborative partnerships, and operating models. This information has been considered alongside the community feedback, existing waste minimisation community strengths, and input received during consultation.

DISCUSSION

8 This project is built from extensive engagement across the community sector and the Zero Carbon plan 2023 actions. The aim is to support the establishment of community-based resource recovery centres (CRRC’s) that act as spokes in a resource recovery network, a centralised Hub for resource recovery, and collaborative efforts to move management of waste resources up the waste hierarchy.

9 The new WMMP (2025) was approved by Council on 30 April 2025. The targets and actions of the WMMP include provision for the ‘Full Circular Economy scenario’ proposed in the waste assessment and supported by community consultation and submissions to the WMMP. The WMMP (2025) has actions related to enabling community that this project will activate.

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

That the Council:

a) Adopts the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 as amended.

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

c) Notes the Summary of Results from Submissions and the Summary of Recommendations from the Hearings Committee.

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

e) Notes the minutes of the Hearings Committee.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/100) with Cr Vandervis recording his vote against.

10 The desired outcomes from the Community Resource Recovery project are:

a) Efficient localised recovery of resources for reuse that maximises the social advantage of goods being channelled to those most in need and/or most likely to utilise the resource.

b) Coordinated and collaborative approach to resource recovery which could include community groups, place-based organisations, kaupapa Māori organisations, social enterprises, local businesses, NGOs, and the Dunedin City Council.

c) A hub and spoke network of community-based resource recovery centres, beginning with at least three spokes and a centralised site (in collaboration with the sister project for Construction and Demolition waste diversion) if an appropriate site is identified, that will eventually be linked with regional and national resource recovery networks.

d) Methodology for data collection for diverted resources for accurate measurement, assessment, and review for all parties.

e) Capacity and capability building for community organisations, to enable professional and consistent resource recovery management across the city.

f) Continued capability and capacity building of the emerging Ōtepoti Waste Minimisation Network for shared information, including the resourcing of an online platform and facilitation for collaboration.

g) To contribute to the reduction of emissions and shifts to a circular economy.

h) To provide infrastructure and operational funding for community organisations to provide local diversion, as well as continued growth in innovation, economic opportunities, and social, cultural, and environmental wellbeing benefits.

11 A Solid Waste Audit was undertaken in 2022 to help inform the Otago Regional Waste Assessment. A report was presented to the Infrastructure Services Committee on 15 August 2023. The waste assessment identified that a ‘High collaboration, Full circular Economy’ scenario was the most suitable for the Otago region (pg. 104, Otago Regional Waste Assessment 2023). This extends to all levels of scale, with smaller and community-led infrastructure actively encouraged and prioritised over larger commercial infrastructure, where appropriate. The committee resolved to take this approach and approved the development of a new WMMP for Ōtepoti Dunedin.

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

That the Committee:

a) Notes the 2023 Otago Regional Waste Assessment is now complete, as per section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

c) Nominates the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Infrastructure Services Committee to participate in a Waste Minimisation and Management Plan Steering Group.

d) Invites mana whenua to identify Rūnaka representatives to participate in a Waste Minimisation and Management Plan Steering Group.

Motion carried (ISC/2023/034)

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

That the Committee:

b) Resolves to proceed with an amendment to the Dunedin Waste Minimisation and Management Plan.

Motion carried (ISC/2023/035) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against

12 The Otago Regional Waste Assessment 2023 proposed that for Otago, a network of Resource Recovery Centres linked to Resource Recovery Parks would be the ideal model, as shown in the diagram below (sourced from the Otago Regional Waste Assessment 2023 pg. 149, figure 11).

13 The Waste Futures Project outlined the case for a Resource Recovery Park (RRP) at Green Island, which is currently underway. The next steps for Ōtepoti Dunedin are a Centralised Resource Recovery Centre (RRC), and community-led spokes (Community Resource Recovery Centres (CRRC)). While the RRPs are the hub of the regional networks, the CRRC and RRC form the primary nodes where most material is dropped off and consolidated locally. Research has shown that many CRRC start off as local transfer station sites that are upgraded and re-purposed to have a predominant focus on resource recovery. The CRRCs are the local centre for community activity, with many operated by community groups, NGO’s, social enterprises, or iwi, and serve to engage, educate, and empower the local communities to not only recover materials but extract and apply the value of those materials for community benefit.

14 The existing council owned resource recovery infrastructure for household items (the ‘Rummage Store’ at Green Island) has limitations in size, community group input and participation, and location for accessibility, especially for residents without a private vehicle. It has advantages in the scope of materials taken, synergies with other waste disposal (such as the transfer station) and offers affordable reusable goods to the public. The RRP upgrade currently underway will exhaust all viable available space at Green Island. The findings of the waste assessment, community engagement and the actions of the WMMP (2025) demonstrate the need for additional and more specialised space for resource recovery.

15 The WMMP (2025) provides a funding mechanism for community actions using the waste levy and ensures that there is alignment across all activities to encourage action and impact towards the top of the waste hierarchy.

16 Community-led responses are actions and strategies that are specifically informed and implemented by and for communities themselves and the organisations, groups, and networks that represent and serve them. The actions of the Zero Carbon Plan specify local resource recovery to be community-led; however, for the purposes of this project, we also use community-based, a term that more transparently demonstrates that the desire for community-led resource recovery has come from both Council and community.

17 Existing community-led and based resource recovery in Aotearoa New Zealand have demonstrated meeting the core intentions of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 – to protect the environment from harm, and for social, cultural, and economic good. Many of the community organisations working in this space have sustainability and social good kaupapa. Existing examples of community resource recovery centres and hubs successfully divert waste from landfill, provide affordable, localised reuse opportunities, create new employment opportunities, support the local economy, and often become cherished hubs that strengthen local communities by achieving social wellbeing strategic aims. One such example is the Waitaki Resource Recovery Park established in 2003 to divert recyclable and reusable materials from landfill and give the community ownership of waste streams. This park provides a full range of waste diversion and management services from recycling, green waste collection, repurposing and waste disposal.

18 Due to the interconnection, costs, potential impact and value of collaboration, the Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction project and Community Resource Recovery project have been aligned for efficiency and collaborative delivery.

Taken together, the two reports ‘Strategic Investment in Community Resource Recovery’ and ‘Strategic Investment in Community Resource Recovery’ outline the investment approach for capital budget currently allocated in the 9 year plan 2025-34 to deliver a network of community-based resource recovery centres and centralised hub.

OPTIONS

Option One – Collaborative Approach - Recommended Option

Impact assessment

19 This option seeks to operationalise the project with the community sector, businesses, and the C&D sister project to achieve shared outcomes in waste minimisation and emission reduction. It will progress three initial community based CRRC at locally accessible locations for communities outside of the city centre, and a centrally located resource recovery hub that includes C&D diversion and distribution if an appropriate site is identified that its suitable for co-location of both community and C&D resource recovery. The three-community based CRRC’s will be used to donate and obtain items and provide for reuse, repair, and educational opportunities.

20 An agile procurement process that encourages collaboration and developing strong enduring relationships between groups and Council will be conducted to identify appropriate groups with capability, capacity, and motivation in locations suited to the needs of residents across the city. Formalised partnership agreements with groups will include the key ingredients mentioned in paragraph 10 of this report and will be flexible and co-created with the community-based partners. This procurement process is expected to take 4 months.

Debt

· The cost of this option includes the Capex in the draft 9-year plan (2025-2034) of $1,560,000 for a Central City Hub, and $660,000 across the 9YP period for community resource/recycling centres.

Rates

· Operational costs for resource recovery network can be funded from Waste Levy income, however, there may be a need to budget a small amount of rate funding to provide for centres to dispose of small quantities of un-diverted or recycled waste following diversion activity, especially if a centre is not co-located with an existing transfer station.

Zero carbon

· The preferred option is likely to contribute to a decrease in city emissions by reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. As waste to landfill accounts for a significant portion of DCC’s emissions footprint, DCC’s emissions would likely decrease. An increase to emissions reduction would be likely as the network capability grows. The Zero Carbon Plan identifies ‘support collaboration for circularity’ as having a moderate impact on emissions.

Advantages

· Demonstrates good faith to groups in the city who have who have been driving community-led waste minimisation and have given significant and ongoing input and ideas and time into planning of this project and the WMMP (2025).

· Increased diversion from landfill, while also providing access to low-cost goods to residents, job opportunities, innovation opportunities, behaviour change, and community-led development.

· Enables and encourages community ownership of waste streams and reduces transportation requirements for resource recovery.

· Provides a structured method to deliver on resources recovery, collaboration and community activated related WMMP (2025) actions.

· Provides for a holistic approach to support education and behaviour change towards a circular economy.

· The centrally located hub will be a focal point for diverse community organisations working in resource recovery and waste diversion, and for residents to circulate resources by making donations and collections of goods from this site.

· As the Ōtepoti Dunedin resource recovery network develops it will provide pathways for materials that are not currently being reused or reprocessed by the commercial waste sector and contribute to a wider regional resource recovery network as proposed in the Otago Regional Waste Assessment 2023.

Disadvantages

· Collaborative partnership processes need to be clearly defined and involve authentic relationship building with community which may require additional ongoing staffing resource for contract management of business agreements, but with specialised knowledge in community-led and based activity.

· Community-led processes have a higher level of potential for the need to adjust services and plans dependent on community impacts, outcomes, and feedback. This needs to be considered and can be mitigated through the planned collaborative approach from procurement through to ongoing oversight, including the capability needs of community organisations.

Option Two – Status Quo

Impact assessment

21 Restrict activities to the provision of general advice and guidance and retain existing council-led education initiatives. Utilise existing and future Waste Levy contestable grants funding to support community resource recovery.

Rates

· No rates funding required. Ongoing funding to partially support community resource recovery, events, case studies and awareness raising can be funded from Waste Levy income.

Zero carbon

· To reduce emissions from waste, Ōtepoti Dunedin needs to make resource use more circular and divert more waste from landfill. The existing activities support the reduction, reuse, and recycling of materials, and partially enable communities to reuse and recycle resources.

· This option is likely to decrease city emissions by reducing the amount of waste ending up in Ōtepoti Dunedin landfill, including through supporting the community to act. However, as collaboration has been identified as having moderate emission impact, as opposed to mild, this is likely to have less overall reduction on emissions than option one.

Advantages

· Work can be completed using existing resources and existing waste levy spend.

Disadvantages

· Impact on waste minimisation, especially for household goods, would remain limited.

· Potential for Community organisations to be disappointed and disengaged due to the level of engagement and planning that has been conducted with the sector.

· Existing problematic access to resource recovery opportunities remain, with the existing sites being Green Island Resource Recovery Park and Waikouaiti Transfer Station.

NEXT STEPS

22 If council support option one, the establishment of an agile procurement process is to be developed. This will involve supporting community to identify potential collaborations to develop the best possible expressions of interest for progressing CRRC.

23 If council support option two, there will be limited scope to achieve the objectives and actions of the WMMP (2025)

Signatories

Author:

Tess Trotter - Waste Planning Advisor - Community Groups

Authoriser:

Catherine Gledhill - Waste Minimisation Supervisor

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Otago Region Waste Assessment 2023	68
⇩b	Image of Network of Community Resource Recovery	289

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, Zero Carbon Policy, Zero Carbon Plan,

DCC Emissions Management & Reduction Plan.

Te Taki Haruru.

Māori Impact Statement

Engagement with Māori to date on the issues addressed by the business case have been as part of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan engagement process. Additionally, representatives from local Rūnaka have attended some networking hui. Moving into the project implementation, additional targeted engagement and relationship building with mana whenua will be part of the project plan.

Sustainability

This project contributes to improved environmental, social, and economic outcomes in the long-term.

Zero carbon

As waste to landfill accounts for a significant percentage of DCC’s emissions footprint, DCC’s emissions would likely decrease. There is also likely to be a decrease in emissions arising from production and transport through greater re-use of household materials and lower levels of transportation to recovery locations for residents.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Capital Funding has been included in the 2025-34 9-year plan. There are currently no anticipated implications for current levels of service or performance indicators.

Financial considerations

The central city hub and community resource recovery centres are budgeted for in the 9-year Plan. Operational funding will be provided from waste levy revenue, with the exception for a potential provision for a small amount of rates funding to cover waste to landfill at the end of diversion processes, dependent on locations and types of resources. There may be an impact to internal staffing levels (which can also be funded from waste levy revenue) required to enable and support the partnerships.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

Engagement – external

Engagement has been undertaken across a broad range of community and community adjacent groups, organisations individuals, board members, staff, volunteers, and advocates. A network of approximately 40 groups and individuals has been established and engaged with in person in one-to-one meetings, shared hui and through the WMMP pre-engagement process and public consultation.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement has been undertaken through meetings with a variety of internal teams such as Policy, Community partnerships, and Property, as well as individual staff members with work that intersects with the project. In addition, a Project Control Group, comprising Building Services, Communications and Marketing, Housing Policy/Building Incentives, Procurement, Property Projects, Waste and Environmental Solutions, and Zero Carbon has been established for the sister C&D project, where community resource recovery has been considered during initial Investment Logic Mapping and the creation of options for that report.

A smaller project control group will be established to operationalise this project.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No legal implications have been identified at this stage of the project; however, service level agreements and other mechanisms may be required in future and will undergo legal review as required.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest has been identified.

Community Boards

There are no direct implications for Community Boards at this stage, although interest in the resource recovery network is expected to be high and there is intention to engage more fully with the boards.

Council

12 August 2025

Submission on Going for Housing Growth

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

2 In June, the Government began consultation on proposals to update national direction for infrastructure, development and the primary sector and on options to amend freshwater national direction (Packages 1-3), and to test how housing proposals could fit into the new resource management system (Package 4 Going for Housing Growth).

3 The DCC submitted on Packages 1-3 in July 2025.

4 This report seeks approval of a draft submission from the Dunedin City Council (DCC) to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on the Going for Housing Growth programme (GHG). The draft submission is attached as Attachment A.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the draft Dunedin City Council submission, with any amendments, to the Ministry for the Environment and Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on Going for Housing Growth.

b) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial amendments to the submission.

c) Notes that the Mayor or delegate will speak to any hearings in regard to this submission.

BACKGROUND

Government reform of the resource management system

5 In March 2025, the Government announced that the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) will be replaced with two new pieces of legislation: a Natural Environment Act – focused on managing the natural environment; and a Planning Act – focused on planning to enable development and infrastructure.

6 The new legislation will narrow the scope of the resource management system and the effects it controls and will have the enjoyment of private property rights as its guiding principle.

7 Resource management direction under the new Natural Environment Act will cover matters such as: freshwater; indigenous biodiversity; and coastal policy. Direction under the new Planning Act will cover matters such as: urban development; infrastructure (including renewable energy); and natural hazards. It is intended that one set of national policy direction under each new act will simplify, streamline, and direct local government plans and decision-making. It will also provide guidance on how to resolve conflicts between competing priorities.

Recent DCC submission on changes to national direction

8 At its meeting on 30 July 2025, Council approved a DCC submission to the Ministry for the Environment the first three packages of the updated national direction on resource management. These packages related to Infrastructure and Development, Primary Sector, and Freshwater.

Going for Housing Growth

9 The Government’s changes under the GHG banner are structured around three pillars. The goal is to address the underlying causes of the housing supply shortage. These are:

· Pillar 1: Freeing up land for urban development, including removing unnecessary planning barriers

· Pillar 2: Improving infrastructure funding and financing to support urban growth

· Pillar 3: Providing incentives for communities and councils to support growth

10 The current consultation focuses on Pillar 1, freeing up land for urban development, including removing unnecessary planning barriers. Consultation on Pillar 1 of GHG opened on 18 June 2025 and closes on 17 August 2025.

11 HUD advises that further work is currently underway on the detailed design of Pillar 2 (improvements to infrastructure funding and financing tools). The legislation to implement these changes is expected to be introduced in November 2025 and enacted in mid-2026. There will be opportunities for public feedback as part of this process.

DISCUSSION

12 The draft DCC submission has been developed by staff from a range of departments in the DCC and reflects their experiences with managing growth through the Second Generation District Plan (2GP), Variation 2, and other processes.

13 The DCC’s draft submission on GHG is broadly supportive of the intent to create a more efficient and effective resource management system, but details significant concerns across a range of matters including infrastructure funding risks. The draft submission emphasises six key themes.

14 The submissions states that the reform process is being driven by incorrect assumptions about the nature and scale of the problem, e.g., that land availability is a current problem in large parts of New Zealand that will continue to drive up house prices. Secondly, it states that, across the board, the reforms’ direction of travel is an over-reaction to that perceived problem, that swings the pendulum too far and often adopts an overly blunt approach to nuanced issues that vary considerably across New Zealand.

15 The submission highlights that the real problem with the RMA is its focus almost exclusively on adverse effects. The critical change needed is to reorientate the resource management system to be more explicitly outcomes-focused rather than predominantly effects-based. This allows for consideration of a project’s benefits alongside its costs and effects.

16 The submission urges that the provisions include built in flexibility so that they are fit for purpose across a range of urban contexts, including both high-growth and low-growth councils. The submission states a planning system focused on enabling responsiveness will result in urban expansion in locations where infrastructure cannot be efficiently provided. The submission notes this approach risks undermining long-term strategic planning and the efficient use of public investment.

17 The submission recommends that national direction explicitly prioritise the cost-effective delivery of infrastructure. Given Dunedin’s already substantial programme of required 3 waters upgrades, and the city’s relatively modest growth—all of which can be accommodated within existing zoned areas—it is essential that development is directed towards locations that represent the most cost-effective long term infrastructure outcomes (considering both capital costs for new infrastructure and long-term operating and maintenance costs). The submission notes that cost-effective infrastructure delivery is absent from the proposed National Policy Statement (NPS) for Infrastructure and is not given adequate consideration in documentation for this consultation.

18 The submission notes that the promotion of urban expansion is inconsistent with Dunedin’s Zero Carbon 2030 goals. Compact urban form and intensification are essential for reducing transport-related emissions and achieving climate targets. The submission states that, if urban expansion is to be encouraged, it must be backed by increased central government investment in transportation infrastructure, including to support travel by active modes, and public transportation.

19 The DCC submission supports the principle of “growth pays for growth”, but stresses the need for:

· the ability to decline proposals that are inefficient to service; and

· the availability of effective and flexible financing mechanisms to fund the delivery and operation of infrastructure required to support growth.

20 The submission strongly encourages continued engagement with local government and experienced practitioners, particularly through the release of full exposure drafts for consultation. Given the inherent complexity of planning, careful consideration and thorough testing of the detail is crucial. Insufficient scrutiny significantly heightens risks of litigation and unnecessary costs for councils and communities.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Approves the Dunedin City Council submission on Going for Housing Growth

Impact assessment

21 Under this option, Council approves the draft DCC submission to the Ministry for the Environment and Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on Going for Housing Growth.

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

Advantages

· Opportunity to influence the direction of resource management reform to ensure it reflects local needs

· Opportunity to advocate for Ōtepoti Dunedin and its residents in government decision-making.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Status Quo – Does Not Approve the Dunedin City Council submission on Going for Housing Growth

Impact assessment

23 Under this option, Council does not approve the draft DCC submission to the Ministry for the Environment and Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on Going for Housing Growth.

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

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to participate in government decision-making.

· Missed opportunity to advocate for Ōtepoti Dunedin and its residents in government decision-making.

NEXT STEPS

25 If Council approves the submission, DCC staff will send it to Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga Ministry of Housing and Urban Development by 17 August 2025.

Signatories

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

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft GHG Submission	302

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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 GHG proposals are also relevant to the DCC’s Te Taki Haruru — Māori Strategic Framework, the Housing Implementation Plan, and Zero Carbon Policy.

Māori Impact Statement

The DCC’s Te Taki Haruru — Māori Strategic Framework includes the principle of Autaketake and its values of tapu and noa. Its key directions include: Communities, resources and customary practices are protected through responsible regulatory measures and processes, and that we are guided by tikaka and kawa (protocol) for the wellbeing of whānau and wider community. Implementing such a proposal would potentially be in opposition to this principle and its values.

The DCC submission notes that while there may be positive impacts for Māori by making land easier to develop this must be balanced with the health of the whenua (land) and wider te taiao (environment). The DCC submission stresses the importance of engagement with mana whenua in developing and implementing the proposals in GHG, for example ensuring that land deemed suitable for urban development is not an area of wāhi tupuna or wāhi taoka (ancestral places or sites of significance).

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

Zero carbon

The DCC notes that GHG does not address the potential implications of the proposed changes for emissions, including for the achievement of national targets. At a local level, the DCC is concerned on requirements for councils to be responsive to proposed such as out-of-sequence development.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Due to the timing of this consultation, potential implications from the GHG programme have not been included in the 9 year plan process. Any implications will need to be factored into future Annual and Long Term Plans.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

note some concern around The submission has been prepared by the DCC’s City Development team, with input from the 3 Waters, Transport, Housing, Mana Ruruku, Parks and Recreation, Corporate Policy, Zero Carbon, and Finance teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are potential implications for Community Boards as changes proposed in the consultation may impact on Community Board areas.

Council

12 August 2025

Draft Sport Facilities Plan

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 An updated Draft Sports Facilities Plan (the Plan) has been completed. Initial engagement included feedback from 44 sports organisations, sport related organisations, the wider public and mana whenua. This engagement was undertaken by consultants, Jacobs in 2020/21.

2 The Plan has been informed by national strategies including the Sport NZ Indoor Active Recreation and Sports Facility Strategy 2023 and regional plans like the Coastal Otago Places and Spaces Strategy 2023.

3 This work was interrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic in 2021 and the engagement plan had to be modified using an online survey and separate questionnaire.

4 Feedback showed that common concerns included the age and condition facilities, equitable access to facilities, competition for court and field space, facilities inabilities to adequately cater for all groups and genders, and constraints to clubs expanding due to limitations of court space.

5 Using the findings, the initial draft plan was produced in February 2022/23. The Plan has recently been updated using current feedback from sports groups and updated statistics.

6 The Plan does not include DCC aquatic facilities.

7 While feedback showed several areas of concern, improvements to facilities for the 2023 Woman’s Football World Cup, new field lighting, improved drainage, the development of artificial pitches and the introduction of an effective on-line booking system, have all been noted as positive changes.

8 The Plan aligns with Sport Otago’s ‘The Coastal Otago Spaces and Places Strategy 2023’ and supports this strategy model for prioritising future investment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves The Sports Facilities Plan.

BACKGROUND

9 The DCC manages and owns a range of sports facilities that provide for both informal recreational and organised sports. As well as the 50 sports parks, the council owns The Edgar Centre, Mosgiel Memorial Park, Tahuna Grandstand, The Caledonia Gymnasium, The Caledonian Grandstand, the University Oval Grandstand, The Dunedin Ice Stadium and several other smaller facilities.

10 At their meeting of 31 May 2021, Council resolved;

Sport Otago and Dunedin Gymnastics Academy

Moved (Cr Carmen Houlahan/Cr Rachel Elder):

That the Council:

Requests staff work with Sport Otago and Dunedin Gymnastics Academy and gym clubs to investigate options to find suitable facilities for their activities in the Sports Facilities Review Report.

Motion carried (CNL/2021/001)

11 The Dunedin Gymnastics Academy is actively exploring options to meet their needs by either building a new facility or retrofitting a suitable existing building.

12 Several facilities on DCC Parks and Recreation land are owned and managed by private sports organisations, for example Sunnyvale Sports Centre.

13 The most significant multi use sports facility, owned by the DCC, is The Edgar Centre. The Edgar Centre provides for a range of recreational, school and competitive programs, including national and international events. This facility is managed by the Dunedin Indoor Sports Venues Trust Board (DISVT).

DISCUSSION

14 As a living document, the Plan sets the foundation for future reviews and ongoing engagement with mana whenua, stakeholders, and the wider community. Its implementation will guide investment decisions over the next 10–20 years, ensuring Dunedin’s sports facilities network evolves to meet changing needs.

15 The purpose of the plan is to better understand future needs and focus investment where it would be most effective. This information will inform the development of a sub-regional Sports Facilities Plan for Dunedin and will guide future investment.

16 Many of Dunedin’s older sports facilities are reaching the end of their functional life and require investment to ensure they remain safe, accessible and fit-for-purpose. It is anticipated that the Edgar Centre, Moana Pool and the Dunedin Ice Stadium will need to be replaced in 25 to 30 years’ time.

17 Once need has been identified, the scale, type and location of sports hubs can be planned for as a long term solution. Sports hubs provide a coordinated and efficient approach to provision of sports and sports administration. They can be community anchors hosting workshops, and social and social activities beyond sport.

18 The Plan prioritises upgrades that enable increased participation, support diverse use, reduce operational costs, and cater for both structured and casual participation.

19 The Plan identifies a need to strengthen partnerships with tertiary providers, iwi and commercial operators to improve community access to indoor spaces, particularly in areas where demand is high but public provision is limited. Developing these arrangements could ease short term capacity issues as well as be central to long term provision of facilities.

20 While some school courts are used for community sport, they cannot fully address the shortage due to limited availability, access restrictions, and not meeting national standards such as safe run-off space and court dimensions.

21 The Plan aligns with Council’s Parks and Recreation Strategy 2017 - 2027 and promotes the physical, psychological, and cultural benefits of participation in sport and recreation. The Parks and Recreation Strategy encourages active lifestyles and public access to a diverse range of facilities.

22 The Plan has been updated to align with current strategic directions, including the Future Development Strategy 2024–2054 and Te Taki Haruru.

23 The Plan recognises and promotes the social returns (Social Return on Investment) that are achievable through increased participation rates. Research carried out by Sport NZ Social Return on Investment (SROI) For Recreational Physical Activity in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2019 found that for every $1 invested in physical activity, $2.12 worth of social impacts are received.

24 The Plan emphasises the importance of coordinated planning to avoid fragmented and reactive investment. Aligning with national strategies including the Sport NZ Indoor Active Recreation and Sports Facility Strategy and regional plans like the Coastal Otago Places and Spaces Strategy ensures that new developments meet long-term community needs.

25 Council will need to work alongside facility operators, codes, and funders to ensure any future investment decisions are well coordinated. Prioritisation will be based on factors such as usage levels, network gaps, equity of access, community building and resilience to climate change impacts.

26 The rising cost of living is a barrier to participation, especially for lower-income families. Facilities should be designed to support low-cost access models, such as community partnerships, subsidized programs, and flexible pricing to ensure equitable participation.

27 Emerging sports and short format games, such as three-aside basketball, are gaining popularity. These activities do not require large blocks of time or costly annual subscriptions.

28 The ‘pay as you play’ model is a popular trend both nationally and internationally and facility planning will take this into consideration.

29 Sports including futsal, volleyball, and pickleball are growing in popularity, but they struggle to find space due to the dominance of traditional sports and the overall lack of available courts. This lack of available suitable space limits the ability to support diverse and inclusive participation across age groups and communities.

30 An aging population is leading more active lifestyles. It is likely that as this age group grows, demand for court space will increase. The plan supports responses to changing trends and demands that include the needs of the all-user groups.

31 Retaining youth participation beyond school age remains a major issue. The Plan supports actions to encouraging this age group, particularly young woman by promoting good facility design and management and ensuring facilities meet the needs of emerging trends in participation.

32 45% of Dunedin’s sports fields are located in the South Dunedin catchment. Relocation of existing and/or new facilities is likely to be required and early planning is essential to determine priorities and options. South Dunedin Futures outcomes will inform these decisions.

OPTIONS

33 Two options are proposed. The recommended option is to adopt the Sports Facilities Plan. Option 2 is to retain the status quo.

34 Option One – Adopt the Sports Facilities Plan 2025

35 Recommend that the Plan be adopted following the recent engagement with sports groups and organisations who were able to provide current feedback.

Debt

· Funding for implementation of actions in the Plan will be considered in future reports through the Annual or Long-Term Planning processes.

Rates

· Funding for actions in the Plan will be considered via future reports through the Annual or Long Term Planning processes and rates impact will be calculated at that time.

Zero carbon

· Sustainability will be considered in the design and provision of futures sports and recreation facilities.

Advantages

· The DCC will have a coordinated and long-term plan focused on sports facility planning.

· The plan would provide a useful tool to guide resource allocation over the medium to long term.

· The plan aligns with the policies and visions of the Sport Otago’s Coastal Otago Spaces and Places Strategy.

Disadvantages

· No disadvantages.

36 Option Two – Status Quo

Impact assessment

37 Retaining the status Quo would require no further investment on feasibility studies, surveys and planning however, it may have implications of efficient delivery of sports and recreation space into the future.

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

· No further funding would be required if the Plan was not implemented.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

· If the Plan is not implemented, future development will be on an ad hoc basis.

Zero carbon

· There would be no change to greenhouse emissions with this option.

Advantages

· There are no advantages.

Disadvantages

· A coordinated and cost-effective pathway to develop facilities over the long term will be lost without a comprehensive plan to guide decision making.

· Public desire for adequate provision of efficient and inclusive facilities will not be met.

NEXT STEPS

38 If adopted, the Sports Facilities Plan 2025 will be implemented.

39 The short term actions set out in the Implementation Plan are to:-

· Undertake a study to assess the feasibility of covered courts to meet projected need.

· Work with Sport Otago, Dunedin schools, Dunedin sports organisations and other stakeholders to identify opportunities for the co-location and shared use of sports facilities.

· Carry out an audit of existing sports facilities accessibility status to identify physical, cultural and gender barriers.

· Develop guidance and/or policy to ensure that growing commercial use of public facilities and grounds does not restrict community use, grass roots development and recreation sports.

· Work with the relevant sporting codes and other stakeholders to undertake an audit of existing changing facilities to ensure that they are suitable for use (gender appropriate, fit for purpose and accessible).

40 The Edgar Centre, Moana Pool and the Dunedin Ice Stadium are all projected to be at the end of their useful life in 25 to 30 years’ time. The long term actions look to determine facility requirements and timelines to replace these major facilities and include budget provision in future LTPs.

41 The long term actions set out in the Implementation Plan are to: -

· Produce a feasibility study and a high level concept plan to determine the facility requirements and a timeline for the development of a hub and spoke model for Ōtepoti.

· Prepare a program of facility development for inclusion in subsequent LTPs to implement the hub and spoke model for Ōtepoti over the next 30 years.

Signatories

Author:

John Brenkley - Planning and Partnerships Manager

Peter Christos - Parks and Recreation Planner

Authoriser:

Heath Ellis - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Sports Facilities Plan 2025	331

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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 Sports Facilities Plan promotes increased positive social, economic and health outcomes and therefore aligns with the above strategies. The plan aligns with the goals of the DCC Play Spaces Plan 2021 and also aligns with Sport NZ, Coastal Otago Places and Spaces Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

Manawhenua were consulted during the initial consultation phase and will be invited to add additional input prior to a final draft. The plan recognises the importance of fostering the spiritual, emotional and phycological benefits of healthy lifestyles and physical activity.

Sustainability

The plan promotes coordinated and sustainable development avoiding duplication of facilities while meeting community needs into the future. The plan also supports increased participation, more diverse participation and a co-operative approach to facility development and management.

Zero carbon

There are no direct zero carbon implications if the Plan is adopted. As new facilities are designed and implemented, sustainable processes and material choices will be considered in the specification documentation.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The plan states the need for unbudgeted investment, over the medium and long term, to meet growing demand for fit for purpose facilities.

The plan also states the need for planned long term investment to respond to climate change and sea level rise

Financial considerations

The plan calls for alignment with NZ best practice in provision of facilities. This would require unbudgeted capital investment over the short, medium and long terms. Further investment in audits, studies and surveys would be within operational budgets.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Consultation included interviewing sporting and interest groups, feedback from the wider community and DCC Mana Whenua partners. Recent consultation involved going back to previously consulted sports groups and organisations offering the opportunity to update and/or add to previous feedback.

Engagement - internal

The draft plan was distributed to Parks and Recreation, Transport, Community Development and Events and City Development for feedback.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The plan aligns with DCC strategic policies.

The plan may raise expectations from the community regarding facility upgrades and replacement.

Conflict of Interest

No known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

N/A

Council

12 August 2025

Hearing Committee Recommendations on the Review of the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents the recommendations of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) on the review of the Otago Harbour Reserve Management Plan (the Draft Plan).

2 After considering the submissions received, the Committee requested that staff update the Draft Plan incorporating feedback from submitters.

3 The Committee reconvened and approved the changes to the Draft Plan.

4 If approved, the new Otago Harbour Reserve Management Plan will replace the existing Otago Boat Harbour Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2008 and the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan 2009 which have been amalgamated into a single new reserve management plan, immediately.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the Hearings Committee has heard and considered submissions on the draft Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan 2025.

b) Adopts the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan 2025.

BACKGROUND

Reserve Management Plans

5 Dunedin City Council (DCC) is the administering body appointed under the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act) to control and manage reserves within the city for the particular purpose for which those reserves were classified.

6 The Act requires the administering body to prepare management plans for all reserves under its control. The management plans are to be reviewed regularly to ensure they reflect changing circumstances or increased knowledge.

7 The process for preparing or reviewing a reserve management plan is set out in sections 41 (5) and (6) of the Act.

8 DCC as the administering body can approve reserve management plans for reserves under its control, management, or administration.

Public Consultation:

9 The Draft Otago Harbour Reserve Management Plan was presented to the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee meeting of 20 August 2024, recommending the commencement of a public consultation process.

10 The submission period started on 21 August 2024 and remained open until 23 October 2024.

Public Consultation

11 There were 52 submissions received during the two month consultation period on the Draft Plan. Of these submissions, 30 indicated support, 22 indicated opposition. The majority of those opposed to the Plan had concerns about the Port Otago proposals for Back Beach.

12 The submissions received were summarised and analysed to identify themes. The most prominent themes that were discussed were:

· Provision of new facilities

· Improving biodiversity

· Improving transport safety

· Improving public access to the water

· Increasing recreation values

Hearing Findings

13 The Committee met on 17 March 2025 to hear submitters and to deliberate on the submissions received.

14 Nineteen submitters spoke to their submissions and answered questions.

15 The submitters who spoke at the Hearing made the following comments:

· That the current road reserve areas at Yellowhead and Roseneath be changed to a conservation reserve, to allow public access to these areas.

· Clarification was sought regarding the maintenance of the Broad Bay Boating Club carpark which is on both road and parks reserve land. There is high use of the boat ramp by users as it was the only formed boat ramp close to the exit of the harbour. The speaker confirmed that the boat ramp is currently owned and maintained by the Broad Bay Boating Club.

· Port Otago Ltd.’s vision for the Otago Harbour was outlined. It was noted that while the submission was heard, the content was outside the scope of the Plan. The Plan only relates to reserves and facilities owned by Council.

· More planting beautification through St Leonards, and linkage of the shared path through Port Chalmers and to the Back Beach area.

· The importance of the Back Beach area remaining as a public recreational area.

· Prioritisation for future proofing of low lying coastal reserves by Council, due to the impact of sea level rise and extreme weather events. Support dinghy storage racks for Deborah Bay. Historic storytelling signage for the reserves areas to highlight information and interest. Back Beach to remain primarily a recreational area.

· Protection of native flora and fauna as part of reserves bordering the harbour and for marine life in the harbour. Conservation considerations to be a priority for future housing development in recognition of the individual character of harbour communities’ native flora and fauna.

· Protection of wildlife from light pollution through responsible lighting, such as reserve areas with no installed lighting, or lighting activated by sensors.

· Public access and equitable use of the Otago Harbour reserves and for small reserves bordering the harbour to be included collectively in the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan. Need for a combined effort by Council and the community to clean up reserve areas (including Back Beach and Deborah Bay) to make it a safe and functional for recreational use. Encouraged the installation of a dinghy storage rack at Deborah Bay.

· The importance of enhancement of reserve areas and for increased public access to the shoreline. Priority for recreational use of reserve areas over commercial use.

· Vehicle access along Peninsula Beach Road, vehicle access could be reduced to a section rather than the whole road i.e., from Victory Place rather than from the Back Beach area.

· Dunedin Sea Cadets, based at Back Beach with two sheds located on the reserve. Back Beach ideal for the Sea Cadets to undertake training activities. Sought the support of ORC and DCC to retain the buildings and resources to be able to deliver cadet activities. Safety on Peninsula Beach Road, traffic calming measures, without impeding access to the boat sheds.

· That there be public consultation for any proposed changes to the current facilities at Back Beach and Careys Bay. If wharf facilities were to be upgraded that consideration be given to larger vessels coming into and out of the wharf whether commercial or recreational. There were also a recommendation to have matched jetty facilities on both sides of the harbour. The submitter had safety concerns at back beach where pedestrians and vehicles with boat trailers are often in conflict.

· No commercial use of the Back Beach, Careys Bay and Deborah Bay. Public toilets and a dingy storage rack to be established at Deborah Bay to improve public amenities.

· Back Beach and the activities there. Considered the area a Category 1 for Taonga. Not concerned about the commercialisation of Back Beach, but there was a large amount of silt which needed removal to increase the depth for vessels.

· Improved provision for rubbish collection. Concern for the harbour shared path being referenced as a cycleway (prefer the term shared pathway). Consideration for review of dog access to harbour reserves.

· Concern for any development of the boat ramps to accommodate more boats, which would cause a large increase in the volume of activity from land based users and for the uplift of boats, and larger vessels launching from Back Beach. Consider the public ramp at Back Beach as suitable for up to three boats and vehicles to use at a time. Concern for the growing commercial use of the public boat ramps and the risk of damage and congestion which would impact on the public use and access. Sought separation from the existing recreational facilities at Back Beach by commercial users.

· Stronger regulations relating to housing development around existing reserves (such as Broad Bay and Yellowhead) affecting the local ecosystem or biodiversity. Submitter considers increased development near the reserve sites would lead to negative impact from greater traffic congestion, on stormwater and erosion, and increased rubbish problems.

· ORC submission regarding Te Awa Ōtākou Issues and Opportunities Report in relation to the DCC’s Reserves Management Plan. Detailed the background, key partnerships and the consultation work undertaken in the Te Awa Ōtākou Issues and Opportunities Report and highlighted the recommended actions, including: solutions to restore the North End wharf functionality; options to extend Te Awa Ōtākou (the Ocean Path) shared path out to Harington Point, prioritising of high use areas where improved access would be of the benefit to the greatest number of users, provision of green corridors linking areas of native cover and regeneration of the harbour basin.

· Support for the direction of the draft plan. The importance that reserves were inclusive and accessible for all and reflected the diversity of disability. The Disabled Persons Assembly (NZ) Inc supported the principles of all reserves being open to the public and that public access should be equitable, while recognising reasonable limitations to this in that all tracks may not be fully accessible. Encourage the Council to make every effort to ensure that parts of tracks were accessible to all and improvements to facilities, should involve organisations as stakeholders in improving public reserves.

16 The meeting concluded at 3:41pm.

17 The Hearing Panel agreed to work through the notes with staff on changes needed and set a meeting time for this to happen.

18 The meeting reconvened on Thursday 27 March at 1:30pm immediately following site visits reserve areas, including Broad Bay, Back Beach, Careys Bay and Deborah Bay by the Hearing Panel.

19 The Panel discussed proposed text changes, corrections, and additional wording to be included in the Draft Plan.

20 Moved (Cr Christine Garey/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Committee:

a) Notes the feedback from the public engagement of the Draft Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan

b) Recommends to Council that the Draft Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan, as amended, be adopted.

Motion carried (CH/2025/004)

21 The final draft of the Plan is in attachment A.

22 The Hearings Committee minutes are in Attachment B

DISCUSSION

23 <Enter text>

OPTIONS

24 There are two options to be considered. The first is to adopt the Plan which will amalgamate the two existing Reserve Management Plans into one document. The second is not to adopt the Plan and continue to manage the Otago Harbour reserves under the current system.

Option One – Recommended Option. Adopt the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan.

Impact assessment

25 The new Otago Harbour Reserve Management Plan will replace the existing Otago Boat Harbour Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2008 and the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan 2009 which have been amalgamated into a single new reserve management plan.

Debt

· Funding for implementation of actions in the Plan will be considered in future reports through the Annual or Long Term Planning processes.

Rates

· Funding for actions in the Plan will be considered via future reports through the Annual or Long Term Planning processes and rates impact will be calculated at that time.

Zero carbon

· Sustainability is to be considered in the projects employed to implement the Draft Plan and to inform the management and operation of the reserves. Given the nature of these coastal reserves, specific policies have been developed for resilience in planting and infrastructure as climate change implications for the reserves develop. The Draft Plan supports wider adaptive planning as these emerging programmes for city wide adaptation are undertaken.

Advantages

· The Otago Harbour Reserves will have an up-to-date management plan that seeks to manage the recreational, amenity and cultural values of the Reserves.

· The Plan was written following feedback from two separate rounds of public consultation.

· Objectives in the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan 2025 that do not require additional funding can be implemented without delay.

Disadvantages

· There are no disadvantages with this option.

Option Two – Status Quo

Impact assessment

26 The two existing reserve management plans will remain operative, and any future programmes of work will be ad hoc in nature.

Debt

· If the existing Otago Boat Harbour Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2008 and the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan 2009 remain there will be no further programmes of work requiring funding.

Rates

· With this option there will be no further programmes of work requiring funding and therefore no rates impact.

Zero carbon

· City Wide and DCC greenhouse emissions are likely to stay the same with this option.

Advantages

· There are no advantages with this option.

Disadvantages

· The existing Otago Boat Harbour Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2008 and the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan 2009 will remain operative and any future development in the reserves will be on an ad hoc basis.

· Feedback from two separate rounds of public consultation will be ignored.

NEXT STEPS

27 The Draft Plan will be finalised and adopted as the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan effective from June 2025.

28 A draft Implementation Plan is attached which will be the basis for future reports to Council regarding projects for inclusion in Annual and Long Term Plans.

29 The Draft Implementation Plan is in Attachment C.

Signatories

Author:	Christine Garey - Chairperson, Regulatory Subcommittee
Authoriser:

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Otago Habour Reserves RMP	395
⇩b	Otago Harbour RMP Minutes	457
⇩c	Draft Otago Harbour RMP Implementation Plan	470

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	✔	☐	☐

The city’s parks and reserves contribute to the wellbeing of the community. Reserve management plans provide opportunities to work with other departments to consider linkages and connections in terms of movement and association. Reserve management plans are also an opportunity to evaluate biodiversity and ecological values and support improvements to the environment. Reserves are destinations and the activities promoted within them can be of economic benefit to the city.

Māori Impact Statement

Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki and Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou through Aukaha Ltd have contributed to the draft Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan. Mana Whenua have provided feedback during the development of the Draft Plan.

Sustainability

Sustainability is to be considered throughout the implementation of this plan and will inform the ongoing management and operation of the reserve. Given the nature of these coastal reserves, specific policies have been developed for resilience in planting and infrastructure as climate change implications for the reserves develop. The reserve management plan supports wider adaptive planning as these emerging programmes for city wide adaptation are undertaken.

Zero carbon

Zero carbon initiatives will be considered throughout the implementation of the plan and will inform decisions relating to the ongoing the management and operation of the reserve. Given the nature of these coastal reserves, specific policies have been developed for resilience in planting and infrastructure as climate change implications for the reserves develop. The reserve management plan supports wider adaptive planning as these emerging programmes for city wide adaptation are undertaken.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Actions arising from the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan have not been included in the 9 Year Plan. An Implementation Plan with actions and priorities will be the basis of future reports to Council for inclusion of programmes in future Annual and Long Term Plans.

Financial considerations

An Implementation Plan with actions and priorities will be the basis of future reports to Council for inclusion of programmes in future Annual and Long Term Plans.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

The Reserves Act 1977 requires DCC to consult with the public when a reserve management plan is being created or reviewed.

Engagement - internal

Parks and Recreation Services staff have worked with other departments (Legal, Transport, 3 Waters, Zero Carbon, City Sanctuary, City Development, Community Development and Events) with the drafting of this reserve management plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks to this report for consideration

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

The Otago Harbour Reserves are key amenities for the entire city and all residents including those Community Board areas will be interested in the development of a reserves management plan for these facilities. The Otago Harbour Reserves sit within the Otago Peninsula Community Board and West Harbour Community Board jurisdictions and both boards were advised and given the opportunity to comment about the Draft Plan.

Council

12 August 2025

Hearings Committee Recommendations on Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin-Piercers Bylaw Review

Department: Customer and Regulatory

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents recommendations of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) on the amended Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin-Piercers Bylaw (the Bylaw) following a review.

2 It recommends the Council adopts the Bylaw (Attachment A) with a date of effect of 1 October 2025. Recommended changes to the Bylaw aim to provide a greater level of protection in some areas and improve clarity. See Attachment B for tracked changes to the Bylaw.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the Hearings Committee has considered submissions on the proposed Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin-Piercers Bylaw

b) Notes the minutes of the Hearings Committee (Attachment C)

c) Adopts the amended Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin-Piercers Bylaw (Attachment A)

d) Approves a date of effect for the Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin-Piercers Bylaw of 1 October 2025.

BACKGROUND

Council resolutions

3 In September 2024, the Customer and Regulatory Committee resolved to commence a review of the Bylaw. The review must be carried out under requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA).

4 Following review that included early engagement, the Customer and Regulatory Committee, approved a draft Bylaw and statement of proposal for consultation purposes on 11 March 2025.

National and local context

5 There is no national legislation for appearance industries in New Zealand. Appearance industries cover beauty therapy, tattooing and skin-piercing industries. In the absence of national legislation, some local authorities like Dunedin have adopted bylaws so that health risks associated with these industries can be managed and people can choose to use such services safely.

6 The industry is experiencing growth. For example, the number of registered appearance industry businesses in Dunedin has increased from around 60 in 2016 to the current figure of 89. As technology advances, there is also evidence of emerging practices that have associated risks.

Proposed Bylaw

7 When reviewing the Bylaw, staff felt that it is generally working well to regulate appearance industries in Dunedin and to help reduce the incidence of infections and the transfer of communicable diseases. Consultation documents proposed to retain most of the Bylaw controls along with several changes.

8 Proposed changes aimed to provide greater protection in some areas, reflect current and emerging practices, improve clarity and modernise the language. An analysis of all proposals is provided in the Discussion section.

DISCUSSION

Community engagement

9 Formal consultation on proposed changes was carried out from 5 May until 6 June 2025 using the special consultative procedure.

10 Engagement methods included advertising on the DCC website, social media pages, on the Otago Daily Times noticeboard, via the Dunedin People’s Panel, and the DCC monthly household mailout, FYI. Mana whenua were advised and invited to comment, as were key stakeholders such as training providers and industry practitioners.

Results of consultation

11 There were 38 submissions on the bylaw review including two from organisations.

12 There was strong support for the proposed Bylaw with key findings as follows:

Overall, do you agree with the proposed Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin-Piercers Bylaw?

Overall, do you agree with the proposed Bylaw?	Number	%
Yes	35	92%
No	1	3%
Did not answer	2	5%
TOTAL	38	100%

Why/why not?

Topic	Number
Protect health and safety	20
Support proposed underage change	2
Other comments	5

Which of the following options do you support?

Which option do you support?	Number	%
Option 1: Keep most Bylaw controls with some updates (proposed)	35	92%
Option 2: Do not update the Bylaw	0	0
Option 3: Other	1	3%
Did not answer	2	5%
TOTAL	38	100%

If Option 3, please specify:

One submitter said beauty therapists having their own bylaw should be a consideration.

Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin-Piercers Bylaw?

Further comments included supporting protecting health and safety, supporting greater protection for clients under the age of 16 years, supporting the introduction of blood pathogen training requirements for skin-piercers and tattooists, other specific provisions of the proposed Bylaw, and personal experiences.

Committee recommendations

13 The Committee met on 26 June 2025 to consider submissions and deliberate. No submitters wished to be heard and the Committee deliberated on all proposals, submissions, and staff comments.

14 The Committee agrees that the Bylaw is working well generally to regulate appearance industries in Dunedin and to help reduce the incidence of infections and the transfer of communicable diseases. The Committee supports the retention of most bylaw controls and also agrees with proposals for change which it recommends that the Council adopts.

15 The Committee recommends a date of effect of 1 October 2025 for the Bylaw. This will allow sufficient time for communications on changes to be communicated to all registered operators.

16 Minutes of the Hearings Committee deliberations are at Attachment C.

17 Table 1 details the proposed changes along with the Committee’s recommendations. (Note that section references are from the clean version of the Bylaw.)

Table 1: Analysis of proposed changes to the Bylaw

Section	Proposed change	Reason	Hearings Committee
2. Application of bylaw	Add clause about traditional and customary tattooing.	To be clear about this exemption.	Agree
3. Purpose	Add wording to the purpose of the bylaw.	To align the purpose more clearly to section 145 of LGA.	Agree
5. Definitions	Add Licence.	To clarify the meaning for this term.	Agree
	Change prescribed process to service.	Modernise the language.	Agree
	Add skin penetration.	For clarity.	Agree
8. Licence may be altered, suspended, cancelled, or reviewed	Add this clause that the Council may alter, suspend, or cancel a licence if licence conditions are being breached.	To provide a greater level of protection.	Agree
9. General conditions of Licence and Operation	Add requirement that a parent or legal guardian must be present during a skin-piercing or penetration process for a person under 16 years (in addition to providing permission).	To provide a greater level of protection.	Agree
	Add that a person must not tattoo any person under 18 years of age.	To provide a greater level of protection and in response to submission.	Agree
	Add that a person must not pierce any nipple or genital area of a person under 18 years of age.	To provide a greater level of protection and in response to submission.	Agree
	Retain the requirement that a person may not provide a service to anyone whom they suspect is under the influence of alcohol, drugs or mind-altering substances.	Following consultation on removing this requirement, staff suggested retaining it in response to feedback that it helps to provide greater protection.	Agree
	Remove the requirement that no one may smoke on the premises.	This is covered by the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990.	Agree
	Remove the requirement that no animals except disability assist dogs are permitted on the premises.	This may be unreasonable and potentially unenforceable.	Agree
	Add requirement for bloodborne pathogen training for skin piercing and penetrating operators.	To provide a greater level of protection.	Agree
	Add explanatory notes about bloodborne pathogen training.	To be clearer about this proposed requirement in response to industry submissions.	Agree
10. Records	Remove reference to UV cabinet and glass bead sterilisers.	To update this section as these units are unable to be serviced or calibrated.	Agree
	Include disposable sharps in the disposal of medical waste.	To be clear that disposable sharps are included here.	Agree
11. Physical aspects of designated and mobile premises	Remove the references to the ‘piped supply of hot and cold water.	To update this section to allow for mobile hand wash units.	Agree
	Add that linen/paper must be replaced after each single use (in addition to after each client).	To be clear about this expectation.	Agree
13. Conduct	Add clarity around hand washing – defining the method and length of time.	To provide clear direction on this element of hygiene.	Agree
	Remove the requirement for a written procedure for disinfecting and cleansing materials but ensuring licensee can demonstrate awareness of these practices.	To reflect current practice which works well.	Agree
16. Tattooing and Skin piercing	Add that no person may undertake eyeball tattooing unless a qualified ophthalmologist.	To ensure an additional level of protection for this emerging practice.	Agree

OPTIONS

18 Options are to accept the Committee’s recommendations or refer the Bylaw back to the Committee for further consideration.

19 Option One – Accept recommendations of the Committee (Recommended Option) This option is to adopt the amended Bylaw.

Impact assessment

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

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· This option is not likely to materially impact city-wide or DCC emissions.

Advantages

· Committee recommendations:

i) provide a greater level of protection is some areas

ii) make the Bylaw clearer and easier to understand

iii) reflect current and emerging trends.

Disadvantages

· Proposed changes may be more onerous for some operators.

Option Two – Refer the Bylaw back to the Committee for further consideration

Impact assessment

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

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· This option is not likely to impact city-wide or DCC emissions.

Advantages

· The Committee has further opportunity to consider changes to the Bylaw.

Disadvantages

· This could impact the proposed implementation timeframe for the Bylaw.

NEXT STEPS

22 If the Council adopts the Bylaw, then staff will work towards implementing the Bylaw on 1 October 2025.

Signatories

Authoriser:

Mandy Mayhem - Chairperson, Hearings Committee

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Amended Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin-Piercers Bylaw - clean	486
⇩b	Amended Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin-Piercers Bylaw - tracked changes	496
⇩c	Hearings Committee minutes	507

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities and promotes the social well-being wellbeing 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 Bylaw contributes to the ‘healthy and safe people’ strategic direction of the Social Wellbeing Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

Staff specifically engaged with mana whenua via email to the offices of Te Rūnaka o Ōtākou and Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki for this review and no specific impacts were identified.

Sustainability

There are no known implications for sustainability.

Zero carbon

Emissions considerations are not applicable to this report.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Early engagement was carried out in November 2024 to inform any changes to the Bylaw. Information and an online survey were advertised via the Otago Daily Times noticeboard, and through the Dunedin City Council social media. Targeted emails were sent to mana whenua and key stakeholders such as industry practitioners and Health NZ (Te Whatu Ora).

Formal consultation on proposed changes was carried out from 5 May until 6 June 2025 using the special consultative procedure. Engagement methods included advertising on the DCC website, social media pages, on the Otago Daily Times noticeboard, via the Dunedin People’s Panel, and the DCC monthly household mailout, FYI. Mana whenua were advised and invited to comment, as were key stakeholders such as training providers and industry practitioners.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with Communications and Marketing, Governance and the web team. In-House Legal Counsel has assisted with liaison for an external legal review.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The draft bylaw has undergone an external legal review by Simpson Grierson. There are health and safety risks from not having a bylaw.

Conflict of Interest

There is no identified conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

Council

12 August 2025

Hearings Committee Recommendations on Trading in Public Places Bylaw Review

Department: Customer and Regulatory

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents recommendations of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) on the amended Trading in Public Places Bylaw (the Bylaw) following a review.

2 It recommends the Council adopts the Bylaw (Attachment A) with a date of effect of 1 October 2025. Recommended changes to the Bylaw aim to provide greater clarity, remove duplication and improve the flow of the Bylaw. See Attachment B for the tracked changes version of the Bylaw.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the Hearings Committee has considered submissions on the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw

b) Notes the minutes of the Hearings Committee (Attachment C)

c) Adopts the amended Trading in Public Places Bylaw (Attachment A)

d) Approves a date of effect for the Trading in Public Places Bylaw of 1 October 2025.

BACKGROUND

Council resolutions

3 In May 2024, the Customer and Regulatory Committee approved commencement of the review of the Bylaw. The review must be carried out under requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

4 Following review that included early engagement, on 11 March 2025, the Customer and Regulatory Committee approved a draft Bylaw and statement of proposal for consultation purposes.

Proposed Bylaw

5 Generally, the Bylaw (in conjunction with the trading activities and code of practice for rental scheme operators) is working well to regulate trading activities in Dunedin public places. Proposed changes to the existing Bylaw are relatively minor in nature and aim to provide greater clarity about conditions, reduce duplication and provide for exemptions to the Bylaw requirements should this be needed.

DISCUSSION

Community engagement

6 Formal consultation on proposed changes was carried out from 5 May until 6 June 2025, using the special consultative procedure.

7 Engagement methods included advertising on the DCC website, social media pages, on the Otago Daily Times noticeboard, via the Dunedin People’s Panel, and the DCC monthly household mailout, FYI. Key stakeholders from each of the trading activities and the disability community were advised and invited to comment.

Results of consultation

8 There were 12 submissions on this bylaw review. Submissions were from individuals as well as two organisations. There was one late submission which the Committee resolved to accept.

9 There was good support for the proposed Bylaw. Key findings from the consultation are as follows:

Overall, do you agree with the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw?

Overall, do you agree with the proposed Bylaw?	Number	%
Yes	9	75%
No	2	17%
Did not answer	1	8%
TOTAL	12	100%

Why/Why not?

One submitter who agreed with the proposed Bylaw commented on maintaining acceptable standards. Two submitters commented on the proposed change from ‘pedestrian’ to ‘footpath’ access. One commented on a lack of clarity about what public trading means and where this can occur.

Which of the following options do you support?

Which option do you support?	Number	%
Option 1: Keep the current bylaw controls with the detailed amendments (proposed)	9	75%
Option 2: Add or remove a trading activity from the bylaw	0	0
Option 3: Other	2	17%
Did not answer	1	8%
TOTAL	12	100%

If Option 2 or 3, please specify:

Submitters commented again on the proposed change from ‘pedestrian’ to footpath’ access and a lack of clarity about public trading.

Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw?

Submitters commented on topics such as proposals being logical and practical, begging and alcohol.

Committee recommendations

10 The Committee met on 26 June 2025 to consider submissions and deliberate. No submitters wished to be heard and the Committee deliberated on all proposals. It recommends that the Council adopts the Bylaw which incorporates all of the proposals except one.

11 The exception is that the Committee recommends retaining section 2.1, that the bylaw applies to Dunedin City. Although section 145 of the Local Government Act 2002 states that the bylaw can only apply to the Dunedin City Council district, the Committee would also like this to made clear in the Bylaw itself.

12 The following table details the proposed changes along with the Hearings Committee’s recommendations.

Section	Proposed change	Reason	Hearings Committee
Application	Remove that the bylaw applies to Dunedin City	This is unnecessary as section 145 of the LGA is clear that the bylaw can only apply to the Dunedin City Council district.	Recommend retaining this so that this is also clear in the Bylaw.
Definitions	Add a definition for conditions	Provides greater clarity about conditions.	Agree
	Change pedestrian access references to footpath access	Reflects that not all footpath users are pedestrians. (Note that whether the reference is to pedestrian or footpath makes no difference to what is legally allowed on the footpath.)	Agree
	Remove oral permission from the permit definition	Reflects current practice that all permits are provided in writing.	Agree
	Update trading activity definition	Provides greater clarity and aligns better with the sets of conditions.	Agree
Explanatory notes	Move to the start of the Bylaw	Improves the flow of information.	Agree
Exemptions	Add a clause to allow for written exemptions	Provides a mechanism for exemptions to the Bylaw requirements should this be needed.	Agree
Prohibited mobile trading areas	Remove this clause from the Bylaw	Removes duplication as these areas are also detailed in the mobile trading conditions. Being in the conditions provides greater responsiveness to add or remove a prohibited location as appropriate.	Agree
Conditions for trading activities	Add this clause to the Bylaw	Provides greater clarity about the nature and scope of the conditions that the Bylaw references.	Agree
Right of review	Move to clause 9	Improves the flow of information.	Agree

13 The Bylaw reflects the Committee’s recommendations. Minutes of the deliberations are at Attachment C.

14 The Committee recommends a date of effect of 1 October 2025 for the Bylaw. This will allow sufficient time for changes to be communicated to trading operators and other stakeholders.

OPTIONS

15 Options are to accept the Committee’s recommendations or refer the Bylaw back to the Committee for further consideration.

16 Option One – Accept recommendations of the Committee (Recommended Option) This option is to adopt the amended Bylaw.

Impact assessment

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

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· This option is not likely to materially impact city-wide or DCC emissions.

Advantages

· Committee recommendations:

i) make the Bylaw clearer and easier to understand

ii) remove duplication and

iii) provide a mechanism for exemptions to Bylaw requirements should this be needed.

Disadvantages

· There are no known disadvantages.

Option Two – Refer the Bylaw back to the Committee for further consideration

Impact assessment

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

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Zero carbon

· This option is not likely to materially impact city-wide or DCC emissions.

Advantages

· The Committee has further opportunity to consider changes to the Bylaw.

Disadvantages

· This could impact the proposed implementation timeframe for the Bylaw.

NEXT STEPS

19 If the Council adopts the Bylaw, then staff will work towards implementing the Bylaw on 1 October 2025.

Signatories

Authoriser:

Jim O'Malley - Chairperson, Hearings Committee

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Amended Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2025 - clean	517
⇩b	Amended Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2025 - tracked changes	524
⇩c	Hearings Committee minutes	531

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

This Bylaw contributes to most of the strategic framework as the Bylaw purpose is to “provide reasonable controls to protect health and safety, to protect the public from nuisance and to regulate trading in public places”. In doing so it is important to acknowledge the benefits of trading in public places including vibrancy, liveliness and attractive lifestyle options for the city.

Māori Impact Statement

No impacts were identified. Mana whenua were not specifically engaged with in this bylaw review and there are no known impacts.

Sustainability

There are no known impacts for sustainability.

Zero carbon

Emissions considerations are not applicable to this report.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications as management of the Bylaw is carried out within existing budgets.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Early engagement was carried out during November/December 2024 to inform any proposed changes to the Bylaw. Information and an online survey were advertised via the Otago Daily Times noticeboard, and through the DCC and Ara Toi social media. Targeted emails were sent to key stakeholder for each of the trading activities and to the disability community and Community Boards.

Consultation on proposed changes was then carried out from Monday 5 May until Friday 6 June 2025, using the special consultative procedure. Engagement methods included advertising on the DCC website, social media pages, on the Otago Daily Times noticeboard, via the Dunedin People’s Panel, and the DCC monthly household mailout, FYI. Key stakeholders were advised and invited to comment.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with Transport, Urban Design, Creative Partnerships, Compliance Solutions, Enterprise Dunedin, Communications and Marketing, Governance and the web team. In-House Legal Counsel has assisted with liaison for an external legal review.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks. The draft Bylaw has been reviewed by external legal counsel.

Conflict of Interest

There is no identified conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

Council

12 August 2025

Hearings Committee Recommendations on the Review of the Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents the recommendations of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) on the review of the Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan. The Draft Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan (the Draft Plan) is an update of the 2003 Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan (the 2003 Plan). The continuous review of reserve management plans is a statutory requirement under the Reserves Act 1977.

2 There were 192 submissions made during the community engagement on the Draft Plan. The public engagement process, as prescribed by section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977 and Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, was followed. Of the submissions, 34 supported the Draft Plan, nine did not state either their support or opposition, and 147 did not support the Draft Plan.

3 31 submitters had indicated that they wished to speak in support of their submission at the Hearing. At the Hearing 14 submitters spoke to their submissions.

4 Upon considering the submissions received, the Committee requested that staff update the Draft Plan incorporating feedback from submitters.

5 The Committee reconvened and approved the changes to the Draft Plan.

6 If approved the new Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan will replace the existing 2003 Plan immediately.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the Hearings Committee has heard and considered submissions on the Draft Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan.

b) Adopts the Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2025

BACKGROUND

Reserve Management Plans

7 Dunedin City Council (DCC) is the administering body appointed under the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act) to control and manage reserves within the city for the particular purpose for which those reserves were classified. As the administering body Council can approve reserve management plans for reserves under its control, management, or administration.

8 The Reserve Act 1977 requires management plans for all Council administered reserves. It is also a requirement under the Reserves Act 1977 to consult with the public when a reserve management plan is being created or reviewed.

9 The process for preparing and reviewing a reserve management plan is set out in Sections 41(5) and (6) of the Act.

10 The management plans are to be reviewed regularly to ensure they reflect changing circumstances or increased knowledge. Reviewing the 2003 Plan is part of the 10-year rolling programme to bring all DCC reserve management plans up to date.

11 The Signal Hill Recreation Reserve is a key recreation reserve in Dunedin with high landscape and biodiversity values. It is a popular reserve for mountain biking, walking, trail running, orienteering and dog walking. It is used by some residents as a commuter route to the Logan Park area.

12 The 2003 Plan was adopted December 2003. The Act requires that the administering authority keep reserve management plans under continuous review. The 2003 Plan has not had a comprehensive review since its adoption.

13 A review of the 2003 Plan commenced in November 2020. The community engagement period for DCC’s intention to review the 2003 Plan ran from 7 November 2020 until 8 December 2020. We received 38 responses from the community during this period. Community engagement included a public notice in a newspaper and DCC’s social media platforms advertising the four-week engagement period on the 2003 Plan.

14 The preparation of the Draft Plan was disrupted due to COVID-19. Additional workshops were held with submitters and stakeholders in 2022 to discuss progress of the draft Plan and to ensure the initial feedback provided in 2020 was still relevant.

15 The Draft Plan was prepared with full consideration of the feedback received both from the statutory submission period and feedback received through engagement workshops and meetings. Input was also provided from the working party that was comprised of the following organisations and representatives:

· Mountain Bike Otago

· Dunedin Orienteering

· Logan Park High School

· Sport Otago.

16 The draft Plan differs to the 2003 Plan in following ways.

· It formally recognises the importance of Signal Hill and the surrounding area to mana whenua.

· It is based on specific actions which are proposed to support the management and development of the Reserve. The proposed actions include a Reserve Master Plan, a Habitat Restoration Plan, an Interpretation/Storytelling Plan, and a Fire Plan.

· It acknowledges the landscape and biodiversity values of the reserve. There will be a focus on habitat restoration and the re-establishment of native vegetation within the reserve, including the managed removal of noxious pest species. The draft Plan does not support any further planting of exotic tree species within the reserve.

17 Currently development within the reserve has occurred without any formal direction or planning.

18 The draft Plan has a range of proposed projects and matters to consider that will recognise the values of the reserve while encouraging both active and passive recreation alongside habitat restoration. An implementation plan will be developed once the final draft has been prepared for adoption.

Public Consultation

19 Staff presented the Draft Plan to the Strategic, Planning and Environment Committee on 13 February 2024. A Statement of Proposal (SOP), as required under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) for public consultation, was also presented to the committee. The committee approved the Draft Plan and the SOP for public engagement.

20 A 2-month period of consultation is required in section 41, 6(a) of the Reserves Act 1977.

21 Public engagement on the Draft Plan was carried out between 13 May 2024 and 15 July 2024.

22 Methods of engagement included information posted to the Dunedin City Council’s website, a public notice in both the Otago Daily Times and the Star and a media release, signage and posters displayed at reserve and in proximity to the reserve with a QR code. A number of drop-in sessions, information evenings and weekend pop-ups were run over this time a several different venues, these included the city library, Edgar Centre, Unipol, Civic Centre, Logan Park High School and within the reserve itself.

DISCUSSION

23 SubmissionsOne hundred ninety-two submissions were received during the public engagement period.

24 The submissions received were summarised and analysed to identify themes. Many submissions were made up of a template submission organised by Mountain Bike Otago (MBO), these submissions identified the following concerns:

· They did not support setting a limit on the number of mountain bike tracks within the reserve.

· They did not support the removal of pine trees as part of management of pest plants and protection of view shafts within the reserve due to the shelter they provide to the track network.

· They wanted MBO to have a greater representation on the Signal Hill Recreation Reserve User Group.

· They did support the designation of tracks just for mountain biking.

· They did support road safety improvements.

· They also wanted to see the provision of additional tracks to the network and had a wish list of what they would like to see provided for mountain biking within the reserve.

25 Outside of this proforma submission form the prominent themes were:

· Opposing restrictions on the number of mountain bike tracks within the reserve (39)

· Support management of pest species (33)

· Support track development and maintenance (33)

· Support making Signal Hill Recreation Reserve a destination (29)

· Support ensuring connections to the reserve exists (29)

· Support designation of tracks (29)

· Support biodiversity improvements (28)

· Support increasing public access and making it more available to all users (25)

· Proportionate representation on the Signal Hill Recreation Reserve User Group (24)

· Do not support mountain biking within the reserve (23)

26 77% of submissions do not support the Draft Plan.

· This was dominated by mountain bikers who were mainly concerned with restricting the number of mountain bike tracks, removal of pine trees and wanting a better representation of MBO on any Signal Hill Reserve User Group.

· There were submissions from those who supported the majority of the Draft Plan but had concerns around the management of Burns Reserve, there was a mixed opinion around how the consistent management of this reserve might look.

· Some wanted more detail and clarity around the history of the reserve and more information around ecological enhancement of the reserve.

· There was also concern about lack of representation on the Signal Hill Reserve User Group from residents within Opoho and on Signal Hill Road, the Friends of the Burns Scenic Reserve, tourism operators and other organisations.

27 18% of submissions did support the draft.

· Those submissions in support of the Draft Plan identify the importance of supporting and improving the biodiversity of the reserve.

· Many supported ensuring the reserve is welcoming, accessible and inclusive to all user groups.

· There was support for providing clarity around which groups can use which tracks and improving connections to and within the reserve.

· There was support for management of pest species.

· There was support for improved management of invasive plant species and vegetation that obstruct views at the Memorial Lookout.

· There was support for the provision of toilet and drinking water facilities.

· There was support for improvements to the road network servicing the reserve making access safe.

· There was support for improved track development and maintenance.

· There was support for the management and restriction on where further mountain bike tracks are located.

· There was support for lower gradient and grade tracks for beginners.

28 We received feedback recognising the health benefits that mountain biking and being active within the reserve offers both physically and mentally, promoting the reserve in being vape and smoke free, and minimising the risk of conflict between various users, i.e., high speed downhill bike riders versus children, and dogs.

29 We also received informal feedback during our public engagement this included ideas around improving the marketing and signage about the reserve, many people we spoke to were unaware of the reserve and the facilities on offer, there was also a perception that the reserve was only for mountain bikers and other users were not welcome.

Hearing Findings

30 The Hearings Panel met on 20 November 2024 to hear submitters and to deliberate on all the submissions received.

31 Fourteen submitters spoke to their submissions and answer questions.

32 The Hearings Panel requested that staff update the Draft Plan and incorporate feedback as appropriate from submitters, this included the following changes:

· Due to the concern around representation on the Signal Hill User Group replace with a single point of contact (dedicated email address) and the opportunity for people to be on a mailing list to be kept informed of what is happening within the reserve.

· Provide for better marketing of the reserve.

· Promoted signage to identify specific use tracks to support all users within the reserve.

· Use the new Recreation Aotearoa Mountain Bike Standards as the grading standards for the track network.

· Remove from the Draft Plan reference to the maximum number of mountain bike tracks within the Reserve.

· Remove from the Draft Plan the reference to tracks graded 1 – 3, instead specifier easier track grades suitable for a wider number of users.

· Add to the Draft Plan reference to “No smoking and vaping” within the reserve due to the potential fire risk.

· Ensure the wording within the Draft Plan around any closure of reserve roads/accesses does not prohibit landowners from accessing their properties.

33 The Hearings Panel was reconvened on 12 February 2025 to review the updated Draft Plan. The Committee recommended that subject to minor editorial adjustments, and a final review of the document, approved the plan to be submitted to Council for adoption.

34 The final version of the Draft Plan is at Attachment B.

Summary of recommended changes to the Draft Plan

35 Improvements were made to the Mana Whenua section within the Background chapter as well as updating the timeline.

36 The Opportunities chapter was updated in response to feedback received particularly concerns around the management of tracks.

37 Most changes were made in Chapter 7 Objectives and Policies. These were mainly around the best method to support the community and users in connecting with DCC about Signal Hill Recreation Reserve. This included actions around the creation of an email address, a mailing list, and a quarterly newsletter to those on the mailing list.

38 It also included a new objective to promote the reserve to locals and visitors with the preparation of a Marketing Plan.

39 In preparing a Reserve Master Plan there will be consideration given to the zoning of the Reserve to reduce conflict and support conservation.

OPTIONS

40 Two options are proposed. The recommended option is to adopt the Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2025. Option two is to retain the status quo, i.e., retain Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2003.

Option One – Adopt the Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2025 -Recommended Option

Impact assessment

Debt

· Funding for the implementation of actions in the Draft Plan will be considered in future reports through the annual or 10-year plan processes.

Rates

· Funding for actions in the Draft Plan will be considered via future reports through the annual or 10-year plan processes and rates impact will be calculated at that time.

Zero carbon

· The Draft Plan has a zero carbon focus by encouraging investment in the revegetation of the Reserve and improving connections via the reserve to the city’s active transport network.

Advantages

· Signal Hill Recreation Reserve will have an up-to-date management plan that seeks to manage the recreational, amenity and cultural values of the Reserve.

· The Draft Plan was written following feedback from two separate rounds of public engagement.

· Objectives in the Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2025 not requiring new funding can be implemented without delay.

Disadvantages

· There are no known disadvantages.

Option Two – Do not adopt the Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2025. The existing Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2003 remains operative - Status Quo

Impact assessment

Debt

· If the 2003 Plan remains operative, then any funding will be via current approved budgets.

Rates

· Funding will be via current approved budgets.

Zero carbon

· There will be no change or improvement to the city’s emissions.

Advantages

· There are no known advantages.

Disadvantages

· The 2003 Plan will remain operative and any future development within the reserve is likely to be on an ad hoc basis.

· The current state of the reserve indicates that the 2003 Plan does not provide appropriate management of Signal Hill Recreation Reserve.

· Feedback from two separate rounds of public engagement will be ignored.

NEXT STEPS

41 The Draft Plan will be finalised and adopted as the Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan effective from June 2025.

42 A Draft Implementation Plan is attached which will be the basis for future reports to Council regarding projects for inclusion in Annual and 10-Year Plans.

43 The Draft Implementation Plan is in Attachment C.

Signatories

Author:	Steve Walker - Councillor
Authoriser:

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2025	544
⇩b	Signal Hill Recreation Reserve Implementation Plan	572
⇩c	Minutes from the Hearings Committee 20 November 2024	576

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social, 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

Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki and Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou through Aukaha Ltd have contributed to the Draft Plan. One of the objectives of the Plan is to enhance, protect and manage the mana whenua values of Signal Hill Recreation Reserve. This will occur through ongoing consultation and Plan implementation.

Sustainability

Sustainability is to be considered through the process of this project and will inform the management and operation of the reserve.

Zero carbon

Council’s Zero Carbon Policy has been considered in the development of the Draft Plan and consultation with Zero Carbon team to develop policies within the Draft Plan was undertaken.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are elements of the Plan requiring capital investment. These will be considered as part of the 2027/28 – 2037/38 10 Year Plan. The maintenance of the site is provided for in current operational budgets and the grant Mountain Bike Otago receive to maintain the mountain bike tracks within the Reserve

Financial considerations

The Draft Plan recommends actions which have been indicated in the Implementation Plan attached to this report (Attachment B). The funding for this will be from both existing budgets or will be considered in future annual plan and 10-year planning processes.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Consultation was undertaken in accordance with Section 41 (5) and (6) of the Reserves Act 1977, which has a prescriptive process.

Engagement - internal

Parks and Recreation Services staff have worked with other departments (Legal, Transport, 3 Waters, Carbon Zero, Community Development and Events) with the drafting of this reserve management plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no know conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Signal Hill Recreation Reserve is a key amenity for the entire city and all residents including those in Community Board areas will be interested in the development of a reserve management plan for this facility. Signal Hill Recreation Reserve sits just outside the West Harbour Community Board area, but the Board have been advised of the process.

Council

12 August 2025

Hearing Committee Recommendations on the Review of the Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents the recommendations of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) on the review of the Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan (the Draft Plan).

2 After considering the submissions received, the Committee requested that staff update the Draft Plan incorporating feedback from submitters.

3 The Committee reconvened and approved the changes to the Draft Plan.

4 If approved the new Town Belt Reserve Management Plan will replace the existing 2010 Plan immediately.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the Hearings Committee has heard and considered submissions on the draft Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan 2025.

b) Adopts the Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan 2025.

BACKGROUnd

Reserve Management Plans

7 The process for preparing or reviewing a reserve management plan is set out in sections 41 (5) and (6) of the Act.

8 DCC as the administering body can approve reserve management plans for reserves under its control, management, or administration.

Public Consultation:

9 The Draft Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan 2025 was presented to the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee meeting of 20 August 2024, recommending the commencement of a public consultation process.

10 The submission period started on 21 August 2024 and remained open until 23 October 2024.

DISCUSSION

Results of Consultation

11 There were 60 submissions received during the two-month consultation period on the Draft Plan. Of these submissions, 44 indicated support, 16 indicated opposition.

12 The main themes from the consultation period were:

· Cycleway / Pedestrian pathway through the Town Belt

· Recreation values

· Promotion of biodiversity values

· Improved transport safety

· Improved rubbish management

Hearing Findings

13 The Committee met on 17 February 2025 to hear submitters and to deliberate on the submissions received.

14 Six submitters spoke to their submissions and answered questions.

15 The submitters who spoke at the Hearing made the following comments:

· Support for the Dunedin Town Belt and that it is protected for future generations.

· Students from Town Belt Kaitiaki (TBK) commented on rubbish dumping, the need for improved pedestrian access near to the model site they operate from. They value the skills they have learned while being a part of the TBK such as planting and how they considered the Town Belt to be important as an educational resource for future generations.

· Support for the reduction or removal of traffic along sections of Queens Drive. There was also a request that Queens Drive be closed to motor vehicles on weekends in a similar way to John Wilson Ocean Drive.

· Support for managing light spill from adjacent roads to Beverley beg Observatory.

· Support for retaining motor vehicle access through the entire Town Belt.

16 Immediately following the Hearing, the Committee convened to discuss the submissions received through the consultation period and the additional comments from speakers at the Hearing.

17 The Committee worked through the Draft Plan from start to finish and suggested minor changes to sections as appropriate.

18 The Committee requested that staff investigate how a communication channel might be set up regarding information about the reserve.

19 The Committee reconvened on Friday 14 March 2025 to review the final version of the Draft Plan. The Committee noted the feedback from public engagement of the Draft Plan and recommended that the Draft Plan, as amended, be adopted.

20 The final version of the Draft Plan is in attachment A.

21 The Hearings Committee minutes are in Attachment B

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option. Adopt the Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan

22 Impact assessment

Debt

· Funding for implementation of actions in the Plan will be considered through future Annual and Long Term Planning processes.

Rates

· Funding for actions in the Plan will be considered via future reports through the Annual or Long Term Planning processes and rates impact will be calculated at that time.

Zero carbon

· City wide greenhouse emissions could potentially decrease due to the proposed introduction of active transport measures Dunedin Town Belt which would encourage more walking and cycling.

Advantages

· The Dunedin Town Belt will have an up-to-date management plan that seeks to manage the recreational, amenity and cultural values of the Reserve.

· The Plan was written following feedback from two separate rounds of public consultation.

· Objectives in the Dunedin Town Belt Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2025 not requiring additional funding can be implemented without delay.

Disadvantages

· There are no disadvantages of this option.

Option Two – Status Quo

23 Impact assessment

Debt

· If the 2010 Plan remains the Town Belt Reserve Management Plan there will be no further programmes of work requiring funding outside of business as usual maintenance budgets.

Rates

· With this option there will be no further programmes of work requiring funding and therefore no rates impact.

Zero carbon

· City Wide and DCC greenhouse emissions are likely to stay the same with this option.

Advantages

· There are no advantages with this option.

Disadvantages

· The 2010 Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan will remain operative and any development of the reserve will be on an ad hoc basis.

· Feedback from two separate rounds of public consultation will be ignored.

NEXT STEPS

24 The draft Plan will be finalised and adopted as the Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan effective from June 2025.

25 A draft Implementation Plan is attached which will be the basis for future reports to Council regarding projects for inclusion in Annual and Long Term Plans.

26 The Draft Implementation Plan is in Attachment C.

Signatories

Author:

Andrew Whiley - Chairperson, Regulatory Subcommittee

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan	590
⇩b	Draft Dunedin Town Belt RMP Minutes from Hearings and Deliberations	647
⇩c	Draft Dunedin Town Belt RMP Implementation Plan	652

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the environmental 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

Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki and Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou through Aukaha Ltd have contributed to the draft Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan. Mana Whenua have provided feedback during the development of the Draft Plan.

Sustainability

Sustainability is to be considered throughout the implementation of this plan and will be considered in the management and operation processes to maintain the reserve.

Zero carbon

Council’s Zero Carbon Policy has been considered in the development of the Draft Plan and there has been consultation with Zero Carbon team to develop policies within the Draft Plan was undertaken. Zero Carbon supports the proposed modal shift on Queens Drive to promote active transport and reduce emissions within the Reserve.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Actions arising from the Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan have not been included in the 9 year Plan. An Implementation Plan with actions and priorities will be the basis of future reports to Council for inclusion of programmes in future Annual and Long Term Plans.

Financial considerations

An Implementation Plan with actions and priorities will be the basis of future reports to Council for inclusion of programmes in future Annual and Long Term Plans.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

The Reserves Act 1977 requires DCC to consult with the public when a reserve management plan is being created or reviewed.

Engagement - internal

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks to this Plan

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest

Community Boards

The Dunedin Town Belt Reserve is a key amenity for the entire city and all residents including those in Community Board areas will be interested in the development of a reserve management plan for this facility. The Dunedin Town Belt sits within the CBD and does not cross into any community board jurisdictions, however because this Reserve Management Plan was held in conjunction with the Otago Harbour Reserve Management Plan, both the West Harbour Community Board and the Otago Peninsula Community Board were advised and given the opportunity to comment about the Draft Plan.

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 30 July 2025	18