Agenda of Council - Thursday, 11 December 2025

Council

11 December 2025

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, the Octagon, Dunedin on Thursday 27 November 2025, commencing at 10:00 a.m.

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Sophie Barker
Deputy Mayor	Cr Cherry Lucas
Members	Cr John Chambers	Cr Christine Garey
	Cr Doug Hall	Cr Marie Laufiso
	Cr Russell Lund	Cr Mandy Mayhem
	Cr Benedict Ong	Cr Jules Radich
	Cr Andrew Simms	Cr Mickey Treadwell
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Steve Walker
	Cr Brent Weatherall

IN ATTENDANCE

Sandy Graham (Chief Executive), Carolyn Allan (Chief Financial Officer), Scott MacLean (General Manager City Services), David Ward (General Manager 3 Waters, Property and Urban Development), Nicola Morand (Manahautū - General Manager Community and Strategy), Paul Henderson (General Manager Corporate and Regulatory Services), (Lisa Wilkie Kaiārahi – Team Leader Creative Partnerships), Sian Sutton (Manager, Enterprise Dunedin), Gina Hu’akau (Community Partnerships Manager), Simon Spiers (Team Leader Regulation Management), Abbey Chamberlain (Senior Transport Planner), Corporate Policy Manager (Nadia Wesley-Smith), Gill Brown (Principal Policy Advisor Housing), Anna Nilsen (Group Manager Property), Janet Young (Sustainable Travel Co-ordinator), Dr Berkley Kochak), Paula Dickel (Strategic Property Advisor) and Jackie Harrison (Manager Governance).

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Opening

Mrs Ruth Groffman opened the meeting with a prayer on behalf of the Dunedin Jewish Community.

2 Public Forum

There were five speakers for Public Forum.

2.1 Aaron Hawkins

Mr Hawkins, Strategic Lead of the Otago Housing Alliance spoke in support of an outreach service in the city and the requirement for this to be urgently addressed. He commented on need for more public housing and greater support in general for whanau experiencing homelessness.

Mr Hawkins responded to questions.

2.2 David Bainbridge-Zafar

Mr Bainbridge-Zafar spoke in support of the introduction of fare free public transport for Dunedin. He commented on the benefits cities across the world had experienced following implementation of the scheme and urged Councillors to consider this for Dunedin. Mr Bainbridge-Zafar requested the item be included in the next Annual Plan for consultation.

Mr Bainbridge-Zafar responded to questions.

2.3 Suzanne Menzies-Culling

Ms Menzies-Culling spoke on the importance of Waitangi Day celebrations in Dunedin. She commented on her disappointment at recent city run treaty festivals and that she would like to see better offerings in the future.

Ms Menzies-Culling spoke of need to honour the memory of those who signed the Treaty of Waitangi and observe the importance of the day. Dunedin had many nationalities and cultures ant this was a chance to enhance the depth and richness to all our communities..

Ms Menzies-Culling responded to questions.

2.4 David McKenzie

Mr McKenzie thanked Council for the continued support for the Night Shelter and commented on the recent upgrade to the property. He commented on the increase in service provided to those who used the shelter, for example connecting people with agencies.

Mr McKenzie commented on the necessity for a dedicated outreach worker and responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Extends the Public Forum beyond 30 minutes.

Motion carried

Mayor Sophie apologised for any stress caused by the oversight of the establishment of the Grants Committee.

2.5 Lois Scott-Muir and Joy Davis

Ms Scott-Muir and Ms Davis spoke on behalf of Ōtepoti Community Builders. They explained the work of the organisation and commented that it was an informal, volunteer run network of organisations, groups and people from across the community sector in Ōtepoti .

They commented that the grants review had been underway for some time and they would like to see it completed. Ms Scott-Muir and Ms Davis spoke of the importance of having community representation on the grants committee and requested it be reinstated with the full community representation.

Ms Scott-Muir and Ms Davis responded to questions.

Crs Marie Laufiso and Mickey Treadwell left the meeting at 10.48 am

3 Apologies
	There were no apologies.

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/315)

5 Declarations of interest

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

There were no new declarations of interest.

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

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

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

Motion carried

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 11 November 2025

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 11 November 2025 as a correct record with minor editorial changes.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/316)

Reports

7 Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings
	A report from Civic provided an update on the implementation of resolutions made at Council meetings.
Cr Marie Laufiso and Mickey Treadwell returned to the meeting at 10.51 am.
	The Chief Executive (Sandy Graham) and General Manager City Services (Scott MacLean) and (General Manager Corporate and Regulatory Services) Paul Henderson responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council meetings. Motion carried (CNL/2025/317)

8 Council Forward Work Programme
	A report from Civic provided the updated Council forward work programme for the 2025 year.
	The Chief Executive (Sandy Graham) responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the updated Council forward work programme. Motion carried (CNL/2025/318)

9 Amendment to Road Naming Policy
	A report from Transport sought approval for an amendment to the Road Naming Policy document adopted by Council in 2016. Staff recommend that changes were made to the application of the Road Naming Policy to allow developers to use pre-approved names from the Road Name Register, without requiring a second road naming report to be submitted to Council or a delegated Committee.
	The General Manager, City Services (Scott MacLean); Team Leader Regulation Management (Simon Spiers) and Senior Transport Planner (Abbey Chamberlain) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 11.33 am and reconvened at 11.37 am. Cr Jules Radich left the meeting at 11.33 am
	Moved (Cr Mandy Mayhem/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: a) Approves the proposed amendments to the Road Naming Policy. Motion carried (CNL/2025/319)

10 Traffic and Parking Bylaw Review Update
	A report from Transport provided an update on the review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw and outlined the next steps which included development of draft documents and consultation on any proposed changes and timeframes.
Crs Benjamin Ong and Jules Radich returned to the meeting at 11.40 am.
	The General Manager, City Services (Scott MacLean); Team Leader Regulation Management (Simon Spiers) and Senior Transport Planner (Abbey Chamberlain) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Notes the Traffic and Parking Bylaw review update. Motion carried (CNL/2025/320)

11 Taieri Mouth Road Speed Limit Change Consultation
	A report from Transport proposed an upcoming consultation on a proposed speed limit change on Taieri Mouth Road between Brighton and Taieri Mouth. A speed limit reduction from 100km/h to 80km/h along Taieri Mouth Road had been proposed in the draft Speed Management Plan that the Dunedin City Council consulted on in 2023. During that consultation, 20 Kuri Bush residents signed a submission which supported an 80km/h speed limit on Taieri Mouth Road through the Kuri Bush settlement. Following the release of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 the Dunedin City Council was unable to proceed with the draft Speed Management Plan as the process for setting speed limits had changed. Public consultation on the proposal to reduce the Taieri Mouth Road speed limit from 100km/h to 80km/h in accordance with the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024, would occur in early 2026.
	The General Manager, City Services (Scott MacLean), Team Leader Regulation Management (Simon Spiers) and Safe and Sustainable Travel Co-ordinator (Janet Young) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Notes the Taieri Mouth Road Speed Limit Change Consultation report. Motion carried (CNL/2025/321)

12 Resolution to Stop Part of Glengyle Street, Vauxhall
	A report from Property sought approval for a road stopping process for 158m2 of land adjoining 42 Glengyle Street, Vauxhall, as the public notification process has been completed and no objections were received.
	The General Manager 3 Waters, Property and Urban Development (David Ward), Group Manager Property (Anna Nilsen) and Strategic Property Advisor (Paula Dickel) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Resolves that under Section 342 of the Local Government Act 1974 the part of unformed road described as Section 1 SO 610112 is stopped. b) Notes that no objections were submitted during the public notice period. c) Authorises a public notice declaring that the road is stopped. Motion carried (CNL/2025/322)

13 Lower Value Grants - process amendment
	A report from Civic and Corporate Policy sought approval for an amendment to the Chief Executive Officer’s delegations to enable staff assessment and approval of applications for grants of up to $5,000 (excluding Rates Relief grants) that were funded and administered by the Dunedin City Council. The report noted that in order to satisfy Council’s granting procedures, and to enable applicants to meet project and event deadlines, it was necessary to make decisions on grant categories before the end of 2025.
	The Chief Executive (Sandy Graham) and Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy) (Nicola Morand) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for 45 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 12.18 pm and reconvened at 1.01 pm. Cr Jules Radich entered the meeting at 1.04 pm. Cr Benedict Ong entered the meeting at 1.09 pm.
	Moved (Cr Marie Laufiso/Cr Christine Garey): That the Council: a) Amends the Chief Executive Officer’s delegations to enable approval of Dunedin City Council–funded and administered grant applications (excluding Rates Relief) valued at $5,000 or less, as follows: 1 The Chief Executive is delegated the power to approve or decline applications for grants that are funded and administered by the Council, provided that: i) The grant was within an approved budget; and ii) The maximum possible grant value awarded to an applicant does not exceed $5,000; and iii) The power to approve or decline the grant has not been reserved to the Council under this Manual or by resolution. 2 The Chief Executive may sub-delegate this authority to any other officer of the Council, subject to: i) The sub-delegation being in writing and suitably recorded; and ii) The grant being signed off by the relevant General Manager. 3 This delegation would expire on 31 December 2025 b) Notes that staff will provide a report to the 11 December 2025 Council meeting on the allocation of the grants funding. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Benedict Ong, Jules Radich, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (12). Against: Crs Russell Lund, Andrew Simms and Lee Vandervis (3). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 12 votes to 3 Motion carried (CNL/2025/323)

14 Housing Outreach Service Proposal

A report from Policy and Partnerships responded to Council’s agreement in principle to establish a Council-led housing outreach service and outlined the associated implications and costs.

It sought direction from Council on whether to fund the service as an unbudgeted overspend in the current financial year to enable immediate establishment, or to defer establishment until it could be considered through the annual plan budgeting process.

The Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy) (Nicola Morand) and Principal Policy Advisor Housing (Gill Brown) spoke to the report and responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for five minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 2.01 pm and reconvened at 2.09 pm.

During discussion Cr Mandy Mayhem left the meeting at 2.37 pm and returned at 2.39 pm.

It was agreed that resolution a) would be taken separately.

Moved (Cr Andrew Simms/Cr Russell Lund):

That the Council:

a) Confirms its commitment to establishing and funding a Housing Outreach service in the city;

Motion carried (CNL/2025/324)

Moved (Cr Andrew Simms/Cr Russell Lund):

That the Council:

b) Authorises the CEO to develop the terms for the service as an Expression of Interest (EOI) for an outreach service noting that the terms would include:

i) an initial 3 year service beginning in April 2026,

ii) performance measures and community outcomes

iii) annual reporting requirements.

c) Directs staff to undertake an EOI process to seek proposals from community providers to deliver the outreach service;

d) Reports back to Council on the EOI outcome, alongside the in-house option, for a decision on the preferred provider/model and confirmation of the final funding for the first three years of the service.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Jules Radich, Andrew Simms, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (8).

Against: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Mickey Treadwell and Steve Walker (7).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 8 votes to 7

Motion carried (CNL/2025/325)

Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas:

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 10 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 3.05 pm and reconvened at 3.16 pm.

Crs Russell Lund and Brent Weatherall returned to the meeting at 3.17 pm.

15 Ōtepoti Youth Action Plan (ŌYP) – update
	A report from Community Services sought Councils’ approval to develop an Ōtepoti Youth Action Plan (ŌYP), aligned with the Ōtepoti Youth Vision (ŌYV), and informed by youth engagement, survey data, and youth sector collaboration. The report also provided an update on youth-related work undertaken by the Dunedin City Council, in relation to the two Council resolutions which Directed staff to develop a draft Ōtepoti Rakatahi Taiohi Young People’s Action Plan in consultation with Māori and Pasifika agencies and Directed staff to work with the Dunedin Youth Council and Mirror Services to identify a suitable site for a Youth Hub.
	The Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy) (Nicola Morand) and Community Partnerships Manager (Gina Hu’akau) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Mickey Treadwell/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: a) Notes the progress update on youth-related activities and resolutions. b) Notes the attached Summary of Youth Survey Findings (2024). c) Approves the process to develop the Ōtepoti Youth Action Plan (ŌYP), aligned with the Ōtepoti Youth Vision (ŌYV), and informed by engagement with youth stakeholders and partners. Motion carried (CNL/2025/326)
16 Residents' Opinion Survey Quarterly Update: July - September 2025
	A report from Corporate Policy provided a summary of the Residents’ Opinion Survey quarterly results for Quarter One 2025-2026 (July-September 2025). The Quarterly results showed a comparison between the fourth quarter of the last financial year (April-June 2025), and the first quarter of the current year (July-September 2025).
	The Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy) Nicola Morand and Corporate Policy Manager (Nadia Wesley-Smith) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Residents’ Opinion Survey quarterly results for the period of July-September 2025 (Quarter One 2025/26). b) Notes the previous contract for the Residents’ Opinion Survey expired on 31 August 2025 with no further extensions. The open market procurement plan has now been completed and a new contract has been signed. c) Notes the ROS questionnaire has been updated to reflect the measures for LoS statements as adopted by Council in the 9 Year Plan 2025-34. Motion carried (CNL/2025/327)

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

Extends the meeting beyond 6 hours.

Motion carried

17 New Zealand Masters Games Statement of Intent and Service Level Agreement 2025 - 2027
	A report from Events presented the Statement of Intent (SOI) and Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust for approval.
	The Manager, Enterprise Dunedin (Sian Sutton) and Masters Games Manager (Vicki Kestila) spoke to the report and responded to questions..
	Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Approves the 2025 – 2027 Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust Statement of Intent. b) Approves the 2025 – 2027 Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust Service Level Agreement. Motion carried (CNL/2025/328)

18 2026 New Zealand Masters Games Operational and Financial Update

A report from Events and Finance provided an update on the operational and financial status of the biennial New Zealand Masters Games to be held in Dunedin (31 January – 8 February 2026).

Financially the 2026 New Zealand Masters Games was on track with 88.31% of budgeted revenue confirmed. Registrations, opened since 9 September 2025, were currently slightly behind those received at the same time for the 2024 Games.

The Manager, Enterprise Dunedin (Sian Sutton) and Masters Games Manager (Vicki Kestila) spoke to the report and responded to questions..

Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

a) Notes the New Zealand Masters Games operational and financial update.

b) Approves the 2026 New Zealand Masters Games proceeding.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/329)

19 Dunedin City Council submission on the Otago Regional Council Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy 2025
	A report from Corporate Policy sought consideration and approval of a draft submission to the Otago Regional Council (ORC) on the ORC Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy 2025. The consultation seeks feedback on the need for and design of the Strategy, which included: · a long-term vision for the region and shorter-term outcomes to aim for between now and 2040 · ORC’s approach to supporting and strengthening the collective effort of mana whenua, communities, landowners, businesses, central government, and local councils · How the ORC delivers on its responsibilities and meets community expectations to care for Otago’s native biodiversity.
	The General Manager, City Services (Scott MacLean) and Policy Analyst (Dr Berkley Kochak) spoke to the report and responded to questions. Councillors briefly discussed the Government’s proposal to restructure regional councils and agreed to send a letter of support to the Otago Regional Council regarding the proposal.
	Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Cr Mickey Treadwell): That the Council: a) Approves the draft Dunedin City Council submission, with minor editorial amendments, on the Otago Regional Council’s Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy 2025. b) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial amendments to the submission . c) Notes that the Mayor or delegate will speak to the submission at any hearings. Motion carried (CNL/2025/330)

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Steve Walker):

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

C6 DCC Professional Theatre Fund Grants Applications

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.

S48(1)(a)

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

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

Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/331)

The meeting moved into confidential and adjourned at 4.21 pm and Cr Lee Vandervis left the meeting.

The meeting resumed in public at 4.46 pm.

20 DCC Theatre Fund Grants
	A report from Ara Toi summarised grant applications and included applicant data and funding recommendations to the Dunedin City Council (DCC) Professional Theatre Fund for the September 2025 round.
	The Manahautū - General Manager, Community and Strategy (Nicola Morand) and Kaiārahi – Team Leader Creative Partnerships (Lisa Wilkie) spoke to the applications.
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Mayor Sophie Barker): That the Council: a) Declines DCC Professional Theatre Funding to HicSunt Dracones Productions (under auspice of Stage South Charitable Trust); and b) Declines DCC Professional Theatre funding to Stage South Charitable Trust. Motion carried (CNL/2025/332)
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Mayor Sophie Barker): That the Council: a) Approves DCC Professional Theatre funding of: i) $8,474.00 to Afterburner (under auspice of WOW! Productions) ii) $15,000.00 to Birds of a Feather (under the auspice of He Waka Eke Noa Charitable Trust) iii) $14,000.00 to Carol Brown Dances and Collaborations iv) $16,000.00 to Curiouser & Curiouser (under auspice of Stage South Charitable Trust) v) $14,000 to Dunedin Summer Shakespeare (under auspice of Castle Charitable Trust) vi) $9,826.00 to Glorious Ruins (under the auspice of Stage South Charitable Trust) vii) $6,000.00 to Improsaurus Incorporated viii) $14,900.00 to Stage South Charitable Trust Motion carried (CNL/2025/333)

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

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

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Confidential Council Action List Update	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.
C2 Confidential Council Forward Work Programme	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.
C3 Investment Property Portfolio - Quarter ending 30 September 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.	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 Ōtepoti Performing Arts Advisory Panel Membership	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.	This report and its attachments include details of individuals that may be discussed by Council members. Confidentiality is required to protect the privacy of applicants for positions on the Performing Arts Advisory Panel..
C5 Appointment to Otago Museum Trust Board	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/334)

The meeting moved into confidential at 4.20 pm and resumed in public at 5.43 pm.

20 a) DCC Professional Theatre Fund Grants CONTINUED

It was noted that the application from Dunedin Summer Shakespeare (under the auspice of Castle Charitable Trust)) had been inadvertently missed off the resolutions of the DCC Professional Theatre Funding Grants considered earlier in the meeting.

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

a) Pursuant to Standing Orders 23.5, alters Resolution (CNL/2025/333) as follows:

Approves DCC Professional Theatre Funding of:

i) $8,474.00 to Afterburner (under auspice of WOW! Productions);

ii) $15,000 to Birds of a Feather (under auspice of He Waka Eke Noa Charitable Trust)

iii) $14,000.00 to Carol Brown Dances and Collaborations

iv) $16,000.00 to Curiouser & Curiouser (under auspice of Stage South Charitable Trust)

v) $14,000.00 to Dunedin Summer Shakespeare (under auspice of Castle Charitable Trust)

vi) $9,826.00 to Glorious Ruins (under auspice of Stage South Charitable Trust)

vii) $6,000.00 to Improsaurus Incorporated

viii) $14,900.00 to Stage South Charitable Trust.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/335)

The meeting moved into confidential at 4.56 pm

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

MAYOR

Council

11 December 2025

Reports

NZTA State Highway response to the New Dunedin Hospital

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) consulted on its State Highway 88 project and proposed changes on State Highway 1 near the New Dunedin Hospital in July 2025.

2 The main changes proposed are:

· A new Barnes Dance crossing at the corner of St Andrew Street and Cumberland Street

· Removal of westbound right turn from St Andrew Street to Cumberland Street

· Two new signalised pedestrian crossings on State Highway 1 near Woolworths and Centre City New World

· Street changes to support movement for all modes, including emergency vehicles

· Left-in/left-out turns at St Andrew/Leith and Frederick/Leith streets

· Shifting of the State Highway from St Andrew Street to Frederick Street.

3 The purpose of this paper is to present Council with the key themes from the State Highway 88 consultation in order to progress to the next phase of the project.

4 The proposed changes provide investment into Dunedin to improve safety and accessibility in the central city for all users.

5 While Council involvement supports a more coordinated outcome, NZTA may still progress the project independently as it relates to a State Highway under their management.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers if it wishes to support the NZTA proposal to move to the next stage of the project which includes the revocation process to move State Highway 88 from St Andrew Street and parts of Anzac Avenue to Frederick Street.

BACKGROUND

6 In response to the announcement of the New Dunedin Hospital location, the Dunedin City Council (DCC), the Otago Regional Council, and NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) formed the Connecting Dunedin Partnership and developed a joint programme of work. This included proposed changes to State Highway 1 (SH1) and State Highway 88 (SH88).

7 The National Land Transport Programme 2024-2027 indicatively allocated $20m for SH1 changes (including wider changes to SH1 between Andersons Bay and Pine Hill) and $12.4m for SH88. These improvements would be 100% funded by NZTA.

8 The NZTA SH88 project is intended to support access, safety, and travel options around the New Dunedin Hospital. The project includes moving SH88 from St Andrew Street and parts of Anzac Avenue to Frederick Street.

9 Proposed changes are:

· A new Barnes Dance crossing at the SH88 St Andrew Street/SH1 Cumberland Street intersection to help people access and move between the two hospital buildings. Included at this intersection is the removal of the westbound right turn from SH88 St Andrew Street onto SH1 Cumberland Street to create space and time for the predicted increased numbers of pedestrians, including people with disabilities, to cross the road.

· Two new signalised pedestrian crossings on SH1 outside the Woolworths and Centre City New World supermarkets (mid-block crossings).

· Changes to St Andrew Street and other nearby streets to help people drive, walk and cycle, and to allow emergency vehicles to move safely and easily around the hospital and surrounding area.

· Left in, and left out, only turns to increase safety at the St Andrew/Leith Street and Frederick/Leith Street intersections.

· The movement of SH88 from St Andrew Street to Frederick Street through a formal revocation process. It is anticipated approximately 14 parks would be lost on Frederick Street as a result of the change in status of this road.

10 Current traffic volumes on Great King Street, in front of the existing hospital entrance, are approximately 4,000 vehicles per day. Cumberland Street, near the New Dunedin Hospital site, sees around 18,000 vehicles per day.

11 On 30 April 2025, NZTA briefed the Council on its proposed changes and advised that it was in the process of preparing for public consultation.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

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

Motion carried (CNL/2025/001) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against

DISCUSSION

12 Daily pedestrian movements at the Cumberland Street/St Andrews Street intersection are projected to grow from 1,000 currently to between 10,000 and 12,000 in the future.

13 Presently St Andrew Street accommodates about 7,000 vehicles per day (between the SH1 one-way pair). This is expected to decrease to approximately 5,000 vehicles daily following the proposed intersection modifications.

14 NZTA’s consultation on the proposed changes closed on 28 July 2025.

15 A total of 193 submissions were received, including 12 from large organisations and 181 from individuals.

16 A draft summary of feedback can be found in Appendix A.

17 NZTA will consider the feedback and liaise with the DCC and other key stakeholders on what changes will be made to the original proposal.

18 NZTA is preparing to submit a business case and seek funding for the proposed changes. As part of this process, it is engaging with Council to ensure alignment and shared understanding of the project’s objectives. While Council support helps enable a more coordinated outcome, NZTA may still consider progressing the project if that support is not provided.

19 Following funding approval for proposed changes, NZTA will initiate a state highway revocation process to transfer ownership of St Andrew Street and parts of Anzac Avenue to the DCC as well as transferring ownership of Frederick Street to NZTA.

OPTIONS

Option One

20 The Council supports NZTA’s SH88 project including the revocation process and proposed changes for St Andrew Street enabling NZTA to move forward with the business case process and into detailed design.

Advantages

· Investment in the Central City and the New Dunedin Hospital area at no cost to the DCC.

· Improved safety and accessibility for the New Dunedin Hospital and Central City for all modes.

Disadvantages

· Driving routes through the Central City will change for some people and commercial operators, which can be seen as inconvenient.

Option Two – Status Quo

21 The Council does not support NZTA’s SH88 project including the revocation process and proposed changes for St Andrew Street.

Advantages

· People don’t need to change their driving route when accessing the Central City.

Disadvantages

· There would be safety and accessibility issues for people travelling to the New Dunedin Hospital and between the inpatient and outpatient buildings.

· NZTA may not proceed with the project. The city may miss out on investment in the Central City and the New Dunedin Hospital area.

NEXT STEPS

22 If the DCC supports NZTA’s SH88 project including the revocation process and proposed changes to St Andrew Street, NZTA will:

a) Complete the business case and apply for funding (early 2026)

b) Initiate the state highway revocation process once funding has been approved (mid 2026)

c) Start detailed design (mid 2026)

d) Undertake construction (estimated 2027 to 2030).

Signatories

Author:

Simone Handwerk - Transport Planning Team Leader

Helen Chapman - Senior Transport Planner

Authoriser:

Simon Spiers - Acting Transport Strategy Manager

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	SH88 Dunedin improvements engagement summary	41
⇩b	SH88 Dunedin improvements feedback from key organisations	43

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

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

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

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	☐	☐	☐

Investment in SH88 and SH1 contributes to the Social Wellbeing Strategy, the Economic Development Strategy, Future Development Strategy, Integrated Transport Strategy

Māori Impact Statement

Sustainability

Potential long-term implications for sustainability are that people will have more transport choice and are able safely walk, cycle, drive and take the bus to/from the New Dunedin Hospital and the Central City

Zero carbon

City-wide emissions are likely to stay the same or decrease slightly.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no financial implications for DCC

Financial considerations

There is no cost to DCC

Significance

The overall significance is medium.

Engagement – external

This project is led by NZTA, they have engaged with the DCC and other partners and key stakeholders throughout the project.

Engagement - internal

NZTA has engaged with the DCC at staff and governance level.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

If the Council does not support proposed changes to SH88 and on SH1 near the New Dunedin Hospital, NZTA may put the project on hold and not invest in safety and accessibility improvements near the New Dunedin Hospital and Central City.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

11 December 2025

DCC Rates Relief Grants

Department: Civic and Community Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report summarises grant applications, including applicant data and funding recommendations, to the Dunedin City Council (DCC) Rates Relief grant fund for the 2025/26 round.

2 The Council is responsible for allocating grant funding in line with the DCC’s Committee Structure and Delegations Policy and the DCC’s grants budget. This report includes applicant data for the 2025/26 Rates Relief grants round in Attachments C and D.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Decides the grants to be allocated from the DCC’s Rates Relief grant fund.

BACKGROUND

3 In 2023, a request was made by Council to undertake a review of grants, to support the preparation of what was then the 10-year plan 2024-34. Work on the review is ongoing and most contestable grant pools have been rolled over in the interim.

4 ‘Rates Relief’ is a contestable grant that is included in the Grants Review. At its meeting on 26 May 2025, Council reviewed and amended Rates Relief grant eligibility and assessment criteria. Grant approval responsibility also shifted from staff to the Council.

5 With the amendment to the grant criteria, it was expected that some organisations that have been recipients of Rates Relief grants in the past, will no longer be eligible. Based on this assumption, the Rates Relief fund was reduced from $711k to $542k in May 2025. The updated criteria for the Rates Relief grants as approved by Council are at Attachment A.

6 Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (Attachment B) identifies certain types of land that is either fully non-rateable, or is 50% non-rateable. Some of the applicants to the current Rates Relief funding round are 50% non-rateable under the Act.

7 Rates Relief grants are designed to support non-government and not-for-profit groups that make their property available to help improve the community’s wellbeing. This includes social, educational, recreational, cultural, and environmental activities. Application information and grant recommendations can be seen in Attachments B and C.

8 The DCC is one of the few local authorities that offer Rates Relief grants to community groups and organisations. Other Councils offer rates rebates, or have rates relief for specific organisations such as sports or art groups.

9 Where an organisation receives other funding from the DCC, it does not preclude their ability to apply for Rates Relief.

DISCUSSION

Application Process

10 Rates Relief grant applications opened on 1 October 2025 and closed on 31 October 2025.

11 Since May 2025, staff shared communications with past recipients of the Rates Relief grant to inform them of changes to the criteria and application process. Media releases were also issued to the public, promoting the grant and highlighting key dates.

12 Staff noted that a few past recipients did not apply in this round. Reasons included some groups no longer being eligible under the updated criteria, or being unaware of the changes due to personnel changes within their organisations, resulting in missed deadlines. Staff also observed that new groups applied for the first time, which was a positive outcome as it demonstrated the grant’s reach to a wider range of groups.

13 Approximately 10 organisations requested to submit late applications. Staff maintained consistency by adhering to the advertised closing date, ensuring fairness and consistency in the grant assessment process.

14 In total, 108 applications were received during this round. Of these, three were deemed ineligible, resulting in 105 eligible applicants.

15 Each eligible applicant was thoroughly assessed by staff. This process included verifying their non‑profit status, reviewing their purpose against the DCC’s Rates Relief grant criteria and Grants Management Policy, examining financial accounts to ensure they were a ‘going concern’, and checking that their DCC rates account was not in arrears.

16 For sport and art applicants (building owners), staff also checked whether their rating account was subject to a discount under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 before applying a recommended grant amount for Council’s consideration. Applicants to whom this applies are identified in Attachment B.

Applicants’ data

17 All applications received to the DCC’s Rates Relief Grant are accessible to Councillors via the Fund Consult portal. In the portal are each applicant’s application form, their financial accounts and any other relevant documents they submitted to support their application.

18 To assist Councillors in their grant decisions, staff also conduct analysis of applicants which is summarised below.

19 All of the eligible applicants were categorised into three categories: building owners (N=78), tenants (N=24) and DCC renters (N=3).

20 In the ‘building owners’ category, the largest cohort that applied for rates relief grants were from sports groups, followed by social service and health organisations.

Figure 1: Number of grant applications from Building Owners.

21 In the ‘tenants’ category, the largest cohort was from social service groups followed by health organisations. One application was classified as ‘enterprise’ as it is an “Op-shop” whose primary purpose is to generate revenue to support the organisation’s charitable activities.

Figure 2: Number of grant applications from Tenants

22 In total, there were three applications in the ‘DCC renters’ category, one each from sports, arts and social service sectors.

23 In total, the 105 eligible applicants account for $1,381,597.32 in rates.

24 Among building owners, the range of rate accounts showed the lowest at $591 and the highest at just over $90,000.

25 The rate accounts from tenants were confirmed by staff through letters issued by their landlords, which specified the portion of rates the tenant is obligated to pay under their lease agreements. The range of tenant rate accounts was between $1,783.00 and $29,817.19.

26 The rate accounts from DCC renters were identified directly by the relevant DCC staff member responsible for overseeing the rental of DCC buildings.

Assessment Process to Identify Recommended Grant Amounts

27 To assist Council in its decision, staff assessed each application against the updated Rates Relief grant criteria and categorised the results into four broad outcomes, as shown below.

Outcome after assessment	Interpretation	% applied to rate account to identify grant amount
Decline	Did not meet the Rates Relief Grant Criteria in demonstrating their facility supports the wider community or priority groups	0%
Approve - Low	Meets the Rates Relief Grant Criteria in demonstrating they support the community or priority groups but in a limited way. Their focus is primarily on servicing their own members.	1-25%
Approve - Medium	Meets the Rates Relief Grant Criteria in demonstrating they support the community and/or priority groups.	26-50%
Approve - High	Meets the Rates Relief Grant Criteria in demonstrating they support the community and/or priority groups demonstrating high community benefit.	51-75%

28 After the assessment was completed, the results were checked and moderated by senior staff before being submitted to Council for consideration, as summarised in Attachments B and C. As with all DCC grants, the overall budget remained the primary constraint in determining the final outcomes.

29 A summary of the recommended grants across the different categories is presented in Figures 3 and 4 below. Staff continued to distinguish between building owners and tenants/renters, as their contexts differ. In particular, some building owners also receive a 50% non‑rateable discount on their land (as explained in point 15).

Figure 3: Summary of grant recommendations to Council for Building Owners

Figure 4: Summary of grant recommendations to Council for Tenants and DCC Renters

30 A summary of the recommended grant amounts for Building Owners, from highest to lowest, is provided in Attachment B. In total, three applicants have been recommended for decline to Council as their applications did not demonstrate a wider community contribution. Of these, two applicants hold a 50% non‑rated status in accordance with the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

31 A summary of the recommended grant amounts for Tenants and DCC Renters, from highest to lowest, is provided in Attachment C. All applicants have been recommended for approval at the High level, with only two applicants recommended for approval at the Medium level.

32 In summary, the total amount recommended to be granted from the Rates Relief budget for 2025/2026 is summarised below:

Total recommended grants – Building Owners	$ 370,677.19
Total recommended grants – Tenants and DCC Renters	$ 171,727.25
DCC Budget for Rates Relief for 2025/2026	$ 542,481.00
Unallocated	$ 76.56

33 Staff recommend that that unallocated amount is allocated to an applicant of the Council’s choice that demonstrates a high community benefit.

34 For noting – one tenant has indicated they may be changing premises and, if successful, requested that payment be made in two instalments over the year. This approach assists DCC staff in managing public funds prudently. The applicant was thanked for being upfront and understands that the DCC may seek reimbursement depending on whether, and when, they move.

OPTIONS

Option One – Decide Funding Allocations (Recommended Option)

35 This option proposes that the Council decides the grants to be allocated from the Rates Relief fund, either as recommended by staff, or with amendment.

Advantages

· Supports the Council’s social, economic, arts and environmental strategies.

· Supports organisations that benefit the community, ensuring that services and activities remain available and accessible.

· Gives certainty to applicants, allowing them to effectively budget and allocate resources.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages.

Option Two – Status Quo

36 Under this option, the Council would not decide grants to be allocated from the Rates Relief fund.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages.

Disadvantages

· Reduced support for organisations that align with the Council’s wellbeing strategies, and which benefit the community.

· Lack of certainty for applicants, many of whom are reliant on funding to meet operational costs.

NEXT STEPS

37 Staff will advise applicants of the Council’s decisions and will administer the payment of grants.

38 The next Rates Relief funding round will be in 2026, with applications dates yet to be determined.

Signatories

Author:

Janet Fraser - Corporate Planner

Gina Hu'akau - Community Partnerships Manager

Authoriser:

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Rates Relief grant eligibility and assessment criteria	53
⇩b	Schedule 1 - Local Government (Rating) Act 2002	54
⇩c	Recommended grants for building owners	59
⇩d	Recommended Grants for Tenants and DCC Renters	63

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural 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	✔	☐	☐

Grants funding contributes to many of the objectives and priorities of the DCC’s strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

The distribution of DCC grants has been used to support and give effect to the Council’s commitment to Māori and to its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The adoption of Te Taki Haruru outlines the DCC’s commitment to mana whenua.

Sustainability

DCC grants have been used to support and give effect to the Council’s commitment to sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Rates Relief grants are provided for in the broader grants budget in the 9 year plan 2025-34.

Financial considerations

There is existing budget of $542k for Rates Relief grants.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been a community consultation period for the 9 year plan, which included consultation on the Grants Review.

Engagement - internal

Relevant staff have been consulted in the development of this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There may be legal and reputational risk if changes to grants are not delivered or managed well. The Grants Review Work Programme will actively manage these risks by ensuring appropriate consultation is undertaken, and that any recommendations for change align with Council’s strategic outcomes.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest among decision makers. One staff member indicated a conflict of interest with one applicant and withdrew themselves from the assessment and recommendation.

Community Boards

There are no identified implications for Community Boards.

Council

11 December 2025

Waste Minimisation Innovation and Development (Commercial) Grants Applications

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report summarises applications received during September 2025 for the Waste Minimisation Innovation and Development (Commercial) Grants funding round.

2 The purpose of this report is to assist the Councillors in considering applications and allocating funding by providing a summary of the funding criteria, applications received, amount of funding requested and the amount available.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Subcommittee:

a) Decides the grants funding to be allocated to applicants from the Waste Minimisation Innovation and Development (Commercial) Grants fund.

BACKGROUND

3 Waste Minimisation Innovation and Development (Commercial) Grants are available once a year to support commercial waste minimisation projects that build local capability and capacity in the reuse or resource recovery sector. They are intended to support innovations, achieve local economic benefit and employment opportunities, and enable design solutions that retain the value of materials and/or minimises waste.

Eligibility

a) Registered New Zealand businesses

b) For projects that take place within the DCC administrative boundary.

c) Meets some or all WMMP objectives

d) Applicants provide a 30% contribution to the total project cost which can be in-kind.

4 Activities which can’t be applied for:

a) Subsidising the cost of waste to landfill;

b) Individuals working on private projects;

c) Debt servicing;

d) Activities which take place outside of Dunedin;

e) Activities which duplicate other pilot projects;

f) Research and development support of gaining a qualification, and;

g) Travel (including transportation), food (unless otherwise specified) and/or accommodation.

5 Waste minimisation grants are also available to fund consenting costs e.g., permitted composting processing, to enable regulated waste minimisation activities.

Accountability Reports

6 Over the six-month period, from May 2025 to the end of October 2025, staff have received 13 accountability reports from all previous waste minimisation funding recipients. Of the recipients to date, there are 21 accountability reports that are not yet due, having been awarded within the last 12 months.

7 Any overdue accountability reports are being actively pursued by Council staff.

DISCUSSION

Waste Minimisation Innovation and Development (Commercial) Grants

Summary of Applications

8 A summary of applications for the Waste Minimisation Innovation and Development (Commercial) Grants which closed at 5pm, Sunday 28 September 2025 is attached (Attachment A).

9 For this round of funding, $70,000.00 is available for the Waste Minimisation Commercial Grants.

10 Both before and during the September grants application period, email notifications were provided by Council staff to raise awareness of the grants available and the application criteria. Advertising in community newsletters, public notices, local newspapers, and social media was undertaken. Potential applicants were encouraged to communicate with staff before applying so that additional advice and information could be provided.

11 Applicants who had submitted project start dates before the receipt of funding have been contacted to confirm revised project start dates (1 December 2025 or later). This is to avoid the funding of projects retrospectively. Subsequent communication from staff to applicants has advised that their applications will be considered by Council on 11 December 2025.

12 The Waste Minimisation Commercial Grant had two applicants consult at length with staff and another two whose ideas or situations were not suitable for an application and therefore did not submit. Five further applications were received from businesses who had not contacted staff prior to submitting. In some cases, this resulted in applications which were not eligible, or required staff to seek considerably more information during the assessment period.

13 The application close off was extended from 5pm, Friday 26 September 2025 to 5pm, Sunday 28 September 2025. The extension was necessary due to access disruption caused by an unexpected shutdown of the application portal during the web platform migration project.

14 Applications that were submitted after the close off date have not been assessed as per the Grants Management Policy 2019.

15 Seven applications for the Waste Minimisation Commercial Grants fund have been received. The total funding requested from the seven applicants was $175,046.83.

Grant Fund Name

Number of Applications Received

Number Withdrawn

Total Requested

Total Available (September 2025 round)

Waste Minimisation Commercial

$175,046.83

$70,000.00

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 (WMMP)

16 On 30 April 2025, Council adopted the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 (the Plan) following public consultation:

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.

17 The Plan includes objectives informed by recurring themes set to achieve the Plan’s vision, plus the waste minimisation grants framework.

Waste Minimisation Grants Framework

Te Aka Pūtea Tautoko o te Whakamōkito Para

18 Under the Waste Minimisation Act, Territorial Authorities can provide grants using waste levy funding, to encourage and enable waste minimisation in accordance with their WMMP. If the Territorial Authority wishes to provide grants, the WMMP must provide the framework for doing so (WMA s43 (2d)).

19 These following paragraphs outline the structure and guidelines for distributing contestable and non-contestable grants to organisations and projects. It ensures transparency, fairness, and effective allocation of grants.

20 These grants are to enable waste minimisation action by external organisations, in accordance with the guiding principles, vision, goals, objectives, and actions in the WMMP.

21 Decisions on the award of grants will be based on the following priorities:

a) Top of the waste hierarchy - enable residents or businesses to avoid waste, reuse, or repair items. (Source; The Waste Hierarchy. Ref. Ministry for the Environment).

b) Waste streams - alignment with the material diversion targets in the Plan and the Zero Carbon Plan 2030 (organics – food, garden, timber, paper, and textiles).

c) Delivery - the applicant’s ability to deliver their project, expand local capability, and achieve strong waste minimisation outcomes.

d) Expand opportunities for diversion – increase the variety of sustainable waste minimisation solutions available and develop new capabilities in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

e) Scale - The quantity and volume of material that will be minimised from reaching landfill by an applicant’s project.

22 The DCC’s Grants Management Policy also applies to the management of waste minimisation grants.

23 Other considerations could include collaborative and joint applications (i.e., between businesses or between community organisations), whether the organisation is local, creates equity for Māori, Pacifica, and new migrant communities, and whether the project contributes towards social, economic, environmental, and cultural outcomes. Also, health and safety planning will be required where appropriate, such as for public events.

24 OPTIONS There are no options as the Council has the necessary delegations as per the recommendations of this report.

NEXT STEPS

25 Staff will communicate Council’s decisions to all applicants in writing within two weeks of the Council meeting. Where grants have been approved, payments will be arranged for the applicants.

26 The next Commercial funding round will be in September 2026.

Signatories

Author:

Catherine Gledhill - Waste Minimisation Supervisor

Authoriser:

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Scott MacLean - General Manager, City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Waste Minimisation Innovation and Development (Commercial) Grants Overview Spreadsheet	71

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social well-being, economic well-being, environmental well-being and 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	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☐	☐	☒
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

This report supports the Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025

Māori Impact Statement

Staff are working to develop relationships with the Māori community and ensure DCC grants are accessible and supportive of the needs of the Māori community.

Sustainability

Waste Minimisation Grants provide community with a funding opportunity for new waste minimisation projects and initiatives.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Budget is set aside from the Waste Levy for waste minimisation grants in accordance with the Dunedin City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025. This money is received from the Ministry for the Environment and has been approved to use for grants funding in accordance with section 47 of the Waste Minimisation Act.

Financial considerations

Grants will be expended from the Waste Minimisation Funds within approved budgets.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

A variety of newsletters, social media, Otago Access Radio, as well as advertising in local media were used to promote these grants.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement was carried out with other grant funding departments to check applicants were not doubling up on applications. Departments relevant to the organisations applying for funding were also engaged to check on the best fits in funding criteria for applicants.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

By funding consenting costs for applicants, the risk of funding non-compliant activity can be managed.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interests have been identified.

Community Boards

Funded waste minimisation projects may be developed in community board areas.

Council

11 December 2025

Grants Allocated $5K and under

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides details of the grants that have been awarded under the Chief Executive’s delegation in the November 2025 round. This is in accordance with the Council resolution from the 27 November 2025 Council meeting.

Background

2 On 27 November 2025 a report to Council sought approval for an amendment to the Chief Executive Officer’s delegations to enable staff assessment and approval of applications for grants of up to $5,000 (excluding Rates Relief grants) that were funded and administered by the Dunedin City Council.

3 The report noted that to satisfy Council’s granting procedures, and to enable applicants to meet project and event deadlines, it was necessary to make decisions on grant categories before the end of 2025.

Moved (Cr Marie Laufiso/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Amends the Chief Executive Officer’s delegations to enable approval of Dunedin City Council–funded and administered grant applications (excluding Rates Relief) valued at $5,000 or less, as follows:

1) The Chief Executive is delegated the power to approve or decline applications for grants that are funded and administered by the Council, provided that:

i) The grant was within an approved budget; and

ii) The maximum possible grant value awarded to an applicant does not exceed $5,000; and

iii) The power to approve or decline the grant has not been reserved to the Council under this Manual or by resolution.

2) The Chief Executive may sub-delegate this authority to any other officer of the Council, subject to:

i) The sub-delegation being in writing and suitably recorded; and

ii) The grant being signed off by the relevant General Manager.

3) This delegation would expire on 31 December 2025

b) Notes that staff will provide a report to the 11 December 2025 Council meeting on the allocation of the grants funding.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Benedict Ong, Jules Radich, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (12).

Against: Crs Russell Lund, Andrew Simms and Lee Vandervis (3).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 12 votes to 3

Motion carried (CNL/2025/323)

4 The Chief Executive under delegation has approved the grants as outlined in the attached memoranda for each category assessed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the grants that have been allocated under delegation for the November 2025 round.

Signatories

Author:	Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy)
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - Chief Executive

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Community Grants	77
⇩b	DCC Arts, Small Arts Project and CNZ Creative Communities Scheme Grants	85
⇩c	Dunedin Biodiversity Fund Grants	90
⇩d	Community Events	104

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

This decision promotes the social, economic, environment 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 grant decisions directly support community groups to deliver on projects, services and activities that support local residents’ wellbeing and contributes to many of the DCC’s strategies and plans.

Māori Impact Statement

Te Taki Haruru, the DCC’s Māori Strategic Framework outlines the aspirations for Māori living in Ōtepoti Dunedin. Many of the grant applications contribute to these aspirations by way of the services and activities that they deliver on.

Sustainability

There are no negative implications for sustainability, with some grant applications positively contributing to sustainable goals for their local community.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Grants are part of the DCCs levels of service and are included in the DCCs long term and annual plans

Financial considerations

There are no financial considerations as grants are allocated according to the DCC’s grants budget approved by Council.

Significance

The significance of the decisions related to grants has been assessed as ‘low’.

Engagement – external

No internal or external engagement has taken place related to grants. Internal checks by staff from relevant DCC teams has occurred to ensure that applicants have not applied to more that one grant fund.

Engagement - internal

Where appropriate, teams consulted with each other to better understand grant applications, for example, with the Events, Ara Toi and Waste Minimisation teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The risks related to grants is considered low as applicants must provide financial and group information to be eligible to apply.

Conflict of Interest

No Conflicts of Interest have been noted by staff in accordance to the DCC’s Conflict of Interest policy. The Council manages its Conflicts of Interest in accordance to the DCC’s Conflict of Interest policy.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards. There are some applicants who are located within the Community Boards areas.

Council

11 December 2025

Grants Review Update

Department: Community Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides Council with an update of the Grants Review (the review) work commenced in the previous triennium, including community stakeholder feedback gathered through hui, a survey, and a facilitated meeting in October 2025.

2 The report seeks Council’s direction on progressing the next phase of the review, including further development of options relating to:

· determining the annual quantum of funding available for grants

· identifying and confirming the grant pools

· agreeing the governance and decision-making structure for allocating grants

· approval to progress procurement of a new grants management system, or alternatively, to defer this until decisions on the organisation-wide financial system are made.

3 Subject to Council’s direction, staff will return with a detailed options paper to Council in January, and will update the Grants Management Policy to operationalise any agreed approach.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the contents of the Grants Review Update paper

b) Determines how it wishes to proceed, including whether to:

i) Direct staff to continue the Grants Review and prepare options for Council’s consideration on:

· the preferred approach to determining the annual quantum of grants funding

· the grant pools to be offered

· the governance and decision-making structure for allocating grants

· whether procurement of a new grants management system should proceed now or be aligned with future financial systems or;

ii) Direct staff to discontinue the Grants Review and the review of the Grants Management Policy.

BACKGROUND

4 In 2023, a request was made by Council to undertake a review of Dunedin City Council (DCC) grants, to support the preparation of the 10-year plan 2024-34. A Grants Workstream was established to undertake the review as part of the long-term planning process.

5 In September 2023, a report was presented to Council that provided an overview of the DCC grant categories, budgets, and expenditure. The report identified the need for more work to be undertaken, to look at and understand grants from an across-Council perspective. It also noted that the DCC’s Grants Management Policy (Attachment B) was due for review in 2024.

6 At its meeting on 27 February 2024, Council decided to proceed with an Annual Plan 2024/25, followed by a 9-year plan 2025-34.

7 A report was presented to the 12 March 2024 Council meeting, providing an update of the work completed by the Grants Workstream as part of the 9-year planning process. The report noted that the next steps included the need to define the grant review process to complete the review.

8 A draft Terms of Reference (ToR) was developed that sets out the purpose of the review and the work that needed to be undertaken to complete the review. This was led by Councillors with DCC staff support.

On 31 July 2024, a report from the Civic Affairs Committee sought approval of a draft ToR for the continuation of the grants review that commenced in 2023 (Attachment A).

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Bill Acklin):

That the Council:

a) Approves the draft Terms of Reference for the Grants Review.

b) Notes that updates on the review would be as required and to either the Community Services Committee or Council.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/001)

DISCUSSION

9 Since August 2024 a number of combined hui have been held with staff and elected members, as well as hui involving elected members only.

Topics discussed at combined hui, as noted by staff, have included:

a) the need to clarify what constitutes a grant and why some are delivered through Service Level Agreements (SLAs), Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), rates relief, or the Annual Plan process

b) understanding the purpose of some contestable grants

c) broad support for a more efficient and fit-for-purpose grants system, including the need for an online platform

d) the need to standardise and streamline the DCC’s approach to rates relief

e) recognition that some SLAs have developed inconsistently across the organisation and require alignment.

10 In addition, elected members held their own hui to progress the review.

Survey Findings

11 In June 2025, the Chair of the Grants Subcommittee proposed a facilitated meeting and preliminary survey to inform the next stage of the review.

12 The survey invited Councillors and external appointees to the Grants Subcommittee to identify issues, alignment with strategy, transparency, accessibility, and values underpinning the grants system.

13 Main themes from the survey responses were:

· The need for a clear vision and purpose for the DCC’s grants funding, and the definition of what a grant is

· the need for grants funding to operate under a high trust model — encouraging collaboration and partnership between the DCC and the communities and organisations it funds

· assurance that the grants are equitable, and that different groups in the community are aware that DCC grants funding is available

· commissioning voluntary and community organisations for services, rather than through a contestable application process

· implementing multi-year funding arrangements for organisations that regularly receive funding

· simplifying application and administration processes. For example, delegating decision-making about small grants to DCC staff to reduce the amount of time and resourcing involved in the granting process

· increased transparency around DCC grants, for example the assessments and discussions undertaken as part of the decision-making process are publicly available

· the need for grants funding to reflect actual costs, such as rates increases and cost of living increases.

Facilitated Meeting (1 October 2025)

14 An externally facilitated meeting was held on 1 October 2025 with elected members and external representatives from the Grants Subcommittee. A summary of notes (anonymised) from the meeting is attached as Attachment C.

15 Discussion on the current state highlighted:

· inconsistent use of the term “grants”

· administrative burden on recipients and staff

· the role grants can play in strengthening equity across the city

· the need for increased funding to meet rising demand.

16 Participants identified key objectives: impact, equity, Treaty of Waitangi commitments, alignment with DCC strategies, and providing funding that enables long-term planning.

17 Community aspirations raised included a desire for better infrastructure, multi-year funding, collaboration, and investment in rangatahi and arts pathways.

18 Equity discussions recognised perceived power imbalances and tensions around ongoing funding for some groups versus access by emerging or smaller groups.

19 The group explored ways of measuring impact, including community-defined indicators and collaboration with other funders.

20 Participants described a future system (10-year timeframe) built on trust, collaboration, equity, sustainability, and accessibility.

21 The notion of “funding for success” was discussed, acknowledging the need to co-define what success means with communities.

22 Operational ideas included: more staff delegation for smaller grants, potential changes to the Grants Subcommittee structure, clearer criteria, larger grant amounts, and less formal meeting processes.

Current State

23 In October 2025, the DCC’s Grants Subcommittee was disestablished, with grants reverting to Council.

24 On 27 November 2025, Council agreed to an interim arrangement for pending grants applications to a maximum of $5000 each to be decided by DCC staff, until 31 December 2025.

Progressing the Grants Review and Review of the Grants Management Policy

25 Staff propose continuing the Grants Review to ensure the DCC processes are robust, equitable and fit-for-purpose.

26 Staff also propose reviewing the Grants Management Policy in tandem with the review to ensure alignment of operational practice and strategic intent.

OPTIONS

Option One – Continuation of the Grants Review and the review of the Dunedin City Council Grants Management Policy

Advantages

· Enables completion of work already underway

· Allows development of options on funding quantum, grant pools, governance structures, and system procurement

· Supports a consistent, transparent, and equitable grants approach

· Recognises the value and impact of DCC grants across the community.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages to this option.

Option Two – Discontinue the Grants Review and the review of the Dunedin City Council Grants Management Policy

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages to this option.

Disadvantages

· Loss of progress made to date.

· Missed opportunity to modernise systems and improve equity, transparency, and efficiency.

· Continued operational inconsistencies.

NEXT STEPS

27 Following direction from Council if Option One is approved, DCC staff will:

a) Prepare an options paper for the Council’s January meeting, seeking direction on funding quantum, grant pool structure, governance arrangements and procurement pathways.

b) Continue work on the Grants Review

c) Progress the review of the Grants Management Policy.

Signatories

Author:	Gina Hu'akau - Community Partnerships Manager
Authoriser:	Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Attachment A: DCC Grants Review Terms of Reference July 2024	119
⇩b	Attachment B: DCC Grants Management Policy	123
⇩c	Attachment C:Summary Notes -Grants Review Meeting 1 October 2025	132

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

Māori Impact Statement

Te Taki Haruru, the DCC’s Māori Strategic Framework, demonstrates Council’s commitment to mana whenua and to its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Mana whenua have been represented in the decision-making process of the Grants Subcommittee, and in the contestable granting process such as the Hapori Fund which is targeted at Māori and Pacific business initiatives.

Sustainability

Sustainability is factored into the decision-making process for DCC grants, for example in the consideration of applications for Waste Minimisation Community Grants.

Zero carbon

There is no impact on city-wide and DCC emissions.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Grants are included in the 9 Year Plan 2025-2034. They are approved in the following Level of Service: “The DCC provides grants to the community to support community wellbeing”.

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 ongoing engagement with external representatives across the community since the commencement of the Grants Review.

Engagement – internal

There has been ongoing internal engagement across DCC teams since the commencement of the Grants Review.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no identified conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are potential implications from this decision as grants funding activities occur in Community Board areas.

Council

11 December 2025

DCHL Letter of Expectation for the year ended 30 June 2027

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to consider a draft Letter of Expectation (the Letter) for the Dunedin City Holdings Limited (DCHL) Board. The draft Letter is at Attachment A.

2 The Letter provides Council's direction to DCHL, roles and responsibilities, and the future plans of the Shareholder. The Letter will assist DCHL and the wider group in developing their Statements of Intent (SOI) documents for 2026/27.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the draft Letter of Expectation to the Board of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd from the Council, as Shareholder.

b) Authorises the CEO to make any changes to the Letter of Expectation following Council’s feedback.

c) Authorises the Mayor to sign the Letter of Expectation on behalf of the Council as Shareholder.

BACKGROUND

3 The Council and DCHL are aware of the importance of the Letter of Expectation. The Letter is a governance and accountability tool that communicates what outcomes the Council, as Shareholder, wants from its Council-controlled Organisations (CCOs).

4 Council sends an annual Letter of Expectation to DCHL with the intention that this information will be discussed and implemented within the wider Council Group.

5 The expectations are, where appropriate, included in the Group’s draft Statements of Intent (SoI) which are due to Shareholders by 1 March 2026.

6 The most recent Letter of Expectation was issued to DCHL on 13 December 2024 and a copy is at Attachment B.

7 Content on a draft Letter was informally discussed at a Council workshop on 2 December 2025.

DISCUSSION

8 The attached draft Letter for the 2026/27 financial year details the expectations of Council under the following headings:

· Focus for the 2026/27 financial year

· Climate change

· General expectations of DCHL

· Dividends and interest

· Group Investment Plan

· Reports

· Working with DCC

· Next steps.

9 The draft Letter is seeking to have strategic alignment between DCC and DCHL, through enhanced communications and engagement.

10 The draft Letter acknowledges the commitment of DCHL to address climate change, and invites the group to continue working with the DCC in this area.

11 The letter requests a dividend from the DCHL Trading companies of $9.0 million for the 2026/27 financial year. This dividend, along with the $5.9 million interest payment, will make a total annual distribution of $14.9 million. It asks that the dividend be paid in three equal instalments throughout the year.

12 Additionally, the letter requests that any unspent balance of the $2 million per annum provided to Dunedin Railways Ltd, for renewals of the Taieri Gorge Line rail corridor, be returned to the DCC as a dividend.

13 The draft Letter notes the current period of significant reform for local government, including the possible introduction of rates caps, and requests that DCHL continue to look at ways of generating increased dividends to Council.

OPTIONS

14 This report is seeking feedback on the content of the Letter of Expectation prior to finalisation and issuing to DCHL.

NEXT STEPS

15 Once agreed, the Letter of Expectation will be signed by the Mayor on behalf of the Shareholder and sent to the Board of DCHL for action.

Signatories

Author:

Janet Fraser - Corporate Planner

Authoriser:

Carolyn Allan - Chief Financial Officer

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft DCHL Letter of Expectation for the year ended 30 June 2027	154
⇩b	DCHL Letter of Expectation for the year ended 2026	159

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making, and promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural 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	☐	☐	✔

The performance of the companies helps Council deliver across the strategic framework, but this report has no direct contribution.

Māori Impact Statement

There has been no engagement with Māori in the preparation of the draft Letter of Expectation.

Sustainability

Sustainability expectations of the DCHL Group are outlined in the draft Letter of Expectation, and specifically in relation to climate change and waste minimisation.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Dividend expectations are provided for in the Letter of Expectation.

Financial considerations

Dividend expectations are provided for in the Letter of Expectation.

Significance

This report is of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been informal engagement with the DCHL Board.

Engagement - internal

The final letter will incorporate feedback from Elected Members.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

11 December 2025

Lead in Soil Update

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report responds to the Council motion seeking clarification from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE).

2 The clarification concerns how Dunedin City Council (DCC) applies the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NES‑CS).

3 The focus is on lead contamination from legacy paint on residential sites.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the responses received from the MfE.

b) Notes, based on the MfE responses, expert technical, legal advice and data collected to date, DCC should continue its existing approach in line with the Regulations.

BACKGROUND

4 The NES-CS is a national regulation administered by territorial authorities to ensure land with potentially contaminated soil is identified and managed to protect human health. It applies to activities such as:

a) Subdivision applications

b) Land use changes

c) Soil disturbance activities.

5 To clarify how the NES-CS should be applied with respect to potential contamination from lead paint on residential sites, Stantec New Zealand Ltd (Stantec) was commissioned in 2023 to:

a) Review data on lead contamination from historic paint use.

b) Advise when contamination constitutes a HAIL (Hazardous Activities and Industries List) activity.

c) Recommend appropriate consenting requirements.

6 The report from Stantec (attachment A – Stantec NZ Residential lead Review November 2023) and other information about the regulation and lead is on the DCC web site. View here https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/resource-consents/hail-and-lead-from-paint.

7 Findings from the Stantec report include:

a) Prior to 1945, white lead paint contained up to 50% lead by weight.

b) Lead is a persistent pollutant and does not degrade in the environment.

c) Human health effects of chronic exposure of lead include neurological, cardiovascular, haematological, immunological, reproductive, and developmental effects ^{^[1]}. Children, particularly pre-schoolers, are at greater risk from lead exposure due to increased uptake via higher levels of hand-to-mouth activity and higher gastrointestinal absorption of ingested lead.

d) Testing of surface soils (0-0.1m depth) within 2m of buildings is recommended to determine HAIL category I status.

8 Following the Stantec report, a legal opinion from Anderson Lloyd was sought which supports DCC’s approach for implementing the NES-SC.

9 With the expert technical and legal advice, DCC is on notice as to possible contamination at sites with pre 1945 painted buildings.

Data collected to date

10 A total of 1,791 land use and subdivision resource consent applications have been received between 2024 and 30 November 2025. In many instances, an application for subdivision consent is accompanied by a corresponding application for land use consent.

11 The current record shows that soil samples have been undertaken at 61 sites or properties within the halo of existing or former buildings. The data primarily covers the period from early 2024 to November 2025, with a small number of samples recorded between July 2023 and early 2024. For completeness, sampling data from outside the halo has also been recorded.

12 Of the 61 sites we have not recorded whether sampling was requested by DCC or proactively provided by the owner.

13 Of the 61 sites, 68.9% (42 properties) had soil sampling results which exceeded the Ministry for the Environment defined acceptable residential limit of 210 mg/kg for lead in soil, with the highest recorded level of 7,000 mg/kg.

14 A level of 68.9% of properties exceeding acceptable limits, is above the 50% threshold. This outcome meets the definition in Regulation 5(7)(c) of the NES-CS, where land is considered ‘more likely than not’ to have been subject to a release of a hazardous substance in sufficient quantity to pose a risk to human health or the environment. On this basis, the requirement to continue requesting soil testing where it meets the criteria is supported to ensure compliance with the regulation and to appropriately manage potential risks.

Development Community Feedback

15 Concerns have been raised by members of the development community who feel that the DCC’s approach:

a) Is unique apart from one other council,

b) Imposes high costs on the development of new housing and the alterations to existing housing,

c) Is an overreaction to the risk posed by legacy lead paint in residential settings,

d) Is not supported by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE).

council notice of motion

16 On 26 August 2025, Councillor Whiley sought a notice of motion.

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Carmen Houlahan):

That the Council:

a) Notes the concerns regarding the Council’s current interpretation of the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NESCS) as it relates to lead in soil for residential development.

b) Requests staff to seek urgent formal guidance from the Ministry for the Environment on how the Council should interpret and apply the NESCS.

c) Request an urgent Council report on the application of the Ministry for the Environment guidance to residential development across Dunedin City.

Division

The Council voted by division,

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

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

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 4.

Motion carried (CNL/2025/263)

17 A letter was sent to the Ministry for the Environment on 3 September 2025 (attachment B), including the full notice of motion and requesting clarification on the interpretation of the NES-CS in relation to the use of lead paint on residential sites.

ministry for the environment

18 The MfE initially responded on the 9 October 2025 (attachment C) indicating ‘councils are responsible for implementing the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NESCS) in so far as it applies to land within their districts. This includes seeking any legal or other professional advice required to assist councils in their interpretation and application of the NESCS and any documents incorporated by reference’.

19 To better understand the DCC process, a subsequent Teams meeting with MfE was held on 31 October 2025. Following this meeting MfE indicated they would provide a further response which has now been received dated 1 December 2025 (attachment D).

20 The 1 December 2025 MfE response does not indicate:

a) This is an overreaction to the risk posed by legacy lead paint in residential settings and,

b) That MfE opposes DCC’s approach.

NEXT STEPS

OPTIONS

21 As this is an update for the Council there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

22 The Ministry has not provided new information that challenges DCC’s current process. The second response from MfE ended with the sentence “The Ministry is comfortable that DCC is not using HAIL category I as a means to make a bulk addition of pre-1945 buildings to the Otago Regional Council HAIL register.”

23 The data captured to date confirms it is considered ‘more likely than not’ that sites with pre-1945 painted wooden or roughcast houses could pose a risk to human health or the environment given the lead in soil results which exceed the Ministry for the Environment defined acceptable residential limits.

24 Given the MfE responses, expert technical and legal advice, data collected to date, the DCC’s current process aligns to the Regulations, and should therefore continue its existing approach.

25 Staff will engage with the development community to look at possible mitigation options.

Signatories

Author:	Alan Worthington - Resource Consents Manager
Authoriser:	Paul Henderson - General Manager Corporate and Regulatory Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Stantec NZ Residential lead Review November 2023	170
⇩b	Request to MfE 4 Sept 2025 re interpretation of the NES-CS	176
⇩c	MfE response 9 Oct 2025 - re Interpretation of the NES-CS	179
⇩d	MfE response 1 Dec 2025 - re Interpretation of the NES-CS	180

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	☐	☐	✔

The statutory process of implementing NES-CS contributes in a small part towards maintain the natural environment.

Māori Impact Statement

Assessment of the impact to Māori has not occurred, however Te Taki Haruru – the Māori Strategic Framework states that a key focus for mana whenua is that the environment is regenerated, and a sustainable future is secured. Thereby the contamination of land and appropriate management is of high importance to Māori.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications. The Council implementation of the NES-CS occurs as part of a resource consent application process.

Significance

The significance is low because the report is noting a response from the Ministry for the Environment to a specific motion of Council, which is associated with the undertaking the statutory processing applications for resource consent.

Engagement – external

No external engagement was required.

Engagement - internal

No internal engagement was required other than discussion about a Māori impact statement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Professional care is required when undertaking the statutory requirements of the implementing the Resource Management Act, National Environmental Standards, and the District Plan. Environmental and legal risks are present when undertaking the statutory resource consent processes and generally administering the District Plan and national regulations.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for community boards.

Council

11 December 2025

Sports Ground Management Plan Review

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Sports Ground Management Plan was adopted in 1999, it is now to be reviewed. This report seeks to commence the public consultation process required by s. 41(5) of the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act), to enable the review of the Sports Ground Management Plan.

2 The Sports Ground Management Plan (1999 Plan) sets objectives and policies for Dunedin sports ground facilities. Council owns and maintains 50 outdoors sports grounds. This includes 156 grass playing fields and 4 artificial surfaces.

3 It is a requirement under the Act to consult with the public when a reserve management plan is being created or reviewed.

4 The Statement of Proposal has been prepared, detailing the proposed review of the 1999 Plan and proposed public engagement. This Statement of Proposal and the Sports Ground Management Plan Feedback Form is at Attachment A. The Sports Ground Management Plan (1999) is at Attachment B.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the Statement of Proposal and Sports Ground Management Plan Feedback Form

b) Authorises the commencement of the public consultation process required by s. 41(5) of the Reserves Act 1977 as outlined in Option One below.

BACKGROUND

5 Sportsground development in Dunedin began as early as the mid-1800s as early British settlers brought their traditional outdoor games.

6 Initially, low lying swamp land was developed as playing fields, including North Ground (developed by The Caledonian Society), The Oval and Carisbrook.

7 As Dunedin grew beyond its central city in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, suburban areas like Mosgiel, Taieri, and South Dunedin began to establish their own recreational spaces.

8 The Sports Ground Management Plan was adopted in 1999 and is due for review.

9 The Act requires an administering authority keep reserve management plans under continuous review pursuant to s. 41(4). Therefore, a review is required to update the current Sports Ground Management Plan.

10 While not all sportsgrounds are classified as reserves, for sake of efficiency and consistency, the 1999 Plan includes all the city’s sports grounds regardless of their classification and staff will follow the procedure specified in subsections (5) and (6) of s. 41 of The Act.

11 The review will allow Council to respond to trends and adopt best practice models regarding participation and management.

12 It is a requirement of The Act that the public is consulted when a reserve management plan is being created or reviewed.

13 Community engagement is undertaken in two stages. The first stage seeks community input on both proposed and existing plans under review.

14 Staff have allocated 20 working days for this initial engagement period for the 1999 Plan. Feedback provided will guide the review and drafting of the new Sports Ground Management Plan (the 2026 Plan).

15 The second stage of engagement allows the public to provide feedback based on a draft version of the 2026 Plan. Feedback provided during stage two of engagement is considered by the Hearings Committee and, where appropriate, feedback is included into a final plan.

16 This report seeks approval of the Statement of Proposal and approval to commence Stage 1 of community engagement.

DISCUSSION

17 Dunedin’s sports grounds have evolved significantly since the city’s founding in 1848, closely intertwined with the development of the Town Belt, which was envisaged to serve the role as a place for residents to enjoy nature and recreation.

18 Dunedin’s sports grounds have grown from informal playing fields in the mid-19th century to a well-organized network of facilities supporting a wide range of sports.

19 Early grounds like Montecillo and Carisbrook played key roles in the city’s sporting history, hosting cricket, rugby, and horse racing.

20 Over time, the city expanded its provision of sports fields to meet growing demand from schools, clubs, and the public.

21 Dunedin City Council currently manages 50 sportsgrounds across the city. These are used extensively by local sports clubs for training and competition, covering sports such as rugby, football, cricket, athletics, and softball.

22 Clubs book fields through a formal system, and many grounds are shared between multiple codes.

23 Recent improvements to surfaces, lighting, facility upgrades, and the development of artificial playing surfaces have made significant improvements to the city’s sports grounds.

24 As well as formal use by sports clubs, these spaces are open to the public for casual recreation—walking, jogging, informal games, dog walking and community events.

25 Understanding trends and current need will help the review process.

26 The 1999 Plan provides policies to manage a range of issues and activities including allocation of sports fields, bookings, charges, non- sporting use of sports grounds, provision and maintenance of facilities, upgrades and renovations of grounds and commercial activities on sports grounds.

27 It is likely that the community will provide a range of views that will be useful for developing new policies and aims.

28 Specifically, the trending towards casual and short format games over organised traditional sports, a stronger focus on accessibility for all, the need to cater for more diversity, heightened environmental awareness, the impacts of climate change on sports grounds and increasing costs (for both provision and participation) are expected to be themes during stage 1 consultation.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

29 That the Council approves the proposal to publicly notify its intention to prepare a Management Plan for Dunedin Sports Grounds and initiates the Stage One engagement process, as required by s. 41(5) of the Act.

Advantages

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

Disadvantages

· There are associated costs for Council involved in the public consultation process required by s. 41(5) of the Act. The costs are related to staff time while managing the consultation process.

Option Two – Status Quo

30 That Council does not support the proposal to publicly notify its intention to prepare a Management Plan for Dunedin sports grounds and does not initiate a public consultation process.

Advantages

· Costs, including staff time associated with the public notification, and subsequent preparation of a Management Plan are not required.

Disadvantages

· The Dunedin sports grounds would continue to be managed under the Sports Ground Management Plan 1999 and the General Policies Reserve Management Plan. This would result in policies that are not relevant and development of the sports grounds that does not reflect community aspirations.

· The public and key stakeholders would not have an opportunity to provide feedback through a formal public consultation process.

NEXT STEPS

31 If approved, staff would follow the public consultation process required by s. 41(5) of the Act.

Signatories

Author:

Peter Christos - Parks and Recreation Planner

John Brenkley - Planning and Partnerships Manager

Authoriser:

Heath Ellis - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Scott MacLean - General Manager, City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	SOP and Feedback Form	187
⇩b	Sports Ground Management Plan 1999	191

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

The city’s sports grounds contribute to the wellbeing of the community, beyond organised sports. Management plans provide opportunities to support councils’ strategic directions by aligning with other departments policies and goals, wherever possible. Sports grounds provide public spaces for social engagement and can be important spaces when planning development and transportation infrastructure.

Māori Impact Statement

The city’s sports grounds are located at a variety of sites, including coastal environments. Mana whenua will be involved from the outset in the development of this management plan. Aukaha will be approached early in the development of new Sports Ground Management Plan with the hope of input from Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki.

Sustainability

Sustainability, Climate Change effects and the Council’s Zero Carbon Policy has been considered through the process of this project and will be considered in the management and operation of the sports grounds.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications on the plans and strategies for preparing and engaging on reserve management plans.

Financial considerations

Community engagement on the draft and any revisions or amendments to it prior to it being adopted can be resourced from within the existing Parks and Recreation Services operating budget for 2025/26 year. The majority of costs relate to staff time managing the review process.

Significance

The Sports Ground Management 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

Internal engagement will be undertaken with various departments as part of Stage 1 engagement. This will continue in the preparation of the first draft and final review of the management plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards will be approached for comment during the engagement period.

Council

11 December 2025

Town Belt Active Travel Trial

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the proposed Town Belt Active Travel Trial, which will temporarily close a section of Queens Drive between 12 January 2026 and 19 April 2026.

2 The trial is designed to give effect to the Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan (RMP), specifically policies supporting shared path development and safer, non-vehicular transport through the Reserve.

3 Council endorsement will enable staff to deliver the trial and return with evidence-based findings to inform future decisions on the project’s next steps.

4 Council adopted the Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan on August 12^th, 2025, which included an implementation plan.

5 The Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management implementation plan included the action to “Investigate the adaptation of Queens Drive to enable resident only access and to establish a shared pathway route through the length of the Town Belt”.

6 Staff have investigated options and have proposed a trial project to give effect to that action.

7 The Town Belt Active Travel Trial (the trial) is a time-bound closure that will convert part of Queens Drive into a safe, people-focused corridor connecting Roslyn and Mornington.

8 The section of the Town Belt chosen for the trial connects the hill suburbs to the cluster of schools near Rattray Street and the central city.

9 The trial directly advances the Town Belt RMP objectives around transport safety, non-vehicular transport modes, reduction of illegal parking and dumping and zero carbon outcomes.

10 The trial aligns with the draft Ōtepoti Pathways Plan. This plan focuses on fixing gaps in the city’s cycling and walking network to give people more transport options.

11 Data gathered during the trial will be used to assess the benefits of the shared path concept using the NZTA Reshaping Streets regulatory framework.

12 The trial will be delivered within existing budgets, supplemented by modest partnership support (e.g. Sport Otago and NZTA). The estimated costs to set up the trial is $15,100.

13 Staff will return to Council following the trial with robust monitoring data, community feedback, and an evaluation of outcomes to inform next steps.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the approach outlined in this report to implement the Town Belt Active Travel Trial.

b) Notes that the trial is the first step in delivering on the Town Belt Reserve Management Plan’s objectives and implementation plan.

c) Notes that at the conclusion of the trial staff will report back to Council on the results of the trial, including community feedback.

BACKGROUND

14 The Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan was adopted on August 12^th, 2025, and published online, 14^th October 2025.

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

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

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

Motion carried (CNL/2025/218) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against

15 The Dunedin Town Belt is one of the city’s most significant green spaces, providing recreation, biodiversity, and cultural values. However, its recreational potential is currently undermined by roads that prioritise vehicles, create safety risks, and facilitate illegal car parking and dumping.

16 Spanning approximately 202 hectares, the Town Belt forms a continuous green corridor around Dunedin’s central city, offering residents and visitors access to native bush, recreational areas, and scenic viewpoints.

17 For context, the Town Belt is nearly 1.5 times the size of Hyde Park in London (142 hectares) and roughly half the size of Central Park in New York City (341 hectares), highlighting both its substantial scale and its potential as a major urban recreational asset.

18 This comparison underscores the opportunity to unlock the Town Belt’s full potential by prioritising pedestrian and cycling access, enhancing safety, and creating spaces that encourage active recreation and community engagement.

19 The Dunedin Town Belt RMP provides clear direction to improve transport safety and investigate shared path options. Specifically:

Opportunities Section:

· 6.10 Identify and mitigate safety risks throughout the Reserve, specifically, improving transport safety outcomes.

· 6.11 Identify a suitable location for a shared path route, which includes provision for mobility needs, along the length of the Reserve where impact on the status quo is minimal.

Policies Section:

· 8.10.1.12 Council shall consider the adaptation of Queens Drive to enable resident only access, and to establish a pedestrian cycleway route through the length of the Town Belt.
Striving to achieve the:
• Promotion of transport safety
• Promotion of non-vehicular transport modes
• Reduction of illegal carparking
• Reduction in the ability to illegally dump rubbish
• Promotion of zero carbon outcomes.

20 Transport engineers have reviewed vehicle use along Queens Drive. Their analysis shows that the majority of traffic in the area uses Māori Road or Highgate instead. See Attachment 1 for a comparison of traffic volumes for vehicles using Highgate, Queens Drive and Maori Road.

21 This data indicates that Queens Drive is not a critical transport connection within the wider network, and that any impacts from a temporary closure are expected to be minor — a key outcome the trial will help to inform.

22 Speed monitoring has identified a clear mismatch between the intended use of the corridor and current driver behaviour.

23 The legal speed limit on Queens Drive is 50 km/h, the surrounding environment — including the Town Belt’s recreational areas and the road’s geometry — makes a speed of no more than 30 km/h more appropriate.

24 Monitoring shows that nearly all vehicles are exceeding this safe speed, with some reaching up to 80–90 km/h. These findings indicate that Queens Drive is currently functioning as a high-speed cut-through rather than a local access road supporting recreation and community use of the Town Belt.

25 During consultation on the draft Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan, a total of 60 submitters provided feedback.

26 The most frequently discussed theme was the proposal for a pedestrian and cycleway through the Town Belt, raised by 36 submitters. Of those, 75% expressed support for the concept, 11% opposed it, and 14% held a neutral position, generally raising design-related concerns.

DISCUSSION

27 The most effective way to deliver on these objectives outlined in the Background section above, is to test a trial road closure and monitor its impacts.

28 The Town Belt Active Travel Trial will temporarily close a section of Queens Drive between Braid Road and Preston Crescent, and the section of Braid Road that connects to Ross Street to through-traffic. See Attachment 2 for plans and drawings.

29 Vehicle access for residents and essential services will be maintained, while bollards and signage will define the trial closure points. Black bollards have been selected over standard orange traffic cones to create a more intentional design that enhances the look and feel of the space.

30 The trial will run from 12 January 2026 to 19 April 2026, deliberately timed to capture both the busy summer holiday season and the return to school, giving a representative picture of how the space is used by families, commuters, and the wider community.

31 During the trial period, the closed section of Queens Drive will function as a shared path for walking, cycling, and mobility users, providing a safe and continuous route along the edge of the Town Belt.

32 The closure will be supported with baseline monitoring of traffic, pedestrian, and cyclist numbers, including new AI monitoring technology attached to streetlamps. This data will be supplemented with community feedback gathered through engagement activities.

33 The project team is also drawing on existing partnerships to enhance the trial space. Opportunities include installing simple street furniture, temporary signage aligned with the 28 Birds project at Jubilee Park, and small-scale activations supported by Sport Otago to encourage families, schools, and community groups to use the space.

34 The costs for setup, line marking, traffic management, signage and monitoring are being covered internally by Transport and are estimated to be $12,000. There will also be 7 existing planter boxes currently in storage from previous projects that will be used at various locations such as access points to provide interest and colour. The cost for Parks and Recreation to freight the planter boxes to site and fill them with growing media and plants is estimated to be $3,100 giving a total cost of $15,100.

35 In house communications and marketing will leverage existing DCC channels to ensure broad awareness.

36 The trial will run for a fixed period, after which results will be reported back to Council. Staff will present monitoring data, community feedback, and lessons learned, so Council can make an informed decision about whether to:

a) Make the road closure permanent and begin developing a long-term shared path along Queens Drive; or

b) Make changes to how the road functions; or

c) Revert to the status quo if the trial demonstrates insufficient benefits.

This approach ensures the trial is achievable within existing budgets, while still testing how Queens Drive could function as the spine of a future shared path through the Town Belt.

37 The Town Belt Reserve Management Plan (RMP) sets a clear direction for transport and safety outcomes in the reserve. The trial provides a practical way to give effect to these provisions.

38 The trial will test whether Queens Drive can be safely and successfully adapted for active travel, while enabling the collection of evidence on safety, accessibility, and community use.

39 In doing so, it directly supports the RMP’s objectives of promoting non-vehicular transport modes, reducing illegal parking and dumping, and contributing to zero-carbon outcomes.

40 The Reshaping Streets regulatory changes introduced by Waka Kotahi NZTA create a national framework that enables councils to implement street trials such as this. These reforms:

a) Provide clear powers for councils, as Road Controlling Authorities, to pilot street changes for up to two years.

b) Enable modal filtering and traffic restrictions to prioritise active modes and community use.

c) Streamline administrative processes, allowing councils to respond more quickly to community aspirations and safety needs.

d) Align local initiatives with national priorities of climate action, mode shift, health, and liveability.

41 The Town Belt Active Travel Trial is a direct expression of this framework in action. By trialling a new use of Queens Drive, the project tests how national-level regulatory tools can be applied locally to facilitate the Town Belt RMP’s vision.

42 In this way, the trial sits at the intersection of national policy and local planning: enabled by Reshaping Streets and delivering on the outcomes sought in the RMP.

43 Staff have selected this specific section of Queens Drive not only because it enables the frameworks and policies of the Town Belt Reserve Management Plan and wider strategic commitments, but also because of the unique opportunity it offers to reimagine the Town Belt itself.

44 By trialling a closure here, the space can be experienced as a cohesive, enjoyable area of reserve land, rather than as a road corridor. This creates immense recreation and amenity value in its own right, transforming the Town Belt from a highway that divides, into a destination that connects.

45 The Town Belt Active Travel Trial will be evaluated against a set of clearly defined objectives and metrics to ensure we can assess its effectiveness and inform any future decisions regarding permanent changes. See Attachment 3 which identifies how success will be measured.

46 Key areas of focus include user experience and satisfaction, usage levels, perceived safety, environmental outcomes such as litter reduction, community support and engagement, activation of the space through recreational features, and overall feasibility and scalability of the trial. The questionnaire is included in Attachment 4.

47 While the trial period is relatively short (January 2026 – April 2026), the approach is designed to provide robust, actionable information.

48 An example is automated and manual counts will capture the number of pedestrians and cyclists using the corridor, while surveys and feedback tools (including a QR code on-site) will gather qualitative data on community experience and perceptions of safety.

49 Environmental monitoring, such as litter audits, will also help identify improvements in amenity and reduce illegal dumping.

50 Biodiversity outcomes are acknowledged as a longer-term measure and are unlikely to show measurable changes over the four-month trial period. However, staff will conduct pre- and post-trial bird counts and visual observations to record any notable changes, ensuring that the ecological values of the Town Belt are considered.

51 The full set of proposed metrics and methods is provided as an attachment to this report. This framework will allow the trial to be evaluated comprehensively, capturing both quantitative and qualitative insights, and providing a strong evidence base for Council to consider permanent implementation or wider shared path opportunities through the Town Belt.

Recreation, Waste and Amenity elements

52 During a recent Keep Dunedin Beautiful campaign, Parks Planning staff walked the Queens Drive route through the Town Belt (beginning from Māori Road, following behind Otago Boys’ High School to end at Moana Pool) and collected 14 bags of rubbish and 6 bags of recycling.

53 Most of this litter was concentrated in areas where illegal parking or vehicle stopping commonly occurs along the steep banks. This suggests that reducing vehicle access through the trial area could help decrease roadside dumping and litter accumulation, improving the overall amenity and environmental quality of the Town Belt

54 While this report focuses largely on the current challenges associated with vehicle use along Queens Drive, it is equally important to emphasise what the proposed trial seeks to create.

55 The trial is an opportunity to reimagine this section of the Town Belt as an active, people-focused space — a place to enjoy the reserve as a park, rather than a thoroughfare.

56 The trial would allow the introduction of features such as food truck zones, outdoor games like table tennis, active play areas, and enhanced native biodiversity.

57 Together, these outcomes will help activate the Town Belt and strengthen its role as a vibrant community and ecological corridor.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

58 Approve the Town Belt Active Travel Trial

Advantages

· Enables delivery on the intent of the recently adopted Town Belt RMP.

· Provides an evidence-based, low risk way to trial a road closure and gather robust monitoring data.

· Creates opportunities for safe, active connections and reserve amenity across the Town Belt.

· Builds community understanding and feedback on future shared path options.

Disadvantages

· May cause some short-term inconvenience for the small proportion of drivers who currently use this route, requiring adjustment to alternative routes.

Option Two – Status Quo

59 Do not proceed with trial.

Advantages

· Maintains current road access for all drivers, avoiding any disruption or adjustment to traffic patterns.

Disadvantages

· Would not give effect to the Town Belt Reserve Management Plan objectives or policies.

· Retains current safety risks, illegal parking, and dumping issues.

· Loses an opportunity to test and demonstrate low-cost, evidence-based approaches to active transport.

NEXT STEPS

60 Subject to Council approval, staff will deliver the trial with core funding from Transport and Parks, supported by additional resources from City Development (recycled street furniture), NZTA (recycled concrete transport infrastructure) and Sport Otago (stencils for play street).

61 Baseline monitoring of current traffic, pedestrian, and cyclist numbers will be completed prior to the trial, including use of new AI streetlamp monitoring.

62 The trial will be implemented and promoted in collaboration with Sport Otago, NZTA, and community partners.

63 Staff will report back to Council with the results of monitoring and community engagement, alongside an evaluation of outcomes to inform decisions on any future changes or investment.

Signatories

Author:

Katie Eglesfield - Parks and Recreation Planner

Authoriser:

Heath Ellis - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Scott MacLean - General Manager, City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Transport Data for Town Belt Trial	227
⇩b	Town Belt Active Travel Trial Activation Plan	231
⇩c	Measuring Success - Town Belt Active Travel Trial Metric Framework	233
⇩d	Questions for Town Belt Trial Engagement	234

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

The trial project aligns strongly with Dunedin City Council’s strategic direction, particularly in relation to active transport, recreation, environmental outcomes, and community safety. It provides a practical way to test policies and objectives already embedded in key guiding documents. The two most relevant are Ōtepoti Pathways – A Walking and Cycling Plan for Dunedin and the Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan (RMP) and Implementation Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

Parks will contact and engage with Mana whenua about opportunities to incorporate cultural

narrative and storytelling into the corridor through signage or promotional events.

Initial conversations have indicated that Mana Whenua will likely want to be involved in the wider

long term project, but at this point involvement in the trial is considered high labour, low reward, and

too soon for existing timeframes.

Sustainability

Zero Carbon outcomes, by encouraging non-vehicular transport modes and

sustainable recreation.

Specifically, the project relates to the following city key shifts and DCC action areas of the Zero Carbon Plan:

Likely to have no material impact on emissions in the short term due to the small scale/ short timeframe of the trial. However, it has the potential to lead to city transport emissions reduction in the longer term if it becomes permanent or inspires other similar trials. Supports the community to take climate positive actions; aligns with the Zero Carbon Plan.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The current trial is enabled through existing budget, however specific LTP funding has been allocated from Y4 to enable long term shared path changes in the Town Belt. This is therefore the beginning of enabling long term plan outcomes.

Financial considerations

Core delivery is funded through existing PARs and Transport budgets, with Sport Otago contributions enhancing non-essential but high-value assets.

Significance

While the infrastructure changes are minimal, the project has been classified as a Tier 2 project due to its level of significance to the wider community.

Engagement – external

Initial discussions with Town Belt Kaitiaki, Local Schools and Sport Otago have been undertaken to understand initial support for the project and to help in project planning.

Discussions with the Dunedin Amenities Society are ongoing. While there are numerous external stakeholders to engage, the following list represents a selection of key, though not exhaustive, stakeholders:

Dunedin Amenities Society

Birds NZ

Taskforce Green

Southern Youth Development Bikes@Syd programme

Spokes

Local Residents

Belleknowes Golf Club

Sport Otago

Town Belt Kaitiaki

Schools / childcare centres in the area (Trinity College, Otago Boys High School, Arthur Street, St Joseph's Cathedral School, City Heights Montessori, Pioneers Russell Street Nursery, Russell Street early childhood centre, Elm Row Early Childhood Centre Ross Street Otago Childcare, Otago Girls High School).

Engagement - internal

This is a combined project between Transport and PARS, wider initial consultation has included, City Sanctuary, City Planning, Arts and Culture teams, Taskforce Green, Keep Dunedin Beautiful (City Partnerships), Communications Marketing and Design, and the Māori Partnerships Team.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest.

Community Boards

No implications for Community Boards. Central city location.

Council

11 December 2025

Reserve Management Plan Review Schedule

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents a forward work programme for the review of all reserve management plans (RMPs) that are administered by Dunedin City Council (DCC) as administering body under the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act).

2 The Act requires DCC as the administering body to keep RMPs under continuous review so that the RMPs are adapted to changing circumstances or in accordance with increased knowledge.

3 Under the Act, where the administering body of any reserve resolves to undertake a comprehensive review of its management plan, the administering body shall follow the procedure specified in subsections (5) and (6) of Section 41 as if the review were the preparation of a management plan.

4 The process of reviewing the DCC’s RMPs commenced with the Truby King Reserve Management Plan being approved and adopted by Council in June 2021. A further 5 RMPs have recently been reviewed and adopted by Council.

5 Following review of the existing RMPs and the creation of two new RMPs, there will be 17 operative DCC RMPs.

6 Factors that have influenced the order of priority for the review of RMPs includes the age of the current RMP, change in circumstances and trends since any original plans were written, and any alignment required with the Parks and Recreation Strategy.

7 The Reserve Management Plan Schedule was presented to Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee in October 2024.

8 The revised Reserve Management Plan schedule (at Attachment A) shows the review priorities in the approved order with updated timelines for those that have been reviewed recently.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the attached Reserve Management Plan Schedule

BACKGROUND

9 DCC is the administering body appointed to control and manage reserves under the Act within the city to ensure the use, enjoyment, development, maintenance, protection and preservation, as the case may require of the reserve for the purpose for which it is classified.

10 Section 41 of the Act requires the administering body to prepare and approve RMPs for the reserves under its control, management, or administration (except local purpose reserves).

11 The purpose of an RMP is to provide for and ensure the use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection, and preservation as the case may require, and to the extent that resources permit, the development of the reserve for the purpose which it is classified.

12 The Act requires continuous review of RMPs by the administering body to keep RMPs adapted to changing circumstances, or in accordance with increased knowledge.

13 Where a reserve is vested in a local authority, or a local authority is appointed to control or manage a reserve, the local authority can approve RMPs for those reserves.

14 DCC follows the process under sections 41(5) and 41(6) of the Act for preparing and reviewing RMPS. This process usually involves a two-stage public notification and consultation process as well as a hearing if there are submitters who wish to be heard.

15 RMPs may be prepared for individual reserves or groups of reserves. These RMPs that cover more than one reserve are called Omnibus RMPs.

16 An example of an omnibus RMP is the Hill Reserves Management Plan, that applies to 13 Council reserves on the first line of hills surrounding the urban core of Dunedin City. This is to ensure consistency in terms of management of these reserves.

17 There are currently three groups/types that make up the DCC suite of RMPs. These are:

· General Policies;

· Omnibus; and

· Individual Reserve Management Plans.

18 This provides a streamlined approach to reserve management planning (providing a coherent overview of all reserves managed by Council) and reduces repetition and duplication of costs.

19 This is achieved through having a Reserves Management Plan General Policies document to cover day to day decisions about reserves, with RMPs for individual or groups of reserves where greater planning detail is required.

20 The previous reserve management Plan Schedule was presented to SPEC in October 2024.

Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Committee:

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

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

Sports Ground Management Plan 1999 to be item 9

Motion carried (SPEC/2024/052)

DISCUSSION

21 Given review of RMPs is required under the Act, DCC has commenced the review process. The proposed plan is to retain the current suite of general policies, omnibus, and individual RMPs.

22 This structure allows a consistent approach to the day-to-day decisions about management of these reserves.

23 The review of the Truby King Reserve Management Plan, Signal Hill Reserve Management Plan, Reserves Management Plan General Policies, Dunedin Town Belt Reserve Management Plan, the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan and the Mosgiel Recreation Area Reserve Management Plan are now complete.

24 The Otago Boat Harbour Recreation Reserves Management Plan has been incorporated into the Otago Harbour Reserves Management Plan.

25 The second stage of engagement on the Draft Logan Park Management Plan has recently finished. The next stage is to hold hearings for people who wish to speak to their submission. The plan will be updated based on the Hearings Panel consideration of submissions and then later, presented to Council for approval.

26 Logan Park is not a gazetted reserve under the Act. However, the process that is required to create and review reserve management plans under the Act is being used to create the Logan Park Management Plan.

27 The Hereweka Harbour Cone Management Plan is currently under review. The first stage of engagement is complete, and a draft Hereweka Harbour Cone Management plan is being written.

28 Hereweka Harbour Cone is not a gazetted reserve under the Act. However, the process that is required to create and review reserve management plans under the Act is being used to create the Hereweka Harbour Cone Management Plan.

29 Staff will take a consistent approach in RMP review methodology, which will involve early engagement with iwi, community boards, and community stakeholder groups.

30 The work programme is based on several RMP reviews being in progress at any given time, and staff estimate that each RMP will take approximately 12 months to review. Timelines will vary slightly dependant on the reserve and other engagement activities underway by Council throughout the year.

31 Factors that have influenced the order of priority for the review of RMPs include the age of the current RMP, changes in circumstances, and trends since any original plans were written, and any alignment required with the Parks and Recreation Strategy.

32 As part of the review process, staff will investigate whether some RMPs could be incorporated into omnibus plans. For example:

a) The Waikouaiti Domain Reserve Management Plan 1986 may be incorporated into the Coastal Dunes Reserve Management Plan omnibus.

b) The Caversham Valley Forest Management Plan 1986 may be incorporated into the Hill Reserves Management Plan.

33 Any decisions regarding the incorporation of management plans into omnibus reserve management plans will be subject to the public consultation process. However, staff have scheduled the review of some individual RMPs so that the potential for incorporation can be fully considered.

34 In some cases, review and management plan implementation has been delayed allowing for completion of related work that could impact the management plan itself:

a) Review of the Botanic Garden Reserve Management Plan has been delayed until the Botanic Garden Plan has been adopted by Council.

b) Review of the Ocean Beach Reserve Management Plan has been delayed while investigative work is completed on the historic landfill beneath Kettle Park and next steps regarding site remediation are undertaken.

c) The timing of an Octagon Reserve Management Plan will be aligned with the Central City Plan.

35 Following review of existing RMPs and creation of new plans (Logan Park Management Plan and the Octagon Reserve Management Plan), staff anticipate there will be 17 operative RMPs.

36 There are some documents that have been identified as “Statements of Management Intent”. These documents do not appear to be RMPs as they have not been through the statutory process required for RMPs. However, because they may relate to land that is held under the Act, the Reserves Management Plan – General Policies 2025 will apply to them.

37 Examples of such documents include: Aramoana Reserves (1998), Kew Park (1999) and Craigieburn Reserve Management Guidelines (1996). These documents were considered as part of the review process for the Reserves Management Plan – General Policies 2025, and the omnibus RMPs.

38 Legal advice on the creation of new and replacement of current RMPs has been sought to ensure that staff follow appropriate statutory processes.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option: Council approves the attached Reserve Management Plan Schedule.

39 The attached Reserve Management Plan Schedule is based on the schedule approved by SPEC in October 2024.

Advantages

· Staff will continue with the current schedule to review RMPs based on age and currently available information relating to the management of the reserves.

Disadvantages

· The schedule may need to change if new circumstances or trends emerge.

Option Two – The Council approves the attached Reserve Management Plan Schedule with amendments that will reprioritise the timing of RMP reviews to create a new Reserve Management Plan Schedule.

40 Any changes to the attached reserve management Plan Schedule will be based on new circumstances or trends that have become evident within the previous year.

Advantages

· Council has input into the scheduling of RMP reviews.

Disadvantages

· The current schedule has several RMPs that have not been reviewed for over 10 years and any changes will delay their review even further.

NEXT STEPS

41 Staff will implement the reserve management plan review schedule.

Signatories

Author:

John Brenkley - Planning and Partnerships Manager

Authoriser:

Heath Ellis - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Scott MacLean - General Manager, City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Reserve Management Plan Review Schedule December 2025	243

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

The 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. The public consultation process for preparing a new reserve management plan enables the community to provide input into the management of reserves. Reserve management plans are also an opportunity to evaluate biodiversity and ecological values and support improvements to the environment.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua, through Aukaha, will be invited to advise on the review and drafting of the RMPs. The reviews will allow for recognition and mana whenua cultural identity, values, and narratives.

Sustainability

The RMP review process provides an opportunity to ensure reserve management practices are in alignment with environmental objectives, including biodiversity, climate change adaptation and carbon reduction goals.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications on the plans and strategies for preparing and engaging on reserve management plans, but upon their adoption, projects may be generated which may have implications on the future operational and capital budgets.

Financial considerations

The RMP reviews will be funded from within existing PARS budgets.

Significance

This report is considered of low significance 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

The In-House Legal team has provided guidance on this report and the process required under the Reserves Act 1977.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Legal risks will be appropriately managed through ensuring that the process required by section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 is properly followed.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Board will have an interest in the policies which affect the management of reserves within their administrative areas. Community Boards will be invited to provide feedback input during review and drafting of RMPs.

Council

11 December 2025

Proposed Data Collection Approach and Content for the Census Submission

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission to Stats NZ Tatauranga Aotearoa (Stats NZ) on its consultation on the proposed data collection approach and content for the census (the consultation). The draft DCC submission is attached as Attachment A.

2 The purpose of the consultation is to seek feedback on a new approach which will modernise the New Zealand census (the census). The proposed approach is built on three key components:

· administrative (admin) data: using more of the information that is already collected by government agencies when people use public services.

· a new annual sample survey (Census Attribute Survey): a year-round survey completed by a small percentage of the population each year, which will help verify the accuracy of admin data and collect additional information not provided by admin data.

· tailored solutions: working with Stats NZ partners, customers, and priority communities to develop tailored solutions for their data needs.

3 The Census Attribute Survey will begin in 2027. The next census will now take place in 2030, subject to legislative amendments.

4 The DCC submission speaks to the discussion document for the consultation. The summary document is attached as Attachment B.

5 This consultation closes on 19 December 2025.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the draft Dunedin City Council submission, with any amendments, to Stats NZ Tatauranga Aotearoa on the Proposed data collection approach and content for the census.

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

Data collection and usage at the Dunedin City Council

6 The DCC currently uses census data to inform its work in city planning, community development, housing, and transport planning.

7 In addition to the census, the DCC informs its work through several other data sources.

8 The Quality of Life (QoL) Survey provides a valuable source of information on lifestyles in the major metropolitan areas of New Zealand. This survey is led by the Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin City Councils with other councils participating from time to time.

9 The QoL Survey is undertaken every two years and is a survey of residents' perceptions of quality of life in their city. The topics covered by the QoL Survey include: public transport; housing; economic wellbeing; physical and mental health; and community, cultural and social networks. It also includes questions about council processes.

10 The Residents Opinion Survey (ROS) is conducted by an independent research company on behalf of the DCC. Over a 12-month period starting on 1 July each year, survey invitations are sent to a random sample of residents aged 18 years and over, sourced from the electoral roll.

11 Topics in the ROS include: satisfaction with DCC facilities and services such as libraries and kerbside recycling; infrastructure management, such as traffic flow and the condition of footpaths; and the performance of Mayor and Councillors.

12 Council’s 9 Year Plan 2025-2034 includes Levels of Service (LoS) across the DCC which are used to measure its performance. The LOS statements are linked to performance measures with targets that are reported on at stated points during the course of the plan. The LoS cover a range of DCC services and activities such as community housing and recreation, and some mandatory measures for 3 Waters and Roading which are required by the Department of Internal Affairs.

13 The DCC also commissions and uses data from other sources and providers, for example economic datasets from Infometrics.

14 In addition, the DCC uses data collected and made available by government agencies such as Health New Zealand (the annual New Zealand Health Survey) and the Social Investment Agency (Community Insights Explorer tool).

DISCUSSION

The DCC submission

Proposed approach in the consultation

15 Overall, the DCC submission welcomes the changes proposed in the consultation, including:

· collecting data which enhances the information from its own data collection methods

· delaying the full census, currently scheduled for 2028, until 2030 while the new approach is introduced in stages.

16 The DCC submission expresses concern and seeks reassurance on:

· the spatial resolution of the data collected using the new approach, and whether this will affect the scale of available data based on population groups (i.e. 100-200 people) or will only provide reliable statistics based on the total population of the city (TA level).

· that important data which informs the DCC’s work, for example health indicators and dwelling quality indicators, will not be missed through the new data collection approach

· the implementation of the new data collection approach, including data safety measures.

17 The DCC submission recognises the new approach as an opportunity to collect data about its student populations, and requests that Stats NZ considers this, from primary through to tertiary level.

Iwi Māori

18 The DCC submission supports Stats NZ in its work collecting information to provide insights into needs and outcomes for Māori.

19 Staff from the DCC’s Mana Ruruku team reviewed the consultation document as part of the submission preparation. It was identified that there was no feedback needed on question 3 (Māori descent) at this stage.

20 In regard to question four in the consultation document about collection data on iwi affiliation, the DCC recommends contacting rūnaka/hapū or iwi whakapapa/registration teams to uncover the number of registered members.

Housing and Dwellings

21 The DCC’s work in housing, including with Ōtepoti Dunedin’s homeless whānau, is underpinned by its Housing Plan 2022. The DCC already uses data provided by the census to inform the implementation of this plan.

22 The DCC submission suggests that data collection around homelessness be expanded to include subcategories such as “without shelter” and “temporary accommodation” and an additional question around the time spent being homeless.

23 The DCC submission notes that it could use responses to questions about “dwelling coldness” to inform longer-term planning for the provision of increased insulation in housing and dwellings. It suggests that a related question about the availability of heating would also be useful for this work.

Priority Communities

24 The DCC submission notes that these priority communities align with the priority groups in the DCC’s strategies and approach to community engagement.

25 The DCC submission welcomes working with Stats NZ to ensure census data and content include the uniqueness and diversity of Ōtepoti Dunedin’s population.

25 The DCC submission notes that DCC staff are already working with Stats NZ on ethnicity data.

26 The DCC submission recommends that Stats NZ engages with the DCC’s Disability Issues Advisory Group on the new approach for collecting data about disabled people and how it can be utilised in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

27 The DCC submission supports the Future Census Independent Evaluation Panel’s recommendation to run the Household Disability Survey more frequently than every 10 years. The next survey is currently scheduled for 2033.

Quality of Life Indicators

28 The DCC submission recommends that Stats NZ work with the six local authorities involved in the QoL survey project team on a co-design approach for the census quality of life indicators. This may address potential issues such as duplication of questions/data, to ensure that the resulting statistics are reliable at a TA level.

Proposed updates to current census content

29 The consultation proposes expanding on existing questions in the census.

30 Cigarette smoking behaviour: the DCC is currently undertaking a review of Dunedin’s Smokefree Policy, using available census data. The DCC submission requests that vaping be included in the census, so that this data can be collected at a local level to inform approaches to behaviour change around both smoking and vaping in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

31 Access to telecommunication systems: the DCC submission supports the proposal to collecting information on access to a cellphone at the individual level rather than at the household level only. This will assist the DCC in addressing where barriers to digital inclusion can disproportionately affect some residents, and, potentially in the long-term, include more residents in the democratic process (e.g. online voting).

32 Main means of travel to work and workplace address: the DCC submission notes that census journey to work data and education data is one of the key components informing DCC’s transport modelling. It supports continuing to ask questions on this topic, including around working from home, and the potential to expand on these questions.

OPTIONS

Option One – Approve the Dunedin City Council submission on the proposed data collection approach and content for the census

Advantages

· Opportunity to provide input into the modernisation of the New Zealand census which benefits the residents of Ōtepoti Dunedin

· Opportunity to input into and access data which can inform the Dunedin City Council’s strategic directions and operational activities

· Opportunity to have access to data which reflects the uniqueness and diversity of the population of Ōtepoti Dunedin.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages to this option.

Option Two – Does not approve the Dunedin City Council submission on the proposed data collection approach and content for the census

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages to this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to provide input into the modernisation of the New Zealand census which benefits the residents of Ōtepoti Dunedin

· Missed opportunity to input into and access data which can inform the Dunedin City Council’s strategic directions and operational activities

· Missed opportunity to have access to data which reflects the uniqueness and diversity of the population of Ōtepoti Dunedin.

NEXT STEPS

33 If the submission is approved DCC staff will submit it to Stats NZ Tatauranga Aotearoa by 19 December 2025.

Signatories

Author:

Danielle Tolson - Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Nadia Wesley-Smith - Corporate Policy Manager

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Attachment A: Draft Dunedin CityCouncil submission on the Proposed data collection approach and content for the census	253
⇩b	Attachment B" Summary discussion document for the Proposed data collection approach and content for the census	258

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

The outcomes of this consultation are relevant to the DCC’s Housing Implementation Plan; Te Taki Haru, its Māori Strategic Framework; and future strategic planning for priority communities, housing, and transport.

Māori Impact Statement

ThrouT Through Te Taki Haruru, it’s Māori Strategic Framework, the DCC demonstrates its commitment to iwi Māori and to the Treaty of Waitangi. The DCC supports Stats NZ in its work collecting information to provide insights into needs and outcomes for Māori. In regard to collecting data on iwi affiliation, the DCC recommends contacting rūnaka/hapū or iwi whakapapa/registration teams to uncover the number of registered members. It notes that while its recommended approach will not encompass all Māori who affiliate to that iwi, iwi may be able to provide a more accurate approximate or expected number of all iwi members.

The DCC notes the Te Kupenga I Māori Wellbeing Survey proposed for 2028, and welcomes any opportunity to be involved in the development and dissemination of this survey.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the Long-Term Plan/Annual Plan.

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

The DCC has discussed the quality of life component of its submission with other councils that participate in the Quality of Life survey. Members of the DCC’s Transport team consulted with colleagues in the New Zealand Modelling User Group on the transport modelling questions in the consultation document.

Engagement – internal

This submission has been prepared by the Corporate Policy team, with input from the City Development, Community Partnerships, Housing, Manu Ruruku, and Transport teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

Census data is collected in Community Board areas and residents are affected by decisions made using information collected in the census.

Council

11 December 2025

Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules (Large Supplies) - Rules Review 2025 - Submission

Department: 3 Waters

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks the Council’s approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) to the Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai on proposed changes to the Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules (DWQAR) for large drinking water supplies.

2 The proposals are set out in ‘Consultation on Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules (Large Supplies): Rules Review 2025 – Discussion Document’, published on 10 November 2025 (discussion document). The discussion document is attached to this report as Attachment B. The proposed revised DWQAR are attached to this report as Attachment C.

3 The discussion document, proposed revised DWQAR and additional information (including FAQs and change comparison tables) are available online at: korero.taumataarowai.govt.nz/regulatory/rules-review-large-supplies/.

4 The deadline for submissions is 5pm on 19 December 2025.

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

a) The proposed change to the DWQAR annual reporting period from the calendar year to the financial year;

b) Recommendations to refine the proposed changes to existing rules and proposed new rules to improve clarity and remove ‘grey areas’, in support of consistent implementation of the DWQAR across supplies, suppliers and the regulator; and

c) Comments on anticipated cost implications.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the draft DCC submission to the Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai on proposed changes to the Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules (DWQAR) for large drinking water supplies at Attachment A.

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

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

BACKGROUND

The DWQAR

6 The DWQAR are the compliance rules that regulate the supply of drinking water in New Zealand. They have been in force since November 2022. They are made under the Water Services Act 2021 and sit alongside the Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022. The Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai is the regulator responsible for the DWQAR.

7 The DWQAR contain two different types of rules:

a) Monitoring rules: rules that prescribe the monitoring required to demonstrate compliance with the Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022.

b) Assurance rules: rules that cover planning, assurance and other quality control activities that drinking water suppliers must undertake to contribute to the provision of safe drinking water.

8 The DWQAR are divided into different size-based ‘levels’, with different rules for different sizes of drinking water supplies. The current consultation is about the ‘level 3’ rules, which are the rules for drinking water supplies serving 501 or more people.

9 The DCC owns and operates four drinking water supplies: Dunedin City (DUN001), Outram (OUT002), Waikouaiti (WAI015) and West Taieri (WES002). The Dunedin City, Outram and Waikouaiti drinking water supplies serve more than 501 people and are subject to the DWQAR level 3 rules. The registered population of the West Taieri supply is 450. However, as the West Taieri supply provides drinking water to a substantial population of staff and visitors at Dunedin Airport, DCC has elected to also monitor and report compliance against the DWQAR level 3 rules for the West Taieri supply.

10 The DWQAR are also divided into four rule modules tailored to different aspects of the drinking water supply system:

a) General rules

b) Source water rules

c) Treatment rules

d) Distribution rules.

11 Within each module, drinking water suppliers must identify and comply with the rules that are relevant to the source water, treatment processes, and distribution systems used in their supplies.

12 Drinking water suppliers currently report monthly on compliance with a specified sub-set of DWQAR level 3 monitoring rules. Compliance with the remaining monitoring rules and all assurance rules is reported annually. The annual reporting period is currently the calendar year (January to December).

Consultation on proposed changes to DWQAR level 3 rules

13 According to the Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai, the purpose of the proposed changes to the DWQAR is to improve clarity and – as a result – to make it easier for suppliers to understand and meet their legal responsibilities while continuing to ensure the safe and reliable supply of drinking water for consumers.

14 The proposed changes can be split into two broad categories:

a) Reporting changes, including a proposal to change the ‘compliance year’ and associated annual compliance reporting period from the calendar year (current) to the financial year, and a proposal to make monthly reporting on all monitoring rules mandatory (NB. compliance with some monitoring rules is currently reported annually only).

b) Rule changes, including revisions to the formatting, numbering and wording of the DWQAR to improve clarity, and introduction of new rules and requirements. Examples of new requirements include increasing the frequency of some existing water quality monitoring requirements, and new rules requiring continuous monitoring of water pressure in the drinking water networks.

15 The Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai indicates the changes would come into effect in 2027.

DISCUSSION

16 The draft DCC submission at Attachment A is in two parts:

a) A DCC submission letter, providing a high-level summary of the DCC submission points; and

b) A technical submission prepared on a submission template provided by the Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai, to be appended to the DCC submission letter.

17 The Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai’s preferred method of receiving feedback is via an online survey form. Staff have prepared the draft DCC technical submission on a template version of the online form provided by the Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai. Providing DCC’s detailed technical feedback on this template will support the efficient review and processing of the feedback.

18 The draft technical submission provides responses to the consultation questions posed in the discussion document from the perspective of the DCC as a large drinking water supplier. The technical submission only comments on those rules that are relevant to the DCC’s four registered drinking water supplies. It does not provide comment on changes to other rules that relate to water sources and treatment processes that the DCC does not use: questions about those rules are marked ‘not applicable’.

19 The draft DCC submission expresses general support for the proposed changes to the DWQAR. In particular, the draft DCC submission agrees with the proposal to change the DWQAR aannual reporting period from the calendar year to the financial year. This will align the DWQAR annual compliance reporting period with the annual reporting periods for other compliance and performance reporting requirements relevant to water services providers, including annual reporting on Network Environmental Performance Measures, DIA non-financial performance measures, and resource consent compliance. Aligning the reporting periods will make it simpler for water services providers and their stakeholders (including consumers) to compare compliance and performance trends year-to-year across different compliance rules and performance measures.

20 The draft submission identifies constructive feedback points on proposed rule changes, including proposed new rules. The feedback points are intended to help the Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai to further refine the DWQAR to improve clarity and remove ‘grey areas’, in support of consistent implementation across supplies, suppliers and the regulator. The draft DCC technical submission includes recommendations on the following topics:

a) Rules relating to cyanobacteria and cyanotoxin monitoring

b) Continuous monitoring rules

c) Source water classification rules

d) Recycling rules

e) Membrane filtration rules

f) Chemical monitoring rules

g) Monitoring rules for FAC, plumbosolvent metals and disinfection by-products in the distribution zone

h) Accreditation for DWQAR compliance reporting systems.

21 The proposed changes are likely to lead to the following new up-front costs and increased on-going costs for drinking water suppliers:

a) Up-front costs: changes to compliance monitoring and reporting software systems to reflect the changes to the rules; installation of new continuous monitoring analysers for network pressure (where not currently in place).

b) Ongoing costs: costs of additional water quality monitoring (eg. costs of sampling and laboratory analysis).

22 The draft DCC submission comments on cost implications likely to arise from the proposed changes. The costs of modifying the DCC’s electronic compliance reporting system to address all rule changes covered by this proposal, including minor changes such as revisions to the rule numbering system that are administrative in nature and are unlikely to have a material impact on drinking water safety outcomes for consumers, is estimated to be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

23 The draft DCC submission includes a recommendation that the Water Service Authority – Taumata Arowai considers how it can offset the up-front costs for suppliers to update their electronic compliance reporting systems to reflect the changes to the rules and proposes that this cost is funded by Water Service Authority – Taumata Arowai using existing levies.

OPTIONS

Option One – submit on proposed changes to DWQAR for large supplies (Recommended Option)

24 Approve, with any suggested amendments, the draft submission to the Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai on proposed changes to the DWQAR for large drinking water supplies (Attachment A).

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

Advantages

· Opportunity to provide feedback on and influence the review of the DWQAR for large drinking water supplies.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not submit on proposed changes to DWQAR for large supplies

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

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to provide feedback on and influence the review of the DWQAR for large drinking water supplies.

NEXT STEPS

27 If approved, the draft submission will be finalised and sent to Taumata Arowai by 19 December 2025.

Signatories

Author:

Scott Campbell - Regulation and Policy Team Leader

Authoriser:

John McAndrew - Group Manager, 3 Waters

David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters, Property and Urban Development

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft DCC submission to the Water Services Authority - Taumata Arowai	284
⇩b	Consultation on Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules (Large Supplies): Rules Review 2025 - Discussion Document	327
⇩c	Proposed revised Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules	365

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

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

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known specific impacts for Māori related to this report and the decision to approve a DCC submission on proposed changes to the DWQAR for large drinking water supplies.

Sustainability

There are no known specific long-term implications for sustainability related to this report and the decision to approve a DCC submission on proposed changes to the DWQAR for large drinking water supplies.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report and the decision to approve a draft DCC submission have no direct implications for these plans and strategies. Compliance with the DWQAR underpins DCC reporting against the ‘safety of drinking water’ level of service and associated performance measure identified in the DCC long-term plan. Any changes to the DWQAR will also impact this performance monitoring and reporting.

Financial considerations

There are no known specific financial implications related to this report and the decision to approve a DCC submission on proposed changes to the DWQAR for large drinking water supplies. Potential financial impacts for the DCC if the proposed changes are implemented are addressed in the DCC submission and the body of this report.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

3 Waters Group staff have participated in an online information session with the Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai on the proposed changes to the DWQAR for large drinking water supplies.

Engagement - internal

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

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks directly related to a DCC submission on proposed changes to the DWQAR for large drinking water supplies.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards are likely to be interested in the DCC submission on proposed changes to the DWQAR for large drinking water supplies.

Council

11 December 2025

Remuneration and Governance Update

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) gives the Remuneration Authority (the Authority) responsibility for setting remuneration for local government elected members.

2 The Authority allocates a base salary for each councillor and a pool for additional responsibilities. This governance pool (the pool) determines the total remuneration available for councillors, excluding the Mayor, whose remuneration is set directly by the Authority. The current determination takes effect following the election.

3 This paper seeks approval to amend the DCC remuneration proposal adopted at the Council meeting on 11 November 2025.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves annual remuneration of $145,008 for the Deputy Mayor.

b) Approves annual remuneration of $99,340 for Councillors.

c) Notes Councillor Vandervis’ new positions of responsibility.

d) Notes an updated remuneration proposal will be resubmitted to the Authority for approval.

e) Notes Councillors will initially be paid in accordance with the first gazette notice (expected by 18 December 2025) and that following the amended determination in early March 2026, a recalculation and adjustments will be required.

f) Notes the establishment and delegations of the Chief Executive Performance and Employment Committee.

BACKGROUND

4 On 11 November 2025, Council approved remuneration for Councillors based on the Authority’s guidelines, and a proposal was submitted for inclusion in the pre-Christmas determination.

Position	Number of Councillors	Base Rem	Additional Rem	Total Rem per Councillor	Total Annual Rem
Deputy Mayor	1	$84,496	$60,512	$145,008	$145,008
Councillor	12	$84,496	$16,081	$100,577	$1,206,924
Councillor (no additional responsibilities)	1	$84,496	-	$84,496	$84,496
Total	14				$1,436,428

5 Subsequent to the meeting on 11 November 2025, changes have been made to Councillors positions of responsibility.

6 As all Councillors now hold additional responsibilities, remuneration needs to be adjusted and resubmitted to the Authority.

DISCUSSION

Remuneration

7 Councillor Vandervis has accepted additional responsibilities as Co-Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee and as lead for the additional portfolio of Council Controlled Organisations. In addition, Councillor Weatherall has taken on the role of portfolio deputy lead for Infrastructure.

8 Councillors are currently being paid at the minimum rate of $84,496. Once the December gazette notice is published, Council is legally required to pay Councillors at that rate until the amended determination is published in March.

9 The proposed amended remuneration is detailed in the table below:

Position	Number of Councillors	Base Rem	Additional Rem	Total Rem per Councillor	Total Annual Rem
Deputy Mayor	1	$84,496	$60,512	$145,008	$145,008
Councillor	13	$84,496	$14,844	$99,340	$1,291,420
Total	14				$1,436,428

10 This proposal fully allocates the pool as required by the determination.

Delegations

11 Under Section 41A of the Local Government Act 2022 the Mayor has the authority to establish the membership and powers of the Chief Executive Performance Committee. The Council will constitute the Chief Executive Performance and Employment Committee in accordance with delegations outlined in Attachment A.

OPTIONS

12 The Council must allocate the full pool of $1,436,428 as reflected in this report.

NEXT STEPS

13 The updated roles of responsibility and remuneration rates will be submitted to the Authority by 30 January 2026 to meet the deadline for the second amending determination scheduled for gazetting in early March 2026.

14 Following the March gazette notice, staff will make all the necessary adjustments to ensure that Councillors are being paid at the correct rate and ensure the pool has been correctly and fully allocated.

Signatories

Authoriser:

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Chief Executive Performance and Employment Committee Delegations	440

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

Māori Impact Statement

This has not been assessed in preparing this report.

Sustainability

The level of remuneration being proposed is above the base level remuneration for all Councillors and is aimed to provide a more sustainable income recognising the mahi that will be required from all elected members.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications as the increase in the remuneration pool was included in the Annual Plan.

Financial considerations

The increase in remuneration was included in the Civic budget

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

There have been discussions with Councillors about possible levels of remuneration.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest

Community Boards

Community Board remuneration is dealt with separately by the Authority and is not part of the pool.

Council

11 December 2025

Proposed Event Road Closures

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

i) Royal NZ Pipe Band Association Otago Centre Competitions

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

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

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

i) Royal NZ Pipe Band Association Otago Centre Competitions

Saturday, 28 February 2026

8.30am to 10.00am

· Moray Place, between View Street and Burlington Street

8.30am to 4.30pm

· The entire Octagon

· George Street, between the Octagon and Moray Place

· Upper and Lower Stuart Street, between the Octagon and Moray Place

· Princes Street, between the Octagon and Moray Place

Sunday, 1 March 2026

9.00am to 4.00pm

· Dundas Street, between Great King Street North and Cumberland Street

BACKGROUND

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

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

5 These procedures include:

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION

Consultation and Notification

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

9 On Wednesday, 3 December 2025 the proposed temporary road closures will be advertised in the Otago Daily Times with a deadline for feedback.

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

Traffic Impacts

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

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

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

OPTIONS

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

Option One – Recommended Option

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

Advantages

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

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

Disadvantages

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

Option Two – Status Quo

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

Advantages

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

Disadvantages

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

NEXT STEPS

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

Signatories

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 10	454

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

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

Māori Impact Statement

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

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

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

Financial considerations

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

Significance

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

Engagement – external

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

Engagement - internal

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

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

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

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

[1] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2020. Toxicological Profile for Lead. Washington DC: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. pp. 5-7.

	Title	Page
⇨a	Aurora Energy Ltd Annual Report 2025 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨b	City Forests Ltd Annual Report 2024 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨c	Dunedin City Holdings Ltd Annual Report 2025 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨d	Dunedin City Treasury Ltd Annual Report 2025 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨e	Delta Utility Services Ltd Annual Report 2025 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨f	Dunedin International Airport Ltd Annual Report 2025 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨g	Dunedin Railways Ltd Annual Report 2025 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨h	Dunedin Stadium Property Ltd Annual Report 2025 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨i	Dunedin Venues Management Ltd Annual Report 2025 (Under Separate Cover 1)

	Title	Page
⇩a	Financial Update	412
⇩b	Statement of Financial Performance	423
⇩c	Statement of Financial Position	424
⇩d	Statement of Cashflows	425
⇩e	Capital Expenditure Summary	426
⇩f	Captital Expenditure Detailed	427
⇩g	Statement of Operating Variances	433
⇩h	Debt Graph	434

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 November 2025	17

Author:	Sharon Bodeker - Financial Accounting Manager
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - Chief Executive

Author:	Jackie Harrison - Manager Governance
Authoriser:	Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy)