Agenda of Policy and Planning Committee - Thursday, 5 February 2026

Notice of Meeting:

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Policy and Planning Committee will be held on:

Date: Thursday 5 February 2026

Time: 9.00 am

Venue: Council Chamber, Level 2, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Octagon, Dunedin

Sandy Graham

Chief Executive Officer

Policy and Planning Committee

PUBLIC AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Mayor Sophie Barker
Deputy Chairperson	Deputy Mayor 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 Andrew Simms
	Cr Mickey Treadwell	Cr Lee Vandervis
	Cr Steve Walker	Cr Brent Weatherall

Senior Officer David Ward, General Manager 3 Waters, Property and Urban Development

Governance Support Officer Rebecca Murray

Rebecca Murray

Governance Support Officer

Telephone: 03 477 4000

governance.support@dcc.govt.nz

www.dunedin.govt.nz

Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.

Policy and Planning Committee

5 February 2026

Part A Reports

Dunedin City Council submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Finance Act Amendment Bill

Department: City Development, Finance and Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission to Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Infrastructure Funding and Finance Act Amendment Bill (the Bill). The draft DCC submission is attached as Attachment A.

2 The Bill is positioned as part of the Government’s Going for Housing Growth programme and is intended to support infrastructure delivery that enables housing development while ensuring beneficiaries pay.

3 The Bill has been introduced to make the Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) framework more viable and flexible, including by removing barriers to uptake, broadening eligibility, and enabling faster decisions and levy deferrals to address affordability concerns.

4 The draft DCC submission supports the principle that growth should pay for growth, while emphasising the need for reforms to reinforce infrastructure efficiency, long-term affordability, planned sequencing, and clear liability management.

5 Submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee close on 20 February 2026.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Approves the draft Dunedin City Council Submission, with any amendments, on the Infrastructure Funding and Finance Act Amendment Bill.

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.

BACKGROUND

6 The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 was established to enable growth-related infrastructure to be financed up front and then recovered over time through levies on the properties that benefit. The intent is to reduce funding constraints that can delay infrastructure provision and, in turn, constrain housing development.

7 The Amendment Bill has been introduced in response to low uptake to date and with the stated intent of making the tool easier to use, more scalable, and applicable to a wider range of delivery agencies and project types. The changes are described as removing unnecessary barriers, broadening eligibility (including to additional infrastructure agencies), reducing veto risks where requirements are met, and improving usability through changes such as levy deferrals.

8 DCC’s draft submission sits alongside earlier DCC engagement on “Going for Housing Growth” settings and reflects ongoing local concerns about the interaction between development responsiveness, infrastructure affordability, and whole-of-life network performance (refer to the Going for Housing Growth submission approved by Council on 12 August 2025).

DISCUSSION

9 The Amendment Bill is intended to increase the uptake and effectiveness of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing framework by making it easier to use, expanding who can apply and what projects can qualify, and improving affordability and delivery settings so infrastructure can be brought forward to support housing growth.

10 The draft submission supports “growth pays for growth” in principle, and seeks to ensure IFF tools reinforce infrastructure efficiency and long-term affordability rather than embedding high-cost servicing patterns.

11 The submission notes that highly responsive development settings can drive urban expansion into locations where infrastructure is costly to provide, particularly for three waters, and provides Dunedin operating cost evidence indicating substantially higher costs for small rural schemes relative to metropolitan systems.

12 The submission recommends decision criteria and guidance that require clear demonstration of whole-of-life infrastructure efficiency and long-term affordability, including consideration of lifecycle operating and maintenance costs.

13 The submission emphasises the importance of planned sequencing and avoiding incentives for leapfrogging, including by strengthening settings that discourage land banking and focusing responsiveness on areas with existing reticulated services.

14 The submission supports location-specific, cost-reflective charging so higher-cost growth areas bear higher costs and cross-subsidy is minimised, maintaining stronger price signals for efficient development locations.

15 The submission also raises implementation risks relating to council decision-making and long-term liabilities, including risks where privately delivered infrastructure is accelerated but later integrates into public networks, and recommends enforceable standards and robust acceptance and vesting processes.

16 Finally, the submission highlights practical workability issues in funding mixed public and private benefit infrastructure within planning and budgeting cycles, and the need for clear coherence between IFF levies and other area-based charging tools.

OPTIONS

17 Two options are presented in this report for Council’s consideration.

Option One – Approve and submit DCC’s draft submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendments Bill (Recommended Option)

18 Approving the draft submission enables DCC to provide timely feedback to the select committee on the Bill’s purpose and implementation settings.

Advantages

· Enables DCC to demonstrate support for the changes proposed but also seek meaningful changes that will improve the effectiveness of the mechanisms for supporting cost-effective infrastructure delivery for DCC.

Disadvantages

· None identified.

Option Two – Do not submit on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendments Bill

19 Choosing not to submit avoids taking a formal Council position at this stage.

Advantages

· None identified.

Disadvantages

· DCC loses the opportunity to formally express its reservations, reinforce infrastructure efficiency and long-term affordability expectations, and influence implementation settings that may affect future costs and liabilities.

NEXT STEPS

20 Any final amendments to the draft submission will be incorporated following any additional internal input or Council direction.

21 Subject to Council approval, the submission will be finalised and lodged with the Finance and Expenditure Committee by 20 February 2026.

Signatories

Author:

Bede Morrissey - Policy Planner

Tony Nelmes - Project Accountant

Berkay Kocak - Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Dr Anna Johnson - Manager City Development

Carolyn Allan - Chief Financial Officer

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

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Attachment A - DCC Submission on the IFFA Bill	19

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

Approving the draft submission supports the purpose of local government by enabling the Council to participate in the development of national settings that may materially affect local infrastructure delivery, growth outcomes, and funding responsibilities. The decision supports democratic local decision-making by ensuring DCC can formally communicate Dunedin’s interests and practical considerations on how growth-enabling infrastructure should be financed, sequenced, and managed over time. It also supports community well-being by advocating for settings that promote long-term affordability, efficient infrastructure investment, and sustainable servicing outcomes for current and future 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 decision relates to approving a submission on central government legislation and does not directly implement or amend Council strategies. The impacts are primarily enabling and indirect, and the decision is therefore not applicable to most strategies. It is most closely linked to growth sequencing and infrastructure provision matters within the Future Development Strategy and linked to DCC’s Housing Implementation Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill may have impacts for Māori where levy schemes involve protected Māori land or Māori land, including changes to consent settings for including protected Māori land in levy areas, requirements for prior written landowner consent where works are constructed on protected Māori land, and clarifications about levy liability for Māori land (including limits on trustees’ liability in some cases). These matters align with Te Taki Haruru through Autūroa (Mana) and Autikaka (Tapu/Noa), emphasising partnership, landholder authority, and protection of people and places in policy and decision-making.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The decision does not amend the LTP, Annual Plan, Financial Strategy, or Infrastructure Strategy. The proposed policy direction may have implications for these instruments in future if the model is implemented.

Financial considerations

There are no direct financial costs associated with approving the submission. The proposal itself could have significant future financial implications for the Council, and the draft submission outlines concerns about this potential impacts.

Significance

This decision is of low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, as it relates to approving a submission rather than committing Council to a new policy or expenditure.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

The draft submission has been developed internally with input from relevant staff with financial and policy expertise.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no material legal or health and safety risks associated with approving the submission.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards

Policy and Planning Committee

5 February 2026

Dunedin City Council submission on the Local Government (Infrastructure Funding) Amendment Bill

Department: City Development, Finance and Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission on the partial exposure draft of the Local Government (Infrastructure Funding) Amendment Bill, and the associated Supporting Growth Through a Development Levies System consultation document. The draft submission is attached as Attachment A.

2 The proposed development levy regime is intended to strengthen councils’ ability to fund growth-related infrastructure in a fair and transparent way, and to provide greater predictability for the development sector.

3 The draft DCC submission is broadly supportive of the development levy proposals, and considers that these represent an improvement on the present regime of development contributions.

4 The approach taken in the draft DCC submission builds on and endorses the submission made by Taituarā — Local Government Professionals Aotearoa (Taituarā), which is attached as Attachment B. The draft DCC submission highlights and replicates the recommendations from the Taituarā submission, along with some additional background specific to the Dunedin context.

5 Submissions close on 20 February 2026.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Approves the draft Dunedin City Council Submission on the partial exposure draft of the Local Government (Infrastructure Funding) Amendment Bill.

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

BACKGROUND

6 The development levies consultation proposes replaces the existing development contributions as a mechanism to recover growth-related infrastructure costs from development.

DISCUSSION

7 DCC supports reform that strengthens councils’ ability to fund growth-related infrastructure in a way that is fair to existing communities, transparent to the public, and predictable for the development sector. The existing development contributions regime was intended to operate in a more predictable planning environment and resource management reform has created new fast track approval pathways and long term is likely to result in a more permissive and responsive planning environment than is currently the case under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). As a result, development contributions are no longer a fit for purpose mechanism to ensure growth pays for growth. The DCC agrees that the development levies proposal will generally improve this situation.

8 The DCC submission: endorses the matters and recommendations in the attached Taituarā submission; includes a number of relatively minor recommended amendments aimed to improve the Bill; and also suggests improvements to the high-cost overlay method are required to reduce risk of litigation.

OPTIONS

9 Two options are presented in this report for Council’s consideration.

Option One – Approve and submit DCC’s draft submission on the consultation (Recommended Option)

Advantages

Disadvantages

· None identified.

Option Two – Do not submit on the consultation

Advantages

· None identified.

Disadvantages

· DCC loses the opportunity to participate in the design of the proposed development levies system.

NEXT STEPS

10 Any final amendments to the draft submission will be incorporated following any additional Council direction.

11 Subject to Council approval, the submission will be finalised, and submitted to the Department of Internal Affairs by 20 February 2026.

Signatories

Author:

Bede Morrissey - Policy Planner

Tony Nelmes - Project Accountant

Berkay Kocak - Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Dr Anna Johnson - Manager City Development

Carolyn Allan - Chief Financial Officer

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

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Dunedin City Council Submission on the Local Government (Infrastructure Funding) Amendments Bill	29
⇩b	Taituara Submission on Development Contributions	33

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

Approving the draft submission supports the purpose of local government by enabling the Council to participate in national policy development on reforms that may materially affect local infrastructure funding, growth delivery, and the distribution of costs between existing ratepayers and new development. The decision supports democratic local decision-making by ensuring DCC can formally communicate Dunedin’s experience and concerns, including the need for workable, transparent settings and clarity on how development levies will interact with other reforms such as potential rates capping and resource management changes. It also supports community well-being by advocating for settings that protect long-term affordability and infrastructure sustainability while maintaining public confidence in fairness and accountability.

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 decision relates to approving a submission on central government legislation and does not directly implement or amend Council strategies. However, the outcome of the legislation will have impacts on the provision and funding of council infrastructure, and is therefore of relevance to a number of council strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known direct impacts for Māori arising from the development levies consultation itself; however, the subsequent development levies policy settings (including how levy areas are defined, what infrastructure programmes are funded, and how any remissions criteria are designed and reported) may have indirect impacts for Māori, particularly in relation to Auora (Mauri) through effects on the wellbeing of land and waterways, Autikaka (Tapu/Noa) through protection of resources/places and customary practice, and Autakata (Whakapapa) through place-based connections and intergenerational wellbeing.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Approving the submission does not amend the LTP, Annual Plan, Financial Strategy, or Infrastructure Strategy. However, the proposed development levy regime will have significant future implications for how growth-related infrastructure is funded and programmed.

Financial considerations

There are no direct financial costs associated with approving the submission. However, the proposed development levy regime will have significant future implications for how growth-related infrastructure is funded and programmed.

Significance

This decision is of low significance as it relates to approving a consultation submission rather than adopting a new Council policy or committing expenditure.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement, however the draft DCC submission endorses the content and recommendations from Taituarā’s submission on the Bill.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no material legal or health and safety risks associated with approving the submission.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

Policy and Planning Committee

5 February 2026

Dunedin City Council submission on the Emergency Management Bill (No 2)

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission to the Governance and Administration Committee on the Emergency Management Bill (No. 2) (the Bill). The draft DCC submission is attached as Attachment A.

2 The Dunedin City Council (DCC) plays a key role as a territorial local authority as the Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) controller for the city of Dunedin.

3 The DCC also plays a key role in CDEM planning and response in the Otago region, as a partner in the management and implementation of the Otago Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2018 -2028 (the Group Plan) along with the Otago Regional Council and other local authorities in Otago.

4 The Bill replaces the current Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002. It gives effect to the Government’s response to the 2023 Inquiry into severe North Island weather events.

5 The proposed changes in the Bill seek to:

· strengthen the role of communities and iwi Māori in emergency management

· provide clear responsibilities at the national, regional, and local levels

· enable a higher minimum standard of emergency management

· minimise disruption to essential services

· ensure agencies have the tools to do their jobs effectively during an emergency.

6 In response to requests from submitters, and in light of recent events, the Governance and Administration committee has agreed to extend the deadline for submissions on the Bill to 15 February 2026.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Approves the Dunedin City Council submission, with any amendments, to the Governance and Administration Committee on the Emergency Management Bill (No. 2).

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

c) Authorises the Mayor or delegate to speak at any hearings.

BACKGROUND

7 In 2023, central government held an Inquiry (the Inquiry) into the response to the North Island Sever Weather Events that occurred that year.

8 The Inquiry found that Aotearoa New Zealand’s emergency management system is not fit for purpose and change is required.

9 A discussion paper following the Inquiry was released in April 2025 and submissions were opened. The DCC did not submit as this consultation was specific to the North Island.

10 This Bill results from that consultation and the resulting Cabinet Paper, strengthening emergency management decisions on legislative reform, released in July 2025.

11 The Cabinet Paper identifies the most significant proposal in the Bill as:

· clarifying roles and accountabilities

· improving CDEM Group plans, and input into them

· representation on Coordinating Executive Groups (CEG)

· expanding tools to improve assurance (i.e. through rules or Compliance Orders)

· expanding infrastructure providers that should be recognised under the legislation.

12 The DCC submitted on an earlier Emergency Management Bill in October 2023. This was introduced by the previous government but never progressed beyond the submission stage, due to timing factors such as a change of government and running parallel to severe weather events and the Inquiry.

DISCUSSION

The DCC Submission

13 The DCC submission addresses issues including: expectations of councils and chief executives; funding; climate adaptation and infrastructure; expectations of iwi Māori and communities; and how new emergency management legislation will align with other proposed changes and reform currently being consulted on be central government.

14 The DCC notes that its partnership role with other local authorities in the Group Plan becomes auditable and enforceable under the proposed changes and seeks clarity around the statutory expectations of this should the Bill be enacted.

15 The DCC notes that the proposals in the Bill materially change the expectations of councils, Chief Executives, and governance arrangements, and seeks clarification on how these arrangements will be designed and implemented in practice.

16 The statutory expectations on councils are significantly increased through the proposed changes in the Bill. The Regulatory Impact Statement prepared for consideration alongside the Bill notes that there will be an estimated $82.8 million in costs for local government if the proposed changes are enacted, which are largely unfunded in the modelling for the Bill.

17 In addition to queries about how funding shortfalls will be reconciled, the DCC submission also seeks clarification on how councils will be supported by central government to implement the proposed changes in the Bill, including how new requirements are monitored and evaluated, and any potential repercussions for councils if expectations are not met.

18 The DCC submission notes, with concern, that this Bill is open for consultation at the same time as a number of other central government consultations, including the Planning Bill, Natural Environment Bill, rates-capping model, and Simplifying Local Government (which will have a direct effect on regional councils). The DCC seeks information and assurance on how these pieces of legislation and government reform initiatives will align with each other once enacted.

19 The DCC submission supports increased engagement with iwi Māori and communities that are disproportionately affected by emergencies, including rural communities, disabled people and older people, but seeks clarification about how expectations of this engagement will be managed and supported by central government, and how involvement in CEG will work at a practical level.

20 The DCC notes that the emergency management reform, which is the purpose of the Bill, has as one of its objectives “strengthening the role of iwi Māori in emergency management”, however there is no reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in the Bill itself. The DCC asks that the Bill be amended to include the Treaty.

21 The DCC submission notes that the DCC has a strong and active commitment to preserving the unique heritage of Ōtepoti Dunedin. It is concerned to see that the proposal in the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared for the Bill — to enable secondary legislation to support improved recovery planning for taonga Māori and other cultural heritage — has not been included in the Bill itself and would like to see the Bill amended to include this.

OPTIONS

Option One – Approves the Dunedin City Council draft submission on the Emergency Management Bill (No. 2)

22 That Council approves the Dunedin City Council draft submission on the Emergency Management Bill (No. 2).

Advantages

· Opportunity to participate in discussions about national legislation that will have direct impact at a local level for Ōtepoti Dunedin and its residents.

· Opportunity to advocate for the unique perspective and requirements of Ōtepoti Dunedin in decisions around emergency management planning and resourcing.

· Opportunity to present the Dunedin City Council’s view on proposed changes to legislation that have potential implications for its financial management and planning processes.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages to this option.

Option Two – Does not approve the Dunedin City Council draft submission on the Emergency Management Bill (No. 2)

23 That Council does not approve the Dunedin City Council draft submission on the Emergency Management Bill (No. 2).

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to participate in discussions about national legislation that will have direct impact at a local level for Ōtepoti Dunedin and its residents.

· Missed opportunity to advocate for the unique perspective and requirements of Ōtepoti Dunedin in decisions around emergency management planning and resourcing.

· Missed opportunity to present the Dunedin City Council’s view on proposed changes to legislation that have potential implications for its financial management and planning processes.

NEXT STEPS

24 If Council approves the draft submission on the Emergency Management Bill (No. 2), with any amendments, DCC staff will provide it to the Governance and Administration Committee before 15 February 2026.

Signatories

Author:	Brandy Saxton - Senior Advisor - Climate Adaptation and Resilience
Authoriser:	Mike Costelloe - General Manager, Arts, Culture & Economic Development

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	draft Dunedin City Council submission on the Emergency Management Bill (No. 2)	54

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

The submission aligns with the DCC’s Heritage Action Plan, Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, and Te Taki Haruru, the DCC’s Māori Strategic Framework, Otago Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2018 -2028.

Māori Impact Statement

Te Taki Haruru, the DCC’s Māori Strategic Framework, includes the theme of Autūroa and its principles that “Māori are leaders in the management of our natural resources and built environment” and that “Māori will participate and demonstrate leadership in the community”.

The Bill does not include any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi; the DCC submission requests that the Bill be amended to include this.

The DCC submission supports increased engagement with iwi Māori in emergency management; it seeks more information about how this will be undertaken in practice, including the composition of emergency management groups and how they will be supported to deliver on expectations.

Sustainability

Making this submission has no sustainability implications for the DCC.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are potential implications for the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan as changes proposed in the Bill are expected to be managed and funded by local authorities.

Financial considerations

There are potential financial implications as changes proposed in the Bill are expected to be managed and funded by local authorities.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

The DCC’s submission has been informed by a webinar on this topic presented by Simpson Grierson for Taituarā members; a workshop prepared by Otago Regional Council staff for its councillors; the Taituarā draft submission; and the draft submission from the Otago Waste Network, of which the DCC is a member.

Engagement - internal

The following DCC teams have contributed to this draft submission: Climate Adaptation and Resilience; Community Partnerships; Corporate Policy; Mana Ruruku; and Waste Management and Minimisation.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are potential implications for Community Boards as proposed changes in the Bill will affect Community Board areas.