Agenda of Council - Thursday, 25 June 2026

Council

25 June 2026

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, the Octagon, Dunedin on Wednesday 27 May 2026, commencing at 9:00 am

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Sophie Barker
Deputy Mayor	Cr Cherry Lucas
Members	Cr John Chambers	Cr Jo Galer
	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

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), Mike Costelloe (General Manager, Arts, Culture and Economic Development) Hayden McAuliffe (Financial Services Manager), Mathew Brockie (Budget Accountant), Janet Fraser (Corporate Planner), John McAndrew (Head of 3 Waters), Jeanine Benson (Group Manager Transport) and Anna Nilsen (Group Manager Property),

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Opening

Jane Beecroft opened the meeting with a prayer on behalf of the Hare Krishna community.

2 Public Forum

There was no Public Forum.

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/2026/094)

5 Declarations of interest

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

Moved (Mayor 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 (CNL/2026/095)

Reports

6 CEO Overview Report - 2026/27 Budget Update
	A report from Finance and Civic provided an overview of the Annual Plan 2026/27 (Annual Plan) process to date, decisions to be made at the deliberations meeting, and the process to complete the Annual Plan through to its adoption on 25 June 2026. This report also provided an update on the 2026/27 operating budget and noted that the 2026/27 capital budget was the subject of a separate report.
	The Chief Executive (Sandy Graham), Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan), Financial Services Manager (Hayden McAuliffe) and General Manager City Services (Scott MacLean) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
During discussion, the Mayor vacated the Chair at 9.51 am and Cr Cherry Lucas assumed the Chair. Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for one minute. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 9.51 am and reconvened at 9.52 am. Mayor Sophie resumed the Chair at 9.53 am.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the CEO Overview Report – 2026/27 Budget Update report. b) Approves the proposed changes to operational budget for the inclusion in the 2026/27 Annual Plan. c) Notes that any resolution made in this section of the meeting, pursuant to Standing Order 23.5 may be subject to further discussion and decision by the meeting. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (10). Against: Crs Jo Galer, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms and Lee Vandervis (5). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 10 votes to 5 Motion carried (CNL/2026/096)

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 15 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 10.26 am and reconvened at 10.42 am.

7 Capital Expenditure Update - Annual Plan 2026/27

A report from Finance provided an update on the capital expenditure programme, approved by Council at its meeting on 4 March 2026.

The report noted that in revising the programme, continued progress on capital investment had been balanced with affordability and delivery capacity. The revised capital budget for 2026/27 reflected a decrease of $29.751 million from $239.915 million to $210.164 million.

The Chief Executive (Sandy Graham), Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan), Financial Services Manager (Hayden McAuliffe), General Manager City Services (Scott MacLean), General Manager 3 Waters, Property and Urban Development (David Ward), Group Manager Transport (Jeanine Benson), Group Manager Property (Anna Nilsen), Head of 3 Waters (John McAndrew) spoke to the report and responded to questions.

Cr Mickey Treadwell left the meeting at 11.31 am and returned at 11.34 am.

Cr Doug Hall left the meeting at 11.34 am and returned at 11.37 am.

Cr Mandy Mayhem left the meeting at 10.39 am and returned at 11.43 am.

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 11.45 am and reconvened at 12.34 pm.

Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Mayor Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Capital Expenditure Update – Annual Plan 2026/27 report.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/097)

Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Mayor Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

a) Approves the Princes Street Bus Priority and Corridor Safety Plan project ($3.200 million) remains in the 2026/27 capital expenditure budget, and the next stage of the Harbour Arterial Efficiency Improvement project ($1.500 million) remain in the 2026/27 capital expenditure budget.

During discussion it was moved: (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 1 minute.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 1.00 pm and reconvened at 1.04 pm.

Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Mayor Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

a) Approves the procedural motion that the resolutions be taken in parts.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/098)

During discussion it was moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 1 minute.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 1.08 pm and reconvened at 1.09 pm.

Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Mayor Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

b) Approves the Princes Street Bus Priority and Corridor Safety Plan project ($3.2 million) remain in the 2026/27 capital expenditure budget.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker and Mayor Sophie Barker (8).

Against: Crs Jo Galer, Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms, Lee Vandervis and Brent Weatherall (7).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 8 votes to 7

Motion carried (CNL/2026/099)

Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Mayor Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

c) Approves the next stage of the Harbour Arterial Efficiency Improvement project ($1.5 million) remain in the 2026/27 capital expenditure budget.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker and Mayor Sophie Barker (9).

Against: Crs Jo Galer, Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Lee Vandervis and Brent Weatherall (6).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 6

Motion carried (CNL/2026/100)

During discussion it was moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 1 minute.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 1.38 pm and reconvened at 1.39 pm.

Mayor Sophie and Cr Doug Hall left the meeting at 1.43 pm

Cr Cherry Lucas assumed the Chair.

Cr Doug Hall returned to the meeting at 1.45 pm.

Mayor Sophie returned to the meeting at 1.46 pm and resumed the Chair.

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for one minute.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 1.53 pm and reconvened at 1.55 pm.

Moved (Cr Russell Lund/Cr Jo Galer):

That the Council:

a) Pauses the South Dunedin Flood Alleviation Short-Term Options in Forbury Road and Hillside Road;

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Jo Galer, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong and Lee Vandervis (4).

Against: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (11).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared LOST by 4 votes to 11

Moved (Cr Russell Lund/Cr Jo Galer):

That the Council:

b) Requests a report for the 10 year plan on options (including costs and benefits) that address considerations of construction practicalities, and the cumulative flood alleviation including benefits as signalled in the 2017 Opus report ‘South Dunedin Stormwater Modelling’.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Jo Galer, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms and Lee Vandervis (5).

Against: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (10).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared LOST by 5 votes to 10

Moved (Cr Lee Vandervis/Cr Russell Lund):

That the Council:

a) Removes the Peninsula Connection (Stage 0ne – Fisheries Wharf section) from the 2026/27 capital expenditure budget:

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Jo Galer, Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms, Lee Vandervis and Brent Weatherall (7).

Against: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker and Mayor Sophie Barker (8).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared LOST by 7 votes to 8

That the Council:

b) Removes the Decarbonisation and renewal of energy systems at Toitū Otago Settlers Museum from the 2026/27 capital expenditure budget.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Jo Galer, Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms, Lee Vandervis and Brent Weatherall (7).

Against: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker and Mayor Sophie Barker (8).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared LOST by 7 votes to 8

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 2.35 pm and reconvened at 2.46 pm.

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

b) Approves the capital expenditure budget, including a $12 million timing adjustment to the non-waters capital expenditure programme, (noting that this will reduce the overall capital expenditure budget) in the 2026/27 Annual Plan.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (10).

Against: Crs Jo Galer, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms and Lee Vandervis (5).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 10 votes to 5

Motion carried (CNL/2026/101)

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Extends the meeting beyond 6 hours.

Motion carried

8 Adoption of 2026/27 Fees and Charges

A report from Civic provided the schedule of fees and charges for the 2026/27 financial year for adoption.

The report noted that the fees and charges were presented for approval in advance of the final Annual Plan adoption on 25 June 2026, to allow sufficient time to complete the work needed to ensure the schedules were ready to take effect from 1 July 2026.

The Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan) and Corporate Planner (Janet Fraser), Group Manager City Services (Scott MacLean), Group Manager Transport (Jeanine Benson) and Group Manager Property (Anna Nilsen) spoke to the report and responded to questions.

Cr Lee Vandervis left the meeting at 2.54 pm and returned at 2.56 pm.

Moved (Cr Mickey Treadwell/Cr Marie Laufiso):

That the Council:

a) Amends the 2026/27 proposed fees for housing (City Properties) to remain unchanged from the 2025/26 fees.

b) Amends the draft 2026/27 budget to increase general rates revenue by $507k to offset the reduction in housing rental.

During discussion, Mayor Sophie vacated the Chair and Cr Cherry Lucas assumed the Chair.

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 2 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 3.39 pm and resumed at 3.40 pm.

Crs Doug Hall, Russell Lund and Jo Galer returned to the meeting at 3.41 pm.

Cr Benedict Ong returned to the meeting at 3.42 pm.

Mayor Sophie resumed the Chair at 3.42 pm.

An amendment was moved (Cr Jo Galer/Mayor Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

a) Amends the 2026/27 proposed fees for housing (City Properties) with a 4% increase.

b) Amends the draft 2026/27 budget to increase general rates revenue by $253.5 k to offset the reduction in housing rental.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Jo Galer, Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong and Mayor Sophie Barker (5).

Against: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell, Lee Vandervis, Steve Walker and Brent Weatherall (10).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared LOST by 10 votes to 5

The substantive motion was then put.

Moved (Cr Mickey Treadwell/Cr Marie Laufiso):

That the Council:

a) Amends the 2026/27 proposed fees for housing (City Properties) to remain unchanged from the 2025/26 fees.

b) Amends the draft 2026/27 budget to increase general rates revenue by $507k to offset the reduction in housing rental.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell and Steve Walker (8).

Against: Crs Jo Galer, Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (7).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 8 votes to 7

Motion carried (CNL/2026/102)

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 10 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 3.49 pm and reconvened at 4.00 pm.

The discussion on fees and charges continued.

Moved (Cr Mandy Mayhem/Cr Marie Laufiso):

That the Council:

a) Approves a new fee in the Aquatic Services activity in Community Recreation to allow Hāpai Access card holders to access DCC owned and operated swimming pools for $3.00 per week (for swimming only).

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs John Chambers, Jo Galer, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell, Lee Vandervis, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (13).

Against: Crs Russell Lund and Benedict Ong (2).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 13 votes to 2

Motion carried (CNL/2026/103)

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Mayor Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

a) Adopts the 2026/27 Fees and Charges schedules with minor corrections.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/104)

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 Fuel Cost Escalation and Contractual Response Options

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.

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 10 minutes.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/105)

The meeting adjourned at 4.33 pm and reconvened in public at 9.10 am on Friday 29 May 2026.

9 Summary of Submissions on Annual Plan 2026/2027
	A report from Corporate Policy and Civic summarised community feedback received on the draft Annual Plan 2026/2027 and noted that there had been 146 submissions received.
	The Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan), Corporate Planner (Janet Fraser) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Lee Vandervis left the meeting at 9.10 am and returned at 9.12 am.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the feedback received through the Annual Plan community engagement process. Motion carried (CNL/2026/106)

10 Funding requests - Annual Plan 2026/27
	A report from Civic summarised three funding requests received from submitters during the community consultation period on the Annual Plan 2026/27.
	The Chief Executive (Sandy Graham) and Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan) and Corporate Planner (Janet Fraser) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
During discussion Cr Benedict Ong left the meeting at 9.36 am. Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 9.37 am and reconvened at 9.38 am Cr Benedict Ong returned to the meeting at 9.39 am During discussion it was moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 9.49 am and reconvened at 9.53 am. Cr Benedict Ong returned to the meeting at 9.56 am.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Funding Requests - Annual Plan 2026/27 Report.
Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for 2 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 10.15 am and reconvened at 10.16 am.
	An amendment was moved (Cr Russell Lund/Cr Jo Galer): That the Council: a) Reduces the Contestable Grants Fund of $3,395,969 by $200,000. b) Request that staff report back on the reallocation of the contestable grants fund at the adoption meeting on 25 June 2026. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Jo Galer, Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms, Lee Vandervis and Brent Weatherall (7). Against: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker and Mayor Sophie Barker (8). Abstained: Nil The division was declared LOST by 8 votes to 7
	The substantive motion was then put
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Funding Requests - Annual Plan 2026/27 Report. Motion carried (CNL/2026/107) with Crs Jo Galer; Russell Lund; Benedict Ong and Lee Vandervis recording their votes against

11 Amenity requests - Annual Plan 2026/27

A report from Civic summarised requests for new amenities and projects received from submitters.

The Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan) and Corporate Planner (Janet Fraser) spoke to the report and responded to questions.

Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Cr John Chambers):

That the Council:

a) Requests a report on options for the 10 year plan addressing the provision of an Archives service at Toitū Settlers Museum.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs John Chambers, Jo Galer, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Mandy Mayhem, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (14).

Against: Cr Lee Vandervis (1).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 14 votes to 1

Motion carried (CNL/2026/108)

Cr Steve Walker left the meeting at 10.45 am

Moved (Cr John Chambers/Cr Marie Laufiso):

That the Council:

a) Requests a review of the roading network seal extension policy , including the criteria for prioritisation, and report back in time for the 10 year plan.

b) Notes that the report would contain funding implications of extending the sealed roading network and proposed criteria for determining priorities

c) Investigates a speed reduction on McMaster Road, including a full assessment and public consultation in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits, and report back to a Hearings Committee in 2027.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mickey Treadwell, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (7).

Against: Crs Jo Galer, Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Mandy Mayhem, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms and Lee Vandervis (7).

Abstained: Nil

An equality of votes was recorded 7:7 following which the Mayor used her casting vote in favour of the motion.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/109)

Moved (Cr John Chambers/Cr Marie Laufiso):

That the Council:

a) Investigates a speed reduction on McMaster Road, including a full assessment and public consultation in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits, and report back to a Hearings Committee in 2027.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs John Chambers, Jo Galer, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell and Mayor Sophie Barker (11).

Against: Crs Russell Lund, Lee Vandervis and Brent Weatherall (3).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 3

Motion carried (CNL/2026/110)

The meeting adjourned at 11.07 am and reconvened at 9.10 am on Thursday 4 June 2026.

AMENITY REQUESTS - ANNUAL PLAN 2026/27

The discussion on Amenity Requests continued.

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Notes the requests received from submitters for new amenities and projects, for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2026/27.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/111)

12 Completion of Annual Plan 2026/27 deliberations and decision making
	A report from Civic contained the recommendations to be taken at the completion of Council consideration of feedback and final decision-making on the budgets for the Annual Plan 2026/27. The recommendations allowed the decisions and budget changes made during the deliberations meeting to be incorporated into the Annual Plan 2026/27, prior to adoption by the Council on 25 June 2026.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham), Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan) and Corporate Planner (Janet Fraser) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
During discussion, Mayor Sophie vacated the Chair at 9.41 am and Cr Cherry Lucas assumed the Chair. The Mayor resumed the Chair at 9.42 am. The Mayor vacated the Chair at 9.43 am and Cr Cherry Lucas assumed the Chair. The Mayor resumed the Chair at 9.44 am. The Mayor vacated the Chair at 9.44 am and Cr Brent Weatherall assumed the Chair. The Mayor resumed the Chair at 9.44 am. The Mayor vacated the Chair at 9.47 am and Cr Cherry Lucas assumed the Chair. The Mayor resumed the Chair at 9.47 am.
	It was agreed that the resolutions would be taken separately.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Approves staff comments for feedback topics as shown in the consultation database (or as amended during Annual Plan decision-making) for the purposes of: i) providing feedback on Annual Plan engagement and decision-making to the community; ii) inclusion in the Annual Plan 2026/27 as appropriate; and iii) further follow-up or action by staff, if required. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs John Chambers, Jo Galer, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Russell Lund, Mandy Mayhem, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell, Lee Vandervis, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (15). Against: Nil Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 15 votes to 0 Motion carried (CNL/2026/112)
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: b) Approves the changes to draft 2026/27 budgets resolved at this meeting for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2026/27, for adoption by the Council on 25 June 2026. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker and Mayor Sophie Barker (9). Against: Crs Jo Galer, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms, Lee Vandervis and Brent Weatherall (6). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 6 Motion carried (CNL/2026/113)

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes.

b) Resumes the 4 June 2026 Council meeting.

Motion carried

The meeting ended at 9.59 am and reconvened the 4 June 2026 Council meeting at 10.01 am.

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

MAYOR

Council

25 June 2026

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 04 June 2026, commencing at 9.00 am

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Sophie Barker
Deputy Mayor	Cr Cherry Lucas
Members	Cr John Chambers	Cr Jo Galer
	Cr Christine Garey	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Marie Laufiso	Cr Russell Lund via zoom audio visual link
	Cr Mandy Mayhem	Cr Benedict Ong
	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), Mike Costelloe (General Manager, Arts, Culture and Economic Development), Paul Henderson (General Manager Corporate and Regulatory Services) and Nicola Morand (Manahautū - General Manager Community and Strategy) Teresa Fogarty (Destination Manager), Katie Love (Enterprise Dunedin Marketing Officer), Dr Anna Johnson (Manager City Development), Dan Hendra (Team Leader – Events)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Opening

Richard Chambers, Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints opened the meeting with a prayer.

2 Apologies
	There were no apologies.

3 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda with the following alterations:

i) That Items 11 – Amenity Requests and 12 – Completion of Annual Plan 2026/27 Deliberations and Decision making (from the 27 May 2026 meeting) be taken after Item 5 – Declaration of Interests.

ii) Notes that the meeting will move into non-public at 10.30 am and that Item C4 – Recruitment Update will be considered at that time due to the availability of external attendees.

iii) That the meeting would resume in public at 1.00 pm with Public Forum being the first item taken and then then continue at Item 6 – Confirmation of Minutes

Motion carried (CNL/2026/114)

4 Declarations of interest

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

Cr Benedict Ong provided an update to his Interest Register.

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Amends the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

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

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

Motion carried (CNL/2026/115)

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Resumes the 27 May 2026 Council meeting.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 9.10 am and reconvened at 10.01 am.

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 23 April 2026

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 23 April 2026 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/116)

Reports

8 Proposed Event Road Closures

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

i) Dunedin Midwinter Carnival

ii) Matariki Drone Show

Moved (Cr Mandy Mayhem/Mayor Sophie Barker):

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) Dunedin Midwinter Carnival

Friday, 12 June 2026

AND

Saturday, 13 June 2026

3.00pm to 10.00pm

· Moray Place, between Lower Stuart Street and Princes Street

· Burlington Street, between State Highway 1 and Moray Place

*Contingency days are Friday, 19 June and Saturday, 20 June 2026

ii) Matariki Drone Show

Friday, 10 July 2026	6.00am to 11.59pm	· Logan Park Drive, between Anzac Avenue and Butts Road
Saturday, 11 July 2026	12.00am to 11.59pm
Sunday, 12 July 2026
12.00am to 12.00pm
Friday, 10 July 2026
3.00pm to 10.00pm	· Anzac Avenue, between Union Street East and Butts Road

Motion carried (CNL/2026/117)

9 Ōtepoti Dunedin Destination Wrap Up - Summer 2025/26

A report from Enterprise Dunedin provided an update on activity and performance of Ōtepoti Dunedin Destination functions over summer 2025/26. The team delivered domestic and national marketing and media campaigns, supported a vibrant summer events programme, strengthened tourism trade engagement, and supported cruise activity.

The General Manager, Arts, Culture & Economic Development (Mike Costelloe), and Destination Manager (Teresa Fogarty), Enterprise Dunedin Marketing Officer (Katie Love) spoke to the report and responded to questions.

Mayor Sophie vacated the Chair at 10.20 am and Cr Cherry Lucas assumed the Chair.

Mayor Sophie resumed the Chair at 10.31 am.

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
C4 Recruitment Update	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.
C1 Ordinary Council meeting - 23 April 2026 - Public Excluded	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).	.
C2 Major Event Proposal Update	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	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 Director Re-Appointment - Dunedin City Holdings Limited	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.	The report is confidential because the appointment of the directors is made public once the applicant has been notified of the decision..

That Louise Green (Sheffield) and Ashleigh Inder (Simpson Grierson) be permitted to remain in the meeting because of their knowledge for Item C4 – Recruitment Update and that Chris Simpson (CEO Major Events) be permitted to remain in the meeting for Item C2 – Major Event Proposal Update. Their knowledge would be of assistance in relation to the matters discussed.

Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/118)

9 Ōtepoti Dunedin Destination Wrap Up - Summer 2025/26 (CONTINUED)

The discussion continued on the report from Enterprise Dunedin which provided an update on activity and performance of Ōtepoti Dunedin Destination functions over summer 2025/26.

The meeting moved into non-public at 10.30 am and reconvened in public at 12.17 pm.

During discussion it was moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting and reconvenes at 1.00 pm.

Motion carried

The meeting resumed in public at 1.00 pm.

2 PUBLIC FORUM

2.1 Steve Lucas – Flood Mitigation in South Dunedin

Mr Lucas spoke on behalf of his father who had recently passed away. His advised that his father had lived in South Dunedin since 1995 and commented that on the impact the 2015 flood had on his health and well-being. Mr Lucas said his father was always concerned that there might be another flood and if so, would he be covered by insurance or could he, actually afford the insurance. He had the faith that this would not occur again, therefore in 2024, when the second flood occurred, his father would not leave his property.

Mr Lucas responded to questions and implored Council to address the issues in South Dunedin.

Cr Benedict Ong returned to the meeting at 1.11 pm and Cr Jo Galer returned at 1.12 pm.

2.3 Kim Hayward, Stu Hayes, Athol Parks and Leon Chu

Messrs Hayward, Hayes, Parks and Chu spoke on the statement of position on tourism development in Dunedin. They commented on the benefits for the city and the need for tourism representation at the governance level when it comes to planning and have a seat at the tourism table. They spoke of the need to retain and the retention of destination marketing and spoke of recent achievements e.g. the return of international flights to Dunedin Airport. Mr Hayward commented on the importance of visibility of the iSite to the city.

Messrs Hayward, Hayes, Parks and Chu responded to questions.

Cr Benedict Ong left the meeting at 1.18 pm.

2.4 Rosie Dickie (Manager) and Mike Hammond (Chair) South Dunedin Community Network

Ms Dickie introduced herself and Mr Hammond and explained their roles and the history of the South Dunedin Community Network. She spoke of their work and advocacy for South Dunedin.

Ms Dickie thanked Council for the use of the free space at Elliot House and spoke of the value this provided to local community groups.

Ms Dickie and Mr Hammond thanked Council for the funding provided and responded to questions.

9 Ōtepoti Dunedin Destination Wrap Up - Summer 2025/26 (CONTINUED)
	The discussion continued on the Ōtepoti Dunedin Destination Wrap Up.
	The General Manager, Arts, Culture & Economic Development (Mike Costelloe), and Destination Manager (Teresa Fogarty), Enterprise Dunedin Marketing Officer (Katie Love) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Ōtepoti Dunedin Destination Wrap Up – Summer 2025/26 Motion carried (CNL/2026/119)

10 Festival and Events Plan Wrap Up - Year 1
	A report from Enterprise Dunedin provided an update on the implementation, activity, and performance of the refreshed Festival and Events Plan during its first year of operation in 2025/26.
	The General Manager, Arts, Culture & Economic Development (Mike Costelloe), Destination Manager (Teresa Fogarty) and Team Leader – Events (Dan Hendra) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Festival and Events Plan Wrap Up – Year 1 report. Motion carried (CNL/2026/120)

7 Approval to make the District Plan (2GP) Fully Operative
	A report from City Development sought approval to make the partially operative Dunedin City Second Generation District Plan (2GP) fully operative in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The report noted that this step was required under clauses 17 and 20 of the First Schedule to the RMA to reflect the legal status of a district plan when all appeals to the plan had been resolved.
	The General Manager, 3 Waters, Property and Urban Development (David Ward) and Manager City Development (Dr Anna Johnson) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Doug Hall left the meeting at 2.17 pm and returned at 2.20 pm
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Steve Walker): That the Council: a) Approves the Dunedin City Second Generation District Plan (2GP) as fully operative with effect from 17 June 2026. Motion carried (CNL/2026/121)

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

C2 Major Event Proposal Update

S7(2)(h)

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

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 Director Re-Appointment - Dunedin City Holdings Limited

S7(2)(a)

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

S48(1)(a)

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

The report is confidential because the appointment of the directors is made public once the applicant has been notified of the decision..

That Chris Simpson (CEO Major Events) be permitted to remain in the meeting for Item C2 – Major Event Proposal Update. His knowledge would be of assistance in relation to the matters discussed.

Adjourns the meeting for 15 minutes.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/122)

The meeting moved into confidential at 2.35 pm and concluded at 4.36 pm.

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

MAYOR

Council

25 June 2026

Reports

South Dunedin Natural Hazards Plan Review

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to present the outcome of the South Dunedin Natural Hazards Plan Review (Attachment 1) and to seek Council’s decision on whether to initiate a plan change to the Second Generation District Plan for Dunedin (2GP) in response to that review.

2 The review was undertaken because updated hazard and risk information for South Dunedin is now available, and because new national and regional direction for natural hazards management has taken effect. The review found that the current 2GP provisions for South Dunedin no longer reflect the best available understanding of natural hazard risk and are not effectively managing that risk for new development. In particular, the current Hazard 3 (coastal) overlay no longer reflects the level of risk, the relocatable buildings standard is not working as intended, and the current planning framework does not adequately manage intensification in areas subject to increasing hazard risk. The review therefore supports the need for stronger management of natural hazard risk in South Dunedin. However, staff do not recommend initiating a stand-alone plan change to the 2GP at this time. This is because of the short remaining life of the 2GP under resource management reform, the cost and staff time required for a separate plan change, the likelihood that any new provisions could be revisited through the upcoming full plan review, and the fact that the South Dunedin Future adaptation work is still underway and has not yet identified a preferred long-term spatial response.

3 The recommended approach is therefore not to initiate a plan change now. Instead, the findings of the review should inform how risk is managed in the interim through existing statutory tools, including the resource consent process, and should be carried forward into the full district plan review expected under the new planning system.

RECOMMENDATIONS

4 That the Council:

a) Notes the findings of the South Dunedin Natural Hazards Plan Review Report, and the associated South Dunedin Natural Hazards Qualitative Risk Assessment prepared by Otago Regional Council.

b) Decides not to initiate a plan change to the Second Generation District Plan for Dunedin at this time.

c) Directs staff to continue to manage natural hazard risk in South Dunedin through existing statutory and resource consent processes, where available.

BACKGROUND

5 South Dunedin is currently subject to the Hazard 3 (coastal) Overlay Zone in the Second Generation District Plan for Dunedin (2GP). That overlay indicates a low risk to people and property from coastal inundation. The coastal hazard overlay zone requires new buildings with residential activity on the ground floor to be relocatable. Minimum floor levels also apply to buildings through the Building Act and Building Code. The intent of this approach was to provide a precautionary response that offered short-term protection for buildings while also allowing them to be moved if risk increased over time. It was developed in 2012 when the level of understanding of coastal hazards risk in South Dunedin was relatively low.

6 Under Section 35 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the DCC must monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of its District Plan provisions and take appropriate action if necessary.

7 A review of the South Dunedin provisions (Attachment 1) was triggered by updated hazard and risk information produced through the South Dunedin Future programme[1]. That work established a new baseline understanding of multi-hazard risk across South Dunedin and showed that natural hazard risk is greater than previously understood, with some areas already subject to significant risk and risk increasing over time. To support the review, Otago Regional Council prepared a qualitative risk assessment that considered this updated information in a district plan context (Attachment 2).

8 The review also needed to reflect changes to national and regional direction for natural hazards management. The proposed Otago Regional Policy Statement natural hazards provisions came into effect in 2025, and the National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards came into effect in January 2026. Together these require a risk-based and proportionate approach to managing natural hazard risk over at least the next 100 years. The updated South Dunedin hazards information needed to be considered against that new policy direction to determine whether the current 2GP provisions remain appropriate. The plan review considered: (1) whether the current South Dunedin hazard overlay remains appropriate; (2) whether the relocatable buildings performance standard is effective; and (3) whether the intensification provided for in the plan is appropriate in light of risk.

9 The review was undertaken at a time of wider change to the resource management system. Under the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act 2025, most plan changes are prohibited from notification until 31 December 2027 under the ‘plan stop’ provisions, although there is an exception for plan changes relating to natural hazards. At the same time, the Government is progressing broader resource management reform that is expected to lead to preparation of a new land use plan to replace the 2GP.

10 The review also took place alongside the South Dunedin Future programme’s adaptation planning work. That programme is developing a Climate Adaptation Master Plan for South Dunedin and is testing different adaptation futures for South Dunedin involving different combinations of infrastructure, land raising, water management and land use change. However, the preferred pathway has not yet been selected, and there remains uncertainty about the timing, location and funding of any future interventions.

DISCUSSION

Outcome and implications of the review

11 The South Dunedin Hazards Plan Review Report concludes that the current 2GP provisions for South Dunedin are no longer effectively managing natural hazard risk and are not giving effect to current national and regional direction for natural hazards management.

12 The review found three main problems with the current framework. First, the current Hazard 3 (coastal) Overlay Zone no longer reflects the level of risk now understood to exist. Second, the relocatable buildings standard is not operating as intended in practice. Third, the current planning framework does not adequately manage intensification in areas subject to increasing hazard risk.

13 Firstly, updated risk information shows that natural hazard risk in South Dunedin is greater than previously understood and that development will be subject to significant coastal hazard risk over its expected lifetime of 75 years. Some areas are already subject to significant risk, and risk is expected to increase over time, particularly from the combined effects of rainfall flooding, shallow and emergent groundwater, and coastal inundation. While minimum floor levels under the Building Code may reduce some flood risk to individual new buildings, they do not address the broader pattern of increasing hazard risk across South Dunedin over the expected life of development.

14 This means the current Hazard 3 ‘low’ risk setting is no longer aligned with the best available understanding of hazard risk in South Dunedin and does not provide an accurate signal to plan users about the level of hazard risk in South Dunedin.

15 With respect to the management tools used in the Plan, the review found these are not effective in the revised hazard context. The density rules in South Dunedin have enabled a relatively high level of residential intensification, and the relocatable buildings standard has not effectively ensured that buildings can in fact be relocated in a practical and cost-effective way. As a result, multi-unit development and other forms of intensification have occurred in buildings that may have a low likelihood of being able to be cost-effectively relocated if required.

16 Government direction now requires a risk-based and proportionate approach to natural hazards management. Government guidance also promotes locating new development away from areas prone to coastal hazards and expects significant natural hazard risk to be avoided or mitigated proportionate to the level of risk. Against that policy framework, the evidence from the risk assessment and the review shows that the 2GP is not currently giving effect to the requirements of the NPS-NH or pORPS.

17 While adaptation to reduce hazard risk in the medium to long term is being considered under the SDF programme, until this is confirmed, funded and implemented, there is no certainty that risk will be reduced. Moreover, system-wide interventions are likely to be needed to effectively manage risk and would require extensive investment, disruption, and change over many decades. Information on the three proposed adaptation futures for South Dunedin, and associated risk mitigation actions, is the subject of separate advice to Council from the Climate Adaptation and Resilience team.

18 Taken together, these findings support the need for a stronger planning response to natural hazard risk in South Dunedin than is currently provided by the 2GP. The review report identifies a spectrum of possible district plan responses, ranging from strengthening the relocatable buildings standard through to tighter controls on subdivision and development density.

Options for responding to review

19 Although the review supports stronger management of natural hazard risk, the decision for Council is whether initiating a stand-alone plan change to the 2GP now is the most appropriate response, or whether it is more appropriate to address the matter through the next full plan review.

Implications of Resource Management Reform

20 The RMA requires that the 2GP must give effect to the revised provisions of the NPS-NH “as soon as practicable”. What is “practicable” is context specific. Given the current context includes significant resource management reform, legal advice has indicated that it could reasonably be concluded that it may not be reasonably practicable to initiate a plan change at the present time. This is because a plan change would involve trying to give effect to the current NPS-NH and pORPS, and to consult the public on the proposed plan change, at a time of significant legislative change.

21 Submissions on the Planning Bill are currently being considered by the Select Committee. The published Government timetable for this legislation is to have it enacted before the election. Under the implementation timetable proposed in the Bill, a new land use plan (to replace the 2GP) would need to be developed during 2028 and early 2029, with hearings and decisions by early 2030. Therefore, the 2GP would have a limited life expectancy of approximately 3½ years.

22 In principle, a focused plan change could be used to amend the current South Dunedin provisions in the short term. Such a plan change could update the hazard management framework, tighten rules around relocatable buildings, and impose stronger controls on intensification and subdivision. That would reduce the risk that further development occurs in areas that will be subject to future land use change or where hazard risk cannot be reduced through adaptation measures. It would also provide a clearer signal to landowners, developers and the wider community about the level of risk in South Dunedin. However, any changes made to the 2GP would still be subject to public submissions and decisions by a different hearings panel through the development of the new land use plan. They could also be subject to appeals (noting that appeal rights under the new system are expected to be reduced).

23 However, for this to have a maximum benefit vs cost the change would need to be notified as soon as possible. In practice, notification would be unlikely to be before early next year, and this relatively short timeframe would mean that any changes would need to be narrow and focused in scope.

South Dunedin Future Adaptation Planning

24 Another consideration is the stage and timing of the South Dunedin Future programme. The SDF programme is preparing for community engagement on three adaptation futures shortlisted in 2025. Following community engagement, a preferred future and climate adaptation masterplan for South Dunedin will be developed. Implementation of the masterplan could commence from 1 July 2027, subject to Council approval of workplans and budgets, as part of the Long-Term Plan (2027-36) process.

25 All shortlisted adaptation futures involve a mix of infrastructure investment and land use change, but the nature and extent of those actions across South Dunedin will vary depending on final decisions. Under the adaptation futures, land use change may be required to enable public works such as new or upgraded infrastructure, raising of land, or creation of parks, wetlands and waterways to reduce flood risk. In areas where land use change may be required in the medium to long term, new development may need to be managed more strictly so that future adaptation works are not made more difficult or more costly to implement. In other areas, adaptation measures may reduce hazard risk to a level where new development would not be at high risk, meaning a less restrictive planning response may be appropriate.

26 However, those areas are not yet known. This means any plan change undertaken now could not be tailored to the different circumstances likely to apply across South Dunedin. Instead, it would need to be based on the current baseline risk position and need to take a broad-brush approach across the area. This could be overly restrictive in some locations and not restrictive enough in others. For that reason, it may be preferable to wait until the masterplan is complete and a more targeted planning response can be developed.

Costs of a plan change and staff availability

27 The cost for undertaking a plan change for South Dunedin in response to the Review is estimated at: $30,000 for the hearing process, $40,000 for legal advice through to Hearing Panel decisions, and contingency costs of $60,000 - $100,000 to resolve any appeals. Staff input is expected to be equivalent of 1 FTE Senior Planner over 12 months.

28 A project risk is that the plan change process would also coincide in part with the relatively short period expected to be available for the team to prepare the Regional Spatial Plan (mid 2026 to September 2027), which could create pressure on staff.

Managing hazard risk under the resource consents process

29 Section 106 and 106A of the RMA allow the risk of natural hazards to be considered when subdivision and land use consents are required, and consents may be refused or granted subject to conditions where there is a significant risk from natural hazards. A ‘significant risk’ is defined in the NPS-NH as including medium, high and very high risks classified under the NPS-NH risk matrix.

30 These provisions apply to all land use and subdivision activities requiring resource consent, even where the 2GP does not identify hazards as a relevant matter for discretion. In the Dunedin context this applies to subdivision, multi-unit development and other residential development that requires resource consent due to contravention of a performance standard.

31 Sections 106 and 106A do not apply if an activity is permitted and no resource consent is required. Therefore, they cannot fully address the shortcomings in the District Plan identified in the Review. However, in the short-term minimum floor levels (required under the Building Code) and the relocatable performance standard still apply and provide some mitigation. In addition, property owners are able to access the most up-to-date natural hazards information available for their properties through Land Information Memorandums (LIMs), and so are enabled to make informed decisions.

32 Relying solely on section 106 and 106A may also increase the complexity and uncertainty in resource consent processing, until standard approaches are identified.

33 Building permits granted for new units declined more in South Dunedin between 2024 and 2025 than across the rest of the city (from 127 in 2024 to 20 in 2025 in South Dunedin; and from 475 in 2024 to 332 in 2025 across the rest of the city). If this lower level of development continues, there would only be a modest level of development that would be managed under these provisions in South Dunedin.

Summary

34 Overall, the review supports the need for stronger management of natural hazard risk in South Dunedin, but staff do not consider that initiating a stand-alone plan change to the 2GP now is the best response. A separate plan change would be costly and there would be no guarantee of its longevity under the new system. Further, due to the timing of the South Dunedin Future adaptation work that is still underway, it could not reflect any decisions made under that programme.

OPTIONS

35 Two options are presented below.

Option One – Recommended Option – Do not initiate a plan change at this time

36 Under this option, Council would note the findings of the South Dunedin Natural Hazards Plan Review and the associated South Dunedin Natural Hazards Qualitative Risk Assessment but would not initiate a plan change to the 2GP at this stage.

Advantages

· Avoids the cost of a stand-alone plan change ahead of the requirement to develop a new district plan de novo as part of resource management reform, potentially as soon as 2029.

· Avoids developing new provisions before the climate adaptation masterplan for South Dunedin Future is complete and before funding for implementation has been confirmed through a future Long-Term Plan.

Disadvantages

· 2GP continues to enable development in South Dunedin that may not be appropriate given known hazards and risk

· Any new development prior to the next full plan review could make future adaptation more difficult and costly

· Provides a less efficient and less certain response than updated plan provisions

Option Two – Initiate a focused South Dunedin natural hazards plan change

37 Under this option, Council would direct staff to begin work on a focused plan change to amend the 2GP provisions applying to South Dunedin. Such a plan change could involve amendments to the hazard overlay framework, relocatable buildings provisions, and rules controlling development density and subdivision.

Advantages

· A more immediate response to the findings of the review.

· Reduces the risk of new development, including further intensification, where there may not be adequate risk mitigation in the long term or where it may make mitigation more difficult or expensive to implement.

· Provides a clearer planning signal to landowners, developers and the community of the natural hazard risk in South Dunedin.

Disadvantages

· Involves a significant cost where the is no guarantee of longevity once the Plan is subject to a full review

· Will not reflect the South Dunedin Futures adaptation pathway that will be determined later nor any future decisions on adaptation options.

NEXT STEPS

38 Staff will publish the South Dunedin Natural Hazards Plan Review report on the DCC 2GP website and the Resource Consents team will continue to consider changes to consent practices based on the updated hazards information.

Signatories

Author:

Emma Christmas - Team Leader Planning

Authoriser:

Dr Anna Johnson - Manager City Development

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

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	South Dunedin Natural Hazards Plan Review	53

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	☐	☐	✔

This decision is relevant to the healthy and safe people priority of the Social Wellbeing Strategy, the Dunedin is resilient and carbon zero goal of the Environment Strategy, and Strategic direction 4.12 of the Future Development Strategy – Ōtepoti Dunedin is resilient to the risk from hazards and is prepared for and able to adapt quickly to the effects of climate change. These outcomes will be achieved through the resource consent process until new planning provisions are developed under the new land-use plan.

Māori Impact Statement

Aukaha were advised of the review and provided with the opportunity to give feedback on the review report. Mana whenua will have the opportunity to contribute to new planning provisions through the statutory process when new planning provisions are developed under the new Planning Act.

Sustainability

Long term sustainability of new development is a key consideration. Under the recommended option, this will be achieved through the resource consent process until planning provisions are developed under the new land use plan.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no identified implications for these plans and strategies.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications of the recommended option.

Significance

This decision is assessed as low/medium significance .

Engagement – external

Engagement on the South Dunedin Natural Hazards 2GP review has been undertaken with Otago Regional Council and Aukaha.

Engagement - internal

Engagement has been undertaken with the Resource Consents and Climate Adaptation and Resilience teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

25 June 2026

Simplifying Local Government Update

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update on the Otago Mayoral Forum's regional programme investigating local government reform options in response to the Government's Simplifying Local Government programme. The work includes independent analysis and financial modelling by Morrison Low Advisory.

2 The programme has been established to develop a shared evidence base to support councils in assessing potential governance arrangements across Otago and to retain the option of participating in the Government's Simplifying Local Government Head Start process. Any Head Start proposal must be submitted by 9 August 2026.

3 The work is being undertaken collaboratively across Otago councils; however, all decisions regarding future participation in any reform proposal remain the responsibility of individual councils.

4 Key workstreams currently underway include:

· Governance and programme coordination.

· Community, mana whenua and stakeholder engagement.

· Consideration of potential cross-boundary arrangements.

· Independent options analysis and financial modelling by Morrison Low Advisory.

· Assessment of options against the Government’s Head Start criteria.

5 Morrison Low Advisory is undertaking analysis of a range of potential governance models, including a single Otago unitary authority, sub-regional unitary authority arrangements, and selected cross-boundary options.

6 The programme remains in the evidence-gathering phase. No decisions have been made regarding any preferred reform option, amalgamation proposal, or Head Start submission. The findings will be presented to councils to support consideration of potential reform options and any decision regarding participation in the Government's Head Start process.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the work currently underway through the Otago regional local government reform programme.

b) Notes that no decisions have been made regarding any preferred reform option or potential Head Start proposal.

BACKGROUND

7 The Government has established the Simplifying Local Government Head Start pathway to enable councils to explore alternative local government structures and, where appropriate, submit proposals for reform. Any proposal must satisfy Government criteria and be supported by an appropriate evidence base.

8 Councils wishing to participate in the Head Start pathway are required to submit outline proposals by 9 August 2026.

9 Outline proposals will be assessed by officials from the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport (MCERT) against agreed criteria. The assessment is intended to be strategic and high level, with no prescribed content requirements or thresholds for meeting individual criteria.

10 The primary criteria provided for assessment include the following points.

a) Supports the new planning system: demonstrating alignment with upcoming spatial and natural environment planning reforms and improving coordination while minimising transition disruption.

b) Simplifies local governance: reducing complexity, improving accountability, and eliminating unnecessary duplication.

c) Achieves economies of scale: improving financial sustainability, organisational capability, procurement efficiency and the delivery of regional functions through larger-scale governance arrangements.

d) Maintains local voice: ensuring effective representation and community input within larger governance structures.

e) Ensures deliverability: demonstrating that any proposed reorganisation can be implemented before the October 2028 local elections.

11 A full description and further details regarding the guidelines of the Simplifying Local Government Head Start pathway can be accessed in Attachment A.

12 Cabinet will make final decisions on which outline proposals are agreed in principle for the detailed design phase. Detailed proposals approved by Cabinet will be given effect through primary legislation.

13 The summary timeline sets out the current expected timeframes.

a) Outline proposals are submitted by 9 August 2026.

b) Cabinet agrees to proposals in principle in September 2026.

c) Detailed design phase runs from October 2026 to March 2027.

d) Cabinet confirms final proposals and makes final policy decisions in May 2027.

e) Legislation is enacted to implement Head Start proposals and the backstop in the first quarter of 2028.

14 In response, the Otago Mayoral Forum agreed to undertake a coordinated regional programme to assess potential reform options and ensure councils are well placed to evaluate any future opportunities under the Head Start pathway.

15 Participation in the programme does not commit any council to a particular outcome. Individual councils retain full discretion regarding any future reform proposal.

DISCUSSION

Governance and Programme Structure

16 The programme is overseen by the Otago Mayoral Forum and supported by:

· Chief Executives Forum / Steering Group.

· Senior Responsible Officers Group.

· Communications and Engagement Working Group.

· Morrison Low Advisory.

17 Otago Regional Council is providing regional leadership and coordination, including iwi engagement, community engagement coordination, and liaison with central government.

18 The programme is intended to develop a robust evidence base to support consideration of local government reform options across Otago, while ensuring communities, mana whenua and neighbouring councils have opportunities to contribute to the process.

Morrison Low Advisory Work Programme

19 Morrison Low Advisory (MLA) has been engaged to provide independent analysis, modelling, and technical advice. Their work includes regional options assessment, financial modelling, and evaluation against Government criteria.

Regional Options Assessment

20 A regional study is being undertaken assessing the merits of a potential Otago-wide unitary authority and other possible governance arrangements. The assessment considers:

Community and Connection Factors

· Communities of interest.

· Shared identity and relationships.

· Travel, employment and service patterns.

· Mana whenua relationships.

· Governance and representation approaches.

Financial and Economic Factors

· Financial sustainability of existing councils.

· Relative efficiencies and economies of scale.

· Infrastructure implications.

· Growth patterns and economic linkages.

· Comparative financial modelling.

Environmental and Place-Based Factors

· Catchments and natural systems.

· Geography and regional planning considerations.

· Resource management alignment.

21 The assessment is intended to identify strengths, challenges, opportunities, and risks associated with various options. It will not recommend a preferred option or make decisions on behalf of councils.

Financial Modelling

22 Financial modelling is being undertaken to compare a range of potential governance arrangements including:

· Current arrangements (status quo).

· A single Otago unitary authority.

· Alternative sub-regional unitary authority models.

· Potential cross-boundary configurations.

The modelling will consider:

· Operating and capital expenditure.

· Debt profiles.

· Ratepayer impacts.

· Establishment costs and benefits.

· Infrastructure and service delivery implications.

Assessment Against Government Criteria

23 Options will also be assessed against Government Head Start criteria including:

· Deliverability.

· Support for the new planning system.

· Simpler local governance.

· Economies of scale.

· Maintenance of local voice and representation.

Options Under Investigation

24 Current options identified for analysis include:

Option 1

One Otago-wide unitary authority.

Option 2

Two unitary authorities:

· Queenstown Lakes District and Central Otago District.

· Dunedin City, Clutha District and Waitaki District.

Option 3

Three unitary authorities:

· Queenstown Lakes District.

· Dunedin City.

· Central Otago, Clutha and Waitaki districts combined.

Potential variants being considered include:

· Waitaki alignment with Canterbury.

· Inclusion of Gore.

· Inclusion of Waimate and Mackenzie districts.

These options remain exploratory, and no preferred option has been identified.

Community and Stakeholder Engagement

25 A region-wide survey has been undertaken to gather community views on local government reform and future governance arrangements.

26 Survey findings are being analysed and will help inform the development of Otago-specific assessment criteria and support Council decision making.

Mana Whenua Engagement

27 Engagement is being undertaken with Otago and Southland rūnaka through:

· Direct correspondence from the Mayoral Forum.

· Existing relationships and council engagement channels.

· Discussion through Te Rōpū Taiao.

28 The objective is to understand how reform options may affect relationships between mana whenua and local government.

Neighbouring Councils

29 Discussions have commenced with neighbouring councils including Southland, Waimate and Mackenzie.

30 The purpose is to test interest in participating in discussions and potential analysis of cross-boundary options.

Current Status

31 The programme has progressed from establishment into detailed evidence gathering.

Current activities include:

· Collection and review of background information.

· Communities of interest analysis.

· Governance and representation analysis.

· Environmental and planning alignment analysis.

· Financial modelling.

· Stakeholder engagement.

32 Council workshops and consideration of findings are expected throughout July. Following consideration of the evidence, councils will determine whether any reform options warrant further development and whether participation in the Government's Head Start process should be progressed before the submission deadline.

OPTIONS

33 This report is provided for noting so no options are included.

NEXT STEPS

34 Over the coming weeks the programme will:

a) Complete options analysis and financial modelling.

b) Finalise engagement activities.

c) Present findings to councils.

d) Support council workshops and deliberations.

e) Assist councils in considering whether any Head Start proposal should be developed and submitted.

f) Identify matters requiring further investigation through any future reform process.

35 Key upcoming milestones include:

a)   Consideration of MLA’s analysis and findings by the Otago Mayoral Forum on 3 July.
b)   Council workshops and deliberations throughout July 2026.
c)   Council decisions regarding participation in the Head Start process by late July 2026.
d)   Submission of any Head Start proposal by 9 August 2026.

Signatories

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

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Simplifying Local Government - Guidance for Head-Start outline proposals	160

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 proposal to simplify local government may have implications across a range of Council strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

This is covered in the body of the report.

Sustainability

As this is a paper for noting, there are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

Not applicable as this is paper for noting, rather than decision-making.

Engagement – external

There has been external engagement through the Otago Mayoral Forum and with mana whenua in Otago and Southland and neighbouring councils, as detailed in this report.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement has occurred across a number of operational areas in council.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

Community boards are likely to have an interest in this matter; however, they have not yet been specifically engaged. As the process progresses, targeted engagement with community boards will be undertaken where appropriate.

Council

25 June 2026

Keeping of Animals Bylaw review

Department: Corporate and Regulatory

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 In March 2026, the Council resolved to review the Keeping of Animals Bylaw (the Bylaw). This review must be carried out under requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).

2 This report presents results of initial engagement on the Bylaw review. This engagement has informed a draft revised Bylaw.

3 The report seeks approval of the draft Bylaw and draft statement of proposal for formal consultation using the special consultative procedure. It asks the Council to make determinations required by the Act. The Chair of the Hearings Committee, Councillor Lucas, will appoint members of a Hearings Committee to hear and consider submissions on this review.

4 Following initial engagement, no substantive change is proposed to the Bylaw which seems to be working well to address issues related to keeping animals in Dunedin.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the results of early engagement.

b) Approves the draft Keeping of Animals Bylaw (Attachment A), for consultation purposes, subject to any amendment.

c) Adopts the statement of proposal (Attachment B), for consultation purposes, subject to any amendment.

d) Resolves that the proposed draft Keeping of Animals Bylaw meets the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, in that:

i) the proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate form of Bylaw

ii) the proposed Bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

e) Notes that Councillor Lucas will appoint members of a Hearings Committee to hear submitters, consider submissions and make recommendations to the Council.

BACKGROUND

Local Government Act 2002

5 Bylaws can be made, under the Act, for one or more of the following general purposes: protecting the public from nuisance; protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety; and minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places (section 145).

6 The Act also allows bylaws to be made specifically to regulate the keeping of animals, bees, and poultry (section 146(1)(a)(v)).

7 The Act further requires bylaws to be reviewed five years after adoption and then at ten-year intervals (with a two-year additional period to complete a review if required).

Keeping of Animals Bylaw history and purpose

8 The Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw was made in October 2010. It does not extend to dogs which are regulated by the Dog Control Act 1996 and Dog Control Bylaw.

9 The Bylaw’s purpose is to protect the public from nuisance and to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety by controlling the keeping of animals. The Bylaw regulates how animals and birds must be kept. It allows the Council to impose a limit on the number and/or species of animals or birds kept at a property if non-compliant, and it covers offences and penalties according to the Act.

10 In practice, the Bylaw has focused primarily on controlling the nuisance effects of keeping animals rather than controlling specific actions or limiting residents to a specific number of animals per property.

11 The Bylaw was reviewed in 2016 with minor wording changes, then again in 2021/2022 when provision was added to ban the keeping of roosters in residential zone areas unless owners have written permission. This was in response to feedback about noise nuisance issues.

12 Due to the changes being significant, a new Keeping of Animals Bylaw was made in 2022, and the previous Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds bylaw was revoked. Therefore, the review period for the Bylaw was within five years rather than the ten-year review period specified for an existing bylaw.

13 The Bylaw is due for review.

Other councils

14 Most other councils have bylaws to regulate keeping animals, for example controls relating to nuisance and noise nuisance issues.

March 2026 Council resolution

15 At its meeting on 25 March 2026, the Council resolved the following:

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

a) Approves commencement of the Keeping of Animals Bylaw review.

b) Determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address issues relating to
keeping animals in Dunedin.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/081)

DISCUSSION

Initial community and stakeholder engagement

16 Initial engagement with the community, partners and key stakeholders was undertaken in May 2026 to inform the review. This included engagement with mana whenua, animal clubs and organisations, the public and Community Boards.

17 An online survey was open to the public from 1 – 15 May. This survey was advertised by email, through the ODT Noticeboard, DCC website and social media.

18 The survey asked about keeping roosters, and whether there are issues with beekeeping and keeping other domestic animals (excluding dogs). The survey noted that the Bylaw is not the best way to address most cat issues.

Results of engagement

19 There were 139 responses to the web survey, including several from organisations. Organisations include City Sanctuary, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Wilson Bees, Dunedin Beekeepers Club, Betta Bees Research, Predator Free Dunedin, Royal Forest, Axolotls NZ, and Bird Society, Waikouaiti Coast Community Board and Companion Animals NZ.

Roosters

20 Five years ago, roosters were prohibited from any residential zoned property in Dunedin, unless owners have obtained permission from the DCC. This was because of noise issues. The survey asked:

Have you experienced any problem relating to roosters in residential areas in Dunedin during the last five years.

Answer	Number	%
Yes	13	9%
No	107	77%
Did not answer	19	14%
TOTAL	139	100%

Most respondents (77%) had not experienced any problem relating to roosters in residential areas in Dunedin during the last five years. 14% did not answer and 9% said they had experienced a problem.

If yes, please specify:

There were 13 comments, ten about noise nuisance and three other comments.

21 The survey asked: Generally, do you think the rule prohibiting roosters in residential areas (unless with written permission) is addressing rooster issues in Dunedin?

	Number	%
Yes	52	37%
No	26	19%
Unsure	43	31%
Did not answer	18	13%
TOTAL	139	100%

37% of respondents agreed that the rule prohibiting roosters in residential areas (unless with written permission) is addressing rooster issues in Dunedin, 31% were unsure and 19% did not agree. 13% did not answer.

22 The survey asked: Do you have any other comments about keeping roosters in Dunedin?

Topic	Number of comments
Love roosters/don’t need rules	15
Noise issues/support for rules	14
Other noises can be worse e.g. cars, dogs	10
Rooster dumping can be an issue	3
Other e.g. unaware of rule allow unless nuisance, rural-residential they are ok.	9

Comments about roosters were mixed with some saying no rules are needed and others supporting the rules.

Bees

23 The survey asked: Have you experienced any problem relating to bees in residential areas in Dunedin over the last five years?

Answer	Number	%
Yes	4	3%
No	122	88%
Did not answer	13	9%
TOTAL	139	100%

Most respondents (88%) had not experienced any problem relating to bees in residential Dunedin areas over the last five years, 3% had experienced a problem and 9% did not answer this question.

If yes, please specify:

Seven people commented on the benefits of bees, two on residue, stings and allergies, and two others on flight paths and bees in urban areas.

Which of the following options do you support:

Options	Number	%
A: There is no need for restrictions on beekeeping in Dunedin	97	70%
B: There should be restrictions on beekeeping such as where and how many beehives may be kept for residential areas in Dunedin	25	18%
Did not answer	17	12%
TOTAL	139	100%

Most respondents (70%) supported the option that there is no need for restrictions on beekeeping in Dunedin, 18% thought there should be restrictions and 12% did not answer.

24 The survey asked: Do you have any other comments about beekeeping in Dunedin?

There were 63 comments on the benefits of bees, including, for example, that we should encourage beekeeping, work with other organisations on education, and that there are already enough regulations in place. Organisations such as the Dunedin Beekeeping Club commented on the benefits of bees and that there is no need for restrictions.

There were ten comments supporting restrictions, for example limiting hive numbers, minimum distances of hives and rules to benefit the bees. One commented that allergies can be a concern.

Other animals

25 The survey asked: Have you experienced any problems relating to other domestic animals (excluding dogs) in Dunedin?

	Number	%
Yes	45	32%
No	82	59%
Did not answer	12	9%
TOTAL	139	100%

Most respondents (59%) had not experienced any problems relating to other domestic animals in Dunedin, 32% had experienced problems and 9% did not answer.

If yes, please specify:

Topic	Number of comments
Cats – kill wildlife, wandering, unhealthy faeces, too many	36
Dogs – barking, roaming	8
Other – pig, humans	2

Cats were the most common topic with 36 respondents commenting on issues such as wandering cats, cats killing wildlife, risks of toxoplasmosis in cat faeces to people, wildlife and stock, and too many cats. Eight respondents commented on issues with dogs.

26 The survey asked: Do you have any other comments about keeping animals in Dunedin?

Topic	Number of comments
Cats – limit numbers, microchip, desex, contain inside	19
Dogs – roaming, fouling, killing wildlife	13
Restrictions on owners	7
Allow roosters	6
Benefits of animals	6
Other – no bee rules, freedom camping, horse manure, chicken restrictions	5

Most comments related to cats and dogs, despite the survey excluding dogs (which are covered by the Dog Control Act 1996 and Dog Control Bylaw 2024) and its note that a bylaw is not the best way to address most cat issues.

Some organisations, such as Companion Animals NZ, Royal Forest and Bird Society, Predator Free Dunedin and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, encouraged the Council to introduce specific rules for cats, for example mandatory de-sexing, microchipping and limiting numbers. Issues cited include roaming cats, unwanted cat litters, too many stray and feral cats, and the impacts of cats on environmental, wildlife and community wellbeing, for example, the impact of toxoplasmosis from cat faeces on the health of humans, wildlife and livestock.

Social media comments

27 The online survey for the Bylaw review was shared with the public through two posts on the DCC’s Facebook channel. Comments focused mainly on roosters with a mix of views on whether roosters should be prohibited in residential areas unless with permission. Some commented on cat issues, dogs and bees. There were other general comments about noise, goats, sheep and unrelated matters.

Proposal

Roosters

28 Following initial engagement, it is proposed to retain the rule prohibiting roosters in residential zone areas of Dunedin (unless with written permission). This continues to be an effective tool to manage noise nuisance issues, alongside education and information.

Bees

29 Following initial engagement, it is not proposed to introduce restrictions on beekeeping such as where and how many beehives may be kept for residential areas in Dunedin. Very few respondents had issues with bees and there is limited support for restrictions. The current Bylaw does provide for the Council to resolve to make controls by Council resolution between bylaw review periods with appropriate engagement.

Cats

30 Cats were a common topic for comments from survey respondents despite information provided saying there were no specific rules for cats in the Bylaw as the Bylaw is not the best way to address cat issues. Some organisations asked that the Bylaw does include specific rules, for example de-sexing, microchipping and limits on numbers.

31 No specific rules for cats are proposed and there are no specific questions about cats in the draft statement of proposal, although context is provided.

32 A bylaw is not the most appropriate means of addressing cat issues. While feedback shows most issues are with the number of cats, cats wandering and cats attacking wildlife, these issues do not, in themselves, pose a nuisance to the public or impact public health and safety. Therefore, this falls outside the scope of the Act which is aimed at protecting people and communities rather than wildlife.

33 Where other issues such as cat fouling (and related toxoplasmosis) can be a nuisance or impact health and safety, they can be dealt with through nuisance provisions within this Bylaw. For example, the Bylaw provides for limiting animal numbers, removing certain animals and prohibiting owners from keeping certain animals if the Bylaw is not complied with.

34 The preferred option to address cat issues, to date, has been to work with local organisations towards responsible cat ownership through education, information, and promotion of good practice. This has included information on the DCC website and a social media campaign. The Council previously supported local Snip n Chip campaigns with promotion and funding (of $20,000 per year) for two years in 2023/2024 and 2024/2025.

35 A number of other councils have introduced microchipping and neutering requirements. However, discussions indicate that these are difficult to manage, do not fit well within the legislative framework, are problematic to enforce and are resource intensive. Any enforcement efforts would need to be funded through general rates as there is no legislation, such as the Dog Control Act 1996, that requires registration and fees which would fund the control.

Cats – other mechanisms

36 In the case of Council reserves, the Reserves Act 1977 allows the Council to seize and destroy, sell or otherwise dispose of an animal that is trespassing on a Council reserve and where there is no evidence of ownership. The Health Act 1956 can also be used to address a health nuisance posed by animals, including cats.

37 The Department of Conservation and other organisations are funded and charged with protecting wildlife. These entities operate many national programmes and have the necessary powers under the Wildlife Act 1953 to ensure protection.

38 Local government has advocated for national cat legislation, but this has not yet been a priority for central government. For example, in 2017, as a result of a DCC-initiated local government remit, Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) adopted a remit asking central government to introduce a national legislative framework for cats. In 2023, an Environment Select Committee recommended desexing and microchipping legislation after a petition from a member of the public. Taituarā – Local Government Professionals Aotearoa submitted on this. In 2024, a proposed Domestic Cat Microchipping Bill was introduced as a cross party member’s bill. This is currently waiting to be drawn from Parliament’s ballot to receive its first reading. In 2025, feral cats were added to the Predator Free 2050 Strategy.

Minor explanatory change

39 One minor change is proposed to enlarge on the definition of ‘animal’ for clarification purposes. The current definition is: Has the same meaning as defined in the Animal Welfare Act 1999, except that it includes dogs. It is proposed to add for clarity that it includes insects and invertebrates and excludes humans.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA) implications

40 The Council must ensure that any bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the NZBoRA. A bylaw cannot be inconsistent with the NZBoRA, which means the bylaw should only limit a person’s relevant rights and freedoms in the NZBoRA if such limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (section 5 NZBoRA).

41 The Bylaw’s purpose is to protect the public from nuisance and to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety by controlling the keeping of animals. Council officers have not identified any specific rights in the NZBoRA that would be impacted by this Bylaw, but should any individual’s right be affected by the proposed Bylaw, regulating the keeping of animals, for the reasons specified, as provided in this Bylaw including the prevention of harm is considered a proportionate response and would be a justified limitation.

OPTIONS

42 Given the statutory requirement for this review, the two options are to approve the draft Bylaw and statement of proposal for consultation, either with or without any amendments.

43 While it is also an option not to consult on the Bylaw review, and let the current Bylaw lapse, this is not considered to be appropriate in light of the purposes the proposed Bylaw seeks to address; namely the protection of the public from nuisance, and promoting and maintaining public health and safety.

Option One – Approve the draft Bylaw and statement of proposal for consultation (Recommended)

44 This recommended option is to approve the draft Bylaw and statement of proposal, as is, for consultation.

Advantages

· The proposed Bylaw, statement of proposal and review process comply with the Act’s statutory requirements, including use of the special consultative procedure.

· Feedback will inform Dunedin’s keeping of animals matters and decision-making.

Disadvantages

· There are no known disadvantages.

Option Two – Approve draft Bylaw and statement of proposal for consultation, with amendments

45 Option Two is the same as Option One but with the inclusion of any amendments specifically recorded in the Council’s resolutions.

NEXT STEPS

46 When the Council approves the draft Bylaw and statement of proposal for consultation, next steps are to consult on the draft Bylaw, using the special consultative procedure, as required by the Act. A Hearings Committee will then consider submissions before making recommendations to the Council on any proposed changes.

47 Here is an indicative timeframe:

What	Indicative timeframe
Consultation on proposed changes	July/August 2026
Hearings	August/September 2026
Hearings Committee recommendation report to the Council	November 2026
Council adopts revised Bylaw	November 2026

Signatories

Author:

Anne Gray - Policy Analyst

Cazna Savell - Team Leader Animal Services

Authoriser:

Bonnie Wright - Manager Compliance Solutions

Paul Henderson - General Manager Corporate and Regulatory Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Keeping of Animals Bylaw with proposed changes tracked	190
⇩b	Statement of proposal for Keeping of Animals Bylaw review	195

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 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	☐	☐	✔

This decision contributes to the healthy and safe people priority of the Social Wellbeing Strategy, and healthy environment priority of the Environment Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

No specific impacts for mana whenua have been identified. However, in recognition of the Autūroa and Autakata pou in Te Taki Haruru, our mana whenua partners were advised of the review and invited to provide feedback. This Bylaw is in line with the cultural key direction of Autikaka in Te Taki Haruru.

Sustainability

There are no specific implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications as the review is being carried out within existing budgets.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been initial engagement with partners and stakeholders, including mana whenua, animal organisations, and the public to inform this Bylaw review. The special consultative procedure will be used to consult on proposed changes and draft Bylaw, as required by the Act.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with Mana Ruruku, Governance, In-House Legal Counsel and Council Communications and Marketing.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks. In-House Legal Counsel has reviewed the proposed Bylaw and the current Bylaw was reviewed by external legal counsel in 2021.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There may be implications for Community Boards. They are identified as key stakeholders and are being engaged with during this review.

Council

25 June 2026

Hearings Committee Recommendations on Submissions to the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents findings of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) on the submissions to the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 (the proposed Bylaw).

2 After considering submissions received, the Committee recommends some amendments to the proposed Bylaw as notified. The Committee recommends the Council adopts the proposed Bylaw (Attachment A) with a date of effect of 1 July 2026. Please see Attachment B for a marked -up version showing the original consultation version and the Committee’s recommended amendments to the Bylaw.

3 The Committee is satisfied that the proposed Bylaw, including recommended amendments, is the most appropriate way of managing the water supply network, is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and does not give any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the 25 written submissions received on the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026.

b) Notes the minutes of the Hearings Committee and its recommended amendments to the consultation version of the Bylaw (Attachments C and B).

c) Notes the Boundary Backflow Prevention Policy (Attachment D).

d) Confirms that the proposed Bylaw, including the recommended amendments, is the most appropriate way of regulating use of the DCC’s water supply network, is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and does not given rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

e) Adopts the Water Supply Bylaw 2026 (Attachment A).

f) Approves a date of effect for the Water Supply Bylaw 2026 of 1 July 2026.

g) Revokes the Water Bylaw 2011 from 1 July 2026.

BACKGROUND

Purpose of the Water Supply Bylaw 2026

4 The Dunedin City Council (DCC) and other territorial authorities in New Zealand use bylaws to manage the use of water supply networks.

5 A water supply bylaw enables territorial authorities to establish and enforce rules and requirements to manage the water supply network and protect against damage, misuse, interference, or contamination that can pose a risk to public health and safety.

6 The DCC’s activities as a drinking water supplier are directed by and regulated under national level legislation and regulations, including the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 (LGWSA), the Water Services Act 2021, the Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulation 2022 and the Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules 2022 (revised 2024).

7 Section 258 of the LGWSA specifically provides that a territorial authority may make a bylaw for the purposes of regulating aspects of water services provision, including:

a) Connections to, and disconnections from, a water supply network;

b) The provision of water services;

c) Conserving drinking water provided in the territorial authority’s district; and

d) The use of equipment or devices for the purposes of providing water services.

8 Staff provided advice to the Council on 24 February 2026 that Dunedin’s existing local rules for managing the use of the DCC water supply network have been in place for many years and need updating in a new bylaw to:

a) Align with the provisions of the LGWSA and the Water Services Act 2021 (and associated standards and compliance rules).

b) Improve clarity regarding the water supply areas, control of catchment land, layout and location of points of supply, meter, boundary backflow prevention requirements and compliance enforcement.

Consultation on the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026

9 At its 24 February 2026 meeting Council approved a Statement of Proposal and draft proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 for public consultation purposes.

10 Public consultation followed for one month, beginning 2 March and closing on 2 April 2026. Methods to inform the public included information on the DCC website, information on the DCC Public Noticeboard published in the Otago Daily Times on two occasions, inclusion in DCC’s Building Services March newsletter Reinforce, and targeted emails to a range of partners and stakeholders including representatives of the development and construction community. Paper copies of the Statement of Proposal and the proposed Bylaw were also made available in all DCC libraries and service centres. The Otago Daily Times and The Star newspapers also published stories about the proposed Bylaw and the consultation in February and March.

11 Throughout the consultation period 22 submissions were received. None of the submissions fully supported the proposed Bylaw without any amendments; nine supported the proposed Bylaw with amendments, three did not support the proposed Bylaw, and eight did not specify any position. Two submissions from DCC departments were withdrawn after staff worked on answering specific queries raised.

12 During the analysis of the 22 submissions, staff identified an inconsistency between the catchment management rules in the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026, current catchment access arrangements and the DCC’s Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017 in relation to access to catchments for the purposes of hunting and trapping. The consultation version of the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 would have enabled unrestricted access to both “restricted” and “open” catchments for the purposes of hunting and trapping. However, both the current arrangements in the catchments and the Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017 (which applies to water catchment land) makes hunting and trapping by permission only.

13 To ensure a transparent and fair process, consultation was reopened to allow an opportunity for feedback on the specific amendments in accordance with section 83(3) of the Local Government Act 2002. Given the proposed amendment only related to two clauses in the proposed Bylaw (clauses 4.12 and 4.13), the reopened consultation was for a short period of time. The proposed amendments consulted on were:

· to remove ‘hunting’ and ‘trapping’ from clause 4.12 (‘restricted’ catchments);

· to expand clause 4.13 (‘open’ catchments) to make clear that DCC approval is required for the purposes of hunting and trapping in open catchments.

14 The additional consultation ran from 29 April 2026 and closed on 10 May 2026. Methods to inform the public included information on the DCC website, social media posts, an email to all 22 initial submitters, and an email to groups identified as representing the interests of hunters and trappers in Otago.

15 Five submissions were received regarding the proposed amendment to clauses 4.12 and 4.13. Four of these submissions opposed the amendment and one was neutral.

16 In total, 27 submissions were received on the proposed Bylaw over both consultation periods, with two submissions being withdrawn prior to the hearings. The final 25 submissions considered by the Committee are available on the DCC website at https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council/currently-consulting-on/pre-hearings/proposed-water-supply-bylaw-2026, under the heading ‘What You Told Us’.

DISCUSSION

Consultation Results and Topics of Concern

17 Topics and key issues of concern that were raised by submitters related to:

· Section 4 of the proposed Bylaw – Protection of the Water Supply Network – in particular water supply catchment management rules. Access arrangements and the types of activities permitted in both Deep Stream and Silverstream catchments were raised by the 21 submissions. Of particular concern were:

i) Deep Stream catchment access: the proposed Bylaw and related online maps classified the Deep Stream catchment as Controlled meaning DCC approval would be required to access the Deep Stream catchment. Submitters were concerned they would be effectively denied access to the neighbouring Te Papanui Conservation Park, administered by the Department of Conservation.

ii) Silverstream catchment access: the proposed Bylaw and related online maps also classified the Silverstream catchment as Controlled and consequently DCC approval would be required to enter this area. Several trail running groups, hikers, trampers and walkers submitted disagreeing with this classification and started an online petition in opposition to this proposal.

iii) Hunting and trapping: the proposed rules to make these activities by permission only in Open, Restricted and Controlled catchments.

· Section 5 of the proposed Bylaw – Conditions of Supply – in particular:

· Water supply area boundaries – two submissions queried the water supply area boundary and the proposed rule preventing any new connections to the water supply network being made outside the boundary.

· Application for supply – one submission questioned the new three-step application process that is based on new legislative requirements.

· Point of supply/Types of supply – submissions were varied across these sections from issues relating to historic out of zone connection management to requesting the inclusion of engineering standards within the proposed Bylaw.

· Boundary backflow prevention rules – the new Boundary Backflow Prevention Policy was referred to in the proposed Bylaw. Submitters queried matters relating to this and how this would work in practice. Please see Attachment D for the Boundary Backflow Prevention Policy.

Committee Findings

18 The Committee was made up of myself (Cr John Chambers) as Chair, Cr Mickey Treadwell and Cr Brent Weatherall and met on 22 May 2026 to consider 25 submissions, heard from seven submitters (two withdrew prior to the meeting from the original nine speakers) and systematically deliberated on each submission point outlined in a table provided by staff, which was attached to the staff report to the Hearings Committee. Please see Attachment C for the minutes of the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 hearing and deliberations.

19 At the hearing:

· four speakers presented their concerns about catchment controls in Silverstream and encouraged the Committee to accept the staff recommendation to change the classification of the Silverstream - Part A catchment from Controlled to Restricted;

· one speaker raised concerns about water metering; and

· two speakers spoke about the water supply area boundary and other topics within section 5 of the proposed bylaw (Conditions of Supply).

20 Deliberations included considering the staff recommendations for amendments to catchment management rules in both Deep Stream and Silverstream – Part A catchments. The Committee agreed with the following:

a) Deep Stream catchment: that the catchment should be classified as Controlled (so DCC approval to enter is required). Further, it was agreed that staff will implement a new two tiered online approval system for access to the catchment: the first tier would involve a same-day automatic online approval for on-track walking access across the catchment (subject to conditions), while the second tier would be a more involved approval process requiring staff assessment of appropriate access conditions for other activities and off-track access to the wider catchment.

b) Silverstream – Part A catchment: that the catchment, which was proposed in the consultation version of the proposed Bylaw to be Controlled, should have the classification changed to Restricted. It was also agreed that additional wording should be added to the proposed Bylaw that enabled unrestricted entry for trail running, or any similar ‘on-foot’ activity on existing tracks, including with a dog (subject to the terms and conditions of the Dunedin City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2024).

c) Hunting and Trapping: in all catchment classifications (Open, Restricted and Controlled) hunting and trapping shall be by approval only, thereby aligning with both the DCC Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017 and with other adjacent landowners’ approaches.

21 Other matters raised by submitters were considered but resulted in no recommended changes to the proposed Bylaw. Of note was the subject of the proposed Bylaw’s water supply area boundary rules and requests that the proposed Bylaw should include flexibility or a process to consider providing drinking water services to properties that are outside the water supply area boundary. The Committee agreed with staff that ad hoc, unplanned approvals for properties that are outside of the water supply area boundary are inconsistent with the intention of the proposed Bylaw and with good asset management and planning practice.

22 It was also agreed that the ability to change the water supply area boundary exists via an amendment to the proposed Bylaw and other triggers for a boundary change include service provision decisions made through the district plan process (zoning changes) or under the DCC’s New Reticulated Utility Services Policy.

23 Another matter discussed during deliberations included the definition of Ordinary and Extraordinary use of water and how the proposed Bylaw differentiates between the terms. One speaker submitted that a property’s type of water supply should be based solely on risk, rather than on property size and zoning as proposed in the Bylaw.

24 The Committee agreed with the staff recommendation to retain the definitions of Extraordinary Use and Ordinary Use as outlined in the consultation version of the proposed Bylaw without change. The Committee agreed that one of the drivers for including site size and zone-based thresholds in the definition of Extraordinary Use is to provide clarity for new water supplies to lifestyle blocks and that setting a threshold at 1 hectare with the inclusion of specified zones is considered an effective way to ensure water use on large urban‑fringe properties is appropriately managed and aligned with the intent of the proposed Bylaw.

25 The Committee agreed this approach will make the application and assessment process of these types of properties more efficient and administratively practicable which is consistent with approaches used by other councils.

26 The Committee agreed with all staff recommendations on all submission points. Please see Attachment B for a tracked change version of the proposed Bylaw showing all the agreed amendments.

27 The Committee is satisfied that the proposed Bylaw, including the recommended amendments, remains the most appropriate way of regulating the DCC’s water supply network, is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

External Legal Review

28 The proposed Bylaw was reviewed by an external legal firm following the hearing and deliberations. The recommended amendments are within scope of the consultation on the proposed Bylaw and do not give rise to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 implications.

New Bylaw

29 It is proposed that Council makes a new Water Supply Bylaw 2026 (with the recommended amendments) and revokes the Water Bylaw 2011. According to the LGWSA the new bylaw is to be reviewed no later than 10 years after the date on which the bylaw is made.

Date of effect

30 1 July 2026 is recommended as a date of effect to allow staff time to finalise preparations for implementation of a new Bylaw.

OPTIONS

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

Option One – Accept the recommendations of the Committee (Recommended Option)

32 Approve the Committee’s recommendation to:

a) Make amendments to specific provisions of the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026; and

b) Adopt the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026, operative from 1 July 2026, and revoke the Water Bylaw 2011.

Advantages

· Addresses matters raised by submitters appropriately.

· DCC’s water supply network will be managed appropriately by the new Bylaw by reflecting both current legislative and regulatory provisions and current and emerging development trends.

Disadvantages

· None identified.

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

Advantages

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

Disadvantages

· Prolongs the process for adopting the new Water Supply Bylaw 2026.

NEXT STEPS

33 If the Council approves the Committee recommendations the Bylaw will come into effect on 1 July 2026 and staff will implement it from that date forward.

Signatories

Author:	John Chambers - Councillor
Authoriser:	John Chambers - Councillor

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026	210
⇩b	Marked-Up Version of Proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026	255
⇩c	Minutes of the Hearings Committee	300
⇩d	Boundary Backflow Prevention Policy	305

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 specific impacts for Mori related to this report and the adoption of the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026. Aukaha were advised of the public consultation process. No submissions from Aukaha or rūnaka were received.

Sustainability

The proposed Bylaw is intended to enable the DCC to manage use of the water supply network in a manner that supports the long-term sustainability of the water supply network and the environment.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report and the recommended decision to adopt the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 have no immediate direct implications for these plans and strategies. However, the proposed Bylaw is intended to enable the DCC to manage use of the water supply network in a manner that supports the DCC to achieve the objectives set out in these plans and strategies.

Financial considerations

There are no known specific financial implications related to this report and the recommended decisions. The costs of immediate implementation of the proposed Bylaw (if adopted) can be met from existing budgets. Additional funding (if required) for longer-term implementation activities would be sought through budgets included in the first Water Services Strategy in 2027.

Significance

This report and the recommended decisions have been assessed as low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

It is noted these decisions are part of the Special Consultative Procedure and result from external consultation that was undertaken.

Engagement - internal

3 Waters staff have engaged with other departments as part of the analysis of submissions and formulation of staff recommendations.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no risks to this report for consideration or the recommended amendments to the proposed Bylaw.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified as a result of submissions, recommended amendments or the adoption of the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026.

Community Boards

No implications for Community Boards have been identified as a result of submissions, recommendation amendments or the adoption of the proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026.

Council

25 June 2026

Hearings Committee Recommendation - Taieri Mouth Road Speed Limit

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents the recommendation of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) following its consideration of submissions on the proposed speed limit reduction for Taieri Mouth Road at the Committee meeting held on 28 May 2026. The minutes are attached to this report at Attachment A – Minutes of Hearings Committee meeting.

2 Public consultation was undertaken from 2 March 2026 to 13 April 2026 on a proposal to reduce the speed limit on Taieri Mouth Road, in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 (the Rule). Three options were presented:

· Option 1 – reduce the speed limit from 100 km/h to 80 km/h along the full length of Taieri Mouth Road (13.9 km)

· Option 2 – reduce the speed limit from 100 km/h to 80 km/h on part of the road of Taieri Mouth Road (6.3 km)

· Option 3 – do not reduce the 100 km/h speed limit on Taieri Mouth Road (status quo)

3 A total of 238 submissions were received. While most submitters (56%) supported retaining the current speed limit, 44% supported some form of speed reduction, with organisations and groups more likely to support Option 1 or 2.

4 After considering all submissions, the Committee recommends that Council adopts Option 1 – reduce the speed limit from 100 km/h to 80 km/h along the full length of Taieri Mouth Road (13.9 km), on the basis that it provides the most appropriate response to safety risks and is a more appropriate speed limit for the design and function of the road.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the Hearings Committee has considered submissions on the proposed Taieri Mouth Road speed limit reduction;

b) Adopts Option 1 – reduce the speed limit from 100 km/h to 80 km/h along the full length of Taieri Mouth Road (13.9 km);

c) Notes that implementation will be undertaken in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024, including updates to the National Speed Limit Register and installation of signage; and

d) Notes that complementary measures raised through consultation, including road maintenance, vegetation management, signage improvements, and enforcement, will continue to be considered as part of the corridor management on Taieri Mouth Road.

BACKGROUND

Taieri Mouth Road context

5 Taieri Mouth Road is a rural connector route linking Brighton, Kuri Bush, Taieri Beach, and Taieri Mouth, and forms part of the Southern Scenic Route.

6 The road serves multiple transport functions, including commuter travel, freight movement (including logging), tourism, recreation, and access for residents and farming activities. It also accommodates cyclists, pedestrians, and wildlife.

7 The current posted speed limit is 100 km/h, with average travel speeds between 88 km/h and 92 km/h.

8 Safety concerns relating to road geometry, visibility, access, and vulnerable road users have been raised through previous engagement and consultation processes, including on the 2023 draft Speed Management Plan.

Consultation Overview

9 Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Rule, including a six-week public consultation period.

10 A total of 238 submissions were received from individuals, community members, and organisations including emergency services, iwi, a health organisation, a wildlife organisation, and the Saddle Hill Community Board.

11 Submitters were asked to provide feedback on three options: Option 1 - a full speed reduction (13.9 km), a partial speed reduction (6.3 km), or Option 3 - no change (status quo).

DISCUSSION

12 Of the 238 submissions received:

· 78 (33%) supported Option 1 (full reduction)

· 27 (11%) supported Option 2 (partial reduction)

· 133 (56%) supported Option 3 (status quo)

13 While the majority of individual submitters supported retaining the existing speed limit, organisations and groups were more likely to support a reduction, particularly Option 1 (full reduction).

14 Submitter preferences also varied geographically, with Taieri Mouth and Taieri Beach residents more likely to support retaining the current speed limit and submitters from the wider Dunedin area more likely to support a reduction.

Key Themes Raised

15 Submitters opposing a speed limit reduction generally considered the road to be safe at its current speed and raised concerns about increased travel times and potential unsafe overtaking.

16 Submitters who supported a full speed limit reduction highlighted a range of safety concerns, including road design and visibility, risks to vulnerable users, mixed road use, wildlife hazards, and population growth at Taieri Mouth contributing to these issues.

17 Submitters supporting a partial speed limit reduction generally viewed this as a compromise, addressing higher-risk sections while maintaining travel efficiency.

18 Additional themes included concerns about emergency response times, logging truck activity, and the need for complementary safety measures such as maintenance and signage.

Committee Considerations/Findings

19 At its meeting on 28 May 2026, the Committee heard from seven speakers. One additional submitter, who was unable to attend, provided a written submission instead. Of the speakers, three appeared in an individual capacity, while four represented organisations or groups: the Kuri Bush community, the Saddle Hill Community Board, Health New Zealand, and Te Rūnaka o Ōtākou.

20 Attachment B contains the summary of submissions presented to the Committee.

21 The Committee carefully considered all submissions, including the balance between community preference and safety risks to all road users.

22 The Committee acknowledged that while a majority of submitters supported retaining the existing speed limit, a significant proportion (44%) supported some form of speed limit reduction, indicating a clear level of concern regarding road safety.

23 The Committee also gave weight to submissions from organisations and stakeholders with expertise in safety, health, and emergency response, which were more likely to support a speed limit reduction.

24 The Committee considered the function and characteristics of Taieri Mouth Road as a mixed-use rural connector road with:

· Varying road geometry and constrained sightlines

· High recreational and tourist use

· Presence of vulnerable users

· Logging truck activity

25 The Committee noted that higher-speed environments are associated with increased crash severity and that a reduction in speed provides the most effective means of reducing the likelihood of fatal and serious injury outcomes.

26 The Committee considered Option 2 (partial reduction) but determined that a partial reduction would not address safety risks along the full corridor and could introduce inconsistency and driver confusion.

27 The Committee therefore considers that Option 1 (full reduction) provides the most appropriate and consistent approach to managing speed along the entire route.

OPTIONS

Option One – Full Speed Limit Reduction – Recommended Option

28 Reduce the speed limit from 100 km/h to 80 km/h along the full length of Taieri Mouth Road from the Clutha District Council boundary to just north of the intersection with Big Stone Road, a 13.9 km stretch of road.

Advantages

· Addresses safety concerns across the full corridor

· Improves safety outcomes for all road users, including vulnerable users

· Aligns with submissions from organisations and groups

· Reduces crash risk and severity

Disadvantages

· Does not align with the preference of the majority of submitters

· May increase travel times (by approximately 54 seconds from the Clutha District boundary to just north of the Big Stone Road intersection)

Option Two – Partial Speed Limit Reduction

29 Reduce the speed limit from 100 km/h to 80 km/h on part of Taieri Mouth Road from the Clutha District Council boundary to MacLeods Lagoon, a stretch of 6.3 km of road.

Advantages

· Targets the more residential area along Taieri Mouth Road

· Balances safety and travel time

Disadvantages

· Does not address safety across the full route

· May reduce consistency for drivers

· Limited submitter support

· May increase travel times (by approximately 25 seconds from the Clutha District boundary to MacLeod’s Lagoon)

Option Three – Status quo

30 Retain the existing speed limit of 100 km/h on the entire length of Taieri Mouth Road, from the Clutha District Council boundary to the north of Big Stone Road.

Advantages

· Aligns with the majority of submissions

· Maintains current travel times

· No implementation cost

Disadvantages

· Does not address safety across the full route

· Retains higher crash risk environment

NEXT STEPS

31 If Council adopts the Committee’s recommendation, staff will implement the speed limit change in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024.

32 Implementation will include updating the National Speed Limit Register, installing signage, and notifying stakeholders and the community.

33 Post-implementation monitoring may be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the change.

Signatories

Authoriser:

Mandy Mayhem - Chairperson, Hearings Committee

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Hearings Committee Meeting Minutes - 28 May 2026	329
⇩b	Summary of Submissions	333

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.

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 proposed speed limit reduction supports the Council’s strategic framework by improving safety outcomes, maintaining efficient transport connections, and protecting the natural environment, with no direct impact on other strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

Engagement with Te Rūnaka o Ōtākou has been undertaken, and the proposed speed limit reduction supports improved safety outcomes for all road users, including Māori who are disproportionately represented in road trauma statistics.

Sustainability

The proposed speed limit reduction supports sustainability by improving safety for all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians, and contributing to a safer and more inclusive transport system.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There is no impact on the Long-Term Plan, Annual Plan, or Infrastructure Strategy, as implementation will be delivered within existing budgets.

Financial considerations

The estimated cost of implementation is approximately $18,600 (Option 1) or $9,800 (Option 2) and will be funded through the existing Transport budget.

Significance

The decision is of low significance, as it relates to a localised speed limit change with minimal financial impact and was subject to public consultation in accordance with the Rule.

Engagement – external

External engagement was undertaken through a six-week public consultation process, supported by targeted stakeholder engagement including iwi, emergency services, and key road users.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement included communication through the Council intranet, inviting staff who were not directly involved in the project to provide feedback.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The proposed speed limit change is intended to reduce the severity of crashes and improve overall road safety outcomes along Taieri Mouth Road.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Taieri Mouth Road is in the Saddle Hill Community Board area. The Saddle Hill Community Board provided a submission in support of a partial speed limit reduction and participated in the consultation process.

1	Achilles Avenue
1	Alton Avenue
2	Alton Avenue
2A	Alton Avenue
3	Alton Avenue
4	Alton Avenue
5	Alton Avenue
6	Alton Avenue
7	Alton Avenue
8	Alton Avenue
9	Alton Avenue
7	Angle Avenue
9	Angle Avenue
11	Angle Avenue
20	Angle Avenue
22	Angle Avenue
24	Angle Avenue
43	Arawa Street
47	Arawa Street
17	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
19	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
21	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
23	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
25	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
27	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
29	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
31	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
33	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
35	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
37	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
39	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
41	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
43	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
45	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
47	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
49	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
51	Awa Toru Drive Fairfield
60	Balmacewen Road
60B	Balmacewen Road
62	Balmacewen Road
64	Balmacewen Road
1	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
2	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
3	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
4	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
5	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
6	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
7	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
8	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
9	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
10	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
11	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
12	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
17	Balmoral Avenue Mosgiel
19	Barclay Street
211	Bay View Road
211A	Bay View Road
211B	Bay View Road
1	Beaufort Street
3	Beaufort Street
119	Belford Street
12	Bell Crescent Green Island
14	Bell Crescent Green Island
24	Bell Crescent Green Island
26	Bell Crescent Green Island
12	Bewley Avenue Macandrew Bay
14	Bewley Avenue Macandrew Bay
21	Birchfield Avenue
7	Bishop Verdon Close Mosgiel
9	Bishop Verdon Close Mosgiel
10	Bishop Verdon Close Mosgiel
11	Bishop Verdon Close Mosgiel
12	Bishop Verdon Close Mosgiel
8	Bonnington Street
8a	Bonnington Street
10	Bonnington Street
20K	Brighton Road Green Island
20J	Brighton Road Green Island
20H	Brighton Road Green Island
20G	Brighton Road Green Island
20F	Brighton Road Green Island
20E	Brighton Road Green Island
20D	Brighton Road Green Island
20C	Brighton Road Green Island
20B	Brighton Road Green Island
20A	Brighton Road Green Island
20	Brighton Road Green Island
34	Burgess Street Green Island
36	Burgess Street Green Island
38	Burgess Street Green Island
40	Burgess Street Green Island
42	Burgess Street Green Island
44	Burgess Street Green Island
46	Burgess Street Green Island
48	Burgess Street Green Island
50	Burgess Street Green Island
8	Burkes Drive Ravensbourne
10	Burkes Drive Ravensbourne
181	Burt Street
183	Burt Street
185	Burt Street
7	Bush Road Mosgiel
80	Caldwell Street
82	Caldwell Street
1	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
4	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
5	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
6	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
7	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
8	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
9	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
10	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
11	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
12	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
13	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
14	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
15	Campbell Lane Mosgiel
30	Cardigan Street North East Valley
32	Cardigan Street North East Valley
34	Cardigan Street North East Valley
36	Cardigan Street North East Valley
3	Carnea Heights Mosgiel
4	Carnea Heights Mosgiel
5	Carnea Heights Mosgiel
6	Carnea Heights Mosgiel
7	Carnea Heights Mosgiel
8	Carnea Heights Mosgiel
10	Carnea Heights Mosgiel
12	Carnea Heights Mosgiel
22	Centennial Avenue Fairfield
24	Centennial Avenue Fairfield
26	Centennial Avenue Fairfield
28	Centennial Avenue Fairfield
150	Chapman Street
150A	Chapman Street
152	Chapman Street
12	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
14	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
16	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
18	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
20	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
22	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
24	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
26	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
28	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
30	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
32	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
34	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
36	Clearwater Street Broad Bay
22	Cole Street
11	Corstorphine Road
11A	Corstorphine Road
13	Corstorphine Road
15	Corstorphine Road
17	Corstorphine Road
21	Corstorphine Road
23	Corstorphine Road
25	Corstorphine Road
11	Craighall Crescent
15	Craighall Crescent
1	Dalkeith Road Port Chalmers
2	Dalkeith Road Port Chalmers
4	Dalkeith Road Port Chalmers
6	Dalkeith Road Port Chalmers
8	Dalkeith Road Port Chalmers
10	Dalkeith Road Port Chalmers
12	Dalkeith Road Port Chalmers
21	Davies Street
22	Davies Street
1	Devon Place Mosgiel
2	Devon Place Mosgiel
3	Devon Place Mosgiel
4	Devon Place Mosgiel
5	Devon Place Mosgiel
6	Devon Place Mosgiel
7	Devon Place Mosgiel
9	Devon Place Mosgiel
10	Devon Place Mosgiel
11	Devon Place Mosgiel
12	Devon Place Mosgiel
13	Devon Place Mosgiel
14	Devon Place Mosgiel
15	Devon Place Mosgiel
16	Devon Place Mosgiel
17	Devon Place Mosgiel
18	Devon Place Mosgiel
19	Devon Place Mosgiel
20	Devon Place Mosgiel
21	Devon Place Mosgiel
20	District Road Roseneath
24	District Road Roseneath
24A	District Road Roseneath
139b	Doon Street
139a	Doon Street
139	Doon Street
141	Doon Street
143	Doon Street
145	Doon Street
149	Doon Street
151	Doon Street
5	Dorset Street
7	Dorset Street
10	Dorset Street
11	Dorset Street
12	Dorset Street
14	Dorset Street
15	Dorset Street
16	Dorset Street
18	Dorset Street
20	Dorset Street
21	Dorset Street
17	Duckworth Street
19	Duckworth Street
21	Duckworth Street
35	Duckworth Street
37	Duckworth Street
39	Duckworth Street
39a	Duckworth Street
41	Duckworth Street
47	Duckworth Street
49	Duckworth Street
53	Duckworth Street
	Dunedin Airport
1–31	Eastbourne Street
2–31	Eastbourne Street
3–31	Eastbourne Street
4–31	Eastbourne Street
5–31	Eastbourne Street
6–31	Eastbourne Street
7–31	Eastbourne Street
8–31	Eastbourne Street
9–31	Eastbourne Street
10–31	Eastbourne Street
11–31	Eastbourne Street
12–31	Eastbourne Street
13–31	Eastbourne Street
14–31	Eastbourne Street
15–31	Eastbourne Street
16–31	Eastbourne Street
17–31	Eastbourne Street
18–31	Eastbourne Street
19–31	Eastbourne Street
20–31	Eastbourne Street
21–31	Eastbourne Street
22–31	Eastbourne Street
23–31	Eastbourne Street
24–31	Eastbourne Street
25–31	Eastbourne Street
26–31	Eastbourne Street
27–31	Eastbourne Street
28–31	Eastbourne Street
29–31	Eastbourne Street
30–31	Eastbourne Street
31–31	Eastbourne Street
32–31	Eastbourne Street
33–31	Eastbourne Street
34–31	Eastbourne Street
35–31	Eastbourne Street
36–31	Eastbourne Street
37–31	Eastbourne Street
38–31	Eastbourne Street
39–31	Eastbourne Street
40–31	Eastbourne Street
41–31	Eastbourne Street
42–31	Eastbourne Street
43–31	Eastbourne Street
46–31	Eastbourne Street
47–31	Eastbourne Street
50–31	Eastbourne Street
51–31	Eastbourne Street
16	Easther Crescent
16A	Easther Crescent
18	Easther Crescent
20	Easther Crescent
22	Easther Crescent
24	Easther Crescent
26	Easther Crescent
8	Echovale Avenue
10	Echovale Avenue
12	Echovale Avenue
45	Eglinton Road
2	Elbe Street
202	Elgin Road
204	Elgin Road
206	Elgin Road
208	Elgin Road
1	Eton Drive Mosgiel
4	Eton Drive Mosgiel
5	Eton Drive Mosgiel
6	Eton Drive Mosgiel
7	Eton Drive Mosgiel
8	Eton Drive Mosgiel
9	Eton Drive Mosgiel
10	Eton Drive Mosgiel
11	Eton Drive Mosgiel
12	Eton Drive Mosgiel
13	Eton Drive Mosgiel
14	Eton Drive Mosgiel
15	Eton Drive Mosgiel
16	Eton Drive Mosgiel
17	Eton Drive Mosgiel
18	Eton Drive Mosgiel
19	Eton Drive Mosgiel
20	Eton Drive Mosgiel
2	Everton Road
3	Everton Road
4	Everton Road
64	Every Street
66	Every Street
68	Every Street
70	Every Street
76	Every Street
7	Fern Road Ravensbourne
9	Fern Road Ravensbourne
11	Fern Road Ravensbourne
13	Fern Road Ravensbourne
15	Fern Road Ravensbourne
17	Fern Road Ravensbourne
19	Fern Road Ravensbourne
21	Fern Road Ravensbourne
19	Ferntree Drive
21	Ferntree Drive
23	Ferntree Drive
25	Ferntree Drive
43	Forfar Street
45	Forfar Street
47	Forfar Street
47a	Forfar Street
49	Forfar Street
51	Forfar Street
53	Forfar Street
53a	Forfar Street
2–80	Formby Street Outram Street
3–80	Formby Street Outram Street
4–80	Formby Street Outram Street
5–80	Formby Street Outram Street
6–80	Formby Street Outram Street
7–80	Formby Street Outram Street
8–80	Formby Street Outram Street
10–80	Formby Street Outram Street
12–80	Formby Street Outram Street
13–80	Formby Street Outram Street
14–80	Formby Street Outram Street
15–80	Formby Street Outram Street
16–80	Formby Street Outram Street
17–80	Formby Street Outram Street
18–80	Formby Street Outram Street
19–80	Formby Street Outram Street
20–80	Formby Street Outram Street
239	Fryatt Street
41	Fulton Road
43	Fulton Road
43A	Fulton Road
45	Fulton Road
45A	Fulton Road
47	Fulton Road
47A	Fulton Road
49	Fulton Road
49A	Fulton Road
51	Fulton Road
51A	Fulton Road
53	Fulton Road
248	George Street
559	George Street
150A	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
150B	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
150C	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
150D	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
150E	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
152B	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
152C	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
152D	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
152E	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
154A	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
214	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
216	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
218	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
220	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
222	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
224	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
226	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
228	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
230	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
232	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
234	Gladstone Road North Mosgiel
39	Glenbrook Drive Mosgiel
41	Glenbrook Drive Mosgiel
45	Glenbrook Drive Mosgiel
47	Glenbrook Drive Mosgiel
49	Glenbrook Drive Mosgiel
51	Glenbrook Drive Mosgiel
57	Glenbrook Drive Mosgiel
1	Glenfinnan Place
3	Glenfinnan Place
4A	Glenfinnan Place
4B	Glenfinnan Place
5	Glenfinnan Place
6	Glenfinnan Place
7	Glenfinnan Place
8A	Glenfinnan Place
8B	Glenfinnan Place
9A	Glenfinnan Place
9B	Glenfinnan Place
10A	Glenfinnan Place
10B	Glenfinnan Place
1	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
2	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
3	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
4	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
5	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
6	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
7	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
8	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
9	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
10	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
11	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
12	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
13	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
14	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
15	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
16	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
17	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
18	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
19	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
20	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
21	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
22	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
23	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
24	Glengarry Court Mosgiel
48	Glenross Street
50	Glenross Street
54	Glenross Street
56	Glenross Street
58	Glenross Street
60	Glenross Street
110	Glenross Street
114	Glenross Street
116	Glenross Street
230	Gordon Road Mosgiel
229	Gordon Road Mosgiel
34	Grandview Crescent
8	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
12	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
14	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
15	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
16	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
17	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
18	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
19	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
20	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
21	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
22	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
26	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
27	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
28	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
29	Grant Dalton Street North Taieri
10	Halsey Street
1	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
2	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
3	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
4	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
5	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
6	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
7	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
8	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
9	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
10	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
11	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
12	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
14	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
15	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
16	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
17	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
18	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
19	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
20	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
21	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
22	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
23	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
24	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
25	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
26	Hampton Grove Mosgiel
4	Harold Street
12	Harold Street
215a	Helensburgh Road
217a	Helensburgh Road
217b	Helensburgh Road
219	Helensburgh Road
219a	Helensburgh Road
219b	Helensburgh Road
221	Helensburgh Road
223	Helensburgh Road
49	Highcliff Road
49A	Highcliff Road
51	Highcliff Road
57	Highcliff Road
295	Highcliff Road
297	Highcliff Road
313	Highcliff Road
315a	Highcliff Road
315b	Highcliff Road
317	Highcliff Road
16	Highgate
18	Highgate
20	Highgate
34a	Highgate
34	Highgate
216	Highgate
218	Highgate
144A	Highgate
144B	Highgate
146	Highgate
146A	Highgate
148	Highgate
2	Hill Road Warrington
26	Ings Avenue
26A	Ings Avenue
26B	Ings Avenue
364	Kaikorai Valley Road
366	Kaikorai Valley Road
368	Kaikorai Valley Road
372	Kaikorai Valley Road
374	Kaikorai Valley Road
9	Kilgour Street
11	Kilgour Street
15	Kilgour Street
20	Kinvig Street
22	Kinvig Street
2	Koremata Street Green Island
4	Koremata Street Green Island
12	Koremata Street Green Island
32	Koremata Street Green Island
34	Koremata Street Green Island
6	Langham Terrace
3	Lawson Street
4	Leithton Close
6	Leithton Close
9	Leithton Close
10	Leithton Close
11	Leithton Close
14	Leithton Close
15	Leithton Close
18	Leithton Close
19	Leithton Close
21	Leithton Close
22	Leithton Close
23	Leithton Close
26	Leithton Close
27	Leithton Close
28	Leithton Close
29	Leithton Close
32	Leithton Close
33	Leithton Close
36	Leithton Close
5	Leven Street
2	Leyden Terrace
21	Lock Street
1–23	London Street
2–23	London Street
3–23	London Street
4–23	London Street
5–23	London Street
6–23	London Street
7–23	London Street
8–23	London Street
9–23	London Street
10–23	London Street
11–23	London Street
12–23	London Street
13–23	London Street
14–23	London Street
15–23	London Street
16–23	London Street
17–23	London Street
18–23	London Street
19–23	London Street
25	London Street
1–25	London Street
2–25	London Street
3–25	London Street
8	Lynwood Avenue
10	Lynwood Avenue
12	Lynwood Avenue
12a	Lynwood Avenue
12c	Lynwood Avenue
14	Lynwood Avenue
3	McAllister Lane Mosgiel
5	McAllister Lane Mosgiel
7	McAllister Lane Mosgiel
9	McAllister Lane Mosgiel
11	McAllister Lane Mosgiel
13	McAllister Lane Mosgiel
15	McAllister Lane Mosgiel
17	McAllister Lane Mosgiel
19	McAllister Lane Mosgiel
210	Main South Road Green Island
1	Mallard Place Mosgiel
2	Mallard Place Mosgiel
3	Mallard Place Mosgiel
4	Mallard Place Mosgiel
5	Mallard Place Mosgiel
6	Mallard Place Mosgiel
7	Mallard Place Mosgiel
8	Mallard Place Mosgiel
9	Mallard Place Mosgiel
10	Mallard Place Mosgiel
11	Mallard Place Mosgiel
12	Mallard Place Mosgiel
13	Mallard Place Mosgiel
14	Mallard Place Mosgiel
15	Mallard Place Mosgiel
11	Malvern Street
15	Malvern Street
17a	Malvern Street
30	Marne Street
32	Marne Street
42	Marne Street
44	Marne Street
46	Marne Street
48	Marne Street
50	Marne Street
2	Meldrum Street
10	Meldrum Street
33	Melville Street
14	Middleton Road
16	Middleton Road
18	Middleton Road
20	Middleton Road
22	Middleton Road
24	Middleton Road
26	Middleton Road
28	Middleton Road
30	Middleton Road
37	Middleton Road
37a	Middleton Road
39	Middleton Road
43	Middleton Road
47a	Middleton Road
19	Montague Street
21	Montague Street
23	Montague Street
29	Moray Place
407	Moray Place
29	Musselburgh Rise
31	Musselburgh Rise
33	Musselburgh Rise
35	Musselburgh Rise
35A	Musselburgh Rise
35B	Musselburgh Rise
72	Newington Avenue
51G	North Road
51H	North Road
51I	North Road
51J	North Road
51K	North Road
51L	North Road
53	North Road
57A	North Road
57B	North Road
57C	North Road
57D	North Road
57E	North Road
57F	North Road
59A	North Road
59B	North Road
59C	North Road
59D	North Road
59E	North Road
59F	North Road
59G	North Road
59H	North Road
59I	North Road
59J	North Road
59K	North Road
59L	North Road
59M	North Road
37	Norwood Street
41	Norwood Street
1	Pembrey Street
2	Pembrey Street
3	Pembrey Street
4	Pembrey Street
5	Pembrey Street
6	Pembrey Street
7	Pembrey Street
8	Pembrey Street
10	Pembrey Street
11	Pembrey Street
264	Pine Hill Road
264A	Pine Hill Road
266A	Pine Hill Road
266B	Pine Hill Road
268A	Pine Hill Road
268B	Pine Hill Road
270	Pine Hill Road
272	Pine Hill Road
274	Pine Hill Road
278A	Pine Hill Road
278B	Pine Hill Road
390	Pine Hill Road
409	Pine Hill Road
411	Pine Hill Road
5	Pinfold Place Mosgiel
6	Pinfold Place Mosgiel
8	Pinfold Place Mosgiel
9	Pinfold Place Mosgiel
10	Pinfold Place Mosgiel
11	Pinfold Place Mosgiel
12	Pinfold Place Mosgiel
13	Pinfold Place Mosgiel
14	Pinfold Place Mosgiel
15	Pinfold Place Mosgiel
30	Puketai Street
36	Puketai Street
38	Puketai Street
19	Queen Street
19A	Queen Street
1	Rata Court Mosgiel
2	Rata Court Mosgiel
3	Rata Court Mosgiel
4	Rata Court Mosgiel
5	Rata Court Mosgiel
6	Rata Court Mosgiel
223	Ravensbourne Road Ravensbourne
1	Rimu Court Mosgiel
2	Rimu Court Mosgiel
3	Rimu Court Mosgiel
4	Rimu Court Mosgiel
5	Rimu Court Mosgiel
87	Riselaw Road
89	Riselaw Road
89A	Riselaw Road
91	Riselaw Road
91A	Riselaw Road
93	Riselaw Road
93A	Riselaw Road
21	Rosebery Street
42	Roy Crescent
44	Roy Crescent
46	Roy Crescent
48	Roy Crescent
50	Roy Crescent
54	Roy Crescent
58	Roy Crescent
60	Roy Crescent
62	Roy Crescent
64	Roy Crescent
16	Selkirk Street
11	Shand Street Green Island
14	Sheen Street
6	Silver Springs Boulevard Mosgiel
8	Silver Springs Boulevard Mosgiel
10	Silver Springs Boulevard Mosgiel
12	Silver Springs Boulevard Mosgiel
14	Silver Springs Boulevard Mosgiel
16	Silver Springs Boulevard Mosgiel
20	Silver Springs Boulevard Mosgiel
22	Silver Springs Boulevard Mosgiel
24	Silver Springs Boulevard Mosgiel
26	Silver Springs Boulevard Mosgiel
28	Silver Springs Boulevard Mosgiel
1–27	St Albans Street
2–27	St Albans Street
3–27	St Albans Street
4–27	St Albans Street
5–27	St Albans Street
6–27	St Albans Street
7–27	St Albans Street
8–27	St Albans Street
9–27	St Albans Street
10–27	St Albans Street
11–27	St Albans Street
12–27	St Albans Street
13–27	St Albans Street
4	Stanley Square Mosgiel
5	Stanley Square Mosgiel
6	Stanley Square Mosgiel
7	Stanley Square Mosgiel
8	Stanley Square Mosgiel
9	Stanley Square Mosgiel
10	Stanley Square Mosgiel
11	Stanley Square Mosgiel
12	Stanley Square Mosgiel
365	Stuart Street
367	Stuart Street
367A	Stuart Street
55	Sunbury Street
57	Sunbury Street
59	Sunbury Street
59A	Sunbury Street
67	Tahuna Road
67A	Tahuna Road
67B	Tahuna Road
69	Tahuna Road
69A	Tahuna Road
69B	Tahuna Road
69C	Tahuna Road
1	Taupo Lane Ravensbourne
2	Taupo Street Ravensbourne
1	Thomas Square Mosgiel
2	Thomas Square Mosgiel
3	Thomas Square Mosgiel
4	Thomas Square Mosgiel
5	Thomas Square Mosgiel
6	Thomas Square Mosgiel
7	Thomas Square Mosgiel
8	Thomas Square Mosgiel
9	Thomas Square Mosgiel
4A	Totara Street Ravensbourne
44	Turnbull Street
46	Turnbull Street
85A	Victoria Road St Kilda
85B	Victoria Road St Kilda
85C	Victoria Road St Kilda
85D	Victoria Road St Kilda
85G	Victoria Road St Kilda
85H	Victoria Road St Kilda
85I	Victoria Road St Kilda
85J	Victoria Road St Kilda
85K	Victoria Road St Kilda
85L	Victoria Road St Kilda
85M	Victoria Road St Kilda
85N	Victoria Road St Kilda
85P	Victoria Road St Kilda
85Q	Victoria Road St Kilda
85R	Victoria Road St Kilda
85T	Victoria Road St Kilda
146	Victoria Road St Kilda
44	Waimea Avenue
46	Waimea Avenue
48	Waimea Avenue
50	Waimea Avenue
58	Waimea Avenue
62	Waimea Avenue
60	Wallace Street
18	Warwick Street
23	Warwick Street
1	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
2	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
3	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
4	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
5	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
6	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
7	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
8	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
9	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
10	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
11	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
12	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
14	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
15	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
17	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
18	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
19	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
20	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
21	Wenlock Square Mosgiel
72	Wesley Street
19	Woodside Terrace
20	Woodside Terrace
22	Woodside Terrace
23	Woodside Terrace
24	Woodside Terrace
25	Woodside Terrace
25A	Woodside Terrace
26	Woodside Terrace
27	Woodside Terrace
29	Woodside Terrace

Differential Matters and Categories

b) Adopts the following differential categories for the 2026/27 financial year.

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

1. Differentials Based on Land Use

The Council uses this matter to:

· Differentiate the General rate.

· Differentiate the Community Services rate.

· Differentiate the Kerbside Collection rate.

· Differentiate the Private Street Lighting rate.

· Differentiate the Fire Protection rate.

The differential categories based on land use are:

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

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

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

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

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

· Bed and breakfast establishments; and

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

· Either:

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

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

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

· The bed and breakfast owner lives at the facility.

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

· Water Services Utilities – this includes rating units with council land use codes 64 and 65.

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

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

The differential categories based on land use are:

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

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

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

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

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

· Bed and breakfast establishments; and

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

· Either:

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

• the establishment has Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Registration or

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

· The bed and breakfast owner lives at the facility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Differentials Based on Provision or Availability of Service

The Council uses this matter to differentiate the water rates.

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

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

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

Minimum Rates

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

Low Value Rating Units

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

Land Use Codes

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

Separately Used or Inhabited Part of a Rating Unit

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

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

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

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

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

Lump Sum Contributions

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

Rating by Instalments

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

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

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

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

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

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

	Area 1	Area 2	Area 3	Area 4
Instalment 1	28/08/2026	11/09/2026	25/09/2026	11/09/2026
Instalment 2	20/11/2026	04/12/2026	18/12/2026	04/12/2026
Instalment 3	19/02/2027	26/02/2027	12/03/2027	26/02/2027
Instalment 4	14/05/2027	21/05/2027	04/06/2027	21/05/2027

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

Date of Invoice	Date for Payment	Date for Penalty
July 2026	20 August 2026	21 August 2026
August 2026	20 September 2026	21 September 2026
September 2026	20 October 2026	21 October 2026
October 2026	20 November 2026	21 November 2026
November 2026	20 December 2026	21 December 2026
December 2026	20 January 2027	21 January 2027
January 2027	20 February 2027	21 February 2027
February 2027	20 March 2027	21 March 2027
March 2027	20 April 2027	21 April 2027
April 2027	20 May 2027	21 May 2027
May 2027	20 June 2027	21 June 2027
June 2027	20 July 2027	21 July 2027

Penalties

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

1 A charge of 10% of the unpaid rates instalment will be added to the amount of any instalment remaining unpaid the day after the instalment due date set out on the table above. The penalties will be applied on the dates below:

	Area 1	Area 2	Area 3	Area 4
Date for Penalty Inst 1	29/08/2026	12/09/2026	26/09/2026	12/09/2026
Date for Penalty Inst 2	21/11/2026	05/12/2026	19/12/2026	05/12/2026
Date for Penalty Inst 3	20/02/2027	27/02/2027	13/03/2027	27/02/2027
Date for Penalty Inst 4	15/05/2027	22/05/2027	05/06/2027	22/05/2027

2 Where a ratepayer has not paid the first instalment by the due date of that instalment, and has paid the total rates and charges in respect of the rating unit for the 2026/27 rating year by the due date of the second instalment, the 10% additional charge for the first instalment shall be remitted.

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

4 For amounts levied in any previous financial year and which remain unpaid on 1 April 2027, 10% of that sum shall be charged on 1 April 2027, including additional charges (if any).

Assessing and Recovering Rates

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

BACKGROUND

2. The rating method for the 2026/27 year formed part of the supporting documentation made available during the community engagement period of the Annual Plan 2026/27.

3. On 4 March 2026, the Rating Method 2026/27 Report was presented to Council. Council resolved as follows:

Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Mayor Sophie Barker):

That the Council:

a) Approves an increase in the Community Services targeted rate for the 2026/27 year of $3.30, taking the rate to $124.30 including GST.

b) Approves an increase in the Stadium 10,000 plus seat differentiated rates for the 2026/27 year based on the June 2025 Local Government Cost Index of 2.7%.

c) Approves the creation of a new general rate differential for water services utilities of 1.34

d) Approves the current rating method for the setting of all other rates for the 2026/27 year.

e) Notes that a full review of the general rate differential will be completed as part of the 10 Year Plan 2027-37.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/062)

4. Please note that unless specified, all rating figures in this report are GST inclusive.

DISCUSSION

5. The rating method for the 2026/27 year incorporates the following changes:

· An increase in the Community Services targeted rate from $121.00 to $124.30.

· The differentiated stadium: 10,000+ capacity rates have been increased by the June 2025 Local Government Cost Index of 2.7%.

· The creation of a new general rate differential for water services utilities of 1.34.

Limit on "Fixed" Charging

6. Section 21 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 includes a limit on certain rates. In any one year, the Council may not collect more than 30% of its total rates revenue by way of:

· Any uniform annual general charge.

· Any targeted rate that is calculated as a fixed amount per rating unit or separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit (and which is not used solely for water supply or sewage disposal).

7. The Council does not use a uniform annual general charge. The relevant targeted rates for the 2026/27 year are the Kerbside Collection rate, the Community Services rate and the Drainage fixed charge. These rates equate to 24% of total rates revenue.

OPTIONS

8. The option provided is to set rates in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in order to provide rates funding in the 2026/27 year in accordance with the 2026/27 budget.

NEXT STEPS

9. The Council can now set and assess the rates described in its Funding Impact Statement.

Signatories

Author:

Hayden McAuliffe - Financial Services Manager

Lara McBride - Compliance and Reporting Accountant

Authoriser:

Carolyn Allan - Chief Financial Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Land use codes	462

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

This decision fits with the strategic framework because it provides the necessary rates funding to implement the activities outlined in the Annual Plan 2026/27.

Māori Impact Statement

As part of the DCC’s ongoing commitment to working in partnership with mana whenua, consultation and engagement processes for the Annual Plan 2026/27 ensured opportunities for Māori, both mana whenua and mātāwaka, to contribute to the decision-making process.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

Zero carbon

There are no implications for emissions.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The Council has adopted the Annual Plan 2026/27 and can now set and assess the rates described in its Funding Impact Statement for the 2026/27 year.

Financial considerations

The Council has adopted the Annual Plan 2026/27 and can now set and assess the rates described in its Funding Impact Statement.

Significance

The decision sets the rates for the 2026/27 year as outlined in the Annual Plan 2026/27.

Engagement – external

Community engagement was undertaken as part of the Annual Plan 2026/27 process.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement has occurred with staff in the relevant departments.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Legal risks were considered, and appropriate advice sought.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards may be interested in this report and were involved in the Annual Plan 2026/27 engagement.

	Annual Meter Rental Charge
20mm nominal diameter	$194.78
25mm nominal diameter	$250.06
30mm nominal diameter	$277.71
40mm nominal diameter	$314.54
50mm nominal diameter	$636.99
80mm nominal diameter	$787.02
100mm nominal diameter	$830.46
150mm nominal diameter	$1,193.69
300mm nominal diameter	$1,549.04
70mm Hydrant Standpipe	$771.23
Reconnection Fee – includes the removal of water restrictors installed due to non-compliance of the water bylaw	$542.86
Special Reading Fee	$73.77
	Backflow Prevention Charge
Backflow Preventer Test Fee	$154.15
Rescheduled Backflow Preventer Test Fee	$92.01
Backflow Programme - incomplete application fee (hourly rate)	$54.12
	Water Charge
Merton, Hindon and individual farm supplied Bulk Raw Water Tariff	$0.17 per cubic metre
All other treated water per cubic metre	$2.94 per cubic metre
	Network Contributions
Disconnection of Water Supply – AWSCI to excavate	$302.31
Disconnection of Water Supply – DCC contractor to excavate	$1,184.48

	Title	Page
⇨a	Dunedin City Holdings Ltd Cover Report - SoI 2026/27 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨b	Dunedin City Holdings Ltd - SoI 2026/27 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨c	Aurora Energy Ltd - SoI 2026/27 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨d	City Forests Ltd - SoI 2026/27 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨e	Dunedin City Treasury Ltd - SoI 2026/27 (Under Separate Cover 1)

	Title	Page
⇩a	Financial Update	477
⇩b	Statement of Financial Performance	492
⇩c	Statement of Financial Position	493
⇩d	Statement of Cashflows	494
⇩e	Capital Expenditure Summary	495
⇩f	Capital Expenditure Detailed	497
⇩g	Statement of Operating Variances	503
⇩h	Debt Graph	504

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 May 2026	16

Author:	Janet Fraser - Corporate Planner
Authoriser:	Carolyn Allan - Chief Financial Officer