Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 2 September 2026

Council

2 September 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 22 July 2026, commencing at 9.01 am

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Sophie Barker
Deputy Mayor	Cr Cherry Lucas
Members	Cr John Chambers	Cr Jo Galer
	Cr Christine Garey via zoom audio visual link	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Marie Laufiso via zoom audio visual link	Cr Russell Lund
	Cr Mandy Mayhem	Cr Benedict Ong
	Cr Andrew Simms	Cr Mickey Treadwell
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Steve Walker via zoom audio visual link
	Cr Brent Weatherall

IN ATTENDANCE

Sandy Graham (Chief Executive), Carolyn Allan (Chief Financial Officer), Jeanine Benson (Acting 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), Anna Nilsen (Group Manager Property), Simon Spiers (Team Leader Regulation Management), Ian Martin (Principal Advisor Road Safety), Janet Young (Transport Analyst), Rose Wunrow (Policy Analyst – Transportation Regulation), Janet Fraser (Corporate Planner), John McAndrew (Head of 3 Waters), Rory McLean (Senior Policy Analyst) and Robyn Dillon (Manager Governance).

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Opening

Bishop Anne van Gend (Anglican Bishop of Dunedin) opened the meeting with a prayer.

Crs Jo Galer and Russell Lund entered the meeting at 9.05 am.

2 Public Forum

There were 10 speakers in the Public Forum.

Cr Benedict Ong entered the meeting at 9.06 am.

2.1 Mike Taylor

Mr Taylor, Firefighter and Secretary of the Dunedin Branch of New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union spoke of the ongoing strikes by firefighters, the issues that they were raising and how they affected Dunedin. He was gathering support for a petition asking for accountability from FENZ and the Government.

Mr Taylor responded to questions.

2.2 Peter Foster

Mr Foster spoke of the Zero Carbon work and commented that he believed there was no need for the work to continue as he believed there was evidence that there has been no increase in any form of extreme weather.

2.3 John Burnip

Mr Burnip spoke on the petition which requested a speed limit reduction on the Brighton - Taieri Mouth Road. He commented on the methods used to gain signatures and that they were far in excess of those who lived on the road or in Taieri Mouth and he questioned if any had travelled the road at the proposed speed limit.

Mr Burnip responded to questions and thanked Councillors and staff for their support.

2.4 Raewynne Pedofski

Ms Pedofski spoke to her pre-circulated information on the proposed reorganisation of Local Government Entities. She commented that as the largest city in the South Island, and the one who has made significant progress in 3 Waters, Dunedin could go it alone if necessary.

Ms Pedofski responded to questions.

2.5 Robyn Vintiner

Ms Vintiner spoke on the amalgamation process of Local Government Entities. She then spoke about the South Dunedin flooding issues and requested that the Otago Regional Council and the Dunedin City Council urgently proceed with a pipes and pumps drainage investigation for South Dunedin.

Ms Vintiner requested that research undertaken on the amalgamation be shared with the community.

Ms Vintiner responded to questions.

2.6 Dr Jen Purdie

Dr Purdie (University of Otago Climate Scientist) outlined her background and research she had undertaken and the results. She spoke on climate action and thanked Council for the work undertaken to date. Dr Purdie encouraged the council to remain ambitious in its emissions reduction targets.

Dr Purdie responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Extends the Public Forum

Motion carried

2.7 Bridie Lonie

Ms Lonie advised that she was a member of the organisation Senior’s Climate Action Network which ran monthly presentations on climate change and its implications which were published to their website. Ms Lonie said councillors needed to show leadership on climate change action.

Ms Lonie responded to questions.

2.8 Matt Greene

Mr Green spoke on the Zero Carbon Plan. He commented that net zero emissions alone would not stabilise the long term damages, global emissions would need to become net-negative and remain so for centuries according to recent studies. Mr Green provided statistical information in support of his comments and urged Councillors to take all steps needed to deliver the strongest possible Zero Carbon Plan.

Mr Greene responded to questions.

2.9 Matt Jenks

Mr Jenks spoke on the Changes to the Zero Carbon 2030 Target. He commented that the Zero Carbon target was more than just emissions, it was immediate health benefits for Dunedin residents and spoke of the need to shift from cars to walking, cycling and buses to help reduce emissions.

Mr Jenks responded to questions.

2.10 Rosemary Penwarden

Ms Penwarden spoke of the urgency to understand and act on climate breakdown and commented on the changes she had made over the past 15 years to reduce her carbon footprint. She urged Councillors to make the city liveable for future generations.

Ms Penwarden responded to questions.

PETITION

Mr Tony Cummings, Deputy Chair – Dunedin Area Citizens Assn Inc presented a petition calling for Pumps and Pipes in South Dunedin. He commented that when the petition had been sent, there were 1,344 signatures however it had now been signed by over 2,000 people.

Mr Cummings spoke of the flooding over the past few years and commented that in June 2018, Council had delivered an update to every resident in South Dunedin and advised they had a $7m commitment to help fix the problem yet to date, nothing has happened. He noted that Council had also advised they would invest $44m to update the Green Island Waste Water Treatment Plan which was yet to be completed. In closing Mr Cummings said they were not asking for anything new, they just wanted Council to do what they had promised.

3 Apologies

There was an apology from Cr Steve Walker for lateness.

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Approves the apology for lateness from Cr Steve Walker.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/116)

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/117)

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/2026/118)

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 25 June 2026

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 25 June 2026 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/119)

6.2 Ordinary Council meeting - 13 May 2026

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 13 May 2026 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/120)

Reports

7 Financial Report - Period ended 31 May 2026
	A report from Finance provided the financial results for the period ended 31 May 2026 and the financial position as at that date.
	The Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan) and Group Manager Property (Anna Nilsen) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
During discussion Cr Mickey Treadwell left the meeting at 10.08 am and returned at 10.10 am; Cr Doug Hall left the meeting at 10.09 am and returned at 10.11 am and Cr Benedict Ong left at 10.15 am and returned at 10.19 am.
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Lee Vandervis): That the Council: Notes the Financial Performance for the period ended 31 May 2026 and the Financial Position as at that date. Motion carried (CNL/2026/121) with Cr Benedict Ong recording his vote against

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas)

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 10 minutes

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 11.06 am and reconvened at 11.23 am.

8 Governance and Councillor Appointments to Outside Organisations Updates
	A report from Civic advised the Council that the Mayor had exercised her discretionary power under Section 41A(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to appoint newly elected Cr Joanne Galer to the role of Portfolio Co-Lead – Heritage. In addition, the report also recommended appointments to existing external organisations and to two new organisations: the Creative Dunedin Advisory Group and Creative New Zealand Grants Advisory Group.
	Mayor Sophie spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Notes Cr Joanne Galer’s appointment as the Portfolio Co-Lead – Heritage along with Cr Russel Lund. b) Notes Cr Galer’s annual remuneration remains as previously approved by Council and gazetted by the Remuneration Authority being $100,577. c) Notes Deputy Mayor Cherry Lucas’s appointment as the Portfolio Deputy – Infrastructure. d) Notes the Infrastructure portfolio now includes Future Development Strategy as a strategic area. e) Notes Cr Brent Weatherall’s appointment as Lead of the Infrastructure Portfolio. f) Notes Cr Marie Laufiso’s appointment as the Council representative on the Saddle Hill Community Board. g) Approves Cr Joanne Galer as the Council representative on the Dunedin Public Art Gallery Society, the Hereweka Harbour Cone Trust and the Theomin Gallery Management Committee (Olveston). h) Approves the removal of Cr Steve Walker from the Hereweka Harbour Cone Trust. i) Approves Mayor Sophie Barker as the Council representative on the Dunedin Chinese Garden Advisory Board. j) Approves Cr Brent Weatherall as the Council representative on the Dunedin Public Art Gallery Acquisitions Committee. k) Approves Cr Mandy Mayhem as the Council representative of Creative New Zealand Grants Advisory Panel. 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, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (11). Against: Crs Russell Lund, Benedict Ong and Lee Vandervis (3). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 3 Motion carried (CNL/2026/122)

9 Notice of Motion - Opposing removal of Final-Year Fee Free Policy
	In accordance with Standing Order 26.1, the following Notice of Motion was received from Cr Benedict Ong for consideration.
	Cr Ong advised that he wished to table an amended motion under standing orders 26.4 with the agreement of the meeting.
	Moved (Cr Benedict Ong/Cr Russell Lund): That the Council: a) Approves the amended motion for Opposing Removal of Final Year Fee Free policy as circulated. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Jo Galer, Russell Lund and Benedict Ong (3). Against: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie (11). Abstained: Nil The division was declared LOST by 11 votes to 3
	The original Notice of Motion was then considered.
	Moved (Cr Benedict Ong/Cr Russell Lund): That the Council: a) Receives the Notice of Motion. b) Opposes the removal of the final-year Fees-Free policy and requests that the Government reconsider the decision, noting the importance of tertiary education to student participation, the University of Otago, Otago Polytechnic and our Dunedin’s economic and social wellbeing. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs John Chambers, Jo Galer, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Russell Lund, Benedict Ong, Andrew Simms and Mickey Treadwell (9). Against: Crs Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (5). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 5 Motion carried (CNL/2026/123)

10 Hearings Committee Recommendation - Taieri Mouth Road Speed Limit

A report from Transport presented the recommendation of the Hearings 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 Chairperson (Cr Mandy Mayhem) summarised the meeting, the considerations of the submissions and reasons the Committee reached the decision to reduce the speed limit on Brighton-Taieri Mouth Road. Cr Mayhem responded to questions.

The Team Leader Regulation Management (Simon Spiers), Principal Advisor Road Safety (Ian Martin) and Transport Analyst (Janet Young) provided background information and support answering questions.

Moved (Cr Mandy Mayhem/Cr Andrew Simms):

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.

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/2026/124)

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

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

General subject of the matter to be considered

Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

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

Reason for Confidentiality

C1 Ordinary Council meeting - 25 June 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)(a)

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

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; and

b) Adjourns the meeting for 45 minutes.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/125)

The meeting adjourned at 12.30 pm and reconvened in public at 2.45 pm.

11 Hearings Committee Recommendations on the Proposed Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2026
Cr Russell Lund withdrew from this item and left the meeting at 2.47 pm.
	A report from Transport presented the findings of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) on the submissions to the proposed Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2026.
	The Chairperson (Cr Cherry Lucas) spoke to the recommendations and responded to questions. The Team Leader Regulation Management (Simon Spiers) and Rose Wunrow (Policy Analyst – Transport Regulation) provided support and responded to questions.
Cr Steve Walker entered the meeting at 3.04 pm (via zoom audio visual link).
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Notes the Hearings Committee has considered 31 submissions on the proposed Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2026, b) Notes the minutes of the Hearings Committee and the Committee’s recommended amendments to the consultation version of the proposed Bylaw (Attachment B), c) Confirms that the proposed Bylaw, including the recommended amendments, is the most appropriate way of regulating traffic and parking; is the most appropriate form of Bylaw; and does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, d) Adopts the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2026. e) Approves a date of effect of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2026 of 1 August 2026, f) Revokes the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2010 from 1 August 2026. Motion carried (CNL/2026/126) with Cr Jo Galer registering her vote against

12 Hearings Committee Recommendations on Proposed Parking Changes - June 2026
Cr Andrew Simms after withdrawing from this item, left the meeting at 3.11 pm and returned at 3.14 pm.
	A report from Transport presented recommendations of the Hearings Committee meetings held on 12 June 2026 on proposed changes and corrections to parking restrictions.
	The Chairperson (Cr Cherry Lucas) spoke to the recommendations and responded to questions. The Team Leader Regulation Management (Simon Spiers) and Policy Analyst – Transport Regulation (Rose Wunrow) provided support and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Mandy Mayhem): That the Council: a) Adopts the proposed changes to traffic and parking restrictions shown in the June 2026 update of the Dunedin City Council's traffic and parking restrictions database: June 2026 Proposed Parking Changes, b) Notes that Council staff would undertake follow-up actions for some of the proposed parking changes (with actions described in paragraphs 35, 37, and 40), c) Notes that the Hearings Committee has considered feedback from consultation on the proposed changes relating to changes and restrictions, d) Notes that all parking restrictions previously approved by the Council remain unchanged. Motion carried (CNL/2026/127) with Cr Jo Galer recording vote against

13 Development of the 10 Year Plan 2027-37
	A report from Finance provided the Council with an update on the development of the 10 Year Plan 2027-37. The 10 Year Plan was being developed in parallel with Council’s inaugural Water Services Strategy 2027-37, which was the subject of a separate report.
Cr Doug Hall left the meeting at 3.28 pm and returned at 3.31 pm. Cr Christine Garey left the meeting at 3.36 pm and returned at 3.39 pm.
	The Chief Financial Officer (Carolyn Allan) and Corporate Planner (Janet Fraser) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Development of the 10 Year Plan 2027-37 report. Motion carried (CNL/2026/128)

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Extends the meeting beyond 6 hours

Motion carried

14 Water Services Strategy 2027-37 development
	A report from Civic and 3 Waters provided the Council with an update on the development of the inaugural Water Services Strategy 2027-37. The Water Services Strategy was developed in parallel with Council’s 10 Year Plan 2027-37, which is the subject of a separate report.
	The General Manager, 3 Waters, Property and Urban Development (David Ward), Head of 3 Waters (John McAndrew) and Corporate Planner (Janet Fraser) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Brent Weatherall/Cr Mickey Treadwell): That the Council: a) Notes the Water Services Strategy 2027-37 development report. Motion carried (CNL/2026/129)

15 Proposed Event Road Closures

A report from Transport advised that the DCC had received temporary road closure applications relating to the following events:

i) Graduation Parade

ii) Special Rigs for Special Kids

iii) 2026 Emerson’s Dunedin Marathon

iv) Vintage Car Run

Mayor Sophie noted that this was the final Council meeting attended by Ms Jeanine Benson, Group Manager Transport, prior to her departure from the Dunedin City Council. The Mayor acknowledged and thanked Ms Benson for her extensive knowledge, her honest and straightforward advice, and her significant contribution to the Council during her years of service.

Councillors Garey and Walker also paid tribute to Ms Benson, noting the high regard in which she was held, her calm and considered manner, and their admiration for her professionalism, skills, and leadership.

The Mayor and Councillors extended their best wishes to Ms Benson for the future and acknowledged her outstanding service with a round of applause, noting that whomever was to be her new employer would be fortunate to benefit from her expertise and experience.

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

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) Graduation Parade

Saturday, 22 August 2026	11.00am to 11.45am	· Great King Street, between Frederick Street and Albany Street
	11.10am to 12.00pm	· Frederick Street, between Great King Street and George Street · George Street, between Frederick Street and Moray Place
	11.10am to 12.15pm	· Intersection of George Street and Moray Place
	11.10am to 12.30pm	· Moray Place, between George Street and Upper Stuart Street · Filleul Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street

ii) Special Rigs for Special Kids

Sunday, 30 August 2026

6.00am to 6.00pm

· Midland Street, between Timaru Street and Portsmouth Drive

· Otaki Street, between Turakina Road and Teviot Street

· Teviot Street, between Portsmouth Drive and Timaru Street, will be temporarily closed for 20 minutes to allow the convoy to leave

iii) 2026 Emerson’s Dunedin Marathon

Saturday, 12 September 2026	5.00pm to 11.59pm	· Ward Street overbridge - entire length
Sunday, 13 September 2026	12midnight to 5.00pm	· Ward Street overbridge - entire length
Sunday, 13 September 2026	8.30am to 1.00pm
· Portobello Road, between Shore Street and 430 Portobello Road (Glenfalloch) · Marne Street, between Portobello Road and Larnach Road · Doon Street, between Portobello Road and Glengyle Street · Fryatt Street – full length · Wickliffe Street – full length · Kitchener Street – full length · Birch Street – full length · Anzac Avenue, between Union Street East and Ravensbourne Road, · Logan Park Drive - full length · Butts Road, between Dundas Street and Anzac Avenue

iv) Vintage Car Run

Saturday, 23 January 2027

9.30am to 12.00pm

· Octagon Central Carriageway, between Princes Street and George Street

Motion carried (CNL/2026/130)

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Cherry Lucas

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 4.17 pm and reconvened at 4.23 pm.

16 City-wide emissions target refresh options
	A report from Zero Carbon sought a decision for Council to consider whether to refresh the existing city emissions targets set in 2019, and if Council wished to refresh the existing targets, determine the type of target.
	The Acting General Manager City Services (Jeanine Benson) and Senior Policy Analyst – Zero Carbon (Rory McLean) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Jo Galer left the meeting at 4.27 pm. Cr Lee Vandervis left the meeting at 4.43 pm. Mayor Sophie left the meeting at 4.51 pm and Deputy Mayor Cherry Lucas assumed the Chair.
	Moved (Cr Mickey Treadwell/Cr Doug Hall): That the Council: a) Adopts refreshed Carbon Zero targets for the Dunedin Carbon Zero Framework, replacing the existing Net Zero 2030 target. b) Adopts a two-stage target comprising i) a near-term gross greenhouse gas emissions reduction target; and ii) a long-term net zero greenhouse gas emissions target. c) Adopts separate targets for biogenic methane and all other greenhouse gases, maintaining a distinct biogenic methane reduction target. d) Notes that staff will present a future report for Council to consider the level of ambition, including proposed target years and emissions reduction pathways, for the refreshed targets. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell and Steve Walker (9). Against: Crs Benedict Ong and Brent Weatherall (2). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 2 Motion carried (CNL/2026/131)

17 Notice of Motion - Positioning Dunedin to Benefit from the New Zealand-India FTA by attracting Medical Specialists from India

In accordance with Standing Order 26.1, a Notice of Motion was received from Cr Benedict Ong for inclusion on the agenda.

The Notice of Motion which lapsed for want of a seconder.

The meeting closed at 5.26 pm

.............................................. ……………………………………………….

MAYOR DEPUTY MAYOR

Council

2 September 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 13 August 2026, commencing at 9.00 a.m.

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Sophie Barker
Members	Cr John Chambers	Cr Jo Galer
	Cr Christine Garey	Cr Doug Hall (via zoom audio visual link)
	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), 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), Mr McAndrew (Acting GM 3 Waters), Monique Devereux (Head of Communications and Engagement)

Governance Support Officer Lauren Riddle

1 Opening

Haizal Mohd Hussaini and Mohammed Rizwan opened the meeting with a prayer on behalf of the Muslim community.

2 Public Forum

There were 6 people speakers in the Public Forum.

2.1 Mike Hammond and Rose Dickie, South Dunedin Community Network

Mr Mike Hammond (Chairperson) and Ms Dickie (Community, Engagement and Operations Manager) affirmed the South Dunedin Community Network’s long-standing role in supporting and advocating for the people of South Dunedin in relation to flooding, sea level rise, climate adaptation and amenities in the South Dunedin area.

Mr Hammond advised that the South Dunedin community sought vibrant and resilient green spaces, designed for recreation to support positive mental, social and physical well-being outcomes. He emphasized the importance of robust communication and public consultation by Council.

Ms Dickie reiterated the importance of community engagement to inform the South Dunedin community and the provision of accurate information.

Mr Hammond and Ms Dickie responded to questions.

2.2 Charlie Hurley

Mr Hurley spoke on the current state of Dunedin skateboarding facilities. He considered the facilities as being outdated and presented images of the current skateboard facilities. Mr Hurley sought that development of future skateboarding facilities in Dunedin be led by research informed design as a standard. He requested that a new destination skate park be included in the 10 Year Plan 2027-2037.

Mr Hurley responded to questions.

2.3 Elliot Phillips

Mr Phillips spoke on skateboarding from an arts and cultural influence perspective and its impact on the city. He spoke of the talent within the skateboarding community and its influence on the New Zealand art and fashion scene. Mr Phillips highlighted that it has been 23 years since the establishment of the Thomas Burns destination skate park and sought Council support to develop fit for purpose facilities to support skateboarding.

Mr Phillips responded to questions.

2.6 Duncan Eddy, West Harbour Community Board

Mr Eddy spoke on behalf of the West Harbour Community Board in support of Council assessing options for social housing development on the vacant Kāinga Ora land in Port Chalmers and provision of a briefing on the issue for central government ministers.

Mr Eddy spoke to the number of people on the social housing waiting list (he advised as being 394), while he considered there was social housing land available for development. He talked of the impact to the local economy and community due to the cancelled development of 11 new state houses in Albertson Avenue, Port Chalmers by Kāinga Ora. He advised the site has remained empty since mid- 2023, with no sale yet having been completed by Kāinga Ora. He advised he considered the social value of land exceeded the commercial value.

Mr Eddy responded to questions.

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Andrew Simms)

That the Council

Extends Public Forum beyond 30 minutes.

Motion Carried

2.7 Alan Somerville, Chair – Abbeyfield Dunedin (Inc)

Mr Somerville spoke about the support Council could provide for community housing in the city. He supported Council exploring the use of land within the city for community housing and the need for more affordable and healthy housing for elderly people in Dunedin.

Mr Somerville spoke about the Abbeyfield communal housing facility model in supporting elderly people to remain living independently with good nutrition being provided and regular social connection, which he considered as one of the most important determinants of continued good health in old age.

Mr Somerville urged Council to pursue models for the development of communal living (over individual housing units) for any future social housing projects. He sought Council support for community housing providers through the use of suitable land within the city

He thanked Council for their role in providing social housing in the city and encouraged this to continue.

Mr Somerville responded to questions.

2.9 Tony Cummings

Mr Cummings spoke in support of Brighton substituted for Wakari as the small scale centre to be upgraded in the 2026/27 financial year. He gave his perspective as a shopkeeper in the Wakari shopping centre and considered the installation of seating and planting at the shopping centre as having a negative impact for the community.

Mr Cummings responded to questions.

3 Apologies

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Andrew Simms):

That the Council:

Accepts the apology from Cr Cherry Lucas for absence and Cr Lee Vandervis for early departure.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/116)

4 Confirmation of agenda

Sandy Graham (Chief Executive) advised that two reports were withdrawn from the meeting agenda.

Item 10 – the Botanic Garden Plan report and

Item 13 – Notice of Motion for Community Housing.

Cr Marie Laufiso confirmed her withdrawal of Item 13 Notice of Motion.

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Andrew Simms):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda with the withdrawal of the following items:

· Item 10 – Botanic Garden Plan report, and

· Item 13 – Notice of Motion for Community Housing.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/117)

5 Declarations of interest

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

Cr Mandy Mayhem advised she is a member of the Blueskin Bay Watch.

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Andrew Simms):

That the Council:

a) Amends Elected Members' Interest Register; and

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

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

Motion carried (CNL/2026/118)

Reports

6 Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings
	A report from Civic showed progress on implementing resolutions made at Council meetings.
	The Chief Executive (Sandy Graham) spoke to the report and advised it was the first iteration of the new format reporting. Ms Graham advised that staff would be working further on details for inclusion in the report for future Council meetings. Ms Graham responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Andrew Simms): That the Council: a) Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council meetings as attached. Motion carried (CNL/2026/119)

7 Centres Upgrade Programme
	A report from City Growth and Advisory Services noted that the Centres Upgrade and Minor Amenity Improvements Programme aimed to upgrade Dunedin’s neighbourhood centres by delivering amenity upgrades that enhance the suburban commercial areas for communities and to support local businesses. Approval was sought for the change of location to substitute Wakari with Brighton, noting that the scope of the upgrade work in an area such as Brighton could be completed for less than the allocated budget. Direction was also sought for a preferred approach for selection of centres for 2027/28 and 2028/29 which would allow staff to scope and cost the proposed upgrades.
	The General Manager Arts, Culture and Economic Development (Mike Costelloe) and Team Leader Advisory Services (Mark Mawdsley) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/ Cr Andrew Simms) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for five minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 10:06 a.m. and reconvened at 10:07 a.m.
	Discussion was held on the matrix used for assessment of amenities for upgrade and the importance of Community Boards having any amenity upgrades sought for the board area included in their Community Plans.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/ Cr Andrew Simms) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for 15 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 10:36 a.m. and reconvened at 10:56 a.m.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Brent Weatherall): That the Council: a) Notes the completion of the amenity upgrade in Musselburgh. b) Substitutes Brighton for Wakari in the Centres Upgrade Programme for 2026/27. c) Commences community engagement and design work for Middlemarch Centres Upgrade Programme in 2026/27. d) Notes that a report including a prioritisation matrix for future years of the Centres Upgrade Programme (including both small and large centres) will be included for consideration in the Ten Year Plan 2027-37. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs John Chambers, Jo Galer, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (11). Against: Cr Russell Lund, Cr Lee Vandervis (2). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 2 .Motion carried (CNL/2026/120)

8 Proposed Trade Waste Discharge Plan 2026 and Proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2026
	A report from 3 Waters sought approval for the draft proposed Trade Waste Discharge Plan 2026; the draft proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2026 and the associated draft Statement of Proposal for notification for public consultation, using the special consultative procedure set out in the LGA.
	The Head of 3 Waters (John McAndrew), Regulation and Policy Team Leader (Scott Campbell) and Policy Analyst (Jacinda Baker) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Christine Garey left the meeting at 11:38 a.m. and returned to the meeting at 11:40 a.m. Cr Mickey Treadwell left the meeting at 11:48 a.m. and returned to the meeting at 11:50 a.m.
	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Lee Vandervis): That the Council: a) Determines that a bylaw, in conjunction with the Trade Waste Discharge Plan, is the most appropriate way to manage trade waste in Dunedin and the discharge of trade waste to the wastewater network. b) Determines that the draft proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2026 at Attachment B is the most appropriate form of bylaw. c) Determines that the draft proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2026 at Attachment B does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and is not inconsistent with that Act. d) Determines that the special consultative procedure, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, be used as part of the process to make the proposed Trade Waste Discharge Plan 2026 and proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2026. e) Approves the draft proposed Trade Waste Discharge Plan 2026 at Attachment A, the draft proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2026 at Attachment B and the draft Statement of Proposal at Attachment C to be notified for public consultation. f) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the proposed Trade Waste Discharge Plan 2026, proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2026 and the Statement of Proposal prior to consultation opening. Motion carried (CNL/2026/121)

Cr Lee Vandervis left the meeting at 11:59 a.m.

9 Draft Local Alcohol Policy
	A report from Corporate Policy provided an update on the Stage Two engagement of the review of the DCC’s Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), and sought approval for formal consultation on a Draft LAP.
	The General Manager Corporate and Regulatory Services (Paul Henderson), Manager Compliance Solutions (Bonnie Wright) and Senior Policy Analyst (Paul Cottam) spoke to the report and responded to questions. Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Steve Walker) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for five minutes. Motion carried
	The meeting adjourned at 12:21 p.m. and reconvened at 12:28 p.m. with a ruling on a Point of Order against Cr Benedict Ong. Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Andrew Simms) That the Council: Adjourns the meeting. Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 12:32 p.m. Cr Benedict Ong left the meeting during the adjournment.

The meeting reconvened at 12:35 p.m.

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Andrew Simms):

That the Council:

a) Notes the results of the Stage Two engagement for the Local Alcohol Policy Review

b) Approves the Draft Local Alcohol Policy for public consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure subject to any amendment

c) Adopts the attached Statement of Proposal for consultation subject to any amendment

d) Notes that the Hearings Committee for the Local Alcohol Policy will be appointed at a future Council meeting.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs John Chambers, Jo Galer, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Russell Lund, Mandy Mayhem, Andrew Simms, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (12).

Against: Nil

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 12 votes to 0

Motion carried (CNL/2026/122)

Moved (Mayor Sophie/Cr Andrew Simms)

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for 50 minutes.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 1:08 p.m. and reconvened at 2:00 p.m.

Cr Russell Lund and Mayor Sophie made an apology for absence and left the meeting during the adjournment.

Cr Andrew Simms assumed the Chair at 2:00 p.m. from Mayor Sophie.

10 Botanic Garden Plan

The Item was withdrawn.

11 Future Development Strategy Implementation Plan update 2026
	A report from City Development presented an update on the Future Development Strategy (FDS) Implementation Plan 2026.
	General Manager Arts, Culture and Economic Development (Mike Costelloe), Project Director (Glen Hazelton) and Team Leader Planning (Emma Christmas) spoke to the report and responded to questions. Emma Christmas advised of a correction to the report attachment, Table 7 of Future Development Strategy Implementation Plan (page 339 of the agenda), which omitted the 2026 updates for the 3 Waters section of the table . She advised the table would be revised ahead of release of the Future Development Strategy Implementation Plan.
	Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Cr Jo Galer): That the Council: a) Notes the Future Development Strategy Implementation Plan 2026. Motion carried (CNL/2026/123)

12 Proposed Event Road Closures

A report from Transport sought approval of temporary road closure for the George Street Mile event.

Moved (Cr Andrew Simms/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

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) George Street Mile

Saturday, 12 September 2026

2.00pm to 7.00pm

· The Octagon, entire area within Moray Place

3.00pm to 6.00pm

· George Street, between Frederick Street and The Octagon

3.30pm to 6.00pm

· Every side street along George Street, between The Octagon and Frederick Street

· Bath Street will be exit only

Motion carried (CNL/2026/124)

13 Notice of Motion - Community Housing
	The Item was withdrawn.

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Moved (Cr Andrew Simms/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

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

General subject of the matter to be considered

Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

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

Reason for Confidentiality

C1 Confidential Council Action List Update

S7(2)(b)(ii)

S7(2)(g)

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

S7(2)(h)

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

S7(2)(i)

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

S48(1)(a)

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

C2 Dunedin City Holdings Group - Director Appointment and Re-appointment

S7(2)(a)

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

S48(1)(a)

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

Motion carried (CNL/2026/125)

The public meeting closed at 2:22 p.m. and moved into Public Excluded session and 2:24 p.m.

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

MAYOR

Council

2 September 2026

Reports

Climate Adaptation and Resilience Programme Options Report

Department: Climate and City Growth

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks Council direction on a Climate Adaptation and Resilience programme for inclusion in the 10 year plan 2027-37. Four service level options have been developed for Council’s consideration, spanning a minimum viable approach for meeting anticipated legislative requirements, through to a participatory approach that maximises community engagement. The options differ in their cost, quality of outputs, level of community involvement, and support for implementation of adaptation actions, community resilience activities and climate capability within council.

2 Natural hazards are already affecting Ōtepoti Dunedin including flooding, coastal erosion, shallow groundwater and landslides. With climate change, many of these hazards are expected to increase in frequency, severity and extent, presenting growing risks to council services, infrastructure and the communities we serve.

3 Council has commenced significant work under the current 9-Year Plan to improve understanding of climate risks and establish the foundations for adaptation planning, including development of the Climate Adaptation Policy, Climate Resilience Framework, Resilience Roadmap, Resilience Explorer platform and Citywide Climate Risk Assessment.

4 National policy and legislative settings for climate adaptation continue to evolve. Current reform proposals signal an increasing role for local government in climate adaptation and legislatively mandated adaptation planning in locations facing significant climate risks. While final requirements remain uncertain, climate adaptation is increasingly expected to become an enduring local government function.

5 Staff consider Option Four – Participatory Delivery provides the greatest level of community participation and engagement and best delivers on the Climate Adaptation Policy and Climate Resilience Framework. It combines participatory adaptation planning with implementation support, community resilience initiatives, climate capability development and climate mainstreaming across DCC. It reduces reliance on consultant-led planning and builds capability within DCC. It provides a pathway from climate risk information and adaptation planning to resilient outcomes for our communities, infrastructure and services.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the information in this report.

b) Decides a preferred option for inclusion in the draft 10 year plan 2027-37.

c) Notes that final funding decisions will be made through the 10 year plan 2027-37 process following community consultation.

BACKGROUND

6 Council has been considering the impacts of climate change and adaptation responses for more than 15 years. In 2010, Council adopted a Climate Change Adaptation Project Plan following consideration of the Climate Change Impacts on Dunedin report prepared by University of Otago Professor Blair Fitzharris. The plan promoted an approach based on risk assessment, adaptation mainstreaming, hazard information, community engagement and integration of climate considerations into Council planning and decision-making. It also identified South Dunedin as a priority area for adaptation planning and recommended further vulnerability assessments for other high-risk locations and critical infrastructure.

7 Over subsequent years, climate change considerations were progressively incorporated into a range of council strategies, plans, projects and asset management activities. Significant work has been undertaken through the South Dunedin Future programme, which has improved understanding of natural hazards, exposure and risk, and potential response options.

8 In 2023, Council considered the long-term implications of climate change for infrastructure investment decisions, including discussion of the potential impacts of sea-level rise on DCC assets. Council resolved to add preparation of a Climate Adaptation Plan to its forward work programme and requested further work on a citywide approach to climate resilience.

9 In January 2025, Council approved staged implementation of a citywide Climate Resilience Framework and associated funding through the 9 year plan 2025-34. The proposed Climate Adaptation and Resilience programme represents the next stage of this work, building on previous adaptation initiatives and providing Council with options for how climate adaptation planning, resilience-building activities and implementation support may be delivered across Dunedin over the next 10 years.

DISCUSSION

Climate Adaptation Context

10 Climate change is already affecting Ōtepoti Dunedin through more frequent and intense rainfall, flooding, coastal erosion, rising groundwater and landslides. These hazards are damaging assets, disrupting services and increasing costs for council and communities across the district. As climate risks increase, the frequency and consequences of these impacts are expected to grow. Some changes, including rising temperatures and sea level rise, will continue regardless of future global emissions reductions.

11 Adapting to climate change is a long-term challenge that requires ongoing assessment of climate hazards and risks, collaboration with mana whenua, communities and infrastructure providers, and integration of climate considerations into planning, infrastructure investment and service delivery. Adaptation will require communities and organisations to make decisions in the face of uncertainty and balance environmental, social, cultural and economic considerations over long timeframes.

Progress Since the Current Long-Term Plan

12 Since the adoption of the current 9 year plan 2025-34, council has taken steps to improve understanding of climate risks, establish the foundations for long-term adaptation planning and integrate climate risk considerations into Council decisions and investments. Key achievements include:

· Climate Adaptation Policy (adopted June 2026)

· Climate Resilience Framework and Roadmap (delivered June 2026)

· Citywide risk assessment and Resilience Explorer platform (anticipated delivery early-2027)

· Citywide Climate Adaptation Plan (anticipated adoption late-2027)

13 The South Dunedin Future programme has also made significant progress towards delivery of an adaptation masterplan for South Dunedin, which is expected in 2027.

Emerging Legislative, National Policy and Strategic Direction

14 National policy and legislative settings for climate adaptation are continuing to evolve, with a clear direction toward increasing expectations on local government to assess climate risks, undertake adaptation planning, and embed resilience into planning, infrastructure, and investment decisions. This is reflected in the National Adaptation Plan, National Adaptation Framework and wider government reforms.

15 Proposed amendments to the Climate Change Response Act are expected to establish a national adaptation planning framework, with regional spatial plans identifying priority areas facing significant climate risks and requiring local adaptation plans within set timeframes, potentially requiring initial plans in Dunedin to be completed by 2032. Adaptation is also increasingly recognised in local government planning and reporting requirements, with both adaptation and emergency management identified as distinct areas of focus and climate change highlighted as a priority consideration in 10 year plan audits.

From Planning to Resilience Outcomes

16 Climate adaptation is a long-term and ongoing challenge that requires sustained effort across risk assessment, community engagement, planning, funding and implementation. There is strong recognition across the district, including from communities, organisations, utilities, businesses, Community Boards and Te Pae Māori, of the need to better understand climate risks and identify appropriate adaptation responses.

17 While adaptation planning helps identify risks and response options, its real value is realised when it informs investment decisions, infrastructure and asset planning, operational activities and community action. The approach taken to adaptation planning is also important, with participatory processes often strengthening community understanding, ownership and support for implementation, alongside achieving technical and statutory outcomes.

Components of the Adaptation and Resilience Programme

18 The Climate Resilience Framework provides a structure for understanding climate risks, undertaking adaptation planning and supporting resilience-building activities across the district. The framework is structured around five interdependent workstreams:

· Natural Hazards. Improving and maintaining information about climate-related hazards such as flooding, coastal inundation, erosion, drought, wildfire and land instability.

· Climate Risk Assessment. Maintaining a citywide understanding of how climate hazards affect communities, infrastructure, natural environments, businesses and other assets.

· Adaptation Planning and Responses. Undertaking adaptation planning for priority places, infrastructure networks and sectors, and identifying appropriate adaptation pathways and responses.

· Adaptation Actions and Mainstreaming. Supporting the progression of adaptation responses from planning through to implementation, building community resilience, and integrating climate resilience considerations into Council planning, decision-making, asset management, policies, standards and investment processes.

· Adaptation Plan and Policy. Maintaining the strategic direction, priorities, monitoring and reporting framework needed to guide coordinated adaptation activities over time.

19 These workstreams operate as a continuous cycle rather than a linear process. Improved hazard information informs risk assessments, risk assessments inform adaptation planning, adaptation planning informs investment and implementation decisions.

Role of the Adaptation and Resilience Function

20 Climate adaptation is a shared responsibility across DCC. The adaptation and resilience function provides coordination, technical advice and support for adaptation planning and resilience-building activities. Responsibility for funding and delivering most adaptation actions will remain with the relevant asset owners, service providers, communities, infrastructure operators and partner organisations. The function supports, influences and coordinates adaptation activity, helps build partnerships, and improves access to technical expertise, funding opportunities and coordinated adaptation outcomes.

Adaptation Planning Approach

21 In many cases, climate risks can be managed through existing council planning, asset management, operational and investment processes. Embedding climate resilience into these processes will remain the primary approach to adaptation. However, more detailed adaptation planning may be required where risks are significant, affect multiple stakeholders, require long-term adaptation pathways, have substantial social, cultural, environmental or economic implications, or are subject to statutory planning requirements.

22 Adaptation planning can be undertaken using a range of approaches. At one end of the spectrum, adaptation plans can be developed primarily through technical assessments supplemented by statutory consultation requirements. At the other end, communities, mana whenua, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders can play an active role in identifying issues, evaluating options and shaping preferred adaptation pathways. The options presented in this report reflect different approaches to engagement and participation, ranging from consult, through involve, to collaborate, consistent with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum.

Delivering Adaptation Outcomes

23 Implementation of adaptation actions requires coordination, partnership development, community engagement, technical advice, business case development, and integration with Council planning and investment processes. Without these activities, there is a risk that adaptation plans identify actions but do not result in meaningful changes on the ground. The options presented in this report differ in the level of support provided to translate planned responses into actions that deliver resilience outcomes.

Managing Future Uncertainty

24 Climate adaptation requires decisions to be made in the face of uncertainty. Future climate impacts, community preferences, funding arrangements and adaptation requirements will continue to evolve over time. Many adaptation decisions also involve long implementation timeframes and require coordination across multiple organisations. An adaptive management approach allows council to respond to new information, changing risks and evolving community expectations over time. The options presented in this report differ in their ability to provide flexibility in the face of future uncertainty.

Determining an Appropriate Service Level

25 Council has $9.035 million allocated to climate adaptation in the 9 year plan 2025-34. That funding currently supports South Dunedin Future and development of the Climate Resilience Framework, both of which conclude in June 2027. The options presented move climate adaptation from a series of discrete projects to an ongoing business-as-usual function with a defined level of service and long-term funding commitment.

26 Each option represents a different level of service. The options have been developed using the Climate Resilience Framework, experience from previous adaptation projects, anticipated legislative requirements and existing adaptation funding and resources. They range from a minimum viable approach focused on statutory adaptation planning through to a comprehensive programme that supports implementation, community resilience, organisational capability and long-term resilience outcomes.

Key Considerations

Fit with strategic framework

27 Climate adaptation planning contributes to the Environment Strategy, particularly the objective of creating a future that is resilient to climate change. It also supports the Future Development Strategy, 3 Waters Strategy, Integrated Transport Strategy and other strategies that rely on long-term, risk-informed planning and investment decisions. There are no identified conflicts or inconsistencies with Council’s Strategic Framework.

Māori Impact Statement

28 Climate change has been identified as a priority issue by Te Pae Māori. The recommended option supports continued partnership with mana whenua in climate adaptation planning and resilience-building activities. The approach supports consideration of long-term climate risks and adaptation responses that may affect whenua, taonga, community wellbeing and intergenerational outcomes. It also supports Council’s commitments under Te Taki Haruru and provides opportunities for mana whenua and Māori to contribute to future adaptation planning and decision-making.

Legislative reforms

29 The proposed programme supports the purpose of local government by helping DCC meet current and future community needs through risk-informed planning, infrastructure decision-making and climate resilience activities. It aligns most closely with the proposed core function of civil defence and emergency management, while also supporting Council’s broader infrastructure and planning responsibilities. The programme would be funded through rates and is expected to be subject to any future rate cap requirements.

Sustainability, climate mitigation (Zero Carbon), adaptation and resilience

30 Climate adaptation planning has positive long-term social, economic and environmental implications. It is intended to support risk-informed decision-making, reduce long-term climate risks, improve community resilience and help avoid future costs associated with infrastructure damage, service disruption and emergency response.

31 This work is not expected to have a material direct impact on citywide or council greenhouse gas emissions. However, climate adaptation activities may generate indirect emissions reduction co-benefits by supporting resilient infrastructure, avoiding repeated asset replacement and reducing emissions associated with emergency response and post-event recovery.

OPTIONS

32 Four service level options for implementing a Climate Adaptation and Resilience programme have been developed for Council’s consideration. These span a minimum viable approach for meeting anticipated legislative requirements, through to a participatory approach that maximises community engagement.

Assumptions

33 The options presented in this report are based on the following assumptions:

· Climate change will continue to increase hazards and risks to communities, infrastructure, natural systems and DCC services across Ōtepoti Dunedin over the 10 year plan 2027-37 period and beyond.

· Current proposals to amend the Climate Change Response Act will require councils to undertake adaptation planning for priority locations identified through regional spatial planning and climate risk assessment processes.

· Adaptation planning will be required in some parts of the district during the 2027–37 period, although the number of priority areas, timing of planning requirements and final legislative obligations remain uncertain.

· Council included $9.035 million in the 9 year plan to fund climate adaptation planning in the 9 year plan 2025-34. Of that, $6.63 million is currently included in FYs 27/28 through 33/34.

34 No specific climate scenario has been used to differentiate between options. Rather, all options assume that Council will need to respond to increasing exposure to flooding, coastal hazards, groundwater rise, landslides and other climate-related risks.

Financial Comparison

The table below compares options against ongoing annual operational costs on completion of the project:

$000s	FTE required (compared to current 3.8 FTE)	Operating costs (A)	Interest costs (B)	Depreciation costs (C)	Total opex costs (A+B+C)	Non-rates operational funding	Rates funding
Option One	1 (-2.8)	$6,720	-	-	$6,720	-	$6,720
Option Two	3 (-0.8)	$7,550	-	-	$7,550	-	$7,550
Option Three	4 (+0.2)	$9,140	-	-	$9,140	-	$9,140
Option Four	5 (+1.2)	$11,590	-	-	$11,590	-	$11,590

35 The options represent different service levels for a business-as-usual adaptation planning function within DCC, with higher-cost options providing greater organisational capacity:

· Option One is the lowest-cost option because adaptation planning is largely limited to statutory compliance.

· Option Two increases costs through retention of a dedicated adaptation team and associated policy, monitoring and coordination functions.

· Option Three increases costs further through maintenance of citywide climate risk information, implementation support, community engagement and resilience-building activities.

· Option Four has the highest cost because it fully delivers the Climate Adaptation Policy and Climate Resilience Framework, including participatory planning, implementation support, community resilience initiatives, climate capability development and climate mainstreaming activities.

Other Decision Criteria

In addition to financial considerations above, the table below compares options against additional decision criteria:

	Long-term value for money	Service Level Impact	Statutory / Compliance Drivers	Capacity and readiness	Timebound? (e.g. by reform) Y/N
Option One					Y
Option Two					Y
Option Three					Y
Option Four					Y

Key

Favourable

Neutral / mixed

Unfavourable

Not applicable

36 The options differ in the level of service provided, the approach to adaptation planning and community involvement, and the level of support for implementation, community resilience and climate capability within DCC.

Summary Comparison

37 The four options represent progressively higher levels of service, capability and support for climate adaptation and resilience. The key differences are summarised below:

Option One – Reactive Planning

Description

· Adaptation planning undertaken only when required by legislation or specific Council decisions

· Single adaptation coordinator supported by consultant-led planning and technical assessments

· Focus on statutory adaptation planning and maintenance of the Citywide Adaptation Plan and Policy

· No dedicated implementation support, community resilience initiatives, public education, partnership development or climate capability activities

· Estimated 10-year cost of $6.72 million

Option Assessment

Advantages

· Lowest 10-year cost option

· Meets anticipated statutory adaptation planning requirements

· Flexible, demand-driven approach

· Consultant support procured only when required

Disadvantages

· Lowest cost is due to delayed plan production, which does not start until Year 3, after which annual costs are higher than Option Two

· No dedicated citywide climate adaptation and resilience function

· Risk assessments are static, one-off reports and adaptation planning remains reactive and consultant-led

· No implementation support, community resilience initiatives or climate capability development

· No transition support for South Dunedin Future

· No citywide risk assessment capability or Resilience Explorer platform

Risks

· Limited public engagement may reduce community understanding, support and ownership of adaptation plans

· Fragmented responses to climate risks across DCC

· Future adaptation planning requirements may require rapid expansion of staffing or consultant budgets

· Loss of organisational knowledge through heavy dependence on consultants

Opportunities

· Defers significant investment until legislative requirements become clearer

· Allows future adaptation services to be redesigned once regulatory settings are confirmed

Option Two – Planning Delivery

Description

· Dedicated 3-person adaptation team focused on coordinating and delivering statutory adaptation planning requirements

· Adaptation planning remains largely consultant-based

· Maintains adaptation policy, monitoring and reporting functions

· Limited implementation support during the transition of South Dunedin Future

· Estimated 10 year programme cost of $7.55 million

Option Assessment

Advantages

· Maintains a dedicated adaptation function within DCC

· Retains organisational knowledge and continuity

· Provides sufficient capability to coordinate anticipated statutory planning requirements

· Transitional support for South Dunedin Future

· Lower short-term cost than options providing ongoing implementation support and resilience activities

Disadvantages

· Adaptation planning remains largely consultant-based

· Uses a technical planning process with limited community participation

· No dedicated community resilience, public education or climate capability programme

· Risk assessments are static, one-off reports with no ongoing citywide risk assessment capability or Resilience Explorer platform

Risks

· Planning outcomes may not progress into funded implementation projects

· Future planning requirements may exceed programme capacity

· Continued consultant dependence may increase long-term costs and reduce capability retention

Opportunities

· Establishes and retains dedicated adaptation planning capability within DCC

· Provides a platform that can be expanded if future legislative requirements become more demanding

· Maintains continuity between adaptation planning projects and future planning obligations

· Allows Council to increase implementation support, community resilience activities or climate capability development in future long-term plans if required

Option Three – Balanced Delivery

Description

· Dedicated 4-person adaptation team supporting planning, implementation and resilience activities

· Maintains the Citywide Climate Risk Assessment and Resilience Explorer

· Community-informed planning process with opportunities for engagement

· Provides moderate implementation support, public education, partnership development and climate capability activities

· Estimated 10 year programme cost of $9.14 million

Option Assessment

Advantages

· Maintains citywide risk assessment capability

· Stronger connection between adaptation planning and implementation, including transition support for South Dunedin Future

· Supports community resilience, partnerships and climate capability development

· Balances internal expertise with targeted consultant support

Disadvantages

· Higher cost than Options One and Two

· Continues to rely on consultants for specialist planning and technical inputs

· Provides only moderate support for implementation and mainstreaming

· Limited capacity for organisation-wide climate capability development

Risks

· Future adaptation planning demand may exceed programme capacity

· Community expectations may exceed available implementation resources

· Limited mainstreaming support may reduce influence on investment and asset management decisions

Opportunities

· Strengthens community and partner relationships

· Increases the likelihood that adaptation priorities influence future long-term plans and investment decisions

· Can be expanded if adaptation requirements increase

Option Four – Participatory Delivery

Description

· Fully delivers the Climate Adaptation Policy, Climate Resilience Framework and associated business case objectives

· Adaptation planning delivered primarily in-house using a participatory planning approach

· Dedicated support for implementation, community resilience, climate capability and climate mainstreaming

· Maintains citywide risk assessment capability and delivers a proactive hazard data improvement programme

· Estimated 10-year programme cost of $11.59 million

Option Assessment

Advantages

· Fully delivers the Climate Adaptation Policy and Climate Resilience Framework

· Highest level of community participation and ownership

· Strongest support for implementation of adaptation actions, including sustained support for South Dunedin Future

· Reduces reliance on consultant-based planning

· Builds climate capability across DCC

· Provides the strongest pathway from planning to resilience outcomes

Disadvantages

· Highest cost option

· Requires a greater long-term organisational commitment

· Participatory planning processes require more time and resources

· Continues to require specialist consultant expertise for hazards and technical assessments

Risks

· Extensive community engagement may generate expectations that exceed available funding or delivery capacity

· Adaptation priorities may not be reflected in future Council investment decisions

· Failure to integrate climate resilience across DCC functions may reduce the value of the additional investment

Opportunities

· Establish climate adaptation as an enduring DCC function

· Improve community trust and ownership of adaptation decisions

· Increase the likelihood that adaptation priorities transition to funded and deliverable projects

· Improves access to external funding and partnership opportunities

· Delivers the strongest long-term resilience outcomes for communities, infrastructure and DCC services

NEXT STEPS

38 Subject to Council’s decisions through the 10 year plan 2027-37 process, staff will:

· Incorporate the approved service level and associated budget into the draft 10 year plan 2027-37

· Deliver the Citywide Climate Adaptation Plan and Citywide Climate Risk Assessment in 2027

· Establish governance, staffing and delivery arrangements consistent with Council’s preferred option

· Commence implementation of Council’s preferred option from 1 July 2027, following the adoption of the 10 year plan

Signatories

Author:

Brandy Saxton - Senior Advisor - Climate Adaptation and Resilience, South Dunedin Future

Authoriser:

Jonathan Rowe - Programme Manager, South Dunedin Future

Scott MacLean - General Manager, City Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Other CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The decision promotes the social, economic and environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future. The proposed Climate Adaptation and Resilience programme supports communities, infrastructure and the local economy to anticipate, prepare for and respond to climate risks, helping to maintain wellbeing and resilience over the long term.

LTP / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy/ Water Services Strategy

Council currently funds climate adaptation through a range of project-based activities and initiatives. The proposed Climate Adaptation and Resilience programme establishes an ongoing business-as-usual function with a defined service level and funding arrangement. Consequently, there are no existing programme levels of service or performance measures against which the options can be assessed.

Financial considerations

All options are funded through rates and do not require borrowing or capital expenditure. The financial implications of each option are set out in the Options section of this report.

Significance

This decision is considered medium significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The proposed programme is important to Dunedin because it establishes a new citywide climate adaptation and resilience activity and has implications for future climate adaptation planning, implementation and resilience outcomes. The proposal is strongly aligned with existing Council policy and strategic direction but requires Council to determine an appropriate service level and operating budget for the programme. Community interest is expected to be moderate to high given the growing impacts of climate change and the role of adaptation planning in local communities.

Engagement – external

The programme and options have not been subject to specific public consultation. Public consultation on the preferred option would occur through the 10 year plan 2027-37 process.

The options presented in this report reflect different future approaches to community engagement and participation in adaptation planning, ranging from statutory consultation requirements through to community-informed and participatory planning processes consistent with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement - internal

Development of the programme and service level options was informed by engagement with staff across DCC through the Climate Resilience Framework project and wider project group. Feedback focused on future adaptation planning requirements, implementation support, community involvement, climate capability and organisational readiness. No significant concerns were raised.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The principal risk associated with this decision is that the service level selected may not align with future adaptation planning requirements, community expectations or climate risks. These risks are partially managed through the adaptive management approach proposed in the report, which allows priorities and programme activities to be reviewed and adjusted over time.

No specific legal, health and safety or conflict of interest issues have been identified.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest associated with this report.

Community Boards

Community Boards have identified climate risks and adaptation planning as issues of interest and concern in previous submissions and hearings. The programme will also support future adaptation planning activities in locations where Community Boards have identified climate change and natural hazards as issues of concern.

Council

2 September 2026

Dunedin City Emissions Targets Options Report

Department: Zero Carbon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is for Council to consider new city emissions targets, following the decision in July to replace the 2030 city-wide emissions targets.

2 Council resolved in July 2026 to adopt the following target structure for Dunedin’s city-wide emissions:

a) For all greenhouse gases excluding biogenic methane:

i) A near term gross emissions reduction target; and

ii) A long-term net zero emissions target

b) Separate gross emissions reduction targets for biogenic methane

3 For the near-term gross emissions reduction target (all gases excluding biogenic methane), this report presents two options for Council to consider:

a) A 30% reduction in gross emissions by 2030/31, compared with a 2018/19 baseline

b) A 25% reduction in gross emissions by 2030/31, compared with a 2018/19 baseline

4 For the long-term net zero emissions target, this report presents three options for Council to consider, based on the extent of emissions reduction considered plausible under three different modelling scenarios:

a) Net zero emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2040

b) Net zero emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2045

c) Net zero emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2050

5 For biogenic methane, staff recommend retaining the existing target to reduce gross biogenic methane emissions 10% by 2030.

6 This report includes three options for a 2050 biogenic methane emissions reduction target:

a) Retain the target of a 24-47% reduction in biogenic methane emissions by 2050, compared with 2017 levels (set in 2019, in line with Government direction at that time)

b) Adopt the Climate Change Commission’s 2024 recommendation to reduce biogenic methane emissions 35-47% by 2050, compared with 2017 levels

c) Adopt the current New Zealand government target to reduce biogenic methane 14-24% by 2050, compared with 2017 levels

7 An overview of best practice for setting city/district level targets, and a comparison of peer cities confirms that:

a) Action to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change in the short term has transition risks in a New Zealand local government context, however decisive action in the next 5 to 10 years is expected to lead to the lowest transition risks and physical hazards overall.

b) There are a range of target options used by local authorities within New Zealand.

c) A target with science-aligned ambition, is very difficult for Dunedin to achieve. Should Council seek to adopt a target as close as practicable to best practice guidance, the most ambitious targets presented in this report would be adopted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Decides on a Dunedin short-term gross emissions reduction target (excluding biogenic methane) for 2030/31:

i) A 30% reduction by 2030/31, compared with 2018/19; or

ii) A 25% reduction by 2030/31, compared with 2018/19

b) Decides on a Dunedin long-term net zero emissions target (excluding biogenic methane):

i) Net zero emissions by 2040; or

ii) Net zero emissions by 2045; or

iii) Net zero emissions by 2050

c) Decides to retain the existing Dunedin 2030 biogenic methane target of a 10% reduction against 2017 levels

d) Decides on a 2050 Dunedin biogenic methane reduction target:

i) A 24-47% reduction compared with 2017 levels; or

ii) A 35-47% reduction compared with 2017 levels; or

iii) A 14-24% reduction compared with 2017 levels

e) Notes that staff will incorporate new Dunedin emissions targets into the Long Term Plan 2027-2037, and will undertake a light refresh of the Zero Carbon Plan to incorporate the new targets.

f) Notes that decisions on the level of Dunedin City Council funding towards Dunedin city-wide emissions reduction will be considered throughout Long Term Plan deliberation processes.

BACKGROUND

8 This report refers to emissions in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (tCO2e). This is a measure used to standardise the climate effects of different greenhouse gases. A summary of the global warming potentials of three main greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) is included in Attachment A.

9 This report also refers to gross emissions and net emissions. Total gross emissions refers to all emissions released into the atmosphere within an organisational or city boundary. It does not include emissions removed from the atmosphere from forestry (known as sequestration). Total net emissions refers to total gross emissions less emissions removed from the atmosphere.

10 Total gross/net emissions excluding biogenic methane refers to all emissions less biogenic methane emissions.

11 Biogenic methane refers to methane emissions produced by living things and processes. The majority of Dunedin’s biogenic methane emissions come from ruminant animals in agriculture (approx. 80%), with the remainder from organic waste decaying in landfill and wastewater.

The DCC is seeking to manage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at both the city and DCC scale

12 The DCC is seeking to manage and reduce emissions at two scales, as directed by the Zero Carbon Policy: city (Dunedin emissions) and organisational (DCC emissions).

13 The DCC’s Zero Carbon Policy provides that all DCC activities, including renewals, should seek to minimise emissions and contribute to achieving both city-wide and DCC emissions reduction targets.

14 Throughout the 2027-2037 10 Year Plan deliberations, Council will make decisions which have implications for achieving both city-wide and DCC emissions reduction targets. The emissions implications of these decisions will be outlined in relevant options reports for Council’s consideration.

Council resolved to replace the Zero Carbon 2030 targets

15 At the city scale, in 2019 the Council declared a climate emergency and adopted a ‘Zero Carbon 2030’ city emissions reduction target (CNL/2019/154), which was in two parts:

a) net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases other than biogenic methane by 2030,

b) and a 24% to 47% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2050, including 10% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2030.

16 On 22 July 2026, Council resolved to replace the 2030 Dunedin emissions targets, noting staff would present a report on proposed target years and emissions reduction pathways:

Moved (Cr Mickey Treadwell/Cr Doug Hall):

That the Council:

a) Adopts refreshed Carbon Zero targets for the Dunedin Carbon Zero Framework, replacing the existing Net Zero 2030 target.

b) Adopts a two-stage target comprising

i) a near-term gross greenhouse gas emissions reduction target; and

ii) a long-term net zero greenhouse gas emissions target.

c) Adopts separate targets for biogenic methane and all other greenhouse gases, maintaining a distinct biogenic methane reduction target.

d) Notes that staff will present a future report for Council to consider the level of ambition, including proposed target years and emissions reduction pathways, for the refreshed targets.

Division

The Council voted by division

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

Against: Crs Benedict Ong and Brent Weatherall (2).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 2

Motion carried (CNL/2026/131)

The Zero Carbon Plan outlines the changes needed for Dunedin to become a net zero city

17 In September 2023, Council adopted the Zero Carbon Plan 2030, which established a pathway for achieving the city’s emissions target, building on existing trends.

18 The Zero Carbon Plan outlines how emissions reductions could be achieved through five interconnected areas: resource use and waste; transport and urban form; buildings, energy and industry; forestry, land use and agriculture; and communities and economies.

19 As well as identifying a pathway to net zero, the Zero Carbon Plan describes the broader shifts required for Dunedin to become a Zero Carbon city.

20 It also identifies the DCC’s role in supporting the transition to zero carbon, with action areas for the DCC prioritised according to their emissions reduction potential. The Zero Carbon Plan recognises that many actions required to reduce emissions will reduce costs in the medium term, but there will be upfront costs especially for owners of assets/infrastructure.

21 The Zero Carbon Plan’s key shifts remain unchanged despite the contextual changes since the Plan was adopted, and the resulting increase in projected emissions for 2030. To become a city with ‘net zero emissions’ at any stage, Dunedin will still need to take the same steps to reduce emissions. Modelling reconfirms that, in particular, unlocking shifts in transport is fundamental to achieving ‘net zero carbon’.

22 Priority action areas for DCC also remain the same. Action areas that are likely to have a high or very high emissions reduction potential are:

23 Staff do not expect the changes to the city-wide emissions targets to require significant amendments to the Zero Carbon Plan, the key shifts for the city, or the DCC’s action areas.

24 Despite headwinds, Dunedin is still comparatively well placed to tackle the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

· Strong partnerships in place with major institutions/employers, including the Zero Carbon Alliance

· Significant growth in public transport patronage (outperforming other centres of a similar size and bucking national trends)[1]

· About double the national average for walking to work or education, and recent growth in cycle mode share[2]

· Urban densification in inner city continuing

· Phasing down coal well underway

· Reducing waste emissions underway

· Growing uptake of rooftop solar

· The cost of electric vehicles, solar panels, hot water heat pumps, and other technologies continues to decline over time

Dunedin’s emissions have reduced between 2018/19 and 2024/25

25 An updated Dunedin emissions inventory up to 2024/25 was presented to the Policy and Planning Committee in April 2026, showing that Dunedin’s gross emissions reduced 13% between 2018/19 and 2024/25 (PAPCC/2026/012).

26 The Zero Carbon Plan uses the 2018/19 financial year as the baseline for measuring city-wide emissions. Between 2018/19 and 2024/25:

a) Dunedin’s total gross emissions reduced 13%, from 1,619,536 tCO2e in 2018/19 to 1,416,010 tCO2e in 2024/25.

b) Dunedin’s total net emissions reduced 11%, from 1,258,198 tCO2e in 2018/19 to 1,119,876 tCO2e.

c) Dunedin’s total net emissions (excluding biogenic methane) reduced 9%, from 704,845 tCO2e in 2018/19 to 641,057 tCO2e in 2024/25.

d) Dunedin’s total biogenic methane emissions reduced 13%, from 553,353 tCO2e in 2018/19 to 478,819 tCO2e in 2024/25.

27 Changes in gross emissions between 2018/19 and 2024/25 are shown in Table 1, split by emissions source:

Table 1 – Gross Emissions changes from 2018/19 to 2024/25 by emissions source

Sector / Emissions Source		Emissions (tCO2e)		Percentage Change 18/19 – 24/25 (%)
Sector / Emissions Source		2018/19	2024/25	Percentage Change 18/19 – 24/25 (%)
Transport	On-Road	330,316	322,938	-2%
	Rail	4,559	3,797	-17%
	Air travel	43,354	29,512	-32%
	Marine	251,240	219,763	-13%
	Off-Road	47,741	48,118	1%
Stationary Energy	Electricity Consumption	100,366	87,957	-12%
	Stationary Diesel and Petrol Use	26,416	26,617	1%
	LPG	29,197	28,778	-1%
	Coal	44,077	13,329	-70%
	Biofuel	4,650	9,140	97%
	Biogas	27	73	168%
Waste	Solid Waste (Landfill)	80,279	33,535	-58%
Waste	Wastewater Treatment	12,383	12,556	1%
IPPU	Refrigerant and Air Conditioning Gases	41,330	29,959	-28%
IPPU	Other Industrial Gases	3,085	2,634	-15%
Agriculture	Agriculture	600,515	547,303	-9%
Total Gross Emissions		1,619,536	1,416,010	-13%

DISCUSSION

28 To help inform Council’s decision on the level of ambition for Dunedin’s emissions targets, the following sections summarise key considerations including:

a) What is plausible for all greenhouse gases excluding biogenic methane, using three different emissions modelling scenarios;

b) Emissions modelling for biogenic methane, along with Climate Change Commission advice on what is possible by 2050;

c) Best practice on community/city level emissions target setting;

d) City/district level targets of other New Zealand cities; and

e) New Zealand targets

Dunedin Emissions Modelling to 2050

Summary of emissions modelling scenarios

29 To support Council’s consideration for a refreshed city emissions target, emissions have been modelled through to 2050 to provide longer-term context:

a) A BAU scenario, which broadly follows national level trajectories included in the modelling underpinning the Second National Emissions Reduction Plan 2026-2030 (ERP2)

b) An Accelerated Ambition scenario, which requires some changes in central government policy (but not a complete reversal), as well as some additional local investment; and

c) A High Ambition scenario which would require significant changes in central government policy, and higher levels of local investment into a transition to becoming a lower carbon city.

30 As directed by the Zero Carbon Policy, emissions in the Dunedin City Territorial Area are estimated using the production-based Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (GPC) methodology. This method covers the key sectors of Transport, Stationary Energy, Waste, Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU), Agriculture, and Forestry. Production-based approaches exclude global emissions relating to consumption, such as the emissions used elsewhere to produce products used/consumed within Dunedin. The GPC methodology is the global standard for estimating emissions within a territorial area.

31 Council is considering the level of ambition for three targets:

a) a near-term gross greenhouse gas emissions reduction target (excluding biogenic methane);

b) a long-term net zero greenhouse gas emissions target (excluding biogenic methane); and

c) separate biogenic methane reduction targets.

32 Emissions modelling to inform Council’s decision for each of these targets is presented below.

33 The key differences in the emissions scenarios through to 2050 are included under Attachment B, showing the impact of different levels of change across transport, stationary energy, Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU), agriculture (nitrous oxide), and carbon sequestration through to 2050.

34 The differences in the emissions modelling scenarios relate to the all greenhouse gases excluding biogenic methane targets. For biogenic methane, staff have only modelled one scenario based on changes in Dunedin between 2018/19 and 2024/25, local investment and action on waste diversion, and the ERP2 modelling for agriculture through to 2050.

35 It is worth noting that all scenarios, including the BAU scenario, involve significant changes between now and 2050. The BAU scenario refers to Dunedin following similar changes to those anticipated nationally in the ERP2, rather than assuming the level of emissions in 2024/25 carry through to 2050.

Near-term gross greenhouse gas emissions reduction target (excluding biogenic methane)

36 Table 2 below shows Dunedin’s gross emissions (excluding biogenic methane) under each of the three scenarios through to 2030/31, with the level of emissions reduction compared against a baseline year of 2018/19 in line with the Zero Carbon Plan. This shows a range of between 24%-30% gross emissions reduction by 2030/31.

Table 2 – Gross emissions to 2030/31 under each scenario (excluding biogenic methane)

Emissions Scenario	Actual gross emissions (tCO2e)		Modelled gross emissions (tCO2e)
Emissions Scenario	2018/19	2024/25	2030/31	% reduction against 2018/19
BAU	1,066,000	937,000	807,000	24%
Accelerated Ambition			775,000	27%
High Ambition			742,000	30%

Longer-term gross greenhouse gas emissions reduction target (excluding biogenic methane)

37 Table 3 below shows the net emissions (excluding biogenic methane) under each of the three scenarios through to 2050. Under each scenario, net zero emissions are achieved before 2050, with Dunedin becoming a net negative city by 2050 (excluding biogenic methane). This means that more carbon dioxide is absorbed by plants and forests than greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.

38 Net zero emissions (excluding biogenic methane) are achieved in different timeframes across the three scenarios:

a) BAU Scenario – net zero by 2047

b) Accelerated Ambition Scenario – net zero by 2044

c) High Ambition Scenario – net zero by 2042

Table 3 - Net Emissions to 2050 under each scenario (all gases excluding biogenic methane)

Emissions Scenario	Actual net emissions (tCO2e)		Modelled net emissions (tCO2e)
Emissions Scenario	2018/19	2024/25	2030	2035	2040	2045	2050
BAU	705,000	641,000	370,000	195,000	130,000	9,000	-68,000
Accelerated Ambition			336,000	155,000	84,000	-28,000	-100,000
High Ambition			303,000	103,000	30,000	-63,000	-113,000

39 Figures 1-3 below show the different emissions trajectories under each scenario through to 2050, showing the reductions in Stationary Energy, Transport, Industrial Processes and Product Use, and Agriculture (nitrous oxide only), along with the rate of forestry sequestration to balance emissions.

40 The BAU emissions scenario shows gross emissions reducing 49% by 2050 compared to baseline (2018/19), with net zero achieved approximately 2047:

Figure 1 – BAU Scenario – All other greenhouse gases target

41 The Accelerated Ambition emissions scenario shows gross emissions reducing 52% by 2050 compared to baseline, with net zero achieved approximately 2044:

Figure 2 – Accelerated Ambition Scenario: All other greenhouse gases target

42 The High Ambition emissions scenario shows gross emissions reducing 53% by 2050 compared to baseline, with net zero achieved approximately 2042:

Figure 3 - High Ambition Scenario: All other greenhouse gases target

Biogenic methane reduction modelling

43 Table 4 below shows Dunedin’s modelled biogenic methane emissions through to 2050. The scenarios used in this modelling for waste diversion and agricultural methane reductions are included in Attachment B. The agricultural methane emissions reductions are based on the ERP2 agricultural emissions modelling, considering changes in Dunedin’s agricultural emissions between 2018/19 and 2024/25. This modelling anticipates:

a) 2030/31 biogenic methane emissions being 16% lower than the 2018/19 baseline; and

b) 2050 biogenic methane emissions being 27% lower than the 2018/19 baseline.

Table 4 – Biogenic methane emissions modelling to 2050

Emissions Source	Actual emissions (tCO2e)		Modelled emissions (tCO2e)
Emissions Source	2018/19	2024/25	2030	2035	2040	2045	2050
Waste and wastewater	92,000	50,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000	45,000
Agriculture	461,000	429,000	421,000	390,000	374,000	364,000	358,000
Total methane emissions	553,000	479,000	466,000	435,000	419,000	409,000	403,000

Climate Change Commission Recommendations

44 Staff have not modelled alternative biogenic methane emissions reduction pathways for Dunedin. However, the Climate Change Commission’s 2024 review of New Zealand’s 2050 emissions reduction targets recommended that Central Government adopt the following biogenic methane reduction targets:

a) Retain the 2030 target to reduce biogenic methane emissions by 10%, compared with a 2017 baseline; and

b) Reduce biogenic methane emissions 35-47% by 2050, compared with a 2017 baseline

45 The Climate Change Commission’s recommended target range was based on their analysis that adoption of existing technologies could achieve the 35% reduction, with the 47% reduction possible based on the potential of emerging technologies:

For biogenic methane, the lower end of the recommended target range reflects a pathway that, according to our analysis, is largely possible with current technologies. The higher end reflects what is likely to be possible with significant changes in technology, in particular if methane inhibiting technologies become available in Aotearoa New Zealand.[3]

46 Central Government did not proceed with the Climate Change Commission’s recommendation, instead in 2025 amending the biogenic methane target to be 14-24% below 2017 levels by 2050.

Best Practice Guidance and Frameworks

47 This section summarises international guidance and frameworks relevant to setting city-wide emissions targets, and is similar to the information included in the City-wide emissions target refresh options report to Council on 22 July 2026 (CNL/2026/131).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6)

48 The IPCC AR6 synthesis report sets out core principles to define a scientifically robust target. Key findings include:

a) Every increment of warming increases risks, and methane is a major driver of near-term warming.

b) Rapid methane reductions deliver climate benefits within years, not decades, due to methane’s short lifespan in the atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gases.

c) Limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C will require deep cuts in all gases, particularly methane.

d) Net-zero carbon dioxide alone is insufficient. Other greenhouse gases must also decline sharply.

e) 1.5°C compatible pathways require approximately 34% methane reductions by 2030 (from 2019 levels).

49 For setting a Dunedin emissions target, IPCC’s AR6 synthesis report confirms:

a) Methane reductions matter immediately at the city-scale, and as such there should be a focus on short-term actions such as maximising landfill gas capture, wastewater methane management, and reducing landfilling of materials with high organic content (such as food, garden, and timber waste).

b) Net-zero all other gases does not remove the need for significant reductions in biogenic methane. AR6 is explicit that climate stabilisation requires:

i) Deep and sustained reductions in carbon dioxide reaching net-zero

ii) Significant reductions in methane and other non-carbon dioxide gases

Science-Based Targets for Cities (Guide)

50 The Science-Based Targets Network is a science-led initiative founded by a group of global Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) to define what is necessary for cities to do to stay within planetary limits. The Science-Based Targets Network (SBTN) have issued guidance on how cities can set science-based targets[4].

51 The key implications for Dunedin emissions targets are that under the SBTN guide, the 2030 short term target should reflect Dunedin’s fair share of halving global emissions by 2030. The recommended level of reduction would be a 70-75% reduction in emissions compared with 2015.

52 A 70-75% reduction in emissions by 2030 far exceeds what is considered plausible in any of the emissions modelling scenarios included in this report. If Council seek to adopt a target as close as possible to the level needed to support limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, then the most ambitious emissions reduction and net zero target options presented in this report should be adopted.

Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy

53 Dunedin has been a signatory to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCoM) since 2015. Cities in GCoM pledge to set “targets at least as ambitious as their country’s Nationally Determined Contributions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).”[5]

54 This does not provide specific guidance on the level of ambition needed in a city target. Rather it affirms that for Dunedin to remain a signatory to GCoM, a city level target of some form is required, with a level of ambition at least equivalent to that set nationally.

Local Government Funding Agency – Local Government Sector Climate Scenarios

55 In September 2025, the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) released their Local Government Sector Climate Scenarios[6] (LGFA Climate Scenarios). The LGFA Climate Scenarios illustrate how climate change could impact the local government sector under different plausible climate futures. While these scenarios do not provide guidance on how to set a district level target, they do provide guidance on the likely impacts to local government and the communities local government support.

56 There are three scenarios included in the LGFA Climate Scenarios report:

a) Scenario 1: Acting now for our mokopuna – based on coordinated global climate action from the late 2020s, driving a transition to a low-carbon, climate resilient economy, and limiting global warming to 1.7°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

b) Scenario 2: Leaving it to the next generation – Global climate action is delayed until the mid-2030s, with a rapid disorderly transition to a low-carbon economy. This leads to high economic and social costs for Aotearoa New Zealand. Global warming of 2.7°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

c) Scenario 3: Inheriting a broken world – Global climate action falters due to geopolitical tensions. Global warming of 3.9°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

57 Each of the scenarios leads to differences in the timing and severity of transition risks and physical hazards. As stated on page 7 of the LGFA Climate Scenarios report “[r]educing emissions or building resilience creates transition risk, whilst higher temperatures cause physical risk. Acting early leads to higher short-term transition risk, but reduces longer-term exposure to physical impacts. Conversely, not reducing emissions leads to physical risks rising exponentially to 2100 and beyond.”

58 This is illustrated below, in terms of the extent of the transition risks and physical risks under each scenario, as well as the impacts of each scenario over time:

A close-up of a graph

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

59 The key implications of the LGFA Climate Scenarios for Dunedin emissions targets are that action to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change in the short term will lead to transition risks in a New Zealand local government context, however decisive action in the late 2020s/2030s is expected to lead to the lowest transition risks and physical hazards overall.

Peer Cities

60 A comparison of the Hamilton, Palmerston North and Christchurch district level targets is shown below in Table 5. While there are some similarities between Dunedin and these cities, for all three agriculture makes up a smaller share of their city emissions compared with Dunedin (agriculture made up 39% of Dunedin’s emissions in 2024/25). Similarly, because of Dunedin’s large territorial boundaries, there are higher rates of forestry sequestration in Dunedin than places like Hamilton which are largely urban. This can help explain why Hamilton have set ambitious gross emissions reduction targets for 2050, without setting an overall net zero emissions target for Hamilton city.

Table 5 – Comparative New Zealand District Level Targets

NZ Peer District	Target Statement	District Target Years (Gross or Net)	Biogenic Methane Treatment
Palmerston North City Council	A central part of our goal to be an eco-city is achieving a 30% reduction in Palmy’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2031. This target is our part of a national effort to make the whole of New Zealand carbon neutral by 2050.[7]	Gross target for 2031. Reference to 2050 national net-zero target.	Included in 2031 target. (Agriculture was 17% of Palmerston North city gross emissions in 2021)
Christchurch City Council	Our targets for Christchurch are to halve emissions by 2030, compared with 2016-2017 levels, and to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045, with at least a 50% reduction in methane emissions by 2045.[8]	Gross target for 2030. Net Zero 2045	Separate target – 50% reduction in biogenic methane by 2045 (Agriculture was 16% of Christchurch city gross emissions in 2023)
Hamilton City Council	By 2030 our city's emissions are reduced by at least 30%. By 2050 our city's emissions are reduced by at least 82%.[9]	Gross target for 2030 and 2050. No net zero community target.	Included in overall targets. (Agriculture was 1% of Hamilton city gross emissions in 2022)

New Zealand Targets Context

61 Central Government have set the following emissions reductions targets for New Zealand to meet, under the Climate Change Response Act:

a) Net zero emissions of all greenhouse gas emissions other than biogenic methane by 2050.

b) 14% to 24% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2050, including 10% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2030.

62 The 2050 biogenic methane emissions target was amended in December 2025, having previously been a target of a 24% to 47% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2050.

63 The New Zealand targets exclude international shipping and aviation emissions, which are included within Dunedin’s emissions inventory and targets.

64 Central Government have also set the first and second Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement covering 2021-2030 (NDC1) and 2031-2035 (NDC2). The NDC1 target is to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2005 levels by 2030. This target can be met by domestic emissions reductions (reductions within New Zealand) and also by emissions reductions occurring offshore but paid for by New Zealand.

Key Considerations

Fit with strategic framework

65 The relevant strategies and plans this decision relates to include the Zero Carbon Plan, DCC Emissions Management and Reduction Plan 2025-2030, and the Zero Carbon Policy. As noted within the report, the key shifts identified in the Zero Carbon Plan for Dunedin to become a low/zero net emissions city, and the action areas for DCC to support that transition, remain unchanged.

Māori Impact Statement

66 A Treaty of Waitangi analysis was prepared previously as part of the Zero Carbon work programme. This indicated that, in general, taking action to reduce emissions is aligned with Treaty of Waitangi obligations because a wide range of taonga are at risk from climate change. However, individual projects will need to consider Te Taki Haruru and incorporate mana whenua and mātāwaka inputs when delivered.

Legislative Reforms

67 ‘Climate Action’ is one of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, reflecting the centrality of action on climate change to the achievement of sustainable development. Without significant cuts to emissions, climate change impacts will further accelerate, with commensurate negative impacts on the social, environmental, cultural and economic wellbeing of New Zealand communities. As such, efforts to reduce emissions support sustainable economic growth and development over the medium to long term, as part of global efforts to minimise the negative impacts of climate change, and forms part of meeting the current and future needs of communities.

Sustainability, Climate Mitigation (Zero Carbon), Adaptation and Resilience

68 As this report is about setting the level of ambition for city-wide reduction targets, there are significant implications for Dunedin’s emissions trajectory to 2050 depending on the options chosen.

69 Adaptation alone cannot address all climate risks. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is essential to limit the scale of future climate change and keep adaptation achievable and affordable. A low emissions Ōtepoti Dunedin can also deliver local benefits through more efficient infrastructure and systems, greater energy independence, healthier environments and improved public health, while contributing to global climate goals. As such, Council’s decisions and support for emissions reduction within Dunedin can also support efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change, and increase local resilience.

OPTIONS

70 This report includes options for three different components of Dunedin city-wide targets:

a) For all greenhouse gases excluding biogenic methane:

i) A near term gross emissions reduction target; and

ii) A long-term net zero emissions target

b) Separate gross emissions reduction targets for biogenic methane

Near-term gross emissions reduction target options

71 For the near-term gross emissions reduction target (all gases excluding biogenic methane), this report presents two options for Council to consider:

a) A 30% reduction in gross emissions by 2030/31, compared with a 2018/19 baseline

· This is based on the High Ambition Scenario outlined under paragraph 36 of this report, and covered in Attachment B.

b) A 25% reduction in gross emissions by 2030/31, compared with a 2018/19 baseline

· This is based on the BAU Scenario outlined under paragraph 36 of this report, and covered in Attachment B.

Long-term net zero emissions target options

72 For the long-term net zero emissions target, this report presents three options for Council to consider, based on the extent of emissions reduction considered plausible under three different modelling scenarios:

a) Net zero emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2040

· This is broadly based on the High Ambition Scenario outlined in paragraph 37-42 of this report, with the changes needed to achieve this covered in detail in Attachment B. Emissions modelling anticipates net emissions of 30,000tCO2e in 2040 under this scenario. As such, achieving net zero by 2040 would require either finding further emissions reductions by 2040, or increasing forestry sequestration to bridge this gap.

b) Net zero emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2045

· This is based on the Accelerated Ambition Scenario outlined in paragraph 37-42 of this report, with the changes needed to achieve this covered in detail in Attachment B.

c) Net zero emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2050

· This is based on the BAU Scenario outlined in paragraph 37-42 of this report, with the changes needed to achieve this covered in detail in Attachment B.

Biogenic methane emissions reduction options

73 For biogenic methane, staff recommend retaining the existing target to reduce gross biogenic methane emissions 10% by 2030.

74 This report includes three options for a 2050 biogenic methane emissions reduction target:

a) Retain the target of a 24-47% reduction in biogenic methane emissions by 2050, compared with 2017 levels (set in 2019, in line with Government direction at that time)

b) Adopt the Climate Change Commission’s 2024 recommendation to reduce biogenic methane emissions 35-47% by 2050, compared with 2017 levels

c) Adopt the current New Zealand government target to reduce biogenic methane 14-24% by 2050, compared with 2017 levels

Assumptions

75 Assumptions used in each of the emissions modelling scenarios is covered in detail under Attachment B.

Financial Comparison

76 Throughout the 2027-2037 10 Year Plan deliberations, Council will make decisions which have implications for achieving both city-wide and DCC emissions reduction targets. The emissions implications of these decisions will be outlined in relevant options reports for Council’s consideration. As such, Council will consider funding of projects that support city-wide emissions reduction across the various options reports being presented through 2026.

Short Term Gross Reduction Target: Option One – 30% Reduction by 2030/31

77 This short-term target option is for a 30% reduction in gross emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2030/31, compared with a 2018/19 baseline.

78 This is based on the High Ambition Scenario outlined under paragraph 36 of this report, and covered in Attachment B.

Option Assessment

Advantages

· More closely aligns with best practice guidance on science-aligned city emissions reduction targets than option two

· Supports Dunedin residents enjoying the co-benefits of transitioning to a lower carbon city sooner than option two (such as more efficient infrastructure and systems, greater energy independence, healthier environments and improved public health)

Disadvantages

· Achievement requires more significant investment and change across Dunedin through to 2030/31 than option two, which could lead to higher transition risks in the short term.

Short Term Gross Reduction Target: Option Two – 25% Reduction by 2030/31

79 This short-term target option is for a 25% reduction in gross emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2030/31, compared with a 2018/19 baseline.

80 This is based on the BAU Scenario outlined under paragraph 36 of this report, and covered in Attachment B.

Option Assessment

Advantages

· Requires a slower pace of change in the short term, which could mitigate transition risks for Dunedin residents over the short term

Disadvantages

· Achievement of this target would lead to reduced co-benefits associated with transitioning to a lower carbon city compared with option one, including higher dependence on fossil fuels for energy

· Less aligned with best practice guidance on city emissions reduction targets than option one

Long Term Net Zero Emissions Target – Option One – Net Zero 2040

81 This target option is for Dunedin to achieve net zero emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2040.

82 This is broadly based on the High Ambition Scenario outlined in paragraph 37-42 of this report, with the changes needed to achieve this covered in detail in Attachment B.

83 Emissions modelling anticipates net emissions of 30,000tCO2e in 2040 under this scenario. As such, achieving net zero by 2040 would require either finding further emissions reductions by 2040, or increasing forestry sequestration to bridge this gap.

Option Assessment

Advantages

· Strongest alignment with best practice guidance on science-based city emissions reduction targets than other long term target options

· Supports Dunedin residents enjoying the co-benefits of transitioning to a lower carbon city sooner than options two and three (such as more efficient infrastructure and systems, greater energy independence, healthier environments and improved public health)

Disadvantages

· Requires Dunedin to transition to a low emissions city at a significantly faster pace than is anticipated in the Second National Emissions Reduction Plan for 2026-2030, which could lead to higher levels of local investment and lower levels of support from Central Government than aligning more closely with the New Zealand emissions targets.

Risks

· Achievement of net zero relies on significant increases to forestry sequestration compared with 2024/25 levels. Natural hazards such as landslides or wildfires of forested areas could reduce the amount of carbon sequestration possible within Dunedin’s territorial boundaries.

Opportunities

· Becoming net zero by 2040, and net negative from 2041 onwards, would support achievement of New Zealand’s overall 2050 net zero targets, and enable districts with less capacity for forestry sequestration than Dunedin to have residual hard to abate emissions remaining by 2050.

· Given the number of investment and political cycles between 2026 and 2040, along with potential technological advancements over the same period, there may be additional opportunities to reduce Dunedin’s emissions over the next 15 years which further support achievement of net zero by 2040

Long Term Net Zero Emissions Target – Option Two – Net Zero 2045

84 This target option is for Dunedin to achieve net zero emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2045.

85 This is broadly based on the Accelerated Ambition Scenario outlined in paragraph 37-42 of this report, with the changes needed to achieve this covered in detail in Attachment B.

Option Assessment

Advantages

· Supports Dunedin residents enjoying the co-benefits of transitioning to a lower carbon city sooner than option three (such as more efficient infrastructure and systems, greater energy independence, healthier environments and improved public health)

· Requires a slower pace of change than option one.

Disadvantages

· Requires Dunedin to transition to a low emissions city at a faster pace than is anticipated in the Second National Emissions Reduction Plan for 2026-2030, which could lead to higher levels of local investment and lower levels of support from Central Government than aligning more closely with the New Zealand emissions targets.

· More poorly aligned with best practice guidance on science-based city emissions reduction targets than option one

Risks

Opportunities

· Becoming net zero by 2045, and net negative from 2046 onwards, would support achievement of New Zealand’s overall 2050 net zero targets, and enable districts with less capacity for forestry sequestration than Dunedin to have residual hard to abate emissions remaining by 2050.

· Given the number of investment and political cycles between 2026 and 2045, along with potential technological advancements over the same period, there may be additional opportunities to reduce Dunedin’s emissions over the next 20 years which further support achievement of net zero by 2045

Long Term Net Zero Emissions Target – Option Three – Net Zero 2050

86 This target option is for Dunedin to achieve net zero emissions (excluding biogenic methane) by 2050.

87 This is broadly based on the BAU Scenario outlined in paragraph 37-42 of this report, with the changes needed to achieve this covered in detail in Attachment B. The BAU Scenario anticipates Dunedin becoming a net zero city by 2047.

Option Assessment

Advantages

· Requires a slower pace of change, which could mitigate transition risks for Dunedin residents over the short term

· Aligns with New Zealand government targets, which may mean there are greater incentives and policies available from Central Government to encourage achievement of a 2050 aligned target

Disadvantages

· Achievement of this target would lead to reduced co-benefits associated with transitioning to a lower carbon city compared with options one and two, including higher dependence on fossil fuels for energy between 2026 and 2050

· Poorest alignment with best practice guidance on science-based city emissions reduction targets of all long term net zero options

Risks

Opportunities

· Given the number of investment and political cycles between 2026 and 2050, along with potential technological advancements over the same period, there may be additional opportunities to reduce Dunedin’s emissions over the next 25 years which further support achievement of net zero by 2050

Biogenic Methane Reduction Target: Option One – 24-47% Reduction by 2050

88 This option for biogenic methane emissions reduction involves a short term and long term target:

a) Retain the existing target of a 10% reduction in biogenic methane emissions by 2030, compared with 2017 levels; and

b) Retain the target of a 24-47% reduction in biogenic methane emissions by 2050, compared with 2017 levels (set in 2019, in line with Government direction at that time)

89 This target is within the range of the biogenic methane emissions modelling presented in paragraph 43 of this report, being a 27% reduction by 2050.

Option Assessment

Advantages

· Aligns well with the biogenic methane emissions modelling estimate of a 27% reduction by 2050

· Is more closely aligned with best practice guidance that deep reductions in biogenic methane are required than option 3 (adopt current Central Government targets)

Disadvantages

· This option no longer aligns with Central Government policy, nor does it align with the Climate Change Commission’s recommendation to Central Government in 2024

Risks

· Achievement of the upper end of this range is significantly more ambitious than the current New Zealand government target of a 14-24% reduction by 2050, which may make achievement of a reduction close to 47% by 2050 significantly more challenging, due to a lack of associated national policy settings and incentives

Opportunities

· Given the number of investment and political cycles between 2026 and 2050, along with potential technological advancements over the same period, there may be additional opportunities to reduce Dunedin’s biogenic emissions over the next 25 years which make it easier to achieve biogenic methane reductions closer to 47% by 2050

Biogenic Methane Reduction Target: Option Two – 35-47% Reduction by 2050

90 This option for biogenic methane emissions reduction involves a short term and long term target:

a) Retain the existing target of a 10% reduction in biogenic methane emissions by 2030, compared with 2017 levels; and

b) Adopt the Climate Change Commission’s 2024 recommendation to reduce biogenic methane emissions 35-47% by 2050, compared with 2017 levels

91 The Climate Change Commission’s recommendation is covered in paragraphs 44-45 of this report.

92 This target exceeds the level of biogenic emissions reduction modelled to 2050, presented in paragraph 43 of this report.

Option Assessment

Advantages

· Most closely aligned of all options with best practice guidance that deep reductions in biogenic methane are required to limit the impacts of climate change

Disadvantages

· This option does not align with Central Government policy

Risks

· This target is significantly more ambitious than the current New Zealand government target of a 14-24% reduction by 2050, which may make achievement of a reduction close to 35-47% by 2050 significantly more challenging, due to a lack of associated national policy settings and incentives

· This target is also moderately more ambitious than what the emissions modelling in this report anticipates (a 27% reduction by 2050)

Opportunities

· Given the number of investment and political cycles between 2026 and 2050, along with potential technological advancements over the same period, there may be additional opportunities to reduce Dunedin’s biogenic emissions over the next 25 years which make it easier to achieve biogenic methane reductions closer to 35-47% by 2050

Biogenic Methane Reduction Target: Option Three – 14-24% Reduction by 2050

93 This option for biogenic methane emissions reduction involves a short term and long term target:

a) Retain the existing target of a 10% reduction in biogenic methane emissions by 2030, compared with 2017 levels; and

b) Adopt the current New Zealand government target to reduce biogenic methane 14-24% by 2050, compared with 2017 levels

Option Assessment

Advantages

· Aligns with Central Government policy

· Emissions modelling to 2050 predicts the upper end of this target (24% reduction) could be exceeded

Disadvantages

· Poorest alignment with best practice guidance, in particular IPCC analysis that deep reductions in biogenic methane are required to limit the impacts of climate change

· The lower end of this target band was almost achieved in 2024/25, meaning adopting this target range represents relatively low ambition given Dunedin’s context

Risks

· This target is not aligned with either Climate Change Commission advice, or international best practice guidance, which could create credibility risks

Opportunities

· Given the number of investment and political cycles between 2026 and 2050, along with potential technological advancements over the same period, there may be additional opportunities to reduce Dunedin’s biogenic emissions over the next 25 years which make it easier to reduce biogenic methane emissions in excess of a 14-24% reduction by 2050

NEXT STEPS

94 Following Council’s decision on new city emissions reduction targets, staff will incorporate the new Dunedin emissions targets into the Long Term Plan 2027-2037. Staff will also undertake a light refresh of the Zero Carbon Plan to incorporate the new targets.

Signatories

Author:	Rory McLean - Senior Policy Analyst - Zero Carbon
Authoriser:	Scott MacLean - General Manager, City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Global Warming Potentials Summary	88
⇩b	Summary of Emissions Modelling Scenarios	90

Other CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

Implementation of the Zero Carbon Policy, Zero Carbon Plan and DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan promotes the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future, by facilitating the transition to a low carbon economy.

LTP / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy/ Water Services Strategy

References to the 2030 Zero Carbon targets are embedded throughout the 9 Year Plan 2025-2034. Following Council decisions on new Dunedin emissions reduction targets, reference to these new targets will be incorporated into the Long Term Plan 2027-2037.

Financial considerations

There are no direct financial implications of this decision. Council decisions on actions to support reducing Dunedin emissions will be considered as part of Long Term Plan processes.

Significance

This decision is considered low significance as the proposed changes seek to give effect to existing resolutions of Council, and as noted in the report staff have assessed that should Council decide on adopting refreshed targets, this does not fundamentally change the priority action areas for DCC as outlined in the Zero Carbon Plan. Any changes to the emissions targets Council set for Dunedin will be incorporated into consultation on the Long Term Plan 2027-2037 for community engagement and feedback.

Engagement – external

There was significant external engagement during 2023 in the development of the Zero Carbon Plan. There has been limited external engagement in relation to options to refresh Dunedin’s emissions targets, given adopting refreshed targets does not fundamentally change the key shifts needed for Dunedin to reduce its emissions, and the priority action areas for DCC to support emissions reduction at the city level.

DCC’s Zero Carbon team have engaged with Zero Carbon Alliance partners on target refresh options, given the Memorandum of Understanding for the Zero Carbon Alliance includes direct reference to the previous 2030 city emissions targets.

Adopting new city targets is not anticipated to change the overall purpose of the Zero Carbon Alliance, or the level of urgency required for both organisational and city-wide emissions reduction efforts across the 6 partners.

Engagement - internal

A range of teams have been informed that Council will be considering refreshed Dunedin emissions targets, with specific engagement as necessary to update emissions modelling scenarios assumptions (for instance, engagement with Transport).

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are a range of risks associated with the different emissions target options, particularly regarding achievability (for higher ambition options) to credibility (for lower ambition target options). These have been addressed under each of the options.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest has been identified.

Community Boards

There are no direct implications identified for Community Boards relating to this decision.

Council

2 September 2026

Carbon Removals Partnership Pilot

Department: Zero Carbon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report recommends proceeding with a pilot of native revegetation on Dunedin City Council (DCC) managed land, funded by partners from the Zero Carbon Alliance.

2 DCC manages land with intentions to restore with indigenous vegetation (such as native trees), however has constraints on the ability to directly fund planting and restoration projects at scale.

3 Partner organisations such as the University of Otago Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka have committed funding for high-quality local carbon removals, however often face constraints in securing land for projects.

4 Staff propose a pilot to allow partner organisations to fund and undertake restoration work on DCC land in line with reserve management plans where applicable, and share the associated carbon credits generated with DCC.

5 The proposed pilot involves restoration projects of approximately 10 hectares at each of Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Reserve and Hereweka-Harbour Cone, to proceed by the winter of 2027. Following detailed planning, should either of these sites be unsuitable other sites will be selected.

6 If Council approve this proposed pilot, results of the pilot will inform options for future restoration of DCC land to support carbon removals, biodiversity, erosion control, recreation, and amenity values.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the establishment of a native revegetation partnership pilot on DCC-managed land and authorises staff to negotiate and enter into agreements with participating Zero Carbon Alliance partners.

b) Notes that staff will provide an update to Council following the establishment phase of the pilot.

BACKGROUND

7 In September 2023, Council adopted the Zero Carbon Plan, which established a pathway for achieving the city’s emissions targets, building on existing trends.

8 The Zero Carbon Plan includes an action area for the DCC to “support growth of sequestration that aligns with mana whenua and community values”. This action is assessed as likely to have a high emissions reduction potential.

9 In June 2025, staff provided Council with a sequestration update, and advised staff would continue to explore or progress the following work:

a) Planning and providing information

b) Insetting on DCC land (planting/restoring habitat on DCC land rather than paying for carbon removals elsewhere)

c) Supporting development of a Dunedin carbon removals platform (exploration underway as part of the Zero Carbon Alliance work programme).

d) Advancing opportunities through DCHL (exploration underway under the DCHL Carbon Roadmap).

10 Council noted the sequestration update, including information on work to date, key considerations for Council, potential roles for the DCC, and next steps. The following resolution was passed by Council at its meeting held on 24 June 2025:

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Carbon Removals (Sequestration) update, including information about:

i) work to date

ii) key considerations for Council with respect to carbon removals

iii) potential roles for the DCC to support growth in Dunedin’s carbon removals

iv) next steps.

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mandy Mayhem, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Jules Radich (11).

Against: Crs Cherry Lucas, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (3).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 3

Motion carried (CNL/2025/001)

11 The pilot proposed in this report helps progress insetting on DCC land, and the results of the pilot can inform the development of a Dunedin carbon removals platform.

12 The DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan 2025/26-2029/30 includes the following targets for DCC’s organisational emissions:

a) a short-term target of 46.2% reduction from a 2018/19 baseline by 2029/30; and

b) a commitment to achieving net zero DCC organisational emissions as quickly as practicable within agreed annual budgets, but no later than 2050.

13 DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan 2025/26-2029/30 was noted by Council in September 2025. The following resolution was passed by Council at its meeting held on 23 September 2025:

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Zero Carbon implementation plan 2025/26

b) Notes the DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan 2025/26 – 2029/30

Motion carried (CNL/2025/002) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against

DISCUSSION

14 DCC has committed to reducing its organisational greenhouse gas footprint to net zero no later than 2050. Under best practice guidance for emissions management, reducing gross emissions should be prioritised, however there is likely to remain a portion of emissions which require offsetting as they are impossible or impractical to avoid. This paper proposes options for a long-term supply of carbon offsets from nature-based solutions in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

15 The Zero Carbon Policy directs staff to reduce greenhouse gas emissions both at a city-wide scale and for the organisation, with a priority for city-wide reduction wherever a conflict exists. For a reforestation project to deliver emissions removals at both of these scales: it needs to be the responsibility of Council (for the organisation to claim as a carbon credit); and must occur within the city boundaries of Dunedin (to fall within the city’s emissions footprint).

16 To offset DCC organisational emissions, DCC requires a supply of robust carbon credits with a verified origin. These could be purchased on the international voluntary carbon market, however there are reputational and financial risks associated with purchasing offsets. Also, the co-benefits of carbon removal projects outside of Dunedin (such as enhanced recreation values) are unlikely to be felt by local Dunedin communities.

17 Market research has indicated there is limited supply of suitable carbon credits from New Zealand-based projects, especially from native forests that would meet community and mana whenua aspirations and align with Council’s strategic framework.

18 Communities have expressed support for strengthening and expanding native habitat corridors in Ōtepoti Dunedin. While DCC owns land intended for native forest and ecosystem protection and restoration, funding constraints limit the implementation of these initiatives.

19 This report proposes to form an agreement with willing Zero Carbon Alliance partners to revegetate DCC land, maintain the project area, and share carbon credits generated with DCC by the project. A similar agreement exists between Wellington City Council and Victoria University of Wellington for restoration in the Wellington Outer Green Belt.

20 Taking a stake in the production of carbon credits for use in offsetting enables greater certainty for DCC and partner developers over long-term availability and cost of carbon credits required to meet emissions targets.

21 Carbon offsetting has a higher quality standard for the units surrendered than compliance-based schemes. Guidance from the Ministry for the Environment, Science Based Targets initiative, Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Cities, and Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market have been applied to the proposed pilot to ensure genuine carbon removals are occurring. Maintaining these standards is important to avoid the perception of greenwashing and ensure any future claims made by DCC about its net-zero organisation status are robust.

22 Transparency over progress toward emissions targets is a requirement of the Office of the Auditor General to ensure Councils are accurately presenting their position. As DCC continues to make progress toward its targets through gross emissions reduction, some offsetting will be required to balance the ‘hard-to-abate’ emissions from DCC activities.

23 The pilot projects will inform future projects that may support DCC and Zero Carbon Alliance partner organisations to source more high-quality, locally sourced carbon credits, supporting local employment and investment in the environment of Ōtepoti Dunedin.

24 Lessons from the pilot will inform approaches to further revegetation on DCC land. Opportunities for further revegetation funded by DCC or through partnership may be considered as an additional option for land management within the DCC land portfolio.

25 Should the recommended option be approved, Council will authorise staff to negotiate partnership agreements, allow restoration and planting works consistent with management plans for the pilot areas to commence, and report back on findings from the pilot.

26 DCC owned land has been assessed for suitability for restoration to native forest, as well as community and mana whenua interest in native revegetation. Based on this assessment, two sites are proposed for this pilot. Priority sites are within Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Reserve and Hereweka-Harbour Cone. If these sites are unsuitable for the pilot following detailed site planning, alternative sites will be chosen.

Proposed Pilot Sites

27 The proposed pilot sites at Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Reserve and Hereweka-Harbour Cone are approximately 10 hectares each. The final project area will be determined by the detailed restoration plan in consultation with mana whenua, local conservation groups and funding partners. Precise boundaries may be dictated by logical geographic features, existing and potential fence lines, and budget availability.

28 The Hereweka-Harbour Cone site is proposed to follow a standard planting revegetation process to support erosion control and expand the existing volunteer-planted areas.

29 The Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Reserve site is proposed to use Assisted Natural Revegetation to enhance an area of existing revegetation through pest control, fencing, and planting larger species among gorse and kānuka where appropriate.

30 The proposed project and potential involvement of the University of Otago as a partner could support research such as how carbon removal is best accounted for in diverse regenerating native forests. A backstop accounting method is to use the default values of the Emissions Trading Scheme, should a superior accounting method not be available when carbon credits are ready to be claimed from the project.

Engagement with mana whenua

31 Staff have met separately with the Ōtākou External Issues Komiti and representatives from Kāti Huirapa Komiti Kaupapa Taiao in April 2026. As the proposal has developed further both groups have been kept updated. Both groups have been supportive in principle of environmental restoration and carbon removals to support reaching net-zero locally.

32 Both proposed pilot sites are significant to mana whenua and are acknowledged as Wāhi Tūpuna sites in the DCC Second Generation District Plan.

33 If Council approve the pilot, further engagement together with Zero Carbon Alliance partner/s will enable mana whenua representatives to contribute to a more complete proposal and plan with the resourcing of DCC and partners to proceed.

Engagement with Hereweka Harbour Cone Trust and Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Conservation Group

34 Staff met with representatives of Hereweka Harbour Cone Trust and visited Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Reserve with representatives of the conservation group in July 2026. Both groups were supportive of initiatives to increase the resources for environmental restoration and may be able to offer contracted services to support the project if approved.

Key Considerations

Fit with strategic framework

35 The recommended option contributes to Council’s strategic objectives, in particular the Environment strategy, Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, and upholding the pillars of sustainability and Treaty of Waitangi. The proposed pilot contributes to ecological restoration objectives within the Management Plans of Hereweka-Harbour Cone and Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Reserve.

Māori Impact Statement

36 Mana whenua have been briefed on the proposal and staff will continue to work constructively to support mana whenua aspirations for environmental restoration.

Legislative reforms

38 The recommended option provides additional community and recreation facilities in the form of restored forest on public land without additional funding requirements.

Sustainability, climate mitigation (Zero Carbon), adaptation and resilience

39 The proposal contributes to the long-term community aims for environmental restoration of sites for recreation and biodiversity. It also supports local businesses to supply the labour and plants required.

40 The proposal reduces both city-wide and DCC emissions in a small, but sustained way at the proposed pilot scale. If the pilot is successful and the approach used more broadly, there is potential for a significant impact on DCC and city-wide emissions.

41 The proposal contributes to greater resilience to existing and climate exacerbated natural hazards and environmental pressures. Restored forest landscapes will be more resilient to landslips and prevent sediment erosion in catchments. Increasing forest cover and habitat connectivity will protect native flora and fauna from loss.

OPTIONS

42 This report includes three options for Council to consider:

a) Option One - Recommended option - Partnership pilot: progress with two pilot sites to allow partners to fund and undertake planting and restoration work on DCC managed land for a future shared carbon credit return. Proposed pilot sites Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Reserve and Hereweka-Harbour Cone.

b) Option Two – DCC pilot: Progress with two pilot sites, but DCC fully fund the project.

c) Option Three – Status Quo – do not proceed with either option one or two.

Assumptions

43 The pilot is being proposed on the assumption that revegetation and replanted species will successfully grow and be eligible for carbon credits through the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme or an alternative scheme by agreement of both parties.

Financial Comparison

44 The recommended option can be delivered within the existing operational budget for the Zero Carbon team for FY 26/27. The Capex and majority of Opex required would be provided by the delivery partners for the duration of the project. Specific cost contributions and allocation of carbon credits will be negotiated as part of the detailed planning process.

45 The Alternative option two would require an indicative capex of approximately $300,000 per site and opex up to $12,000 per year in addition to budgeted staffing levels. There is potential to scale the area restored if more or less budget were allocated.

46 If option two is preferred, budgets will be prepared as part of detailed site planning, and presented back to Council for endorsement.

Other Decision Criteria

In addition to financial considerations above, the table below compares options against additional decision criteria:

	Long-term value for money	Service Level Impact	Statutory / Compliance Drivers	Capacity and readiness	Timebound? (e.g. by reform) Y/N
Option One - Partnership					Y
Option Two – DCC funded					Y
Option Three – Status Quo

Key

Favourable

Neutral / mixed

Unfavourable

Not applicable

Option One – Recommended Option – Partnership Revegetation Pilot

47 This option is to progress with two pilot sites to allow partners to fund and undertake planting and restoration work on DCC managed land for a future shared carbon credit return.

Option Assessment

48 At present DCC has not secured a supply of carbon credits for use in meeting long-term organisational net zero emissions targets. This option trials an opportunity to allow third party investment in revegetation on council land for both parties to receive a share of the carbon credits generated.

49 Zero Carbon Alliance partners, such as the University of Otago are seeking opportunities to fund revegetation locally. By working in partnership, local resources can be directed to high quality carbon removals which support Dunedin’s environment, employment in Dunedin, and wellbeing of residents and tourists who enjoy Dunedin’s natural environment.

Advantages

· More progress occurs with revegetation on Council land to support mana whenua and community aims without increasing the need for DCC resources.

· Delivers real carbon removal benefits while trialling an option for broader use in achieving Council’s goals.

· Taking a stake in the production of carbon credits for use in offsetting enables greater certainty for DCC and partner developers over long-term availability and cost of carbon credits.

· Takes an opportunity for further collaboration with the University of Otago.

Disadvantages

· DCC shares the carbon credits generated from the project

Risks

· Any revegetation project involves risks including but not limited to those associated with natural hazards, such as landslides, or pest flora and fauna damaging planted species. Such risks will be mitigated as much as practicable through appropriate project planning, and ongoing maintenance. The pilots seek to reduce risks associated with erosion and landslides at the proposed sites, and reduce existing predator issues over the pilot area at Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Reserve.

Opportunities

· Supports major Dunedin organisations to meet their emissions targets in line with the purpose of the Zero Carbon Alliance.

· Trials a novel approach to partnership for native forest restoration and carbon removals for further use in supporting Ōtepoti Dunedin’s carbon reduction goals and national emissions targets.

· Pilot sites seek to help mitigate existing risks such as erosion at Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Reserve and Hereweka-Harbour Cone.

Option Two – Alternative Option - Council Only Revegetation Pilot

50 Council allocates capital and operational resources to revegetate the pilot sites and claim carbon credits from these sites when appropriate.

Option Assessment

51 Council gains a supply of carbon credits and trials delivering an in-house revegetation programme, but the mutual support providing land and funding is not delivered and all costs of the pilot are borne by council.

Advantages

· Environmental restoration still occurs, delivering on community and mana whenua aspirations

Disadvantages

· Does not support collaboration between Zero Carbon Alliance Members.

· Requires direct ratepayer funding

Risks

· Potentially lower overall environmental restoration due to constrained budgets.

Opportunities

· Pilot sites seek to help mitigate existing risks such as erosion at Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Reserve and Hereweka-Harbour Cone, and support aspirations of mana whenua to restore these important maunga.

Option Three – Status Quo

52 Staff continue to investigate options for Council to meet its organisational and city-wide emissions reduction and offsetting requirements, without committing to action on the pilot sites.

Option Assessment

Advantages

· None identified

Disadvantages

· Misses an opportunity to restore areas of native forest.

· Does not support collaboration between Zero Carbon Alliance Members

Risks

· Does not make progress toward solutions for ‘hard-to-abate’ emissions in DCC’s organisational emissions footprint.

Opportunities

· None identified

NEXT STEPS

53 If Council approve the recommended option in this report, staff will develop a planting plan in partnership with Zero Carbon Alliance partner/s, mana whenua, and relevant interested parties at each of the proposed sites (primarily the Hikaroroa/Mt Watkin Conservation Group, and the Hereweka Harbour Cone Trust), with the intention to proceed with the pilot by the winter of 2027.

54 Implementation of the project is subject to Zero Carbon Alliance partner/s securing internal approvals to fund restoration of the pilot sites.

55 Staff will then provide an update to Council following the establishment phase of the pilot (i.e., once predator control such as fencing, and native planting has been completed).

Signatories

Author:	Rory McLean - Senior Policy Analyst - Zero Carbon
Authoriser:	Scott MacLean - General Manager, City Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Other CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

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

LTP / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy/ Water Services Strategy

The recommended option improves the levels of service related to the proposed sites. Proceeding with the recommended option to use investment from partner organisations also means the work can proceed within existing Zero Carbon operational budgets.

Financial considerations

The recommended option can be delivered within current budget, providing operational oversight to partner-delivered works.

The alternative option requires currently unbudgeted capex and opex.

Both options reduce future liability for emissions costs by generating carbon credits.

The status quo maintains current exposure to volatile emissions pricing.

Significance

The decision is considered as low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The proposed pilot areas influence management of a small area of public land, however the outcomes sought are consistent with those in the management plans for both areas. Relevant stakeholder engagement will continue to ensure the project delivers on its purpose of delivering mana whenua and community aspirations.

Engagement – external

External engagement has been undertaken with:

· Mana whenua from kā rūnaka: Ōtākou and Puketeraki

· Zero Carbon Alliance Partners

· Conservation groups: Hereweka Harbour Cone Trust, Hikaroroa Mt Watkin Conservation Group

· Te Uru Rākau- NZ Forest Service, Ministry of Primary Industries

Engagement - internal

Zero Carbon staff have engaged with Parks and Recreation Services, Property, 3 Waters, and Advisory Services.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The proposal primarily mitigates risks of erosion, and reduces council’s exposure to reputational risk by providing an option to meet emissions targets.

Conflict of Interest

None identified.

Community Boards

The pilot is proposed to take place within the community board areas of the Otago Peninsula and the Waikouaiti Coast. Should there be interest, results will be shared with the Community Boards. If the pilots are successful, community boards and other stakeholders may present further land parcels in their areas for revegetation through the programme.

Council

2 September 2026

Review of Alcohol (Control of Alcohol in Public Places) Bylaw

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 In March 2026, the Council resolved to review the Alcohol (Control of Alcohol in Public Places) Bylaw 2004 (the Bylaw). The review must be carried out under requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). The Bylaw prohibits people from bringing alcohol into, possessing alcohol in, or consuming alcohol in a specified place within Dunedin’s central city area (with some exemptions). The Bylaw also provides the Council with the power to make temporary restrictions, for example a planned public event. The Bylaw is enforced by the Police.

2 The Bylaw has a different scope to the Dunedin Local Alcohol Policy which is limited to alcohol licensing matters.

3 Before making or continuing an alcohol bylaw, the Council must be satisfied that a bylaw meets requirements of the Act, for example, that a high level of crime or disorder is likely to arise in the area to which the bylaw is intended to apply if the bylaw is not made.

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

5 The report seeks approval of a draft proposed 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.

6 Following initial engagement, it is proposed to retain the central city alcohol ban and to introduce a permanent alcohol ban in the Logan Park sports hub area. Other minor changes are proposed to make the Bylaw easier to understand.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the results of early engagement.

b) Approves the draft proposed Alcohol Control 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 Council is satisfied that the proposed draft Alcohol Control Bylaw meets requirements of sections 147A and 147B of the Local Government Act 2002 in that:

i) In the current central city alcohol ban area, a high level of alcohol-related crime or disorder is likely to return if the bylaw does not continue.

ii) In the current central city alcohol ban area, the proposed Bylaw is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the alcohol-related crime and disorder.

iii) In the Logan Park sports hub area, a high level of alcohol-related crime or disorder is likely to arise if the bylaw is not made.

iv) In the Logan Park sports hub area, the proposed Bylaw is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the alcohol-related crime and disorder.

v) The proposed Bylaw can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

e) Determines that the proposed draft Alcohol Control Bylaw meets 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 implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

f) 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

7 The Local Government Act (the Act) provides the power for councils to make bylaws for specific alcohol control purposes (section 147). A bylaw may prohibit people from bringing alcohol into, possessing alcohol in, or consuming alcohol in a specified place for a specified period. A bylaw may also prohibit or control the presence or consumption of alcohol in vehicles in public places.

8 Exemptions to any prohibition are set out in the Act and include, for example, transporting unopened alcohol through a prohibited area from a licensed premises, and delivering unopened alcohol to a licensed premises.

9 The Act also provides the power to make bylaws for the following general purposes (section 145):

· protecting the public from nuisance

· protecting, promoting and maintaining public health and safety, and

· minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

10 Before continuing an alcohol control bylaw, the relevant council must be satisfied that:

· a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem

· a high level of crime or disorder (being crime or disorder caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area concerned) is likely to return to an area if the bylaw does not continue, and/or is likely to arise in an area to which the bylaw is intended to apply if the bylaw is not made

· the bylaw is appropriate and proportionate in the light of that likely crime or disorder

· the bylaw can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

11 The Act requires bylaws to be reviewed within five years of being made, and thereafter within ten years of the previous review.

Dunedin’s Bylaw

12 Dunedin’s Bylaw was made in 2004 after the Act took effect and following a request from the Police. At that time the Bylaw prohibited people from bringing alcohol into, possessing alcohol in, or consuming alcohol in an area of the central city at any time, along with exemptions as set out in the Act. The Bylaw also allowed the Council to make temporary restrictions such as for planned events.

13 In 2008, the community was consulted on a proposal to extend the restriction area into North Dunedin permanently. The extension was not adopted at that time because there were other initiatives, such as campus patrols, being undertaken to address the alcohol matters in the area. The Bylaw was still found to be appropriate for the control of alcohol related issues in the central city.

14 In 2016, the Bylaw was reviewed in response to a request from the Police. At that time, it was amended to include the main carparks and streets immediately adjacent to the controlled area. The Police provided evidence of reported incidents in these areas. See Attachment C for the current Alcohol (Control of Alcohol in Public Places) Bylaw.

Other councils

15 Most other larger New Zealand cities have alcohol control bylaws that prohibit the possession or consumption of alcohol in specified public places to reduce alcohol related harm.

March 2026 Council resolution

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

Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Approves commencement of the Alcohol (Control of Alcohol in Public Places) Bylaw 2004 review

b) Determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address some alcohol related issues in Dunedin.

Motion carried (CNL/2026/084) with Crs Benedict Ong and Brent Weatherall voting against.

DISCUSSION

Engagement with the Police

17 In order to retain or introduce an alcohol ban, the Council must be satisfied that there is evidence that a high level of alcohol-related crime or disorder is likely to return to an area if the bylaw does not continue, or is likely to arise in an area if the bylaw is not made. Staff have engaged with Dunedin Police throughout this review.

18 Dunedin Police have provided evidence of alcohol-related harm for the central city ban area, as well as the proposed Logan Park sports hub area – see Attachment D. They have also provided a statement for both areas to the effect that a high level of crime or disorder is likely to return to or arise in these areas if a bylaw is not made – see Attachment E.

Community engagement

19 The DCC ran an online survey ran from 22 June until 10 July 2026 to identify issues and options for this review. The survey was promoted through the ODT Noticeboard, DCC social media channels and was also emailed directly to key stakeholders.

Results of engagement

20 There were 60 responses to the web survey, with seven of these from organisations. The organisations that responded were Dunedin Venues Management Ltd, National Public Health Service, Safe and Well Ōtepoti, Dunedin Police, Southern Football, Alcohol Healthwatch and Grant Braes Amateur Football Club. Feedback on the level of alcohol-related crime and disorder was also received from Dunedin’s Chief Licensing Inspector – see Attachment F.

Current central city alcohol ban

21 The survey asked:

Generally, do you think the current alcohol prohibition in the central city works well to help minimise alcohol-related harm in the current bylaw area?

Answer	Number	%
Yes	33	55%
No	19	32%
Unsure	6	10%
Did not answer	2	3%
TOTAL	60	100%

The majority of respondents (55%) agree that the current alcohol prohibition in the central city works well to help minimise alcohol-related harm in the current bylaw area. 32% do not agree, 10% were unsure and 3% did not answer. Dunedin Police and the Chief Licensing Inspector support continuation of this ban.

Please explain why or why not:

38 respondents commented with some commenting on more than one topic.

Topic	Number
Public safety - ban helps reduce disorder, violence and unsafe behaviour	23
Police enforcement – provides proactive tool for de-escalation	8
Does not change drinking behaviour	8
Encourages drinking in supervised environments	5
Poor enforcement/insufficient monitoring	5
Restricts responsible drinkers/events	5
Reduces litter, glass and damage	4
Penalties and fairness concerns	3

The majority of comments were that the current ban helps to reduce disorder, violence and unsafe behaviour, that it provides a proactive tool for de-escalation, and encourages drinking in supervised environments. Some commented that it does not change drinking behaviour and that there is poor enforcement and monitoring of the ban.

Logan Park/Forsyth Barr Stadium area

22 The survey provided a map of the area around Logan Park and the Forsyth Barr Stadium which is regularly covered by temporary bans. It asked:

Do you think this area should have a permanent alcohol ban in place (the same as in the central city)?

Answer	Number	%
No	34	57%
Yes	20	33%
Unsure	4	7%
Did not answer	2	3%
TOTAL	60	100%

The majority of respondents (57%) did not think this area should have a permanent alcohol ban in place while 33% did think a permanent ban was warranted. Dunedin Police and the Chief Licensing Inspector support a permanent ban in this area.

Please explain why or why not:

42 respondents commented with some commenting on more than one topic.

Topic	Number of comments
Permanent ban restrictive and excessive/restrict responsible consumption	18
Ban would improve public safety and reduce harm	18
Temporary bans are sufficient	9
Protection of children and schools	6
Family friendly and alcohol-free	5
Impact on events – restrictions could reduce attendance	5
Retain responsible drinking	5
Enforcement clarity and effectiveness	3

Responses were mixed with some saying a permanent alcohol ban is not justified outside major events and the current temporary bans being sufficient. Others commented that a permanent ban would improve public safety and reduce alcohol-related harm.

Other areas

23 The survey asked:

Are there any other areas in Dunedin where you think there should be alcohol bans in place because there are high levels of alcohol-related crime and disorder?

Answer	Number	%
No	27	45%
Yes	25	42%
Unsure	4	7%
Did not answer	4	7%
TOTAL	60	100%

If yes, please specify the area and explain the issue:

25 respondents said there are other areas in Dunedin where there should be alcohol bans in place because of high levels of alcohol-related crime and disorder.

Location	Number
North Dunedin, student area - rubbish/disorder	9
South Dunedin shopping area – rubbish/disorder	4
All sportsgrounds – verbal abuse	4
Beaches	2
Oval – safety, children	2
Other – St Pauls Cathedral grounds; Brackens View; Botanic Gardens; all public areas; bus hub; schools, rest homes & hospitals; St Clair; cemeteries (1 each)	7

Several respondents suggested areas of North Dunedin should have an alcohol ban, and some suggested the shopping area of South Dunedin. Four suggested sportsgrounds and other areas suggested were beaches, and the Oval.

24 The survey asked:

Do you have any other comments about alcohol bylaw restrictions in Dunedin?

Topic	Number of comments
Support for alcohol bans/stronger restrictions	8
Opposition to further bans	7
Concern for impact of bans on hospitality businesses	6
Need stronger enforcement	5
Current bylaw is adequate	3
Alternative approaches e.g. education, responsible drinking, off licence sales, drinking age, exemptions.	14

30 respondents made other comments, some on more than one topic. Comments were mixed with some supportive of alcohol bans and restrictions, some neutral, and some opposed to additional restrictions. Some commented on enforcement and other issues.

Organisation comments

25 Most organisations support retaining the central city alcohol ban as well as introducing an alcohol ban to the Logan Park/Forsyth Barr Stadium area. Some organisations also supported alcohol bans for other areas such as all sportsgrounds, South Dunedin and North Dunedin areas.

Social media comments

26 The online survey for the Bylaw review was promoted through two posts on the DCC’s Facebook page. Comments showed a mix of views and topics relating to alcohol in Dunedin, including enforcement, off-licence issues, rules being hard for on-licence businesses, glass bottles, responsible drinking, and unrelated matters.

Proposal

Central city

27 Following initial community engagement, it is proposed to retain the central city alcohol ban. This is in response to requests from the Police, evidence provided by the Police on the high level of crime and disorder in this area, and community feedback. The majority of respondents to the survey support retaining the alcohol ban in this area with many commenting that the ban helps reduce violence, disorder and unsafe behaviour.

Logan Park sports hub

28 It is also proposed to introduce a permanent alcohol ban in the Logan Park sports hub area. This area regularly has temporary alcohol bans in place for planned events. The proposal to introduce a permanent ban is in response to requests from the Police, and evidence provided by the Police about the level of crime and disorder in these areas.

29 While the majority of survey respondents do not support a permanent ban in this area, the Police, Chief Licensing Inspector, Dunedin Venues Management Limited and organisations such as Health NZ/Te Whatu Ora and Safe and Well Ōtepoti did support it.

Other changes

30 No other alcohol ban areas are proposed. Although some survey respondents suggested bans in areas such as North Dunedin, South Dunedin and sportsgrounds, there is insufficient evidence of high levels of crime and disorder in these areas.

31 Other wording amendments throughout the Bylaw are proposed to clarify and simplify the information, and to better reflect requirements of the Act. These include adding a purpose statement, providing explanatory notes, rewording information, and removing a section on Warning by the Police.

32 Proposed changes are set out in Table 1.

Table 1: Proposed changes to the Bylaw

Section	Proposed change	Reason
Title	Amend to Alcohol Control Bylaw	To be clearer and simpler.
Purpose	Add a Purpose	To be clear about the purpose of the Bylaw.
Explanatory notes	Add explanatory notes e.g. · about the Regulatory Standards Act 2025 requirements · about special licences, Council resolutions, temporary alcohol bans, powers of the Police, and offences.	· Required by section 14 of the Regulatory Standards Act 2025. · For extra clarification
Public notice of resolution	Amend that Council must notify any resolution for a temporary alcohol ban by signage where it is practicable and reasonable to do so.	To better reflect requirements of the Act.
Powers of the Police	Remove some detail that duplicates the Act whilst referring to it, and providing an explanatory note.	To simplify this section.
Warning by the Police	Remove this section that duplicates the Act and provide an explanatory note.	To simplify this information.
Offences	Add more detail about infringement offences including an explanatory note.	To provide more information and explanation, and to better reflect the Act.
Schedule B – Specified Restricted Places	Add Logan Park sports hub area to Schedule B.	To reduce alcohol related harm in this area. In response to requests from the Police and community feedback.
Throughout bylaw	Wording amendments	To modernise, clarify and simplify the language.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA) implications

33 Before making the Bylaw, the Council must be satisfied that the proposed amended bylaw can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

34 The intent of the Bylaw is to regulate the consumption of alcohol in public places, the bringing of alcohol into public places, and the possession of alcohol in public places to protect public health and safety and protect the public from nuisance. In this sense, limiting the right of people to consume, bring, and possess alcohol in certain areas are proportionate responses and are considered justifiable limitations to protect public health and safety.

Regulatory Standards Act 2025

35 To meet new requirements under the Regulatory Standards Act 2025 (RSA 2025), secondary legislation (such as bylaws) that is adopted by the Dunedin City Council after 1 July 2026 must be assessed against principles of responsible regulation set out in the RSA 2025. An explanatory note has also been added to the draft bylaw, as required by the RSA 2025.

OPTIONS

36 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.

37 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)

38 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 alcohol control matters and decision-making.

Disadvantages

· There are no known disadvantages.

Option Two – Approve the draft Bylaw and Statement of Proposal for consultation, with amendments.

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

NEXT STEPS

40 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.

41 Here is an indicative timeframe:

What	Indicative timeframe
Consultation on proposed changes	October 2026
Hearings	November 2026
Hearings Committee recommendation report to the Council	Early 2027
Council adopts revised Bylaw	Early 2027

Signatories

Author:

Kevin Mechen - Alcohol, Psychoactive Substances and Gambling Advisor

Authoriser:

Bonnie Wright - Manager Compliance Solutions

Paul Henderson - General Manager Corporate and Regulatory Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Proposed Alcohol Control Bylaw	122
⇩b	Draft Statement of Proposal for Alcohol Control Bylaw consultation	129
⇩c	Current Alcohol (Control of Alcohol in Public Places) Bylaw 2016	136
⇩d	Dunedin Police evidence of alcohol-related harm	141
⇩e	Police statement on alcohol-related harm	170
⇩f	Chief Licensing Inspector statement on alcohol-related harm	177

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

This review contributes to the safe and healthy people priority of the Social Wellbeing Strategy, and the compelling destination theme of the Economic Development 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 have been advised of the review and invited to provide feedback. They will be invited to comment again during the formal consultation. This Bylaw is in line with the cultural key direction of Autikaka in Te Taki Haruru.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial considerations. 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

The NZ Police have been advised of the review and asked to provide information that is required by the Act for this review. There has been initial community engagement with our partners and stakeholders to inform draft document. Partners and stakeholders include mana whenua, the NZ Police, Ministry of Health, Health NZ/Te Whatu Ora, tertiary organisations, community groups, and the public. The Act requires use of the special consultative procedure and there will be thorough engagement with interested and affected parties during the review.

Engagement - internal

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

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

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

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

Council

2 September 2026

Notice of Intent - Draft Hereweka Harbour Cone Management Plan

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan 2012 (the 2012 Plan) is now 14 years old. This report seeks Council approval to publicly consult on the Draft Hereweka Harbour Cone Management Plan 2026 (the Draft Plan) using a process modelled on section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act), and to approve the accompanying Statement of Proposal and public submission form (Attachment B).

2 The Draft Plan (Attachment A) sets out aims, objectives and policies for the proper management of the 328-hectare property.

3 This is the first comprehensive review of the 2012 Plan since it was adopted. One hundred and thirty (130) submissions were received during the initial consultation period and have informed development of the Draft Plan.

4 Following consultation, submissions will be heard by the Hearings Committee, which will make recommendations to Council prior to adoption of a final management plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the Statement of Proposal, Draft Hereweka Harbour Cone Management Plan 2026 and Public Submission Form for the purposes of public consultation.

b) Authorises public consultation on the Draft Hereweka Harbour Cone Management Plan 2026, using a process modelled on section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977.

c) Notes that the Hearings Committee will consider submissions on the Draft Plan and then make a recommendation to the Council under a covering report from staff.

BACKGROUND

5 In January 2008, the Dunedin City Council approved purchase of the 328-hectare property on the Otago Peninsula that has become known as Hereweka, or Harbour Cone.

6 The Council purchased the land to protect its significant landscape, ecological, heritage and cultural values and in recognition of its potential recreational and tourist values.

7 The Hereweka/Harbour Cone Management Plan 2012 (Attachment D) was adopted by Council in 2012 to provide a policy framework to integrate the multiple objectives that the Dunedin community had for this property, while ensuring that management and enhancements were based on sound principles and in alignment with the values of the property.

8 Management plans are prepared to ensure activities within public land provide for the use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection, development and preservation of the land, as the case may require.

9 After the Plan was adopted, Council determined that the best vehicle to manage the land in accordance with the Plan would be an independent charitable trust.

10 In July 2015, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attachment C) was entered into between the Dunedin City Council and Hereweka/Harbour Cone Management Trust Board Incorporated (the Trust).

11 The MOU describes the roles and obligations of Council and the Trust, including with regard to administration and review of the Management Plan.

12 The MOU states that the Trust will jointly lead review of the Plan, with Council. Council retains responsibility for considering submissions and adopting the final Management Plan.

13 Most of the property covered by the Management Plan is not currently held or classified as reserve and is therefore not directly subject to the reserve management-planning requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

14 Council has nevertheless chosen to follow a consultation process modelled on section 41 of the Act to maintain consistency with its reserve management-planning practices and provide a robust public consultation process.

15 The Act requires that a reserve management plan:

a) Ensures that the principles that apply to a reserve of the relevant classification in the Reserves Act are complied with;

b) Provides for the use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection and preservation of the reserve as the case may require;

c) Provides for development of the reserve (as appropriate for the purpose for which the reserve is classified).

16 A review of the 2012 Plan commenced on 21 July 2025.

17 Public consultation for making and reviewing reserve management plans is carried out by Council in two stages. The first stage was completed following public notice in July 2025.

18 This report relates to the second stage of consultation described in Section 41(6) of the Act.

DISCUSSION

19 One hundred and thirty submissions were received during Stage 1 consultation undertaken between July and October 2025. Key themes identified through the first stage included:

a) Strong support for continued public ownership - Submitters emphasised that the land should remain in public ownership and not be sold, subdivided, or privatised.

b) Protection of the rural landscape character - Submitters valued the pastoral landscape and working farm character and generally supported retaining an open rural landscape rather than full reforestation.

c) Support for indigenous restoration and biodiversity - There was widespread support for native planting, ecological restoration, and pest plant and predator control, particularly in gullies and riparian areas.

d) Mixed views on the extent of “rewilding” - Some submitters supported large-scale native forest restoration, while others preferred a balanced approach that retains open pasture and landscape views.

e) Recreation access and track development - Submitters supported maintaining and improving walking and mountain biking tracks, although some cautioned against overdevelopment or impacts on sensitive areas.

f) Visitor infrastructure improvements - Common suggestions included improved signage, wayfinding, parking areas, and possibly toilets at key access points.

g) Traffic and access concerns - Some submitters raised concerns about vehicle access and road suitability, particularly around Camp Road and other entry points.

h) Recognition of cultural and mana whenua values - Submissions highlighted the importance of incorporating stronger mana whenua narratives and engagement in the management of the property.

i) Environmental management and pest control - Several submissions called for stronger management of pest plants and weeds (e.g. banana passionfruit, Darwin’s barberry, sycamore) and continued ecological restoration.

j) Catchment health and slope stability – Several submissions highlighted the importance of managing the property in a way that supports slope stability and catchment function, particularly given the steep terrain and erosion-prone gullies. Submitters supported approaches such as maintaining appropriate vegetation cover, riparian restoration, and land management practices that protect water quality and reduce erosion risk within the Smiths Creek and Stewarts Creek catchments.

k) Support for volunteer and community involvement - Submitters recognised the role of volunteers and community groups in track building, planting, and restoration work.

l) Governance and transparency - A small number of submissions raised questions about governance arrangements, including the role and transparency of the Trust.

m) Heritage and interpretation opportunities - Some submitters suggested better interpretation of the site’s cultural, natural, and historic values through signage or other educational initiatives.

20 The Draft Plan was prepared with full consideration of the feedback received during the initial submission period.

21 The Draft Plan retains the general intent of the 2012 Plan’s objectives, while updating and strengthening the policy framework to reflect current statutory, governance, ecological, cultural, heritage and visitor-management considerations.

22 Key changes within the Draft Plan include:

a) Long-term legal protection – the Draft Plan provides for Council to initiate a process to consider whether all or part of the property should be gazetted as reserve, and, if so, which classification or combination of classifications would be appropriate. No decision on gazettal or classification is being sought through the current consultation.

b) Stronger mana whenua partnership framework – expanded recognition of mana whenua values, narratives, and involvement, including greater emphasis on partnership.

c) Alignment with current planning frameworks – the Draft Plan now references and aligns with updated statutory and policy documents that did not exist or were less developed in 2012.

d) Ecological restoration and biodiversity outcomes – the Draft Plan shifts toward a more catchment-based ecological restoration framework, with greater emphasis on protecting indigenous remnants, restoring indigenous vegetation, riparian planting, pest control, habitat resilience, and improving ecological connectivity within the property and across adjoining Peninsula landscapes.

e) Greater recognition of catchment health, hydrology and slope stability – the Draft Plan gives stronger attention to erosion risk, land instability, headwater protection, wetland and drainage systems, water quality, and the role of vegetation restoration in improving catchment function, particularly in steep and landslide-prone areas.

f) Recognition of dark sky and nocturnal landscape values – the Draft Plan introduces recognition of the property’s natural darkness and night-time landscape character, including protection from unnecessary artificial lighting and the potential for low-impact activities such as stargazing.

g) Values-based recreation management – the Draft Plan provides clearer direction for track development, access, user safety and wayfinding, while ensuring recreation activities, including walking, biking and horse riding, are managed in a way that protects ecological, heritage, farming, landscape and cultural values.

h) Improved visitor infrastructure direction – the Draft Plan provides clearer guidance on the location, scale and design of visitor infrastructure, including entrances, gateway points, signage, interpretation, car parking and wayfinding, so that access and visitor safety are improved while protecting the property’s rural, open and highly visible landscape character.

i) Stronger landscape, cultural and heritage protection – the Draft Plan more clearly aligns management with current planning overlays and heritage frameworks, including Outstanding Natural Landscape and Outstanding Natural Feature values, Wāhi Tūpuna, Areas of Significant Biodiversity Value, archaeological sites, historic farm structures, shelter plantings and the wider relict rural landscape.

j) Expanded community and volunteer role – clearer acknowledgement of volunteer groups, community restoration initiatives, and partnerships in land management.

k) Future-focused management tools – the Draft Plan provides greater flexibility for evolving initiatives, including staged restoration programmes, ecological trials, catchment-scale planting, carbon accounting or sequestration tools, research partnerships, improved monitoring, adaptive visitor management, and future recreation links where consistent with property values and long-term protection.

23 Under the Act, the reserve management plan must be prepared by the administering body in draft form and give public notice stating that the Draft Plan is available for inspection at a place and at times specified in the notice.

24 The notice calls on persons and organisations interested to lodge with the administering body written objections to or suggestions on the draft Plan before a specified date, being not less than two (2) months after the date of publication of the notice.

25 The Act specifies that the notice must be published in a local newspaper and in such other newspapers, (if any) as the council decides.

26 As well as the public notice in a local newspaper, there will be a media release for wider media outlets. The project will be listed as a consultation project on the DCC website.

27 The Statement of Proposal will include a copy of the Draft Plan, the 2012 Plan and the public submission form as attachments.

28 The submission period will start on 10 September 2026 and will remain open until 10 November 2026.

29 Every person or organisation who submits on the Draft Plan who asks to be heard will have the opportunity to appear before Council’s Hearings Committee.

30 The Hearings Committee will hear and consider submissions and then make a recommendation back to Council.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

31 Council approves the Statement of Proposal, Draft Plan and Public Submission Form for the purposes of a public consultation process, using a process modelled on section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Advantages

· Staff can begin the public consultation process, as described in section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977, allowing the public to provide submissions on the Draft Plan.

Disadvantages

There are minor costs associated with undertaking the public consultation process required by section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977, including staff time, public notification, communications, consultation materials, and administrative support for hearings. These costs can be met from existing operating budgets.

Option Two – Status Quo

32 Council does not approve the Statement of Proposal, the Draft Plan and Public Submission Form and does not initiate a public consultation process.

Advantages

· Associated costs for Council involved in the public consultation process are not required.

Disadvantages

33 The Hereweka Harbour Cone property would continue to be managed by the 2012 Plan until a revised Statement of Proposal, Draft Hereweka Harbour Cone Management Plan and Public Submission Form are approved for public consultation.

NEXT STEPS

34 If approved, staff will follow the public consultation process described in section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Signatories

Author:

Stephen Hogg - Parks and Recreation Planner

Authoriser:

John Brenkley - Planning and Partnerships Manager

Heath Ellis - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇨a	Draft Hereweka Harbour Cone Management Plan 2026 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨b	Hereweka Harbour Cone Statement of Proposal and Submission Form (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨c	Memorandum of Understanding - Hereweka Harbour Cone Management Trust Board - 28 July 2015 (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨d	Hereweka / Harbour Cone Management Plan 2012 (Under Separate Cover 1)

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

The Draft Hereweka/Harbour Cone Management Plan contributes to the Parks and Recreation Strategy by providing a framework for recreation, public access and stewardship of a significant Council-owned property. It contributes to the Environment Strategy through biodiversity protection, ecological restoration, catchment management and landscape protection. The Draft Plan also contributes to social and cultural wellbeing through recognition of cultural values, heritage protection, volunteer participation and community engagement opportunities.

Māori Impact Statement

Policies within the Draft Plan have implications for Māori in the administration and development of Hereweka Harbour Cone. Mana whenua, through Aukaha have provided advice on the Draft Plan. DCC’s Māori Partnerships team have provided guidance in aligning the Draft Plan with Te Taki Haruru, DCC’s Māori Strategic Framework.

Sustainability

Sustainability and the Council’s Zero Carbon Policy has been considered through the process of developing the Draft Plan.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

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

Financial considerations

Community engagement on the draft and any revisions or amendments to it prior to it being adopted can be resourced from within the existing Parks and Recreation Services operating budget for the 2026/27 year.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Staff will follow the reserve management plan review process set out in the Reserves Act 1977, including the Act’s requirements for public consultation.

Engagement - internal

The DCC Legal team has provided guidance on the Draft Plan and the review process within the Reserves Act 1977. Internal engagement has been undertaken with various departments as part of Stage 1 engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Risks associated with this decision are considered low. There is a potential risk of public concern regarding proposed management approaches, governance arrangements, ecological restoration activities, public access and recreation management. These risks are mitigated through the public consultation process, the opportunity for submitters to be heard by the Hearings Committee, and Council retaining responsibility for adopting the final Management Plan.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards were invited to make submissions during Stage 1 of engagement.

Council

2 September 2026

Notice of Intent - Consultation on Proposed Speed Limit Changes

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report informs the Council about upcoming public consultation on proposed speed limit changes for John Wilson Ocean Drive, Kettle Park Road, Dalziel Road, McMaster Road and Three Mile Hill Road in accordance with the Land Transport Rule - Setting of Speed Limits 2024 (the Rule).

2 The proposed changes are intended to better align posted speed limits with the function and characteristics of the roads, current operating speeds, and changes to the surrounding environment.

3 The proposed speed limit changes are:

a) John Wilson Ocean Drive and Kettle Park Road, from 50 km/h to 30 km/h.

b) Dalziel Road (between Brinsdon Road and Three Mile Hill Road), from 70 km/h to 60 km/h or 50 km/h.

c) McMaster Road, from a default rural speed limit of 100 km/h to 60 km/h.

d) A tortuous part of Three Mile Hill Road, from 80 km/h to 60 km/h.

4 The proposed speed limit changes seek to improve safety outcomes for all road users while reflecting the surrounding road environments and functions. For John Wilson Ocean Drive, Kettle Park Road and Dalziel Road, this includes recreational, beach access and developing residential environments. For McMaster Road, the proposal responds to community concerns regarding increasing traffic volumes, dust generation and road safety. For Three Mile Hill Road, the proposed speed reduction reflects the road's mountainous terrain and tortuous alignment, which present increased safety risks for road users.

5 Public consultation on the proposed speed limit changes will be undertaken in late 2026, in accordance with the Rule.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the Consultation on Proposed Speed Limit Changes Report.

b) Notes that the Hearings Committee will consider submissions on the proposed speed limit changes and make recommendations to the Council under a covering report from staff.

BACKGROUND

6 The Rule establishes the process that Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) must follow when setting speed limits.

7 Under the previous Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2022, Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) were required to draft and consult on Speed Management Plans (SMPs). In 2023, the Dunedin City Council (DCC) consulted on a draft SMP which proposed lower speed limits on rural roads, in rural settlements and some areas within the city. The draft SMP included proposals to reduce speed limits on:

· John Wilson Ocean Drive and Kettle Park Road, from 50 km/h to 30 km/h.

· Dalziel Road, from 70 km/h to 60 km/h.

· McMaster Road, from a default rural speed limit of 100 km/h to 60 km/h.

· Three Mile Hill Road, from 80 km/h to 60 km/h.

8 During public consultation on the draft SMP, one submission suggested that a 70 km/h speed limit would be more appropriate than the proposed 60 km/h speed limit on McMaster Road, and two submissions advocated for retaining the existing 80 km/h speed limit on Three Mile Hill Road. No other submissions were received in relation to the speed limit changes that are the subject of this report.

9 Following the change in Government in November 2023, the speed setting framework was revised. When the Rule came into force in October 2024, the draft SMP consulted on in 2023 under the previous Rule could no longer be progressed.

10 Staff have reviewed the speed limit proposals previously identified through the draft SMP process, together with additional concerns raised by the community and the Council regarding McMaster Road. Staff consider that speed limit reductions on John Wilson Ocean Drive, Kettle Park Road, Dalziel Road, McMaster Road and Three Mile Hill Road have the strongest justification for progression under the current Rule.

11 These roads align with the classifications in Schedule 3 of the Rule that permit speed limit reductions and have characteristics that support further consideration of lower speed limits. These include recreational and beach access destinations, developing residential areas, community concerns regarding changing traffic patterns and tortuous alignment.

12 Staff intend to undertake public consultation on proposed speed limit reductions for John Wilson Ocean Drive, Kettle Park Road, Dalziel Road, McMaster Road and Three Mile Hill Road in accordance with the Rule. This will provide affected communities, road users, and stakeholders with an opportunity to provide feedback before any decisions are made.

DISCUSSION

John Wilson Ocean Drive and Kettle Park Road

13 Staff intend to consult on reducing the speed limit on John Wilson Ocean Drive and Kettle Park Road, from the Victoria Road roundabout to the John Wilson Ocean Drive bollards, from 50 km/h to 30 km/h (see Map 1). The current speed limit beyond the bollards towards Lawyers Head is already 30 km/h.

14 John Wilson Ocean Drive and Kettle Park Road provide access to Marlow Park Destination Playground, sporting facilities, recreational areas, beach access points and the John Wilson Ocean Drive promenade. The area experiences high levels of pedestrian activity associated with organised sport, recreation and beach use, and this is expected to increase following the redevelopment of Marlow Park.

15 The function and characteristics of these roads align most closely with the "unconventional roads" classification in Schedule 3 of the Rule. This classification applies to roads within environments such as parking areas, beach access points, riverbeds and cultural or recreational reserves. Roads within this category may have speed limits set between 10 km/h and 30 km/h, reflecting their unique operating environments and high levels of pedestrian activity.

16 The proposed speed limit reduction is being considered for the following reasons:

· The roads primarily provide access to recreational and community destinations, including Marlow Park, sports clubs and grounds, beach access points, and the John Wilson Ocean Drive promenade. They do not serve a through-traffic function, and pedestrians and cyclists travelling between these destinations must use the roadway due to the absence of a dedicated footpath or shared path.

· The area is heavily used by pedestrians and cyclists, including families with young children, older people, dog walkers and people with disabilities.

· Existing operating speeds are already low, with average recorded speeds ranging from approximately 16 km/h to 32 km/h. The proposed speed limit would better align the posted speed limit with the road environment and observed operating speeds.

· John Wilson Ocean Drive connects the cycle skills area and pump track at Marlow Park to the shared path on Victoria Road.

· John Wilson Ocean Drive is a wide roadway with angled parking and constrained sight lines.

· Seven non-injury or minor crashes have been recorded in the area over the past five years.

· Council has received reports of unsafe driving behaviour and antisocial vehicle activity in the area.

17 The proposed speed reduction is expected to:

· Improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

· Better support the recreational function of the area by creating a more welcoming and people-focused environment.

· Better align the posted speed limit with observed operating speeds.

· Reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes should they occur.

Dalziel Road

18 Staff intend to undertake public consultation on two potential speed limit reductions on Dalziel Road, between Brinsdon Road and Three Mile Hill Road. The options are a reduction from 70 km/h to 60 km/h, or a reduction from 70 km/h to 50 km/h (see Map 2).

19 This section of Dalziel Road forms part of the connection between Brockville and the wider transport network and is located on the urban fringe, where the surrounding environment transitions from urban residential development to more open and rural land uses.

20 Based on its function and characteristics, Dalziel Road aligns most closely with the "urban connector" classification in Schedule 3 of the Rule. This classification applies to roads that provide for the movement of people and goods between different parts of an urban area, generally with lower levels of interaction between adjacent land uses and the road corridor. Speed limits within this category may be set between 50 km/h and 80 km/h.

21 The proposed speed limit reduction is being considered for the following reasons:

· The surrounding area is experiencing residential development, increasing vehicle movements and traffic volumes on Dalziel Road. This section of road currently carries approximately 1,367 vehicle movements per day.

· The number of conflict points on the corridor has increased. Reports have been received of near misses involving vehicles turning into or out of the new subdivision at Macleod Avenue.

· A condition of the Macleod Avenue subdivision resource consent required a second vehicle access to be provided via Taieri Road. The connection was intended to act as the primary access to the subdivision, limiting the increase in vehicle movements that would otherwise have occurred on Dalziel Road as the area developed.

· The Taieri Road connection has not yet been completed. As a result, residents currently rely on Dalziel Road to access Taieri Road, nearby bus stops and other local destinations. This has increased pedestrian and cyclist activity along a section of road that has no footpath and limited shoulder width. The issue is compounded by pedestrian access to Frasers Gully walking track, which is accessed directly from Dalziel Road.

· The current average operating speed is approximately 62 km/h, which is already below the existing posted speed limit of 70 km/h.

· A reduced speed limit would better reflect the undulating nature of Dalziel Road, where changes in vertical alignment can restrict visibility and increase the safety risks associated with higher vehicle speeds and increasing pedestrian activity.

· Two temporary speed humps have recently been installed by the developer on either side of the Macleod Avenue intersection due to delays in completing the Taieri Road connection. These have recommended crossing speeds of 25 km/h. In addition, the nearby curve has an advisory speed of 45 km/h, indicating that lower vehicle speeds are already considered appropriate for sections of the road.

22 The proposed speed reduction is expected to:

· Improve consistency between the road environment and the posted speed limit, aligning this section of Dalziel Road with the 50 km/h speed limit that applies within Brockville and along Dalziel Road between Brockville and Brinsdon Road, and the 50 km/h speed limit on Dalziel Road as it approaches Taieri Road.

· Better align the speed limit with the increasingly residential nature and function of the surrounding area.

· Reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes.

· Improve safety conditions for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and others using active modes of transport along Dalziel Road.

A map with red circles and black text

Figure 2 - Map 2

McMaster Road

23 Staff intend to undertake public consultation on a proposal to reduce the speed limit on McMaster Road from the default rural speed limit of 100 km/h to 60 km/h (see Map 3).

24 Community members have raised concerns about the increasing use of McMaster Road as a through route between Brighton/Waldronville and Mosgiel. Concerns relate to traffic growth, road safety, dust generation from the unsealed road surface and the suitability of the road for increased levels of through traffic.

25 On 27 May 2026, the Council resolved to investigate a speed limit reduction on McMaster Road, including a full assessment and public consultation in accordance with the Rule, and report back to a Hearings Committee in 2027.

26 McMaster Road is currently subject to the default rural speed limit of 100 km/h. Based on its characteristics as an unsealed road in a rural environment with a low level of roadside development, McMaster Road aligns most closely with the “unpaved rural road” classification under Schedule 3 of the Rule. The Rule specifies a speed limit range of 60 km/h to 80 km/h for roads within this category.

27 Traffic volumes on McMaster Road are low. Traffic monitoring conducted by Transport staff from February 2026 found 748 vehicle movements over 4 days, an average of 187 vehicle movements per day. This aligns with the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of 125 vehicles per day, as estimated by MegaMaps, the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) online geospatial tool for traffic data sets.

28 The recorded average operating speed is 47 km/h, significantly below the current 100 km/h speed limit.

29 Crash history on the road is limited, with one non-injury crash recorded between 2020 and 2025.

30 While the available data indicates that operating speeds are already well below the current speed limit, consultation will provide an opportunity for the community and road users to express their views on whether a lower posted speed limit would better reflect the function of the road and address concerns regarding increasing traffic volumes, dust generation and associated safety risks.

31 The proposed speed reduction is expected to:

· Improve consistency between the road environment and the posted speed limit.

· Align the speed limit more closely with the speed limit range specified for unpaved rural roads under Schedule 3 of the Rule.

· Respond to community concerns regarding the increasing use of McMaster Road as a through route between Brighton/Waldronville and Mosgiel.

· Support a reduction in dust generation and improve the amenity of the surrounding area.

· Better reflect the speed at which vehicles currently travel on the road.

Three Mile Hill Road

32 Three Mile Hill Road is currently subject to an 80 km/h speed limit and provides an important connection between Dunedin and Mosgiel. Traffic volumes on the route have increased significantly over time, with AADT increasing from approximately 3,700 vehicles per day in 2011 to more than 5,600 vehicles per day in 2026.

33 Three Mile Hill Road traverses steep, mountainous terrain and contains numerous curves and changes in alignment. Staff assessment has identified a section of the road meets the Rule's definition of tortuous alignment. Under Schedule 3 of the Rule, roads with a tortuous alignment may have speed limits set within a range of 60 km/h to 80 km/h.

34 Three Mile Hill Road has a significant crash history, with 72 crashes recorded between 2020 and 2025. Of these, 52 occurred on the section identified by staff as having a tortuous alignment.

35 NZTA's road safety risk mapping identifies Three Mile Hill Road as one of the highest-risk local road corridors in Dunedin and rates it as High Risk for both collective and personal risk. Collective risk estimates the expected number of deaths and serious injuries on a road by considering both the safety performance of the road and the volume of traffic using it, while personal risk reflects the likelihood of an individual road user being killed or seriously injured.

36 This section of Three Mile Hill Road serves a range of recreational and industrial land uses. Vehicles frequently slow and turn to access the lookout, South Road car park and other parking areas used by mountain bikers and pedestrians, while nearby sawmill and forestry operations generate regular heavy vehicle movements. These activities contribute to a more complex road environment and increase interactions between different road users.

37 Public consultation will be undertaken on a proposal to reduce the speed limit on the section of Three Mile Hill Road that meets the Rule's definition of a tortuous road from 80 km/h to 60 km/h (see Map 4).

38 Consultation will provide an opportunity for road users, residents, freight operators, and the wider community to provide feedback on the proposed speed limit reduction and whether it appropriately reflects the road's function, alignment, traffic volumes, and safety risk.

39 The proposed speed reduction is expected to:

· Improve consistency between the road environment and the posted speed limit on a section of Three Mile Hill Road, ensuring the speed limit better reflects the mountainous terrain, tortuous alignment and operating characteristics of the road.

· Reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes on a section of road with a significant crash history and elevated safety risk.

· Improve safety outcomes for all road users, including motorists, motorcyclists, cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

· Better reflect the high-risk classification of Three Mile Hill Road and the increasing traffic volumes using the route.

· Support a safer and more forgiving road environment by encouraging speeds that are better matched to the road's geometry and function.

Figure 4 - Map 4

Consultation

40 While consultation on the draft 2023 SMP included some of the proposed speed limit changes and received relevant submissions, the Rule now requires a formal public consultation period of at least six weeks for proposed speed limit changes. The draft SMP consultation period was only three weeks.

41 In addition to requiring a minimum six week consultation period, the Rule requires a Cost Benefit Disclosure Statement (CBDS) to be published alongside the consultation material. A CBDS typically includes information such as traffic volumes, operating speeds, crash history over the previous five years, estimated travel time impacts and estimated safety impacts.

42 NZTA provides an optional Cost Impact Analysis Tool to assist RCAs in preparing a CBDS. The tool is publicly available on NZTA's website under the Guidance for RCAs resources. Supporting data used to develop a CBDS is typically sourced from NZTA systems, including MegaMaps and the Crash Analysis System (CAS).

43 Consultation on the proposed speed limit changes for John Wilson Ocean Drive, Kettle Park Road, Dalziel Road, McMaster Road and Three Mile Hill Road is expected to commence in late 2026, with a Hearings Committee recommendation and Council decision anticipated in early 2027.

44 Although consultation will be undertaken concurrently for all proposed speed limit changes, each proposal will be assessed independently. Any decision on a proposed speed limit change will be based on the characteristics of the individual road, relevant technical information and consultation feedback specific to that proposal.

OPTIONS

45 There are no options presented in this report.

NEXT STEPS

46 Staff will prepare consultation materials for the proposed speed limit changes in accordance with the Rule.

47 Consultation materials will include information on the role, function and use of the roads, the reasons for the proposed speed limit changes, and the associated CBDS.

48 Public consultation will be undertaken for a minimum period of six weeks.

49 Following consultation, staff will prepare a summary of submissions and recommendations for consideration by a Hearings Committee and Council.

50 Subject to Council approval, the final proposal will be submitted to the Director of Land Transport for consideration in accordance with the Rule.

Signatories

Author:

Janet Young - Transport Analyst

Authoriser:

Simon Smith - Asset and Funding Manager

Scott MacLean - General Manager, City Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

This decision promotes the social, 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	✔	☐	☐
Zero Carbon Plan	✔	☐	☐

The proposed speed limit changes support the Council’s strategic framework by improving safety outcomes, maintaining efficient transport connections, and protecting the natural environment.

Māori Impact Statement

During the consultation process, staff will engage with Mana Whenua regarding the proposed speed limit changes to ensure there is an opportunity for feedback, and that consultation follows the guidelines set out in the Rule.

Sustainability

A reduction in mean operating speeds could result in a reduction of vehicle carbon emissions.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known implications.

Financial considerations

Implementation costs associated with the proposed speed limit changes are expected to be low and can be met from existing Transport budgets.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

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

Engagement - internal

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

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no significant legal, financial or operational risks associated with this report. Public consultation on the proposed speed limit changes will be undertaken in accordance with the Rule to mitigate any procedural risk. Any changes resulting from the consultation process will be reported back to Council for consideration.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Staff will communicate with the Saddle Hill Community Board regarding McMaster Road and with the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board regarding Three Mile Hill Road.

Council

2 September 2026

Ōtepoti Pathways - DRAFT Dunedin’s Walking, Wheeling and Cycling Strategy 2026 - 2057 - Upcoming Public Consultation

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents the draft Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy and seeks Council approval to release it for public consultation from 14 September to 16 October 2026.

2 The Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy sets out Dunedin’s 30-year vision for walking, cycling and wheeling. It identifies strategic goals, investment priorities, and future connections within the city and to regional tracks and trails. Council adoption of the strategy is required to support future funding applications and co-funding opportunities.

3 The Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy has been in development for the past four years and Councillors have been engaged through Council workshops and papers.

4 Funding for Ōtepoti Pathways projects is currently allocated in the 9 year plan and will be further considered as part of the upcoming Long Term Plan process.

5 Following public consultation, the strategy will be finalised and presented to Council for adoption.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the draft Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy (Attachment 1)

b) Approves the draft Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy to be released for public consultation.

BACKGROUND

6 The Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy has been developed over the past four years. Initially, an NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) Programme Business Case was drafted to attract NZTA co-funding. After the change in Government in 2023, NZTA no longer requires Programme Business Cases. It now requires councils to have an endorsed strategic direction, which is why this draft strategy was developed.

7 Council workshops were held in August 2023 and May 2026 to report on progress and provide feedback into the development of this work. A report was presented to Council on 30 July 2025 and Council resolved the following:

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

That the Council:

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

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

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

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

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

Division

The Council voted by division

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

Against: Crs Cherry Lucas, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Jules Radich (4).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 4

Motion carried (CNL/2025/216)

DISCUSSION

About the Strategy

8 Ōtepoti Pathways is a 30-year strategy for walking, cycling and wheeling in Dunedin. It sets out a long-term approach to make it safer and easier for people to move around the city, while improving community outcomes and helping Dunedin to grow and be resilient. This strategy supports improving transport options in Dunedin while acknowledging that many people will want or need to drive.

9 Council adoption of the strategy will provide direction for investment in walking, cycling and wheeling across Dunedin that endures across short term funding cycles. It will support funding decisions and improve coordination across Council teams and with partners, including developers and community trusts.

10 A Council-adopted walking, cycling and wheeling strategy, together with committed local funding, is required to be considered for NZTA co-funding. Where appropriate, projects will be put forward through the Otago-Southland Regional Land Transport Plan to seek NZTA co-funding under the 2027-2030 National Land Transport Programme (NLTP).

11 The strategy does not allocate funding for specific projects. Funding decisions will be made through the Dunedin City Council Long Term Plan process. An Ōtepoti Pathways Implementation Plan will then be developed based on allocated funding.

12 The strategy applies to Dunedin as a whole, with the Dunedin City Council (DCC) being just one of several stakeholders working towards improved outcomes for walking, cycling and wheeling. As a result, projects may be delivered by a range of organisations, including NZTA, developers, the University and community groups such as the Dunedin Tracks and Trails Trust. These organisations operate under different decision-making processes and funding arrangements.

13 An adopted strategy means that Council would be well positioned for responding to external funding opportunities.

14 The Council can contribute to improving walking, cycling and wheeling in Dunedin by implementing infrastructure improvements, regulatory changes and promotional/educational activities. Examples could include better crossing points, shared streets, shared paths, cycle lanes, safe and appropriate speed limits, cycle skills training or wayfinding.

15 Where supported by Council, changes can be trialled before committing to permanent infrastructure, and lower-cost materials or temporary solutions can be used where appropriate. DCC staff will engage with the public and key stakeholders on specific projects and proposed changes once funding is confirmed.

16 The strategy has been developed and informed by community feedback gathered through Council Long Term Plan consultations, project engagements, and targeted stakeholder discussions, Councillor feedback through workshops and collaboration with Enterprise Dunedin. Its development has also been guided by a range of national and local strategies and plans, including Arataki (NZTA’s 30 Year Plan), the Future Development Strategy, the South Dunedin Future programme, the Zero Carbon Plan, Dunedin Integrated Transport Strategy, and Te Taki Haruru. In addition, the strategy supports the objectives of the Dunedin Tracks and Trails Strategic Plan and the Dunedin Parks and Recreation Strategy.

17 A monitoring framework will be developed to track progress towards the strategy’s vision and goals. The strategy and implementation plan will be reviewed every three years to align with the Long Term Plan and Regional Land Transport Plan review cycles.

Strategy summary

18 The 30-year vision is ‘In Ōtepoti Dunedin, it is safe and easy for people of all ages and abilities to walk, cycle or wheel for everyday travel’.

19 The goals of the strategy are:

· Safety and accessibility

All people in Dunedin can travel safely and independently to where they need to go in their everyday life.

· Choice and wellbeing

Our active transport system is safe, well-connected and attractive, giving people a genuine choice to travel in ways that support their wellbeing and the environment.

· Economic prosperity and tourism

Our city has strong active transport connections to tracks, trails and key destinations, which will strengthen tourism and support local businesses and our economy.

· Traffic reliability and resilience

Our transport system continues to support reliable traffic flow while our city grows and is resilient to local and global disruptions.

20 This strategy identifies five priority areas for investment:

· The Central City

· The Hill Suburbs (Kaikorai, Māori Hill, Roslyn, Helensburgh, Wakari, Halfway Bush, Brockville)

· South Dunedin and Caversham

· Mosgiel

· Andersons Bay and Musselburgh

21 These areas have been prioritised because of their high numbers of homes, schools and workplaces. Focusing investment in these locations is expected to deliver the greatest return on investment with maximum benefits for our communities, and the greatest chance to attract co-funding from NZTA through the NLTP. Improvements can still be delivered outside of priority areas.

22 Future connections across the Dunedin region and city are shown on maps. These connections link key locations that could be improved for walking, cycling and wheeling over the next 30 years. More detail is provided on the maps for the five priority areas. These will be updated regularly to include current existing and feasible walking and cycling routes.

23 The strategy includes a proposed Investment Hierarchy to help guide and prioritise Council investment. This hierarchy was developed based on Councillor feedback at the May 2026 Council workshop. Priority should be given to projects that:

i) Close gaps and connect existing routes within identified priority areas.

ii) Align with other investment and development opportunities.

iii) Connect schools and education facilities.

iv) Support improvements in other areas.

Public consultation

24 Public consultation on the draft strategy is planned for 14 September to 16 October 2026.

25 The purpose of consultation is to seek feedback from the community and stakeholders on the draft strategy before it is presented to Council for final adoption. The consultation process will help staff to understand:

· Whether the draft strategy reflects community aspirations for walking, wheeling and cycling.

· Whether important opportunities, barriers or perspectives have been overlooked.

· Whether the proposed future network and strategic direction are appropriate.

· What changes, if any, should be made before final adoption.

26 Consultation will include the following activities:

· An information pack distributed by email to partners and internal and external stakeholders.

· A project webpage with a summary of the strategy, the draft strategy document and link to the consultation survey.

· Signs along walking and cycling paths and at playgrounds in the five priority areas.

· Copies of the strategy summary and survey forms available at Council Customer Services and all Dunedin libraries.

· A Library book display at all Dunedin Libraries.

· Public advertising through the Otago Daily Times, The Star and the DCC Facebook account.

· A Media release.

· An article in FYI, the Dunedin City Council’s printed community newsletter.

· ODT Noticeboards.

· Community newsletters (depending on deadlines).

· Stakeholder meetings before and during consultation.

· A cycling group hui that encourages collaboration across different cycling infrastructure and service providers.

27 Following consultation, the strategy will be updated where appropriate to reflect community and stakeholder feedback. The final strategy will be presented to Council for adoption later this year.

OPTIONS

Option One – approves consultation on the draft Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy (Recommended)

28 This option is to approve public consultation on the draft Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy as proposed.

Advantages

· Enables the public to provide feedback on the draft strategy and help shape the final document.

· Is a required next step towards a Council adopted walking, cycling and wheeling strategy for Dunedin. A Council adopted strategy will support applications for NZTA co-funding, help guide investment decisions for projects, improve coordination with our partners and achieving value for money outcomes for Dunedin.

· Will inform long term and annual planning processes.

Disadvantages

· Staff time will be required to manage the submission process

Option Two – does not approve consultation on the draft Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy

29 This option is to not approve public consultation on the draft Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy at this time.

Advantages

· No staff time will be required to manage the submission process.

Disadvantages

· The public would not have an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft strategy.

· Progress towards a Council adopted walking, cycling and wheeling strategy for Dunedin would be delayed. This would remove opportunities to attract NZTA co-funding for projects included in the Long Term Plan. There would be less strategic guidance for investment decision making and less coordination with partners.

· Long term or annual planning investment decisions will not be informed by an overarching strategy.

NEXT STEPS

30 Public consultation on the draft Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy will take place from 14 September to 16 October 2026.

31 Following consultation, the draft strategy will be updated where appropriate to reflect feedback received. The final strategy will be presented to Council for adoption late 2026.

32 Staff will submit walking and cycling projects identified in the Council 9 year plan for inclusion in the Otago Southland Regional Land Transport Plan. This is the mechanism for seeking NZTA co-funding through the NLTP 2027-2030.

33 Decisions on funding for walking, cycling and wheeling projects will be made by Council through the Long Term Plan process. These funding decisions are separate from the adoption of the strategy.

Signatories

Author:

Simone Handwerk - Transport Planning Team Leader

Authoriser:

Simon Smith - Asset and Funding Manager

Scott MacLean - General Manager, City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy	220

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 strategy aligns with and supports other DCC strategies and plans, including the Future Development Strategy, South Dunedin Future programme, Zero Carbon Plan, Dunedin Integrated Transport Strategy, and Te Taki Haruru. It also supports the Dunedin Tracks and Trails Strategic Plan and the Dunedin Parks and Recreation Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

Te Taki Haruru is Dunedin City Council's Māori Strategic Framework. It guides the relationship between Council, mana whenua, the wider Māori community, and sets aspirations for the future of Dunedin.

Ōtepoti Pathways supports these aspirations by helping people move safely and independently around the city, connect with places and communities, and experience the natural and cultural landscapes of Ōtepoti. The strategy also recognises the importance of working in partnership with mana whenua as future walking, wheeling and cycling connections are planned and delivered.

The relationship between Ōtepoti Pathways and Te Taki Haruru can be seen across the four pou (pillars) of the framework.

Sustainability

The strategy is expected to have positive long-term sustainability outcomes as more people walking and cycling contributes to economic, social and environmental well-being.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no LTP budget implications as a result of the strategy. Budgets for projects need to be set through the upcoming Long Term Plan but this is a separate process.

There are no implications for current levels of service and performance measures as a result of the strategy.

Financial considerations

There are no financial considerations. Budgets for projects need to be set through the upcoming Long Term Plan but this is a separate process.

Significance

The significance of the Ōtepoti Pathways Strategy to Dunedin is considered to be medium. This is based on the importance to Dunedin; community interest; consistency with existing policy and strategy; and impact on Council’s finances, capacity and capability (using section 2.2 of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy).

Engagement – external

External engagement on the draft strategy has been undertaken with the following stakeholders:

- Otago Regional Council

- NZTA

- University of Otago

- Otago University Student Association

- Otago Polytechnic

- Otago Polytechnic Student Association

- Public Health South

- Southern District Health Board

- Spokes

- Hospital Bike User Group

- CCS disability action (national disability advocacy and support organisation)

- Disabled Person Assembly

- Age Concern Otago

- Living Well

- Otago Automobile Association (AA Otago)

- Grey Power Otago

- Bus Go Dunedin

- Dunedin Tracks and Trails Trust

- Pedals Couriers

- Urban Nerds

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement has been undertaken with the following departments:

- Mana Ruruku

- Parks & Recreation

- Climate Adaptation & Resilience

- City Growth and Advisory Services

- City Development

- Zero Carbon

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest

Community Boards

There are implications for all community boards as the Ōtepoti Pathways strategy outlines priority areas for infrastructure investment including future connections between suburbs and feasible routes for Mosgiel. Community boards are included on the stakeholder list and will receive an information pack at the start of the consultation period.

Council

2 September 2026

New Road Names Assigned from Road Name Register

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report updates the Council on the selection of seven new road names from the Dunedin City Council Road Name Register for two new subdivisions.

2 The names for the new roads at 121-125 Stevenson Road (Concord) for subdivision 2019-165 C/D are:

· Wineberry Drive (new public road) (see Attachment A)

· Knight Lane (new private way)

3 The names for the new roads at 80 & 94 Panmure Avenue (Calton Hill) for subdivision 2025-100 are:

· Rachel Reynolds Place (see Lot 100 in Attachment B)

· Lusk Lane (Lot 103)

· Fache Lane (Right of Way C)

· Hinds Place (Right of Way M)

· Soper Close (Right of Way L)

4 As these names were selected from the Dunedin City Council Road Name Register, Council staff have granted approval to the applicants and will update the Road Name Register accordingly.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the names Wineberry, Knight, Rachel Reynolds, Lusk, Fache, Hinds, and Soper have been assigned to new roads or private ways from the Road Name Register and will be listed as no longer available in the register.

BACKGROUND

5 The Dunedin City Council Road Naming Policy provides the framework for timely and consistent naming of legal roads and private ways that reflect the identity of the local community, meet requirements set by the Council, and comply with Land Information New Zealand addressing guidelines. A ‘legal road’ is any road legally established as a public road under section 315 of the Local Government Act 1974 (the Act). As defined by the Act, a ‘private way’ is a road on private land with restricted access (e.g. rights of way).

6 The Council has a selection of available road names pre-approved by the Infrastructure Services Committee published in the Dunedin City Council Road Name Register. In their meeting of 27 November 2025, the Council adopted an amendment to the Council Road Naming Policy so that if a road name applicant selects a name from the Road Name Register, they can receive immediate approval once Council staff have assessed their application (Minutes of Council - Thursday, 27 November 2025), rather than require a second approval from Council. The new process has reduced the amount of time staff spend on road naming applications and appears to be incentivising more use of the Road Name Register.

7 The process that applicants must follow when applying for a new road name is set out in the diagram below, with two different approaches depending on whether the Road Name Register is used or not.

DISCUSSION

Road names assigned for 121-125 Stevenson Road (Concord) (SUB 2019-165 C/D)

TABLE A SUB 2019-165 C/D \| 121-125 Stevenson Road, Concord
Location of road	Proposed road name	Recommended road name
New public road to be vested, off Stevenson Road	Wineberry Drive	‘Wineberry Drive’ as selected from the Road Name Register
New private way off the proposed Wineberry Drive	Knight Lane	‘Knight Lane’ as selected from the Road Name Register

8 Table A presented below provides the preferred road names proposed for this subdivision. A map of the roads is provided in Attachment A. Staff consider the proposed road names to be appropriate for this development.

9 The names selected from the register have the following references:

· Wineberry Drive – is in reference to the wineberry tree or makomako (Aristotelia serrata), a small deciduous tree native to New Zealand that bears large clusters of pink flowers followed by dark red berries. The wineberry tree is fast-growing and resilient in cold climates, and can be found in the Dunedin Botanic Gardens among other areas.

· Knight Lane – is in reference to Hardwicke Knight (1911-2008), a photographer, historian and collector. Born in London, Hardwicke moved to Dunedin in 1957 as director of the Medical Photographic Unit of the Otago Medical School. In addition to his own photography, Knight published extensively on the history of New Zealand photography and photographers and on the history of Otago. He was awarded a Queen’s Service Order in 1991.

10 The developers selected Wineberry to reflect local flora in Dunedin.

11 The developers selected Knight due to a keen interest in photography and art, which aligns with what Hardwicke Knight championed during his life.

12 A site map is included as Attachment A.

Road names assigned for 80 & 94 Panmure Road

13 Table B presented provides the preferred road names proposed for this subdivision. A map of the roads is provided in Attachment B. Staff consider the proposed road names to be appropriate for this development.

TABLE B SUB 2025-100\| 80 & 94 Panmure Road
Location of road	Proposed road name	Recommended road name
New private way off 94 Panmure Avenue	Rachel Reynolds Place	‘Rachel Reynolds Place’ as selected from the Road Name Register
New private way off Panmure Avenue near Mariner Street intersection	Lusk Lane	‘Lusk Lane’ as selected from the Road Name Register
New private way off Rachel Reynolds Place	Fache Lane	‘Fache Lane’ as selected from the Road Name Register
New private way off Lusk Lane	Hinds Place	‘Hinds Place’ as selected from the Road Name Register
New private way off Lusk Lane	Soper Close	‘Soper Close’ as selected from the Road Name Register

14 The names selected from the register have the following references:

· Rachel Reynolds Place – is in reference to Rachel Selina Reynolds (1838-1928), a social worker and community leader involved in a wide range of social justice causes including women’s access to education, provision of welfare services to people living in poverty, and the women’s suffrage movement in the 1880s-1890s. Reynolds’ involvement in campaigns for the establishment of a girls’ secondary school and for the admission of women to the University of Otago both culminated in success in 1871, when Otago Girls’ High School first opened and the University of Otago began admitting women.

· Lusk Lane – is in reference to Doris Lusk (1916-1990), an artist, art teacher, potter and university lecturer born in Dunedin. Lusk was one of New Zealand’s pioneer potters and taught at the University of Canterbury School of Fine Arts from 1966-1981. She was posthumously awarded the Governor General Art Award in 1990 to recognise her career and contributions to art.

· Fache Lane – is in reference to Ada Fache (1918-1994), the City Librarian of Dunedin from 1960-1968 who was the second woman in New Zealand to be appointed the head of a major metropolitan library. At Fache’s bequest, the Ada Fache Fund continues her legacy by providing professional development grants for library workers.

· Hinds Place – is in reference to Elizabeth Hinds (1940-1998), the director of the Toitū Otago Early Settlers Museum from 1983-1996. Hinds worked as an archaeologist in the Pacific Islands and served as the acting director of the Fiji Museum in the 1960s. Her work in Dunedin revitalised the Otago Early Settler’s Association, and with it the museum.

· Soper Close – is in reference to Eileen Louise Soper (1900-1989), an author and journalist who was first an editor of the Otago Daily Times in the 1920s and later became an associate editor for the Otago Witness until 1932. Soper published five books beginning with The Otago of Our Mothers in 1948, and later published her memoirs in three volumes from 1969-1973.

15 The developers of this subdivision selected these names to pay homage to influential Dunedin women, with all of the names proposed connected by this theme.

16 A site map is included as Attachment B.

OPTIONS

17 Not applicable.

NEXT STEPS

18 Staff will advise Land Information New Zealand of the new road names.

19 Staff will update the Road Name Register to note that the selected road names are no longer available.

20 Staff will liaise with the developers on the installation of appropriate signage for the new roads (once ready).

Signatories

Author:

Rose Wunrow - Policy Analyst Transport Regulation

Authoriser:

Simon Smith - Asset and Funding Manager

Scott MacLean - General Manager, City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Attachment A - New Road Names Assigned 121-125 Stevenson Road	263
⇩b	Attachment B - New Road Names Assigned 80 & 94 Panmure Avenue	264

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 is an administrative function.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Māori.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been engagement with the developers.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement within the Transport Group and Business Information Services.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards as none of the selected names are within Community Board areas.

[1] 2023 Census data; ORC annual bus patronage data

5 Simplifying Local Government Decision Making Report
	A report from Community Services and Corporate Policy sought Council's direction on both its preferred strategic direction for local government reform in Otago and how the Dunedin City Council (DCC) would participate in the Government's Simplifying Local Government (SLG) reform programme. It outlined the implementation pathways established by the Government, summarises the regional work undertaken through the Otago Mayoral Forum (OMF), and considered the strategic implications for Dunedin.
	The Manahautū (General Manager Community and Strategy) (Nicola Morand) and Community Partnerships Manager (Gina Hu’akau) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
Cr Brent Weatherall left the meeting at 10.07 am and returned at 10.09 am. Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 10.17 am and reconvened at 10.19 am Cr Benedict Ong returned to the meeting at 10.20 am. During discussion it was moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for 5 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 10.22 am and reconvened at 10.23 am. Cr Benedict Ong left the meeting at 10.23 am. Cr Jo Galer entered the meeting at 10.46 am. Cr Russell Lund entered the meeting at 10.47 am.

	Moved (Mayor Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a. Agrees to work with Queenstown Lakes District Council to develop and, subject to the agreement of both councils, submit a Head Start proposal in support of a Two Unitary Catchment Based model comprising: i) Inland Otago Unitary Authority; and ii) Coastal Otago Unitary Authority, with regional council functions supported through an appropriate shared services arrangement. b. Requests staff to develop the Head Start proposal in conjunction with Queenstown Lakes District Council staff. c. Authorises the Mayor to sign and submit the Head Start proposal, following circulation of the final draft to all Councillors. d. Notes that submission of the Head Start proposal was contingent on the agreement and joint participation of Queenstown Lakes District Council. e. Notes that participation in the Government's Head Start process enables Council to contribute to and influence the future design of local government reform in Otago. f. Notes that the Mayor will continue to engage with the Mayors of Otago and Southland as discussions regarding local government reform progress. g. Notes that Dunedin City Council will continue to partner with Ngāi Tahu throughout the development of the proposal and any subsequent detailed design processes. h. Notes that participation in the development and submission of a Head Start proposal does not commit Council to a final local government structure or governance model, which would remain subject to further design, engagement, statutory processes, and future decisions of the participating councils and the Government. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs John Chambers, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Mickey Treadwell, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall and Mayor Sophie Barker (9). Against: Crs Jo Galer, Russell Lund, Andrew Simms and Lee Vandervis (4). Abstained: Cr Marie Laufiso (1). The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 4 Motion carried (CNL/2026/115)

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 22 July 2026	16