Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 25 June 2025

Council

25 June 2025

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

KARAKIA TIMATANGA

Whakataka te hau ki te uru

Whakataka te hau ki te tonga

Kia mākinakina ki uta

Kia mātaratara ki tai

E hī ake ana te atakura

He tio, he huka, he hau hū

Tīhei mauri ora!

Cease the winds from the west

Cease the winds from the south

Let the breeze blow over the land

Let the breeze blow over the ocean

Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air.

A touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day.

PROCEDURAL

1 Apologies 5

2 Public Participation 5

3 Late Items 5

4 Declarations of Interest 5

5 Confirmation of Minutes 5

REPORTS

6 Presentations

6.1 NZ Police - Local Policing Update 7

A local policing update from Sgt Bernie O’Brien, NZ Police

7 Elected Members Reports

7.1 Mayoral Report 9

7.2 Chairperson's Update -Te Awahou Foxton Community Board 15

8 Reports for Decision

8.1 Adoption of Rates Resolution for Year Ending 30 June 2026 19

8.2 Waikawa Pedestrian Bridge 27

8.3 Waikawa Beach Accessway - Council Update 37

8.4 Adoption of Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 49

8.5 Adoption of Strategic Recreation Investment Framework 101

8.6 Adoption of Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035 133

8.7 Levin Town Centre Transformation Programme Update 173

8.8 Confirmation of Process - Bath Street and Salisbury Street Carpark 185

8.9 Draft Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Policy - Adoption for Consultation 191

8.10 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting 2025 Remits 207

9 Reports for Noting

9.1 Interim Organisation Performance Report - June 2025 221

9.2 Council Resolution and Actions Monitoring Report June 2025 249

10 Proceedings of Committees

10.1 Proceedings of the Community Wellbeing Committee 21 May 2025 259

10.2 Proceedings of the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board Meeting 9 June 2025 263

10.3 Proceedings of the Hearings and Regulatory Committee 10 June 2025 269

10.4 Proceedings of the Chief Executive Employment and Performance Committee 11 June 2025 277

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

11 Procedural motion to exclude the public 281

C1 Levin War Memorial Hall and Village Green Redevelopment Update 281

C2 Solid Waste Service Delivery and Agreement Review 281

C3 East West Arterial (EWA) - Property Acquisition Update 281

C4 Levin Camp Ground 282

C5 Council Resolution and Actions Monitoring Report June 2025 282

C6 Proceedings of Committee - Public Excluded Chief Executive Employment and Performance Committee 11 June 2025 282

KARAKIA WHAKAMUTUNGA

Kia whakairia te tapu

Kia wātea ai te ara

Kia turuki whakataha ai, kia turuki whakataha ai

Haumi e, hui e, taiki e!

Restrictions are moved aside

so the pathway is clear

To return to everyday activities

Draw together, affirm!

Council

25 June 2025

File No.: 25/355

7.1 Mayoral Report

Author(s)

Bernie Wanden JP

Mayor | Kahika

Approved by

Bernie Wanden JP

Mayor | Kahika

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. The purpose of this report is to inform Council and the community about events and functions and Council-related meetings that I attended 1 May – 14 June 2025, and to provide an update on items of interest.

RECOMMENDATION | NGĀ TAUNAKITANGA

A. That Report Mayoral Report be received and noted.

MATTERS OF INTEREST | NGĀ TAKE HIRAHIRA

2. The following meetings, functions and events were attended from 1 May to 14 June 2025.

Meetings, Functions and Events Attended

1 May to 14 June 2025

LGNZ All of Local Government Meeting in Wellington

LGNZ Rural & Provincial Meeting in Wellington

Te Maire Park (Shannon) – pre-work site blessing

Resident meeting

Mayor and Chief Executive weekly hui

Horowhenua DC | NZTA Regional Relationship meeting

Visit to HLC Life to the Max

Business visit to Quin Buildings

The State of the NZ Health system meeting

Business visit to Genoese

Guest speaker at Friends of the Horowhenua Libraries gathering

Council workshops / briefings

NZTA briefing for Council

Electra Business & Innovation Awards - Launch Event in Ōtaki

Education Horowhenua meeting

Arohanui Hospice meeting with the Chief Executive

Regional Elected Members’ Local Waters Forum

Horowhenua Developers Forum

Thompson House Trust – meeting with the new chair

Local Policing update

Ice Bucket Challenge at Waiopehu College

Horowhenua Lake Domain Board - Extraordinary meeting

Business Visit - Urban Group

Mayor and Chief Executive weekly hui

Local Waters Meeting with PNCC, Ruapehu, Rangitikei and Whanganui

Business After 5 function

Business Visit - Foxton Beach Top 10 Holiday Park Visit

Ō2NL Community Meeting in Manakau

Opiki School visit

Ō2NL Community Meeting in Levin

Mayor and Chief Executive weekly hui

Mayor’s Taskforce for Jobs – Horowhenua update meeting

Community Wellbeing Committee meeting

Council workshops / briefings

Business visit – Fresh Pork

Horowhenua Youth Network meeting

Horizons Annual Plan Amendment Hearing – spoke to HDC’s submission

St Josephs School visit

Levin North School visit

Levin Waiopehu Lions Club 50th Charter

Waitarere Beach Progressive & Ratepayers Association - AGM

Meeting with Levin Racing Club member

Catch up with Andrew Reid from The Horowhenua Company Limited

Coast access Radio interview

MacArthur Street Works Site Visit – health & safety moment

Council Workshops / Briefings

Standard & Poors annual meeting

Emergency Management Joint Standing Committee Meeting

Regional Transport Committee Meeting

Levin Cossie Club - 125th Jubilee Celebrations

Meeting with the Police Area Commander, Ross Grantham

Horowhenua Transport Services Governance Group

Volunteer Central - Volunteer Recognition Event

Horizons Region Mayoral Forum

Hearing - Hearing of Submissions for Dog Control Policy and Bylaw

Electra Business Breakfast – Minister of Finance – Post Budget Wrap-up

Chief Executive Employment & Performance Committee meeting

Capital Projects Steering Group meeting

Council workshops / briefings

Luncheon – Minister for Local Government, Hon Simon Watts

Business After 5 function

Mayor’s Taskforce for Jobs – core group meeting

Manakau Domain Upgrade celebration

ADVOCACY LETTER – Ō2nl – Minster for Transport

3. In light of NZTA’s proposal to downgrade the Ō2NL design which was announced in early May, a letter was sent to Minister for Transport, Hon Chris Bishop. In the letter we outlined our concerns around the impact of the proposed design changes on our community and the commitments made during the consenting process.

4. While we acknowledged the budget pressures currently influencing infrastructure delivery, the proposed design changes contradict earlier assurances made to our community.

For information purposes, the letter is attached.

Attachments | NGĀ TĀPIRINGA KŌRERO

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Letter to Minister for Transport - Ō2NL Concerns - 7 May 2025	12

Council

25 June 2025

File No.: 25/354

8.1 Adoption of Rates Resolution for Year Ending 30 June 2026

Author(s)

Michelle Valler

Financial Services Manager | Tumu Ratonga Ahumoni

Carolyn Dick

Strategic Planning Manager | Kaihautū Rangapū Hinonga Arawaka

Approved by

Jacinta Straker

Group Manager Organisation Performance | Tumu Rangapū, Tutukinga Whakahaere

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer | Tumuaki

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. The purpose of this report is for the Horowhenua District Council (Council) to formally adopt the Rates Resolution for the year ending 30 June 2026.

2. Having adopted the Annual Plan 2024/2025 containing the Funding Impact Statement at the Council meeting on 14 May 2025, Council is now required to formally adopt the Rates Resolution.

This matter relates to Delivering the Long-Term Plan 2024-44

Delivering the Long-Term Plan 2024-44

RECOMMENDATION | NGĀTAUNAKITANGA

A. That Report 25/354 Adoption of Rates Resolution for Year Ending 30 June 2026 be received.

B. That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

C. That Horowhenua District Council sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing 1 July 2025 and ending on 30 June 2026:

(a) General Rates

A general rate set pursuant to section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 made on every rating unit, assessed on land value and a differential basis as described below:

· A rate of $0.00304 (GST Inclusive) of land value on every rating unit in the "District wide" category

· A rate of $0.00152 (GST Inclusive) of land value on every rating unit in the "Farming" category

(b) Land Transport (Roading) Rate

A targeted rate of $0.00039 (GST Inclusive) set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on every rating unit in the district, assessed on capital value to fund the costs of Land Transport.

(c) Stormwater Rate

A targeted rate of $0.00034 (GST Inclusive) set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on all urban rating units as defined in the Funding Impact Statement, assessed on capital value.

(d) Community Centre/Library Rate

A targeted rate set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $353.00 (GST Inclusive) on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit in the district to fund the provision of Community Centres and Library Services.

(e) Representation and Community Leadership Rate

A targeted rate set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $223.00 (GST Inclusive) on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit in the district to fund Representation and Community Leadership costs.

(f) Aquatic Centres (Swimming Pool) Rate

A targeted rate set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $257.00 (GST Inclusive) on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit in the district to fund the provision of swimming pools.

(g) Solid Waste Disposal Rates

Solid Waste – Districtwide Rate for Managing and Minimising Waste

A targeted rate set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $71.00 (GST Inclusive) on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit in the district to fund the cost of Waste Transfer Stations, waste minimisation initiatives, and recycling facilities.

Solid Waste – Landfill Legacy Rate

A targeted rate set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $72.00 (GST Inclusive) on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit in the district to fund the remediation of the Hokio landfill.

Solid Waste – Kerbside Recycling Rate

A targeted rate set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $141.00 (GST Inclusive) on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit within the recycling collection area as outlined in the Funding Impact Statement.

(h) Water Supply Rates

A targeted rate set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 to fund the Water Supply activity costs assessed on a differential basis as described below:

· A rate of $666.00 (GST Inclusive) for any rating unit that is connected to a reticulated drinkable water supply network (except for Foxton Beach)

Liability for the rate will be assessed on whichever is the greater of:

· each rating unit, or

· the number of SUIPs of each rating unit, or

· the number of connections to each rating unit.

· A rate of $333.00 (GST Inclusive) for any rating unit that is available to be connected to a reticulated drinkable water supply

For the Foxton Beach water supply network:

· A rate of $501.00 (GST Inclusive) for any rating unit that is connected to the Foxton Beach water supply network.

Targeted rates for water supply set pursuant to section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 where a meter is used to measure consumption on the network during the period from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026 of:

· $2.88 (GST Inclusive) per m³of water consumed in excess of 91m³per every quarter invoicing period on any rating unit connected to any water supply, except Foxton Beach.

· $1.44 (GST Inclusive) per m³of water consumed in excess of 91m³per every quarter invoicing period on any rating unit connected to the Shannon untreated bore water supply.

· For Foxton Beach Water Supply

1. Step 1 - $1.25 (GST Inclusive) per m³for the first 50 m³of water consumed per quarter on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit connected to the Foxton Beach water supply network during the period from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026.

2. Step 2 - $2.50 (GST Inclusive) per m³for the second 50 m³of water consumed per quarter in excess of 50 m³ on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit connected to the Foxton Beach water supply network during the period from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026.

3. Step 3 - $3.75 (GST Inclusive) per m³for the balanceof water consumed per quarter in excess of 100 m³ on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit connected to the Foxton Beach water supply network during the period from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026.

(i) Wastewater Disposal Rates

A targeted rate for sewage disposal set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 to fund the Wastewater activity costs assessed on a differential basis as described below:

· A rate of $986.00 (GST Inclusive) for every rating unit that is connected to a reticulated wastewater disposal system.

Liability for the rate will be assessed on whichever is the greater of:

· each rating unit, or

· the number of SUIPs of each rating unit, or

· the number of connections to each rating unit.

· A rate of $493.00(GST Inclusive) for any rating unit that is available to be connected to a reticulated wastewater disposal system.

(j) Horowhenua Economic Development Rate

A targeted rate of $0.00042 (GST Inclusive) set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on every rating unit identified as Commercial, Industrial, mining or Utilities to fund a portion of the economic development spending across the district, assessed on capital value.

(k) Te Awahou Foxton Community Board Rate

A targeted rate set pursuant to section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $54.00 (GST Inclusive) on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit within the e Awahou Foxton Community Board electorate as outlined in the Funding Impact Statement.

DUE DATES FOR PAYMENT OF RATES

D. That all rates (except water-by-meter rates) will be payable in four equal instalments due on:

Instalment	Due dates	Penalty dates
Instalment One	15 September 2025	16 September 2025
Instalment Two	15 December 2025	16 December 2025
Instalment Three	15 March 2026	16 March 2026
Instalment Four	15 June 2026	16 June 2026

Water-by-meter rates due dates 2025-2026
Area	Water meters read during	Due date	Penalty dates
Foxton Beach 6-10, Shannon, Tokomaru	Jul-25	25-Aug-25	26-Aug-25
	Oct-25	25-Nov-25	26-Nov-25
	Jan-26	25-Feb-26	26-Feb-26
	Apr-26	25-May-26	26-May-26
Foxton Beach 1-5, Whirokino	Aug-25	25-Sep-25	26-Sep-25
	Nov-25	25-Dec-25	26-Dec-25
	Feb-26	25-Mar-26	26-Mar-26
	May-26	25-Jun-26	26-Jun-26
Levin, Ohau, Foxton	Sep-25	25-Oct-25	26-Oct-25
	Dec-25	25-Jan-26	26-Jan-26
	Mar-26	25-Apr-26	26-Apr-26
	Jun-26	25-Jul-26	26-Jul-26

PENALTIES

E. That the Council authorises the following penalties to be added to rates that are not paid by the due date:

i. a charge of 10 percent on so much of each instalment that has been assessed after 1^st July 2025 and which is unpaid after the due date of each instalment, to be added to the amount of the unpaid rates and water by meter rates on the penalty dates above,

ii. a charge of 10 percent on so much of any rates levied before the 1^st July 2025 which remain unpaid on 7^th July 2025,

iii. a further charge of 10 percent on any rates to which a penalty has been added under (ii) above if the rates remain unpaid on 8^th January 2026.

PAYMENT OF RATES

F. That all rates shall be payable by cash and eftpos at any of the following places:

Levin

Public Office

126-148 Oxford Street

Mon-Tue, Thu-Fri

Wed

9am to 5pm

9.30am to 5pm

Foxton

Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom

92 Main Street

Mon to Fri

Saturday & Sunday

9.00 am to 4.00 pm

10:00am - 3:00pm

Shannon

Library/Service Centre

Plimmer Terrace

Mon to Fri

First Saturday in the month only

1.00 pm to 5.00 pm

10:00am - 12:00pm

Tokomaru

Tokomaru Store

Tokomaru Road

During store opening hours

Alternatively, payment of rates can be made to the Council by direct debit, internet banking, automatic payment, telephone transfer or at NZ Post Shops. Credit card payments can only be made through the Council’s website, and are subject to a convenience fee.

Where a payment made by a ratepayer is less than the amount now payable, the Council will apply the payment firstly to any arrears outstanding from previous years and then to current year rates due.

Background | HE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA

Process

3. At the Council Meeting on 14 May 2025, Council adopted the Annual Plan 2025/26. The Annual Plan is consistent with the strategic and policy direction of the LTP 2024-2044.

4. For delivery of the capital programme, some capital project budgets have been to be rephrased to align with the timing now expected after progress in planning and development of a number of projects. This resulted in an overall reduction of $4.7m in total borrowings over the Long Term Plan period.

5. That report did not include setting the rates for 2025/26 because the final growth in the rateable properties will not be confirmed until mid-June. It was signalled that rates would be set at this Council Meeting, on 25 June 2025. This timing has enabled that calculation to be made with the latest possible count of the growth in rateable properties since 1 July 2024.

Rates increase

6. Council endorsed a preferred 11% total rates increase (before growth) for 2025/26 year in its meeting on 11 December 2024. Subsequently, officers were able to reduce the total rates increase of 11% down to 10.2%. This was presented in a Council workshop on 9 April 2025. Fixed costs such as interest and Council’s direction for us to stick to our financial strategy goal of a balanced budget by 2027/28 make up the majority of the proposed 10.2% total rates increase.

7. The increase in employee costs is offset by reduction in Maintenance – this is largely due to the Local Water team being brought in house in November 2024 requiring a re-alignment of future budget requirements.

Total Expenditure	2024/25 ($000)	2025/26 ($000)	% Increase/ decrease)
Depreciation	$23,385	$23,386	-
Interest	$7,624	$9,852	3.6%
Employee costs	$21,734	$24,179	3.9%
Maintenance	$18,245	$14,829	(5.5%)
Utilities	$1,762	$1,869	0.2%
Professional Services	$7,303	$6,971	(0.5%)
Insurance	$1,609	$1,936	0.5%
Other Expenses	$7,543	$9,854	3.7%
Fees and Charges	($8,790)	($10,150)	(2.2%)
Grants and Subsidies	($4,852)	($3,344)	2.4%
Debt funded opex	($5,848)	($5,387)	0.7%
Unfunded Depreciation	($7,594)	($5,299)	3.7%
Total Rates needed before growth	$62,121	$68,695	10.6%
Total Rates forecast for 2024/25	$62,337		(0.4%)
*Proposed total rates increase (before growth) for 2025/26*			10.2%

8. The reduction to a 10.2% total rates increase (before growth) from the proposed 11% signalled in 11 December 2024 Council meeting is due to further savings found within Council, and includes the following changes:

Changes	Amount for 2025/26 ($’000)	Rates impact for 2025/26 (%)
Revised total rates increase (before growth) for 2025/26		11%
Changes to subsidised Roading spend (Net decrease) - due to changes in NZTA Waka Kotahi funding for 2024/25 and 2025/26	-$554	-0.9%
Software Licence Fees for Local Waters	+$74	+0.1%
Mahi Space Revenue (new proposed fee)	- $5	-0.0%
Proposed total rates increase (before growth) for 2025/26		10.2%

9. At the 14 May 2025 Council Meeting officers gave advice, pending decisions on Local Waters Service delivery into the future, and the uncertainty about year-end growth projections, that Council should consider the adoption of resolution That the Council approve a total rates increase after (before growth) for 2025/26 of 10.2% (between 8.5 – 8.9% after growth).

10. Following confirmation of the final growth in the rateable properties in mid-June, officers can confirm that growth is 1.13%. This makes the final after growth number for the Annual Plan 9.1%. The total (before growth) rates increase is 10.2%

Next Steps | HEI MAHI

11. Recommendations adopted on 14 May 2025 enable the Chief Executive to amend the rating examples included in the Annual Plan document to ensure that they are in line with the final rates setting. This will be completed following Council’s decision’s at this meeting.

12. The online rates calculator, which had the placeholder figure to give ratepayers an indication of the rates they would be charged, will be updated with the final figures to show the actual amount ratepayers will be charged.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with sections 76 – 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Attachments | NGĀ TĀPIRINGA KŌRERO

There are no appendices for this report

Council

25 June 2025

File No.: 25/325

8.2 Waikawa Pedestrian Bridge

Author(s)

Lacey Winiata

Parks & Property Manager | Tumu Rawa, Papa Rēhia

Approved by

Brent Harvey

Group Manager - Community Experience & Services | Tumu Rangapū, Wheako Hapori, Ratonga

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer | Tumuaki

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. This report provides Council with options to consider regarding the future of the Waikawa Beach pedestrian bridge.

This matter does not relate to a current Council priority.

Executive Summary | TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA MATUA

2. The Waikawa Beach pedestrian bridge connects Waikawa Beach Road to private land across the Waikawa Stream. It was strengthened in 2019 and currently supports a 10-person load.

3. Following a 2024 petition with 781 signatures, Council requested a report on the bridge’s future. Community feedback to a Council survey showed strong local use.

4. A recent structural assessment recommends replacement as the most cost-effective long-term solution. Council has provisionally allocated funding in the 2025/2026 year.

5. Four options are presented, ranging from doing nothing to replacing the bridge with a suspension design. Key considerations include cost, environmental impact, accessibility, and consenting requirements. Engagement with the adjoining landowners and Ngāti Wehi Wehi is ongoing and will be vital in moving forward.

DELEGATION OR AUTHORITY TO ACT | TE MANA WHAKATAU I NGĀ KAWENGA

6. Council has the authority to make this decision.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT | He Aromatawai Matua

7. This matter is assessed as not significant according to the significance and engagement policy because the item was included in the Long Term Plan 2024 – 2044.

RECOMMENDATION | NGĀ TAUNAKITANGA

A. That Report 25/325 Waikawa Pedestrian Bridge be received.

B. That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.

C. That Council replaces the Waikawa Pedestrian Bridge with a like for like replacement, following further conversations with the private landowners with a confirmed long term agreement in place.

D. That no work is to be done on the Waikawa Pedestrian Bridge and Officers continue with regular inspections, eventually dismantling the bridge when it is no longer safe to use.

E. That Council replaces the Waikawa Pedestrian Bridge with a 20 load capacity suspension bridge, following further conversations with the private landowners with a confirmed long term agreement in place.

F. That Council replaces the Waikawa Pedestrian Bridge with an unlimited capacity suspension bridge, following further conversations with the private landowners with a confirmed long term agreement in place.

Background | HE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA

8. The Waikawa Beach pedestrian bridge is 57m long and is situated at the end of Waikawa Beach Road and crosses the Waikawa Stream. It leads users to privately owned land.

9. It was built in 1990, using second hand materials after the previous bridge was washed out.

10. The current bridge was strengthened by Council in 2019.

11. It currently has a load capacity of 10 people. There are signs and bollards to reduce the number and ensure only those on foot can use it.

12. At the 27 November 2024 Council meeting, a petition with 781 signatures was received, requesting “an assurance from the Horowhenua District Council that a Waikawa footbridge will be retained into the future for the benefit of the Horowhenua community.” As a result, Councillors requested a report on the matter be brought back to Council within 6 months.

13. Just prior to receiving the petition, Council surveyed the community via Council’s website, how often people used the bridge, where their usual residence was and what they used the bridge for.

13.1. Out of the 428 respondents, 66% had their usual address within Horowhenua and 57% of respondents used the bridge more than once a week.

14. Council currently commissions yearly structural reports are undertaken on the bridge, to ensure its safety. The most recent report was undertaken this year by WSP engineering, which found the bridge will require significant maintenance in the next 1-5 years to remain serviceable in the medium term. However, replacement is the more economical option.

15. The private land owners on the other side of the bridge had previously provided support of a replacement. However, very recent correspondence now shows the support may be reliant on a more formal agreement between Council and the land owners and therefore will require further conversations.

Discussion | HE MATAPAKINGA

16. According to the 2018 Census, Waikawa Beach has a population of 132. While we are still awaiting the 2023 Census results, estimates from Statistics NZ have the 2024 population at 180.

17. Population forecasting as adopted within Long Term Plan 2024-2044 forecasts Waikawa to see an additional 26 additional dwellings - 12 dwellings years 0-10, 14 dwellings years 11-20. Therefore, when planning for the future Council can consider low growth for Waikawa Beach.

18. As already mentioned, Council have had yearly inspections of the pedestrian bridge to ensure its safety. Council received the most recent report in May 2025, after the bridge was inspected in January 2025. It was provided by WSP Engineering and supplies a Preliminary Present Value End of Life Analysis. The proposed strategy, following inspection and analysis of ongoing maintenance vs replacement outlines that the bridge replacement should be carried out as early as possible.

19. During the Long Term Plan (LTP) Councillors allowed for a potential bridge replacement within 2025/2026 Financial Year. The current budget for this is $1.24m but is not only for the bridge replacement, it also includes any potential costs associated with a Waikawa Beach accessway. If Council decides to spend $500k on replacing the bridge, this will leave $740k for the Waikawa Beach accessway (dependant on a decision of Council).

20. In May 2025, Officers held a workshop with Councillors outlining the engineers report and seeking feedback on what other information was needed to support decision making. This report outlines that information for Councillors to consider.

Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa

Options \| Ngā Kōwhiringa	Cost	Estimated Lifespan	Risks	Benefits	Consenting pathway
Option A Like for Like replacement.	$360k + consenting and dismantling of current bridge costs.	With the timber elements of the current bridge, the estimated lifespan is 20 – 40 years. If Council was again to use recycled elements like the current bridge it would have an estimated lifespan of 20 years.	Consenting is a risk, due to the piers in the river. The Department of Conservation have already signaled they would not support elements touching the river.	This is what the community knows.	More difficult and likely to have higher cost, due to piers in the river.
Option B (status quo) No work is done on the bridge and continue with regular inspections, eventually dismantling the bridge when it is no longer safe to use.	Approx. $5k per inspection and cost of dismantling the bridge including consent, approx. $100k	1-3 years	Unhappiness in the community. The safety of the bridge remains a concern and Council will need to have increased monitoring.	Likely the cheapest option and does not need permission of anyone else.	Consent required to dismantle the bridge.
Option C Suspension bridge, with 20 person load restriction.	$450k + dismantling of $50-$80k and consenting costs.	Estimated 50 year life span.	The rare occasion where more than the load are on the bridge could be a concern. This could be managed with signage.	Design doesn’t touch the river. Ability to have a bridge that is wider to allow for push chairs and wheel chair users.	Easier consenting pathway.
Option D Suspension bridge, with unlimited load.	$700k + dismantling of $50-$80k and consenting costs.	Estimated 50 year life span.	Higher cost option.	Design doesn’t touch the river. Ability to have a bridge that is wider to allow for push chairs and wheel chair users. No concerns with load capacity.	Easier consenting pathway.

21. Second-Hand options were requested and advice has been sought from WSP Engineers who provided the following:

The current Waikawa footbridge itself appears to have been second-hand components or spans, as these well pre-date the 1990s construction date at this site.

There are a few challenges or drawbacks:

· It would likely be challenging to identify a structure being removed that fits this site and is not also at the end of its life.

· It would likely have a shorter useful life compared to a new bridge (As you have seen with the current footbridge).

· It limits the councils options compared a new bridge – eg is there a desire for a particular width, load capacity, or to limit piers in the waterway etc

However, if a suitable second-hand structure can be identified, this could come with cost savings and a lower environmental impact, so it is all about trade-offs.

22. While no second-hand options have been revealed at this stage, they can still be considered as part of the procurement process.

Options Commentary | He Tāpiringa Kōrero Mō ngā Kōwhiringa

23. Dependent on what option Council decides on, if Option A, C or D are the direction given Officers would follow an EOI process for a design and construct contract based on the direction of Council. This would mean we could stipulate what requirements we want and a site description. Through this process we can highlight that Council is open to alternative or non-confirming proposals, which could allow for second hand bridge options that would fit, but may only last say 20 years.

23.1. Advice from the Land Transport team is organisations with second hand bridges will likely be bridge companies who have taken one down and kept if its in good condition when they’ve been replacing it.

24. Previous conversations with the private land-owners who are on the opposite side of the bridge showed support for a replacement. Recent correspondents have highlighted the family now want further discussions with Council regarding a potential lease or arrangement. Therefore, should Council decide to replace the bridge, before any further steps are taken to procure a bridge, these conversations need to progress to give the community and Council confidence in the future of the bridge.

25. Information from the community suggests the only occasion the bridge has a larger amount on it at one time is during the boat race day. This occurs once a year, however has been cancelled the past two years due to contamination of the river. Therefore an unlimited capacity is thought to be unnecessary.

ENGAGING WITH MĀORI | TE MAHI TAHI KI TE MĀORI

26. Officers have kept Ngāti Wehi Wehi up to date as we have progressed through the process. There is greater support for options that have the least amount of impact on the environment.

27. There is also an interest to be included in Urban Design of any potential new bridge, to reflect Ngāti Wehi Wehi within the infrastructure.

CLIMATE CHANGE | NGĀ ĀHUARANGI HURIHURI

28. This project is assessed to have low – moderate climate change implications.

29. Geotech reports will ensure the bridge is not at risk of being impacted by flooding or king tides.

30. The options that do not have touch the river have a lower impact on the environment

31. The project as a whole as the ability to consider climate change and the environment in the way it is undertaken. For example, utilising a crane to dismantle the previous bridge and install new sections at a similar time to reduce transport emissions. The project plan will consider all potential mitigation efforts to reduce impact.

FINAnCIAL AND RESOURCING | TE TAHUA PŪTEA ME NGĀ RAUEMI

32. This work can be undertaken within the allocated budget was approved in the Long Term Plan.

Legal and Risk | Te Ture me ngā Mōreareatanga

33. Legal considerations need to be made regarding the land owners on the other side of the bridge. As mentioned, Officers are continuing to have these conversations with the landowners and will work towards an outcome that protects the interests of all parties.

POLICY IMPACT | NGĀ PĀTANGA I NGĀ KAUPAPA HERE

34. There are no known policy impacts.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT | TE WHAKAWHITI PĀRONGO ME TE MAHI

35. Communicating with the Waikawa Beach Community is key with this project. Through the survey we already have a wealth of knowledge on what the community values in regards to the bridge and will utilise that knowledge if Council decides to proceed in going out for an EOI.

Next Steps | HEI MAHI

36. Engaging further with the private land owners to create certainty for the community and Council is they key first step.

37. Once this is confirmed, Officers will communicate with the community the process for the EOI before following the appropriate procurement process should Council decide to proceed with replacing the bridge.

38. If Council does not replace the bridge, Officers will create a management plan for the bridge with a corresponding communication plan.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with sections 76 – 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Attachments | NGĀ TĀPIRINGA KŌRERO

No.	Title	Page
a⇩	WSP PVEoL Report - Waikawa Beach Footbridge - May 2025	34

Council

25 June 2025

File No.: 25/350

8.3 Waikawa Beach Accessway - Council Update

Author(s)

Lacey Winiata

Parks & Property Manager | Tumu Rawa, Papa Rēhia

Approved by

Brent Harvey

Group Manager - Community Experience & Services | Tumu Rangapū, Wheako Hapori, Ratonga

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer | Tumuaki

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. This report provides Council with an update on the Waikawa Beach vehicle access kaupapa, outlining the work undertaken to date, current status, and key issues influencing future decisions. It reflects the complexities of the matter and the evolving positions of key stakeholders, including iwi, Horizons regional Council and the community.

This matter does not relate to a current Council priority.

Executive Summary | TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA MATUA

2. This report provides an overview of Council’s work with community representatives, iwi, and Horizons regional Council regarding vehicle access at Waikawa Beach. Since the last update, officers have continued engaging with stakeholders, supported the establishment of a community group, explored potential access options, and received legal and planning advice. Due to the complexity and sensitivity of the matter, officers are not seeking decisions at this stage but are instead providing this update to inform Council and support further discussion on an appropriate pathway forward.

DELEGATION OR AUTHORITY TO ACT | TE MANA WHAKATAU I NGĀ KAWENGA

3. Council has the authority to receive and consider this report.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT | He Aromatawai Matua

4. This matter is assessed as significant under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy due to the high levels of community interest and the cultural and environmental sensitivities associated with vehicle access to Waikawa Beach. However, as this report is for information only and does not seek a decision at this stage, it does not trigger formal engagement requirements. Any future decision to progress a preferred access option or undertake formal consultation would require further assessment under the Policy

RECOMMENDATION | NGĀTAUNAKITANGA

A. That Report 25/350 Waikawa Beach Accessway - Council Update be received and noted.

B. That Report 25/350 Waikawa Beach Accessway - Council Update be received.

C. That this matter or decision is recognised as significant against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, primarily because of the high levels of community interest in the matter of vehicle access at Waikawa Beach.

D. That Council notes:

D.1. The collaborative work of the community group and their in-principle support for a controlled access trial.

D.2. The progress made in terms of community cohesion and the willingness of previously divided groups to collaborate constructively on potential solutions.

D.3. The legal advice indicating the risks of proceeding without further engagement and the need for clarity around objectives and options.

D.4. The continued community use of informal accessways despite signage and communication efforts.

E. That Council request officers continue to support and work alongside the community group and Ngāti Wehi Wehi to explore a potential access option, and report back to Council with updates on progress, including any new developments that may influence the feasibility or direction of any future access arrangement. This includes ongoing assessment of the viability of both controlled access and no access options.

bACKGROUND | hE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA

5. As previously presented in Council reports on this kaupapa (topic), in the past, vehicle access to Waikawa Beach has historically been provided by way of a single access point crossing privately owned land from the mouth of the Waikawa River, located at the end of Manga Pirau Street. This access had been graciously provided to the community by the landowner as a gesture of goodwill.

6. Maintaining that vehicle access point was challenging due to bank erosion from the adjacent Waikawa Stream and more frequent weather-related events. As a result, over the years there had been instances where local residents were unable to access the beach with their vehicles.

7. Management of this issue was previously undertaken by Horizons Regional Council, primarily through stream "cuts" to redirect the channel towards the sea. The consent for those remedial actions expired in 2020.

8. In November 2021, a petition with 158 signatures was submitted to Council, urging the establishment of a sustainable vehicle and equestrian access to Waikawa Beach, using council-owned land at Reay MacKay Drive. The petition was presented to the Council on 1 December 2021.

9. During the 2021-41 Long term Plan process, Council decided to provide budget for officers to identify and evaluate potential options for alternative long-term vehicle access (suitable for 4wd vehicles, ATV’s and tractors) to Waikawa Beach, and undertake a community engagement process to seek feedback on the identified options.

10. Council officers, in collaboration with external planning and environmental consultants (Boffa Miskell), identified and assessed various options for potential vehicle access to Waikawa Beach and presented five access options to Council at its meeting on 11 October 2023 (along with an option that would see no further action taken) .

11. The 11 October 2023 report received by the Council outlined several complex considerations, including financial, geomorphological, environmental, and consenting challenges, as well as the high levels of community interest in several of the options. At that time, the Council decided that it would consult the community on three options, two of which involved the existing access at Manga Pirau Street (but with different maintenance arrangements), with the third being no vehicle access.

12. A total of 446 submissions were received and reported to the Council at its 20 March 2024 meeting. Many of those submissions raised other options, and raised related general concerns with the matter of vehicle access.

13. At the 20 March meeting, the Council was advised that continuing to use the existing access over private land was no longer available. This led to the Council deciding to leave the matter on the table, with a request made for Officers to continue to explore potential alternative options for vehicle access, alongside the option of providing no vehicle access.

14. Following that meeting, Officers updated submitters and asked those who owned land that could potentially be utilised for access, to get in touch. Officers and community members also spoke with some private landowners who may have been able to provide access options on their land. No potential options were presented to Officers in response.

15. Council Officers also discussed the matter with Horizon’s Regional Council consenting team to obtain advice on what a consent process for access to Waikawa Beach may involve, including mitigation options to provide for a vehicle access way on Council owned land between 47-49 Manga Pirau St. The response from Horizons Regional Council requested a “technical report” on the option.

16. At the end of 2025, Boffa Miskell developed in draft, a schematic design for each of the three Council-owned land locations above, to understand if and how vehicle access could be practically constructed given the site constraints at each.

17. After updating the Council on progress at a workshop on 11 September 2024, Councillors requested a technical report to clearly outline the options, processes and costs associated.

18. A report was brought back to Council in December 2024 where advice was prepared and framed based on legal counsel.

DISCUSSION | HE MATAPAKINGA

What’s Currently Occurring

19. We are aware that members of the community are currently accessing the beach by vehicle via the accessway located off Manga Pirau Road. The access route is outlined in the map below and traverses multiple land parcels, including Horowhenua District Council-owned Recreation Reserve, Esplanade Reserve, and land managed by the Department of Conservation.

20. Since the establishment of the community group and the distribution of shared communications outlining that there is no formal vehicle access to the beach, there has been a reported improvement in inter-personal behaviour and a reduction in vehicle use of the track. However, some members of the community continue to use this accessway to drive onto the beach.

21. Council has installed additional signage indicating that this is not a vehicle access point. Despite this, we continue to face pressure from some groups to implement further deterrents to restrict vehicle use of the track.

22. As previously briefed to Councillors, there is a shared concern that installing physical barriers or bollards to prevent all access could escalate tensions within the community and risk undermining the positive progress made to date. There is also a strong likelihood that those determined to access the beach by vehicle would find alternative routes, further complicating the issue.

23. Officers are of the view that while Council could take a more enforcement-driven approach, the broader issue is one that will only be resolved through community buy-in and ownership. Accordingly, this matter is not one that rests solely with Council to resolve.

Community Group Meeting

24. The matter of vehicle access at Waikawa Beach has been one of the most complex and emotionally charged issues Council has dealt with in recent years. The fundamental tension lies between preserving a long-standing tradition of vehicle access — valued by many residents for recreation, fishing, and mobility — and the need to protect the sensitive ecological and cultural values of the coastal environment.

25. As previously reported to Council, the depth of feeling on this issue has led to significant tension within the community. This has included incidents of verbal abuse, social division, intimidation, and a breakdown of relationships between neighbours and community groups. These issues have extended beyond formal consultation, with reports of confrontations on the beach and in online forums or Social Media.

26. In response, and following direction from Council in December 2024, a community working group was formed. This group includes representatives from both those in favour of and those opposed to vehicle access. The group has met monthly and has shown a willingness to move beyond entrenched positions, issuing shared jointly agreed communications through their respective networks, focused on reducing community division and jointly exploring options.

27. Encouragingly, the group has made meaningful progress. While views remain diverse, there is now broad agreement on a set of shared values including the importance of safety, environmental protection, enforcement, and the need for any access to be clearly defined and well-managed. There is in-principle agreement that a vehicle accessway would only be acceptable, if it includes appropriate safeguards and is subject to a robust framework that prevents misuse and protects ecological values. This is a significant milestone in what has otherwise been a polarising issue.

Beach Bylaw

28. One of the strongest areas of agreement from the community working group is the need for a beach bylaw to be developed alongside any vehicle access to the beach. For many, this is a non-negotiable condition of any future access. A bylaw is seen as critical to:

· Regulate the type and timing of vehicle access;

· Support enforcement of speed limits and safe behaviour;

· Define areas of access and exclusion to protect bird nesting and dune restoration zones; and

· Provide a mechanism to address anti-social or inappropriate use of the beach.

29. Council officers introduced the concept of developing a beach bylaw at a workshop held on 19 March 2025. During this session, it became clear that Councillors hold a range of views on whether such a bylaw is necessary. While some saw it as a critical tool for managing behaviour and protecting the beach environment, others questioned its enforceability and overall value. Councillors requested further information from officers to help determine whether this work should continue. Officers intend to bring this matter back to Council in the coming weeks for further discussion and to respond to the questions raised.

Consenting Pathway

30. The consenting pathway for any new vehicle access is challenging, with all remaining options assessed as non-complying activities under Horizons’ One Plan due to the presence of “rare” and “threatened” habitats. This means any proposal must pass a “gateway test” — either that the effects are no more than minor, or the proposal aligns with policy direction.

31. The ecological assessments by Boffa Miskell indicate that all options would involve some level of dune disturbance, vegetation clearance, and construction within sensitive coastal environments. Further cultural assessment, including a potential Cultural Impact Assessment, will also be required. The consenting process is likely to be lengthy, costly, and potentially contested, with appeals anticipated regardless of the option selected.

32. Officers advise that a further consultation process is essential to determine whether there is sufficient community mandate to justify pursuing such a complex and uncertain consent process.

District wide Beach access

33. Council currently provides formal vehicle access to the beach at selected locations across the district, including Foxton Beach, Waitārere Beach, and Hōkio Beach. These access points are supported by appropriate infrastructure and signage and have been established to balance recreational use with environmental and cultural values.

34. However, not all coastal communities in the district have public beach vehicle access. This reflects the varied nature of our coastline and the need to carefully manage each location based on its specific environmental, cultural, and community context.

35. As noted earlier in this report, vehicle access at Waikawa Beach has historically been facilitated through the goodwill of a local whānau, who have allowed use of their privately owned whenua for this purpose.

Legal Advice

36. Ahead of the December 2024 Council meeting, two letters were received from legal representatives acting on behalf of separate Waikawa Beach community groups. Both letters raised concerns regarding the consultation process and signalled the likelihood of legal challenge should Council proceed with decisions on vehicle access without further engagement. In response, Council sought independent legal advice to assess the risks and inform next steps.

37. Legal advice has confirmed that the Council’s current approach to identifying and consulting on vehicle access options for Waikawa Beach carries a degree of legal risk if decisions are made without further engagement. The advice highlights that two of the options previously consulted on are no longer viable due to landowner decisions, and that some of the more recent options under consideration (e.g. Manga Pirau Street and Reay Mackay Grove accessways) have not yet been subject to public consultation.

38. Key risks identified include:

· Inadequate consultation: Proceeding without consulting on all reasonably practicable options may expose Council to judicial review, especially if new options are adopted that the community has not had an opportunity to comment on.

· Process fairness: The importance of demonstrating open-mindedness, transparency, and compliance with the principles of the Local Government Act 2002 was emphasised.

· Resource consent risks: Lodging a resource consent application ahead of formal consultation on access options could be interpreted as predetermination and may trigger additional legal challenges and public opposition.

39. The advice recommended that Council re-confirm its objective, identify all reasonably practicable options, and undertake a further consultation process before making any decision on applying for resource consent in relation to providing vehicle access to Waikawa beach.

Ngati Wehi Wehi Position

40. Officers have maintained ongoing engagement with Ngāti Wehi Wehi throughout this process, providing regular updates on community meetings, joint communications, and the evolving discussion around beach access. Ngāti Wehi Wehi has acknowledged these efforts; however, they have also provided a formal statement outlining their position on the proposed vehicle access to Waikawa Beach. This statement highlights cultural, environmental, and kaitiakitanga considerations that Ngāti Wehi Wehi believe must be central to any decision-making process regarding beach access.

1. Statement from Ngāti Wehi Wehi on Proposed Vehicle Access to Waikawa Beach

2. Ngāti Wehi Wehi, as mana whenua, respectfully express our current opposition to proposed vehicle access to Waikawa Beach. Our position is grounded in our role as kaitiaki and our enduring responsibility to protect the natural environment, uphold the mauri of the land and sea, and ensure the well-being of our taiao (natural world) for future generations.

3. We hold deep concerns about the impacts of vehicle access on the biodiversity, ecology, and cultural significance of the beach and surrounding environment. The sand dunes, shellfish beds, native species, and wider coastal ecosystem are highly vulnerable to damage caused by vehicles, and such impacts threaten both environmental integrity and cultural values.

4. While we acknowledge and support the aspirations of our wider community, we emphasise that any long-term solution must be inclusive and developed in true partnership. As mana whenua, Ngāti Wehi Wehi must be at the table for meaningful and constructive dialogue to occur. It is only through working collaboratively — with iwi, local whānau, the wider community, and relevant authorities — that a sustainable and respectful pathway forward can be found.

5. Ngāti Wehi Wehi also acknowledges and supports our whānau who have māori freehold land, private land, live at Waikawa and have, for many years, shown generosity in allowing public vehicle access through their private land. This goodwill has often gone unrecognised, and it is important to us that their voices and contributions are honoured in any future decision-making process.

6. We remain committed to engaging in good faith and seek a solution that protects the whenua, respects the rights of mana whenua and local whānau, and upholds the values we collectively share.

41. Officers met with a representative on behalf of Ngāti Wehi Wehi on 11 June to kōrero further about the current status of the beach access discussion and reaffirm their desire to remain closely involved. Ngāti Wehi Wehi reiterated the significance of this kaupapa to them, particularly in relation to their customary rights, responsibilities as kaitiaki, and the protection of the local environment. They expressed a strong interest in participating in future hui and emphasised the importance of engagement to ensure their perspectives are meaningfully reflected in any future decisions.

Options Considered

42. Officers have engaged with the community to assess whether there was any interest from local landowners in selling land to facilitate formal vehicle access to the beach at Waikawa. This included direct discussions with a property owner at the end of Manga Pirau Street to explore potential options and gauge their willingness to consider use of their land for this purpose.

43. The formation of the community group has marked a turning point in this long-standing issue, with representatives from across the spectrum both for and against vehicle access coming together in good faith. While perspectives remain diverse, there has been a notable shift towards collaboration, and all parties have made some level of concession in pursuit of a shared solution. As a result of this constructive engagement, there is emerging alignment on what a potential vehicle accessway could look like. Based on the discussions and work undertaken to date, the Manga Pirau Street access presents the only feasible option for further exploration, particularly in terms of progressing to the resource consent stage.

44. It is important to acknowledge that, based on the early conversations within the community group, any potential vehicle access is likely to include restrictions to ensure responsible use and minimise impacts. These may include limitations on the types of vehicles permitted, the introduction of a permit system, and controls on access times or seasonal usage. While the specific conditions are yet to be determined, it is critical to make clear that any future access would not be unrestricted and would be subject to appropriate management measures agreed in partnership with the community.

45. Given the context and the work undertaken to date, the range of practicable options available for is limited. In essence, there are two pathways: one is to take no further action and confirm that no vehicle access will be provided at Waikawa Beach, with residents directed to utilise existing access points at other beaches to the north and south of the community. The other is for Council to continue investigating the feasibility of a controlled vehicle access at Manga Pirau Road, acknowledging the progress made by the community group and the emerging consensus around this option.

46. It is important to note, however, that should a property come on the market in future that offers a simpler consenting pathway or improved access arrangement, Council should retain the flexibility to investigate this as part of its ongoing commitment to finding a balanced and durable solution

47. While no decisions are currently sought, officers note that the most viable remaining accessway option is at Manga Pirau, subject to further exploration, legal advice, iwi engagement, and resource consent considerations. Officers will continue monitoring and supporting community-led efforts, such as the proposed trial, and provide further updates as new developments arise.

Controlled Access Trial

48. The community group is exploring the feasibility if trailing a restricted vehicle access to the beach. This trial would serve as a practical test of how controlled access could operate in a real-world setting. The group is exploring options such as time-limited access, designated vehicle types, and a locally managed permit system. While still in the early stages of planning, the intention is to launch the trial as soon as possible, with a strong focus on monitoring, responsible use, and gathering insights to inform any long-term solution. Council officers are supporting the group to ensure the approach aligns with relevant regulatory requirements and risk considerations.

49. There is some further work to do here in respect to the legal and regulatory implications of the proposed trial. Officers have been advised that resource consent may be required, and are working with Horizons Regional Council to determine the thresholds and conditions that would apply. This includes clarifying whether the proposed activity meets permitted activity standards or would trigger a formal consenting process. Officers are also working with the community group to ensure that any proposed trial is appropriately scoped, clearly documented, and does not create undue risk for Council or breach environmental protections. Further updates will be provided to Council as this work progresses.

Walk on Waikawa (WoW) Position

50. Officers have received formal feedback from WoW in relation to the draft Council paper. While WoW acknowledges the comprehensive overview provided, they have raised several areas of concern for Council’s consideration. In particular:

· WoW remains cautious about the use of the term collaboration to describe the community group’s work to date, suggesting that constructive engagement more accurately reflects the nature of discussions, which have involved difficult and robust debate.

· WoW has indicated a willingness to explore the feasibility of a highly restricted trial of vehicle access at Manga Pirau Road, having shifted from their original position of opposing vehicle access entirely. This position is conditional upon any trial proceeding only with the appropriate consents and conditions as determined by Horizons Regional Council.

· WoW does not support community ownership and management of any trial. Their view remains that any trial should be Council-owned, Council-managed, and independently evaluated, including responsibility for navigating any required consent processes.

51. Officers will continue to work with all parties to ensure these perspectives are reflected and appropriately considered as the kaupapa progresses.

ENGAGING WITH MĀORI | TE MAHI TAHI KI TE MĀORI

52. Ngāti Wehi Wehi have expressed a clear and principled position on the proposed vehicle access to Waikawa Beach. As mana whenua, their opposition is rooted in their role as kaitiaki and the responsibility to protect the mauri of the land, coastal ecosystems, and culturally significant sites. They have raised concerns about the potential impact of vehicles on the natural environment, including dune systems, shellfish beds, and biodiversity.

53. Ngāti Wehi Wehi’s written statement affirms their willingness to engage in good faith, noting that any long-term solution must be inclusive and developed in true partnership. They have emphasised that mana whenua must be present at any hui where access options are discussed or decisions formulated, and they have acknowledged the importance of continuing to receive regular updates from Council. Ngāti Wehi Wehi have also expressed support for local whānau who have generously provided beach access via their private whenua in the past, and called for their contributions to be honoured in future decisions.

54. Council has maintained regular dialogue with Ngāti Wehi Wehi representatives throughout this process. Iwi have been invited to attend community group hui and have been encouraged to participate in discussions around the future of beach access at Waikawa. Council has provided consistent updates following each hui and has actively followed up to ensure that iwi remain informed and involved.

CLIMATE CHANGE | NGĀ ĀHUARANGI HURIHURI

55. The proposed vehicle access is located within a dynamic and sensitive coastal environment that is increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, intensified storm events, and coastal erosion. The Manga Pirau Street area, like much of the Horowhenua coastline, is already subject to natural coastal processes that are expected to increase in frequency and intensity over time.

56. Any long-term investment in access infrastructure must therefore be assessed through a climate resilience lens. This includes considering the durability of access routes, the potential for infrastructure damage or retreat, and the cumulative environmental impacts of continued access in a changing climate. Council will need to consider adaptive design, risk management strategies, and the potential for future relocation or decommissioning in alignment with its broader climate adaptation and resilience planning. These considerations will also form part of the consenting process under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Horizons Regional Council’s One Plan.

FINAnCIAL AND RESOURCING | TE TAHUA PŪTEA ME NGĀ RAUEMI

57. The costs associated with developing a formal vehicle accessway at Waikawa Beach are expected to be significant. These include costs for technical assessments, environmental and cultural reporting, planning and design, consenting processes (including possible appeals), and physical construction. Ongoing operational costs would also include signage, maintenance, monitoring, and enforcement.

58. Costs associated with the upcoming consultation phase, these are expected to be relatively modest in the context of the overall project and are considered a necessary investment to ensure transparent and inclusive decision-making. Should Council confirm a preferred pathway, further reporting will be provided on detailed costings and delivery requirements.

Legal and Risk | Te Ture me ngā Mōreareatanga

59. There are a range of legal and reputational risks associated with any decision to proceed with a vehicle accessway at Waikawa Beach. These include the potential for judicial review if decisions are made without adequate community consultation or if Council is seen to have pre-determined outcomes ahead of formal engagement. The legal advice received (summarised earlier in this report) confirms the importance of a robust, transparent process that fairly considers all reasonably practicable options.

60. There is also a risk that the consenting process could be unsuccessful due to the environmental sensitivity of the site and the strict requirements under Horizons Regional Council’s One Plan. Even if consent is granted, it may be subject to appeal or conditions that impact feasibility or affordability. Council must also manage potential risks to community cohesion, particularly if decisions are perceived to ignore key stakeholder views, including those of mana whenua <Insert text>

POLICY IMPACT | NGĀ PĀTANGA I NGĀ KAUPAPA HERE

61. This matter intersects with a number of existing Council policies, including the Significance and Engagement Policy, the Open Space Strategy, and Council’s Climate Action Plan. A future decision to establish vehicle access will also necessitate the development of complementary policy instruments, most notably a beach bylaw to support safe and responsible use.

62. Any long-term commitment to a vehicle accessway will require alignment with strategic planning documents, including reserve management plans, the Long Term Plan (LTP), and Council’s broader environmental and infrastructure investment priorities.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT | TE WHAKAWHITI PĀRONGO ME TE MAHI

63. Officers will ensure that any future consultation process is accessible, inclusive, and transparent. This will include written material outlining the options, community drop-in sessions, and opportunities for both online and in-person feedback.

64. Engagement will be designed to support a constructive dialogue between Council, iwi, residents, and other stakeholders. Officers will continue to work closely with Ngāti Wehi Wehi and the community working group to ensure their perspectives are reflected and respected throughout the process.

Communicating with our Community | Te Whakawhiti Pārongo ki te Hapori

65. A comprehensive communication plan will be developed to accompany the consultation process. This will include clear information about the background to the issue, the options being considered, and how people can have their say. Updates will be provided through Council’s website, social media channels, and local newspapers, supported by direct correspondence to previous submitters and key stakeholder groups.

Next Steps | HEI MAHI 

66. Officers will continue to support the community group and maintain engagement with Ngāti Wehi Wehi. Officers will also monitor informal vehicle use, gather additional technical and legal input as needed, and report back to Council on any new developments that may inform a decision on whether to consult on a preferred pathway.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with sections 76 – 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Attachments | NGĀ TĀPIRINGA KŌRERO

There are no appendices for this report

Council

25 June 2025

File No.: 25/348

8.4 Adoption of Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw

Author(s)

Vaimoana Miller

Compliance Manager | Tumu Tūtohu

Approved by

Brent Harvey

Group Manager - Community Experience & Services | Tumu Rangapū, Wheako Hapori, Ratonga

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer | Tumuaki

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. The purpose of this report is to present the final Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy for adoption by Council, incorporating changes recommended by the Hearings and Regulatory Committee, and to seek a resolution of Council to bring the bylaw into effect on 30 September 2025.

2. This report also seeks a limited delegation to the Chief Executive to make minor administrative amendments prior to commencement, specifically to allow for the inclusion of te reo Māori titles and corrections to formatting, grammar, and typographical, provided such amendments do not alter the intent or effect of the bylaw.

This matter relates to Delivering the Long-Term Plan 2024-44

Delivering the Long-Term Plan 2024-44

Executive Summary | TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA MATUA

3. The Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw work together to establish reasonable controls for dogs and their owners. Their purpose is to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance caused by dogs while ensuring appropriate recreational opportunities for dogs and their owners. The policy sets out how the Council will meet its regulatory responsibilities under the Dog Control Act 1996 (the DCA).

4. As part of the review process, Council chose to review the Responsible Dog Owner Approval (RDOA) process alongside the Dog Control Bylaw and Policy to ensure alignment across all dog control related documents. While not a requirement by legislation, this approach supports consistency, clarity for dog owners, and allow for more streamlined implementation by Officers.

5. At the 26 March 2025 Council meeting, Council adopted the proposed changes to the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw and draft RDOA for public consultation. Submissions were open from 27 March 2025 and closed on 30 April 2025. Seventy-six submissions were received.

6. Submissions were considered by the Hearings and Regulatory Committee of Council on 10 June 2025, where 8 submitters spoke in support of their written submission.

7. The minutes of the Hearings and Regulatory Committee meeting on 10 June 2025 were presented to Council to be received and noted earlier on today’s agenda.

DELEGATION OR AUTHORITY TO ACT | TE MANA WHAKATAU I NGĀ KAWENGA

8. Section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires every territorial authority to have a Dog Control Policy, and a bylaw made using the bylaw-making powers in the Local Government Act 2002 to enforce it.

9. Unless transferred to another Territorial Authority or our Regional Council, the decision-making authority for bylaws sits with the Council and cannot be delegated to a Committee of Council or other body (section 161 of the Local Government Act 2002).

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT | He Aromatawai Matua

10. This matter is assessed as significant because of the level of community interest, consistent with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

RECOMMENDATION | NGĀ TAUNAKITANGA

A. That Report 25/348 Adoption of Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw be received.

B. That this matter or decision is recognised as significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.

C. That Council resolve to adopt the Dog Control Policy, attached as Attachment A, and the Dog Control Bylaw, attached as attachment B as effective from 30 September 2025; and in doing so determines that in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act that:

C.1. A bylaw is still the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems of regulating Dog Control matters; and

C.2. That the Dog Control Bylaw 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. That the Chief Executive be authorised to make any necessary corrections or editorial changes that arise in producing the final published versions of the Dog Control Policy 2025 and Dog Control Bylaw 2025.

E. That Council approve the Responsible Dog Owner Approval Policy, attached as Attachment C, with the policy to become operational from 30 September 2025 and apply to the 2026/27 dog registration period.

Background | HE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA

11. Every council is required to have a policy on dogs and a bylaw to enforce it. The policy and bylaw work together to impose regulatory controls on dogs and their owners to minimise the danger, distress or nuisance that may be caused by dogs, and to balance this with enabling appropriate recreational access to public places in the district for dogs and their owners. This is the approach required by the Dog Control Act 1996.

12. All background matters relating to the proposed Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy were presented at the 26 March 2025 meeting of Council, where it was resolved to consult on the matter using the special consultative process. This meeting was open to the public and live-streamed. The recording is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=6C7cZNtxvIs

13. Two Council workshops were held on 29 January and 19 March 2025, to discuss the proposed changes and elected member feedback was incorporated into the draft documents. These workshops were open to the public and livestreamed. The most recent workshop held on 19 March 2025 was also included with the consultation information on Councils Lets Kōrero consultation platform. The workshop recordings are available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bf6NJQxYH0

14. Submissions were open from Thursday 27 March and closed on Wednesday 30 April 2025, and were considered by the Regulatory and Hearings Committee at the Public Hearing of submissions held on 10 June 2025.

15. The Hearings and Regulatory Committee recommended the adoption of the final draft Public Places Bylaw 2024, noting changes the committee recommended, via resolution, be incorporated into the final draft before its adoption. The changes recommended by the HARCC are presented in the report discussion below.

Discussion | HE MATAPAKINGA

16. Seventy-six submissions were received during the consultation process and were considered by the Hearings and Regulatory Committee (HARCC) on 10 June 2025. Eight submitters spoke in support of their written submissions, and the HARCC considered all submissions received and subsequent recommendations from Council Officers.

17. After reviewing the written and verbal submissions, the HARCC made the following recommendations that have been incorporated in the final version of the Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy for adoption:

17.1. That amendments be made to the schedule of on- and off-leash dog exercise areas to include on-leash status at the Rose Gardens, War Memorials, Thompson House Gardens, Cousins Avenue, Te Maire Park, and Stafford Street Esplanade; and confirm no changes to Holben Parade, Hudson/Wairarara Stream Park, Ōhau Domain, Argyle Avenue, and Waikawa Beach Reserve (resolution HARCC/2025/12);

17.2. That section 19 of the Dog Control Bylaw be renamed to “Dogs Requiring Temporary Exclusion from Public Places” to better reflect the content of the section (resolution HARCC/2025/15);

17.3. To amend Clause 12(a) to discourage prolonged tethering and promote secure fencing as the preferred means of containment, aligning the bylaw with upcoming national animal welfare regulations (resolution HARCC/2025/16);

17.4. To reinstate the Puppy Registration category in the Dog Control Policy to apply from the 2026-27 registration period (resolution HARCC/2025/17);

18. With all changes to the policy and bylaw included into the final versions attached (attachment A); the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw be recommended for adoption by the Committee, resolution HARCC/2025/21.

19. In addition to adopting the bylaw, officers recommend that Council delegate to the Chief Executive the authority to make minor editorial amendments to the bylaw and policy. This would enable the addition of te reo Māori titles and equivalent headings throughout the documents, as well as minor corrections to grammar, formatting, or typographical errors.

20. This proposed delegation reflects Council’s commitment to building cultural competency, promoting bilingual communication, and enhancing the clarity and professionalism of Council documents. These administrative changes would not alter the intent, meaning, or effect of the bylaw as adopted.

21. While the Local Government Act 2002 prohibits delegation of the power to “make a bylaw”, it does not prevent Council from delegating minor administrative tasks that do not impact the legal effect of the bylaw. This approach is consistent with accepted practice across local government and aligns with Council Officers’ cultural competency aspirations; and to ensure transparency, any amendments made under this delegation would be reported back to Council.

22. The Dog Control Bylaw is made using bylaw-making powers in sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act (LGA). Under the LGA, Council is required to review its bylaws within 5 years of it first being made (section 158), and then once every 10 years (section 159) thereafter, referred to as a statutory review.

23. Section 10AA of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) requires a Council to review their Dog Control Policy if the Dog Control Bylaw requires review. Therefore, the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw were reviewed side-by-side and consulted on through a combined review process.

24. Following the statutory review process undertaken for the Bylaw, Council Officers conclude that a bylaw and a stand-alone bylaw continues to be the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems as they relate to Dog Control matters in the Horowhenua, and that the bylaw as proposed for adoption does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

25. As the statutory review process has introduced new provisions to the Dog Control Bylaw, this means that if the bylaw is adopted, the newly introduced provisions will need to be reviewed in 5 years (as per section 158 of the LGA), with the pre-existing provisions remaining on the 10-year review cycle. With this in mind, it is the view of Officers that it would be administratively prudent and potentially efficient to review the entire bylaw in 5 years’ time. Both ensuring the statutory review of the bylaw provisions are carried out on-time as well as enabling a way for all provisions to fall into the same review cycle from then on.

Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa

26. There are four (4) options considered to be appropriate and are detailed in the table below. This report recommends that Council proceed with Option A, to adopt the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw incorporating the changes recommended by the Hearings and Regulatory Committee.

Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa

Benefits | Ngā Whiwhinga

Risks | Ngā Mōrearea

Option A (recommended)

Council adopts the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw incorporating the changes recommended by the Hearings and Regulatory Committee at the 10 June 2025 hearing.

Bylaw controls are in place to ensure health and safety, to protect the public from nuisance and to protect the natural environment in the control of dog in public places in the Horowhenua.

Public consultation was carried out as defined by the Local Government Act 2002, and due consideration was given to all submissions received through the Hearings and Regulatory Committee process; and therefore, giving rise to the democratic process of decision making entrusted to the HARCC.

The Bylaw may not align with some community views.

Option B (status quo)

Status Quo.

Do not continue with the adoption of the amended Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

This means the amendments the 2016 version of the bylaw do not proceed.

And, that Council refer the matter back to Officers with direction for further work.

There would be reduced time and cost associated with implementation of the bylaw.

The changes the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 that were consulted on will not be in effect.

There may be confusion by the public about why the proposed rules are now not in place.

Further work by Officers is required.

Option C (not recommended)

Council adopts the Dog Control Policy, Dog Control Bylaw and Responsible Dog Owner Approval process as originally drafted and consulted on without the recommendations of the Hearings and Regulatory Committee incorporated.

Bylaw controls are in place to ensure health and safety, to protect the public from nuisance and to protect the natural environment in management of dogs in public places in the Horowhenua.

The Bylaw may not align with some community views.

Does not give effect to the public consultation process carried out as defined by the Local Government Act 2002, and therefore, due consideration has not been given to all submissions received through the Hearings and Regulatory Committee.

Could give rise to legal challenge in the perception that Council failed to adequately account for the feedback received during the consultation process.

Options Commentary | He Tāpiringa Kōrero Mō ngā Kōwhiringa

Option A

27. Council adopts the Dog Control Policy, Dog Control Policy and RDOA process incorporating the changes recommended by the Hearings and Regulatory Committee.

28. This option gives effect to the public consultation process carried out as defined by the Local Government Act 2002, and the authority entrusted on the Hearings and Regulatory Committee in considering all submissions received, and in making recommendation to Council on the final draft version of Dog Control documents for adoption.

Option B

29. Status Quo, and the matter be referred back to Officers for further work.

30. This option would result in the current Dog Control Policy, Dog Control Bylaw, Selected Owner Policy continuing to be operative. Any new proposed changes introduced, including the new RDOA process referred to in the amended Policy do not take effect.

Option C

31. Council adopts the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Policy as originally drafted and consulted on without the recommendations of the Hearings and Regulatory Committee incorporated.

32. This option does not give effect to the public consultation process carried out as defined by the Local Government Act 2002, and therefore, due consideration has not been given to all submissions received through the Hearings and Regulatory Committee.

33. Could give rise to legal challenge in the perception that Council failed to adequately account for the feedback received during the consultation process.

ENGAGING WITH MĀORI | TE MAHI TAHI KI TE MĀORI

34. As part of our ordinary consultation process, Officers contacted Te Tumatakahuki, Muaūpoko and Rangitāne o Manawatū to invite feedback during the consultation.

CLIMATE CHANGE | NGĀ ĀHUARANGI HURIHURI

35. The Dog Control Bylaw and Policy have low climate change implications, as their primary focus is on public safety and responsible dog ownership rather than directly addressing climate change. While some provisions, such as restrictions in ecologically sensitive areas (such as the bird sanctuary at the Manawatū estuary), may indirectly support climate adaptation efforts, the overall impact of the bylaw and policy on climate change mitigation or adaptation is minimal.

FINAnCIAL AND RESOURCING | TE TAHUA PŪTEA ME NGĀ RAUEMI

36. Council Officers are requesting the Policy, Bylaw and RDOA process be effective from 30 September 2025 to enable kaimahi to set up the systems necessary to implement the new provisions, and to transition those dog owners that currently hold a “selected owner status” or “NZKC status” onto the new RDOA process.

37. Many of these costs are difficult to quantify until the changes to the policy and bylaw are confirmed. While many are business-as-usual costs or anticipated costs, major changes to the areas regulated in the policy will require new signs to be installed. While there are no legally prescribed requirements about dog control signage, Officers acknowledge that signs help people to understand the rules.

38. Dog control activities are funded from dog registration fees, including compliance and enforcement activities. Signs installed in parks and reserves come from the Parks & Property budgets with some contribution from the regulatory Compliance activities.

Legal and Risk | Te Ture me ngā Mōreareatanga

39. Section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires every territorial authority to have a Dog Control Policy, and a bylaw made using the bylaw-making powers in the Local Government Act 2002 to enforce it.

40. The Local Government Act 2002 provides that the power to make a bylaw must be exercised by the Council and cannot be delegated. Accordingly, the adoption of the Dog Control Bylaw 2025 and Dog Control Policy 2025 must be made by Council resolution.

41. Council is required under the Local Government Act 2002 to resolve that bylaws are the most appropriate way of addressing particular issues. This process for review required by section 155 of the LGA consists of the following two stages:

41.1. Section 155(1) requires Council to determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem;

41.2. Section 155(2) and (3) requires Council to consider whether the format of the bylaw is appropriate; and whether any aspect is in conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

42. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) protects those freedoms and rights that are fundamental to a free and democratic society. In reviewing the bylaw, the Council is required to consider whether or not it gives rise to any implications under the NZBORA. Section 155(3) of the LGA states that no bylaw may be made which is inconsistent with NZBORA, but section 5 of NZBORA specifically authorises reasonable limits on rights that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

43. Freedom of movement is a freedom protected by the NZBORA in the democratic and civil rights section. Freedom of movement protection arguments could be made in relation to restrictions on people being able to enter certain public places when accompanied by their dog, or where there are restrictions on that movement (such as requiring a dog leash to be used). However, the Dog Control Act specifically allows councils to identify any public places where dogs are "prohibited, either generally or at specified times" or "particular public places or parts of the district" where dogs must be "controlled on a leash".

44. The Dog Control Act also expressly allows councils to develop bylaws that restrict access to particular public places for people when accompanied by their dog, as long as the restrictions relate to the purpose of the Dog Control Act (which is largely about reducing the negative impacts of dogs).

45. Given that these restrictions are permitted, a corresponding restriction on freedom of movement (if any) can be understood as a reasonable limit on the right that can be justified in a free and democratic society.

46. The intent of NZBORA considerations in bylaw development is to ensure that bylaws do not unreasonably limit the right to certain freedoms. The intention of dog control bylaws is the prevention of harm (either to people, wildlife, animals or property) and in this sense, limiting the movement of people (when accompanied by their dogs) in some public places and for specified reasons, is a proportionate response and a justified limitation for the prevention of harm. In any case, arguably, people still have the right to move freely through those public places and the restriction is on the dog, not on the dog owner when the dog is not with them.

47. For these reasons, Officers consider the proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the NZBORA.

POLICY IMPACT | NGĀ PĀTANGA I NGĀ KAUPAPA HERE

48. The Bylaw and Policy is intended to be implemented using current operational policies and guiding documents, such as Councils current Compliance Strategy, and Compliance and Enforcement Guidelines.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT | TE WHAKAWHITI PĀRONGO ME TE MAHI

49. If adopted, communication of the adoption of the Policy and Bylaw will need to be advertised through public notice in the local newspaper circulating in the district, as well as publicly notified on Councils website; and

50. If adopted, the Policy, Bylaw and RDOA process will need to be published on Councils website under Bylaws and Policies, and amendments made to Councils publicly available information to reflect the changes.

51. If adopted, the new bylaw communicated to staff for use effective from 30 September 2025.

Next Steps | HEI MAHI 

52. If adopted, public notice will need to be given on the Bylaw, as well as Council’s website and a schedule put in place to review/update signage in public places reflect the changes; and a copy of the Dog Control Policy, Dog Control Bylaw be communicated to all dog owners.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with sections 76 – 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Attachments | NGĀ TĀPIRINGA KŌRERO

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Dog Control Policy 2025	57
b ⇩	Attachment B - Dog Control Bylaw 2025	69
c ⇩	Attachment C - Responsible Dog Owner Approval (RDOA) process	97

Council

25 June 2025

File No.: 25/370

8.5 Adoption of Strategic Recreation Investment Framework

Author(s)

Mark Hammond

Community Facilities and Services Manager | Tumu Hanga Tukuora Hapori, Ratonga Hapori

Lacey Winiata

Parks & Property Manager | Tumu Rawa, Papa Rēhia

Approved by

Brent Harvey

Group Manager - Community Experience & Services | Tumu Rangapū, Wheako Hapori, Ratonga

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer | Tumuaki

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. This report seeks Council adoption of the final Strategic Recreation Investment Framework (the Framework), following a series of Councillor workshops and community engagement.

This matter relates to Enabling balanced growth with fit for purpose infrastructure.

Conduct appropriate investigations in key strategic focus areas-including aquatics, parks, property, and sports-preparing for informed decision making ahead of the next Long Term Plan.

Continue integrated growth planning to inform future capital investments.

Executive Summary | TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA MATUA

2. This report presents the final Strategic Recreation Investment Framework (the Framework) for Council adoption. Developed in collaboration with Visitor Solutions and shaped by a series of Councillor workshops, the Framework provides a transparent and consistent approach to prioritising recreation investments across the Horowhenua District.

3. The Framework responds to Council’s desire for greater strategic clarity following previous Long Term Plan discussions, particularly around large-scale projects such as Levin Aquatic Centre and Donnelly Park. It establishes key evaluation criteria, investment principles, and alignment with growth and wellbeing strategies.

4. Councillor feedback during the development process has been supportive and constructive. The Framework also reflects national and regional best practice, drawing on documents such as Sport NZ’s Spaces and Places Framework and He rā ki tua – Horizons Region Spaces and Places Plan.

5. Once adopted, the Framework will be implemented through a live dashboard tool to support decision-making and visibility across the project pipeline. While there are no immediate financial implications, the Framework will be used to inform future Long Term Plan, Annual Plan, and significant investment decisions relating to sport and recreation.

6. Adopting the Framework now enables Council officers to proceed with the development of an Action Plan (Key Moves) and the completion of the network needs analysis, which will be reported back to Council in August 2025.

DELEGATION OR AUTHORITY TO ACT | TE MANA WHAKATAU I NGĀ KAWENGA

7. Council has the delegation and authority to adopt the Framework.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT | He Aromatawai Matua

8. This matter is assessed as not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because it does not involve changes to levels of service or financial decisions at this stage. However, the Framework will guide future decisions which may individually be significant and subject to separate assessments and engagement.

RECOMMENDATION | NGĀ TAUNAKITANGA

A. That Report 25/370 Adoption of Strategic Recreation Investment Framework be received.

B. That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.

C. That Council adopts the Strategic Recreation Investment Framework as set out in Attachment one of this report.

D. That Council instructs the Chief Executive to implement the Framework and use it to support the development of advice for Council to inform future Long Term Plan, Annual Plan, or other significant investment decisions relating to sport and recreation

E. That Council approve the Chief Executive to make any future editorial changes to the Framework.

Background | HE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA

9. Horowhenua District Council manages an extensive network of parks, pools, open spaces, and recreational facilities. Investment in these assets must be balanced, strategic, and responsive to changing community needs.

10. During Long Term Plan deliberations, Councillors discussed how significant recreation investments, particularly for Levin Aquatic Centre and Donnelly Park, should be prioritised. The Chief Executive suggested that a strategic framework could support more consistent and informed decision-making across the recreation network.

11. Following a procurement process, Council officers engaged Visitor Solutions who are a consulting firm who specialise in recreation policy and strategy. Additionally, they have a proven track record of completing similar pieces of work for other Local Government authorities.

12. Since January 2025, Council officers have been working alongside Visitor Solutions to develop the Framework.

13. A Steering Group was formed from the conception of this project. Members of the Steering Group include Council’s Parks and Property Manager, Community Facilities and Services Manager, Aquatic Facilities Manager, Integrated Growth and Planning Manager, Green by Nature’s Operations Manager and a representative from Sport Manawatu. The Steering Group’s role was to assist Visitor Solutions with their planning, sense check any of their findings and to provide direction on operational matters.

Discussion | HE MATAPAKINGA

14. Councillors were engaged at key stages of the Framework’s development through a series of workshops. These sessions ensured elected members had oversight of the process and provided opportunities to shape the content. The workshops were held as follows:

14.1. March Workshop – Confirmed the scope of the project and gathered Councillors’ expectations of the Framework.

14.2. April Workshop – Presented the initial draft, discussed investment principles and high-level evaluation criteria, and introduced the proposed process.

14.3. May Workshop – Reviewed the refined draft and confirmed any final changes ahead of adoption.

15. Feedback from Councillors was positive and constructive, providing clear direction to both Visitor Solutions and officers. This affirmed that the Framework was on track and aligned with expectations.

16. The final Framework (Attachment 1) reflects that feedback. It is designed to be practical, user-friendly, and easy for officers to apply when preparing advice on recreation investment.

17. In developing the Framework, the focus was on building upon existing strategies and processes rather than creating new ones. This approach strengthens alignment with Council’s wider strategic work and intended to give Councillors confidence in the Framework’s relevance. Key connections include:

17.1. The Community Wellbeing Committee has been identified as a well-established Committee that can support the Framework process in an informing way as they can provide community views on potential projects, represent a wide cross section of the community and could identify potential enhancements to projects. In addition, the Committee’s role is to ensure the delivery of Council’s Community Wellbeing Strategy which also has strong wellbeing linkages to what the Framework is trying to achieve.

17.2. From the outset of the planning of this Framework, growth has taken centre stage and has been carefully considered ensuring that the Horowhenua Growth Strategy and Integrated Growth Programme is aligned with the Framework. The Framework promotes enabling growth, responding to growth and delivering on growth.

17.3. External partners play an important role in the success of the Framework which is why consideration has been given to Sport NZ’s Spaces and Places Framework and at a regional level He rā ki tua – Horizons Region Spaces and Places Plan for Sport and Recreation which in turn allows us to consider neighbouring Council’s as well.

18. On page 8 of Attachment 1, an overview is illustrated which demonstrates the magnitude of Framework and the different layers that are to be considered. Of particular note and a significant part of the Framework is project evaluation. The Framework has different components for project evaluation when considering strategic recreation investment.

18.1. Impact assessment - The assessed level of impact the project (and investment) will have on Horowhenua residents and the District. This involves using the righted criteria that was workshopped with Councillors.

18.2. Network assessment - Understanding how critical it is or will the facility be within the facility network and when is it required.

18.3. Council’s role and investment required or sought - Understanding the role that Council plays in regards to that particular facility or project – whether that be own, develop, deliver or operate.

19. As a result of the Framework and considering those different components, Council officers will prepare a live dashboard that creates a list of projects that are within Council’s Long Term Plan but also provides the ability for new or re-assessed projects to be considered which may fall outside of a Long Term Plan or Annual Plan. Initial thoughts by Council officers is that this dashboard be included in each Full OPR (Organisation Performance Report) to ensure that elected members and the community have full visibility of upcoming projects and how they have been assessed against the Framework.

20. As a result of a project being gone through the Framework, any recommendations and proposed actions continue to sit with Council and their ability to making informed Council decisions in accordance with the Local Government Act.

Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa

21. Council has three options to consider in relation to the adoption of the Framework.

Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa

Benefits | Ngā Whiwhinga

Risks | Ngā Mōrearea

Option A (recommended)

Council adopt the Strategic Recreation Investment Framework

Establishes a transparent, consistent, and robust framework for recreation investment.

Supports strategic alignment with the Long Term Plan, Growth Strategy, and Wellbeing Strategy.

Provides clear evaluation criteria, helping elected members make evidence-based decisions.

Builds community confidence in Council’s decision-making processes.

Enables better prioritisation of projects across the network.

Allows for integration with regional and national planning frameworks

Community and stakeholders may have increased expectations regarding delivery.

The dashboard and process will require ongoing maintenance and updates.

Option B (status quo)

Do not adopt the Framework and continue with the current approach.

No change required to existing processes or reporting structures.

Retains flexibility for Councillors to consider projects on a case-by-case basis.

Greater risk of inconsistent or reactive investment decisions.

Difficulty in justifying prioritisation of projects in the absence of a clear framework.

Reduced transparency for community and stakeholders.

May lead to inefficient allocation of resources or duplication of efforts.

Missed opportunity to align with strategic documents and national/regional frameworks.

Option C (not recommended)

Delay adoption to allow further refinement and workshopping.

Provides additional time for stakeholder engagement or refinement.

Allows Council to incorporate any last-minute insights or changes.

May cause confusion or uncertainty about how recreation projects should be prioritised in the interim.

Could result in decision-making occurring without the guidance of a structured approach.

May lead to stakeholder frustration if progress appears stalled

ENGAGING WITH MĀORI | TE MAHI TAHI KI TE MĀORI

22. Engagement with iwi and mana whenua has been welcomed throughout the development of the Framework, with kōrero held with various iwi and hapū partners as part of the process.

23. The Framework recognises the importance of cultural values and ensures Māori perspectives are considered, particularly where projects involve land, taonga, or have implications for community wellbeing.

24. As outlined on page 17 of Attachment 1, iwi and hapū are identified as strategic partners in the Framework, reflecting their integral role in shaping recreation outcomes.

25. It is important to note that applying the Framework does not replace Council’s existing obligations to engage with iwi and hapū. When a project is identified and assessed through the Framework, Council officers will continue to initiate or maintain engagement as part of the standard reporting process

CLIMATE CHANGE | NGĀ ĀHUARANGI HURIHURI

26. The Framework includes ‘Enriched Environment’ as assessment criteria for recreation investment projects. This ensures that future facilities and projects will try to align with Council’s climate objectives and contribute to adaptive, low-emission infrastructure.

FINAnCIAL AND RESOURCING | TE TAHUA PŪTEA ME NGĀ RAUEMI

27. There are no immediate financial implications of adopting the Framework.

28. Future resourcing and investment decisions influenced by the Framework will be subject to separate reports and budget approvals mostly through Long Term and Annual Plans.

Legal and Risk | Te Ture me ngā Mōreareatanga

29. There are no identified legal risks associated with adopting the Framework.

30. The Framework strengthens Council’s compliance with sections 76–82 of the Local Government Act by ensuring investment decisions are well-informed and aligned with community outcomes.

POLICY IMPACT | NGĀ PĀTANGA I NGĀ KAUPAPA HERE

31. The Framework will become a foundational working document which will help guide future policy development and updates to existing recreation, growth, and wellbeing strategies.

32. It may inform amendments to related Council policies over time, including the Parks and Open Spaces Strategy and associated asset management plans.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT | TE WHAKAWHITI PĀRONGO ME TE MAHI

33. Councillors, partners, and parts of the recreation community have been engaged during the Framework’s development through workshops and targeted stakeholder input. Throughout that engagement, feedback has been positive and the objectives of the Framework has been well received. In particular, sports clubs and codes that officers have met with, have in general expressed their support for the Framework and can see the benefits that it will have for the wider sport and recreation network.

34. No further consultation is required for adoption.

Communicating with our Community | Te Whakawhiti Pārongo ki te Hapori

35. Given that the Framework is an internal tool for Council to use when assessing projects and facilities, there is no intention to carry out any future communication to the community other than informal dialogue with our partners and stakeholders.

Next Steps | HEI MAHI 

36. Two key pieces of work will follow adoption of the Framework: the continuation of the network needs analysis and the development of an Action Plan, also referred to as the Key Moves. Identifying and assessing these Key Moves relies on the Framework being in place, as it provides the structure and criteria for evaluation. Adoption at this stage enables that next phase of work to proceed.

37. Once the network needs analysis and Action Plan are complete, Council officers will report back to Council in August, seeking endorsement or adoption of the identified Key Moves.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with sections 76 – 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Attachments | NGĀ TĀPIRINGA KŌRERO

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Horowhenua Strategic Recreation Investment Framework	108

Council

25 June 2025

File No.: 25/328

8.6 Adoption of Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035

Author(s)

David McCorkindale

Group Manager - Vision & Delivery | Tumu Rangapū, Matawhānui Hapori, Whakarite

Approved by

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer | Tumuaki

David McCorkindale

Group Manager - Vision & Delivery | Tumu Rangapū, Matawhānui Hapori, Whakarite

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. This report presents the Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035 to Council for adoption.

This matter relates to Delivering the Long-Term Plan 2024-44

Delivering the Long-Term Plan 2024-44

Executive Summary | TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA MATUA

2. In 2024 Council and The Horowhenua Company Limited (THCL) jointly commissioned Sage Bush to prepare a report and provide advice on Council’s existing economic development strategy.

3. Council considered the findings of the Sage Bush Report in October 2024 and made the decision that the Economic Development Strategy be updated to reflect the findings of the Sage Bush Report.

4. The Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035 (Strategy) has been prepared by THCL, Council officers and has had input from local iwi, hapu and community and business leaders.

5. The Strategy is intended to guide the investment of energy, effort and resources in economic development over the next 10 years. The order of priorities will come from the Implementation Plan to be finalised once the Strategy has been adopted. The Strategy will be used to inform work programmes and the work to be delivered through the new economic development services contract with THCL.

DELEGATION OR AUTHORITY TO ACT | TE MANA WHAKATAU I NGĀ KAWENGA

6. The authority to act with regards to this report is based on the Council’s terms of reference, specifically 1.1(n): “The Council’s terms of reference include the following powers which cannot be delegated to committees, officers or any other subordinate decision-making body. In addition, Council can: (n) approve Council policy and strategy”.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT | He Aromatawai Matua

7. This matter is assessed as not significant because receiving the report and any associated resolutions do not; involve a strategic asset, or have a direct financial or rates impact, or impact on levels of service specified in the Long Term Plan 2024-44, and is not a matter of high public, community or cultural interest or have an environmental impact.

RECOMMENDATION | NGĀ TAUNAKITANGA

A. That Report 25/328 Adoption of Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035 be received.

B. That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.

C. That Council adopt the Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035.

D. That the Chief Executive be authorised to make any necessary corrections or editorial changes that arise in producing the final published version of the Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035.

Background | HE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA

8. Council in adopting the Community Outcomes as part of the Long Term Plan 2024-44, adopted the Vibrant Economy Community Outcome, which reads “We are business friendly, supporting diversity and resilience in our local economy and work with others to make our economy grow. We aspire for economic security for all of our people and seize growth opportunities for our district”. This report specifically relates to Council’s strategic approach to economic development in Horowhenua.

9. At the 30 October 2024 Council meeting, Council agreed to updating the existing Economic Development Strategy to reflect the findings of the Sage Bush report and take a 10 year view out to 2035.

10. Through the interviews and preparation of the Sage Bush report, six opportunities arose as the highest priority for the next 10 years. These include;

10.1. Realise Ō2NL opportunities – ensure a high focus on Ō2NL so that potential opportunities are not missed.

10.2. Increase land supply – make more commercial/industrial zoned land available for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution activity.

10.3. Improve land affordability – increase the supply of commercial/industrial zoned land to put downward pressure on the price of existing land.

10.4. Promote Horowhenua – establish a unique identity for Horowhenua and market the district to attract visitors and attract and retain workers.

10.5. Support a diverse community – form a holistic view of the type of residents desired and develop appropriate growth targets.

10.6. Foster an active and vibrant community – develop options to improve social, cultural, recreational, sporting and educational opportunities to attract visitors and attract and retain workers.

11. The Sage Bush report recommended that Council modify the Strategy for the next 10 years to focus on achieving the above six high priorities.

12. It is acknowledged that several of these priorities are already current workstreams of Council or those associated with Council. The work of the Integrated Growth workstream, will support the increased land supply and contribute to improving land affordability through District Plan changes to rezone land and ensuring the availability of infrastructure to support growth. Work undertaken as part of the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee has included identifying land suitable for future industrial development. The Destination Management workstream will continue to actively promote Horowhenua and the opportunities the district offers. Workstreams across the Parks function and Community Development function continue to support and provide a range of social, cultural, recreational, sporting and educational opportunities. There is confidence that these current workstreams will continue to be prioritised to ensure they positively contribute to the economic development for the district.

13. Of the six opportunities identified it is the opportunities associated with Ō2NL that Council has not yet actively sought to realise in a way that benefits the economic development of the district. The certainty of Ō2NL progressing and the associated opportunities being more tangible now the project has progressed to the design phase, are elements that previously did not have enough certainty to be included in the component parts of the Economic Development Strategy when it was previously prepared.

14. The Sage Bush report identifies a suite of actions that Council can consider implementing to help achieve Council’s high-level economic goals for Horowhenua. These include Council adopting the following three high-level economic development goals for the next 10 years;

14.1. Dynamic, productive and resilient local economy.

14.2. Wider economic benefits of Ō2NL are maximised.

14.3. Horowhenua is regarded as a great place to live, work and play.

15. The Sage Bush report recommended a series of next steps. These included:

15.1. Bring together a group of Horowhenua business and community leaders to agree the detailed actions needed to realise the wider economic benefits of Ō2NL;

15.2. Review the updated economic development strategy following the consultation with business and community leaders;

15.3. Review and develop measures and targets which support economic development goals

15.4. Develop timelines and milestones for the key targets.

16. Officers have closely followed this direction using the findings and recommendations in the Sage Bush report to prepare the Strategy.

17. It is acknowledged that the Strategy has been prepared based on the best information at the time of writing. There are several moving pieces (projects or workstreams) that are currently already underway and therefore have potential to date quickly in terms of how they are referenced in the Strategy given the speed of progress.

Discussion | HE MATAPAKINGA

18. The Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035 sits within a strategic context and has been carefully crafted to ensure that the connections between this Strategy, and the other strategic documents such as Growth Strategy, Horowhenua Blueprint and Community Wellbeing Strategy.

19. In working with the direction from the Sage Bush Report, the key focus has been maintained however there have been some phrasing or wording changes that have made during the preparation to make it a better fit to our Horowhenua context.

20. A further change has been to combine some of the key priorities where overlaps were identified, which had the effect of reducing these from six to four.

21. As a result the Economic Development Strategy identifies the following goals and key opportunities. The three goals are: A thriving and resilient local economy; Seizing the opportunities from O2NL; and A place people choose.

22. The four priorities identified are framed in the following way:

22.1. Realise the opportunities available to us with the construction of O2NL.

22.2. Create and deliver a clear land supply and development strategy to enable the right investment at the right time.

22.3. Promote Horowhenua as a place to live and invest, encouraging residents and businesses to invest in the region.

22.4. Foster a diverse and vibrant community, one that comes together regularly to celebrate its diversity.

23. Within the Strategy there is the acknowledgement that Horowhenua is a pre-treaty settlement district with both Muaūpoko and Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga yet to complete their respective treaty settlement processes. With the Strategy having a 10 year horizon to 2035, it is anticipated that midway through that horizon, the treaty settlements for Muaūpoko and Raukawa will be completed and local iwi and hapu will stand to become some of the most significant economic players in the district context. It will be important to consider the two environments (pre and post settlement) and ensure that Māori economic development is set up for success in a way that benefits not only local Māori but also the broader district.

24. While the Draft Economic Development Strategy was shared with both Te Tumatakahuki and Muaūpoko Tribal Authority in the preparation phase and their support and feedback from the respective engagement has been incorporated within the Strategy, it is acknowledged that the engagement undertaken to date should only be seen as a starting point on the kaupapa. A key action that has been identified in the Strategy is the development of a Maori Economic Development Plan. This is seen as a key piece of work that should be an early priority following adoption of the Strategy. This Plan would be developed collaboratively with local iwi/hapu through further engagement and working together to capture the actions and outcomes that will make a tangible difference for Māori in Horowhenua.

25. A range of indicators have been included in the Strategy. These indicators will help identify if the economic development work being undertaken is making a difference or not to economic growth in the district. It is acknowledged that some of the indicators (GDP for example) will be more heavily influenced by larger macro factors than the actions and implementation of this Strategy. Nonetheless it is helpful to have a benchmark and be able to track progress.

Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa

26. Option A – Adopt the Horowhenua Economic Strategy 2025-2035.

27. Option B – Delay adopting the Horowhenua Economic Strategy 2025-2035 and direct officers to undertake specific additional work to enable the Strategy to be adopted at a future date.

Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa

Benefits | Ngā Whiwhinga

Risks | Ngā Mōrearea

Option A (recommended)

Adopt the Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035, this will result in Council confirming at a high level the direction for energy, effort and investment in economic development over the next 10 years.

Adoption of the Strategy would confirm the direction for economic development. It would provide without delay the mandate and direction for officers to act on. Adoption would also support the process of confirming the new service delivery contract between Council and THCL for the delivery of economic development services from 1 July 2025.

It is acknowledged that the Strategy has been prepared with the best information available at the time. There will be gaps or additional opportunities identified as time passes. A risk lies in that more engagement could lead to the Strategy being further refined. The Strategy is intended to provide the high-level vision and direction, with the actions to be implemented providing opportunities for detailed engagement and will be an appropriate way to ensure strong alignment as the future work advances.

Option B (status quo)

Delay adopting the Horowhenua Economic Strategy 2025-2035 and direct officers to undertake specific additional work to enable the Strategy to be adopted at a future date.

Delaying adoption would allow more time to pass which would allow more up to date information to be reflected in the Strategy and could also enable time for additional engagement to be undertaken.

The risk with delaying the adoption is that it would introduce uncertainty about mandate and hold back the progress that officers can make advancing economic development actions. Delaying would potentially limit what could be included in the new service delivery contract between Council and THCL for the delivery of economic development services from 1 July 2025. The delay would potentially result in missed economic opportunities especially those associated with the early phases of O2NL construction.

Options Commentary | He Tāpiringa Kōrero Mō ngā Kōwhiringa

29. Officers recommend Option A of adopting the Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035. This option would confirm the direction of Council and provide officers with the mandate to implement the Strategy and provide sufficient clarity of the focus for economic development to support the preparation and confirmation of the new service delivery contract between Council and THCL for the delivery of economic development services from 1 July 2025. Adoption would enable the focus to turn towards the implementation of the Strategy and not result in lost time or opportunities. With the O2NL project anticipated to start construction by October 2025, there will be a range of economic opportunities associated with this phase of the project that could be lost if the economic development strategic direction has not been confirmed through the adoption of the Strategy.

30. While Option B is an option available to Council it is not recommended by officers. If Council were wanting specific changes to be made to the Strategy, officers would be eager to test if the Strategy could still be endorsed in principle so that officers were able to be keep progressing economic development activities with a level of mandate so as not to miss out any time sensitive economic development opportunities.

ENGAGING WITH MĀORI | TE MAHI TAHI KI TE MĀORI

31. A working draft of the Economic Development Strategy was shared with Te Tumatakahuki and Muaūpoko Tribal Authority. Officers met with representatives of Te Tumatakahuki and Muaūpoko Tribal Authority to discuss the draft Strategy and capture their feedback. THCL also met with representatives of Te Tumatakahuki. While supportive of the Strategy in principle and what it seeks to focus on and deliver, both Te Tumatakahuki and Muaūpoko Tribal Authority are eager for this to be the start of ongoing engagement.

32. It is acknowledged through the engagement that the role of local iwi and hapu in economic development is likely to go through a period of significant change during the life of this Strategy. With both Muaūpoko and Raukawa pre-settlement, when settlement occurs it is anticipated that it will position local iwi and hapu to be major economic players in the district’s economic development. The Strategy highlights the pre and post settlement context as being a significant change but one that is anticipated to occur during the timeframe of this Strategy. The development of a Maori Economic Development Plan is seen as a piece of work that should be prioritised following the Strategy being adopted. This would be the optimal opportunity to continue the engagement and enable the collaborative approach Iwi and hapu are seeking as well as take positive steps towards prosperity across the district.

33. It is acknowledged that Council has relationships and partnerships with other iwi in the district (including those that are post-settlement) and would actively engage with these iwi as part of the Maori Economic Development Plan following adoption of the Strategy by Council.

CLIMATE CHANGE | NGĀ ĀHUARANGI HURIHURI

34. Climate change considerations are not a relevant consideration to receiving this report and the recommendations result in changes to any current climate change initiatives. The climate change implications relating to this report are considered to be low being considered. The report does not specifically relate to Climate change matters or propose to.

FINAnCIAL AND RESOURCING | TE TAHUA PŪTEA ME NGĀ RAUEMI

35. The decision to adopt the Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035 does not have a direct financial impact. The Strategy has been prepared within existing budgets. The implementation of the Strategy would also be covered by existing of future approved budgets. Council has committed funding for economic development through the Long Term Plan 2024-44. The three year contract for THCL to deliver economic services on behalf of Council is where Council makes its largest direct investment in economic development. The new contract with THCL (to start 1 July 2025) would capture deliverables and outcomes from the Strategy to be the Council funded responsibility of THCL.

36. It is also acknowledged that there are several Council workstreams that are already underway and funded through the Long Term Plan 2024-2044, where Council makes an indirect investment in economic development. One example is funding the District Plan Changes to rezone land to secure future land supply for development opportunities.

Legal and Risk | Te Ture me ngā Mōreareatanga

37. There are no legal implications or risks associated with adopting the Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035. There is no statutory requirement to publicly consult on an Economic Development Strategy.

POLICY IMPACT | NGĀ PĀTANGA I NGĀ KAUPAPA HERE

38. The preparation of the Economic Development Strategy has been cognisant of the existing strategic framework of other strategies and plans that have overlaps to Economic Development. The Strategy has intentionally tried to highlight some of the linkages by referencing these within the Strategy. In its simplest form it can be read as an acknowledgement this Strategy has been developed after the other strategic documents (Growth Strategy, Horowhenua Blueprint and Community Wellbeing Strategy) and therefore draws from these documents to ensure alignment.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT | TE WHAKAWHITI PĀRONGO ME TE MAHI

39. Council and THCL staff have been very grateful for those local Iwi/hapu, business and community leaders who have given their time to the process so far to support the development of the Economic Development Strategy. Given their involvement to date and the journey they have been part of to develop the Strategy, it will be important to keep them informed of the Council decision regardless of the option Council chooses.

40. The Council decision has potential to influence whether that communication and follow-up engagement is more of an update that the Strategy was adopted and to cover off next steps, or potentially a further workshop if any additional work is identified by Council as being necessary prior to adopting.

Communicating with our Community | Te Whakawhiti Pārongo ki te Hapori

41. While not identified as one of Council’s Top priorities, completing the Strategy has been a direct response to the Council decision made 30 October 2024. It will be important to acknowledge the completion of this work and to signal the focus of the Strategy. The communication to the community on this matter will be tailored to reflect where this work sits in the wider context of Council’s top priorities and the many other important matters that are requiring the community’s attention at this time.

Next Steps | HEI MAHI

42. If Council agree to adopt the Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035, then a finalised version of the Strategy would be prepared with the appropriate Council livery. A key next step after adoption would be to then to prepare the Implementation Plan that will confirm the roles, responsibilities and timing of the actions identified in the Strategy.

43. The final Strategy would be made available on the Council website and given the appropriate level of media to make the community aware of the new Strategy.

44. The adopted Strategy will enable the details of the new contract with THCL to be confirmed with the relevant deliverables from the Strategy reflected in the contract.

45. Once the administrative matters have been undertaken the focus and energy will shift to the implementation of the Strategy, through the roll out of the Implementation Plan.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with sections 76 – 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Attachments | NGĀ TĀPIRINGA KŌRERO

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Horowhenua Economic Development Strategy 2025-2035	141

Council

25 June 2025

File No.: 25/332

8.7 Levin Town Centre Transformation Programme Update

Author(s)

Robyn Ryder

Strategic Projects Coordinator | Kaikotuitui Kaupapa Rautaki

Approved by

Susan Philp

Strategic Projects Manager | Kaihautū Hinonga Rautaki

David McCorkindale

Group Manager - Vision & Delivery | Tumu Rangapū, Matawhānui Hapori, Whakarite

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer | Tumuaki

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. This report is to provide an update to Council on the Levin Town Centre Transformation Programme including seeking approval of the changes proposed to the programme governance structure to enable a more effective and efficient process to deliver on the Levin Town Centre Transformation Strategy.

2. Council will also be asked to agree the appointment of a Māori Ward Councillor to the Community Steering Group.

This matter relates to Activating the Levin Town Centre.

Implement agreed Strategy initiatives.

Pursue connections and relationships to build momentum outside of Council led-initiatives.

Executive Summary | TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA MATUA

3. At the Council meeting 26 March 2025 during the Public Excluded part of the of the meeting, Council directed the Chief Executive to review the project management and governance arrangements for the Levin Town Centre project and provide a report to Council as soon as practicable.

4. A Levin Town Centre Transformation Steering Group Workshop was held on 23 May 2025 with all members in attendance, i.e. two Elected Members, Chief Executive, Group Manager Community Vision and Delivery, two independent representatives and the programme delivery team. During this workshop, the current governance and programme leadership structure was reviewed with changes to the proposed structure recommended. Included in those changes is for a Māori Ward Councillor to join the two Levin Ward Councillors on the Community Steering Group. A decision is sought from Council to confirm the Māori Ward Councillor to be appointed.

5. The project prioritisation included within the implementation plan adopted on 13 December 2023 was also reviewed and updated at the Steering Group Workshop.

DELEGATION OR AUTHORITY TO ACT | TE MANA WHAKATAU I NGĀ KAWENGA

6. Council holds the authority, as set out in its Terms of Reference at 1.1 j), to appoint and discharge members of committees.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT | He Aromatawai Matua

7. This matter is assessed as not significant. Despite potential high community interest, the matter is assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy and does not trigger any other assessment matters and therefore is deemed to be not significant.

RECOMMENDATION | NGĀTAUNAKITANGA

A. That Report 25/332 Levin Town Centre Transformation Programme Update be received.

B. That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.

C. That Council approve the Levin Town Centre Transformation programme governance structure.

D. That Council agree to Māori Ward Councillor _______________ being appointed to join the Levin Town Centre Transformation Community Steering Group.

bACKGROUND | hE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA

8. Council adopted the Levin Town Centre Transformation Implementation Plan to deliver on the Levin Town Centre Transformation Strategy during a public excluded part of the Council Meeting held on 13 December 2023. The adoption of the Levin Town Centre Transformation Implementation Plan has enabled Officers to manage progression of property acquisition, new development opportunities and the upgrading of existing town centre assets that align with the Town Centre Transformation Strategy.

9. The adoption of the Implementation Plan approach was for the period 2023-2025. This gave the ability for officers to commence wider community engagement and consultation on the town centre programme and aspirations and to establish the Steering Group and Reference Group to support the ongoing progress. This approach was implemented from both a programme management and leadership, and delivery framework perspective.

10. The project delivery framework was to ensure a consistent approach is applied to the scope, cost, time, dependency and risk management of the projects within the programme of work. This would see that approvals are sought from the Steering Group before projects are progressed to the next stage.

11. The Levin Town Centre programme of work consists of a range of projects and will see Council play a variety of different roles. The programme of work at this stage does not have a definitive end and will continue to evolve over time and as development occurs. The project delivery framework has been set up to reflect the level of flexibility that will be needed to deliver a programme of this scale and complexity.

DISCUSSION | HE MATAPAKINGA

Governance and Programme Leadership Structure

12. In response to the resolution of Council in the public excluded part of the Council meeting on 26 March 2025, the program delivery team conducted a comprehensive review of our governance and operational structures, drawing on lessons from the previous period including the highlights and frustrations expressed to enhance its approach. Strengths were identified, including effective communication channels and clear decision-making processes which fostered collaboration and progress. However, areas of improvement were also recognised; in particular, to encourage broader participation. While tensions between iwi partners have to date prevented them from sharing the same space on this work, the revised structure adapts to this challenge by continuing to incorporate flexible engagement methods, such as separate consultation sessions and virtual platforms to ensure all voices are heard and valued. Moving forward, it is proposed to maintain these inclusive adaptations while continuing to refine processes to better support meaningful participation and collective outcomes.

13. The revised programme governance and operational management structure to be introduced as the programme moves forward is as outlined as follows:

Levin Town Centre Programme Governance and Operational Management

14. The Levin Town Centre programme will be delivered using the above programme governance and operational management structure, with the following functions and groups:

Governance and Decision making

· Elected Members provide governance to advise and steer the Levin Town Centre programme. The Elected members support the programme to make decisions by providing oversight, guidance and direction to Levin Town Centre Transformation programme.

Shaping and Leading

· Community Steering Group: Contribute and inform details of the Levin Town Centre projects. They represent the interests of people, places and businesses that will use, visit, live and play in the town centre. The Community Steering Group will include representation from local youth, community groups, iwi and business, as well as two appointed Elected Members and one Māori Ward Councillor.

· Operational Programme Assurance Group: This group consists of the Chief Executive, Group Manager Community Vision and Delivery and the Programme Delivery Team who will provide management oversight, and two independent specialists who will provide independent commercial advice and oversight.

Delivery

· Programme Delivery Team: Programme delivery refers to the organising and sequencing of multiple projects that will be required to transform the Levin Town Centre, and seeks to manage the interdependencies and interconnectedness of each. Programme management includes the identification of projects, planning and sequencing as well as monitoring and managing project delivery where appropriate.

· Challenge Team: Offers expertise and experience of key minds and previous contributors. They will incorporate new and existing expertise and ideas to bring a refreshed approach and thinking to the Levin Town Centre Transformation. The Challenge Team include members who bring external technical and specialist expertise not currently held within Council. These members bring ideas and experience that compliments the needs of the Levin Town Centre programme.

· Programme Alignment Group: Ensures internal organisational alignment and representation across the Council to assign resources, maintain momentum and ensure accountability for specific Levin Town Centre actions and deliverables. The structure of this group may change slightly depending on what projects are in flight and the relevant parts of the organisation involved. There is the opportunity to also include external partners if there is the desire to be involved in the regular operations of delivering the programme.

15. The transition to the new structure is proposed to occur in July 2025 subject to Council’s support. As part of this the membership particularly of the Community Steering Group will be considered to ensure that there is appropriate representation of the business and development sector to complement the existing members. Council has appointed Councillors Grimstone and Jennings to the Levin Town Centre Steering Group. The change in structure will see the two appointed elected members joined by a Māori Ward Councillor, become members of the Community Steering Group. While all elected members would be welcome to attend the meetings, the three appointed elected members would be the Town Centre champions that officers work closely with when preparing and holding the Community Steering Group Meetings. This report is seeking Council approval of the new programme governance structure and the appointment one of the current Māori Ward Councillors to join the Community Steering Group alongside the two currently appointed elected members.

16. The operational management part of the proposed structure sits with the Chief Executive to determine and execute.

17. Officers are seeking approval of the programme governance structure. If Council is not comfortable approving the proposed structure as recommended then officers ask that Council provide clear direction on the further changes needed for the structure to be approved by Council.

18. For reference, the governance structure that is currently in operation is outlined below to identify the differences between the current version and the new structure that is being transitioned to in July.

Programme Delivery Approach

19. As the programme progresses and as further information, dependencies and restrictions are understood, we propose a project framework is used specifically for the Levin Town Centre Transformation. The framework is outlined below and will allow the flexibility to adapt and change the project mix, as required, while the programme leadership structure will provide guidance and direction to determine what projects should be included, withdrawn or delayed during the delivery of the Levin Town Centre Transformation.

Project Management Delivery Framework

20. The Levin Town Centre Transformation is a complex programme that requires the delivery of multiple projects. The Project Management Delivery Framework will work to manage the interdependencies and interconnectedness of each.

21. We propose to use a project delivery framework to ensure a consistent approach is applied to the scope, cost, time, dependency and risk management of the projects within the programme. This will also see that approvals are sought from the Operational Programme Assurance Group before projects are progressed to the next stage.

Constraints and Assumptions

22. Assumptions and constraints will be developed at a project level, and reported to the programme to enable monitoring and reporting that projects are operating within the constraints and assumptions they have set. Where a project is impacted by a change in constraint or assumption it will be escalated to the Operational Programme Assurance Group.

Programme Tolerances

Cost Tolerance

23. Due to the variable nature of the projects we propose that financial tolerances are set at project level specific to the level of complexity. The amount of contingency allocated within the budget of a project is calculated on the risks or unknowns. This will be included as contingency in the projects budget. The contingency will only be made available after a change request is submitted to, and approved by, the Operational Programme Assurance Group.

Time Tolerance

24. We are proposing a time tolerance of four weeks for most projects, unless stated otherwise in the project plan. Where a project is requesting an extension on key milestones, a change request will be submitted outlining the impacts of the extension, with options and recommendations for the Operational Programme Assurance Group to consider and approve.

Scope and Quality Tolerance

25. Each project will set a clear scope and description that will define what is in the scope, and expected level of quality. Any changes to the scope or quality will be managed as part of a change process, seeking approval from the Operational Programme Assurance Group if they are to be altered.

Benefits

26. Where a project is able to deliver measurable benefits, these will be presented as part of the project plan or business case, including when and how they will be measured and the benefit tolerance.

Risk Management

27. All projects will be required to undertake risk and issue assessments. Risk will be managed in line with HDC’s Risk Policy and Framework. The most significant risks that might prevent, degrade or delay the achievement of the programme vision will be raised to the Operational Programme Assurance Group.

Programme Funding

28. It is recognised that the Levin Town Centre Transformation is identified as a programme, so as it progresses, it will inevitably create specific projects within this main programme of work. On that basis and until specific and individual projects have been identified and approved by Council, a pool of money would be required enabling officers to apportion and assign funds to identified projects to continue to deliver on the Levin Town Centre Strategy. This is consistent with the approach taken through the Long Term Plan 2024-44 where an activation fund was established.

29. Financial delegations would be in accordance with the Delegations Register and the Chief Executive’s Delegations Register.

30. Current funding will contribute towards property acquisition, place making initiatives, commercial and legal expertise, as well as specialist experts who may need to be engaged where skills and expertise are not provided within Council. However, future secure funding is required to ensure the project continues to deliver on the Council’s Community Outcomes of being a vibrant economy and adhere to strong communities.

Project Prioritisation

31. The current project prioritisation and budget associated to each project that is currently identified within the implementation plan was also reviewed during the Steering Group workshop (23 May 2025) to reflect the current and future status of the projects identified within the programme of work. As the Levin Town Centre work has progressed, greater clarity around timeframes, costs and scopes have emerged. The updated Levin Town Centre Transformation Implementation Plan 2023-2025 is attached to this report to provide Council an update on the projects. It provides commentary on the projects and progress of these.

Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa

32. Option 1: Council approve the proposed changes to the programme governance structure to enable a more effective and efficient process to deliver on the Levin Town Centre Transformation Strategy.

33. Option 2: Council do not approve the proposed changes to the programme governance structure, but will provide direction and recommendations to officers on what changes Council would like to see adapted to the future governance structure.

34. Option 3: Council approve the appointment of a Māori Ward Councillor to the Levin Town Centre Transformation Community Steering Group.

35. Option 4: Council do not approve to the appointment of a Māori Ward Councillor to the Levin Town Centre Transformation Community Steering Group, but will provide direction to officers on this process.

36. Officers recommend that Council support Option 1 and Option 3.

ENGAGING WITH MĀORI | TE MAHI TAHI KI TE MĀORI

37. To date, iwi/hapū have been invited to attend all Levin Town Centre Transformation Reference Group meetings and workshops. Under the new governance and programme leadership structure, and pending Council approval, it is proposed for iwi/hapū to be part of the Community Steering Group.

CLIMATE CHANGE | NGĀ ĀHUARANGI HURIHURI

38. There are no Climate Change considerations directly associated with any decisions sought from this report.

FINAnCIAL AND RESOURCING | TE TAHUA PŪTEA ME NGĀ RAUEMI

39. There are no financial and resourcing considerations directly associated with any decisions sought from this report. The work associated with the matters raised in this report are covered through the Levin Town Centre budgets in the Long Term Plan 2024-44.

Legal and Risk | Te Ture me ngā Mōreareatanga

40. There are no legal and risk considerations directly associated with any decisions sought from this report.

POLICY IMPACT | NGĀ PĀTANGA I NGĀ KAUPAPA HERE

41. There is no policy impact directly associated with any of the decisions sought from this report. The proposed changes to the programme governance structure are to support the efficient and effective delivery of the Levin Town Centre Transformation Strategy and Implementation Plan.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT | TE WHAKAWHITI PĀRONGO ME TE MAHI

42. There has not been a need for wider communication to date on any of the topics relating to this report, however pending Council approval, all relevant parties involved with the existing programme governance structure will be provided with the appropriate communication to inform them of the newly formed governance and programme leadership structure.

Next Steps | HEI MAHI 

43. If the new programme governance structure is approved by Council, the transition to the new revised structure would take place in July 2025. Existing members in the new structure would be advised of the changes.

44. If Council appoint a Māori Ward Councillor to the new Levin Town Centre Community Steering Group, then that Councillor would be invited along with the two currently appointed Councillors to attend the next Steering Group meeting.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with sections 76 – 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Attachments | NGĀ TĀPIRINGA KŌRERO

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Levin Town Centre Transformation Programme, Implementation Plan 2023 – 2025 - Updated June 2025	182

Council

25 June 2025

File No.: 25/375

8.8 Confirmation of Process - Bath Street and Salisbury Street Carpark

Author(s)

Robyn Ryder

Strategic Projects Coordinator | Kaikotuitui Kaupapa Rautaki

Approved by

Susan Philp

Strategic Projects Manager | Kaihautū Hinonga Rautaki

David McCorkindale

Group Manager - Vision & Delivery | Tumu Rangapū, Matawhānui Hapori, Whakarite

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer | Tumuaki

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. This report seeks a decision from Council on whether there is a desire for the First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy to be applied to the process of selling the Bath Street and Salisbury Street Carpark, despite the earlier decision of Council on 20 March 2024, which delegated the authority to the Chief Executive to finalise the documentation associated with the Levin Town Centre Transformation Request for Expressions of Interest for the Redevelopment of the Bath Street/Salisbury Carpark, and to release it to market at a strategically appropriate and opportune time.

This matter relates to Activating the Levin Town Centre.

Implement agreed Strategy initiatives.

Pursue connections and relationships to build momentum outside of Council led-initiatives.

Executive Summary | TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA MATUA

2. Officers seek a decision from Council on whether the recently adopted First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy is to be applied to the sale of the Bath Street/Salisbury Street Carpark or whether the existing Council resolution on 20 March 2024 to proceed to the Expression of Interest is the preferred path.

DELEGATION OR AUTHORITY TO ACT | TE MANA WHAKATAU I NGĀ KAWENGA

3. The authority to dispose of assets is contained in Council’s term of reference 1.1 c); “borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the Long Term Plan”.

4. Council has delegated the authority to the Chief Executive to finalise the documentation associated with the Levin Town Centre Transformation Request for Expressions of Interest for the Redevelopment of Bath Street/Salisbury Street Carpark and commence the process at an appropriate time to strategically align with other key moves in the Levin Town Centre.

5. If Council were to support applying the First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy further delegation would need to be considered to give the authority to the Chief Executive to proceed with the sale and purchase through that process.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT | He Aromatawai Matua

6. This matter is assessed as not significant. The Bath Street/Salisbury Street Carpark is not identified as a strategic asset. Despite potential high community interest, the matter is assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy and does not trigger any other assessment matters and therefore is deemed to be not significant.

RECOMMENDATION | NGĀ TAUNAKITANGA

A. That Report 25/375 Confirmation of Process - Bath Street and Salisbury Street Carpark be received.

B. That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.

C. That Council agree to the First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy being applied to the sale of the Bath Street / Salisbury Street Carpark and if the property is not sold through that process then Officers are to continue with the Expression Interest process to the open market.

That Council agree that the First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy is not applied to the sale of the Bath Street / Salisbury Street Carpark and that officers continue with the Expression of Interest process to the open market as per the Council resolution CO/2024/68 20 March 2024.

Background | HE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA

7. Council adopted the Levin Town Centre Transformation Implementation Plan to deliver on the Levin Town Centre Transformation Strategy during a public excluded part of the Council Meeting held on 13 December 2023. The adoption of the Levin Town Centre Transformation Implementation Plan has enabled Officers to manage progression of property acquisition, new development opportunities and the upgrading of existing town centre assets that align with the Town Centre Transformation Strategy.

8. During the public excluded part of the Council meeting held on 20 March 2024, Council approved an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process to redevelop the Bath Street/Salisbury Street carpark. This approval gave the mandate for officers to be in a position ready to commence to seek expressions of interest at a time that strategically aligned with other projects associated to delivering on the Levin Town Centre Strategy. This mandate of Council is what officers are currently acting on as they prepare to commence the EOI process.

Discussion | HE MATAPAKINGA

9. To keep momentum on delivery of the Levin Town Centre Strategy, it is envisaged that the most opportune timeframe to go out with the EOI opportunity to redevelop the Bath Street/Salisbury Street carpark is immediately after the sale and purchase of the Levin War Memorial Hall and Village Green has been completed. The existing resolution of Council provides for this.

10. The approval was given by Council on 20 March 2024 for an EOI process to take place occurred prior to Council’s recent decision on 14 May 2025 to provide the First Right of Refusal to Iwi to purchase Council owned property. Therefore, officers considered it appropriate to check with Council in relation to the Bath Street/Salisbury Street Carpark.

11. Officers are seeking direction from Council, on whether there is a desire to continue with the existing mandate and commence the EOI process or whether Council want to apply the First Right of Refusal Policy to this redevelopment opportunity.

Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa

12. Option 1: Do not apply the First Right of Refusal Policy and continue under the current mandate provided by Council to progress the Expression of Interest Process.

13. Option 2: Apply the First Right of Refusal Policy to the Bath Street/Salisbury Street Carpark site and proceed to the Expression of Interest Process if the site is not sold to Iwi.

14. In weighing up the two options Council’s considerations should include matters such as timing, commercial tension and the range of opportunities. The impact on timing for this process if the First Right of Refusal Policy was to be applied, would add potentially two months to the process. This would allow the necessary timeframe for the steps within the Policy to be undertaken. It is conceivable that Iwi may choose not to pursue this option meaning that the opportunity would be delayed from being presented to the market by two months. Officers are confident (subject to the Council decision on the Levin War Memorial Hall and Village Green resulting in the sale and purchase being completed during July 2025), that it would still be possible to have presented the opportunity to the market before December 2025.

15. The Expression of Interest process is intended to seek proposals from the open market, in the hope that there are a range of different proposals presented that Council can then consider the merits of to determine which proposal is the one to advance, as well as have an element of commercial tension where multiple proposals meet the brief. By contrast, if following the First Right of Refusal Policy, and Iwi were interested in purchasing the site, then Council would not be deciding between a range of proposals. The land and proposed development would be sold to the Iwi that was able to meet the requirements of the Policy. Noting that there could still be particular outcomes from the development of the site that Council could make conditional on the sale to ensure specific outcomes are delivered that contribute to the transformation of the town centre.

16. It is noted that if the Expression of Interest process was followed for this site, this would not prevent Iwi from putting forward a proposal for consideration as part of that process. This would see any proposal put forward by Iwi considered alongside any other proposals submitted and assessed against the objectives and requirements set out in the Expressions of Interest.

ENGAGING WITH MĀORI | TE MAHI TAHI KI TE MĀORI

17. If Council made the decision to apply the First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy then engagement with local iwi/hapū would occur through that process.

18. If Council made the decision not to apply the Frist Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy then engagement with local iwi/hapū would occur when the timeframe to seek Expressions of Interest for the redevelopment of the Bath Street and Salisbury Street Carpark has been confirmed to ensure that iwi/hapū were aware of the opportunity.

CLIMATE CHANGE | NGĀ ĀHUARANGI HURIHURI

19. There are no climate change considerations directly associated with the decision to apply the First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy.

FINAnCIAL AND RESOURCING | TE TAHUA PŪTEA ME NGĀ RAUEMI

20. There are no financial and resourcing considerations directly associated with the decision to apply the First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy.

Legal and Risk | Te Ture me ngā Mōreareatanga

21. There is some inherent risk associated with the fact that if Council made the decision to apply the First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy then the Bath Street/Salisbury Street Carpark could be the first Council property to go through the process. By virtue of being the first to go through the process, it carries some risk given the newness of the process, and any challenge to the Policy or process would likely occur at this point.

POLICY IMPACT | NGĀ PĀTANGA I NGĀ KAUPAPA HERE

22. The application of the First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy adopted by Council 14 May 2025, forms part of the consideration in this report. Although not technically necessary, officers are providing Council with the opportunity to confirm whether they would like the policy applied to the Bath Street/Salisbury Street Carpark.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT | TE WHAKAWHITI PĀRONGO ME TE MAHI

23. There has not been a need for wider communication to date on this topic, however communication via Council’s media channels will be undertaken once officers have been provided with a timeframe to release the Expressions of Interest to redevelop the Bath Street/Salisbury Street Carpark, either directly to the open market or applying the First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy.

Next Steps | HEI MAHI 

24. Following a decision by Council whether to apply the First Right of Refusal to Iwi Policy to the Bath Street/Salisbury Street Carpark, the appropriate communication and engagement with local iwi/hapū and the development sector will be programmed.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with sections 76 – 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Attachments | NGĀ TĀPIRINGA KŌRERO

There are no appendices for this report

Council

25 June 2025

File No.: 25/372

8.9 Draft Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Policy - Adoption for Consultation

Author(s)

Ashley Huria

Business Performance Manager | Tumu Tutukinga Pakihi

Approved by

Jacinta Straker

Group Manager Organisation Performance | Tumu Rangapū, Tutukinga Whakahaere

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer | Tumuaki

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. To seek Council’s approval to release the draft Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Policy for public consultation and to outline the proposed approach to engaging with the Foxton Beach community. The purpose of this policy is to provide a clear, fit-for-purpose framework for managing and distributing the Endowment Fund in accordance with its legislative obligations and community expectations.

This matter does not relate to a current Council priority.

Executive Summary | TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA MATUA

2. In September 2023, work commenced on reviewing the current approach to ensure the fund continues to meet its legislative intent and delivers meaningful and enduring outcomes.

3. The review process has been collaborative, involving representation from the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board, Kere Kere Ward Councillors, the Mayor, Māori Ward Councillors, and a hapū representative of the Papangaio J Block descendants. Throughout 2024 and 2025, several workshops, hui, and community discussions were held to shape the direction of the policy. The policy is now in draft form and ready for broader community consultation.

4. Consultation is proposed to run from 30 June to 27 July 2025, with engagement to include online and hard copy materials, submission forms, drop-in sessions, and a community meeting. Feedback from this process will inform the final version of the policy, which is expected to be presented to Council for adoption in early September.

DELEGATION OR AUTHORITY TO ACT | TE MANA WHAKATAU I NGĀ KAWENGA

5. Council holds the authority to adopt the draft policy for public consultation and as the legal “Corporation” under the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1956, is responsible for administering and making decisions on matters relating to the Foxton Beach Endowment Fund.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT | He Aromatawai Matua

7. This matter is assessed as medium significance according to the Significance and Engagement Policy because it affects the Foxton Beach community.

RECOMMENDATION | NGĀ TAUNAKITANGA

A. That Report 25/372 Draft Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Policy - Adoption for Consultation be received.

B. That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.

C. That Council adopt the draft Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Policy for consultation with the community over the period of 30 June to 27 July 2025

Background | HE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA

7. The Foxton Beach Endowment Fund, also previously known as “Foxton Beach Freeholding Account”, originated in 1989 following local government amalgamation when Horowhenua District Council inherited assets from the former Manawatu Borough Council. This fund was established to hold and manage the proceeds from endowment land at Foxton Beach, with a clear principle that all income generated whether from lease payments, property sales, or other asset returns be ring fenced exclusively for the benefit of the Foxton Beach community.

8. Over the years, the fund has supported a range of local projects including infrastructure upgrades, recreational amenities, and community facilities, all within the boundaries of Foxton Beach. Notably, from 2007 to 2023, approximately $5.7 million was invested into community assets, including significant projects like the Forbes Road subdivision, stormwater improvements, footpaths, and contributions to the Foxton Pools and Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom.

9. In 2022–2023, during the preparation of the amended Long Term Plan, the Council approved the use of $500,000 from the fund to contribute toward the Foxton Pool redevelopment. This decision projected the fund balance to dip below the $5 million minimum reserve level established in policy - a move that, while not illegal, breached existing policy settings. As a result, the need to review the policy and re-establish clear, future focused guidance for the use of the fund became apparent again.

10. The last Foxton Beach Freeholding Account Strategy and Policy was adopted on 07 October 2009. Since that date, the document is yet to have a review that results in an adoption of a new strategy and policy.

11. The policy review formally commenced in mid 2023. The commencement of this work began with an open invitation for all iwi to participate. An outcome of this process, the working group was established with membership comprising representatives from the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board, Kere Kere Ward Councillors, the Mayor, Māori Ward Councillors, and a hapū representative of the descendants of the original Papangaio J Block owners.

12. In September 2023, work began on the development of the Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Review Paper. Many hui were in the development of the paper which set out the proposed review process, including the purpose and aims of the review, its fundamental principles, desired outcomes, key focus areas, and the proposed composition of the working group. The review paper was endorsed by the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board on 4 March 2024 and formally adopted by Council on 20 March 2024.

13. A hui with the working group was held on 11 June 2024 to determine the next steps in the review process, during which a draft timeline was outlined.

14. At that time, the review had entered the visit and information gathering phase. As part of this stage, it was agreed that both officers and the working group would research alternative governance and funding models particularly those used in Whanganui and Auckland and share their findings to inform the next phase of the policy development.

15. On Thursday, 29 August 2024, a visit to Whanganui was undertaken to gather information and gain insights into the structure and learnings of Te Pūwaha, the Whanganui Port revitalisation project. The purpose of the visit was to explore potential options to inform the review process and to better understand opportunities for the fund.

16. In November 2024, the working group workshopped a preferred outline for the shape of the policy.

17. In May 2025, the policy drafting process commenced, supported by a series of hui held. These gatherings provided valuable input and ensured that all views were incorporated into the evolving policy.

18. On 11 June 2025, a workshop was held with Council to socialise the draft policy, allowing elected members to engage with the content, ask questions, and provide initial feedback. This session helped prepare the Council for the next formal step, which involved presenting the policy for adoption to proceed to public consultation.

Discussion | HE MATAPAKINGA

19. The Foxton Beach Endowment Fund plays a significant role in supporting local projects and infrastructure in Foxton Beach, and as such, the development of a refreshed policy is both timely and necessary. It ensures alignment with current legislative requirements and reaffirms Council’s commitment to delivering community benefit through a transparent and robust decision making process.

20. The collaborative review process has ensured diverse perspectives have been incorporated, with meaningful input from the working group. The policy recognises the significance of the Endowment Fund, reinforces its legislative intent, and provides a framework for future decision making that ensures sustainable and equitable benefit for the Foxton Beach community.

21. Given the importance of community voice in shaping the future use of the fund, a four-week public consultation period is recommended. This will ensure residents have an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft policy before it is finalised and adopted in September 2025.

Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa

Benefits | Ngā Whiwhinga

Risks | Ngā Mōrearea

Option A (recommended)

Adoption of the draft policy for consultation

Progresses the work programme in line with Te Awahou Community Board direction.

Enables formal community consultation on the draft policy.

Meet the timeline for adoption in September

No risks

Option B (status quo)

Request officers to do further work on the policy and bring it back to Council.

No benefits however provides more time for refinement.

Potentially needing to condense consultation.

Delayed timeline and adoption will either be 8 October or in the new triennium

Option C (not recommended)

Discontinue work on the policy review.

No benefits

Leaves Council with an outdated framework that lacks alignment with current legislative and financial context

ENGAGING WITH MĀORI | TE MAHI TAHI KI TE MĀORI

22. At the initiation of the policy review, a formal invitation was extended to Muaūpoko Tribal Authority, Rangitāne, and Ngāti Raukawa, including descendants of the original Papangaio J Block owners, to participate in the process. This invitation acknowledged the historical and cultural significance of the land and the importance of involving iwi in shaping the future direction of the fund. As a result of this outreach, a representative of the Papangaio J Block descendants accepted the invitation and committed to being actively involved.

23. The policy review process has been highly collaborative, with the representative contributing meaningfully at every stage, from early discussions and strategic workshops to drafting and reviewing the policy framework. Their ongoing involvement has ensured that former owners of the lands perspectives were embedded throughout the development of a policy intended to serve both current and future generations of the Foxton Beach community.

FINAnCIAL AND RESOURCING | TE TAHUA PŪTEA ME NGĀ RAUEMI

Financial Strategy Context

24. Under Council’s current Financial Strategy and debt management approach, the cash balance of the Foxton Beach Endowment Fund is utilised to offset overall Council debt. In return, the fund receives a return equivalent to Council’s average borrowing interest rate. This effectively means that, without the Endowment Fund, Council’s borrowings would be higher.

25. In the 2021–2041 Long Term Plan (LTP), a significant level of property sales was projected in the budget. However, as part of the development of the 2024–2044 LTP, these projections were revised downward, with only $1.1 million in property sales now budgeted for the 2025/26 year.

26. Provided Council continues to apply a consistent approach to the disposal of properties as it has with other non-endowment assets there should be no conflict in relation to the Financial Strategy and this policy.

27. Legislative Context and Use of Funds

28. The Foxton Beach Endowment Fund was established to meet Council’s obligations under section 13(14) of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1968.

29. This section requires that any net proceeds from the sale or lease of endowment land be used specifically for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Foxton Beach Township.

30. This includes funding the provision, improvement, maintenance, or repair of public services and amenities such as roads, lighting, water supply, drainage, sewerage, and other public works.

31. The fund also encompasses any additional income generated through the investment of those proceeds.

32. Accordingly, any future sale of endowment land or returns from investment must be returned to the Endowment Fund and used exclusively for initiatives that support and enhance the Foxton Beach community.

33. This legal framework ensures that the fund remains focused on its original purpose and continues to deliver intergenerational benefit to the local community.

Legal and Risk | Te Ture me ngā Mōreareatanga

34. There is minimal legal risk associated with the policy, as the Foxton Beach Endowment Fund is governed under the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act and the policy has been developed in alignment with the provisions and intent of that legislation.

POLICY IMPACT | NGĀ PĀTANGA I NGĀ KAUPAPA HERE

Impact on previous resolutions and Property Strategy 2021

35. The 2021 Property Strategy provides Council with an overarching framework for managing its property portfolio. This document sets out the strategic intent for property related decisions, under which more tailored policies and approaches have been developed to address specific geographic areas or property types. Examples include the Iwi First Right of Refusal Policy and the Levin Town Centre Strategy.

36. These targeted approaches are designed to align with the core principles of the Property Strategy while allowing flexibility to respond to distinct local contexts and community priorities.

37. The draft policy outlines the intention to develop a Foxton Beach Property Utilisation Strategy as a next step following final policy adoption. While there is potential for friction in relation to previous Council decisions on individual properties within the Foxton Beach Endowment area, these prior decisions have not yet been actioned or progressed. As such, there is currently no direct conflict with the proposed policy.

38. Resolutions made under the 2021 Property Strategy could be reviewed, amended, or revoked by Council, with new resolutions adopted as needed. This flexibility ensures that Council’s property decisions remain responsive to changing strategic priorities and evolving community aspirations.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT | TE WHAKAWHITI PĀRONGO ME TE MAHI

39. A four-week consultation period is proposed to run from 30 June to 27 July 2025, during which the draft Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Policy will be made available for community feedback.

40. Engagement will be carried out through a combination of online and hard copy materials, including a submission form hosted on Council’s website and available at key community locations. To support meaningful participation, drop in sessions and a community meeting will also be held to enable residents and ratepayers to ask questions, provide input, and share views in an accessible setting.

41. The consultation outcomes will be summarised and reported back to the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board (TAFCB) in August 2025, with the following timeline proposed;

Date	Item
30 June to 27 July	Consultation period (4 weeks)
11 August	TAFCB Agenda release
18 August	TAFCB endorsement of Final Policy
27 August	Council agenda release
3 September	Adoption

Next Steps | HEI MAHI 

42. Upon adoption for consultation, the consultation period will begin 30 June 2025.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with sections 76 – 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Attachments | NGĀ TĀPIRINGA KŌRERO

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	DRAFT - Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Policy v4 17 June 2025	197

Council

25 June 2025

File No.: 25/353

8.10 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting 2025 Remits

Author(s)

Grayson Rowse

Principal Advisor - Democracy | Kaitohutohu Mātāmua - Manapori

Approved by

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer | Tumuaki

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. To seek direction from Council on which votes are to be cast for the remits at the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting 2025.

RECOMMENDATION | NGĀTAUNAKITANGA

A. That Report 25/353 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting 2025 Remits be received and noted.

B. That Council authorises the Mayor to vote as the Presiding Delegate in accordance with the votes agreed in this resolution and appoints Crs Olsen and Jennings as alternative delegates.

C. That Council votes IN FAVOUR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN (select one) Remit 1, which is:

That LGNZ advocates for security system payments to be included as an allowance under the Local Government Members Determination, in line with those afforded to Members of Parliament.

D. That Council votes IN FAVOUR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN (select one) Remit 2, which is:

That LGNZ advocate to Government for: a) legislative change to make the Joint Management Agreement (JMA) mechanism more accessible for councils to use with iwi/hapū, b) for the provision of technical, legal and financial support to facilitate the use of JMAs for joint council and iwi/hapū environmental governance, and c) for a mechanism such as JMAs to be included in the Government’s new resource management legislation.

E. That Council votes IN FAVOUR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN (select one) Remit 3, which is:

That LGNZ advocates for the government to update the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 18 December 2013 to account for inflation and include a mechanism for automatic annual inflation adjustments.

F. That Council votes IN FAVOUR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN (select one) Remit 4, which is:

That LGNZ advocate for the reform of the Ministry of Education funded school bus services to provide an improved service for families and to better integrate the services with council provided public transport services, including the option of Public Transport Authorities (e.g. regional and unitary councils) managing such services (with appropriate government funding), noting that:

a. councils better know their local communities; and

b. the potential to reduce congestion from better bus services for schools; and

c. the efficiency gains realised from integrating these two publicly funded bus services

d. the outdated and inflexible rules of the current centralised school bus system

G. That Council votes IN FAVOUR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN (select one) Remit 5, which is:

That LGNZ works with the Government and Councils to review current local government arrangements, including the functions and structure of local government, to achieve a better balance between the need to efficiently and effectively deliver services and infrastructure, while enabling democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

bACKGROUND | hE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA

2. Each year, LGNZ member local authorities submit remits for consideration at the LGNZ AGM. Proposed remits are intended to have a national focus articulating a major interest or concern at the political level.

3. Remits must have formal support from at least one zone or sector group meeting, or five councils prior to being submitted.

4. Attending the AGM this year will be His Worship the Mayor, and Councillors Jennings and Olsen. The Chief Executive will also be attending

DISCUSSION | HE MATAPAKINGA

5. Eight remits are presented at this year’s AGM for consideration. These remits and rationale for them are contained in attachment 1.

6. This year’s AGM is being held in person on Wednesday 16 July 2025.

7. The Council may appoint up to three delegates to represent the Council at the AGM. One of the delegates must be appointed as the Presiding Delegate and a further two delegates can be appointed as alternate delegates. The Presiding Delegate is responsible for casting the Council’s votes at the AGM, with the alternates empowered to cast the vote should the Presiding Delegate be absent when the vote is called.

8. The delegates may be elected members or Council officers.

9. The Council must advise the Chief Executive of LGNZ of the names and official positions of the Presiding Delegate and the alternate delegates.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with sections 76 – 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

Attachments | NGĀ TĀPIRINGA KŌRERO

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	LGNZ AGM Remits - 2025	210

Community Wellbeing Committee

21 May 2025

Community Wellbeing Committee

OPEN MINUTES

UNCONFIRMED

Minutes of a meeting of Community Wellbeing Committee held in the Council Chambers, 126-148 Oxford St, Levin on Wednesday 21 May 2025 at 10:04 am.

present

Mayor	His Worship the Mayor Bernie Wanden
Members	Councillor Nina Hori Te Pa	Horowhenua Māori Ward Councillor
	Councillor Clint Grimstone (Apology)	Horowhenua Levin Ward Councillor
	Maggie Ryan	Department of Internal Affairs
	Patrick Rennell	Horowhenua Learning Centre
	Jacqui Moynihan	Oranga Tamariki Horowhenua
	Sam Ferguson (Apology)	Horizons Regional Councillor
	Angela Rainham	Health NZ Mid Central
	Kylie Turuwhenua-Tapsell	Sport Manawatū
	Mike Fletcher	Regional Public Service
	Reihana Adlam (Apology)	Te Tūmatakahuki
	Patricia Jacobs (Apology)	Ngāti Wehiwehi
	Neville Heihei	Te Tūmatakahuki
	Paul McMillan	Ministry of Social Development
	Yumiko Olliver (Apology)	THINK Hauora
	Mandy Fryer (Apology)	Ministry of Social Development
	Rebecca Kinloch	Kāinga Ora
	Sharon Williams	Hāpai Te Hapori
	Lynette Jones	Older Persons Network
	Rakesh Raman	Raukawa Housing Charitable Trust
	Leigh McMeeken	Corrections NZ
	Matt Roberts	Kai Collective
	Catherine McAuliffe	Age Concern Horowhenua

IN ATTENDANCE

Reporting Officer	Mark Hammond	Community Facilities and Services Manager
	Anna Johnson	Community Development Lead
	Laura Fisher	Community Development Coordinator
	Alice Petersen	Democracy Support Officer
Meeting Secretary	Grayson Rowse	Principal Democracy Advisor

1 Apologies

The committee noted apologies from Councillor Clint Grimstone, Sam Ferguson, Reihana Adlam, Patricia Jacobs, Yumiko Olliver and Mandy Fryer.

2 Late Items

There were no late items.

3 Declaration of Interest

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution Number CWCCC/2025/6

MOVED by Mayor Wanden, seconded Paul McMillan:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Community Wellbeing Committee held on Wednesday, 12 March 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record

.Carried

5 Reports for Noting

5.1	Community Wellbeing Network Report
	Purpose \| TE PŪTAKE 1. The purpose of the Community Wellbeing Network Report is to discuss and highlight any grassroots issues, ideas or concerns that are present within the community. This matter relates to Community Connections and Better Wellbeing. Activate the key priorities within the Community Wellbeing Strategy.
	The Mayor introduced the report noting that there was representatives of each of the networks present and invited them to speak to the report and highlight details of note. Updates were provided by representatives of Horowhenua Access and Inclusion Network, Horowhenua Youth Services Network, Youth Voice, Horowhenua Older Person’s Network, Education Horowhenua Network, Horowhenua Refugee Support, Kai Collective and Raukawa Housing Charitable Trust.
	Resolution Number CWCCC/2025/7 MOVED by Mayor Wanden: second: Leigh McMeekan A. That Report 25/254 Community Wellbeing Network Report be received and noted. Carried

5.2

Community Wellbeing Dashboard Report

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. The purpose of the Community Wellbeing Dashboard is to provide the Community with a visual dashboard presenting data, analysis and assist in the tracking of the Community Wellbeing Strategy priority areas.

This matter relates to Community Connections and Better Wellbeing.

Activate the key priorities within the Community Wellbeing Strategy.

Resolution Number CWCCC/2025/8

MOVED by Mayor Wanden, second: Leigh McMeekan:

A. That Report 25/255 Community Wellbeing Dashboard Report be received and noted.

Carried

5.3

Community Wellbeing Strategy Monitoring Report

Purpose | TE PŪTAKE

1. The purpose of the Community Wellbeing Strategy Monitoring Report is to highlight progress made against the Community Wellbeing Strategy (the Strategy) and Action Plan. The report also presents an opportunity for the Committee to discuss and raise any concerns or need to reprioritise the focus of the work programme of the Committee.

This matter relates to Community Connections and Better Wellbeing.

Activate the key priorities within the Community Wellbeing Strategy.

Resolution Number CWCCC/2025/9

MOVED by Mayor Wanden, seconded Cr Hori Te Pa:

A. That Report 25/228 Community Wellbeing Strategy Monitoring Report be received and noted.

Carried

10.59 am There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed.

CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF Community Wellbeing Committee HELD ON

DATE: ...........................

CHAIRPERSON:

Te Awahou Foxton Community Board

09 June 2025

Te Awahou Foxton Community Board

OPEN MINUTES

UNCONFIRMED

Minutes of a meeting of the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board held in the Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom, 92 Main Street, Foxton on Monday 9 June 2025 at 6:00 pm.

present

Chairperson	Mr John Girling
Deputy Chairperson	Mr Trevor Chambers
Members	Mrs Nola Fox
	Mr Brett Russell
	Mr David Roache
	Deputy Mayor David Allan

IN ATTENDANCE

Reporting Officer	Ashley Huria	Business Performance Manager
Meeting Secretary	Grayson Rowse	Principal Democracy Advisor

1 Apologies

There were no apologies.

2 Public Participation

There was no public participation.

3 Late Items

There were no late items.

4 Declaration of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

5 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution Number TAFCB/2025/17

MOVED by Cr Allan, seconded Mr Roache:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board held on Monday, 5 May 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record

.Carried

6 Elected Members Reports

6.1	Chairpersons Report - May 2025
	This report presented the Chairperson’s report highlighting matters of interest to Te Awahou Foxton Community Board.
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2025/18 MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mr Roache: A. That Report 25/314 Chairpersons Report - May 2025 be received and noted. Carried
	The Chairperson spoke to the report and highlighted concerns with fencing at King Canal, and requested the Parks and Property team investigate further, suggesting that if funding was not available through Council, that Save Our River Trust could be asked to look at remedies.
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2025/19 MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mr Roache: That the Horowhenua Disit4rct Council Parks and Property Team be asked to attend to this matter (Kings Canal fencing) urgently. If, however, there is no funding available, the Board ask Save Our River Trust to apply for funding and remedy the need with a post and rail fence on the northern side and replace the rope on the southern side of the King's Canal and entrance the Piraharakeke Walkway. Carried
	Officers advised the Parks and Property team have been alerted to the issue, and contractors were already assessing a solution.

6.2

Community Board Member Report - Nola Fox

This report presented to matters of interest relating to Te Awahou Foxton Community Board area.

Resolution Number TAFCB/2025/20

MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mr Roache:

A. That Report 25/313 Community Board Member Report - Nola Fox be received and noted.

Carried

7 Reports

7.1

Update on Te Awahou Foxton Community Board Priorities

This report updated progress of the Board’s priorities.

Resolution Number TAFCB/2025/21

MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mrs Fox:

A. That Report 25/308 Update on Te Awahou Foxton Community Board Priorities be received and noted.

Carried

7.2

Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Update

This report updated the board on financial movements in the Foxton Beach Endowment Fund..

Resolution Number TAFCB/2025/22

MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mrs Fox:

A. That Report 25/309 Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Update be received and noted.

Carried

7.3	Te Awahou Foxton Community Board - Actions Monitoring Report - June 2025
	This report presented Te Awahou Foxton Community Board the updated monitoring report covering requested actions from previous meetings of the Board.
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2025/23 MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mrs Fox: A. That Report 25/307 Te Awahou Foxton Community Board - Actions Monitoring Report - June 2025 be received and noted. Carried
	In response to questions form members, officers advised the lease renewal process for Pinewood Motor Camp was ongoing.

7.4	Horowhenua District Council Organisation Performance Report May 2025
	This report presented the Organisation Performance Report for October 2024 highlighting areas of interest to the Foxton Community.
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2025/24 MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mr Roache: A. That Report 25/327 Horowhenua District Council Organisation Performance Report May 2025 be received and noted. Carried
	Members noted the extensive information contained in the Organisation Performance Report and thanked officers for highlighting the Foxton and Foxton Beach specific activities within the report. The Board noted with pleasure the installation of new training lights at Easton Park which were delivered under budget and ahead of time, and greatly enhanced the user experience of the community using that facility after dark. Concerns were noted however, of lack of lighting outside the Te Awahou Niuewe Stroom complex, and officers were asked to investigate possible remedies and report back. The upcoming Child Safe programme was noted, and Board members wondered whether there was any opportunity to community groups to access this training alongside Council officers. Officer will look into the possibility and report back. Noting the usefulness of the report in looking back at what has been done, through Board asked whether it was possible to get a forward programme of works being completed in the Board area, so they could respond to questions from the community. Officers will look to prepare a forward work programme.

6.33 pm There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed.

CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF Te Awahou Foxton Community Board HELD ON

DATE: ...........................

CHAIRPERSON:

Hearings and Regulatory Committee

10 June 2025

Hearings and Regulatory Committee

OPEN MINUTES

UNCONFIRMED

Minutes of a meeting of Hearings and Regulatory Committee held in the Council Chambers, 126-148 Oxford St, Levin on Tuesday 10 June 2025 at 10:00 am.

present

Chairperson	Deputy Mayor David Allan
Councillors	Councillor Justin Tamihana	Apology
	Councillor Sam Jennings
	His Worship The Mayor Bernie Wanden

IN ATTENDANCE

Reporting Officer	Vaimoana Miller	Customer & Compliance Manager
	Carolyn Dick	Strategic Planning Manager

Meeting Secretary	Grayson Rowse	Principal Advisor – Democracy

1 Apologies

Apology

Resolution number HARCC/2025/9

MOVED by Cr Wanden, seconded Cr Jennings:

That the apology from Councillor Tamihana be accepted.

CARRIED

Cr Tamihana advised the committee, through the Chair, that he approved of the general nature of the policy and bylaw, and thanked officers for their work in the development of this piece of work.

2 Late Items

There were no late items.

3 Declaration of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution Number HARCC/2025/10

MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Mayor Wanden:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings and Regulatory Committee held on Tuesday, 15 April 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

5 Reports for Decision

5.1	Draft Dog Control Bylaw and Policy - Hearing of Submissions
	Purpose \| TE PŪTAKE 1. The purpose of this report is to summarise the submissions receive during consultation on the Draft Dog Control Bylaw and Draft Dog Control Policy, and to provide the platform for the Hearings and Regulatory Committee (the Committee) in its deliberations on those submissions; and subsequent recommendation to Council on the final forms of the Bylaw and the Policy. This matter relates to Delivering the Long-Term Plan 2024-44 Delivering the Long-Term Plan 2024-44
	Eleven individuals and organisations request to speak to their submissions. The following individuals and organisation attended the meeting and spoke to their submissions: Rosemary Cleator Melissa Steedman Des Richards Diane Means Jane O’Callaghan Judy Webby Dr Alison Vaughan – RNZPSA Kathryn Lane – Manawatū Estuary Trust
	The committee thanked all submitters who had spoken, and took particular note of the concerns around recognised dog training for Responsible Dog Owner Approval, and the inclusion of a puppy registration fee. The committee canvassed options for identifying other forms of training to be recognised under the Responsible Dog Owner Approval process, and recommended widening the scope for Officers to determine appropriate training evidence. The committee also discussed the reinstatement of a Puppy Registration Fee. This was generally supported by the committee, and it recommended the reinstatement of the fee from 2026-27. The committee also noted concerns raised by the Manawatū Estuary Trust over the control of dogs at the Manawatū Estuary. Officers advised that Manawatū Estuary was outside the jurisdiction of the Council but nevertheless were supportive of appropriate measures to control dogs at that site. The committee recommended that officers liaise with relevant agencies and landowners to effect an appropriate dog control regime within that area. The committee noted its thanks for the extensive work of officers in developing this bylaw and policy.
	Resolution Number HARCC/2025/11 MOVED by Mayor Wanden, seconded Cr Jennings: That Report 25/295 Draft Dog Control Bylaw and Policy - Hearing of Submissions be received. That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act. That the Committee considers the feedback from submitters and officers on the draft changes to the Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy. Carried
	Resolution Number HARCC/2025/12 MOVED by Cr Allan, seconded Cr Jennings: The Committee approve changes to the schedule of on- and off-leash dog exercise areas as proposed in response to submissions, including the addition of on-leash status at Rose Gardens, War Memorials, Thompson House Gardens, Cousins Avenue, Te Maire Park, and Stafford Street Esplanade; and confirm no changes to Holben Parade, Rua Park, Ōhau Domain, Argyle Avenue, or Waikawa Beach Reserve Carried
	Resolution Number HARCC/2025/13 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Mayor Wanden: The Committee endorse the revised framework for Responsible Dog Owner Approval (RDOA) as outlined in the draft policy, and direct officers to implement it with flexibility to accommodate alternative pathways to demonstrate responsible ownership, such as equivalent Council recognised training to ensure the process is practical and fair while maintaining standards. Carried
	Resolution Number HARCC/2025/14 MOVED by Mayor Wanden, seconded Cr Jennings: The Committee retain the provision requiring neutering of dogs found roaming, uncontrolled, or unregistered, and support enforcement being managed through officer discretion, alongside public education. Carried
	Resolution Number HARCC/2025/15 MOVED by Mayor Wanden, seconded Cr Jennings: The Committee retain the clause restricting female dogs in season from public places, and amend the heading of the relevant section to “Dogs Requiring Temporary Exclusion from Public Places” to better reflect the content. Carried
	Resolution Number HARCC/2025/16 MOVED by Mayor Wanden, seconded Cr Jennings: The Committee amend Clause 12(a) to discourage prolonged tethering and promote secure fencing as the preferred means of containment, aligning the bylaw with upcoming national animal welfare regulations. Carried
	Resolution Number HARCC/2025/17 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Mayor Wanden: The Committee recommend the reinstatement of a Puppy Registration category in the Dog Control Policy to apply from the 2026-27 registration period. Carried
	Resolution Number HARCC/2025/18 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Mayor Wanden: The Committee acknowledge the submissions from MET and Ririki Haumaru Trust, which emphasise the importance of culturally responsive engagement and community-led education in supporting responsible dog ownership. Noting the request for Officers to explore opportunities to work in partnership with kaupapa Māori and community organisations to deliver outreach and education, consider supportive and non-regulatory approaches alongside enforcement where appropriate, and refer these matters to officers for further development as part of implementation planning. Carried
	Resolution Number HARCC/2025/19 MOVED by Mayor Wanden, seconded Cr Jennings: The Committee refer operational matters raised in submissions including signage improvements, fenced exercise areas, website clarity on fee categories, and public education initiatives, to Council officers as operational matters. Carried
	Resolution Number HARCC/2025/20 MOVED by Cr Allan, seconded Cr Jennings: The Committee recommend that Council liaise with relevant agencies and landowners with the goal of addressing the need for dog control measures in the Manawatū Estuary. Carried
	Resolution Number HARCC/2025/21 MOVED by Mayor Wanden, seconded Cr Jennings: That the Committee recommends Council adopt a final version of the Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy, as amended by the Committee . Carried

11.40 am There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed.

CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF Hearings and Regulatory Committee HELD ON

DATE: ...........................

CHAIRPERSON:

Chief Executive Employment and Performance Committee

OPEN MINUTES

UNCONFIRMED

Minutes of a meeting of Chief Executive Employment and Performance Committee held in the Tararua Room, 126-148 Oxford St, Levin on Wednesday 11 June 2025 at 10:00 am.

present

Mayor	His Worship The Mayor Bernie Wanden
Deputy Mayor	Councillor David Allan
Councillors	Councillor Sam Jennings
	Councillor Paul Olsen
	Cr Nina Hori Te Pa

IN ATTENDANCE

	Monique Davidson	Chief Executive
Meeting Secretary	Sue Fifita-Tovo	Executive Officer

1 Apologies

There were no apologies.

2 Public Participation

There was no public participation.

3 Late Items

There were no late items

4 Declaration of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

5 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution Number CEEAP/2025/4

MOVED by Mayor Wanden, seconded Cr Jennings:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Chief Executive Employment and Performance Committee held on Wednesday, 30 April 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

That the minutes of the Public Excluded meeting of the Chief Executive Employment and Performance Committee held on Wednesday, 30 April 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

6 Procedural motion to exclude the public

Resolution Number CEEAP/2025/5

MOVED by Mayor Wanden, seconded Cr Jennings:

That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

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 which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1 Chief Executive - End of Year Performance Review 2024-25

Reason:	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.
Interests:	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.
Grounds:	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.
Plain English Reason:	This report contains private employment details of the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive's expectation of privacy in relation to her employment outweighs the public interest in having this information released to the public.

C2 Chief Executive Performance Review Information

Reason:	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.
Interests:	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.
Grounds:	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.
Plain English Reason:	This report contains private employment details of the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive's expectation of privacy in relation to her employment outweighs the public interest in having this information released to the public..

The text of these resolutions is made available to the public who are present at the meeting and form part of the minutes of the meeting.

Carried

10.15 am The public were excluded.

Resolutions in relation to the confidential items are recorded in the confidential section of these minutes and are not publicly available.

12.00 pm There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed.

CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF Chief Executive Employment and Performance Committee HELD ON

DATE: ...........................

CHAIRPERSON:

Council

25 June 2025

Exclusion of the Public : Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

The following motion is submitted for consideration:

That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

C1 Levin War Memorial Hall and Village Green Redevelopment Update

Reason:	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.
Interests:	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.
Grounds:	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.
Plain English Reason:	This report contains commercially sensitive details around the Levin War Memorial Hall redevelopment.

C2 Solid Waste Service Delivery and Agreement Review

Reason:	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.
Interests:	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.
Grounds:	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.
Plain English Reason:	This report includes commercially sensitive information.

C3 East West Arterial (EWA) - Property Acquisition Update

Reason:	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.
Interests:	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.
Grounds:	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.
Plain English Reason:	This report includes commercially sensitive information..

C4 Levin Camp Ground

Reason:	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.
Interests:	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.
Grounds:	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.
Plain English Reason:	This report includes details about lease prices and commercial arrangements. Sharing this information publicly could disadvantage the Council in ongoing or future negotiations. For that reason, the public is excluded under Section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to protect the Council’s commercial position.

C5 Council Resolution and Actions Monitoring Report June 2025

Reason:	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.
Interests:	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)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.
Grounds:	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.
Plain English Reason:	These actions relate to potential or actual sales of property, and contract negotiations. The public release of these actions at this time may affect sales prices or disclose negotiation points.

C6 Proceedings of Committee - Public Excluded Chief Executive Employment and Performance Committee 11 June 2025

Reason:	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.
Interests:	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.
Grounds:	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.
Plain English Reason:	This report contains private employment details of the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive's expectation of privacy in relation to her employment outweighs the public interest in having this information released to the public.