|
Te Awahou Foxton Community Board
18 August 2025
|
|
File No.:
25/459
7.1 Foxton
Beach Endowment Fund Policy - Endorsement
|
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. This report presents the
outcomes of public consultation on the Draft Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Policy
and seeks endorsement from the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board for the revised
policy. The endorsement will enable the policy to be referred to Council for
formal adoption.
Executive Summary | TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA
MATUA
2. This report
seeks endorsement from the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board for the revised
Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Policy, following public consultation held from 30
June to 28 July 2025.
3. The policy has
been updated to reflect community feedback and aims to continue to benefit the
Foxton Beach community.
4. Overall, the
consultation demonstrated broad support for the policy’s direction.
5. Endorsement of
the updated policy will enable it to be referred to Council for formal
adoption.
DELEGATION OR AUTHORITY TO ACT | TE MANA WHAKATAU I
NGĀ KAWENGA
6. The Board has
delegation to endorse the policy through to Council for adoption.
SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT | He Aromatawai Matua
7. This matter is assessed as not significant under Council's
Significance and Engagement Policy.
8. However, given the fund's deep
local importance and the community's strong interest in its governance and
future use, the engagement undertaken has was tailored to ensure community
voices were actively sought and meaningfully considered.
RECOMMENDATION | NGĀ TAUNAKITANGA
A. That Report 25/459 Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Policy -
Endorsement be received.
B. That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in
terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.
C. That the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board
endorses the revised Foxton Beach Endowment Fund Policy, incorporating
community feedback, and recommends it to Council for formal adoption.
Background | HE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA
9. The
Foxton Beach Endowment Fund was established under the Reserves and Other Lands
Disposal Act 1968. With the last policy adopted in 2009, the need for a more
structured and inclusive policy framework has become evident to ensure that the
fund continues to deliver intergenerational benefit, aligns with modern
governance expectations, and reflects the values and priorities of the
community it serves.
10. In
response to these needs, a working group comprising of representatives of the
Te Awahou Foxton Community Board, Kerekere Ward Councillors and descendants of
Papangaio J Block. The draft policy was formed over many workshops including a
hui at Paranui Marae and subsequently approved for public consultation.
Discussion | HE MATAPAKINGA
Consultation
Approach
11. The public consultation ran from
30 June to 28 July 2025. To maximise awareness and participation, the
consultation was supported by a tailored engagement strategy. Hard
copies of the draft policy and supporting consultation material were made
available at Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom and the Foxton Beach Community Centre. The
documents were also published online on Council’s website to ensure wider
accessibility. With the valued support of Wildlife Foxton Trust, printed
consultation documents were delivered to every household in Foxton Beach.
12. Feedback
was accepted via both hard copy and an online submission form. Regrettably, due
to a technical issue, online feedback received prior to 20 July was not
captured. This was promptly addressed by Council officers through targeted
messaging encouraging the community to resubmit. While this response mitigated
the risk, it is acknowledged that some feedback may have been lost.
Engagement Sessions
13. Three
in person opportunities for engagement were offered:
Drop-In Sessions – Holben
Pavilion, Foxton Beach (Thursday 17 July 2025)
· 3:00pm – 4:00pm: 6 adult attendees and 2 children engaged with
6 members of the working group.
· 6:00pm – 7:00pm: No attendees; 4 working group members
present.
14. Key feedback from attendees at
the first session indicated general comfort with the proposed policy direction.
Discussion focused primarily on ensuring long term sustainability of the fund.
Participants emphasised the importance of including mechanisms within the
policy to prevent the fund from being depleted, such as clear stop point or
threshold for spending limits. There were also comments around the
policy’s proposed funding cap, with suggestions that this aspect be
reconsidered or reviewed to ensure it appropriately balances access and
preservation. Additionally, there were comments expressing support for
hapū involvement in both the development of the policy and any future opportunities
related to the fund.
Community Meeting – Foxton Beach
School Hall (Sunday 20 July 2025)
· 17 attendees participated in a structured discussion following a
presentation by Board Chair John Girling, supported by 6 working group members
in attendance.
15. Discussion during this session from an few
highlighted a the community’s interest in fund protection, with support
expressed for retaining a cap to avoid overuse and ensure the fund’s
longevity. Attendees also requested additional clarity on the land assets
associated with the fund and asked for a comprehensive financial history
tracing the fund’s income, use, and performance as far back as records
would allow; this was subsequently added to the website.
16. Another key focus raised during the
community meeting was the importance of managing the fund carefully and ensuring
strong financial stewardship. Attendees emphasised the need to secure a good
return on investment while also protecting the fund’s capital for future
generations.
17. There were questions about how the fund
would be applied across the wider Kerekere Ward, particularly in areas outside
of Foxton Beach, with some uncertainty about the geographic scope and
eligibility for funding.
18. Participants also highlighted the need for
greater transparency and clarity around all aspects of the fund, including how
it operates, what it supports, and how decisions are made.
19. Operational questions were raised, such as
who would be responsible for administering the fund and how the application
process would be managed. Importantly, there were questions around how the core
principles outlined in the policy would be upheld when allocating grants.
Summary of Community Feedback
20. There was a total of 23
feedback forms received, 15 were residents of Foxton Beach, with a further four
residing elsewhere within the Kerekere Ward. The remaining four lived outside
the ward; however, two of these submitters indicated a connection to Foxton
Beach or noted they were ratepayers.
21. Submitters were asked:
“Do you support the direction of the proposed policy?” Of the 23
formal submissions received,
60.8% - 14 expressed support, 34.7% - 8 did not support the proposed direction,
and 4.3% - 1 submitter indicated partial support. Among these, 15 were from
Foxton Beach residents, 4 from within the wider Kerekere Ward, and 4 from
outside the ward—2 of whom noted they were ratepayers or had a connection
to the area.
22. 
23. Community
engagement revealed a generally strong level of support for the proposed
policy, particularly around the goals of improving transparency, strengthening
governance, and embedding cultural recognition. However, it also highlighted
areas where further refinement and clarification are necessary.
24. The
majority of submitters support the direction of the policy, stating it reflects
the fund’s original purpose while improving governance, transparency, and
community benefit.
Submissions
particularly welcomed:
· Inclusion of hapū in
governance and decision-making
· Recognition of the Papangaio J
Block’s historical context
· Stronger accountability
mechanisms
· Community-led approach with
clearer criteria for funding
25. The
key themes from feedback are as below:
Governance and Representation
26. There was not strong opposition to hapū involvement. While some submitters saw
inclusion as overdue and appropriate, others questioned the legitimacy of
unelected representatives. There was support for transparent appointment
processes.
Financial Stewardship
27. A strong theme of safeguarding the fund emerged.
Submitters supported mechanisms such as spending thresholds and retaining a
"cap" as a buffer against depletion. There was a clear expectation of
long term, intergenerational responsibility.
Policy Clarity and Communication
28. Submitters highlighted the need for consistent use of
terminology throughout the policy, particularly terms such as
"community" and "residents," to avoid ambiguity.
29. Submitters
would also like to see clear operational details regarding how the fund will be
administered, how grant decisions will be made, and how transparency will be
maintained across all aspects of the process.
Scope and Eligibility
30. Submitters expressed
mixed views on whether the fund should be extended to apply more broadly across
the Kerekere Ward. While some supported the idea of broader eligibility, many
emphasised that Foxton Beach given its historical connection to the fund should
remain the primary and prioritised beneficiary.
Priorities and Use of Funds
31. Submitters
expressed support for strategic investment in key community priorities,
particularly infrastructure, climate resilience, and wellbeing. However, some
raised concerns that cultural or environmental projects could be prioritised at
the expense of tangible infrastructure improvements that serve immediate needs.
32. There
were also calls to explore external investment options for the fund, including
the use of independent financial advisors.
Response to community feedback
33. The feedback received during
consultation provided valuable insights into community sentiment and helped to
shape the final version of the policy. Careful consideration has been given to
the wide range of perspectives shared and the following responses to key themes
raised:
Governance and Hapū Involvement
The inclusion of descendants’ representatives reflects
the fund’s origins, which are tied to land from the Papangaio J Block.
The involvement in governance acknowledges this historical connection and
aligns with Council’s commitment to partnership. This involvement is at
an advisory and workshopping level and does not impact the elected member only
decision making approach that will continue.
Use of the Fund and Project Priorities
34. The
policy continues to prioritise outcomes that benefit the Foxton Beach
community. While some submitters were concerned about emphasis on cultural or
environmental initiatives, the policy makes clear that funding may support a
range of eligible projects including infrastructure and community wellbeing,
provided they align with the fund’s principles and deliver public
benefit.
35. A
future asset utilisation strategy which will sit alongside the Council’s
overall property strategy and funding criteria will further refine project priorities
and ensure a balanced approach.
$5 Million Cap and Financial Safeguards
36. There
was strong support for maintaining the $5 million cap. In response, the revised
policy includes mechanisms that require caution by requiring a business case
that aligns with principles of the policy and approval by Council for the fund
to drop below the $5 million cap.
37. The
fund’s ongoing growth and sustainability remain a top priority.
Kerekere Ward Scope
38. While the act allows the fund to support projects in
the wider Kerekere Ward, the policy retains a strong focus on Foxton Beach. The
Council and Community Board, as the local governance body, will continue to
ensure that funding decisions are aligned with local priorities and reflect the
principles set.
Clarity and Communication
39. Feedback
on language and accessibility has been addressed through edits to ensure
consistent terminology and remove ambiguity. A communications plan will support
awareness of the policy’s intent and application process.
Investment and External Advice
40. The
suggestion to explore external investment options is supported to some extent,
but will be dependent upon a risk assessment based on the risk profile which is
to be developed . While operational investment decisions remain outside the
policy itself, officers acknowledge the importance of seeking independent
risk/benefit advice should such steps be pursued, to ensure risk is
appropriately managed and returns support the fund’s long term objectives
and ensures prudent financial management.
Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa
|
Options | Ngā Kōwhiringa
|
Benefits | Ngā Whiwhinga
|
Risks | Ngā Mōrearea
|
|
Option A (recommended)
· Endorse the revised policy
|
· Reflects and integrates feedback based on perspectives received
during consultation process.
· Establishes a strong foundation for transparent, modern fund
governance.
· Provides clarity on principles, priorities, and process for future
grant making.
|
· Minimal dissatisfaction from some community members of those
seeking different priorities. However, this can be mitigated by clear
communication, ongoing review, and continued partnership with hapū and
the community.
|
|
Option B
·
Endorse the draft policy as consulted on.
|
· Recognises the work already undertaken.
|
· Misses the opportunity to strengthen the policy based on more
recent or nuanced feedback.
· May be perceived as not fully responsive to community voices.
|
|
Option C
·
Complete further work and delay endorsement
|
·
Allows
for further consultation or policy adjustments.
|
· Delays much needed policy updates.
· New triennium therefore policy may change direction which could
mean full policy rework.
|
ENGAGING WITH MĀORI | TE MAHI TAHI KI TE
MĀORI
41. Papangaio descendants representation and
inclusion in the working group to create the policy acknowledges the whenua
from which the fund was established. The draft policy enabled a working group
approach with dedicated representation and outlines principles of partnership.
Feedback from participants supported this direction.
FINAnCIAL AND RESOURCING | TE TAHUA PŪTEA ME
NGĀ RAUEMI
·
42. There are no direct financial implications
from endorsing the policy. The fund itself remains intact, and its use will be
governed by the updated policy.
Legal and Risk | Te Ture me ngā
Mōreareatanga
43. This report and the
consultation process comply with the Local Government Act 2002. The primary
risk relates to community trust and perception; failure to adopt a robust,
community informed policy may reduce public confidence. The revised policy
mitigates this through clear principles, process, and accountability
mechanisms.
POLICY IMPACT | NGĀ PĀTANGA I NGĀ
KAUPAPA HERE
44. The policy supports Council's
strategic priorities, including community wellbeing, partnership, and financial
sustainability. It modernises an outdated policy.
COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT | TE WHAKAWHITI
PĀRONGO ME TE MAHI
Communicating with our
Community | Te Whakawhiti Pārongo ki te Hapori
45. A communications plan will be
developed following outcome of this meeting to ensure the community is fully
informed of the policy outcome and next steps. Information will be shared
through Council’s website, social media, and local networks.
Next Steps | HEI MAHI ·
46. The revised policy if endorsed will be presented to
Council for adoption in September 2025.
47. Final
materials will be published and distributed.
48. Officers
will prepare implementation guidance and resources for future applicants.
|
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 v4.1 - Amended following consultation
|
14
|
|
b⇩
|
Foxton Beach Endowment Fund
Consultation Feedback - August 2025
|
24
|
|
Te Awahou Foxton Community Board
18 August 2025
|
|
File No.:
25/472
7.3 Update
on Te Awahou Foxton Community Board Priorities
|
Author(s)
|
Alice Petersen
Support Officer
- Democracy | Āpiha Tautoko - Manapori
|
|
|
Grayson Rowse
Principal
Advisor - Democracy | Kaitohutohu Mātāmua - Manapori
|
|
Approved by
|
Monique Davidson
Chief Executive
Officer | Tumuaki
|
Purpose | TE PŪTAKE
1. This
report updates progress of the Board’s priorities.
This matter does
not relate to a current Council priority.
RECOMMENDATION | NGĀTAUNAKITANGA
A. That Report 25/472 Update on Te Awahou Foxton Community Board
Priorities be received and noted.
bACKGROUND | hE KŌRERO TŪĀPAPA
2. In
mid-2024, Te Awahou Foxton Community Board participated in a mid-term review.
This provided board members an opportunity to share insights into what was
going well and where improvements could be made. The board also discussed where
their collective focus could turn to for the remainder of the Council term.
Following positive and constructive conversations, the Board formed a consensus
on the following priorities.
3. The
Board identified the following priorities:
3.1. Foxton Beach
Endowment Fund Policy Review
3.2. Foxton and Foxton
Beach Community Plan
3.3. Foxton Beach
Stormwater Consent
Foxton Beach Endowment
Fund Policy Review
4. The
policy has been prepared for consideration and consideration at the 18 August
2025 Community Board meeting and appeared earlier in the agenda.
Foxton and Foxton Beach
Community Plan
5. During
June 2025, four planning workshops were facilitated by Council officers to
introduce a framework to members and provide direction and advice to prepare
action plans. The purpose of the action plans are to gauge the
groups’ thoughts and ideas on priorities, tasks, actions and roles of
responsibility for each theme identified in the Foxton and Foxton Beach
Community Plan on a Page, and to be included in the final version of the
Community Plan. 18 members attended over the four workshops and were then
tasked with the responsibility to make contact with members of their theme
groups, identify a theme lead and for each of the theme leads to bring their
action plans to the first Foxton Futures Group meeting scheduled for 28 August
2025. Theme groups have been proactive in arranging further meetings to
come together and work as a group to identify the priorities they see will
benefit the Foxton and Foxton Beach community. There has been a lot of energy
and enthusiasm within these groups as they have met to collaborate and
contribute to the community plan. It has been great to see the community
leadership in this space.
6. The
meeting on 28 August will be the first meeting to be held under the revised
governance structure, with Robin Hapi and Monique Davidson continuing as
Co-Chair until the end of 2025.
Foxton Beach Stormwater
Consent
Technical Work:
7. A
draft Section 92 (s92) response has been prepared. It includes the proposed
consent condition framework, stormwater improvement plan for the Foxton Beach
network, ecological assessment of the receiving environment, and a summary of
results from the comprehensive monitoring program. Over the coming month, we
will refine the s92 response further to rationalise our proposed conditions and
improvement plan while awaiting outcomes from iwi engagement.
Iwi Engagement:
8. We
continue to face some scheduling challenges in coordinating hui with multiple
iwi groups due to limited availability. However, we remain fully committed to
meaningful and genuine engagement, including:
· Sharing
environmental monitoring results
· Discussing
cultural values and potential impacts
· Incorporating iwi
feedback into our approach
9. Input
from iwi-nominated technical advisors is also shaping our proposed stormwater
improvement measures.
Ngāti Raukawa:
10. The
first hui took place in January 2025, with a follow-up meeting held on 31 July
2025. We received positive feedback from attendees on our transparent approach
and the way information was shared. We expect a formal response from Ngāti
Raukawa shortly, which will be incorporated into our s92 response to Horizons
Regional Council.
Rangitāne o Manawatū:
11. A meeting is
confirmed for 11 August 2025. Previous meetings had to be rescheduled due to
attendee unavailability caused by illness.
Muaūpoko Tribal Authority:
12. We
are actively working to schedule a hui with Muaūpoko.
13. Once
all engagement is completed, the outcomes and any recommended changes will be
reflected in the final response to Horizons Regional Council.
·
|
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 attachments for this
report.
