Chairperson

Mayor James Denyer

Deputy Chairperson

Deputy Mayor John Scrimgeour

Members

Cr Tracey Coxhead

Cr Grant Dally
Cr Murray Grainger

Cr Anne Henry

Cr Rodney Joyce

Cr Margaret Murray-Benge

Cr Laura Rae

Cr Allan Sole

Cr Don Thwaites

Cr Andy Wichers

Quorum

Six (6)

Frequency

Six weekly

Apology

Resolution  CL25-9.1

Moved:                         Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr M Grainger

That the apology for lateness from Cr Henry be accepted.

Carried

9.1           Minutes of the Katikati Community Board Meeting held on 28 May 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.2

Moved:                         Cr A Sole

Seconded:         Cr R Joyce

That the Minutes of the Katikati Community Board Meeting held on 28 May 2025 be received.

Carried

9.2          Minutes of the Te Puke Community Board Meeting held on 29 May 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.3

Moved:                         Cr A Wichers

Seconded:         Cr G Dally

That the Minutes of the Te Puke Community Board Meeting held on 29 May 2025 be received.

Carried

9.3          Minutes of the Ōmokoroa Community Board Meeting held on 3 June 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.4

Moved:                         Cr M Grainger

Seconded:         Cr D Thwaites

That the Minutes of the Ōmokoroa Community Board Meeting held on 3 June 2025 be received.

Carried

9.4          Minutes of the Waihī Beach Community Board Meeting held on 9 June 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.5

Moved:                         Cr A Sole

Seconded:         Cr R Joyce

That the Minutes of the Waihī Beach Community Board Meeting held on 9 June 2025 be received.

Carried

9.5          Minutes of the Maketu Community Board Meeting held on 17 June 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.6

Moved:                         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

Seconded:         Cr L Rae

That the Minutes of the Maketu Community Board Meeting held on 17 June 2025 be received.

Carried

10.1          Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 8 May 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.7

Moved:                         Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

1.        That the Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 8 May 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record and the recommendations therein be adopted.

2.       That the Chairperson’s electronic signature be inserted into the confirmed minutes.

Carried

10.2         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 13 May 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.8

Moved:                         Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

1.        That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 13 May 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record and the recommendations therein be adopted.

2.       That the Chairperson’s electronic signature be inserted into the confirmed minutes.

Carried

10.3         Minutes of the Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting held on 20 May 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.9

Moved:                         Cr M Grainger

Seconded:         Mayor J Denyer

That the Minutes of the Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting held on 20 May 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record and the recommendations therein be adopted.

Carried

10.4        Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 27 May 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.10

Moved:                         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

Seconded:         Mayor J Denyer

1.        That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 27 May 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record and the recommendations therein be adopted.

2.       That the Chairperson’s electronic signature be inserted into the confirmed minutes.

Carried

10.5         Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Finance Committee Meeting held on 4 June 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.11

Moved:                         Cr M Grainger

Seconded:         Cr A Sole

That the Minutes of the Audit, Risk and Finance Committee Meeting held on 4 June 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record and the recommendations therein be adopted.

Carried

10.6         Minutes of the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee Meeting held on 5 June 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.12

Moved:                         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

Seconded:         Cr L Rae

That the Minutes of the Annual Plan and Long-Term Plan Committee Meeting held on 5 June 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record and the recommendations therein be adopted.

Carried

10.7         Minutes of the Projects and Monitoring Committee Meeting held on 10 June 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.13

Moved:                         Cr D Thwaites

Seconded:         Cr A Sole

That the Minutes of the Projects and Monitoring Committee Meeting held on 10 June 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record and the recommendations therein be adopted.

Carried

10.8         Minutes of the Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting held on 12 June 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.14

Moved:                         Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr M Grainger

That the Minutes of the Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting held on 12 June 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record and the recommendations therein be adopted.

Carried

10.9         Minutes of the Community Committee Meeting held on 25 June 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.15

Moved:                         Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr G Dally

That the Minutes of the Community Committee Meeting held on 25 June 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record and the recommendations therein be adopted.

Carried

10.10       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 26 June 2025

Resolution  CL25-9.16

Moved:                         Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

1.        That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 26 June 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record and the recommendations therein be adopted.

2.       That the Chairperson’s electronic signature be inserted into the confirmed minutes.

Carried

11.1           Item Lying on the Table - Membership of the 'Leading for Delivery' Sub-Committee of the SmartGrowth Leadership Group

Council considered a report dated 24 July 2025 from the Governance Manager. The Acting General Manager Strategy and Community provided the following points of clarification:

·            The Terms of Reference previously put to Council for approval did not require adoption from the partner Councils.

·            The recommendation only sought approval from Council to appoint Mayor Denyer as the Western Bay of Plenty District Council representative, and Deputy Mayor Scrimgeour as the alternative representative.

·            If Council did not appoint a representative, they would not have any representation on the ‘Leading for Delivery’ Sub-Committee of the SmartGrowth Leadership Group. 

The Mayor responded to pātai as follows:

·            The Sub-Committee had already met informally.

·            The Sub-Committee did not have any substantial decision-making role. Its role was to encourage staff to progress particular work.

·            Formally, the Sub-Committee reported back to the SmartGrowth Leadership Group, noting that the agendas and minutes were open to the public. If the Mayor was approved as Council’s representative, he would ensure he reported back through his Mayor’s Report at appropriate Council meetings.

·            The Sub-Committee had the ability to co-opt representatives; it had approved a Tangata Whenua representative at its last hui.

·            The Mayor believed that alternative representatives had the ability to attend hui as they saw fit.

MOTION

Moved:                          Mayor Denyer

Seconded:         Deputy Mayor Scrimgeour

1.        That the Governance Manager’s report dated 24 July 2025, titled ‘Item Lying on the    Table – Membership of the ‘Leading for Delivery’ Sub-committee of the      SmartGrowth Leadership Group’, be received.

2.       That Council confirms the appointment of Mayor James Denyer as the Western      Bay of Plenty District Council representative to the Leading for Delivery Sub-          committee, and Deputy Mayor John Scrimgeour as the alternative representative.

The motion was voted on and was declared lost on show of hands.

LOST 4/8

11.2          Local Government Funding Agency Half-Yearly Report to 31 December 2024 and Statement of Intent 2025–2028

Council considered a report dated 24 July 2025 from the Financial Analyst. The General Manager Corporate Services provided a brief overview of the report and the recommendations therein.

Staff responded to pātai as follows:

·            Theoretically, all Council debt was cross-securitising all other Councils’ debt. However, the first course was through rates for a particular Council and ensuring that all Councils managed their balance sheets and profit and loss correctly.

·            Council had access to banks, however, if they went direct to the bank, Council would not get the best interest rates available.

·            Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) had been performing well, noting that they paid Council a dividend which Council budgeted for, which formed part of Council’s income sources other than rates.

·            As part of the Shareholder group, Council was part of the group that monitored LGFA organisational costs. The work that LGFA undertook did require specialised skills, noting that the Shareholder group monitored appointments as well.

·            Council borrowed based on their LGFA rates in conjunction with their Standard and Poor’s Rating.

·            In relation to sustainability, there was high criteria in order to qualify for this loan, which effectively meant a lower borrowing rate. Staff acknowledged the concerns raised in relation to the sustainability requirement.

·            It was confirmed that Council had maintained their rating of AA with a negative outlook, as per previous rating from Standard and Poor’s. They were complimentary in relation to Council’s current performance. A full report in relation to this would be presented at the next Council meeting.

Resolution  CL25-9.17

Moved:                         Cr A Henry

Seconded:         Cr T Coxhead

1.        That the Financial Analyst’s report dated 24 July 2025 titled ‘Local Government Funding Agency Half-Yearly Report to 31 December 2024 and Statement of Intent 2025–2028’ be received.

2.       That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.       That Council receives the Local Government Funding Agency Half-Yearly Report to 31 December 2024, included as Attachment 1 to this report.

4.      That Council receives the Local Government Funding Agency Statement of Intent 2025–2028, included as Attachment 2 to this report.

Carried

11.3          Co-Lab Half-Yearly Report to 31 December 2024 and Statement of Intent 2025–28

Council considered a report dated 24 July 2025 from the Financial Analyst. The General Manager Corporate Services provided a brief overview of the report and the recommendations therein.

Staff responded to pātai as follows:

·            Staff still felt that Council was receiving value for money, noting that they utilised a number of Co-Lab workstreams.

·            There had been an agreement between the Local Authority Shared Services around the country that they would not overlap in services, therefore staff still felt there was value in being a part of both Co-Lab and BOPLASS.

·            In regard to the building consent processing hub, staff noted that there were great opportunities regarding the streamlining and efficiencies that would be available through the consent processes.

·            Within the Statement of Intent under Co-Lab Service Delivery, it was noted that Council should be identified as a participating Council within the Waikato Building Consent Group. Staff would request for this to be updated.

Resolution  CL25-9.18

Moved:                         Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr R Joyce

1.        That the Financial Analyst’s report dated 24 July 2025 titled ‘Co-Lab Half-Yearly Report to 31 December 2024 and Statement of Intent 2025–26 to 2027–28’ be received.

2.       That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.       That Council receives Co-Lab’s Half-Yearly Report to 31 December 2024, included as Attachment 1 to this report.

4.      That Council receives the Co-Lab Statement of Intent 2025–28, included as Attachment 2 to this report.

Carried

11.4          BOPLASS Half-Yearly Report to 31 December 2024 and Statement of Intent 2025–26 to 2027–28

Council considered a report dated 24 July 2025 from the Financial Analyst. The General Manager Corporate Services provided a brief overview of the report and the recommendations therein.

Staff responded to pātai as follows:

·            Reporting on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) was not a requirement from Council.

Resolution  CL25-9.19

Moved:                         Cr A Sole

Seconded:         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

1.        That the Financial Analyst’s report dated 24 July 2025 titled ‘BOPLASS Half-Yearly Report to 31 December 2024 and Statement of Intent 2025–28’ be received.

2.       That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.       That Council receives BOPLASS’s Half-Yearly Report to 31 December 2024, included as Attachment 1 to this report.

4.      That Council receives the BOPLASS Statement of Intent 2025–28, included as Attachment 2 to this report.

Carried

Apology

Resolution  SPC25-7.1

Moved:               Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr A Sole

That the apology for absence from Cr A Henry be accepted.

Carried

10.1          Minutes of the Te Puke Spatial Plan Sub Committee Meeting held on 18 April 2024

Resolution  SPC25-7.2

Moved:               Cr A Wichers

Seconded:         Cr G Dally

That the Minutes of the Te Puke Spatial Plan Sub Committee Meeting held on 18 April 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record and the recommendations therein be adopted.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

11.1           Adoption of the Speed Management Plan - Alternative Method Proposal

The Committee considered a report from the Acting Policy and Planning Manager dated 31 July 2025, who provided an overview of the report was provided.

Staff responded to pātai as below:

·            It was not clear why NZTA Waka Kotahi had directed the variable speed limit zones to start further away in rural areas compared to urban areas. However, it was noted that in rural areas, drivers would have to reduce their speed from 80-100km/h to 30km/h and in urban areas 40-50km/h to 30km/h. A variable speed limit zone that expanded further away would enable drivers to reduce their speed before they approached the school.

·            NZTA Waka Kotahi had confirmed that both Category 1 and 2 schools could have variable speed limit zones of 30km/h.

·            It was anticipated that the new signs would be rolled out geographically beginning in one area and moving across the district. Once approval had been obtained from NZTA Waka Kotahi then the signs could be implemented.

·            Once the alternative method proposal was submitted to NZTA Waka Kotahi, then council could apply for subsidy for the new signs.

The Committee expressed a desire for the new signs to be rolled out at eastern side of the District first, particularly Pongakawa School, as they had strongly advocated for a reduced speed limit.

Resolution  SPC25-7.3

Moved:             Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr L Rae

1.        That the Acting Policy and Planning Manager’s report dated 31 July 2025 titled “Adoption of the Speed Management Plan – Alternative Method Proposal” be received.

2.       That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.       That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Alternative Method Proposal contained in Attachment 1 subject to finalisation of the maps and implementation schedules.

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to make minor amendments to the Alternative Method Proposal to reflect any operational needs including timing of the variable speed limits and extent.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

11.2          Deliberations and Adoption of the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan

The Committee considered a report from the Senior Policy Analyst dated 31 July 2025, who provided an overview of the report.

Staff responded to pātai as below:

·            Interpretation signs would be provided at reserves where appropriate, noting that not every reserve would have an interpretation panel as there needed to be a certain level of interest. It was noted that there could also be an option to provide QR codes which would direct people to a digital format where information about the reserve would be available.

·            There were very few parcels of land in the district that had been bequeathed to council as a reserve.

·            Maramatanga Park was obtained through a sale and purchase agreement.

·            There was no specific funding targeted for signage at Josephine Place Reserve, signage for reserves would be targeted as some smaller reserves may not require extensive signage.

·            In relation to the naming  of Jack Lloyd Reserve, staff provided a letter to the Committee from the family of Jack Ormsby. The letter provided the historical context about the reserve and stated that the family requested the name of the reserve be called ‘Jack Lloyd Reserve’. 

·            The level of service for weed management in reserves was to control the plants recognised as a weed under the Bay of Plenty Regional Pest Strategy. This meant that weeds like woolly nightshade and wild ginger had to be removed from reserves in the district.

·            There were no significant advantages or disadvantages to adopting the proposed changes to the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan in relation to Precious Family Reserve.

·            The Gerald Crapp Historic Reserve contained a significant pā site, ‘Wai-Huri Pā,’ and other parts of the reserve were previously farm land owned by Gerald Crapp.

·            The bridge at Kaiate Falls that had previously been washed downstream had been removed and had since been replaced at a higher elevation.

·            In relation to governance, planning and cultural recognition, the use of the word ‘kaitiaki’ for ‘kaitiaki training’ was the correct terminology.

The Pirirākau representative provided the following clarification:

·            The name Wahi ō te Ōturu referred to three sister strands of the Ōturu stream which spread across the catchment. There was a kōrero that allowed for all tributaries of Ōturu to be part of that stream.

·            Many of the names offered by Pirirākau expanded across large areas. The original name for Josephine Place Reserve was Mangawhai and this included the nearby pā site. The name Wāhi ō Te Mangawhai referred to the site in a larger context.

·            There were three large pā sites in the vicinity of Josephine Place Reserve, Pirirākau collectively considered them as ‘Mangawhai’.

Resolution  SPC25-7.4

Moved:               Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr A Sole

1.        That the Senior Policy Analyst’s report dated 31 July 2025, ‘Deliberation and Adoption of the final Kaimai Reserve Management Plan’ be received.

2.       That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of medium significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.       That the Strategy and Policy Committee receives the summary of all written and verbal feedback from the formal consultation period held between 11 March and 11 May 2025, as set out in the document titled ‘Summary of Submissions’, shown as Attachment 4 of the agenda report.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Resolution  SPC25-7.5

Moved:               Cr M Grainger

Seconded:         Cr T Coxhead

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 1.1 – Proposed Reserve Naming

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee approves the following reserve names:

5.       Josephine Place Reserve

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Concerns over the  duplication of the name of a reserve.

·            The Committee preferred to name the reserve after the adjourning street.

Motion

Moved:               Cr T Coxhead

Seconded:         Cr M Murray-Benge

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 1.1 – Proposed Reserve Naming

(a)      That the Strategy and Policy Committee approves the following reserve names:

8.    I’Anson Bush Reserve

The motion was voted on and declared lost.

LOST

Cr G Dally abstained from voting.

Resolution  SPC25-7.6

Moved:               Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr D Thwaites

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 1.1 – Proposed Reserve Naming

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee approves the following reserve names:

8.    I’Anson Bush Reserve - Wāhi ō Te Ōturu

Carried

Cr M Murray-Benge and Cr T Coxhead voted against the motion and asked for their votes to be recorded.

Reasons for decision:

·            A dual name recognises both the I’Anson family who gifted the land and the significance to Mana Whenua.

·            Recognises that the reserve is already known by the name I’Anson Bush Reserve by the community.

Resolution  SPC25-7.7

Moved:               Cr M Grainger

Seconded:         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 1.1 – Proposed Reserve Naming

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee approves the following reserve names:

1.    Bramley Reserve

2.   Kowhai Reserve

3.   Kuaka Rise Reserve

4.   Wāhi ō Te Kakaramea

7.   Wāhi ō Te Hakao

9.   Wāhi ō Te Tawa ki Tahataharoa

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Recognises names that are significant to Mana Whenua and the community.

·            Acknowledges the aspirations of Tangata Whenua to have a cultural presence across the reserves network

·            Resolves the confusion of having two reserves known as Lynley Park Drive Reserve.

·            Is consistent with the reserve naming policy

Resolution  SPC25-7.8

Moved:               Cr D Thwaites

Seconded:         Cr G Dally

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

That the Strategy and Policy Committee approves retention of the following reserve names:

1.        Te Puna Quarry Park.

2.       Minden Lookout

And that the reserve management approach information for Te Puna Quarry Park is updated as follows:

·        Work with Tangata Whenua and interested parties on developing cultural presence initiatives (for example art works, sculptures, interpretation signage, etc) in the reserve.

And that the reserve management approach information for Minden Lookout is updated as follows:

·        Delete the reference to renaming the lookout to ‘Waihi o Te Rangituanehu’.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Recognises names that are significant to the community.

·            Is consistent with the reserve naming policy

·            Can reflect the name Te Rangituanehu within the Minden Lookout reserve and provide an opportunity for storytelling.

10.30am    The hui adjourned.

10.45am    The hui reconvened.

Resolution  SPC25-7.9

Moved:               Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr D Thwaites

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 1.1 – Proposed Reserve Naming

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee approves the following reserve names:

6.   Jack Lloyd Reserve

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Recognise a name that is significant to the community.

·            Reflects the name gifted by the family who sold the land to council.

Resolution  SPC25-7.10

Moved:               Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr L Rae

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 2.1 – Pest Management Policy (Policy 28)

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee replaces the Pest Management Policy with the following:

Council aims to work strategically with the community to manage pest animals and plants on its reserves. To help ensure pest control efforts contribute to positive environmental outcomes, reserves may be prioritised based on a range of ecological and community-based considerations. 

Reserves will be selected by the Reserves and Facilities Manager using criteria such as the presence of wetlands, active volunteer involvement, designation as high-priority biodiversity sites or significant ecological features, threats to indigenous biodiversity from pests, the presence of “at risk” or “threatened” native species, and the existence of community-led pest control initiatives. Priority will also be given to protecting habitats that support biodiversity and ecological resilience. 

Council’s approach is guided by the Bay of Plenty Regional Pest Management Plan and the relative level of threat posed by pest species. This work is expected to be further supported by the developing Pest Free Parks Strategy, which aims to provide a framework for Council, Tangata Whenua, and the wider community to collectively enhance biodiversity outcomes. This includes consideration of available resources, capacity and capability, and alignment with other areas of Council’s service delivery. 

Council will continue to support and recognise the contribution of volunteers through coordination and sustainable funding, and may also support education, signage, and community outreach to raise awareness and encourage responsible pest management practices.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            To provide flexibility to manage pest control based on ecological priorities, resourcing and community involvement.

·            Aligns better with the Regional Pest Management Plan

·            Reflects how we are already delivering pest management

·            Acknowledges the role of Tangata Whenua, volunteers and community education – addressing the feedback from some submitters.

Resolution  SPC25-7.11

Moved:               Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr M Grainger

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 4.2 – Kaimai Views Reserve

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends the reserve specific information for Kaimai Views Reserve in the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan as follows:

·    Continue working with the Friends of Kaimai Views community group to restore and maintain the reserve; 

·    Develop a concept plan to enhance the reserve for recreational use (subject to future community consultation and design). Preliminary ideas include: 

o  Additional amenity planting 

o  New or upgraded trail connections including potential pond crossing 

o  Improved way-finding and interpretive signage 

o  New playground on the western side of the reserve 

o  Formal car parking at Sentinel Avenue side of Parcel 1207/345 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Responds to the needs of the neighbourhood.

·            Allows us to meet our levels of service for this neighbourhood.

·            Formally recognises continuing to work with the Friends of Kaimai Views community group.

Resolution  SPC25-7.12

Moved:               Cr M Grainger

Seconded:         Cr D Thwaites

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 4.6 – Ōmokoroa Domain and Esplanade

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends the reserve specific information for Ōmokoroa Domain and Esplanade in the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan as follows:

·    Review the concept plan to consider whether it is fit for purpose and to consider toilets, parking and any access issues. 

·    Place a note on the concept plan to state that items in the concept plan may differ as it is implemented.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            A review of the concept plan can canvas the issues with the community further and establish whether changes are required to the concept plan.

·            Allows us to establish the extent of the limitations with the current concept plan.

·            Provides clarity that the concept plan may differ in implementation.

Resolution  SPC25-7.13

Moved:               Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr R Joyce

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 4.7 – Ōmokoroa Sports Ground

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends the reserve specific information for Ōmokoroa Sports Ground in the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan as follows:

·    Has been identified as a potential new site for the Ōmokoroa Bowling Club and other low-impact sports (subject to feasibility and community feedback) to be considered through the development and acquisition of the Active Reserve. 

·    Place a note on the concept plan to state that items in the concept plan may differ as it is implemented

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Responds to some of the issues raised by submitters

·            Subject to feasibility and community feedback it is a potential location for the Ōmokoroa Bowling Club and other low impact sports, which would provide some certainty to the club. 

·            Provides clarity that the concept plan may differ in implementation.

Resolution  SPC25-7.14

Moved:               Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr M Murray-Benge

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 4.8 – Precious Family Reserve

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends the reserve specific information for Precious Reserve in the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan as follows:

·    Maintain the reserve for its ecological character and for passive recreation. 

·    Work with the community to support expanded wetland planting and low-impact ecological enhancements. 

·    Implement improvements to the Mabs Kelly walkway/cycleway by addressing safety concerns and resurfacing.

·    Place a note on the concept plan to state that items in the concept plan may differ as it is implemented.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Responds to some of the issues raised by submitters

·            Formally recognises the importance of working with the community to support the expansion of wetland planting.

·            Provides clarity that the concept plan may differ in implementation.

·            Improvements to trail surfaces will address the safety concerns raised by submitters.

Resolution  SPC25-7.15

Moved:               Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr L Rae

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 4.11 – Memorial Wall and Gerald Crapp Historic Reserve

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends the reserve specific information for Gerald Crapp Reserve in the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan as follows:

·    Has been identified as a potential site for a Memorial Wall (subject to feasibility and community feedback)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Provides a potential location for a Memorial Wall and allows the engagement with the community to continue. 

Resolution  SPC25-7.16

Moved:               Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr D Thwaites

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 5.1 – I’Anson Bush Reserve – Wāhi ō Te Ōturu

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends the reserve specific information for I’Anson Bush Reserve - Wāhi ō Te Ōturu in the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan as follows:

·    Investigate applying an appropriate reserve classification (i.e. Nature Reserve), which supports ecological protection and low-intervention management of the reserve once the transfer of the reserve is complete;

·    Continue working with the Friends of I’Anson community group to restore and maintain the reserve;

·    Consider new future amenities and facilities. Such as:

o  Additional bench seating

o  Track repairs and surface refurbishments

o  Path extension to the existing Loop Road car park

o  Car park CCTV camera

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Formalises the relationship with the Friends of I’Anson Bush Reserve.

·            Classifying the reserve as a Nature Reserve is appropriate to recognise the importance of protecting the flora and fauna found in this reserve.

·            Responds to the safety concerns of the submitters

Resolution  SPC25-7.17

Moved:               Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr M Grainger

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 5.3 – Maramatanga Park

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends the reserve specific information for Maramatanga Park in the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan as follows:

·    Consider new amenities and facilities for the playground area, such as: 

o  Drinking fountain 

o  Rubbish bin 

o  BBQ 

o  Toilets

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Responds to the needs of the community

·            Recognises the increased activity at the park due to the installation of the playground.

·            The existing toilets are in the club rooms on the opposite side of the park and are usually locked.

·            Picnic tables and BBQs would improve the experience and allow families to spend more time at the park.

Resolution  SPC25-7.18

Moved:               Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 6.1 – Ongaonga Scenic Reserve, Lower Kaimai Reserve, Lower Kaimai Hall site (Former)

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends page 13 of the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan as follows:

“The Poripori Road Picnic Area provides a peaceful spot for relaxation and swimming, while Ongaonga Scenic Reserve offers virgin native bush and the potential to be developed for hiking and bird watching.”

AND

Update the reserve specific information in the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan as follows:

Ongaonga Scenic Reserve include:

·    Work with the Lower Kaimai community to restore and maintain the reserve 

·    Consider development of new tracks and footbridges within the reserve 

Lower Kaimai Reserve include:

·    Consider a potential boundary adjustment of land parallel with Ngamuwahine Road to connect trails to Ongaonga Scenic Reserve. 

Lower Kaimai Hall Site (Former) include:

·    Consider potential divestment of the site with proceeds used to support strategic upgrades to reserves in the Lower Kaimai area. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Responds to the concerns and aspirations raised by submitters

·            Provides improved access to the Ongaonga Scenic Reserve

·            Assists with pest management

·            Recognises the importance of working with the community.

Resolution  SPC25-7.19

Moved:               Cr G Dally

Seconded:         Cr M Grainger

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 7.1 – Kaiate Falls Scenic and Esplanade Reserve

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends the reserve specific information in the Te Puke Maketu Reserve Management Plan for Kaiate Falls Scenic and Esplanade Reserve as follows:

·    Consider new future amenities and facilities. Such as: 

o  Additional picnic tables 

o  Improved toilet facilities

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Provides improved amenity to the reserve.

·            No significant increase in costs for Council to include services that currently are unavailable at the reserve.

Resolution  SPC25-7.20

Moved:               Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

Seconded:         Cr M Murray-Benge

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 7.2 – Kaiate Hall

(a)          That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends the reserve specific information in the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan to remove all reference to Kaiate Hall and refer the submissions to the Department of Conversation for their consideration.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Provides a clear position to the community that Council does not manage this reserve.

Resolution  SPC25-7.21

Moved:               Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr M Grainger

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 7.3 – Oropi Memorial Hall

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends the reserve specific information for Oropi Memorial Hall in the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan as follows:

·    Continue working with the Oropi Settlers Incorporated on development of indoor sports facilities at this site, subject to feasibility work and funding. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Responds to the needs of the community

·            Recognises the work of the Oropi Settlers Incorporated

Resolution  SPC25-7.22

Moved:               Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr M Grainger

4.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee adopts the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan, shown as Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda report, and inclusive of the following:

Issue 8.2 – Governance, Planning and Cultural Recognition

(a)    That the Strategy and Policy Committee amends the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan as follows:

To include in the Kaimai Ward community groups, committees and stakeholders the following:

·                Pirirākau is a hapū with a large rohe extending from the Wairoa River in the east to the Aongatete River in the west, including Te Puna, Minden, Whakamārama, Ōmokoroa, Hūharua (Plummers Point), Pahoia, Apata, and Aongatete.  Pirirākau holds enduring kaitiakitanga responsibilities across these areas, providing cultural leadership in reserve naming, cultural site identification, pest management support, and environmental restoration activities.

·                Pirirākau actively engages with both Council and the wider community through reserve planning processes, cultural narrative development, collaborative planting and restoration projects, and pest control initiatives. They work alongside community organisations such as Ōmokoroa Pest Free, Omokoroa Environmental Managers Inc, Friends of the Blade, Whakamārama Community Inc, and Te Puna Heartlands, supporting shared outcomes in environmental protection and cultural education. Their involvement also includes kaitiaki training, environmental education projects, and hapū-led site visits to culturally significant areas.

AND

Reserve specific information for the following reserves in the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan:

·    Kotuku Reserve - “work with Pirirākau to acknowledge, preserve and maintain cultural heritage values of the area including investigation to apply Historical Classification to the urupā site.” 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

Reasons for decision:

·            Recognises the contribution that Pirirākau make to the Kaimai Ward community.

·            Recognises the significance of the reserve to Tangata Whenua and its history.

Resolution  SPC25-7.23

Moved:               Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr A Sole

5.      That the indicative costs to implement future capital projects contained within the Kaimai Reserve Management Plan to be referred to the Annual Plan 2026/27 and Long Term Plan 2027-37 for consideration.

6.      That the Strategy and Policy Committee requests the Chief Executive to direct staff to prepare a decision story in general accordance with resolutions of this meeting for approval by the Mayor, as the formal response to submitters and for dissemination to those that provided feedback as the response to their feedback, and to be published on the Council’s website.

7.       That the Chief Executive is authorised to make any required minor editorial changes to the final Kaimai Reserve Management Plan.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

11.3          Submission on the Building & Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill

The Committee considered a report from the Environmental Planning Manager dated 31 July 2025. The report was taken as read.

Resolution  SPC25-7.24

Moved:               Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

1.        That the Environmental Planning Manager’s report dated 31 July 2025, titled ‘Submission on the Building & Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill’, be received.

2.       That the following submission, shown as Attachment 1 to this report, be received by the Strategy and Policy Committee and the information noted.

a.      Submission on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-along Dwellings) Amendment Bill dated 23 June 2025.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

11.4          Submissions on Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and Predator Free 2050

The Committee considered a report from the Senior Policy Analyst dated 31 July 2025. The report was taken as read.

Resolution  SPC25-7.25

Moved:               Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr A Wichers

1.        That the Senior Policy Analyst’s report dated 31 July 2025 titled ‘Submissions on Aotearoa New Zealand’s Biodiversity Strategy and Predator Free 2050’ be received.

2.       That the following submissions, shown as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 (respectively) to this report, be received by the Strategy and Policy Committee and the information noted.   

a.    Submission on Implementing Aotearoa New Zealand’s Biodiversity Strategy 2025-2030; and

b.    Submission on Predator Free 2050 Strategy Review (2025-2030).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Carried

8.1           Darlene Dinsdale - Local Waters Done Well

Ms Dinsdale was in attendance to speak on behalf of Te Arawa regarding the proposed Water Services Delivery Plan and Commitment Agreement. She noted the following points:

·            Their preferred option was for Council to stand alone (in-house), however acknowledged that this option may not be as feasible.

·            Their second option would be to have a joint Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) with Tauranga City Council (TCC).

·            Iwi/hapū did not believe that the key strategic principles within the Commitment Agreement sufficiently met the needs of Tangata Whenua. They requested inclusion into the development of the Commitment Agreement.

·            Iwi/hapū would also like to be involved in the governance of the water entity, noting that the required skills were held by iwi/hapū.

·            Acknowledgement was made to the unresolved treaty settlement claims that had been going on for many years, which meant that the option to include Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC) should not be considered as an option. They stood alongside and supported their Tauranga Moana whānau in relation to this.

Ms Dinsdale responded to pātai as follows:

·            There would be division between Council and Iwi/hapū if they were to form a CCO with TCDC.

·            Iwi/hapū were kaitiaki of the land and therefore wore a lens that allowed them to ensure that the best decisions in relation to the land were being made.

 8.2         Dr Hauata Palmer and Nessie Kuka - Local Waters Done Well

Dr Palmer and Ms Kuka were in attendance on behalf of Ngāi te Rangi (Matakana Island) regarding the proposed Water Services Delivery Plan in relation to Local Waters Done Well. They noted the following points:

·            They did not understand the logic behind having TCDC involved in the decisions that sat within the Tauranga Moana rohe.

·            Tauranga Moana iwi had been debating and trying to resolve treaty settlement issues for 16 years. The Waitangi Tribunal had said that Hauraki had a right within Tauranga Moana, however it did not give them the right to make decisions on behalf of Tauranga Moana. This is the reason that they did not accept Hauraki being a part of any decision making on behalf of Tauranga Moana.

·            There were 12 iwi in Hauraki and 3 iwi in Tauranga Moana. The iwi being engaged with in relation to the Council decisions should be the iwi of the land, which was Tauranga Moana and Te Arawa.

·            Ngāi te Rangi made it clear that they would not engage with Council if Hauraki iwi were brought to the decision-making table.

They responded to pātai as follows:

·            There was a clear message to Councillors at a previous informal hui with Tangata Whenua in relation to this issue, that there had been a manifestation of Hauraki coming into the rohe and wanting to sit at the decision-making table to have a bigger voice.

·            Tangata Whenua had undertaken a lot of work in relation to the Katikati Outfall project, noting that bringing TCDC into the equation would create massive difficulties.

·            Anyone could own land in Tauranga Moana; however, this did not give them the right to have Mana Whenua over the land.

·            Even if Council had the ability through the foundational documents to ensure that Hauraki could not be involved in the decisions in Tauranga Moana, the iwi/hapū would not be OK with them sitting at the table, given the history between the two.

CHANGE TO ORDER OF BUISNESS

The Mayor requested that the presentation from Thunder Ridge be moved to the confidential agenda, to allow discussion on topics that were commercially sensitive at this time.

Resolution  CL25-10.1

Moved:                         Cr M Grainger

Seconded:         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

That in accordance with Standing Orders the order of business be changed and that the item 9.1 Thunder Ridge Update be dealt with as the first item of business in the confidential agenda.

Carried

10.1          Adoption of the Water Services Delivery Plan

Council considered a report from the Strategic Advisor who was supported by the General Manager Corporate Services and Sarah Baddley (MartinJenkins). She provided an overview of the report, including the background of the process to date, and recommendations being sought for Council’s consideration.

Tabled Item 1 – The Water Services Delivery Plan was provided separately to the agenda.

Staff and Ms Baddley responded to pātai as follows:

·            The legislation restricts shareholders to be only the Council, causing concerns for some iwi. However, it allows local Councils to create representative structures to influence shareholder decisions. Various approaches are used: some Councils work directly with iwi using existing mechanisms, others collaborate in representative forums jointly with iwi, some involve iwi directly depending on treaty settlements, and others have iwi participate in a nominating sub-committee to select the board of Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs). These examples demonstrated the varied ways Councils were collaborating with Tangata Whenua.

·            The Council needed to decide how flexible they would be in forming their shareholder position by considering various options, such as sub-committee arrangements, the full council body, or partnership with iwi. This decision would guide their shareholder interest in the Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) and influence specific decisions the CCO made, primarily through the Statement of Expectations. Additionally, during the setup of a CCO, the Council could establish expectations for how the CCO should engage with Tangata Whenua and continue existing consenting relationships.

·            In the future it would be expected that Council, as shareholders, would have a direct relationship with Tangata Whenua, and that Tangata Whenua would have a direct relationship with the CCO.

·            There were expectations regarding a joint water CCO's role in upholding Treaty Settlements. Despite legislative requirements to honour these settlements, iwi representatives expressed concerns due to ongoing cross-claim issues. They felt that these issues were insurmountable because historically they had not been addressed with the good faith they expected.

·            There were a number of mechanisms, from governance and operations through to Treaty Settlements, that were available to council to work with Tangata Whenua, noting that this could happen through both the stand-alone option and CCO option.

·            To help understand the story in relation to depreciation, Ms Baddley provided some context from the original discussions:

o   When MartinJenkins were initially engaged, financial ring-fencing was being introduced, highlighting that the Council's historical approach involved a balanced budget, funding the Capital Programme from a broader revenue base. Unlike other councils that depreciated assets over time, ring-fencing required water assets to be independent. Consequently, the Council's approach of balancing 'unders and overs' was no longer feasible, explaining why the previous funding and financing method for water infrastructure was unsustainable and made the treatment of depreciation policy more challenging.

o   How Council was currently treating depreciation was the same way that the new entity would do it, however due to different circumstances it would work for the Water Service Organisation (WSO). It was clarified that Council was using money from other activities e.g. swimming pools, libraries and rates, whereas ring-fencing meant that the WSO would only be able to use water money.

·            When MartinJenkins was first engaged, it was unclear how Financial Contributions (FinCos) would be treated.

·            The LGFA had indicated an increased tolerance for debt from dedicated Water Services Organisations, due to viewing them as a utility.

·            It was clarified that the 500% net debt to operating revenue percentage was not a covenant, but rather a prudent limit.

·            As previously advised, the stand alone CCO option was technically feasible for Council, noting that Council could achieve financial sustainability by extending loans, materially increasing Council’s revenue (through rates) in the near term to better match its capital programme, and by de-risking other parts of Council’s investment plans.

·            The provision of the LGFA was for councils not to have more than 20% of their total borrowing to growth councils. They would assess this regime on a case-by-case basis, noting that only two councils had approached them, which was Tauranga City Council (TCC) and Waipa. Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) had not had to approach the LGFA in relation to this, as they had not yet reached borrowing capacity. 

·            Ring-fencing was a provision that was discussed as part of the formation of the CCO. There would then need to be a joint decision by councils who were a part of the CCO as to whether the ring-fencing requirement should be removed in the future.

·            Due to staff being given direction to date of the preferred model being a multi-council CCO, the work had not been done in relation to the borrowing constraints if Council were to go with the in-house option. It was noted however that there would need to be other considerations due to Council not being able to include some of the revenue, for example FinCos, which would therefore affect the borrowing.

·            The financial strength of a multi-council approach was over the long term, due to the complementary balance sheet and investment profile between TCDC and WBOPDC. Regarding the short-term impact, the household impact would not be huge, due to the assumption that there would be a five year period where the numbers were not harmonised. The benefits of having TCDC in the arrangements were over the long-term period.

·            Currently Council had three settings under which they did their borrowing, 10 year (for short term assets), 25 year or 30 year loan periods. This was based off policy settings of Council.

·            Before outlining options for the Council, Ms. Baddley recognised that iwi might not find these acceptable due to views expressed during the public forum. Iwi and Māori typically had a profound interest in water from a Te Ao Māori perspective and would likely seek involvement from governance to operations in water management, from strategy to implementation. There were mechanisms available to address some of these interests which were noted as the following:

o   Options at a governance level were spoken to earlier, Council could consider the requirement of Te Ao Māori and Treaty-based competency of board directors for the Water Service Organisation.

o   The next layer related to Treaty settlements, noting that this was the only statutory obligation that was prescribed in any detail within the legislation. The legislation was clear that Councils must give effect to Treaty settlements, but not how this was done, noting that there were different mechanisms that could be put in place to achieve this.

o   Regarding overlapping iwi interests and boundary contests, staff could not address the years of disputes in this area. Relationship-based mechanisms included understanding specific cross-claims and recognising them through existing consenting processes with Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

o   Influence over management decisions was primarily through the Board's competency and Tangata Whenua's potential involvement in the Statement of Expectation (SOE). A Water Services Organisation was expected to maintain organisational capability concerning local Tangata Whenua issues and mātauranga.

o   The final process was about how to bring all these mechanisms together, however the decision in front of Council today was regarding who to partner with. The significance process in relation to the designing of these details would happen afterwards.

The DIA representatives responded to pātai as follows:

·            The government passed legislation of the new Local Water Done Well Policy and the legislative framework around it. Central Government had policy positions and was encouraging financially sustainable water arrangements, and councils forming these through stand alone water entities or through joining with other councils.

·            Representatives were not in the position to comment on the feeling expressed by some Councillors in relation to requirements making it harder on Councils trying to do ‘local waters well’. The Mayor noted that the policy position of the government was for water services to move on the path of aggregation.

·            Local Water Done Well was a priority position for the government when they took office.

·            The DIA was aware of other situations with Mana Whenua through the consultation period, however those were quite different to what had been expressed by iwi/hapū from Tauranga Moana. The other situations included the need for the different councils within the grouping to work through obligations, relationships, and undertakings with their iwi/hapū through the foundation documents, as part of the due diligence phase.

·            The multi-council CCO structure was viewed as being more cost effective both operationally and improving access to financing. DIA believed the conservative approach to operational efficiencies (10% over the 10-year period) was imminently achievable.

·            The scale would give the multi-council CCO financing efficiency, therefore from a Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) lending perspective, they took the size of the organisation into account when determining the Funds From Operations (FFO) to debt ratio, which was the bespoke lending covenant they had developed for water services CCOs.

·            The LGFA and DIA’s view was that due to the FFO to debt covenants developed for Water Services CCOs, those water organisations were able to take a more utility approach to financing where the debt was spread out and repaid over a longer period of time. This meant that the burden did not disproportionately fall on ratepayers today but was spread over the lifetime. This “sweet spot” for debt payment could still be worked through as a key consideration, alongside partner councils, if Council decided to progress with a multi-council CCO.

·            The LGFA would allow up to five years to reach the financial ratio covenants for a CCO only, not if councils decided to go in-house.

·            The DIA’s role was to receive and review the Water Services Delivery Plans, and the secretary of Local Government had a statutory role to accept the plans, seek further information, or request amendment by Council. The secretary also had a monitoring role in relation to the implementation of the Water Services Delivery Plan.

·            It was clarified that the Commerce Commission was being given powers through the Bill before the house, to be the on-going economic regulator. They would be implementing an information disclosure regime that allowed them to review whether a council was under or over charging, or not investing enough into their infrastructure. They also had a range of powers available to intervene beyond information disclosure. This included setting non-binding revenue thresholds, and the ability to seek powers through the Minister, associated with price quality regulation, which would allow them to mandate a price or investment path. It was clarified that these powers could be sought whether in-house or through a CCO.

Resolution  CL25-10.2

Moved:                         Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr M Grainger

1.            That the Strategic Advisor’s report dated 5 August 2025 titled ‘Adoption of the Water Services Delivery Plan’ be received.

2.          That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of high significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Carried

11.26am     The hui adjourned.

11.48am     The hui reconvened.

Motion

Moved:               Cr Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr Rae

3.          (a)    Approves the water services delivery model for water, wastewater and     stormwater services to be:

i.            In-house

The motion was voted on and a division was called and recorded as follows:

For:             Cr Murray-Benge, Cr Sole, Cr Rae, Cr Coxhead, Cr Henry and Cr Grainger.

Against:    Cr Thwaites, Cr Joyce, Cr Wichers, Cr Dally, Deputy Mayor Scrimgeour and               Mayor Denyer.

The Mayor exercised his casting vote and voted against the motion. The motion was declared lost.

LOST 7/6

Resolution  CL25-10.3

Moved:                         Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr D Thwaites

3.       (a)    Approves the water services delivery model to be:

ii.                     Water Organisation

Carried

Resolution  CL25-10.4

Moved:                         Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr G Dally

3.       (b)    Approves the Water Organisation being:

                   ii.       Multi-Council Water Organisation, subject to all the partner Councils                        being satisfied with the results of the Due Diligence process.

The motion was voted on and a division was called and recorded as follows:

For:             Cr Thwaites, Cr Joyce, Cr Wichers, Cr Dally, Cr Sole, Cr Grainger, Deputy                    Mayor Scrimgeour and Mayor Denyer.

Against:    Cr Murray-Benge, Cr Henry, Cr Rae and Cr Coxhead.

Carried 8/4

Resolution  CL25-10.5

Moved:                         Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr A Henry

3.       (c)    Approved the Multi-Council Water Organisation being:

                   i.        Initially with Tauranga City Council subject to Tauranga City Council’s                       approval of a corresponding resolution.

The motion was voted on and a division was called and recorded as follows:

For:             Cr Thwaites, Cr Joyce, Cr Wichers, Cr Dally, Cr Henry, Cr Grainger, Deputy                  Mayor Scrimgeour and Mayor Denyer.

Against:    Cr Murray-Benge, Cr Sole, Cr Rae and Cr Coxhead

CarrieD 8/4

motion

Moved:               Cr Dally

Seconded:         Cr Sole

3.       (d)    During the Due Diligence phase, engage with Rotorua Lakes District Council,           Whakatane District Council, Opotiki District Council and Kawerau District                  Council formally inviting their consideration of joining the Water Organisation              either from the initial start date, or at a later date.

The motion was put and declared lost on show of hands.

LOST

1.28pm      The hui adjourned.

1.56pm      The hui reconvened.

There was further discussion required in reference to stormwater within the Water Services Delivery Plan. It was clarified that the proposed recommendation was specific due to the staff requiring a clear view from Council in order to undertake the financial analysis, including or excluding stormwater.

It was noted that at this time the Water Services Delivery Plan included stormwater.

The rationale for the proposed recommendations allowed staff to see that Council could take it’s time in relation to Stormwater, while allowing the financial modelling to be developed in time to delivery their Water Services Delivery Plan whilst retaining their option in the future.

Staff and Ms Baddley responded to pātai as follows:

·            It was noted that it would be problematic if the ownership of the stormwater infrastructure was split between Council and the joint water service organisation.

·            It was acknowledged that the need for the specificity in the third paragraph of recommendation 3(e) could be seen as a contradiction if it were not for the inclusion of the financial analysis. It was noted that staff did not have the information at the moment to apportion what stormwater assets would transfer, and which assets would remain. The first decision was agreement on progressing through the due diligence process to outline what assets would transfer, and which ones would not. The wording proposed in the third paragraph of recommendation 3(e) was to address the short-term requirements for the Water Services Delivery Plan, to make assumptions around the financial analysis.

·            There was nothing in the legislation at this time that determined how Council could charge for stormwater, this was something that was yet to be determined by Council. 

Resolution  CL25-10.6

Moved:                         Cr M Grainger

Seconded:         Cr A Henry

3.       (d)    Agreed that developed stormwater infrastructure (manholes, pipes,                        networked infrastructure) predominantly in urban environments should be                considered for transfer to the joint water service organisation as part of the                  due diligence process and that non-urban stormwater infrastructure will be                 retained by Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) and be                       managed in conjunction with the primary interface of transport                                  infrastructure.

                   Agreed that assets (including land) where a significant purpose is recreation                 and open space, should remain with the Council and should not be planned                    to transfer to the joint Water Service organisation.

                   Directs that the Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) financial analysis be              based on the above stormwater assets transferring although further work                 needs to be undertaken to determine the treatment of specific stormwater           assets and services consistent with principles set out in the Water Services              Delivery Plan (WSDP).

                   Agrees that specific advice around the treatment of these assets be reported                back prior to the receipt of the report from due diligence.

Carried

Resolution  CL25-10.7

Moved:                         Cr M Grainger

Seconded:         Cr R Joyce

4.          That Council directs the Chief Executive Officer to amend the Water Services Delivery Plan (Tabled Item 1) on the basis of a multi-Council Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation with Tauranga City Council; and that the amended Water Services Delivery Plan be presented to Council for adoption.

5.          That Council receives the presentation and minutes from the Council Workshop on 4 June 2025 (Attachment 2 and 3) 10 July 2025 (Attachment 4 and 5) and the Council Workshop on 14 July 2025 (Attachment 6 and 7).

Carried

10.2         Approve the Commitment Agreement for a joint Council Water Services Council Controlled Organisation

Council considered a report from the Strategic Advisor.

Tabled Item 2 – The Commitment Agreement was provided separately to the agenda.

Given the above resolutions, Council suggested the below recommendations in relation to the Commitment Agreement.

Resolution  CL25-10.8

Moved:                         Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr M Murray-Benge

1.            That the Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Project’s report dated 5 August 2025 titled ‘Approve the Commitment Agreement for a Joint Council Water Services Council-Controlled Organisation’ be received.

2.          That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of high significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.          That Council directs the Chief Executive Officer to amend the Commitment Agreement (Tabled Item 2) to remove Thames-Coromandel District Council; and to present an amended Commitment Agreement for approval.

Carried

12.1          Standard & Poors Credit Rating - 2025 Annual Review

Council considered a report dated 5 August 2025 from the Financial Analyst. The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CL25-10.13

Moved:                         Cr M Grainger

Seconded:         Cr R Joyce

That the Financial Analyst’s report dated 5 August 2025 and titled ‘Standard & Poor’s Credit Rating – 2025 Annual Review’, be received.

Carried

12.2         Recommendatory Report - Strategy and Policy Committee - Cemeteries Bylaw 2025

Council considered a report dated 5 August 2025 from the Senior Policy Analyst. The Policy and Planning Manager provided an overview of the report and recommendations therein.

Resolution  CL25-10.14

Moved:                         Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr M Murray-Benge

1.            That the Senior Policy Analyst’s report dated 5 August 2025 titled ‘Recommendatory Report – Strategy and Policy Committee – Cemeteries Bylaw 2025’, be received.

2.          That Council adopts the Cemeteries Bylaw 2025 (included as Attachment 1 of this report), to come into force on 8 September 2025.

3.          That Council directs the Chief Executive to publicly notify the adoption of the Cemeteries Bylaw 2025 in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002.

Carried

12.3         Recommendatory Report - Strategy and Policy Committee - Livestock Movements Bylaw 2025

Council considered a report dated 5 August 2025 from the Senior Policy Analyst. The Policy and Planning Manager provided an overview of the report and recommendations therein.

Resolution  CL25-10.15

Moved:                         Cr A Sole

Seconded:         Cr M Murray-Benge

1.            That the Senior Policy Analyst’s report dated 5 August 2025 titled ‘Recommendatory Report – Strategy and Policy Committee – Livestock Movements Bylaw 2025’, be received.

2.          That Council adopts the Livestock Movements Bylaw 2025 (included as Attachment 1 of this report), to come into force on 8 September 2025.

3.          That Council directs the Chief Executive to publicly notify the adoption of the Livestock Movements Bylaw 2025 in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002.

Carried

12.4         Appointment of Alternate Local Recovery Manager

Council considered a report dated 5 August 2025 from the Operations Manager. The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CL25-10.16

Moved:                         Cr M Grainger

Seconded:         Cr L Rae

1.            That the Operations Manager’s report dated 5 August 2025 titled ‘Appointment of Alternate Local Recovery Manager’, be received.

2.          That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.          That, in accordance with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, and the Bay of Plenty Emergency Management Group Policy for selection and appointment of Local Controllers and Local Recovery Managers, Western Bay of Plenty District Council: 

a)  Acknowledges the resignation of Cedric Crow and recommends that his appointment to the position of Alternate Local Controller/Alternate Local Recovery Manager be rescinded; and

b)  Recommends to the Bay of Plenty Joint Civil Defence and Emergency Management Committee that Jo Lynskey be appointed as Alternate Local Recovery Manager - Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

Carried

12.5         Mayor's Report to Council

Council considered a report dated 5 August 2025 from the Senior Executive Assistant – Mayor/CEO.

The Mayor responded to pātai as follows:

·            It was still appropriate for the Mayor to attend LGNZ events/meetings, as a non-member, noting this was an opportunity for professional development and networking.

·            Councillors were able to attend the LGNZ conferences in their Councillor capacity. If they wished to attend the Community Board conference, it was expected that this was funded through the existing Community Board conference budget.

·            It was clarified that because Council was no longer a member of LGNZ, the Mayor did not attend or vote at the AGM, so did not represent Council in this forum.

·            There were no more LGNZ events before the end of the triennium.

·            The meeting with Peter Cooney was a general relationship meeting, as they had never met before.

·            The ‘Leading for Delivery, Te Tumu, Geoffrey Ford’ meeting was a preliminary discussion, noting that there was another meeting scheduled to talk to the issues, and what needed to be resolved to help progress this project.

Resolution  CL25-10.17

Moved:                         Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr A Henry

That the Senior Executive Assistant - Mayor/CEO’s report dated 5 August 2025 title ‘Mayor’s Report to Council’ be received.

Carried

7.1            Objection to Menacing Dog Classification - Susan Buxton

The purpose of this hearing was to hear the objection to the Menacing Dog classification of Susan Buxton’s dog Willow.

Council classified Willow as a menacing dog under section 33A (1) (b) of the Dog Control Act 1996, which specifies a dog may be classified as menacing if ‘a territorial authority considers may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of –

(i)                     Any observed or reported behaviour of the dog; or

(ii)                    Any characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type.’

The Panel considered evidence put forward to them in Agenda Item 7.1, ‘Objection to Menacing Dog Classification – Susan Buxton’.

Staff responded to pātai as follows:

·       The classification notice that was issued to the objector stated all of the objector’s rights under the Act and the definition and requirements of the classification.

·       Staff would provide the panel with the scoring matrix that was used by staff to determine what classification was required.

·       There was no cost to the parents of the victim in getting their child’s wounds treated as this was covered by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).

Susan Buxton and Jack (John) Buxton provided a verbal objection to the panel and presented Tabled Item 1.

The Objectors responded to pātai as follows:

·       Willow had been to public parks before, however, on this specific occasion, she was not on a lead.

·       Willow would be unable to become a therapy dog as intended if the menacing classification were to be upheld.

Tabled Item 1 – Incident at Moore Park

Mayor J Denyer abstained from participating in the discussion and deliberations of this hearing.

Resolution  RHP25-1.1

Moved:                         Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr G Dally

1.      That the Team Leader Animal Services report dated 7 August 2025 titled ‘Objection to Menacing Dog Classification – Susan Buxton’ be received.

2.     That the Regulatory Hearings Panel upholds the menacing dog classification.

Reason for decision:

The Panel considered the evidence presented to them. The Panel was satisfied that the incident took place, and caused injury to a person. The dog could pose a risk to members of the public.

Despite acknowledging they had put measures in place, the owner did not have control of the dog during the incident. 

The Panel expressed their sympathy to the individual who was responsible for the dog at the time of the incident.

The Panel acknowledged the owner’s commitment to work to manage the dog’s behaviour.

The Panel believed there was still a risk from the dog and the only safe form of action was to uphold the menacing dog classification.

                                                                                                                                                        Carried

7.2           Objection to Menacing Dog Classification - Fionna Torr

The purpose of this hearing was to hear the objection to the Menacing Dog classification of Fiona Torr’s dog Peppa.

Council classified Peppa as a menacing dog under section 33A (1) (b) of the Dog Control Act 1996, which specifies a dog may be classified as menacing if ‘a territorial authority considers may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of –

(i)                     Any observed or reported behaviour of the dog; or

(ii)                    Any characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type.’

The Panel considered evidence put forward to them in Agenda Item 7.2, ‘Objection to Menacing Dog Classification – Fionna Torr’

Staff responded to pātai as follows:

·       It was not uncommon for dogs to develop a territorial behaviour, especially in the surrounding areas of the property that it resided in.

·       Peppa was a medium size dog and the dog that was attacked was a small dog.

Fiona Torr provided the panel with a written submission. 

Jon Dooney attended as a submitter for Council and provided verbal evidence to the panel.

Mr Dooney responded to pātai as follows:

·       Mr Dooney did not believe that the Objector had put measures in place to restrain Peppa since the incident.

·       The incident had created a division within the neighbourhood.

·       The wounds that the attacked dog had received in the attack later became infected which had led to the dog needing a course of antibiotics.

Resolution  RHP25-1.2

Moved:                         Cr A Sole

Seconded:         Cr M Murray-Benge

1.        That the Team Leader Animal Services report dated 7 August 2025, and titled Objection to Menacing Dog Classification - Fionna Torr, be received.

2.       That the Regulatory Hearings Panel upholds the menacing classification.

Reasons for decision:

The Panel considered the evidence presented to them.  The Panel was satisfied that the incident took place, and caused injury to another dog. The dog could pose a risk to other animals.

 The Panel  believed that minimal measures had been put in place by the owner to control the dog, and reminded the owner that they needed to observe the requirements outlined under the menacing dog classification under the Dog Control Act 1996.

 The Panel believed there was still a risk from the dog and the only safe form of action was to uphold the menacing dog classification.   

                                                                                                                                                               Carried

7.3           Objection to Disqualification - Jess Molitika

The purpose of this hearing was to hear the objection to disqualification of Dog Ownership for Jess Molitika.

Council disqualified Jess Molitika from being an owner of a dog under Section 25 (1) of the Dog Control Act 1996, which specifics that ‘a territorial authority must disqualify a person from being an owner of a dog if –

(a)           The person commits 3 or more infringement offences (not relating to a single incident or occasion) within a continuous period of 24 months; or

(b)          The person is convicted of an offence (not being an infringement offence) against this Act; or

(c)          The person is convicted of an offence against Part 1 or Part 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, section 26ZZP of the Conservation Act 1987, or section 561 of the National Parks Act 1980.’

The panel considered evidence put forward to them in Agenda item 7.3 ‘Objection to Disqualification – Jess Molitika’.

Staff responded to pātai as follows:

·       Animal Service Officers had visited the property multiple times and the objector had become abusive and non-active with the officers.

·       The dog was a large dog that weighed an estimated 40-45kgs. The dog had shown aggression to the Animal Services Officers in the past.

·       Animal Service Officers confirmed that the property still had no fencing around it.

·       The property was roughly 25-30 metres from the local primary school.

·       The dog spend a considerable amount of time inside, however, when it was outside there was no mechanism to keep it contained within the property boundary.

·       The owner had previously stated that the dog was tied up outside the house, however, the dog had been seen on multiple occasions roaming with a broken rope on it.

·       There had been no attempt from the owner to implement measures that could be used to prevent the dog from roaming.

Jess Molitika provided the panel with a written submission but was not in attendance.

Prior to the hearing staff had advised the objector of the date of the hearing and attempted to contact them on the day, however, received no response. 

Resolution  RHP25-1.3

Moved:                         Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

Seconded:         Mayor J Denyer

1.        That the Team Leader Animal Services report dated 7 August 2025, titled ‘Objection to Disqualification - Jess Molitika’ be received.

2.    That the Regulatory Hearings Panel upholds the disqualification.

Reasons for decision:

The Panel considered the evidence presented to them. The Panel was satisfied that the dog was a known roaming dog and may pose a risk to the community. The owner had not put measures in place to control the dog.

 The Panel was satisfied that the owner had not met their obligations as a responsible dog owner and upheld the disqualification for five years. 

Carried

Motion

The Mayor noted that there was one late item for the Council to consider for inclusion in the open section of the agenda, being 10.6 ‘Crown Facilitator – Local Waters Done Well.’

The reason that this item was not included on the agenda was that the circumstances were changing, and the information was not available, and it could not be delayed to the next scheduled meeting as it is relevant to the continued development of Council’s Water Service Delivery Plan which had to be submitted before the next scheduled Council meeting.

Resolution  CL25-11.1

Moved:                         Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr A Henry

That in accordance with Section 46A (7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, the following item be considered as a late item of the open business:

·            10.6 Crown Facilitator – Local Waters Done Well

Carried

8.1           Chris Pilkington - Waihī Beach Menz Shed

Mr Pilkington was in attendance to speak on behalf of the Waihī Beach Menz Shed in relation to the report on the Council agenda. He noted the following points:

·            The Waihī Beach Menz Shed had been a success, providing men with a place to gather following retirement.

·            The elderly community had benefited from the work that members of the Menz Shed had undertaken at minimal/no cost.

·            Due to the increase in members and projects, they were in need of additional space.

·            They sought support from Councillors for the extension of the lease area.

Mr Pilkington responded to pātai as follows:

·            He was not aware of any opposing views in relation to the proposal to extend the lease area for the Waihī Beach Menz Shed.

·            The approval to extend the lease would allow them to add to their existing building.

·            Any extensions would be accessed through the existing driveway, noting that they would remain separate from the reserve.

·            The new driveway was working well.

·            The group were open to any work that they may be able to assist with.

8.2          Richard Matthews - Te Puke Scouting Group

Mr Matthews was in attendance to speak on behalf of the Te Puke Scouting Group in relation to the report on the Council agenda. He noted the following points:

·            The lease of the land for where the Scout den resided was up for renewal after 66 years.

·            The group would love to be able to continue in their current location.

·            The group contained 108 members, with 65 of those being young people from around the district.

·            They had 16 youth on the waiting list to join.

·            One third of the programme was community based.

·            They offered opportunities for people of all backgrounds, a place for youth to thrive, learn new life skills, leadership and have fun.

CHANGE TO ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Mayor requested that the next items of business be 10.1 and 10.2, in order to bring items of interest to the public forum speakers forward.

Resolution  CL25-11.2

Moved:                         Cr D Thwaites

Seconded:         Cr A Sole

That in accordance with Standing Orders the order of business be changed and that items 10.1 and 10.2 be dealt with as the next items of business.

Carried

9.1           Proposal to Extend Lease Area - Waihī Beach Menz Shed - Waihī Beach Community Centre Reserve

Council considered a report dated 15 August 2025 from the Legal Property Officer, Reserves and Facilities. The Acting General Manager Infrastructure Services provided an overview of the report and recommendations therein.

Staff responded to pātai as follows:

·            Staff noted that the bylaw speed limit on the road that was used for Menz Shed deliveries was 15km/h. There were protocols that Menz Shed members could put in place to ensure extra safety of school children who may also be using this road during deliveries.

·            Staff could look at including a programme throughout the year, to see that the speed limit was marked clearly on the road, to ensure that drivers were aware.

The following tākupu were made by Councillors:

·            It was requested that staff look into the possibility of having signs up to warn drivers of the children that may be using the road, as well as the speed signs.

Resolution  CL25-11.3

Moved:                         Cr T Coxhead

Seconded:         Cr A Sole

4.          That the Legal Property Officer, Reserves and Facilities’ report dated 15 August 2025 and titled ‘Proposal to Extend Lease Area - Waihī Beach Menz Shed - Waihī Beach Community Centre Reserve’ be received.

5.          That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

That Council, acting as administrating body (leasing authority) of the reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, approves granting an extension to the current lease area of 140m² over Lot 1 DPS 65226, being part of Waihī Beach Community Centre Reserve, by approximately 343m².

6.          If approval is given, such approval must not be construed by the applicant as a guarantee that all other consents required by any policy, by-law, regulation, or statute, will be forthcoming.  The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required consents at its own cost.

Carried

9.2          Jubilee Park (Stock Road) - Proposed new land lease with The Scout Association of New Zealand

Council considered a report dated 15 August 2025 from the Legal Property Officer, Reserves and Facilities. The Acting General Manager Infrastructure Services provided an overview of the report and recommendations therein.

Resolution  CL25-11.4

Moved:                         Cr L Rae

Seconded:         Cr A Henry

7.          That the Legal Property Officer, Reserves and Facilities’ report dated 15 August 2025 titled ‘Jubilee Park (Stock Road) - Proposed new land lease with The Scout Association of New Zealand’ be received.

8.          That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

9.          That Council, in its capacity as administrating body of the reserve, grants The Scout Association of New Zealand  the right to lease for up to 30 years (10+10+10)  744m² of land, more or less, being all of Lot 2 DP 6884 contained in Record of Title 681973 to allow for Te Puke Scouts Group club rooms to remain situated at 3 Stock Road, Te Puke.

Carried

10.1          Te Puke Wastewater Treatment Plant - Submitter presentations

Submission 1 – North 12

John Dillon and Rik Flowerday were in attendance to speak on behalf of North 12. Rik Flowerday spoke to Tabled Item 1 being their submission.

Mr Flowerday and Mr Dillon responded to pātai as follows:

·            During the consultation meeting on 2 July 2025, there were questions that were asked that they did not feel were able to be answered.

·            Their perception was that the rationale for this upgrade was due to providing capacity for the Rangiuru Business Park (RBP). For this reason, they felt that RBP should be taking more of a financial share in the required cost.

·            They recalled only having taken part in one meeting with council in relation to this, being the consultation meeting held 2 July 2025.

·            At the consultation meeting they had requested further information, which they did not feel had been adequately provided.

·            The six month “pause” that was being requested was to allow all the information being sought to be provided. This included what the current capacity was, what the capacity of the new plant would be and how many connections that would allow for, and whether there was capacity for future growth.

·            They had been engaged with through the Te Puke Spatial Plan project.

·            Based on the information provided to them through the consultation, they did not believe that there was ability for anyone outside of already consented residential development to connect, as there would not be capacity.

Submission 2 – MacLoughlin Drive Limited

Michael Bryant and Tristan Shannon were in attendance to speak on behalf of the MacLoughlin Drive Limited submission. They added the following points:

·            They agreed with the points made in the previous submission, noting that they were hoping to have more information.

·            There was risk in stalling growth in Te Puke by driving up costs similar to Tauranga City, noting that Te Puke did not have the same draw cards for families as Pāpāmoa did.

Mr Bryant and Mr Shannon responded to pātai as follows:

·            They would agree with the six month “pause”, noting that they wanted to understand the costs so that they could be transparent to people buying the homes.

·            They were concerned that if they did not know the numbers, then they did not know how much the sections would sell for, and whether they were competitive with other areas.

·            At the moment people were unable to fund the houses upfront, meaning that the developers were funding the building, and would have it all finished (including Code of Compliance) before they saw any return. This was called a “turnkey” process.

·            They were not aware of the percentage of the total project cost allocated to Rangiuru Business Park, however other submitters were.

·            Their development had been consented for 120 lots, however, the land was rezoned to medium density, so the development had to be altered accordingly.

·            They understood the risk that further delays in the project could mean that there were further price increases.

Submission 3 – Urban Task Force (UTF)

Aaron Collier was in attendance to speak on behalf of the Urban Task Force. He provided an overview of their submission, which was provided as Tabled Item 2. He made the following additional points:

·            He felt Council should also relook at the funding model, noting that there seemed to be some disparities between whether the commercial and industrial land at Te Puke had been included.

·            The replacement plant should be sustainable and robust in terms of providing for future growth, including growth that may not be planned for yet.

Mr Collier responded to pātai as follows:

·            He believed the Ōmokoroa Pipeline was an example of poor planning, noting that Council was told at the time that the pipeline needed to have capacity to cater for growth, which he believed it did not. He was urging Council to ensure that growth was planned for through this project, and that opportunities for “clip-ons” were also provided for.

·            He requested Council to revisit and reconsider the initial options presented, noting that some of those options would have been discounted due to cost, however given the significant price increase, they should be reconsidered.

·            It was made clear that the UTF was supportive of a Wastewater Treatment Plant in Te Puke, however encouraged Council to ensure that they were getting their money’s worth.

Following a request from Councillors, the Interim Chief Executive noted there was no issue providing Councillors with the submissions presented today, however it was important to note that the submission period had not yet closed. The Acting General Manager Strategy and Community confirmed that all written and verbal submissions/feedback would be provided as part of the decision report, which would be presented to Council for consideration on 4 September 2025.

Resolution  CL25-11.5

Moved:                         Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr D Thwaites

10.        That the Water Services Director’s report dated 15 August 2025 titled ‘Te Puke Wastewater Treatment Plant - Submitter Presentations’ be received.

11.          That Council receives the verbal submissions to the Te Puke Wastewater Treatment Plant engagement.

Carried

11.1           Memorandum of Understanding for the Proposed Thunder Ridge Motorsport Park at TECT Park

Council considered a report dated 15 August 2025 from the Senior Specialist Infrastructure.

Glenn Snelgrove, Roger Williams, Tony Roberts and Gary Stirling were in attendance on behalf of Thunder Ridge to respond to any relevant pātai. Mr Snelgrove provided an overview of what Thunder Ridge was trying to achieve through the proposal, and acknowledged the staff involved in helping it progress.

The Senior Specialist Infrastructure provided an overview of the report and recommendations therein, noting the following points:

·            The current Te Matai Motorsport lease was for 35 years with two rights for renewal.

·            The Te Matai block was zoned and allocated for motorsport activity.

·            The proposed leases were to change from a single Te Matai Motorsport lease to individual leases, noting that the terms for these were 33 years with two rights for renewal.

·            This lease period was to secure the activity but also enable the investment to occur that was required for each of the activities. 

Presenters responded to pātai as follows:

·            One of the lease terms would mean that if the area stopped being used for the activity, the lease would be relinquished.

·            There was a project team that had been established between Tauranga City Council (TCC) and Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC). It was acknowledged that the two staff that represented TCC in this team had left the organisation, and therefore they were in a rebuild stage.

·            The Sub-regional Parks Joint Management Policy was up for review, noting that this would be initiated and brought through the incoming Council in the new triennium.

·            TCC would be invited to TECT Park in the new triennium to provide them with an update and information on what was happening and being proposed at the Park.

·            The Interim Chief Executive noted that it was important that TCC was updated and provided with information on the Thunder Ridge Proposal as soon as possible.

·            If the proposal was successful, it was noted that the land at TECT Park would be sub-divided. This would mean that the entire title would be leased out, and therefore the lease requirements relating to over 35-year leases under the Resource Management Act would not apply. 

·            Staff had spent a lot of time with the current clubs in working through TECT Park and the Thunder Ridge proposal. It was acknowledged that many of these people were volunteers, and therefore were not always available.

·            There was a process that staff had to follow in relation to the Thunder Ridge proposal.

·            There were a number of consenting issues that would need to be addressed prior to any physical work commencing.

·            Thunder Ridge was putting together a list of processes that needed to take place, in hope that some of these could take place in parallel. Mr Snelgrove outlined this list to Councillors.

·            The 48 garages would all look the same and would be connected.

Resolution  CL25-11.6

Moved:                         Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr T Coxhead

1.            That the Senior Specialist Infrastructure’s report dated 15 August 2025 titled ‘Memorandum of Understanding for the Proposed Thunder Ridge Motorsport Park at TECT Park’, be received.

2.          That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.          That Council approves, in principle, the proposed development of the Thunder Ridge Motor Sport Park on approximately 70 hectares in the TECT Park Motor Sport zone.

4.          That the Chief Executive is delegated authority to finalise and sign the Memorandum of Understanding for Thunder Ridge Motorsport Park.

Carried

11.2          Reserve Classification of Waihī Beach Community Centre Reserve and Oropi Memorial Hall Carpark Land

Council considered a report dated 15 August 2025 from the Legal Property Officer, Reserves and Facilities. The Acting General Manager Infrastructure Services provided an overview of the report and recommendations therein.

Resolution  CL25-11.7

Moved:                         Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr T Coxhead

1.            That the Legal Property Officer Reserves and Facilities’ report, dated 15 August 2025 titled ‘Reserve Classification of Waihī Beach Community Centre Reserve and Oropi Memorial Hall Carpark Land’, be received.

2.          That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.          That Council, in its capacity as administrating body of the reserve, resolves that the following reserves are classified in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, s16 (2A) and classified as “Local Purpose (Community Use) Reserve” in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, s23.

Carried

11.3          Delegations - Resource Management Act 1991

Council considered a report dated 15 August 2025 from the Privacy and Official Information Advisor. The General Manager Regulatory Services provided an overview of the report and recommendations therein.

11.57am     The Mayor re-entered the hui and resumed the Chair.

Staff responded to pātai as follows:

·            Prior to the new position of Team Lead Land Development, the delegations sat with the Land Development Manager. Staff undertook a review in relation to this activity, noting that it now sat under the Environmental Consents Manager. The new position replaced the disestablished Land Development Manager position.

·            This delegation had to be approved by Council under the Resource Management Act provisions.

·            All of Council’s Resource Consent Planners had delegations under the Resource Management Act, as well as a number of management staff in this area.

·            The delegations were wide ranging under the Resource Management Act, noting that they included writing decisions. Separate delegations applied for Resource Consent Monitoring Officers in relation to enforcement powers.

Resolution  CL25-11.8

Moved:                         Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr T Coxhead

1.            That the Privacy and Official Information Advisor’s report dated 15 August 2025 titled ‘Delegations - Resource Management Act 1991’ be received.

2.          That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.          That, pursuant to section 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), Council delegates those of its functions, powers and duties to the positions (‘Delegates’) specified in Attachment 1.

Carried

11.4          Crown Faclitator - Local Waters Done Well (Part 1)

Council considered a late report dated 15 August 2025 from the General Manager Corporate Services.

Christine Jones (Tauranga City Council – General Manager Strategy, Growth and Governance) was in attendance via Zoom to speak to the outcome of the Tauranga City Council hui that took place earlier in the day. The resolutions passed by Tauranga City Council were circulated to Councillors via email. She noted the following points:

·            On 5 August 2025, Tauranga City Council (TCC) made a decision to proceed with an in-house model for the duration of the Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP). They also signalled the intent to work with other Councils, with the view of moving to a Multi-Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) no later than 1 July 2028.

·            Staff took a report to TCC on 15 August 2025 for two purposes:

1.              Following the 5 August 2025 hui, TCC received correspondence from multiple external parties, including Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC), Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC), the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) and the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA); and

2.             Due to the decision on 5 August 2025 being in a different direction to all other decisions made to date on the preferred model, staff wanted to outline the implications of the decision as soon as possible.

·            The recommendation included in the TCC report for 15 August 2025 was for Councillors to reconfirm their decision from 5 August 2025 following the consideration of the additional information, or for them to provide alternative direction.

·            The recommendation to reconfirm their 5 August 2025 decision was put and lost.

·            The subsequent resolutions were taken in parts. They directed the WSDP to be prepared on the basis of status quo until 30 June 2027, and thereafter moving to a Multi-Council CCO with WBOPDC and TCDC, noting that TCDC partnership in the Multi-Council CCO was subject to confirmation by WBOPDC. This meant that if WBOPDC did not confirm TCDC as a partner, the Multi-Council CCO would be between TCC and WBOPDC only.

·            Requests from TCC Councillors through their political debate asked WBOPDC Councillors to re-consider the inclusion of TCDC within the Multi-Council CCO, just as they had done.

·            The resolution from TCC approved for stormwater to be included in the Multi-Council CCO, noting that further work in relation to this still needed to be undertaken.

Ms Jones responded to pātai as follows:

·            It was confirmed that if WBOPDC did not include TCDC in the Multi-Council CCO then TCC would also not partner with TCDC.

·            The two documents that needed to be prepared were a WSDP and a Water Strategy. DIA had confirmed to TCC that if they retained stormwater, they would be a Water Services Provider, and therefore retain the assets and responsibility. This would require the WSDP to have an in-house element as well as the Multi-Council CCO. It also meant that two Water Strategies would need to be prepared separately by the two Water Services Providers.

·            Due to TCC passing a resolution that included TCDC, TCDC could request a Crown Facilitator should they wish. 

·            On 5 August 2025, a position paper was provided by Tangata Whenua to TCC. They did not provide a position on the matter between TCDC and WBOPDC, however they did provide a pathway of what the expectation of TCC Tangata Whenua was if they were to proceed with anything other than an in-house model. TCC committed for all issues raised by Tangata Whenua in their position paper to be responded to.

·            Tauranga City Council had Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana Partnership, which was an autonomous body made up of 17 representatives from each of the hapū and iwi in the Tauranga City Council area.

·            It was noted that the position paper received was from a group that was made up of iwi/hapū Chairs, but also included a representative from any TCC Committee, Panel or Board that was waters-related. This core group was supported by the broader Tangata Whenua grouping.  It was clarified that the position paper did not form a view on the options but noted the expectations of Council should they proceed with a Multi-Council CCO.

·            TCC had only made comment on WBOPDC and TCDC as it related to a compliant and aligned position.

Mr Shaw (DIA Representative) responded to pātai as follows:

·            The Water Services legislation required Council to take Māori/Iwi views and participation into account within their decision making, acknowledging the strong views expressed by Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua.

·            At the last Council hui held 5 August 2025, advisors had provided Council with potential pathways that could be used to address or resolve the concerns that had been expressed by Tangata Whenua.

·            The decision on the Water Services Delivery Model and WSDP was a large decision, however it was also one of many that Council would need to take over the next 12 months, particularly as Council and any potential partner Councils commenced the implementation of the WSDP. As part of the implementation, Council would need to agree on Shareholder Agreements, constitutions, and representation.

It was also noted that as part of the Implementation Plan there would be a due diligence process. This was the time in which concerns that had been raised by Tangata Whenua could potentially be worked through and addressed.

·            If Councils decided to remain Status Quo through the transition, they did not need to complete a separate WSDP for that period.

·            TCDC had passed a resolution to work with WBOPDC and TCC on a joint Water Services Delivery Model. This, along with the resolutions passed by TCC earlier, meant that WBOPDC had a pathway forward with their standing resolution, however if Council decided to also work with TCDC, then there were resolutions that would also support that pathway.

·            The WSDP submission deadline was 3 September 2025; it was noted that there was an extension provision put in the Preliminary Arrangements Act, however it had now expired as any extension requests needed to be made to the Minister by 3 August 2025.

·            In regard to the LGFA’s expectation for the in-house water model, it was clarified, that they would be looking at the plan in terms of the model that was being proposed, regardless of whether they were signalling to consider something different in the future.

·            If a Crown Facilitator was appointed, they would be given Terms of Reference (ToR) by the Minister. Those would differ depending on whether it was for a single council or all councils within a multi-council CCO.

·            If TCDC was to request a Crown Facilitator the Minister would assess that request. If appointed, the ToR would likely include discussions with neighbouring councils.

·            Although the WSDP was required to be submitted on 3 September 2025, it was noted that the implementation of the plan and discussions required would continue long after that date.

·            If a council was to decide to change aspects of their delivery model within 12 months of submitting their WSDP, they would be required to work through a change proposal process and then re-submit an amended WSDP for the Secretary to consider. If the amendment took place beyond the first 12 months, then just a change proposal process would need to take place. This meant that the change proposal process was an enduring setting that would be available to Council ad infinitum unless the legislation was to be changed by a future government.

The Councillors worked through some alternative recommendations that Councillor Joyce proposed, taking on board advice and comment from relevant staff.

Proposed Recommendations

1.            That the General Manager Corporate Service’s report dated 15 August 2025, titled ‘Crown Facilitator – Local Waters Done Well’, be received.

2.          That the Government be asked to work with Tangata Whenua to quickly resolve the treaty settlement issues raised by Tauranga Moana, supported by coastal Te Arawa iwi, to allow Western Bay of Plenty District Council to develop a water services strategy that meets the needs of all of our communities.

3.          That the Mayor’s request for a Crown Facilitator be withdrawn.

4.          That any future formal communication from Western Bay of Plenty District Council on Local Waters Done Well to outside bodies be shared with councillors for feedback before it is sent.

The Strategic Kaupapa Māori Manager confirmed that the position provided by Tangata Whenua was that they opposed a relationship with TCDC in a CCO space due to the issues with Hauraki. This was not only the current issues that they were continuing to work through, but also any future issues that might arise if Council allowed Hauraki decision making rights within the Tauranga Moana rohe.

In order to provide time for the resolutions to be worded to reflect the feedback from Councillors, the Mayor adjourned the hui.

Change to order of business

The Mayor requested that before continuing discussions on report 11.4 being ‘Crown Facilitator – Local Waters Done Well’, that the Council deal with the confidential agenda items, in order to release external presenters from the hui.

Resolution  CL25-11.9

Moved:                         Cr A Sole

Seconded:         Cr D Thwaites

That in accordance with Standing Orders the order of business be changed and that items 13.1, 13.2, 13.3 and 13.4 be dealt with as the next items of business.

Carried

13.1          Crown facilitator – Local waters done well - continued (Part 2)

The General Manager Corporate Services and Strategic Kaupapa Māori Manager worked through the proposed recommendations with Councillors, responding to pātai as follows:

·            The purpose of recommendation two was to show Council’s strong desire in supporting the resolution of the Treaty settlement issues.

·            Not including reference to the due diligence process in recommendation three would hold most true to the decision Council made on 5 August 2025 to not include TCDC in a Multi-Council CCO.

Resolution  CL25-11.16

Moved:                         Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr A Henry

5.          That the General Manager Corporate Service’s report dated 15 August 2025, titled ‘Crown Facilitator – Local Waters Done Well’, be received.

6.          That Council requests that the Office of Treaty Settlements work urgently with Tangata Whenua to resolve treaty settlement issues raised with Western Bay of Plenty District Council by Tauranga Moana Iwi.

7.          That Council notes the continued desire of Thames-Coromandel District Council to be included in the Multi-Council Controlled Organisation with Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

8.          That the Mayor’s request for a Crown Facilitator be withdrawn, noting Tauranga City Council resolutions on Local Waters Done Well from their 15 August 2025 meeting.

9.          That, wherever practicable, formal communication from the Mayor on Local Waters Done Well to outside bodies be shared with councillors for feedback before it is sent.

The motion was voted on and a division was called and recorded as follows:

For:             Mayor Denyer, Deputy Mayor Scrimgeour, Cr Thwaites, Cr                                            Joyce, Cr Henry and Cr Dally.

Against:    Cr Murray-Benge, Cr Rae and Cr Sole.

Carried

12.1          Recommendatory Report- Development Waikite Road - Financial Contributions (FinCos) and Rating Matters

Resolution  CL25-11.11

Moved:                         Cr A Sole

Seconded:         Cr M Murray-Benge

1.        That the General Manager Regulatory Services’ report dated 15 August 2025 titled ‘Recommendatory Report - Development Waikite Road-FinCo and Rating Matters’, be received.

2.       That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.       That the Council delegates to the CEO the ability to progress direct agreement with Tauranga City Council and the developer’s representative Veros Limited on the following matters:

a.      The financial contributions and rates that will be required from the property developer, to be agreed through a heads of agreement, in advance of a resource consent being granted for the development.

i.        The value of financial contributions that will be taken for the following- water, wastewater, stormwater, rural roading, transportation, ecological and recreation and leisure.

ii.       The value of any financial contributions that may be “passed on” from Western Bay of Plenty District Council to Tauranga City Council through separate agreement.

iii.      The value of rates that may be “passed on” from Western Bay of Plenty District Council to Tauranga City Council through separate agreement.

4.      That the Resolutions be transferred into the Open section of the meeting following the Council meeting held 15 August 2025.

Carried

7.1            Multiple Speakers - Te Puna Road/ Te Puna Station Road Intersection Upgrade

Sarah Rice (Priority Te Puna), Alison Cowley (Priority Te Puna) and Sharon Davies were in attendance to discuss the Te Puna Road/Te Puna Station Road intersection upgrade.

Ms Rice and Ms Cowley noted the below points:

·            They supported the recommendations in relation to Agenda Item 10.2.

·            There were safety concerns with the intersection. They had provided traffic reports to council that related to an increase in traffic volumes. They were of the belief that a right-hand turning bay would not prevent traffic accidents at that intersection.

·            They felt that ratepayers should not subsidise developer costs for the infrastructure required.

Ms White and Ms Cowley responded to pātai as below:

·            They were unaware that council had considered, at any point, upgrading the Te Puna Road/Te Puna Station Road intersection.

·            They were of the understanding that responsibility and cost of the upgrade to the intersection was with the developers of Te Puna Business Park.

·            There had been incidents of single vehicle accidents at the intersection, however, they felt that installing a right-hand turn bay would not address this issue.

Ms Davies noted the below points:

·            Ms Davies was a directly affected party as she shared a boundary with Te Puna Industrial Limited’s (TPIL) property.

·            She had not been contacted by council or TPIL about the resource consent application despite her home being the closest premise to the TPIL property.

·            Ms Davies was concerned about the safety of Te Puna Road if there was an increase in truck movements as result of the TPIL consent.

Ms Davies responded to pātai as below:

·            Ms Davies supported delaying the intersection upgrade until the appeal to the Environment Court had been decided.

9.1           Pinnacle Primary Health Care Limited -  Waihī Beach Medical Centre Reserve Lease Proposal

Representatives of Pinnacle Primary Health were in attendance to present their proposal (Tabled Item 1) to lease reserve land for a Waihī Beach Medical Centre. They noted the below points:

·            If they were able to expand their premise then they could offer more services to the community.

·            The medical centre was the only facility in the area with their books open for new patients, however, they only had room for an additional 50 patients due to the lack of space at the facility.

·            They had explored multiple sites for a medical centre, however, they were not economically feasible. 

·            The proposed facility was single story and the footprint of the facility looked to  preserve as much of the green space in the reserve as possible.

·            The proposed location would allow for helicopter landings nearby and was centrally located in Waihī Beach.

Presenters responded to pātai as below:

·            Pinnacle Incorporated was the primary healthcare organisation that had the health care contract with government and Pinnacle Primary Healthcare Limited was a not-for-profit charitable arm of the umbrella organisation.

·            14 car parks were included in the proposal, if possible they would look to utilise more reserve land for car parks, noting that there was a balance between having enough available car parking and keeping existing green space for the reserve.

·            The proposal sought approximately 30 per cent of the total reserve land available.

3pm Mayor J Denyer and Cr Coxhead left the hui.

·            There would be a nine-month work programme to have the facility ready for use.

·            General Practitioners (GPs) worked to a ratio of one GP to 1600 patients. 

·            The urgency to find a location for a new facility centred around long term sustainability and that the existing staff deserved a new clinic, it was not due to a lack of available staff.

·            They had spoken to local developers, however, other locations had been deemed not financially viable. If they did not receive help from Council, then a decision would need to be made on the future of the clinic.

·            They supported consulting with the Waihī Beach community, however, they did not want to continue to delay the process.

Tabled Item 1 – Waihī Beach medical Centre Development Presentation

10.1          Proposal to Lease - Primary Health Care Limited to operate a medical facility and to reclassify part of Beach Road Recreation Reserve (Waihī Beach) to Local Purpose Reserve (Medical Facility)

The Committee considered a report from the Legal Property Officer Reserves and Facilities dated 15 August 2025, who provided an overview of the report.

Staff responded to pātai as below:

·            The process regarding installing a Mara Kai at the reserve had been delayed, however, the applicants for the Mara Kai were supportive of the proposal for a medical centre to be built on that reserve. There would still be space available for Mara Kai at the reserve if the medical centre went ahead.

·            Elderly housing units on Beach Road Reserve could be considered through consultation on the Katikati-Waihī Beach Reserve Management Plan.

·            In the classification under the Reserves Act 1977, council could undertake a lease for the type of activity that a medical facility would provide, however, the activity of residential housing (like elderly housing) was precluded.

·            The recommendations only sought in principle approval for the proposal, Council would make the final decision on the proposal. Through the consultation process, the public would have an opportunity to submit on the proposal.

·            Council had previously made a decision to allow for a medical centre to be placed on the reserve land at the Te Mata block behind the MenzShed, however, due to the financial modelling the medical centre never went ahead.

Resolution  PMC25-3.1

Moved:              Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Mayor J Denyer

1.        That the Legal Property Officer Reserves and Facilities report dated 15 August 2025 titled ‘Proposal to Lease - Primary Health Care Limited to operate a Medical Facility and to Reclassify Part of Beach Road Recreation Reserve (Waihī Beach) to Local Purpose Reserve (medical facility)’ be received.

2.       That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.       That the Projects and Monitoring Committee approve in principle the application by Primary Health Care Limited to lease an area of approximately 1137m2 on Beach Road Recreation Reserve (Waihī Beach) to locate and operate a medical facility.

10.          AND

4.      That if approved, the Projects and Monitoring Committee agrees in principle to the        reclassification of the portion of Beach Road Recreation Reserve (Waihī Beach) as     shown in this report from ‘Recreation’ to ‘Local Purpose Reserve’ (medical facility).

11.            AND

5.a  If approval in principle of item 3 and 4  above is given this approval must not    construed by the applicant, as a guarantee that all other consents required by any   policy, by-law, regulation, or statute, will be forthcoming. The applicant is       responsible for obtaining all consents at its own cost; and

12.         5.b    That staff be directed to publicly notify for a minimum two month period of public consultation, on the proposals above in terms of section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Carried

10.2         Te Puna Road/Te Puna Station Road Intersection Improvements

The Committee considered a report from the Transportation Director dated 15 August 2025, who provided an overview of the report.

Staff responded to pātai as below:

·            A decision on who would carry out the works to the intersection upgrade would not be decided until the appeal had been heard. The conditions currently stated that Council had until 1 October 2025 to enter into a contract for the intersection before TPIL could undertake the work.

·            If council delivered the project, they would look to further increase the improvements then what was required under the consent conditions. 

·            The purpose of the recommendations was to ensure that TPIL paid for the upgrades to the intersection as required by their consent conditions and council paid for any additional upgrades that they deem necessary.

·            The intersection upgrade had to occur before the Traffic and Parking Bylaw was adopted to enable a heavy vehicle ban on Clarke Road. If this did not occur then a heavy vehicle ban on Clarke Road could only occur once the intersection had been upgraded and Traffic and Parking Bylaw Schedule had been updated.

·            Council had not undertaken any traffic monitoring on Clarke Road since the heavy vehicle advisory signs had been installed. 

Resolution  PMC25-3.2

Moved:               Cr M Murray-Benge

Seconded:         Cr D Thwaites

1.        That the Transportation Director’s report dated 15 August 2025 titled Te Puna Road/Te Puna Station Road Intersection Improvements be received.

2.       That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.       That the Project and Monitoring Committee approves Option A being that Council temporarily ceases delivery of the Te Puna Road/Te Puna Station Road intersection improvement project until such time that:

a.      The Environment Court judicates on Priority Te Puna’s appeal against the decision to grant resource consent for the TPIL development; and

b.      Te Puna Industrial Limited agree to fully recompense Council for the cost of all roading improvements conditioned in their resource consent.

Carried

10.3         Katikati Wastewater Disposal Future Direction

The Committee considered a report from the Infrastructure Capital Delivery Manager dated 15 August 2025. The report was taken as read.

Staff responded to pātai as below:

·            The recommendation was to endorse an option and start a comprehensive consultation process. The final decision would be of higher significance in relation to council’s significance and engagement policy.

Resolution  PMC25-3.3

Moved:               Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr A Henry

1.        That the Infrastructure Capital Delivery Manager’s report dated 15 August 2025 titled ‘Katikati Wastewater Disposal Future Direction’ be received.

2.       That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.       That the Project and Monitoring Committee endorses the Draft Katikati Wastewater Disposal Future Directions Report for submission to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council as per Resource Consent condition requirements requiring a report by 31 December 2026.

4.      That the Project and Monitoring Committee directs staff to further develop the preferred option in readiness for public consultation.

Carried

10.4        Operational Risk and Status Report

The Committee considered a report from the Executive Assistant Infrastructure Group dated 15 August 2025. The report was taken as read.

Staff responded to pātai as below:

·            Council was seeing an increase in service request complaints around non-compliant building works.

·            The average building consent required approximately 10 hours of council officer time.

Resolution  PMC25-3.4

Moved:               Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour

Seconded:         Cr A Sole

That the Executive Assistant Infrastructure Group’s report, dated 15 August 2025 titled ‘Operational Risk and Status Report’ be received.

Carried

11.1           Infrastructure Services Project Updates

The Committee considered a report from the Executive Assistant Infrastructure Group. The report was taken as read. 

Staff responded to pātai as below:

·            The consent for the 4 lots on Clarke Road had an advisory note that stated council should seek any requirements with the Archaeological Authority before any earthworks took place. Council had submitted an application with the Archaeological Authority which was being processed.

Apology

Resolution  CL25-12.1

Moved:                         Cr A Sole

Seconded:         Cr M Murray-Benge

That the apologies for absence from Cr Coxhead and Cr Henry be accepted.

Carried

9.1           Adoption of the Water Services Delivery Plan

Council considered a report dated 28 August 2025 from the Strategic Advisor.

The Mayor noted that although the Water Services Delivery Plan and Commitment Agreement were provided as separate reports within the agenda, staff would speak to, and take pātai on, them together. 

The Strategic Advisor provided an overview of the report and the recommendations therein, and noted the following points:

·            Tabled Item 1 had been provided to Councillors, which was the proposed Commitment Agreement including tracked changes proposed by Tauranga City Council at their meeting.

·            The main change was to allow discretion to create an Elected Members Governance Group, which sat over and above the CEO Oversight Group.

·            The Commitment Agreement had also been updated to refer to The Treaty of Waitangi instead of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

·            The following suggested changes had been brought to staff following the publishing of the agenda:

o   Page 20: Change to the sentence “Assets (including land) where a significant purpose is recreation, and open space.”;

o   Page 21: Change reference of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to Treaty of Waitangi; and

o   Page 114: All references to Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC) would be removed.

·            All amendments will be made prior to submitting the final Water Services Delivery Plan to the Department of Internal Affairs in conjunction with Tauranga City Council (TCC).

Staff responded to pātai as follows:

·            In relation to regular monitoring of ageing asbestos cement pipes, it was noted that the water in the pipes was not being monitored for presence of asbestos. The risk with asbestos was not through ingestion but rather when airborne through handling or cutting the pipe.

·            If there was a leak that required the pipe to be cut into, there was a procedure that had to be followed to ensure the safety of those undertaking the work; it was noted that as part of this procedure they would also flush the line.

·            In relation to the points noted under ‘Statutory Compliance’ within the report, it was clarified that Section 63 of the Local Government Act gave Council the option of not consulting on a Long-Term Plan amendment if they believed that the criteria stated were met.

·            The intended start date of the Water Organisation (WO) was 1 July 2027, this date aligned with the adoption of Council’s next Long Term Plan; this meant that an amendment would not be required therefore eliminating costs associated with potential additional consultation.

·            It was noted that paragraph 47 of the report related to the funding required to transfer the IT Support System.

·            Each Council was required to meet the ‘free-funds operations to debt’ ratio, noting that the size of the organisation determined how much they would be eligible to borrow.

·            Council would continue to keep the community informed on updates in relation to Local Waters Done Well decisions and next steps through the existing communications and engagement channels.

·            The WO would have specific reporting and information requirements to their customers, noting that there was also the opportunity for Council to set certain requirements for the Waters Organisation through the Statement of Expectation. The Waters Organisation would also need to meet statutory requirements.

·            Staff acknowledged that the purpose of the document was to have a Commitment Agreement to establish the Water Services Organisation. In relation to Shareholders Allocation, Statement of Expectation, and the governance of the actual Water Services Organisation, this would be a separate process.

·            The purpose of the CEO Oversight Group was about progressing operational matters rather than the final governance model.

·            There were parts of the Commitment Agreement that required a Council decision to proceed.

·            Schedule 1 within the Commitment Agreement ‘Agreement Details’ would be amended to say ‘Western Bay of Plenty District Council member: To be nominated by the Mayor and approved by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council.’

·            The Levels of Service for the WO would be set by the CCO, noting that they would be governed by matters set out through the Commerce Commission, the Water Regulator and the Local Government (Water Services) Act.

·            The Water Organisation would be working on an asset management basis in terms of how they make decisions around capital expenditure. Other matters in play included ringfencing of debt and not having price harmonisation for the first five years. This meant that there would be a number of factors the CCO would need to consider when making decisions around which capital infrastructure they needed to invest in first. It was noted that this was something that could also be captured through the Statement of Expectation.

Resolution  CL25-12.2

Moved:                         Cr R Joyce

Seconded:         Cr D Thwaites

1.        That the Strategic Advisor’s report dated 28 August 2025 titled ‘Adoption of the Water Services Delivery Plan’ be received.

2.       That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of high significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.       That Council adopts the Water Services Delivery Plan on the basis of a multi-Council Water Organisation with Tauranga City Council as a preferred partner (Attachment 1), including the minor amendments approved at the Council meeting.

4.      That Council delegates to the Chief Executive Officer to make the changes from the Council meeting and any minor editorial changes to the Water Services Delivery Plan.

5.      That Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to submit the Water Services Delivery Plan to the Secretary of Local Government no later than 3 September 2025.

6.      That Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to work with the Chief Executive Officer Tauranga City Council on the potential establishment of a multi-Council Water Organisation (as outlined in the Commitment Agreement), with an establishment date of 1 July 2027.

The motion was voted on and a division was called and recorded as follows:

For:             Mayor Denyer, Deputy Mayor Scrimgeour, Cr Thwaites, Cr Joyce and Cr Dally.

Against:    Cr Murray-Benge, Cr Rae and Cr Sole.

Carried 5/3

9.2          Approve the Commitment Agreement for the potential establishment of a multi-Council Water Organisation

Council considered a report dated 28 August 2025 from the Strategic Advisor. This report was spoken to as part of the first agenda item.

Staff responded to further pātai as follows:

·            Staff understood that under the ‘Key Establishment Considerations – Revenue and Pricing’ on page 26 of Tabled Item 1, the reference to “customer segmentation” related to the different customers of the WO, and whether this was commercial, residential or rural customers.

·            The Economic Regulator would be looking at the whole regime, including the appropriateness of the capital programme, therefore it would be governed and tightly monitored to avoid customer price shocks.

·            Through the Multi-Council Water Organisation peak efficiencies were expected by year 10. It was clarified, by the Mayor, that this would not be price reductions, but rather lower increases than what would otherwise have been.

·            In terms of debt, these would be ringfenced meaning the costs would be pushed back to the respective councils. This would only change through full agreement by all councils involved in the Water Organisation.

·            Any protections required in relation to Tauranga City Council’s debt level affecting the Water Organisation’s borrowing could be captured through the due diligence process. The WO had to be compliant for the Free Funds and Operations (FFO) requirements by year five of establishment.

·            The rationale provided for appointing TCC as the “project administration agent” was due to needing to assign a lead role when multiple councils were involved. It was noted in this instance that they would take the lead in regard to paying bills, to avoid being invoiced separately. It was clarified that although TCC was taking the lead role, Western Bay of Plenty District Council would be agreeing to all costs and working requirements involved.

·            The purpose of due diligence was the ability to better understand Council’s partner and ensure that everything was captured for protection, as well as provide any off-ramps.

·            In regard to “off-ramps” this would likely come from staff through a report highlighting the issue found, to determine how Council wanted to deal with it. The report would also need to highlight the costs associated.

·            Staff had previously advised on the difference between shareholding allocations and voting rights, noting that these were intended to be two separate matters.

·            Additional changes to the Commitment Agreement:

o   All references to the Bill would be changed to Act, as it had now been enacted;

o   All reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi would be changed to Treaty of Waitangi; and

o   ‘Agreement Details’ would be amended to say ‘Western Bay of Plenty District Council member: To be nominated by the Mayor and approved by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

Resolution  CL25-12.3

Moved:                         Mayor J Denyer

Seconded:         Cr R Joyce

1.        That the Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Project’s report dated 28 August 2025 titled ‘Approve the Commitment Agreement for the potential establishment of a Multi-Council Water Organisation’ be received.

2.       That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of high significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3.       That Council approves the Commitment Agreement (Tabled Item 2) with Tauranga City Council including the minor amendments approved at the Council meeting.

4.      That Council delegates to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to make minor amendments, finalise, and execute the Commitment Agreement with its partners, noting that any material change would come back to Council for approval.

5.      That Council directs the Chief Executive Officer to undertake the actions set out in the Commitment Agreement that are required to establish a multi-Council Water Organisation.

6.      That Council delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to approve and implement actions to meet due diligence requirements to support the potential establishment of a multi-Council Water Organisation noting that funding for these activities is provided for in the Annual Plan 2025/26.

7.       That Council approves Tauranga City Council to a “project administration agent” role as part of the establishment of the multi-Council Water Organisation.

The motion was voted on and a division was called and recorded as follows:

For:             Mayor Denyer, Deputy Mayor Scrimgeour, Cr Thwaites, Cr Joyce, Cr Sole and         Cr Dally.

Against:    Cr Murray-Benge and Cr Rae

Carried 6/2