Supplementary Reports Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

11 December 2025

5 He Pānui Whakamōtini / Notice of Motion

5.2 Notice of Motion - Sealing of Marae and Kōhanga Reo

File Number: A5312369

I, Hilda Halkyard-Harawira, give notice that at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 11 December 2025, I intend to move the following motion:

MŌtini / Motion

That Council;

a) approve sealing 250 metres of unsealed road either side (i.e, up to 500m) of 8 Kōhanga Reo education sites/Marae (as per list 1 below), within the 2025/28 term;

b) direct the Chief Executive to ensure staff include the 37 Marae (as per list 2 below) in the prioritisation matrix used for seal extension projects, ensuring their proximity and community significance are appropriately weighted in the algorithm used to rank unsealed roads; taking into account the heavy usage of vehicles during tangihanga and community hui gatherings.

c) request that the resourcing, design, and delivery of sealed access to these Marae be incorporated into all of the Council’s work programmes, including the Infrastructure Strategy, Roading Maintenance Plans, and Seal Extension Programme.

d) further resolve that the inclusion of these Marae be reflected in the following planning documents:

i) the Long-Term Plan (LTP) 2024–2027, with appropriate budget allocation and prioritisation,

ii) the Annual Plan, to ensure short-term implementation and accountability,

iii) the District Plan, to support long-term infrastructure and land use planning that enhances Marae accessibility and resilience.

Take / Rationale

To advocate for the prioritisation and resourcing of road sealing projects in front of Kōhanga Reo and Marae across the Far North District, recognising their educational, cultural, social, and community significance.

The Far North District has a total of 2,508 km of roads, of which only 35% (858 km) are sealed. This means 65% (1,650 km) remain unsealed, disproportionately affecting rural communities, many of which are Māori and located near Kōhanga Reo and Marae.

Far North District Council (FNDC) does not have a standalone policy that mandates sealing roads in front of Kōhanga Reo and Marae. However, several foundational documents and programmes explicitly include Marae and Kōhanga Reo as a prioritisation factor in road sealing decisions.

For example the:

Priority Seal Extensions Programme;

- was launched in 2019 to seal roads that did not qualify for Waka Kotahi subsidies; and − uses a Dust Prioritisation Matrix that ranks roads based on;

· Traffic volumes

· Number of residents

· Presence of schools, Marae and other community facilities (e.g. Parapara Toatoa Road was sealed up to and including Parapara Marae).

Dust Prioritisation Matrix;

- this matrix measures 22 criteria including proximity to Marae;

- is used to ensure transparent and fair selection of roads for sealing, and notes that roads near Marae are considered high priority due to community impact.

Longterm Plan (LTP) commitments;

- FNDC has committed $11 million over the last 10 years to seal critical risk roads that were selected based on community concerns, including dust near Marae.

Unsealed roads pose serious health and safety risks:

- Dust Pollution: Dust from gravel roads contaminates roof-collected water supplies, infiltrates homes, and settles on clothing and food. This is especially harmful to young children and kaumātua, who are more vulnerable to respiratory issues.

- Road Hazards: Unsealed roads are prone to potholes, corrugation, and instability when wet, increasing the risk of vehicle accidents, especially for school transport and kaumātua mobility.

- Emergency Access: During severe weather events, unsealed roads are often impassable, delaying emergency services and isolating communities

Cultural and Educational Significance

Marae and Kōhanga Reo are cultural anchors and civil defence sites for Māori and rural communities:

- Marae serve as places of gathering, ceremony, and refuge. Their accessibility is vital for tangihanga, hui, and whānau support.

- Kōhanga Reo are foundational to the revitalisation of te reo Māori, and their connection to Marae reinforces intergenerational learning and tikanga.

- Sealing roads to these sites affirms the mana and dignity of Māori institutions and supports Te Tiriti-based infrastructure planning.

Educational Equity - Kōhanga Reo are 40 years old

Unsealed roads hinder access to early childhood education:

- Transport Barriers: Whānau may avoid sending tamariki to Kōhanga Reo due to unsafe or unreliable road conditions, especially in winter.

- Attendance and Retention: Poor access contributes to lower attendance rates, undermining the goals of Māori-medium education and language revitalisation.

- Equity and Inclusion: Sealing roads to Kōhanga Reo ensures equal access to education, aligning with national outcomes for Māori success as Māori.

Strategic and Economic Rationale

While sealing all unsealed roads would cost an estimated $500 million, FNDC has acknowledged that targeted sealing is feasible and necessary. It

Prioritising roads to Marae and Kōhanga Reo:

- Aligns with existing council commitments to seal roads where the need is greatest.

- Supports community wellbeing and reduces long-term health costs.

- Demonstrates partnership with Māori, fulfilling obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Conclusion

Sealing roads to Marae and Kōhanga Reo is not just a matter of infrastructure, it is a matter of justice, equity, and cultural respect. It enhances health, safety, education, and cultural resilience for Māori communities and reflects a commitment to inclusive and future-focused planning.

I have highlighted these roads in each of my Elected Member reports since the 11^th December 2023 and staff have not considered or advanced this matter since then:

· Council Agenda 11 December 2023 - page 133

· Council Agenda 14 March 2024 - page 223

· Council Agenda 11 April 2024 – page 22 (supplementary agenda)

· Council Agenda 9 May 2024 – page 104

· Council Agenda 13 June 2024 – page180

· Council Agenda 11 July 2024 – pages 146 & 147

· Council Agenda 8 August 2024 – page 234

· Council Agenda 12 September 2024 – page 479

· Council Agenda 17 October 2024 – page 501

· Council Agenda 14 November 2024 – page 185

· Council Agenda 12 December 2024 – page 488

· Council Agenda 13 February 2025 – page 258

· Council Agenda 13 March 2025 – page 154

· Council Agenda 10 April 2025 – page 242

· Council Agenda 8 May 2025 – page183

· Council Agenda 5 June 2025 – pages 187 & 188

· Council Agenda 3 July 2025 – pages 383 & 384

· Council Agenda 31 July 2025 – pages 565 & 567

Furthermore there have been numerous reports to Council on FNDC Seal Extension Prioritisation. Some examples are:

LIST 1 - 8 KŌHANGA REO/ MARAE COMBINATION ROADS IN THE FAR NORTH

1	Whangapē Kōhanga Reo , Kotahitanga Marae	Herekino Rd, Whangapē
2	Pā Arapeta , Ngāti Manawa Marae, Panguru	340 West Coast Road
3	Whakamaharatanga Kōhanga Reo, Whakamaharatanga Marae, Waimamaku	14 Waimamaku Beach Rd, Waiotemarama
4	Taurangi Kōhanga Reo, Waimate North	140 Whakataha Road
5	Maungataniwha Kōhanga Reo, Ngāpuhi Marae	9 Iwitaua Rd, Mangamuka
6	Mōtatau Kōhanga Reo,	103 Henare Rd, Mōtatau
7	Matawaia Kōhanga Reo, Matawaia Marae Kawakawa	Pokapū Rd, RD1, Kawakawa.
8	Wharepunga Kōhanga Reo, Pukerata Marae ,	613 Wharepunga Rd, Otaua

LIST 2 - MARAE LOCATED ON UNSEALED ROADS IN FNDC AREA.

1	Haititaimarangai Marae – Karikari	176 Whatuwhiwhi Road,
2	Wainui Marae – Ahipara	17 Wainui Road , 0481
3	Rangikohu Marae – Herekino Kaitaia	7 Settlement Way, 0481
4	King Hori Marae Owhata	Owhata, Herekino
5	Morehu Marae – Pawarenga	10 –12 Te Riha Roadway0496
6	Waiparera Marae – Kohukohu	384 Rangi Point Road 0492
7	Motuti (Tamatea) Marae – Kohukohu	325 Motuti Rd RD2 0492
8	Matihetihe (Mitimiti) Marae	3733 Hohaia Road Mitimiti.
9	Te Arohanui Marae – Mangataipa	203 Mangataipa Road, Mangamuka Bridge 0476
10	Ngāi Tupoto Marae – Motukaraka	201 Motukaraka Point, 0491
11	Pateoro (Te Karae) Marae – Kohukohu	414 Kohukohu Road ,0491
12	Pikipāria Marae – Kohukohu	53 Smith Deviation Road,0491
13	Piki Te Aroha Marae – Rāhiri	46 Harris Road Rāhiri 0475
14	Motukiore Marae – Hōreke	651 Motukiore Road, 0475
15	Puketawa Marae – Utakura	1400 Hōreke Road , 0475
16	Rangatahi Marae – Hōreke	1560 Hōreke Road Maraeroa , 0475
17	Otātara Marae – Waimā	36 Otātara Marae Rd, 0473
18	Moehau – Waimā	2 Mission Oak Road 0473
19	Mahuri Marae – Taheke, Kaikohe	154 Ramsay Road,
20	Kaingahoa (Mataraua) Marae – Kaikohe	945 Mataraua Road 0474
21	Ngai Tawake Marae – Mataraua	1235 Mataraua Road, 0474
22	Te Huehue Marae – Ōtaua	31 Stewart Road,
23	Mokonuiārangi Marae – Maraeroa	1627 Hōreke Road , 0475
24	Ōkorihi Marae –Te Iringa	34 Te Iringa West Road, 0473
25	Te Patunga Marae – Kāeo	585c Pupuke Mangapa Road 0479
26	Tahaawai Marae –Pupuke	231 Weber Road Pupuke 0479
27	Pupuke (Te Huia) Marae – Otangaroa	11 Te Huia Marae Road, Pupuke , 0479
28	Waimahana Marae –Turn left at 227 Taupo Bay Road, drive for 8km (keep left) to Waimahana Bay. Drive along beachfront track to Marae (300 m up creek)	Waimahana Bay- Ngāti Kahu
29	Akerama Marae – Towai	19 Haile Rd,Hukerenui,0182
30	Mohinui Marae – Kawakawa 0281	234 Waiomio Road , 0281
31	Kaikou Marae – Matawaia	3923 Pipiwai Road 0281
32	Kaimaumau Marae , Waiharara	Kaimaumau, 0627
33	Taemaro,	HIhI, 0295
34	Matai Aronui, Whirinaki	Wikaira Rd, Whirinaki 0473
35	Te Piiti Marae, Omanaia	28 Omanaia Road, 0473
36	Tākou Marae	Tākou, 0295
37	Other Marae to be added if omitted from this list

I commend this Notice of Motion to Council.

Mover: Kaikaunihera Hilda Halkyard-Harawira. Seconded: Kaikaunihera Babe Kapa & Tāmati Rākena.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - 8 Kōhanga/Marae Combined Roads in FNDC Area - A5348009 ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - Marae located on Unsealed Roads in FNDC Area - A5348010 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule: Completed by Democracy Services Staff

Meeting procedures are set out in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), and Standing Orders. Standing Orders Clause 26 outlines procedures for Notices of Motion.

Please note that nothing in this standing order removes the requirement to meet the provisions of Part 6, LGA with regard to consultation and decision-making.

Full consideration must been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

This table must be completed in full – keep your answers brief, as detailed consideration of these issues should form part of the body of your report.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	This Notice of Motion is assessed as having a high level of significance under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, given its potential impact on community wellbeing, financial commitments, and strategic infrastructure planning.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Local Government Act 2002 Activity Management Plan (AMP) Dust Control Policy
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	Because the Notice of Motion and associated decisions affect communities district-wide, consultation and engagement is undertaken at the Council level. If specific Community Board views are required for particular sites or implementation phases, these will be sought as part of the ongoing engagement and reporting process.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The proposal directly affects Māori communities, particularly those associated with Marae and Kōhanga Reo.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	Māori communities, especially those associated with Marae and Kōhanga Reo Residents living near unsealed roads, including rural families and property owners Youth and children attending Kōhanga reo, schools, and using school bus routes The aged and those with disabilities who may be more vulnerable to health impacts from dust and require reliable road access Community groups and organisations that use marae and other gathering places
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The financial impact of sealing and dust suppression at Marae and Kōhanga Reo sites will be outlined in the staff response The financial implications of this Notice of Motion will be determined by the response from staff. Final budgetary provisions will be made by Council
Chief Financial Officer review.	This report has not been reviewed by the CFO.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

11 December 2025

5.3 Notice of Motion - Review of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement and Memorandums of Understanding

File Number: A5497095

I, Councillor Davina Smolders, give notice that at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 11 December 2025, I intend to move the following motion:

MŌtini / Motion

That the Far North District Council:

1. Notes concerns that the Ngāpuhi Mana Whakahono a Rohe (MWaR) and the Te Rarawa and Ngāti Rēhia Memoranda of Understanding may give rise to potential breaches of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Local Government Act 2002, the Regulatory Standards Act 2025, and the Far North District Council Significance and Engagement Policy.

2. Initiates a review of the Ngāpuhi MWaR and the Te Rarawa and Ngāti Rēhia MOUs to identify and report on any such potential breaches or areas of non compliance, including but not limited to issues of significance, consultation, transfer of powers, fettering of discretion, property rights, equality before the law, transparency of costs, and long term financial obligations.

3. Directs the Chief Executive to report back to Council with the findings of that review and clear options for addressing any identified breaches or risks, including any amendments, reconsideration or other remedial actions that may be required.

Take / Rationale

Reasoning: Potential breaches

Based on the text of the signed Ngāpuhi Mana Whakahono a Rohe (MWaR) and the Te Rarawa and Ngāti Rēhia MOUs, assigning a “Medium” significance level to the Ngāpuhi MWaR is highly contentious and provides strong grounds to argue that the Council may have breached the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), specifically regarding its Significance and Engagement Policy.

While the Council has carefully worded the document to avoid an immediate technical breach of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the “Medium” designation arguably circumvents the transparency requirements of the LGA.

Below is an analysis of why this designation is legally vulnerable.

1. Breach of “Significance” under the LGA 2002

Under the LGA, a decision is “significant” if it has a high degree of importance to the district, involves large financial consequences, or affects strategic assets.

The “Medium” designation argument
The Council likely argues this is “Medium” because the MWaR itself is just a “relationship protocol” and a framework for future decisions, rather than a direct transfer of assets today. They rely on clauses such as clause 6.1, which says the Council only “commits to deliberating” on funding in the next Long Term Plan.

The counter argument: Why it should be “High” or significant
The MWaR contains commitments that fundamentally alter the governance structure of the district, which should trigger the “significant” threshold.

Transfer of powers under RMA section 33

· The text: Clause 8.0 explicitly sets up the process for the “transfer and delegation of powers and functions”. It states that upon request by Ngāpuhi, the parties “will discuss the potential for transfer of powers”.

· The breach concern: While it says “discuss”, clause 8.3 commits the parties to “agree a process and timeframe for facilitating the transfer”. By signing this, the Council has effectively pre determined that transfers will be facilitated if agreed, skipping the public debate on whether they should be transferred at all. A transfer of regulatory power is a change in the level of service, which triggers significance.

Irreversible constitutional change

· The text: Clause 5.0 mandates that Ngāpuhi representatives “will be appointed” to Council committees such as Te Kuaka.

· The breach concern: Altering the decision making body of the Council to include non elected appointees with voting rights is a matter of high public interest and constitutional significance. Labelling this “Medium” minimises the structural change to local democracy.

2. The RMA “transfer of powers” trap

The Council has likely not yet breached the RMA, but the MWaR sets a pathway that may lead to a breach later.

RMA section 33 requirement

· The RMA states that a local authority may transfer functions to an iwi authority, but it must use the Special Consultative Procedure (section 33(4)(c) RMA).

The conflict

· By signing the MWaR under a “Medium” designation, without a Special Consultative Procedure, the Council has agreed to a forward work programme and resourcing to facilitate these transfers.

The argument

· Ratepayers can argue that the Council is using the MWaR to “bake in” the outcome of the section 33 transfer before the public consultation actually happens. Once the Council has contractually agreed to “facilitate the transfer” in the MWaR, the future public consultation risks becoming a sham and may be viewed as predetermination.

3. Fettering of discretion in administrative law

A Council cannot sign a contract that prevents it from making a free decision in the future. This is the principle against fettering discretion.

· The clause: Clause 6.1 states the Council “commits to deliberating on the inclusion of specific resourcing in its next Long Term Plan”.

· The issue: While “commits to deliberating” sounds safe, clause 6.2 goes further, stating the Council “commits to providing annual funding” subject to clause 6.1.

· The breach concern: If the Council has signed a binding contract (the MWaR) promising funding before the Long Term Plan (LTP) process has occurred, it has effectively rendered the LTP public consultation meaningless regarding those line items. This arguably breaches the principles of the LGA regarding open decision making.

In addition, Waitangi Tribunal decisions are not binding on their own. However, once a Council signs a binding MWaR or MOU that agrees to “give effect” to those decisions, it effectively converts non binding Tribunal findings into binding local government policy. This bypasses the Crown and creates a binding obligation on the Council without going through a Special Consultative Procedure for the transfer of land or interests pursuant to a Waitangi Tribunal decision.

4. Comparison with Te Rarawa and Ngāti Rēhia MOUs

The Ngāpuhi MWaR is significantly more aggressive and detailed than the other two arrangements, which makes the “Medium” designation even more questionable.

· Ngāti Rēhia MOU: This is largely aspirational. It focuses on vision, values, and meeting annually. It mentions designing a work programme but lacks the specific statutory provisions and mechanisms found in the Ngāpuhi document.

· Te Rarawa MOU: This focuses mainly on relationship and consultation.

· Ngāpuhi MWaR: This explicitly invokes RMA section 33 (transfer of powers) and section 36B (joint management) and it sets specific governance arrangements and work programmes.

Conclusion: The Ngāpuhi document is a statutory instrument under the RMA (a Mana Whakahono a Rohe), whereas the others are common law MOUs. Treating the Ngāpuhi MWaR with the same “Medium” significance as a standard MOU is a misclassification of its legal weight.

5. Summary of potential breaches

LGA Significance

· Council’s likely defence: “It is just a protocol for talking, no assets are transferred yet.”

· Ratepayer challenge: “It commits to a process of transferring regulatory powers in clause 8, which is a significant change in levels of service.”

LGA Consultation

· Council’s likely defence: “We will consult on the funding in the 2027 LTP under clause 6.1.”

· Ratepayer challenge: “Signing the MWaR now creates a contractual liability that pre determines the LTP outcome, making consultation a sham.”

RMA section 33

· Council’s likely defence: “We have not transferred powers yet, we have only agreed to discuss it.”

· Ratepayer challenge: “Clause 8.3 obligates you to facilitate the transfer, signalling intent without the required Special Consultative Procedure.”

The Ngāpuhi MWaR explicitly invokes RMA section 33 (transfer of powers) and section 36B (joint management). A decision to enter an agreement that facilitates the future transfer of regulatory functions fundamentally alters the level of service provided by the Council. Under the LGA, this triggers the significance threshold. By classifying this as “Medium”, the Council has avoided the Special Consultative Procedure normally required for such constitutional changes.

6. Regulatory Standards Act 2025

There are also concerns regarding alignment with the newly enacted Regulatory Standards Act 2025.

The MWaR commits the Council to “give effect” to Waitangi Tribunal findings and signals a move toward the transfer of powers under section 33 of the RMA. This raises questions about consistency with the Principles of Responsible Regulation now set in law.

Specific concerns include:

1. Impairment of property rights and compensation
Section 8 of the Regulatory Standards Act states that regulation should not impair property rights without good justification and fair compensation.
Questions that arise include:

o Has the Council conducted a legal analysis to determine if new planning rules or wāhi tapu designations arising from this MWaR will trigger a requirement for the Council to financially compensate affected landowners for loss of property value or utility

o If so, where is this potential liability accounted for in the Long Term Plan

2. Equality before the law
The Act requires that every person is equal before the law.

o If the Council transfers section 33 regulatory powers to a non elected iwi authority, how does the Council justify granting regulatory privileges to a specific group based on descent

o Has the Council received advice on whether this arrangement is consistent with the “equality before the law” principle of the Regulatory Standards Act

3. Regulatory Standards Board review

o Will the Council voluntarily submit its proposed implementation plan for this MWaR to the new Regulatory Standards Board for an independent review to ensure it does not breach the statutory principles of responsible regulation

7. The “significance” trap: where it becomes unlawful

The Council breaches the law, specifically the Local Government Act 2002, when a decision or spending triggers the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and the required processes are not followed.

For the Far North District Council, a decision is typically “significant” and requires LTP or public consultation if it:

1. Involves unbudgeted operational spending that exceeds 2.5 percent of total rates, which is approximately 2.5 to 3 million dollars.

2. Involves transferring ownership or control of a strategic asset, such as a park, water infrastructure, or decision making power over such assets.

3. Creates large divisions in community interest or is highly controversial.

The concern is that while initial spending on meetings or relationship activities may appear modest, the signed MWaR commits the Council to a path that will inevitably trigger these thresholds later. By signing it now without explicit LTP approval, Council may be effectively bypassing its own Significance and Engagement Policy.

8. How the Regulatory Standards Act changes this

The Regulatory Standards Act provides a new lens to challenge “business as usual” spending and regulatory design.

A. The transparency principle

· The rule: The Act requires that the process of making law, including secondary legislation and regulatory frameworks derived from these agreements, is transparent.

· The breach concern: If the Council is spending funds to develop a regulatory framework through the MWaR that will bind ratepayers, but is hiding the cost of that development in general operational budgets, this breaches the transparency principle. A full accounting of all workstream costs associated with the Ngāpuhi MWaR should be available.

B. The “taxes and charges” principle

· The rule: Taxes and rates should only be used to provide benefits that are linked to the payer or to the general public good.

· The breach concern: If the Council is paying iwi representatives fees to sit at the table that far exceed normal or reasonable meeting costs, for example one thousand dollars per hour compared to standard meeting fees, this may be viewed as a transfer of wealth rather than legitimate cost recovery. Under the Regulatory Standards Act this could be challenged as an unreasonable use of levied funds.

C. Stewardship duty

· The rule: Regulators, including councils, have a duty of stewardship to ensure systems remain fit for purpose.

· The breach concern: Entering into a binding agreement that creates a perpetual financial liability, for example resourcing iwi participation indefinitely, without explicitly budgeting for it in the LTP is a failure of financial stewardship.

9. Legal versus illegal actions summary

· Paying iwi meeting fees, for example around fifty thousand dollars per year, is likely legal and falls under the Chief Executive’s operational authority within existing budgets.

· Signing an MWaR that promises ongoing resourcing may be technically legal at the point of signing, but it creates an unfunded mandate that effectively forces future Councils to pay.

· Transferring decision making powers under RMA section 33 without a Special Consultative Procedure is unlawful, because transferring powers is significant and must go through LTP or Annual Plan processes.

· Hiding the total cost of the MWaR across multiple budgets risks breaching the Regulatory Standards Act transparency principles, because it prevents ratepayers from seeing the true cost.

10. Executive sign off

It is noted that neither the Chief Executive nor the Chief Financial Officer signed off on the information submitted to Council for consideration. Given the highly complex nature of the intersection between the various statutes and the complexity of the potential financial obligations that may bind Councils into the future, the highest level of executive guidance would have been very useful to Council. As a result, the understanding of all implications of the agreements by elected members may have been very limited.

I commend this Notice of Motion to Council.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

Nil

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule: Completed by Democracy Services Staff

Please note that nothing in this standing order removes the requirement to meet the provisions of Part 6, LGA with regard to consultation and decision-making.

Full consideration must been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	There is low degree of significance in receiving this Notice of Motion.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Local Government Act 2002; Resource Management Act (RMA) in 2017
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	District-wide relevance. Community Board views have not been sought.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	No direct implications identified.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	This does not impact any identified persons under legislation.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	No financial implications.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

11 December 2025

7 Ngā Pūrongo / Reports

7.8 Response to Notice of Motion for the Sealing of Marae & Kōhanga Reo Roads

File Number: A5483419

Author: Margriet Veenstra, Transportation Business Manager

Authoriser: Charlie Billington, Group Manager - Corporate Services

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To provide a response to the Notice of Motion (NoM) dated 28 August 2025 regarding sealing of unsealed road sections near selected Kōhanga reo and Marae, outlining our planned approach, key considerations, and next steps.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Responds to the Notice of Motion (NoM) dated 28 August 2025, requesting sealing of unsealed road sections near selected Kōhanga Reo and Marae.

· Proposes a strategic, district-wide approach using the Waka Kotahi NZTA Dust Matrix for fair, data-driven prioritisation and funding eligibility.

· Integrates sealing and dust mitigation projects into existing work programmes and planning documents (Long Term Plan, Annual Plan, District Plan).

· Combines routine maintenance, seasonal dust suppression, targeted seal extensions, and alternative surfacing for both immediate and long-term solutions.

· Manages costs by leveraging NZTA subsidies for high-risk sites and applying Council’s Dust Control Policy for others.

· Provides a clear timeline for policy development, implementation, and review, with ongoing reporting to Council

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) Endorse the strategic approach of the Unsealed Roads Strategy for unsealed roads

i. Agree to include the identified Marae and Kōhanga Reo sites in the prioritised programme for road sealing and dust mitigation

ii. Direct the Chief Executive to continue working closely with Waka Kotahi NZTA to secure funding for dust mitigation at high-risk sites, including those affecting Marae and Kōhanga Reo, and to report back on the outcome of these funding discussions.

iii. Direct the Chief Executive to finalise the Unsealed Roads Strategy and present the updated dust risk findings and Draft Dust Control Policy for Council approval by mid-2026.

iv. Direct the Chief Executive to incorporate budgetary requirements into the next Annual Plan and LTP.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Council has received a Notice of Motion from Councillor Hilda Halkyard-Harawira (28 Aug 2025) advocating for improved dust control and sealing of roads fronting certain Kōhanga Reo and Marae. The motion requests that Council::

a. Seal up to 500m of road (250m each side) at 8 specified Kōhanga Reo/Marae sites within the 2025–28 term.

b. Include 37 marae (listed) in the road prioritisation matrix for seal extensions, with appropriate weighting for their proximity and heavy usage during tangihanga (funerals) and hui.

c. Incorporate the design & delivery of sealed access to these marae into existing work programmes

d. Reflect the above in key planning documents – specifically the 2024–27 Long Term Plan (LTP) with budget allocation, Annual Plan for short-term actions, and the District Plan for long-term land use planning support.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

This report provides a detailed analysis of the Notice of Motion’s requests and Council’s proposed response. For further context, the discussion covers:

· Background and Context: Outlines the rationale for improved dust control and sealing at Marae and Kōhanga Reo sites.

· Data-Driven Prioritisation: Explains the adoption of the Waka Kotahi NZTA Dust Matrix for fair and effective site selection.

· Risk Categories and GIS Analysis: Details how sites are assessed and ranked for dust risk, with supporting data layers.

· Integration into Planning: Describes how the strategy aligns with Council’s planning documents and long-term objectives.

· Programme Options: Summarises the mix of maintenance, dust suppression, seal extensions, and alternative surfacing methods available.

· Cost Implications: Reviews funding options, cost management strategies, and the importance of avoiding isolated “orphan” sealed sites.

· Next Steps: Provides a timeline for policy development, implementation, and review.

For full details and supporting analysis, please refer to the attached briefing paper and supporting documentation.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

By endorsing the strategic approach of the Unsealed Roads Strategy for unsealed roads (incorporating the Waka Kotahi NZTA dust matrix and Dust Control Policy), Council would be addressing the Notice of Motion (NOM) by:

· Agreeing to include the identified Marae and Kōhanga Reo sites in the prioritised programme, rather than approving an isolated sealing project for 8 sites out of context. The eight named locations will be treated as high-priority candidates and if the updated analysis confirms their need, staff will proceed with designing sealing or dust control solutions for them as part of the programme (with a target to implement within the 2025–28 term, resources permitting). For any sites that do not rank highly, Council can decide (via the Dust Policy) if it still wishes to fund their sealing for community reasons.

· Directing the Chief Executive to continue working closely with Waka Kotahi NZTA to secure funding for dust mitigation at High-risk sites, including those affecting marae, and to report back on the outcome of these funding discussions.

· Directing the Chief Executive to finalise the Unsealed Roads Strategy and present the updated dust risk findings and Draft Dust Control Policy for Council approval by mid-2026. In the meantime, operational efforts through dust suppression and maintenance upgrades will continue at affected sites to mitigate dust this summer and beyond. Progress on implementation will be reported periodically through Council workshops or committee updates, keeping Councillors informed as we move from planning to tangible results on the ground.

· Incorporating the outcomes into the next Annual Plan and LTP as required. For example, if Waka Kotahi NZTA funding is confirmed for some marae road seals, Council’s co-funding share would need to be budgeted. Conversely, if certain projects remain unsubsidised but Council deems them critical per the new policy, we will allocate local funding accordingly.

By following this approach, Council demonstrates a commitment to improving rural Māori community infrastructure in a prudent yet proactive way. It addresses the NoM’s core intent, enhancing access and reducing dust at culturally and socially important sites, while also establishing a robust framework to manage all unsealed roads fairly across the district. This ensures that our response is not only effective for the Marae and Kōhanga Reo highlighted, but also for any other community that faces similar challenges now or in the future.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The financial impact of sealing and dust suppression at Marae and Kōhanga Reo sites is outlined in the attached briefing paper, including estimated costs for both Council-funded and Waka Kotahi NZTA-subsidised projects.

The financial implications of this proposal, including costs for sealing and dust suppression at Marae and Kōhanga Reo sites, will be determined by the outcome of this report and the subsequent completion of the Unsealed Roads Strategy. While indicative costs and funding options have been outlined in the attached briefing paper, final budgetary provisions will be made once Council confirms priorities and the strategy is adopted.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Notice of Motion - Sealing of Marae and Kōhanga Reo - A5312369 ⇩

2. Notice of Motion Response - Briefing Paper - A5495301 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	This proposal is assessed as having a high level of significance under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, given its potential impact on community wellbeing, financial commitments, and strategic infrastructure planning.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Local Government Act 2002 Activity Management Plan (AMP) Dust Control Policy
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	Because the strategy and associated decisions affect communities district-wide, consultation and engagement is undertaken at the Council level. If specific Community Board views are required for particular sites or implementation phases, these will be sought as part of the ongoing engagement and reporting process.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The proposal directly affects Māori communities, particularly those associated with Marae and Kōhanga Reo. At this stage, Council is responding to the Notice of Motion submitted. No formal consultation with iwi or hapū has been undertaken as part of this process, and it is not known whether consultation occurred prior to the NoM submission. Further engagement with affected Māori communities may be considered as the programme progresses
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	Māori communities, especially those associated with Marae and Kōhanga Reo Residents living near unsealed roads, including rural families and property owners Youth and children attending Kōhanga reo, schools, and using school bus routes The aged and those with disabilities who may be more vulnerable to health impacts from dust and require reliable road access Community groups and organisations that use marae and other gathering places
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The financial impact of sealing and dust suppression at Marae and Kōhanga Reo sites is outlined in the attached briefing paper, including estimated costs for both Council-funded and Waka Kotahi NZTA-subsidised. Projects. The financial implications of this proposal will be determined by the outcome of this report and the subsequent completion of the Unsealed Roads Strategy. While indicative costs and funding options have been outlined in the attached briefing paper, final budgetary provisions will be made once Council confirms priorities and the strategy is adopted.
Chief Financial Officer review.	This report has been submitted to the CFO for review