Agenda of Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation Meeting

	Authorising Body	Mayor/Council
	Status	Standing Committee
COUNCIL COMMITTEE	Title	Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation
	Terms of Reference Adoption	11 December 2025
	Responsible Officer	General Manager Planning and Policy

Kaupapa / Purpose

Te Kūkupa – Strategy, Policy and Regulation Committee is established to provide governance oversight, leadership, and direction on the development, review, and monitoring of the Far North District Council’s strategies, policies, bylaws, and regulatory frameworks. The Committee ensures that Council’s strategic objectives are advanced through robust policy development and effective regulatory practice.

Ngā Huānga / Membership

The Council will determine the membership of the Committee.

Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation will comprise of at least six elected members (one of which will be the chairperson).

Kahika / Mayor Moko Tepania is an ex-officio member of all Committees.

Membership is as follows:

Cr Kelly Stratford - Chairperson

Cr Ann Court - Deputy Chairperson

Kohepu – Deputy Mayor Chicky Rudkin

Cr Felicity Foy

Cr Davina Smolders

Cr Hilda Halkyard Harawira

Cr Rachel Baucke

Cr Arohanui Allen

Kōrama / Quorum

The quorum at a meeting of Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation is 4 members.

Ngā Hui / Frequency of Meetings

The Committee shall meet 4 weekly.

Ngā Apatono / Power to Delegate

The responsibilities, duties and powers of the Committee are subject to the prohibition on delegation of powers under Clause 32(1), Schedule 7, Local Government Act 2002, and any other restrictions on delegation under any other relevant legislation.

Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy Policy and Regulation may not delegate any of its responsibilities, duties or powers however it may establish working groups to consider issues within the committee’s areas of responsibilities noting that working groups have no decision-making powers.

Ngā Herenga Paetae / Responsibilities

The Committee’s responsibilities include, but are not limited to:

· Leading the development, review, and recommendation of Council strategies, policies, and bylaws.

· Overseeing the preparation and review of the Long Term Plan, Annual Plan, and associated consultation processes.

· Monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of adopted strategies and policies.

· Provide Governance level insight on Council’s approach to regulatory matters - having regard to the separation of regulatory and non-regulatory decision-making functions as between the Chief Executive and Governance (section 42(3)(a) LGA02).

· Have input into submissions on central government policy, legislation, and regulatory proposals relevant to Council’s functions.

· Considering and recommending to Council on matters relating to:

- District Plan and Resource Management Act functions,

- Environmental policy and planning,

- Economic development strategies,

- Social and community wellbeing policies,

- Climate change adaptation and mitigation policy,

- Regulatory fees and charges,

- Other strategic or regulatory matters as delegated by Council.

The Committee has delegated authority to:

· Approve for consultation draft strategies, policies, and bylaws.

· Hear and consider submissions, including oral submissions on strategies, policies, and bylaws, and recommend adoption to Council.

· Have Governance level oversight of regulatory and policy matters as specifically delegated by Council - subject to Clause 32(1), Schedule 7, Local Government Act 2002 and section 43(3)(a) of the LGA02.

· Request reports and briefings from staff on matters within its scope.

The Committee does NOT have the authority to:

· Adopt final strategies, policies, or bylaws (unless specifically delegated by Council).

· Make decisions that are the responsibility of the full Council or another committee.

Ngā Ture / Rules and Procedures

Council’s Standing Orders and Elected Member Code of Conduct apply to all meetings.

Reporting and Review of Committee Terms of Reference

In December of each year, the Responsible Officer alongside Democracy Services will submit a report to Council. The report will summarise the activities of the Committee and how it has contributed to the Council’s governance and strategic objectives. This will look at whether the Council are meeting the full requirements of the Committee Terms of Reference and whether any amendments are required to the Committees terms of reference to increase efficient and effective decision making.

The terms of reference of the Committee will be reviewed as part of this report but can be amended by Council at any point throughout the term.

Integrated Work Programme 2026 - Committee Meetings and Monthly Operational Briefings (MOBs)

Date	Forum	Key Programme / Topic	Purpose	Details to be reported on	Te Kūkupa Role / Outcome
18 March 2026	Committee	Work Programme	Adoption of the Work Programme (this document)	Adoption of Te Kūkupa work programme 2026	Approval
19 March 2026	MOB – Full Council	Planning and Policy Group – Monthly Operational Briefing	Operational awareness and progress updates	Narrative update on progress on planned works, highlights, what is planned next. Status of Submissions Confirm metrics	Note and participate as part of full Council
15 April 2026	Committee	District Plan update	Governance direction on next statutory stage	Status of District Plan, next phases, key dates and upcoming decisions	Governance assurance
15 April 2026	Committee – Workshop	LGNZ Remit topics and planning	To workshop what FNDC wants to submit on and plan any submissions or support of submissions	· Remits identified and scheduled approval by Council in alignment Zone meetings.	Oversight and Approval
16 April 2026	MOB – Full Council	Planning and Policy Group – Monthly Operational Briefing	Operational awareness and progress updates	Narrative update on progress on planned works, highlights, what is planned next. Status of Submissions Confirm metrics	Note and participate as part of full Council

4 Te Whakaaetanga o Ngā Meneti o Mua / Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

File Number: A5640564

Author: Imrie Dunn, Democracy Advisor

Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Manager - Democracy Services

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The minutes are attached to allow the Committee to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record of previous meetings.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation confirm the minutes of the meeting held 18 March 2026 are true and correct.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28 states that a local authority must keep minutes of its proceedings. The minutes of these proceedings duly entered and authenticated as prescribed by a local authority are prima facie evidence of those meetings.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The minutes of the meetings are attached.

Far North District Council Standing Orders Section 27.3 states that no discussion shall arise on the substance of the minutes in any succeeding meeting, except as to their correctness.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The reason for the recommendation is to confirm the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meetings.

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

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision as a result of this report.

Attachments

1. 2026-03-18 Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation Minutes - A5634611 ⇩

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

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	This is a matter of low significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	This report complies with the Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28.
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.	It is the responsibility of each meeting to confirm their minutes therefore the views of another meeting are not relevant.
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.	There are no implications for Māori in confirming minutes from a previous meeting. Any implications on Māori arising from matters included in meeting minutes should be considered as part of the relevant report.
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 report is asking for minutes to be confirmed as true and correct record, any interests that affect other people should be considered as part of the individual reports.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision arising from this report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

5 Ngā Pūrongo / Reports

5.1 Psychoactive Substances Local Approved Products Policy Review

File Number: A5585710

Author: Shayne Storey, Team Leader - Policy & Bylaws

Authoriser: Tammy Wooster, Group Manager Planning and Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is for Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation to recommend to Council, that the Psychoactive Substances Local Approved Products Policy 2014 has been reviewed and should continue without amendment.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· On 20 May 2021, Council resolved that the Psychoactive Substances Local Approved Products Policy (the Policy) (Attachment 1) had been reviewed and should continue without amendment (2021/22, refers)

· The Policy is now due for review in May 2026

· There are currently no approved psychoactive products in New Zealand. Although a product can be approved at any time, current legislation makes approval unlikely

· The Policy aims to minimise the harm to the community caused by psychoactive substances by defining the permitted location of retail premises

· The Policy adheres to best practice evidence

· The Policy should continue without amendment.

Note: An approved product is defined as; a psychoactive product approved by the Authority under section 37 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Te Kūkupa makes the following recommendation to Council:

That Council:

a) agree that the Psychoactive Substances Local Approved Policy has been reviewed.

b) agree that the Psychoactive Substance Local Approved Policy 2014 should continue without amendment.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Psychoactive Substances Local Approved Products Policy (the Policy) (Attachment 1) was made in October 2014 utilising the Council’s discretionary functions under section 66 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.

The Policy is to be considered by the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority when determining applications for licenses.

Under section 69 of the Psychoactive Substance Act 2013, the Policy must be reviewed every five years. The Policy is due for review by 20 May 2026.

The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 does not prescribe the process for the review. The only requirement is to undertake the special consultative procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 if amending or revoking the policy.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Council’s role relating to psychoactive substances

The Council has little authority over the sale of psychoactive substances as outlined below:

· Psychoactive products approved by the Ministry of Health are a legal product.

· The regulation of retail premises selling psychoactive substances (including the location) is enforced by the NZ Police and the Ministry of Health.

· Licences are issued by the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority.

· The Council has no role in issuing licenses or in enforcement.

· The Council cannot ban the sale of legally approved products.

Under sections 66 – 69 of the Psychoactive Substance Act 2013, a policy may address the following matters:

· the location of premises from which approved products may be sold by reference to broad areas within the district.

· the location from which approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to other premises from which approved products are sold within the district.

· the location of premises from which approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to premises or facilities of a particular kind or kinds within the district (for example, kindergartens, early childhood centres, schools, places of worship, or other community facilities).

The policy was developed in response to concerns raised regarding the sale of psychoactive substances by residents and community stakeholders, as well as advice from Police and Public Health.

Review findings

Staff have reviewed the Psychoactive Substances (Local Approved Products) Policy, the full research report is in Attachment 2. A summary is provided below.

It is not possible to review the effectiveness of the Policy as it has not had an opportunity to be put into effect due to the fact that there are no currently approved products.

No licence applications for retailing, manufacturing, or wholesaling products have been received by the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority. Evidence from animal testing was prohibited in 2014. Therefore, the Regulatory Authority cannot approve or licence any product until an alternative to animal testing is available.

Alternatives are in development, including in vitro methods, using human cells and tissues, and advanced computer modelling techniques. Therefore, applications for approved products can still occur at any time. However, the Authority considers it highly unlikely that any products will be approved in the foreseeable future under current legislation.

The policy adheres to best practise evidence and meets current legislative requirements. The sensitive site definitions are in accordance with best practice and will likely be interpreted by the Authority as intended.

The policy refers to a job description (General Manager Environmental Management) that has been restructured (to General Manager District Services). However, under the Local Government Act 2002, schedule 7, clause 32 (3), the Chief Executive can delegate the functions of the General Manager Environmental Management regarding this policy to the General Manager District Services.

Any amendments to the policy, including minor amendments, or revocation, will need to undergo a special consultation procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Option One: Status quo: The Policy stays in force with no changes (recommended option)

Policy follows best practice and meets current legislative requirements. Delegations are in place to ensure continued monitoring of policy implementation.

A product can be approved at any point in time.

Advantage and disadvantages of keeping the provisions of the policy

Advantages

- A Policy is already in place if a product is approved requiring:

- approved products to be restricted to commercial zones.

- approved products not to be sold near sensitive sites, preventing the normalisation of psychoactive substances to children.

- More cost effective in that there will be less consultation costs than if the Policy was revoked and a product was approved requiring a new policy in the future.

Disadvantages

- Policy continues to have provisions that are unnecessary because there are no approved products.

Option Two: Revoke the Policy

As there are currently no approved products, the policy could be revoked, and a new policy developed if/when a product is approved. Developing a new policy takes 12 to 18 months.

Advantages and disadvantages of revoking the Policy

Advantages	- Removing provisions that are unnecessary because there are no approved products.

Disadvantages	- Extra consultation and resource costs in revoking and developing a new policy when a product is approved.
	- Risk of approved products being able to be sold at any location if a new policy is not developed in time.
	- Reputational risk as it may appear the Council is not being proactive in preventing community harm.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The policy adheres to best practise evidence. Therefore, the Policy is still the most appropriate way to address problems relating to the sale of approved psychoactive substances in the Far North District.

Next steps

If the Council agrees with the recommendation, that the Policy stays in force without amendment, no further actions are required.

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

No further actions are required. The cost of monitoring the implementation of the policy will be met from existing operating budgets.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. psychoactive-substances-local-approved-products-policy-2014 (1) - A5592982 ⇩

2. Psychoactive Substances Policy-Research Report 2026 - A5593035 ⇩

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	As retaining the status quo will have little effect on ratepayers or level of service, the level of significance as determined by the Significance and Engagement Policy is low. Under the psychoactive Substances Act 2013, consultation is not required if the Policy continues without amendment.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 sections 66-69 apply to the decision recommended in this report.
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.	As the recommendation is to maintain status quo, the Community Boards 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.	This decision is not significant and does not relate to land and/or any body of water.
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).	Affected and interested parties were given an opportunity to share their views and preferences during the development of the Policy including: · community groups concerned with psychoactive substances. · Ngā Tai Ora – Public Health Northland. · Ministry of Health. · New Zealand Police.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The cost of monitoring the implementation of the policy will be met from existing operating budgets.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

5.2 Revenue and Financing Policy Amendment Adoption

File Number: A5571901

Author: Virginia Smith, Policy Advisor

Authoriser: Tammy Wooster, Group Manager Planning and Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To adopt the procedural amendment to the Revenue and Financing Policy 2024 that enables the collection of development contributions under the Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025, and to receive the analysis of submissions on the proposed amendment.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Under section 102(4) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), Council’s intention for collecting development contributions must be set out in the Revenue and Financing Policy as a funding tool

· On 7 October 2025 (2025/136, refers) Council adopted the Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025, solidifying its decision to use development contributions as a funding tool for growth related capital expenditure^{^[1]}

· On 11 December 2025 (2025/134, refers) Council adopted the public Consultation Document that proposed the procedural amendment to the Revenue and Financing Policy 2024 (RFP) to enable lawful collection of development contributions

· Public consultation on the proposed amendment was held between 19 January and 15 February 2026

· 64 written submissions were received on the proposed Revenue and Financing Policy 2024 amendment; no verbal submissions were requested

· 50 submitters (78.1%) support the proposed wording to reinstate the collection of development contributions

· Of the 14 “Other” responses, one explicitly opposed enabling development contributions, some suggested alternative or suspension wording, and others raised broader issues such as affordability, exemptions and accessibility that were out of the scope for this consultation

· Staff have completed an analysis of submissions and recommend the proposed amendment without changes.

· Information to support Council’s decision-making processes, legislative, policy, and strategic context for the publicly consulted amendment to the Revenue and Finance Policy can be found in the Revenue and Financing Policy Amendment agenda item and attachments, presented to and determined by Council at its 11 December 2025 Ordinary Council Meeting^{^[2]}

· This report provides an overview of the Submission Analysis Report (Attachment 1).

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation recommend that Council:

a) receive the Revenue and Financing Policy 2024 Amendment – Submissions Analysis Report in Attachment 1.

b) adopt the amendment to the Revenue and Financing Policy 2024 as set out in Attachment 2.

c) resolve that the amended Revenue and Financing Policy 2024 takes effect from 17 April 2026.

d) authorise the Chief Executive to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation amendments to the Revenue and Financing Policy 2024 to correct errors or omissions, or to reflect the decisions made by Council prior to final publication and public release.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) mandates that all statutory funding mechanisms, including development contributions (section 103(2)(g) LGA), be clearly identified in the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy (RFP). The current RFP, adopted in June 2024, outlines various funding sources but currently suspends the collection of development contributions, except for legacy consents and development contributions collected through development agreements.

To implement the new UWDCP, set to commence on 29 May 2026, an amendment to the RFP is legally necessary. Failure to amend the RFP exposes Council to potential legal risks and growth-related capital works infrastructure funding shortfalls.

On 11 December 2025 Council adopted the consultation document that proposed the procedural amendment to the RFP.

Public consultation was held between 15 January and 19 February 2026. This report provides the results and analysis of that consultation with recommendations.

For completeness and to avoid duplication, all supporting evidence to justify Council’s decision to make the amendment to the RFP were provided to Council at its the 11 December 2025 Council meeting^{^[3]}. The amendment to the RFP aligns with legislative requirements and helps maintain the integrity of the Council’s financial framework.

Below is a comprehensive timeline of the Revenue and Financing Policy (Table 1).

Table 1: Revenue and Financing Policy Timeline

Far North District Council – Revenue and Financing Policy timeline
Date	Event
2012 -2015	The Revenue and Financing Policy (RFP) was maintained and updated for clarity and funding changes as part of the 2012 – 2022 Long Term Plan.
2015	At the review of the 2015 LTP cycle, Council suspended the charging of new development contributions, maintaining them only for consents already granted. The RFP text was amended to reflect this suspension.^{^[4]}
2018	Council reviewed the RFP as part of the 2018 Long Term Plan update. Changes were made but only to realign it to legislative requirements.
12 March 2024	Draft changes were presented to Council addressing the evolving funding principles and public feedback in anticipation of the 2024 Long Term Plan.^{^[5]} The RFP amendments were endorsed as part of Te Pae Tata Long Term Plan 2024-2027.^{^[6]}
26 June 2024	The RFP was adopted^{^[7]} as part of the Te Pae Tata Long Term Plan 2024 - 2027^{^[8]}. It continued the suspension of development contributions for new consents but updated its provisions in anticipation of statutory reforms.
14 November 2024	Council undertook a review^{^[9]} of its Development Contributions Policy to consider collection reactivation. At that same meeting Council determined to draft a new development contributions policy and reinstate the collection of development contributions to help fund its Capital expenses.^{^[10]}
July 2025	The Draft UWDCP was adopted by Council for statutory public consultation process.^{^[11]}
7 October 2025	Council adopted the UWDCP 2025 with Council resolving a May 2026 commencement date.^{^[12]}
October 2025	Staff commenced work on the procedural RFP amendments required to enable lawful collection of development contributions from 29 May 2026.
11 December 2025	Public consultation process and proposed amendments to the RFP adopted.^{^[13]}
19 January – 15 February 2026	Public consultation period.
Current	Decision to adopt and amend the Revenue and Financing Policy 2024.

This report presents the Revenue and Financing Policy 2024 submission analysis, and corresponding recommendation for Council to adopt the amended Revenue and Financing Policy 2024.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Results from public consultation held between 19 January and 15 February 2026.

Method and Scope used

Percentages below are calculated from the submitter response field “we would like to know whether you:

· Option 1: Yes, I support the proposed wording” as support, and

· Option 2: “Other” as not-support / does not support / unclear.

“Out of scope” is assessed as the response did not provide alternative wording or did not speak to the amendment directly.

Results:

Council received 64 submissions during the consultation period. The responses were:

50 submitters (78.1%) answered “Yes” indicating they support the proposed amended wording.

14 submitters (21.9%) selected “Other”.

Among the 14 submitters who selected “Other”:

1 submitter (Submitter 55) explicitly stated opposition to the amendment, representing 1.6% of total submissions.

3 submitters (Submitters 7, 42, 43) expressed concerns about the impacts of reinstating development contributions, representing 4.7% of total submissions.

8 submitters (Submitters 19, 20, 26, 28, 63, 65, 66) suggested alternative wording or changes to the RFP text, representing 12.5% of total submissions.

2 submitters (Submitters 62, 64) raised matters that were assessed as out of scope of this wording amendment, representing 3.1% of total submissions.

A detailed breakdown of submitters by theme is provided in Attachment 1 and in Table 2 for quick reference.

Table 2: Support for the proposed Revenue and Financing Policy Amendment

Theme	Submitter IDs	Count	%	Notes
Theme 1: Yes – Support	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60,61	50	78.1%	All “Yes” responses
Theme 2: Other – Concerns about Impacts	7, 42, 43	3	4.7%	Developer concerns
Theme 3: Other – Alternative Wording	19, 20, 21, 26, 28, 63, 65, 66	8	12.5%	In conflict with Council’s previous decisions
Theme 4: Other – Explicit opposition	55	1	1.6%	Opposes amendment itself
Theme 5: Out of Scope	62, 64	2	3.1%	Accessibility, broader policy
TOTAL		64	100%

Out of Scope within non-support for the proposed amended wording

Within the 14 ‘Other’ submissions 57.2% (8 of 14) were assessed as out of scope because they address matters beyond the specific wording amendment that was subject of consultation. These submissions primarily discussed the substantive provisions of the UWDCP itself, such as exemptions to Māori land, concerns about housing affordability, and broader funding strategy matters. These issues had been addressed through the comprehensive consultation process that occurred for the draft UWDCP between August and October 2025. This consultation attracted 257 submissions and resulted in the adoption by Council of that Policy.

General Feedback

The consultation on the proposed RFP amendment drew submissions that reflected strong support for the amended wording, with many submitters recognising the importance of clear, unambiguous policy language that accurately reflects Council’s decision to reinstate development contributions. A smaller portion of submissions raised concerns about the implications of reinstating development contributions that were determined to be out of scope or suggested alternative wording approaches that contradicted Council’s position.

Key Themes

Theme 1: Strong support and clarity:

Many submitters welcomed the clearer language of the proposed amendment and supported the principle that “growth pays for growth”, citing fairness to existing ratepayers and the need to fund growth-related infrastructure.

Recommendation: No changes to the proposed wording are recommended in response to submissions supporting the clarification. The level and quality of support demonstrates that the proposed wording meets its intended purpose.

Theme 2: Concerns about impacts:

“Other” submitters raised concerns about development viability, affordability, treatment of Māori land, and infrastructure delivery sequencing. These matters were considered and determined by Council through the 2025 special consultation process on the draft UWDCP. These submission points were assessed as being out of scope of this consultation process.

“New builds already pay enough with the numerous consultants that they are now required to engage, even before committing to a new build. This puts enormous financial stress, and risk on the person building. The rates should be covering all current and future infrastructure, not requiring developers to pay for it” – Submitter 7

“This is a double dipping tax that will see section prices rise as developer pass on costs to people that will be paying rates anyway.” – Submitter 42

Recommendation: No changes to the proposed wording are recommended. The concerns raised, while sincerely held, were addressed through the comprehensive Development Contributions Policy consultation and adoption process.

Theme 3: Alternative wording requests:

Some “Other” submitters either supported retaining the current wording or proposed wording that would also continue the suspension of development contributions and add aspirational objectives. The retention of current wording or alternative wording would contradict the decision of Council to reintroduce development contribution collection under the UWDCP and not appropriate content for a technical funding policy.

“use the old wording” – Submitter 19

“The council will continue to suspend the charging of development contributions for this LTP period while prioritising efficient infrastructure delivery, affordability, and growth-enabling policies. Outstanding contributions charged prior to the suspension of the 2015 Development Contributions Policy will continue to be received.” – Submitters 63, 65 and 66

Recommendation: No changes to the proposed wording are recommended. The alternative wording suggested would contradict Council's adopted policy and introduce inappropriate content into the Revenue and Financing Policy.

Theme 4: Opposition to Enabling Development Contributions

One submitter explicitly opposed the amendment based on not wanting the Council to collect or implement the newly adopted UWDCP.

“I do not support amending the Finance and Revenue Policy because the amendments effect is to enable Development Contributions-.” – Submitter 55

Recommendation: No changes to the proposed wording are recommended. The fundamental policy decision has been made through an appropriate process, and this amendment appropriately implements that decision.

Theme 5: Submissions Outside Consultation Scope

Many of the “Other” submissions addressed matters outside the scope of this consultation. A detailed submission on accessibility, universal design, and disability impacts are acknowledged in the analysis report (Attachment 1); however, the matters raised were identified as being operational in nature, with the analysis report recommending having these matters referred to relevant operational teams rather than altering the RFP wording.

Recommendation: No changes to the proposed wording are recommended. The important perspectives raised should be addressed through appropriate operational channels rather than through amendment to the Revenue and Financing Policy wording.

Options

Option	Advantages	Disavantages
1. Status quo (retain current wording and maintain suspension of development contributions)	· No change required	· Contradicts Council’s resolution to adopt the UWDCP 2025 · Creates legal uncertainty and ambiguity about Council’s ability to collect development contributions under the UWDCP 2025 · Prevents implementation of UWDCP 2025 · Undermines the consultation processes and strong support for reinstating development contributions as a funding mechanism.
2. Adopt the amended wording as proposed (Recommended Option)	· Accurately reflects Council’s adopted policy position to reinstate development contributions under the UWDCP 2025 · Supported by 50 of 64 submitters (78.1%), demonstrating strong public confidence that the wording is appropriate and reaffirming support for Council’s decision to reinstate development contributions · Removes ambiguity in the current RFP wording and provides clarity and certainty for developers, ratepayers, and staff · Enables implementation of the UWDCP 2025 from 29 May 2026 · Achieve statutory compliance by clearly identifying development contributions as a funding mechanism under the LGA.	· Does not address all submitter concerns, although most of those concerns relate to matters outside the scope of this wording amendment · Opposed by one submitter (1.6% of submissions).
3. Adopt alternative wording as suggested by some submitters	· Addresses concerns of a small number of submitters who sought alternative or suspension wording.	· Contradicts Council’s previous decision to reinstate development contributions as a funding tool through the UWDCP 2025 · Creates confusion between the RFP and UWDCP 2025 and would not align to statutory direction or best practice for financial policies under the LGA. · Introduces inappropriate aspirational content into technical funding policy · Would require re-consultation.

Staff recommend OPTION 2 – Adopt the amended wording as proposed.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation to adopt the amended wording as proposed (Option 2) is supported by the following key factors:

· Strong Public support: 50 of 64 submitters (78.1%) explicitly supported the proposed wording, with only 1 submitter (1.6%) opposing the amendment itself, as detailed in Attachment 1

· Policy Coherence: The amended wording accurately implements Council's 7 October 2025 decision to adopt the UWDCP 2025 and removes the contradiction between the current RFP wording that signals suspension and Council’s actual position to reinstate development contributions

· Legal Clarity: The amendment provides a clear, unambiguous policy foundation for charging development contributions as directed under sections102 and 103 of the LGA, reducing the risk of challenge and providing certainty for all stakeholders

· Appropriate Scope: Substantive matters relating to the design and application of development contributions were considered through the August 2025 special consultative process on the draft UWDCP 2025; this amendment appropriately focuses on implementing that decision through the RFP

· Making changes to accommodate concerns raised in the submissions would be inappropriate.

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

Adopting the amendment to the RFP has no direct cost implications. The amendment is a procedural change that enables the implementation and collection of development contributions under the UWDCP 2025, which will create a new revenue stream to offset the infrastructure required to support growth.

If the amendment were not adopted, growth related infrastructure would need to be funded through alternative mechanisms such as rates or debt, which is inconsistent with the Council’s “growth pays for growth” approach signalled through the UWDCP 2025 and the Long Term Plan.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Att 1 Revenue and Financing Policy 2024 Amendment Submission Analysis - A5599802 ⇩

2. Att 2 Clean version of amended Revenue and Financing Policy 2024 - A5469062 ⇩

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	The amendment has been assessed under the Significance and Engagement Policy as medium significance. A section 82 LGA consultation process was undertaken to ensure appropriate public engagement.
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 – legal compliance Revenue and Financing Policy 2024 – Statutory Policy Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 – Statutory Policy Te Pae Tata – Three Year Long Term Plan – Financial Strategy Annual Plan – forecasting and budgeting adjustments Infrastructure Plan.
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.	The amendment has District-wide relevance, enabling development contributions across all identified growth areas. Community Board views were not specifically sought as this is enabling policy amendment implementing an already adopted policy.
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.	Māori and Hapū/Iwi were given opportunity to contribute during consultation of the Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 in mid-2025. That policy includes exemptions for residential development on Māori land (as defined under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993) in recognitions of the unique legal status and barriers to development of such land titles. This Revenue and Financing Policy amendment enables implementation of that adopted policy and does not alter those provisions.
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).	All ratepayers and developers in the Far North District are potentially affected. Public consultation under section 82 LGA was undertaken, generating 64 submissions that have been analysed and responded to in this report and Attachment 1.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	No additional budget required for the policy amendment itself. Revenue implications of development contributions will be reflected in the Long Term Plan financial forecasting.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The CFO has not reviewed this report

5.3 Submissions on Government Reforms and Bills - Decision Making Processes

File Number: A5637597

Author: Steve Rylands, Senior Policy Advisor

Authoriser: Tammy Wooster, Group Manager Planning and Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

This report seeks the agreement of Te Kūkupa on processes for:

· deciding on whether Council should provide a submission on a Government Bill or reform

· approval and sign out of these submissions.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· This report proposes processes for deciding when FNDC should submit on Government Bills and reforms, and for approving and signing out those submissions.

· It sets out a two-stage triage so that submissions are usually made only where reforms have unique or pronounced effects on FNDC or on the Far North district.

· The report distinguishes between “operational” and “political” submissions, with different approval pathways to reflect whether the reform is primarily about implementation or Council policy positions.

· For operational submissions:

o Elected Members will be briefed on the submission.

o the Chief Executive and the Mayor will approve and sign out the submission on behalf of Council.

· For political submissions:

o a full deliberative process will apply when more than 20 working days are available to submit.

o a delegated authority for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to approve submissions when less than 20 working days are available to submit.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Te Kūkupa recommend that Council approve the Submissions on Government Reforms – Decision Making and Approval Process 2026 as set out in the Attachment to this report.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Objectives of Submissions

FNDC submissions on Government reforms can:

· influence policy design by providing the Government or a Select Committee with information about the effects of a proposed reform on the Far North district and its communities

· demonstrate engagement by showing the community that Council is actively participating in debates that affect the district

· protect Council's interests by placing on record Council's position on matters that may have legal, financial, or operational consequences for FNDC.

As they form a permanent public record of Council's positions, any submission that is inconsistent with adopted Council policy could undermine Council's credibility or create legal difficulties. For this reason, staff drafting submissions adhere strictly to adopted Council policies.

On 18 February, staff workshopped with Te Kūkupa a two-stage triage process for:

· deciding whether Council should make a submission on a Government reform

· determining the appropriate sign-off authority for submissions on each of operational reforms and political reforms^{^[14]}.

Te Kūkupa agreed in principle to these processes, subject to:

· strengthened provisions for Elected Members to provide staff with feedback on whether to submit on a Bill

· clarity about the process that should apply when there is curtailed time available to approve a submission.

Staff were directed to provide a report to Te Kūkupa recommending approval and sign-out processes.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Deciding Whether to Submit: A Two-Stage Triage

Not every Government reform will warrant a submission from FNDC. The council sector body Taituarā actively engages with the Government reform programme on behalf of the local government sector and regularly makes submissions on which we agree. Where the position of FNDC aligns with that of Taituarā, it is generally sufficient to rely on the Taituarā submission rather than duplicate effort with a separate FNDC submission.

The proposed approach applies a two-stage triage before committing resources to a submission.

Stage 1 – Is this reform relevant to FNDC?

Staff will monitor the pipeline of Government reform proposals and identify those that are relevant to Council or to the district. Staff will provide advice to Elected Members on each identified reform through Friday Notices.

Stage 2 – Should we submit?

Where a reform clears Stage 1, the following questions will determine whether to submit:

· Will the reform uniquely affect FNDC or the Far North district?

o Where the district faces effects that are materially different from those facing other councils, a separate FNDC submission is more likely to be warranted

o If not, it is unlikely that a submission is needed.

· Can FNDC rely on Taituarā? - Where Taituarā's submission will adequately convey FNDC's views, a separate submission is generally not required

· Elected Members are enabled to provide feedback on any advice they receive about reforms — including advice on whether to submit — by raising their views with the Chair of Te Kūkupa

o This provision has been included explicitly following feedback from Elected Members at the workshop on 18 February.

Option 1 – Approve decision-making and approval processes (recommended)

Different Approval and Sign Out Processes for Operational and Political Submissions

Operational Submissions

Where a submission is operational, the process is straightforward. Elected Members will be briefed on the submission. The Chief Executive and the Mayor will approve and sign out the submission on behalf of Council.

Political Submissions – More than 20 Working Days Available

Where a submission is political and there is adequate time to follow a full deliberative process, the following steps will apply:

· The General Manager Strategy and Policy will brief the Chair of Te Kūkupa on the reform

· The Chair will direct staff on the preferred process for enabling Elected Members to deliberate on the contents of the submission (for example, a Te Kūkupa workshop)

· Staff will draft the submission and facilitate the process as directed by the Chair

· Te Kūkupa or Council will approve the submission

· The Mayor and Deputy Mayor will sign out the submission on behalf of Council.

This process ensures that Elected Members have meaningful input into the content of political submissions before they are lodged.

Political Submissions – 20 Working Days or Less Available

Occasionally, consultation timeframes are unusually short — 20 working days or less from the opening of a consultation to the deadline for submissions. This is not a standard timeframe. Most Government and Select Committee consultation processes allow considerably more time. However, where short timeframes occur on matters of political significance, the normal deliberative process may be unachievable.

In these circumstances the following steps will apply:

· staff draft the submission

· the Mayor and Deputy Mayor decide on the extent and form of any consultation with Elected Members on the submission contents

· the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor have delegated authority to approve and sign out the submission.

The approval process is workable within tight timeframes. It avoids the need to convene extraordinary meetings of Te Kūkupa or Council at short notice.

Option 2 – Do not approve decision-making and approval processes (not recommended)

This option is the status quo. Staff would continue to make judgements about appropriate processes for approving submissions. However, these processes rely on interpretation of previous practice. They lack the authority provided by the formal approval of Elected Members. This option risks episodic uncertainty by both staff and Elected Members about the processes for approving submissions.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation will provide for clear, consistent processes that govern how FNDC decides whether to submit on Government reforms, how the content of those submissions is determined and who has authority to approve and sign out submissions.

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

The recommendations have no financial implications.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Submissions on Government Reforms – Decision Making and Approval Processes 2026 - A5643392 ⇩

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	As per the Significance and Engagement Policy, this report has a low degree of significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Effective Council submissions that influence Government policies can contribute to each of the community outcomes listed in the LTP, e.g. prosperous communities supported by a sustainable economy.
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.	The proposal has district wide relevance therefore the views of Community Boards 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.	There are no implications for Māori. The decision in this report does not relate to land and / or any body of water.
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).	No persons will be affected.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The CFO has not reviewed this report

5.4 Broadway Kaikohe Placemaking Plan

File Number: A5655955

Author: Tammy Wooster, Group Manager Planning and Policy

Authoriser: Guy Holroyd, Chief Executive Officer

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek endorsement of the Broadway Kaikohe Placemaking Plan from Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation, and direction on whether the Committee supports the placemaking plan being considered for endorsement by full Council.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

This report:

o provides a summary of the outcomes contained in the Broadway Kaikohe Placemaking Plan (the Plan) prepared by consultants ĀKAU as part of the Broadway Placemaking Project

o overview of placemaking projects undertaken or still in progress for Kaikohe

o details the resolution (2025/73) of the Kaikohe Hokianga Community Board (KHCB), who endorsed parts of the plan at their 8 August 2025 meeting and also:

§ approved incorporating the Broadway Kaikohe Placemaking Plan into the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Strategic Plan 2023-2025, and

§ recommended that Council also endorse the Broadway Kaikohe Placemaking Plan and approve its inclusion in the 2027-2037 Long-Term Plan

o discusses why the KHCB wanted the plan to be endorsed by Council and considered as part of the 2027-2037 Long Term Plan (LTP)

o seeks direction from Te Kūkupa on whether the plan should be taken to a Council meeting for Councils consideration and potential endorsement.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation:

a) endorse the Broadway Kaikohe Placemaking Plan, excluding the section entitled the Kaikohe Market Place, in Attachment 1

b) recommend that Council also endorse the Broadway Kaikohe Placemaking Plan.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

At its meeting held on 19 July 2024, the KHCB resolved (Resolution 2024/74) that a sum of $50,000 be awarded from the Pride of Place Grant Fund to implement priority outcomes resulting from engagement with the Kaikohe community, and that they supported a placemaking plan being developed for the general Broadway area of Kaikohe. A Project Steering Group (PSG) was formed in August 2024, to provide community leadership throughout the project which includes KHCB Chair Chicky Rudkin, Cr Babe Kapa, and Cr John Vujcich.

In November 2024, external consultants ĀKAU were engaged to:

a) establish relationships with relevant Kaikohe town stakeholder groups,

b) undertake engagement with stakeholders and hapū to explore relevant cultural and historical narratives and use those to inform concept ideas, and

c) develop a placemaking plan for Broadway, Kaikohe and its immediate environs.

ĀKAU undertook a number of consultation events, which are detailed in the Plan. At the end of the engagement phase, ĀKAU presented six concepts to the Project Steering Group which encapsulated the priorities of the community arising out of that engagement process. The below concepts are detailed in the Plan in Attachment 1:

1. Hapū Markers

2. Broadway Streetscape Upgrade

3. Tāheke Road Entrance to Twin Coast Cycleway

4. Library Square connection to Broadway

5. Kaikohe Market Place

6. Painting the Town including design guidelines for restoration works.

In addition to the Pride of Place Grant, the KHCB allocated $57,000 from the Kaikohe-Hokianga Town Beautification Fund. This funding has been allocated to Broadway landscaping (upgrading either side of the pedestrian crossing at 118 Broadway), which will be implemented this year. The $50,000 Pride of Place Grant, was used to facilitate the “spring clean” project which was completed late last year. That project related to cleaning shop frontages on the main street.

A decision was made to bring this item to the new Council, due significant financial implications of having Council consider funding the implementation of this plan as per the community board resolution. Additionally, staff were requested to meet with the new KHCB to give an overview of the plan, and we wanted to give them the opportunity to help inform this agenda item. No new direction for the KHCB was provided from that discussion.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Kaikohe Broadway Placemaking Plan

The Kaikohe Broadway Placemaking Plan prepared by ĀKAU is in essence professional advice, based on what ĀKAU learnt through the targeted community engagement process which they undertook. ĀKAU are recommending upgrades to improve Kaikohe. The Plan includes six major projects which encompass a range of localised improvements to Kaikohe and a summary of the engagements which informed those concepts. There are no costings in the report. The Plan was reviewed and has been endorsed by the PSG.

The below summary outlines the staff assessment of the viability of each of the proposals:

1. Hapū Markers

The Hapū Markers concept creates a tourist trail which depicts places of significance to hapū in Kaikohe and surrounds. In the long term, once constructed, the markers would become council assets to be maintained by Council. Some markers would potentially need to be located on private land if the item/place of significance is on private land.

ĀKAU’s preliminary advice to staff indicated that this concept could be realised for approximately $300,000. The costings were based on four markers, with costs mainly relating to supporting extensive engagement with the hapū to determine which places of significance should be celebrated. Engagement costs will be variable depending on the scale of the tourist trail and if the focus is on places of significance not already identified by hapū.

Council’s Te Hono team have reviewed the proposal and advise that there may need to be some revisions to which of the hapū should be involved in deciding what places and stories are significant. Staff have been advised, via the PSG, that there is support for this proposal from hapū and in the community.

To implement this concept, further consultation with hapū would be recommended, in addition to working with key stakeholder such as landowners and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Toanga.

2. Broadway Streetscape Upgrade

The Plan includes a map which visually depicts five recommendations to upgrade the central retail core of Broadway including moving street trees onto islands built within the carriageway, widening the footpath, redesigning the Raihara Street intersection, relocating pedestrian crossings, and decreasing the speed limit.

These high-level recommendations do not include any design advice in relation to upgrades to civil amenities or assets on Broadway which are within the scope of the KHCB’s delegations. Also adopting any recommendation relating to redesigning the Raihara Street intersection with Broadway would need to integrate with the new Library site, which has not been constructed yet.

Separately, New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) have reviewed the Plan and advised their interest is in the State Highway and its operation through town. Specifically, any changes to the operation, speed or capacity for the highway. Any streetscape upgrade that proposes to alter speeds limits, the number or location of the pedestrian crossings and anything that will affect the intersections or operations along the highway would need to be reviewed by NZTA’s operational teams. This is because NZTA needs to consider any effects relating to maintaining the customer experience and travel time for all users of the State Highway network.

Any proposal of this scale could only be undertaken by Council after significant design work, in conjunction with NZTA (because Broadway is a State Highway) and further consultation with the community. Business cases documented in the Kaikohe Township Plan 2019 estimate a proposal of this scale would cost around $10 million in real terms. Public engagement may be required for this concept, if it involves changes to speed limits for example.

3. Tāheke Road Entrance Way and Cycle Trail

The Plan includes a comprehensive plan for upgrades to the Tāheke Road entrance to the Twin Coast Cycle Trail. This plan is fully developed, and the concepts and design can be closely linked back to the Tamariki Engagement Session. ĀKAU also worked closely with representatives from the Twin Coast Cycle Trail during the engagement.

This concept responds to one of the priorities of the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board Strategic Plan 2023-2025, however the land in question is not owned by Council, it is partially in a rail reserve owned by Kiwirail (north of Tāheke Road) and is partially a road within the State Highway corridor which is managed by NZTA (carriageway and south of Tāheke Road). The land on which the Cycle Trail is located is leased from KiwiRail by the Council.

Also, there are significant issues with flooding at the entrance to the Cycle Trail that would need to be investigated and further mitigated before any works could be undertaken. Depending on the end design and works that may be required, staff would have to give consideration to whether any further consultation would need to be undertaken. This work should be done in partnership with the Twin Coast Cycle Trail group.

4. Library Square

The Plan includes a comprehensive plan for the redevelopment of the laneway between Broadway and New World and land adjacent to Library Square. Council will need to make a decision about what to do with the existing Kaikohe Library building once the library facilities are relocated to the new Library being constructed on the corner of Broadway and Raihara Street. Therefore, staff do not recommend investing any funds in replacing or upgrading assets at this location until Council has decided what will happen with the old Library site. Separately, part of the land included in this concept is in private ownership.

With the closing of the old library, this concept may also need to be adapted to reflect future development decisions on Council land.

The new KHCB have identified improvements to this area as one of the key outcomes they would like to promote for funding in the 2027-2037 LTP.

5. Kaikohe Market Place (this outcome was not supported by KHCB)

The Plan explores developing a dedicated market site in Kaikohe. The Plan also explores options for locations and potential partners for a marketplace in Kaikohe and ultimately suggests further engagement be undertaken.

Northland Inc have been involved in discussions with the Kaikohe Business Association (KBA), in the context of the Kaikohe Broadway Placemaking Project, and have noted the benefits of a weekend market for bespoke Māori products potentially attracting domestic tourism to Kaikohe. This proposal is distinctly different from the existing Thursday farmers market for fresh produce and food held on the vacant land at 65-67 Broadway owned by the Ngāpuhi Rūnanga. Therefore, staff acknowledge the economic benefits that could be achieved if this concept were realised.

This outcome was not supported by the KHCB. Concerns related to this market potentially undermining the existing commercial businesses in the main street area. Staff would recommend future consideration is given to this outcome being supported, if it could be demonstrated that it would enhance and support the viability of the main street area of Kaikohe, and its associated businesses.

6. Painting the Town

The below renewal programme is proposed in three stages and can be closely linked back to the KBA Engagement Session undertaken with ĀKAU.

Staff facilitated the Refresh stage in late 2025, after which the KBA or another party will have to implement the Repair and Revitalise stages:

· Refresh – paid for by $50,000 KHCB Grant Funding (completed in 2025)

· Repair – painting shop fronts, fixing up verandas, and general shopfront maintenance will be facilitated by the KBA. This could include providing introductions between service providers and tenants, helping to fund upgrades and advice and support.

· Revitalise – relates to ongoing maintenance to the upkeep of Broadway including building a new culture of taking responsibility for keeping Broadway clean, teaching businesses about maintenance of the adjacent public land and encouraging businesses to clean, maintain, weed public spaces.

KBA has reached out to other government agencies and Northland Inc for advice and support, but at this stage do not appear to have the internal resources to facilitate the next stages.

Funding and Implementation

This Plan contains concepts that require private and public investment for it to be realised. It is not financially viable for Council to fund this solely via rates, as some concepts are estimated to be in the range of $10 million. Nor would Council be able to implement all projects, as some concepts relate to land or buildings in private ownership.

As demonstrated by the Painting the Town concept, some of these concepts may also be better led by other groups or the private sector, with Council supporting where applicable.

Due to costings and pressure to keep rates as low as possible, it may be more appropriate for Council to take on a role of advocating for government and private investment to achieve the majority of these outcomes.

As a result, staff are recommending endorsement form the Council for the Plan, rather than it just sit at a community board level or committee level.

Option 1: Endorse the Kaikohe Broadway Placemaking Plan at both Committee and Council level of the organisation (staff recommendation)

Advantages: The Kaikohe Broadway Placemaking Plan emulates the aspirations of the Kaikohe community for its public spaces to be upgraded and developed. While the KHCB have endorsed the plan, in practical terms implementation would mostly fall outside the delegations of the Community Board, hence recommending that the Committee and Council also endorses the Plan.

Disadvantages: Funding is not secured for the six concepts and frustration may be created in the community that yet another plan is adopted by Council and does not proceed to implementation. This reputational risk at a lower level already exists with the Plan being endorsed at the Community Board level. The plan does not include costings, and full public engagement was not undertaken when developing this plan.

Staff Recommendation: staff recommend option 1 as the Kaikohe Broadway Placemaking Plan was supported by the PSG and many other community groups in addition to the KHCB. Hapū have also participated in the engagement activities undertaken by ĀKAU. While lack of funding is a potential barrier, by having this Plan endorsed by the Committee and Council in addition to the KHCB it can also be an opportunity to enable investment into Kaikohe, similar to the placemaking funding that was invested in Kaitaia by the Government under the Provincial Growth Fund.

Option 2: Endorse the Kaikohe Broadway Placemaking Plan at only the Committee level of the organisation

Advantages: When the KHCB passed its resolution in August 2025 it was pre this current election cycle period, where this committee did not exist. It may be considered that endorsement at this level is sufficient and creates the appropriate level of wider elected member awareness.

Disadvantages: It may result in missed opportunity to get potential private and other investment into the town by not having it endorsed at a Council level, as key elected members such as the Mayor do not sit on this committee. This may result in missed opportunities, when the Mayor is meeting with central government agencies and politicians for example. It also creates awareness across all Councillors. While endorsement is being sought, the committee does not have the full delegations of Council and cannot adopt planning documents and may feel it more appropriate to recommend up to Council.

Staff Recommendation: Staff do not recommend this option.

Option 3: Endorse the Kaikohe Broadway Placemaking Plan only at the Community Board level

Advantages: This would signal that the Plan is a document created to enable the Community to activate these concepts, rather than it being the role of Council to implement. This would be consistent with how other placemaking plans have been endorsed.

Disadvantages: This placemaking differs from Russell and Taipa which were recently endorsed by the relevant community boards, as it relates to one of our main towns, and involves private and public land and commercial developments. Because of this a different approach may be required to help achieve much needed re-development of the main business area of Kaikohe. It may create an unreasonable level of expectation that the KHCB have the ability to solely fund, and advocate for these outcomes both at a local and central government level.

Staff Recommendation: Staff do not recommend this option.

None of the options have recommended including reference to the 2027-2037 LTP and having the plan funded solely through that mechanism as stated in the KHCB resolution. It is considered that this is not feasible due to the financial costs of implementing this plan, which also relates to a mixture of private and public land.

Having this excluded from any resolution made by the Committee or Council does not preclude consideration and funding of aspects of this Plan in the upcoming LTP process. For example, the KHCB have already stated they will be requesting to Council through the LTP development process, that they will be seeking funds to improve the old Library area.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The Kaikohe Broadway Placemaking Plan was the culmination of community engagement activities that enabled the Kaikohe community to identify ways to improve the public realm in Kaikohe. The public realm relates to the spaces people use, regardless of ownership. While there are technical, financial and legal (ownership and delegation) limitations to advancing all the concepts in the Plan to implementation stage by adopting the plan at the Council level, it enables for better outcomes, in terms of private and central government support.

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

No funds are committed in the endorsing of this plan, however by adopting it Council will be seen as having a role to help facilitate its implementation, which will require significant investment. Keeping it at a community board level, would potentially reduce expectations and see it more as a community lead approach.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Broadway Kaikohe Placemaking Plan - A5295916 ⇩

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	Due to the importance of Broadway to the users of Kaikohe, implementation of the unfunded concepts would have high public interest and consideration would have to be given to whether any additional public consultation was required prior to any implementation.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Accessibility Policy (2022) Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy (2017) Community Gardens Policy (2013) Community Grant Policy (2018, currently under review) Parks and Reserves Policy (2022) Footpath Policy (2016) Iwi/Hapu Environmental Management Plans Policy (2016) Procurement Policy (2020) Public Toilets Policy (2011) Street Lighting Policy (2014) Long Term Plan (2024-2027) Sustainable Procurement Policy (2020)
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.	Due to the importance of Kaikohe as the hub of the north, and its placement on the Twin Coast Cycle Trail and Twin Coast Highway, improving the aesthetic of Kaikohe has District wide relevance. As a result, the Project Steering Group included the KHCB Board Chair and two Councillors.
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.	ĀKAU engaged widely throughout the engagement phase, this included: - Officers presenting the project to a hapū rōpū including Ngāpuhi Rūnanga, Hauāuru Takiwā, Ngā Hapū o Kaikohe, and Te Uri o Hua - Hapū representation on the Project Steering Group - Engagement sessions at Marae - Hapū representation at the Tamariki and KBA Engagement Sessions.
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).	ĀKAU engaged widely throughout the engagement phase. However, as no public consultation has been undertaken on the Plan, staff are not able to provide advice on the level of community support for each proposal. Therefore, consideration of whether there is a need for further consultation is recommended prior to implementation of any of the unfunded concepts which is conducted in line with the requirement of s82 of the Local Government Act 2002.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The recommended resolution does not commit Council to any funding outcomes. However by endorsing it at a high level than the community board, it may result in greater expectations from the community for Council to take on a greater role in helping to implement the plan. Due to the scale of the outcomes identified, achieving the implementation of this plan would require, private and public partnerships both at local and central government level.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The CFO has not reviewed this report

6 Ngā Pūrongo Taipitopito / Information Reports

6.1 Proposed Far North District Plan Status Update

File Number: A5654303

Author: James Witham, (Acting) Manager - Integrated Planning

Authoriser: Tammy Wooster, Group Manager Planning and Policy

TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report

To inform Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation (Te Kūkupa) on progress of the Proposed Far North District Plan (PDP), including recent progress and programme moving forward to decisions on submissions.

WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks to update elected members on the progress of the PDP through the statutory process including:

· A high level summary of the process to date;

· An update on the completion of the hearings process;

· Work currently underway in support of the Hearings Panel (the Panel) reporting on recommendations on submissions;

· The preparation for workshops for elected members and decisions under schedule 1 cl10 of

the RMA;

· Plans for the roll out of decisions to internal and external stakeholders including Iwi, hapū and marae.

TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation receive the report Proposed Far North District Plan Status Update.

tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background

Much of the content of the operative district plan (ODP) is now approaching 20 years old and does not reflect all current planning standards in terms of content or style. In addition, its provisions do not reflect the direction of the current Northland Regional Policy Statement (RPS) or much of the national policy direction currently in force. Both of these planning documents are required to be ’given effect’ to by the Resource Management Act (RMA). The RMA also requires that territorial authorities, like FNDC, must ‘commence’ a review for any provision that has been operative for over 10 years.

PDP was notified for public submissions on the 27^th of July 2022. The notification attracted 605 primary submissions (8725 individual points) and 589 Further submissions (26,088 points). Therefore, over 34,000 submission points were received.

Council appointed a hearings panel with a total of 9 panel members including an independent chair and deputy, with 5 specialist commissions and 4 elected members having previously met the qualification requirements. A specific panel was composed for each separate hearing stream

The first of 20 hearings began on the 27^th of May 2024, and a total of 43 hearings days were held across the district in a mix of council, private and marae venues. Over 550 pieces of pre-circulated evidence from submitters, approximately 250 from submitters during hearings with approximately 300 individual submitters appearing in person or remotely. The last hearing was on the 6^th of November 2025 at the Waitangi Treaty Grounds.

The panel closed the public hearings with compliments to all the participants, but particularly for Council’s hearing administration staff and also efforts of staff to generally ensure that the PDP would be an improved document by responding to the evidence of submitters and adopting informed and improved positions. This feedback was also echoed throughout the hearings by other highly experienced and respected practitioners who work across New Zealand. We are now awaiting the completion of the Panel’s final recommendation reports and proposed amended chapters.

A diagram of a project

AI-generated content may be incorrect. ATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps

Following the completion of hearings, the Panel have been undertaking site visits, deliberations and writing recommendation reports. Staff have been providing clean documentation of the provisions of the PDP incorporating all minor corrections, also known as cl16 (of the first schedule of the RMA) amendments, and the provisions of Variation 1 to the panel to ensure accuracy for the panel while they are compiling amended chapters.

After deliberations were completed, the panel have worked with staff to ensure its recommendations are consistent throughout the plan and that there are no fundamental and structural barriers to implementing their recommendations. For example, ensuring consistency in terminology, definitions and chapter format. This process is not evidential, nor does it change the draft recommendations of the Panel.

Staff have also begun to prepare for the next two phases of the process being:

1. Assisting Council in making decisions on submissions (cl10 First Schedule RMA) and;

2. The ‘roll out’ of the ‘decisions version’ of the PDP with both internal and external stakeholders

To help with Council’s decision making function, two workshops have been booked in May in order to communicate the recommendations of the Panel to elected members and to outline the decision making process. A Partner with Simpson Grierson, has been invited and will be in attendance at the first workshop to assist with questions that may arise about that function. An extraordinary Council meeting has been set aside on the 11^th of June for Council to formally make its decisions on submissions to the PDP.

For the roll out of decisions, the District Plan team is developing a communications plan to ensure that the framework of the decisions version of the PDP is communicated to stakeholders well. There is a focus on both internal and external stakeholders. For internal stakeholders, staff are already working with the regulatory arm of Council, so that they understand how new provisions are to be treated once decisions are made. This includes guidance on the application of rules for both the ODP and decisions version of the district plan for resource consents, in addition to guidance for processing of building consents. Workshops will be held with the consents department, compliance teams, LIMs, and also the infrastructure consenting teams. External communications will be directed towards local practitioners and also Iwi authorities, hapū and marae, with an initial focus on those who were active in the submissions and hearings process.

The District Plan team will also develop fact sheets for key chapters or key groups of chapters to identify key changes and communicate them concisely to the public at large. These will be developed for the PDP web page and be able to put into printable versions for libraries and when undertaking engagement for the roll out of the PDP.

The agenda item that will be written for the 11 June 2026 Extraordinary Council meeting will outline next steps of the plan making process post Council decisions.

PĀNGA PŪTEA ME NGĀ WĀHANGA TAHUA / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

This paper has no financial implications.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

Nil

[1] Far North District Council. (7 October 2025). Agenda report item 6.2 on Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy – Analysis of Submissions – Adoption of Policy. [Extraordinary Council Meeting minutes]. Far North District Council. Infocouncil.

[2] Far North District Council. (11 December 2025). Agenda report item 7.1 on Revenue and Financing Policy Amendment. [Council Meeting

[3] Far North District Council. (11 December 2025). Agenda report item 7.1 on Revenue and Financing Policy Amendments – Att 1 Supporting Report Revenue and Financing Policy proposed amendment 2025. [Council Meeting Agenda]. Far North District Council. Infocouncil

[4] Far North District Council. (2015). Far North District Council Long Term Plan 2015 – 2015. [Council public website]. Far North District Council.

[5] Far North District Council. (12 March 2024). Agenda report item 5.1 on Adoption Long Term Plan 2024-2027 Information and Consultation Documents. [Council Meeting Agenda]. Far North District Council. Infocouncil

[6] Far North District Council. (11 April 2024). Confirmation of Meeting Minutes held on 12 March 2024. Resolution 2024/30 on the Adoption of the Revenue and Financing Policy. [Council Meeting minutes]. Far North District Council. Infocouncil.

[7] Far North District Council. (11 July 2024). Confirmation of Meeting Minutes held on 26 June 2024. Resolution 2024/97 on the Adoption of the Long Term Plan 2024- 2027. [Council Meeting minutes]. Far North District Council. Infocouncil.

[8] Far North District Council. (26 June 2024). Agenda report item 6.2 on Adoption of the Long Term Plan 2024 – 2027. [Council Meeting Agenda]. Far North District Council. Infocouncil.

[9] Far North District Council. (14 November 2024). Agenda report item 6.3 on Review of Development Contributions Policy. [Council Meeting Agenda]. Far North District Council. Infocouncil.

[10] Far North District Council. (12 December 2024)). Confirmation of Meeting Minutes held on 14 November 2024. Resolution 2024/158 on Review of Development Contributions Policy. [Council Meeting minutes]. Far North District Council. Infocouncil.

[11] Far North District Council. (28 August 2025)). Confirmation of Meeting Minutes held on 31 July 2025. Resolution 2025/94 on Development Contributions Policy - Statement of Proposal. [Council Meeting minutes]. Far North District Council. Infocouncil.

[12] Far North District Council. (7 October 2024). Agenda report item 6.2 on Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy – Analysis of Submissions – Adoption of Policy. [Council Meeting Agenda]. Far North District Council. Infocouncil.

[13] Far North District Council. (11 December 2025). Agenda report item 7.1 on Revenue and Financing Policy Amendments. [Council Meeting Agenda]. Far North District Council. Infocouncil

[14] Operational reforms: These proposed policy changes would require FNDC to do something (for example, make a plan, create a bylaw, or comply with regulations). They do not change Council policy or raise matters of political significance.

Political reforms: These are issues that elected members consider important for the district. They would change Council policy.

Date	Forum	Key Programme / Topic	Purpose	Details to be reported on	Te Kūkupa Role / Outcome
08 July 2026	Committee	Regulatory Performance Dashboard	Six monthly governance oversight of regulatory system performance	· Building Consent Authority performance and accreditation · Resource consent statutory compliance and trends · Compliance and enforcement activity · Environmental monitoring trends · Backlogs · Contractor performance (where applicable) · Emerging risks and issues Dashboard style report – 3 to 5 pages	Governance assurance and risk oversight
08 July 2026	Committee	District Plan status report	Status report on District Plan post Council decision to adopt	· Summary of Decisions · What is implemented · Next Steps	Note performance and provide governance direction
12 August 2026	Committee	Climate Adaptation Programme – Strategy Implementation Report	Six‑monthly governance assurance on implementation	· Progress against agreed milestones and action plan · Budget tracking against allocated funding · Key performance indicators and outcome measures · Risks, constraints and interdependencies · Areas of slippage or reprioritisation · Forward look to next period	Note performance and provide governance direction

Date	Forum	Key Programme / Topic	Purpose	Details to be reported on	Te Kūkupa Role / Outcome
09 September 2028	Committee	Spatial Planning, Reserves and Placemaking – development and implementation	Six-monthly governance assurance of spatial plan development and implementation	· Progress against agreed milestones and action plan · Budget tracking against allocated funding · Key performance indicators and outcome measures · Risks, constraints and interdependencies · Areas of slippage or reprioritisation · Forward look to next period	Note performance and provide governance direction
07 October 2026	Committee	Governance review of selected regulatory policies and bylaws	Review effectiveness of regulatory frameworks	· Effectiveness of current regulatory settings · Compliance and enforcement trends · Revenue versus cost (where applicable) · Identified gaps or issues · Potential review triggers	Direction on review priorities
03 December 2026	Committee	Strategies and policies – Adoption and Implementation - Six monthly	Monitoring and reporting on the implementation of adopted strategies and policies	· Implementation progress of adopted strategies and policies · Performance against intended outcomes · Risks and issues · Delivery constraints and issues Dashboard style report, narrative on what is off track and recommended corrective actions	Governance assurance
Date	Forum	Key Programme / Topic	Purpose	Details to be reported on	Te Kūkupa Role / Outcome
03 December 2026	Committee	Regulatory Performance Dashboard	Six monthly governance oversight of regulatory system performance	· Building Consent Authority performance and accreditation · Resource consent statutory compliance and trends · Compliance and enforcement activity · Environmental monitoring trends · Backlogs · Contractor performance (where applicable) · Emerging risks and issues Dashboard style report – 3 to 5 pages	Governance assurance and risk oversight
Monthly (to be scheduled)	MOB – Full Council	Planning and Policy Group – Monthly Operational Briefing	Operational awareness and progress updates	Narrative update on progress on planned works, highlights, what is planned next. Status of Submissions · Confirm metrics	For noting only