Agenda of Extraordinary Council Meeting

Extraordinary Council Meeting Agenda

11 June 2026

5 Ngā Pūrongo / Reports

5.1 Far North District Councils participation in the Local Government Reform Head Start Pathway Process

File Number: A5808859

Author: Roger Ackers, Head of Strategic Reform Initiatives

Authoriser: Emma Healy, Chief Executive (Acting)

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to seek Council direction on Far North District Council’s continued participation in the Local Government Reform Head Start Pathway and the next phase of work required to meet the Government’s outline proposal deadline.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The Government’s Head Start pathway provides a voluntary, time-limited opportunity for Territorial Local Authorities to develop and submit a locally led proposal for future governance arrangements by 9 August 2026.

· This report outlines the current position of the Northland Local Government Reform programme following discussion at the Elected Member Steering Group (EMSG) meeting held on 29 May 2026.

· At the EMSG meeting, high-level governance options were considered. FNDC elected members present abstained from voting, reflecting that Council has not yet determined a position and that further information is required.

· To continue through the Head Start pathway beyond 9 August, FNDC must be part of a proposal with at least one other Northland territorial authority. FNDC cannot progress independently.

· Participation remains exploratory. No decisions have been made on any preferred structure. The focus is on testing options, building an evidence base, and maintaining FNDC’s ability to influence any proposal that may proceed.

· This report seeks Council endorsement to:

o Continue participation in the Head Start pathway

o Progress further analysis of options, including one and two unitary authority models

o Maintain a cautious, conditional and evidence-based position

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) Approve the Council’s continued participation, alongside Northland Regional Council, Whangārei District Council and Kaipara District Council, in the Government’s Head Start pathway for local government reform;

b) Agree that further analysis is progressed on structural options, including:

i) a single unitary authority; and

ii) two sub-regional unitary authorities;

1) Tāhuhu Kōrero / Background

The Government introduced the Head Start pathway in May 2026 as part of the Simplifying Local Government reforms.

The pathway enables councils to jointly develop and submit outline proposals for reorganisation of local government, including the establishment of one or more unitary authorities, prior to the 2028 local elections. Councils that do not participate, or whose proposals do not proceed, will enter a compulsory backstop process after the 2028 elections.

Elected members of Far North District Council were first briefed on the Head Start pathway at a Council workshop held on 12 May 2026. This workshop enabled early discussion on the risks, opportunities, and implications of participation, and confirmed the need for further information before any formal decision is made.

To inform its position, FNDC also undertook a district-wide survey in May 2026. The results show that while community views on reform are mixed, there is strong agreement on the conditions that must be met if change proceeds. These include protecting local voice, maintaining affordability, ensuring accessible services, and supporting rural communities.

FNDC has been participating in a regional reform programme with Whangārei District Council and Northland Regional Council, supported by the Elected Member Steering Group. Kaipara District Council has subsequently joined the reform programme including representation on the Elected Member Steering Group.

At the EMSG meeting on 29 May 2026, an initial high-level assessment of governance options based on Unitary Authorities as per the Head Start Process Requirements was presented to members for discussion and early direction for staff to undertake analysis.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The Head Start pathway requires councils to decide whether to participate in the development of an outline proposal for local government reform, and if so, which governance options should be progressed for further analysis.

Participation at this stage is exploratory. It does not commit Council to any structural outcome. The purpose of the current phase is to test options, build an evidence base, and ensure Council retains influence over any potential regional proposal.

Head Start requirements and implications for FNDC

To submit a proposal through the Head Start pathway, councils must meet eligibility requirements.

A proposal must:

· be submitted by two or more territorial authorities; and

· represent a majority of either the territorial authorities or the population affected.

This means:

· FNDC cannot submit a proposal on its own

· FNDC must be part of a proposal with at least one other territorial authority to continue beyond 9 August

The policy examples above confirm that proposals can proceed where a majority of councils or population is represented, even if not all councils agree.

In practical terms, FNDC cannot control whether reform proceeds. Other councils may still progress a proposal that meets the eligibility threshold and includes FNDC.

This means FNDC’s decision is not simply whether to participate, but how to remain actively engaged in order to influence a proposal that may proceed with or without its formal support.

EMSG discussion and direction

At the Elected Member Steering Group meeting on 29 May 2026, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) provided updated guidance and expectations for proposals.

Key points included:

· Strong emphasis on defining communities of interest, particularly for subregional proposals

· The need to balance rating base, geographic scale, and population distribution

· Recognition of Northland’s complexity and diversity, including differences in representation

· Confirmation that Cabinet will make final decisions on proposals

· A compressed timeframe to develop and submit proposals

At the same meeting, governance options were discussed:

· A single unitary authority

· Two sub-regional unitary authorities

Whangārei District Council and Northland Regional Council indicated an early preference for a single unitary authority. However, the Steering Group agreed to continue assessing both options.

FNDC elected members abstained from voting, reflecting that Council has not yet provided direction and that further information is required before determining a position.

FNDC position and community input

FNDC has taken a consistent approach to:

· Remain engaged in the process

· Not pre-commit to any preferred model

· Proceed on a cautious, evidence-based basis

This reflects:

· Workshop feedback emphasising protection of local voice and representation

· Community feedback that reform must protect affordability, access to services, and local decision-making

· The need to reflect the voice of Far North communities through the process

While the reform process itself is not statutory, Council’s decision-making obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Significance and Engagement Policy continue to apply.

The timeframe for developing a proposal is compressed, with limited opportunity to resolve all issues prior to submission.

Timeline of milestones and activities to inform a Head Start Proposal

Date	Milestone / Activity	Purpose / Outcome
Late May 2026	FNDC survey completed (550+ responses)	Provides initial community input to inform FNDC position and regional proposals
29 May 2026	EMSG meeting	Initial assessment of options (one vs two unitary authorities); FNDC abstained pending Council direction
29 May 2026	DIA guidance received and assessment underway	Regional staff reviewing guidance to strengthen potential Northland proposal
Early June 2026	Post Settlement Governance Entities (PSGEs) and stakeholder engagement initiated	Begin engagement with iwi, hapū and stakeholders to inform proposal development
8–29 June 2026	Development of outline options and comparative analysis	Prepare evidence base to support decision-making
10 June 2026	FNDC workshop (Kaikohe / online)	Test options, share survey results, and identify key issues and priorities
11 June 2026	FNDC Extraordinary Council Meeting	Confirm continued participation and provide initial direction following 29 May EMSG Meeting and 10 June workshop
Mid-June 2026	Ongoing community engagement based on outcome of 10 June workshop	Ensure Māori and community views inform option development
17–29 June 2026	Integration of survey and stakeholder feedback from ongoing community engagement	Refine options and ensure alignment with community expectations for feeding into analysis
Late June 2026	Draft materials prepared for EMSG and councils	Prepare reporting to support regional alignment
25 June 2026	FNDC Council meeting (target)	Council provides steer on preferred direction (if any), and success measures
End of June 2026	Programme materials finalised for July decision phase	Enable formal Council decisions in early/mid-July
6 July 2026*	EMSG meeting	Decision on direction to inform Northland Head Start Proposal
13 July 2026	All Councils (FNDC, KDC, NRC, WDC) extraordinary Council meetings	Approval of the direction from the EMSG so that a Northland Head Start Proposal can be finalised
20 – 24 July 2026 (exact date to be confirmed)	EMSG meeting	Endorsement of Head Start Proposal for submission to Cabinet
3 – 6 August 2026	All Councils (FNDC, KDC, NRC, WDC) extraordinary Council meetings	All Councils approval Head Start Proposal for submission to Cabinet
7 August	Submission of Head Start Proposal	Submission made on Friday 7 August 2026 to meet the 11:59pm Sunday 9 August deadline for a Head Start Proposal

*in the process of being finalised

Options for Council consideration

In accordance with Section 77 of the Local Government Act 2002, Council has considered reasonably practicable options for how FNDC responds to the Head Start pathway.

Option 1 – Continue participation and progress both options for further analysis (recommended)

Under this option, Council:

· Confirms continued participation in the Head Start pathway;

· Supports further analysis of both a single unitary authority and two sub-regional unitary authorities; and

· Defers any decision on a preferred model until further information is available.

Advantages:

· Maintains FNDC’s influence in a process that requires alignment with other councils to proceed.

· Retains flexibility, allowing Council to consider both options before committing to a preferred structure.

· Supports informed decision making, by enabling further financial, service delivery, and governance analysis.

· Aligns with community feedback, which supports continued engagement but emphasises the need to proceed cautiously.

· Consistent with legal obligations, as it demonstrates consideration of multiple options and avoids premature decisions where information is incomplete.

Disadvantages

· Does not provide immediate clarity on FNDC’s preferred structure, which may limit early regional alignment.

· Requires continued resourcing and effort to progress analysis within a compressed timeframe.

· Delays decision making, which may create uncertainty for elected members and stakeholders.

Option 2 – Continue participation and signal a preferred option at this stage

Under this option, Council:

· Confirms participation in the Head Start pathway; and

· Signals an early preference for either a single unitary authority or two sub-regional unitary authorities.

Advantages

· Provides clearer regional direction, which may assist alignment with other Northland councils.

· Supports earlier engagement with Government, by indicating a likely proposal direction.

· May accelerate development of a proposal, by focusing analysis on one option.

Disadvantages

· Limits Council’s flexibility before sufficient information is available.

· Risks pre-determining an outcome, which is not supported by current evidence or community feedback.

· Potentially inconsistent with LGA decision-making principles, as the advantages and disadvantages of options have not yet been fully assessed.

Option 3 – Do not progress participation in the Head Start pathway

Under this option, Council would:

· Withdraw from active participation in the Head Start process and not be part of developing a proposal.

Advantages

· Avoids immediate resource commitments associated with developing a proposal.

· Defers decision-making, allowing further clarity from Government in the future.

Disadvantages

· Loss of influence over any proposal that may still proceed with other councils.

· Risk of inclusion in a proposal developed by others, where FNDC has had limited input.

· Limited ability to shape outcomes, particularly in relation to governance, service delivery, and representation.

· Default to the Government-led backstop process after 2028, which provides less opportunity for locally led solutions.

· Inconsistent with earlier Council direction to remain engaged and gather information before making decisions.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

All options present trade-offs. The key consideration for Council is how to balance:

· Maintaining influence in a process that requires regional alignment;

· Ensuring decisions are informed by evidence; and

· Responding to community expectations to proceed cautiously.

Option 1 is recommended as it:

· Keeps FNDC actively engaged in a process it cannot progress independently;

· Enables a full assessment of advantages and disadvantages before decisions are made; and

· Supports a cautious, evidence-based approach consistent with both the Local Government Act and community feedback.

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

There are no direct financial decisions arising from this report.

Costs associated with participation in the Head Start pathway, including staff resourcing, analysis, and coordination of regional activities, are currently being met within existing operational budgets.

The development of an outline proposal is expected to require continued staff resourcing within a compressed timeframe. This may place pressure on existing capacity but does not require additional budget allocation at this stage.

Further financial implications will arise if:

· a preferred governance model is identified; or

· a proposal progresses beyond the outline stage into detailed design and implementation

These future implications are expected to include:

· analysis of financial sustainability, including rating impacts and affordability;

· consideration of asset ownership, liabilities (including debt), and funding arrangements; and

· potential transition and implementation costs associated with any reorganisation

These matters will be reported to Council as part of future decision-making.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

Nil

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	Assessment: Low This report seeks direction on participation and next steps in an exploratory process. It does not constitute a binding decision on governance reform or commit Council to a structural outcome.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Assessment: · Local Government Act 2002 (particularly sections 76–82 relating to decision-making) · FNDC Significance and Engagement Policy · Government Head Start Pathway policy (Simplifying Local Government reforms) This report aligns with Council’s obligations to consider reasonably practicable options, assess advantages and disadvantages, and make decisions in a manner that is transparent and evidence based.
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.	Assessment: This matter has District-wide relevance. Local government reform has potential implications for all communities, ratepayers, and stakeholders across the Far North District.
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.	Assessment: Local government reform has the potential to affect: · Māori representation and participation in governance · existing relationships with iwi, hapū, and Post-Settlement Governance Entities (PSGEs) · Treaty settlement arrangements currently in place At this stage: · No decisions have been made on governance structures or representation arrangements · Engagement with PSGEs and iwi authorities is underway as part of the programme · Future proposals will be required to demonstrate how Treaty obligations and settlement arrangements will be maintained or transferred
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 matter is of interest to: · FNDC ratepayers and residents · iwi, hapū, and PSGEs · community boards and local stakeholders · neighbouring councils and regional partners · central government Council has begun considering community views through: · the 12 May 2026 elected member workshop; and · a district-wide survey with over 550 responses Further engagement will be explored as options are developed and prior to any formal decisions.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. Participation costs are being managed within existing budgets. Future financial implications, including any impacts on rates, funding, or assets, will be assessed and reported as part of subsequent decision-making.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Extraordinary Council Meeting Agenda

11 June 2026

5.2 Decisions on Submissions on Far North Proposed District Plan

File Number: A5809164

Author: James Witham, Team Leader-District Planning

Authoriser: Kate Ivicheva, Group Manager - Planning & Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

This report seeks Council decisions on submissions to the Far North Proposed District Plan (PDP) in accordance with clauses 9 and 10 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

To help Elected Members with decisions on submissions, the report outlines:

· plan-making process to date

· explains the statutory decision-making requirements and decision-making practice under the RMA

· presents the Hearings Panel recommendations to Council

· outlines the next steps following Council decisions, and

· advises optional frameworks to manage appeals

· PDP is a living document, still going through the Schedule 1 plan-making process and will continue to change post Council decisions through appeals and potential future plan changes.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

This report presents the Hearings Panel’s recommendations on submissions to the PDP and seeks Council decisions in accordance with the statutory requirements of the RMA.

It should be noted that Council’s decision-making is subject to a high level of scrutiny which highlights the importance of a robust, transparent and procedurally sound decision-making process. Following that framework will reduce legal, financial and reputational risks.

The PDP has been under development since 2016 and has been developed through a comprehensive and robust plan-making process. It is intended to replace a district plan that is over 20 years old and no longer fit for purpose. Plan-making process to date:

· two phases of pre-engagement with the community in 2016 and 2018

· engagement and feedback on draft Proposed Far North District Plan in 2021

· targeted engagement on Significant Natural Areas and Heritage Areas in 2021

· notification of the PDP in 2022

· formal submissions and further submissions in 2022 and 2023, resulting in more than 605 submissions, comprising over 8,725 individual submission points, along with 589 further submissions totalling more than 26,000 points

· significant hearings process occurring over 18 months, conducted by a hearings panel made up of independent and elected member commissioners

· hearings process that was open to the public and undertaken in a quasi-judicial forum where submitters could talk directly to, and be questioned by, the panel and present evidence (including expert evidence) to support their submission

· approximately 40 hearing days and around 320 hours of hearing time, and

· 17 hearing topics were considered, with over 800 briefs of evidence presented, supported by 55 section 42A reports and 26 Right of Reply reports prepared by Council officers.

Extensions of time were sought and approved by the Minister for the Environment to issue decisions on the PDP under clause 10A of Schedule 1 of the RMA, firstly until 27 May 2026, and then again until 30 June 2026.

Next steps if Council accepts the recommendations of this report are:

· releasing a public notice of the Council decisions on 30 June 2026

· completing a PDP Decisions Version e-plan

· updating Council’s website and the PDP web page with all relevant information

· supporting internal users in anticipation of the two District Plans having legal status

· preparing material to support internal and external users post Council decisions

· informing submitters and the wider public of Council decisions and the appeal process available to them

· reporting back to Council in October on the scope and scale of appeals received and writing an agenda paper recommending the framework to manage appeals.

Appeals are the next statutory step following Council decisions and notification (30 June 2026). They provide an established mechanism for submitters to challenge decisions, with most matters resolved through direct discussions with appellants and through mediation.

The report sets out the decisions required of Council, outlines the statutory decision-making framework, and presents the Hearings Panel recommendations. It also identifies the next steps following Council decisions and includes a structured programme outlining the sequencing of Council decisions, notifications, appeals, and progression to operative status. This provides clarity on implementation, supports coordination across the organisation, and assists in managing procedural risk and maintaining public confidence in Council’s decision-making.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) receive the report “Decisions on Submissions to the Far North Proposed District Plan”;

b) receive the Hearings Panel recommendation reports and associated documents;

c) accept the recommendations of the Hearings Panel and makes decisions on submissions in accordance with clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and for the reasons set out in the recommendation reports, including in relation to Proposed Plan Variation;

d) accept and make the recommendations of the PDP Hearings Panel on notices of requirement to requiring authorities in accordance with clause 9(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991;

e) accept the recommendations of the hearings panel and makes the decisions relating to designations for Far North District Council as requiring authority in accordance with clause 9(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991;

f) approve public notification of Council’s decisions on submissions and Far North District Council designations, and its recommendations on designations from other requiring authorities no later than 30 June 2026;

g) recognise formally the significant time and input that submitters within the process have put into the submissions, further submissions and hearings process; and

h) recognise formally the significant time and input that the staff and the Hearings Panel appointed to make recommendations with the process have put into the submissions, further submissions and hearings process.

1) Tāhuhu Kōrero / Background

Scope of this report

The scope of this report is to outline the process to date for the PDP, including hearings, describe the statutory decisions required on submissions under the RMA, outline the required decision-making practice for RMA decisions, and present the Hearings Panel recommendations to Council for decision-making. The report also outlines the next steps following Council decisions.

District plan review process

Council is required under the RMA to have a district plan and to review it at least every 10 years. Much of the Operative Far North District Plan (ODP) has not been updated in over 20 years. During that period, there have been significant changes in the district, including growth pressures, infrastructure demand, and environmental management.

The ODP no longer reflects current planning practice and has led to fragmented and ad hoc development in some areas. It does not adequately support Māori development aspirations or integrate Māori values. There has also been substantial change in higher order policy direction that the plan is required to give effect to, including National Policy Statements, the National Planning Standards, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, and the Northland Regional Policy Statement.

A consolidated review of the ODP began in 2016 and included the preparation of a draft plan released for public comment in 2021. Additional targeted engagement was undertaken on heritage area provisions and Significant Natural Areas (SNA), along with “closing the loop” communication to respond to feedback received during the draft stage. Feedback on the draft plan informed amendments, particularly in relation to indigenous biodiversity and heritage areas. A key change was the approach to SNA, in which mapped overlays were not included, and regulatory limits were instead applied to indigenous vegetation clearance.

The PDP was publicly notified in July 2022 and received more than 605 submissions, comprising over 8,725 individual submission points, along with 589 further submissions totalling more than 26,000 points. This reflects a high level of engagement from the community and stakeholders.

During the notification period of the PDP, Council also provided an independent ‘friend of submitter’ service to assist the public in making a submission. This was done to break down barriers to people engaging in the plan-making process.

Following notification of the PDP, it was determined that a variation was required to address minor corrections and specific matters that could not be resolved through submissions received. Proposed Variation 1 was notified in October 2024 to address proposed changes related to coastal flood hazard mapping, heritage matters, airport protection surfaces, and zoning adjustments. The variation now forms part of the PDP and was timed to integrate with the overall hearing process; therefore, it does not require separate decisions. Due to needing to integrate with the existing hearing timetable and not to delay the plan-making process, it does not address issues or errors identified after the variation was notified in October 2024

Due to this, post-Council, staff will recommend to Council that a plan change be initiated to the decisions version of the PDP to address any other minor errors and corrections. Any plan change and associated changes will need to be approved by Council, and may also require an exemption from the Minister responsible for the RMA Reform under the “Plan Stop” process. Staff will wait for users of the plan to utilise it for a period of time to allow sufficient time to identify any issues staff are not currently aware of.

The PDP process has involved a high level of community engagement and input, a significant number of submissions, and extensive technical input from both Council and submitters. Submitters have participated in the hearing process in good faith and have invested time and resources. Council’s decision-making is subject to a high degree of scrutiny. This reinforces the importance of a robust, transparent and procedurally sound decision-making process.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Hearings Panel and process

The Hearings Panel was appointed under section 34A(1) of the RMA and comprised five experienced independent commissioners (Robert Scott (Chair), Bill Smith (Deputy Chair), Alan Watson, Peter Kensington and Siani Walker), and four Councillor-appointed commissioners (Councillor Felicity Foy, Councillor Hilda Halkyard-Harawira, Councillor Kelly Stratford and Councillor Steve McNally, who was subsequently appointed independently following the 2025 local government elections).

To hear matters under the RMA, decision-makers are required to be accredited under the Ministry for the Environment’s “Making Good Decisions” programme. This nationally recognised qualification was introduced to reflect the increasing complexity of evidence and decision-making under the RMA, to ensure that hearing processes are fair and consistent with the principles of natural justice, and to improve the quality and consistency of RMA decision-making. All members of the Hearings Panel held the appropriate accreditation, including the Chair, who holds “Chairing” endorsement under his certification.

The hearings process was extensive and conducted over an 18-month period. The first hearings commenced on 27 May 2024, and the hearing process included approximately 40 hearing days and around 320 hours of hearing time. Across this period, 17 hearing topics were considered, with over 800 briefs of evidence presented, supported by 55 section 42A reports and 26 Right of Reply reports prepared by Council officers. The last hearing day concluded on 6 November 2025, with the hearings officially closing on 12 December 2025, when the last right of reply was submitted to the panel.

The hearings provided a public, quasi-judicial forum in which submitters had the opportunity to present evidence and be heard. The Panel was able to test evidence through questioning of submitters, reporting officers and expert witnesses, ensuring that the process was robust, transparent, and consistent with the principles of natural justice. All the hearing documents and recordings can be found on the PDP webpage of Council’s website under Hearings information | Far North District Council.

The Panel’s recommendations were received by staff on 31 March 2026. Staff undertook quality assurance, such as checking grammar and spelling, numbering and ensuring there were no missing sections. Staff then incorporated the recommendations into the PDP recommended decisions version of the ePlan, including seeking and recording clarifications on technical matters from the Panel Chair where required. The ePlan recommended decisions version can be accessed via the following link https://farnorth.isoplan.co.nz/eplan. Staff have maintained a record of any corrections/changes made during that process to ensure that the integrity of the hearings panel reports has been maintained through the quality assurance process, which occurs for any plan change. The hearings panel recommendation reports were released publicly on 22 May 2026, and all submitters were advised of this and given an update on next steps.

Three public-excluded workshops were held with Elected Members with decision-making responsibilities to explain the decision-making process and provide an overview of the recommendations relevant to each topic heard. Legal counsel was at the workshops to provide advice where required. The workshops were structured to inform only. Staff and legal counsel did not offer any opinion or advice as to the merits of decisions recommended or provide any further information in relation to those topics. The workshops were undertaken in a manner to ensure fairness to submitters, and to support a fair plan-making process which has been a key priority when developing the PDP.

Statutory requirements and decision-making framework

Council’s role in this process is to make decisions on the provisions and the submissions in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. Under clause 10, Council must make decisions on the provisions and matters raised in submissions, provide reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions, undertake further evaluation where required under section 32AA, and have particular regard to that evaluation. In doing so, Council may draw on the analysis and evidence presented to the Hearings Panel, including the section 32AA evaluations contained within the Panel’s recommendations and the supporting section 42A and Right of Reply evidence, and can adopt the Panel’s reasons where it agrees with those recommendations.

Council also has tasks under clause 9 of Schedule 1 in relation to “requirements” (designations), including making recommendations on designations of other requiring authorities and making decisions on Council designations. Council is not required to make recommendations or decisions for existing designations included without modification where no submissions were received. The full text in clause l9 and clause 10 for decision-making can be referred to via Resource Management Act 1991 | New Zealand Legislation.

Fair process and decision-maker responsibilities

Decision-making under the RMA is a quasi-judicial process and must be undertaken in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice, fairness, and procedural integrity. This requires that Council ensure a robust evaluation process, apply the correct statutory tests, and make decisions in a lawful and disciplined manner. Failure to follow a fair process carries a risk of legal challenge, regardless of the merits of the decisions, and may result in reputational and cost consequences for Council.

These tasks of hearing submissions and making recommendations were delegated to the Hearings Panel. The Hearings Panel set out its hearings procedures (to ensure a robust, lawful and fair process giving effect to natural justice) in Minute 1 – Procedures for Hearing of Submissions. This information is available on the PDP webpage of Council website under hearings information – Minutes and Procedural matters:

https://www.fndc.govt.nz/Council/District-plan/proposed-district-plan/Hearing-1/procedural-matters  

Given it is a quasi‑judicial process, submitters had the opportunity to present their submissions and evidence directly to the Hearings Panel, and the Panel had the opportunity to ask the submitters, reporting officers and expert witnesses questions. The process ensured that all parties who wanted to be heard had an opportunity, and that submissions and evidence were considered robustly and fairly, in accordance with natural justice principles.

Staff consider that the Hearings Panel has appropriately discharged its functions and that the hearings process has been robust, lawful, and consistent with natural justice principles. Similarly, the Hearing Panel’s recommendations have been made after a full Schedule 1 and hearings process, prepared in accordance with the statutory requirements, and are evidence-based in accordance with the making good decisions programme.

Decision-maker requirements

The Council is the decision-maker on the PDP. To maintain a fair and lawful process, Council must ensure that decision-making is consistent with the principles of natural justice and the requirements of the RMA.

This requires that decision-makers are free from actual or perceived bias, approach decisions with an open mind and without pre-determination, and appropriately manage any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Decision-makers must also ensure that their decisions are based only on information before the Hearings Panel and must not take into account new information or irrelevant or extraneous matters.

The RMA also sets out detailed statutory requirements that decisions on proposed plans must meet, including that all decisions must be within the scope of the submission received.

Failure to meet these requirements materially increases the risk of legal challenge, regardless of the merits of any decision.

Summary

Staff do not recommend departing from the Hearings Panel recommendations, as doing so may undermine procedural fairness and may result in legal errors or a failure to comply with the RMA’s requirements for decision-making.

This will increase the risk that decisions are appealed or judicially reviewed and found by the Courts to be unlawful. Departures are likely to result in additional decision-making steps, increased legal and expert costs, and delays to the PDP becoming operative.

Appeals are the next statutory step in the Schedule 1 process following Council decisions and notification. They are a normal and expected part of the plan-making process and provide an established mechanism for submitters to seek further consideration of matters. Appeals must be lodged within 30 working days of notification.

Following the lodgement of appeals, other parties may become involved by registering with the Environment Court under section 274 of the RMA within a further 15 working-day period. This allows those who made submissions, as well as others who have an interest greater than the general public, to participate in relevant appeals. Participation is typically limited to specific topics or provisions, meaning parties are involved only in matters that directly affect them.

In practice, the Environment Court process is designed to be accessible and user-focused. It places a strong emphasis on mediation, where parties work collaboratively to resolve issues, rather than relying on formal hearings. Most matters are resolved through discussion and agreement between parties, with outcomes confirmed by the Court through consent orders.

While a large number of parties may be involved across the overall appeals process, appeals are generally organised by topic, and participation focuses on relevant issues. This helps to keep the process structured and manageable.

Formal hearings are increasingly uncommon, as most appeals are resolved through mediation. This approach supports a practical, cost-effective process and enables refinement of the PDP in a legally robust manner.

In addition, there are other pathways available to Council to amend the PDP following decisions, including future plan changes to the PDP, or through wider resource management reform processes (such as future regional planning). These mechanisms allow provisions to be refined in a structured and legally robust manner without undermining the integrity of the hearings process.

For these reasons, staff recommend that the recommendations, reasons, and section 32AA evaluations contained within the Hearings Panel reports are accepted in their entirety.

NGĀ TŪRARU / RISKS AND MITIGATIONS

There are significant legal, procedural, financial and reputational risks associated with Council making decisions on the PDP.

A key risk arises where Council departs from the Hearings Panel recommendations. Such departures are not typical and materially increase the likelihood of appeals to the Environment Court and the potential judicial review. There is an increased risk of legal errors being made. Departures also raise issues of procedural fairness, as Council has not directly heard submitter evidence or had the opportunity to ask questions of submitters or their witnesses. There are also reputational risks associated with departing from the Panel’s recommendations after submitters have participated in the Panel’s hearing process in good faith. For these reasons, staff do not recommend departing from the Panel’s recommendations. Staff have reviewed the process undertaken by other Councils and found that Councils typically endorse the hearing panel's recommendations and adopt the decisions as a bundle rather than breaking them down into chapters or topics.

Additional risks relate to communication and implementation, including the potential for public confusion about the status of the PDP and a high volume of enquiries following notification. These will be managed through a coordinated internal and external communications approach. This approach will also communicate that decisions are not the end of the PDP plan-making process, and the next key stage is appeals.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT / NEXT STEPS

Following Council decisions, staff will finalise the PDP “Decisions Version” and undertake final quality assurance prior to public notification. The sequencing and timing of these steps are illustrated in the project flowchart accompanying this report.

The flowchart provides a view of the overall programme moving forward, including Council decision-making, notification, the appeals period, and progression to operative status. It supports effective planning, coordination across teams, and provides clarity around process, helping to manage procedural risk and set clear expectations for Council, stakeholders, and the community. Exact dates, outside of the appeal period, will not be known until details of the number, scope and complexity of appeals are understood.

Between decisions and notification

Significant administrative work is required prior to notifying Council's decision. This includes amendments to the ePlan. Changes required to align with National Environmental Standards will be incorporated into the Decisions Version under delegated authority to ensure compliance with that national direction. The RMA directs that these changes be made outside of the Schedule 1 process (no plan change is required). How the two-district plans apply does not change during this time. The ODP will continue to apply, while consideration is given to the PDP objectives and policies already relevant under S104 (1)(b)(vi) and any immediate legal effect rules under the PDP Decisions version are notified.

Notification of decisions and appeal period

Council’s decisions will be publicly notified on Council's website under the PDP webpage and submitters directly notified on 30 June 2026. The appeal period of 30 working days will commence on 1 July and close on 13 August 2026. Notices are required to be placed in local newspapers. Decision information, including information about how to lodge an appeal, will also be displayed at all Council libraries and drop-in facilities. Upon notification, the PDP becomes the Proposed Far North District Plan – Decisions version (PDP-Decisions Version).

Information on the Environment Court process and how to lodge an appeal can be found at Overview of the Environment Court’s processes | Environment Court of New Zealand

Rollout of decisions

Internal and external engagement programmes will begin after decisions are made to support the implementation of the new Plan. This will include media communications, fact sheets, and stakeholder engagement across Council teams and with iwi, hapū and submitters. Staff are also looking to leverage other Council consultation and engagement activities such as practitioners' meetings.

During this period, all provisions in the PDP - Decisions Version will have ‘legal effect’. This means that both the ODP and PDP will need to be considered when applying for and processing resource consents. Officers will ‘weight’ rules during this period when making their assessments.

Appeals period closes

Following the close of the appeal period (August 13), staff will start a review of the appeals received. Any provisions that aren't under appeal become “operative” and resource consents no longer need to consider the ODP for those provisions. The plan is then annotated, and where there are appeals, it becomes the PDP “Appeals Version”.

After the close of the appeal period, there is a 15-working-day period during which interested parties can join an appeal under section 274 of the RMA. The criteria for joining an appeal are that the person must be a submitter on the PD or a person who has an interest in the proceedings that is greater than the interest that the general public has. These parties are known as “section 274 parties”.

Managing appeals

An agenda item will be brought back to Council following the close of the appeal period and upon completion of a review of the appeals. The report will outline the scope and scale of appeals received and recommend a framework for managing them. The report will consider a range of options for managing appeals, from delegation to staff through to a governance or committee-based model.

This will include options such as:

· delegation to the Group Manager – Planning and Policy for day-to-day management of appeals

· staff delegation with governance oversight, including regular reporting to elected members on progress, risks, costs, and strategic matters

· a committee-based approach for governance decision-making on appeals.

These options recognise that the appeals process is largely operational and iterative, with a focus on mediation and issue resolution. The role of elected members is typically more strategic, such as considering key decisions on settlement positions or whether to proceed to a hearing, rather than direct involvement in individual appeals.

Bringing this report back following the close of appeals ensures that Council can make an informed decision based on the number, complexity, and nature of appeals received.

Appeals process

The Environment Court (the Court) appeal resolution process focuses heavily on alternative dispute resolution in the first instance. In particular, direct discussions with appellants and section 274 parties, or mediation facilitated by the Court, are the first steps in resolving appeals. A timeline is not available at this stage, but direct discussions can begin immediately after appeals are lodged, and Court-assisted mediation may begin before the end of 2026, depending on the availability of the parties and mediators.

Agreements between parties are sent to the presiding judge for approval. This approval is not automatic, and must be based on robust reasoning and the statutory requirements for decisions. Where the Court agrees, it will issue a ‘consent order’ with directions to amend the PDP, or may provide other directions. Where the consent order is to amend the PDP, the “Appeals Version” is amended and any relevant ODP provision is disapplied.

Because of the focus on alternative dispute resolution, hearings of the Court are becoming increasingly rare. Given the requirement to exchange evidence prior to the hearing, the first hearings on the PDP would not take place until 2027. There is a right to appeal Environment Court decisions on questions of law to the High Court. Once all appeals are finally resolved, the PDP will be declared ‘Operative’, and the ODP completely replaced.

MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / OPTIONS

Council has three broad options when making decisions on submissions to the PDP.

Option	Option 1: Accept Panel recommendations in full	Option 2: Depart from one or more recommendations	Option 3: Defer decisions
What this means	Council accepts the recommendations, including reasons and section 32AA evaluations	Makes one or more different decisions, within scope of submissions, supported by separate reasons and section 32AA evaluation	Delays making decisions on submissions to a later date
Key benefits	Maintains the integrity of the hearings process. Relies on the Panel’s evidence- based process, with submissions and evidence tested through the quasi-judicial hearing process Supports a lawful and consistent decision-making approach Provides the most efficient pathway to notification and progression toward operative status Enables timely notification of decisions and progression to the appeals and implementation phases Reduces cost, delay, and resourcing pressure	Allows Council to respond to specific concerns, provided they are within scope and can be supported by reasons and a section 32AA evaluation Enables targeted changes where Council is satisfied there is a sound basis to depart from the Hearing Panel recommendation	Provides additional time for Council to consider decision
Key trade-offs/limitations	Limits Council’s ability to address residual concerns outside the Hearings Panel recommendations at this decision-making stage May not fully address all Elected Members and submitters' concerns Remaining contested matters may need to be addressed through the appeals process, where appeal rights are available, and submitters elect to lodge an appeal	Council cannot make changes outside the scope of submissions Council must rely on the information available through the hearings process and should not introduce new information at this stage Council has not directly heard or tested the evidence in the same way as the Hearings Panel Each departure requires clear reasons and its own section 32AA evaluation (although the Council could adopt a section 32AA evaluation that was presented (eg by a submitter) during the hearing process).	Does not resolve the substantive decisions before Council Extends uncertainty for submitters, plan users, Council, and the wider community Delays progression to the appeals and implementation phases
Key risks/implications	Lowest relative legal and procedural risk Appeals may still occur, but Council’s position is supported by the Panel’s reasons, evidence base, and section 32AA evaluations	Materially increases legal and procedural risk Higher likelihood of Environment Court appeals and potential judicial review If departures are not clearly supported by scope, reasons, evidence, and section 32AA evaluation. May result in more complex or prolonged appeals Likely to increase legal, expert, and staff costs, and delay the PDP's progression toward operative status Reputational risks	Moderate to high risk Would require Council to seek a further statutory timeframe extension from the Minister for the Environment, beyond the current extension to 30 June 2026 There is no certainty that a further extension would be granted Delays notification of decisions, prolongs resourcing pressures, and delays transition to appeals and implementation
Overall assessment	Recommended This option provides the most efficient and procedurally robust pathway for progressing the PDP	Not recommended unless there are clear, scoped and well-supported reasons for specific departures This option carries the highest overall risk profile	Not recommended unless there is a clear statutory, procedural or governance reason for deferral This option carries moderate to high risk because it delays rather than resolves the decision pathway

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommend Option 1, being to accept the Hearings Panel recommendations in full.

This approach ensures that Council’s decisions are grounded in a robust, lawful and evidence-based process that has been tested through a comprehensive hearings framework. It maintains the integrity of the PDP process and supports a fair and consistent decision-making approach.

Appeals are the next statutory step following Council decisions and notification and provide the appropriate mechanism for submitters to challenge provisions and for issues to be further tested and resolved through mediation and, where necessary, the Environment Court.

In addition, there are established pathways available to amend the PDP following decisions, including through the appeals process, future plan changes, or as part of wider resource management reform processes (such as future regional planning). These mechanisms enable provisions to be refined in a structured and legally robust manner, without undermining the integrity of the hearings process.

Departing from the Panel’s recommendations materially increases legal and procedural risk, including the likelihood of appeals and potential challenge on process grounds. It also has direct cost and time implications, requiring additional evaluation, resourcing, and potentially extending the timeframe before the PDP becomes fully operative.

Accepting the Panel’s recommendations provides the most appropriate and defensible pathway to efficiently progress the PDP through notification, appeals, and eventual operative status.

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

The remaining steps in the PDP process will largely relate to appeals management, and costs will depend on the scale and scope of appeals, and the process that is adopted to manage them. Budget for the next financial period has not yet been confirmed as the Annual Plan is not yet adopted. There will also be costs relating to education and support for users of the two district plans.

Departing from Panel recommendations risks increased costs through appeals and judicial review proceedings, additional officer time and legal expenditure, and delays to plan implementation. These costs and delays would be significantly further exacerbated if re-hearings by the panel are required (if directed by the High Court after a successful judicial review claim).

Āpitihanga / Attachments

Nil

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 PDP meets the test of high significance but is governed by the RMA. It has been a full public process, with pre-engagement steps, and formal consultation governed by the Schedule 1 process of the RMA.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Through the development of the PDP, regard is given to all relevant council policies and legislation. This is tested at the section 32 stage and again through the hearing process.
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.	This has district-wide relevance. It is Council document that has gone through a robust plan-making process that has provided for the public, including the community boards to engage in the process and be a submitter.
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.	A district plan has significant implication for Māori. The RMA specifies how plan development and the plan itself must align with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi and specifies our legislative obligations in engaging with Iwi authorities when developing the plan. The PDP provides a more enabling framework for development on Māori land and Treaty Settlement land, and also protects cultural heritage and the wider environment. The Hearings Panel was formed based on ensuring there was tikanga Māori expertise. At the hearings, submitters were supported in presenting their evidence and submission in te reo, with an interpreter being available.
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 members of the public are potentially affected or have an interest. This has been a full public process with multiple opportunities for people to have their say. The next step in the appeals process provides for that to continue.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are significant implications if decisions are made that expose Council to legal risk such as judicial review and appeals. This will result in greater legal costs and staff resourcing. To manage this risk, staff have recommended option 1: accepting the hearing panel's recommendations in full.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed the report.