Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting - Wednesday, 22 July 2026

5 He Pānui Whakamōtini / Notice of Motion

5.1 Notice of Motion - Cr Smolders - Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement

File Number: A5867767

I, Councillor Davina Smolders, give notice that at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 22 July 2026, I intend to move the following motion:

MŌtini / Motion

That Council resolves to:

a) Confirm that no proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement shall be executed until the Far North District Council has complied with the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Far North District Council Significance and Engagement Policy.

b) Direct the Chief Executive to undertake and publicly release a formal Significance Assessment for each proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement before Council considers whether to execute those agreements, consistent with the Significance and Engagement Policy, which requires significance to be determined before decision-making occurs.

c) Direct the Chief Executive to publicly release each draft Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement, before Council considers whether to execute any agreement.

d) Direct the Chief Executive to report to Council, following completion of the Significance Assessment, identifying:

· the significance rating assigned to each proposed agreement;

· the reasons supporting that assessment;

· the provisions of the Significance and Engagement Policy relied upon;

· whether the proposal is considered to be of Low, Medium or High Significance;

· the recommended level of public engagement; and

· whether a Special Consultative Procedure has been considered and, if not recommended, the reasons for that recommendation.

e) If Council determines, having considered the Significance Assessment, that any proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement is of Medium or High Significance, direct the Chief Executive to undertake the level of public engagement required under the Far North District Council Significance and Engagement Policy before Council makes any decision on whether to execute that agreement.

f) If Council determines that any proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement is of High Significance, resolve that it is prudent to undertake a Special Consultative Procedure before deciding whether to execute that agreement.

g) Direct the Chief Executive to provide a governance report to Council, prior to execution of any Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement, confirming:

· compliance with the Resource Management Act 1991;

· compliance with the Local Government Act 2002;

· compliance with the Far North District Council Significance and Engagement Policy;

· the estimated financial implications of each agreement;

· any ongoing governance, operational or financial obligations created by each agreement;

· any identified legal, reputational or operational risks associated with entering into the agreement; and

· any implications for future councils arising from the agreement.

h) Confirm that this Notice of Motion does not seek to prevent or delay the statutory negotiation of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements under the Resource Management Act 1991, but seeks to ensure that any decision to execute those agreements is made transparently, lawfully, and in accordance with the Far North District Council's adopted governance framework.

i) Receive a legal opinion from independent external counsel (not previously involved in the negotiation of the agreements) confirming that the proposed decision-making process complies with the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Far North District Council Significance and Engagement Policy before any Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement is executed.

Context and Discussion | Horopaki ngā kōrerorero

Executive Summary

This Notice of Motion is not intended to oppose Mana Whakahono ā Rohe (MWaR) Agreements, nor does it question the Far North District Council's statutory obligation under the Resource Management Act 1991 to negotiate such agreements with Iwi authorities.

Rather, this Notice of Motion seeks to ensure that, before Council decides whether to execute six proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements, it has complied with the statutory decision-making framework established by the Local Government Act 2002 and the Far North District Council's adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

The execution of six enduring statutory relationship agreements has the potential to create governance, operational and financial obligations extending beyond the current electoral term. Whether those implications are ultimately assessed as being of Low, Medium or High Significance is a matter that should be determined through Council's adopted Significance and Engagement Policy before any decision to execute the agreements is made.

This Notice of Motion does not seek to predetermine the outcome of that assessment. Instead, it seeks to ensure that Council follows the governance framework it has adopted for itself and that elected members are provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision.

Transparent decision-making benefits everyone. It benefits Iwi and hapū by strengthening the legitimacy and durability of the agreements.

It benefits Council by demonstrating compliance with its statutory obligations.

It benefits the wider community by providing confidence that significant governance decisions have been made openly, consistently and in accordance with Council's adopted policies.

Purpose of this Notice of Motion

The purpose of this Notice of Motion is to ensure that the Far North District Council demonstrates compliance with its statutory governance obligations before deciding whether to execute the proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements.

Specifically, this Notice of Motion seeks to ensure that:

· Council has complied with the Local Government Act 2002 decision-making framework;

· Council has properly applied its adopted Significance and Engagement Policy;

· Elected members receive sufficient information to understand the governance, financial and operational implications of the proposed agreements;

· The significance of each proposed agreement is assessed before any decision is made;

· The level of community engagement is determined in accordance with Council's adopted Significance and Engagement Policy; and

· Any decision to execute the agreements is supported by a transparent and demonstrably robust governance process.

Importantly, this Notice of Motion is directed at the process by which Council reaches its decision, rather than the merits of any individual Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement. Nothing in this Notice of Motion seeks to prevent Council from fulfilling its statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Rather, it recognises that compliance with the Resource Management Act and compliance with the Local Government Act 2002 are complementary obligations that should operate together.

Background

The Far North District Council is presently negotiating six proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements, comprising five agreements with iwi and one agreement with a hapū.

Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements are statutory relationship agreements provided for under the Resource Management Act 1991. They establish how local authorities and iwi authorities will work together on matters arising under that Act.

The Resource Management Act requires local authorities to enter into negotiations where an Iwi authority requests such an agreement.

This statutory obligation is recognised and accepted.

However, while the Resource Management Act establishes the obligation to negotiate, it does not remove Council's separate obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 to make informed governance decisions, nor does it displace Council's obligation to apply its adopted Significance and Engagement Policy when determining how significant proposals should be assessed before decisions are made.

Accordingly, the issue before Council is not whether negotiations should occur.

The issue is whether Council has demonstrated that it has complied with its own governance framework before deciding whether to execute agreements that may create enduring obligations extending beyond the current Council.

Current Position

Through correspondence with elected members, the Group Manager – Te Hono, Mr Aaron Taikato, advised that:

"Engagement/communication with the wider community usually occurs on an 'inform' basis at the point that the relationship agreement is actually formalised."

Mr Taikato further advised that:

"As agreements that focus on the relationship with a specific group of stakeholders, the impact of these agreements on the wider communities of Taitokerau, beyond that affected stakeholder group, is arguably minimal."

Those comments are important because they explain the current operational approach proposed by Council staff.

This Notice of Motion does not question the professionalism of that advice, nor does it suggest that staff have acted other than in accordance with their understanding of the relevant statutory framework.

However, the conclusions expressed in that correspondence raise governance questions that properly fall within the responsibilities of elected members rather than staff alone.

In particular, the conclusion that the agreements have only "arguably minimal" impacts on the wider community has not, to date, been supported by a Significance Assessment undertaken in accordance with Council's adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

Similarly, the proposed approach of informing the wider community only after the agreements have been formalised differs from the sequence contemplated by the Significance and Engagement Policy, which requires significance to be assessed before decisions are made and provides for public engagement, where appropriate, before Council reaches its decision.

The purpose of this Notice of Motion is therefore not to reject the operational advice provided by staff.

Rather, it is to ensure that Council, as the governing body, satisfies itself that the statutory decision-making framework established by Parliament and reinforced through Council's own policies has been properly applied before deciding whether to execute the proposed agreements.

Why This Matters

The proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements are not ordinary operational documents.

They are intended to establish enduring statutory relationships between the Far North District Council and Iwi or hapū that will continue beyond the term of the present Council.

The existing Ngāpuhi Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement illustrates that such agreements may include ongoing governance arrangements, operational commitments, agreed engagement processes, dispute resolution mechanisms and future implementation obligations.

Whether the proposed agreements ultimately create obligations of sufficient significance to require public engagement is a matter that should be determined through Council's adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

That determination should occur before Council decides whether to execute the agreements.

The purpose of this Notice of Motion is to ensure that the governing body has confidence that this process has been followed and that the reasons supporting Council's decision are transparent, well documented and capable of public scrutiny.

Statutory Decision-Making Framework

The Relationship Between the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002

The proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements arise under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), while the decision to execute those agreements is made by the Far North District Council under the governance framework established by the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

These statutes perform different, but complementary, functions.

The Resource Management Act establishes the legal mechanism through which Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements may be negotiated and provides that where an iwi authority requests such an agreement, the local authority must enter into negotiations.

Local Government Act establishes how the governing body of a local authority is to make decisions on behalf of its community. Accordingly, the statutory obligation to negotiate under the Resource Management Act does not replace, limit or remove Council's obligations under the Local Government Act when deciding whether to execute the negotiated agreements.

Council must comply with both statutory frameworks.

This Notice of Motion therefore does not question Council's obligation to negotiate.

Rather, it seeks assurance that Council has complied with its separate governance obligations before deciding whether to execute the proposed agreements.

Purpose of Local Government

Section 10 of the Local Government Act provides that one of the purposes of local government is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities. That purpose provides the foundation for every decision made by Council.

The execution of six statutory agreements intended to establish enduring relationships between Council and Iwi or hapū is not merely an operational matter.

It is a governance decision made on behalf of the people of the Far North District.

Consequently, the process by which that decision is reached should reflect the democratic decision-making framework established by Parliament.

Role of the Governing Body

Section 11 of the Local Government Act provides that the role of a local authority is to give effect to the purpose of local government. That role requires elected members to govern on behalf of both present and future communities.

Unlike routine operational matters, the proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements are intended to continue beyond the current electoral term.

Future councils may inherit the governance arrangements, operational expectations and relationship commitments established through these agreements.

For that reason, elected members should be satisfied that the statutory governance process has been fully completed before deciding whether the agreements should be executed.

Principles of Local Government

Section 14 of the Local Government Act establishes the principles under which local authorities are expected to conduct their business. Among those principles are that local authorities should conduct their business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner.

Those principles are directly relevant to the subject of this Notice of Motion.

The purpose of this Notice of Motion is not to revisit Parliament's decision to provide for Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements. Nor is it to question the importance of constructive relationships between Council and Iwi or hapū. Instead, it seeks to ensure that the decision to execute those agreements is reached through a process that reflects the statutory principles of openness, transparency and democratic accountability.

For the avoidance of doubt, Council’s decision-making obligations arise under the Local Government Act 2002, including:

· section 76, which requires every Council decision to be made in accordance with the applicable decision-making provisions;

· section 76AA, which requires Council to have a Significance and Engagement Policy and to identify when and how communities can expect to be engaged;

· section 77, which requires Council to identify reasonably practicable options and assess their advantages and disadvantages;

· section 78, which requires Council to consider the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or interested in, the matter;

· section 79, which requires the extent of analysis, information, and engagement to be proportionate to the significance of the matter;

· section 80, which requires Council to clearly identify and explain any decision that is significantly inconsistent with Council policy;

· section 82, which sets out the principles of consultation;

· section 83, which sets out the special consultative procedure where required or where Council considers it prudent.

Decision-Making Responsibilities

The Local Government Act establishes a structured decision-making framework intended to ensure that elected members make informed governance decisions.

That framework requires Council to:

· obtain sufficient information appropriate to the significance of the proposal;

· identify the reasonably practicable options;

· consider the advantages and disadvantages of those options;

· understand the consequences of the proposed decision; and

· adopt a decision-making process that is proportionate to the significance of the matter under consideration.

These obligations exist to assist elected members in exercising independent governance judgement.

The proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements establish enduring statutory relationships capable of influencing future governance arrangements and operational practices.

Accordingly, this Notice of Motion seeks confirmation that the decision-making process adopted by Council is proportionate to the significance of the proposed agreements.

Council's Significance and Engagement Policy

The Local Government Act requires every local authority to adopt a Significance and Engagement Policy.

The Far North District Council has fulfilled that statutory obligation through its adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

Importantly, the Policy is not simply an internal administrative guideline. It is a governance instrument adopted pursuant to statutory requirements. Its purpose is to provide elected members and the community with a transparent framework for determining:

· the significance of proposals;

· the level of community engagement appropriate to those proposals; and

· the process by which significant governance decisions should be made.

The Policy expressly provides that significance should be assessed before decision-making occurs.

It further provides that proposals assessed as Medium or High Significance should be subject to an appropriate level of community engagement before Council reaches its decision. These provisions establish the governance sequence that Council has adopted for itself.

Significance & Engagement with the Ngāpuhi MWaR

That Council notes that the Ngāpuhi Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement was previously assessed as having medium significance. Under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, a proposal assessed as medium or high significance requires some form of community engagement before the decision is made.

Council further notes that Schedule 2 of the Significance and Engagement Policy provides that medium significance involves advising the community once a draft decision is made and generally providing up to four weeks for the community to participate and respond.

Council therefore considers that any future Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement, memorandum of understanding, mana-enhancing agreement, relationship agreement, or similar arrangement with iwi or hapū must NOT be assessed at a lower level of significance than the Ngāpuhi agreement unless clear written reasons are provided to elected members and the public.

Given that Council's previous approval of the Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreement was assessed as having medium significance, we also note that despite that assessment:

· no public consultation was undertaken prior to the agreement being approved;

· no Special Consultative Procedure was initiated;

· no publicly available Chief Financial Officer assessment of the long-term financial implications has been identified; and

· the agreement was approved without the community having an opportunity to consider or comment on its ongoing governance, financial and operational implications.

The experience of the Ngāpuhi agreement highlights the need for a clear and consistent process before any further Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements are executed.

Where proposed agreements create enduring obligations, influence Council decision-making, establish ongoing work programmes, commit Council resources, or have potential financial implications for future ratepayers, elected members should receive a documented significance assessment, a financial assessment of the long-term costs and liabilities, and advice confirming whether community engagement is required under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy and the Local Government Act 2002.

Ratepayer Neutrality

Council also needs to note its obligation to maintain ratepayer neutrality. This means that where an agreement creates obligations, funding expectations, service commitments, staff resourcing requirements, dispute resolution costs, consultation costs, land or asset implications, or preferential access to Council processes, those costs and advantages must be clearly identified and assessed before the agreement is signed.

Ratepayer neutrality requires that one group’s agreement with Council must not impose hidden, unquantified, or unfair costs on general ratepayers without transparent assessment, public visibility, and elected-member approval.

Why the Policy Matters

The significance of the proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements is presently a matter of differing opinion.

Council staff have expressed the view that the wider community impacts are arguably minimal.

Members of the community have expressed the contrary view and in determining significance, the policy expressly states that the Council will be guided by:

d. Historic levels of community impact or interest in the proposal.

This Notice of Motion deliberately does not seek to determine which view is correct.

Instead, it submits that the purpose of Council's Significance and Engagement Policy is to provide an objective process through which that question can be answered.

The Policy exists precisely because significant proposals should not rely solely upon subjective judgement.

Rather, proposals should be assessed against objective criteria adopted by Council itself. That process promotes consistency, transparency and public confidence in Council's governance.

Existing Māori Representation and the Importance of Public Confidence

The Far North District Council has deliberately established governance arrangements that ensure significant Māori participation in local government.

These arrangements include Māori ward representation, Te Kuaka – Māori Strategy Committee, dedicated organisational capability through Te Hono, and ongoing statutory engagement with iwi and hapū.

In addition, a number of elected members bring valuable lived experience, whakapapa connections and longstanding relationships with Iwi and hapū within the district. Those perspectives are an important and legitimate part of representative local government and contribute to informed decision-making.

However, the existence of strong Māori representation within Council's governance structures does not reduce the importance of broader public confidence in the decision-making process.

On the contrary, where Council is considering enduring statutory agreements with organisations that are already closely engaged in Council's governance, it becomes even more important that the governing body can demonstrate that it has followed its adopted Significance and Engagement Policy in a transparent and consistent manner.

The purpose of public engagement is not to diminish Māori participation or question the legitimacy of those relationships.

Rather, it is to ensure that all communities can have confidence that significant governance decisions have been reached through the process that Council has adopted for itself.

Accordingly, this Notice of Motion seeks to ensure that the significance of the proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements is formally assessed and that the appropriate level of community engagement is determined before Council decides whether to execute those agreements.

The Governance Decision Before Council

The central question before Council is not whether the Resource Management Act requires negotiations to occur. It clearly does.

The governance question is different.

Before deciding whether to execute six enduring statutory agreements, Council should be satisfied that:

· the significance of each proposed agreement has been formally assessed;

· the statutory decision-making obligations under the Local Government Act have been met;

· the Significance and Engagement Policy has been properly applied;

· elected members have sufficient information to understand the governance, financial and operational implications of the proposed agreements; and

· the appropriate level of public engagement has been determined before any decision is made.

Only once those matters have been addressed can Council confidently determine whether the proposed agreements should be executed.

Conclusion

This Notice of Motion does not seek to prevent the negotiation of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements. Nor does it seek to determine whether the proposed agreements should ultimately be executed. Rather, it asks Council to demonstrate that it has first complied with its own adopted Significance and Engagement Policy before making that decision.

The Far North District Council adopted the Significance and Engagement Policy to provide a transparent and consistent framework for determining the significance of proposals and the level of community engagement required before significant decisions are made.

That Policy requires significance to be assessed before Council reaches its decision. It also establishes that proposals assessed as Medium or High Significance require an appropriate level of public engagement before a decision is made.

The proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements are capable of creating enduring governance relationships, ongoing operational commitments and future financial implications extending beyond the life of the present Council. Significance under the Policy specifically relates to the likely impact on “the ability of the council to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so”.

Further, the Policy provides that a matter is of high significance if it is “likely to generate considerable interest or community views render the community deeply divided”, where a proposal has a major and long-term impact on the well-being of iwi/hapu or whanau and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, wahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga.

The proposed Agreements have generated considerable public interest and they concern matters of importance to Iwi and hapū.

The agreements also concern the future governance of the Far North District Council. The effect on any changes to levels of service should be assessed, as major and long-term changes mean the matter is of high significance.

The characteristics of the agreements therefore raise matters the Significance and Engagement Policy requires Council to assess.

The purpose of this Notice of Motion is straightforward.

Before deciding whether to execute six proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements, Council should first demonstrate that:

· each proposed agreement has been formally assessed under the Significance and Engagement Policy;

· the significance criteria contained within the Policy have been objectively applied;

· elected members have been provided with sufficient information to understand the governance, financial and operational implications of the agreements;

· the level of community engagement required under the Policy has been determined before Council reaches its decision; and

· where any agreement is assessed as being of High Significance, Council has expressly considered whether a Special Consultative Procedure is the appropriate mechanism to ensure meaningful public participation before execution.

I remind you of the current position:

Mr Taikato advises that community engagement generally occurs once the agreement has been formalised. Respectfully, this appears inconsistent with the sequence established by the Far North District Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, which requires significance to be assessed before decisions are made and, where proposals are assessed as Medium or High Significance, for engagement to occur before Council reaches its decision.

This Notice of Motion therefore seeks clarification that the adopted Policy has been applied before any agreement is executed.

This Notice of Motion asks Council NOT to predetermine the outcome of the Significance Assessment.

If the agreements are assessed as being of Low Significance, that conclusion should be demonstrated through the assessment required by Council's own Policy.

If the agreements are assessed as being of Medium or High Significance, then the corresponding engagement requirements within the Policy should be followed before Council reaches its decision.

Either outcome strengthens public confidence in Council's governance.

Policy and Planning Implications | Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here me te whakamahere

This Notice of Motion is consistent with the Far North District Council's statutory obligations and adopted governance framework.

The motion does not seek to alter the purpose or operation of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements under the Resource Management Act 1991, nor does it seek to prevent Council from negotiating or entering into such agreements.

Rather, it seeks to ensure that Council applies its adopted Significance and Engagement Policy before deciding whether to execute six proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements.

The motion supports the purpose of the Significance and Engagement Policy by requesting that:

· a formal Significance Assessment is completed before execution of the proposed agreements;

· Council determines the significance of each agreement using the adopted Policy;

· the level of community engagement is determined in accordance with the Policy; and

· where appropriate, Council considers whether a Special Consultative Procedure should be undertaken before making its decision.

The motion is also consistent with the principles of the Local Government Act 2002 relating to transparent, accountable and informed decision-making, and supports the governance objectives of Far North 2100 by promoting public confidence in Council's decision-making processes.

Ultimately, this Notice of Motion simply asks Council to apply the governance framework it has already adopted. If the proposed agreements are assessed as being of Low Significance, that assessment will provide assurance to the governing body and the community. If they are assessed as being of Medium or High Significance, the Policy provides the pathway for the appropriate level of community engagement before any decision is made.

Financial Implications | Ngā pānga ā pūtea

This Notice of Motion does not commit Council to any new operational programme or capital expenditure.

The principal financial implications relate to the preparation of a formal Significance Assessment (if one has not already been completed), the release of the proposed agreements, and any community engagement that Council determines is appropriate following application of the Significance and Engagement Policy.

These activities are consistent with Council's existing governance responsibilities and should, where practicable, be met from existing governance, policy and legal budgets.

Should Council determine that one or more of the proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements are of High Significance, additional costs may arise if a Special Consultative Procedure is undertaken. However, those costs represent an investment in robust governance and democratic accountability for agreements intended to create enduring statutory relationships and obligations.

Conversely, proceeding to execute the agreements without first demonstrating compliance with the Significance and Engagement Policy may expose Council to greater financial risks, including:

· additional legal costs arising from procedural challenge;

· increased costs associated with responding to complaints, information requests and governance reviews;

· reputational impacts affecting public confidence in Council's decision-making; and

· the potential need to revisit or amend agreements if deficiencies in the decision-making process are subsequently identified.

The financial implications associated with applying the Council's adopted governance framework are therefore considered proportionate to the significance of the proposed agreements and represent prudent risk management.

Undertaking the correct governance process before entering into enduring statutory agreements is likely to be considerably less costly than defending the consequences of an inadequate process after those agreements have been executed.

Risks and Legal Mitigations | Ngā tūraru me ngā whakamaurutanga ā ture

This Notice of Motion is intended to reduce governance and legal risk by ensuring that Council's decision-making process is demonstrably consistent with its statutory obligations and adopted Significance and Engagement Policy before executing six proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements.

The principal risks and proposed mitigations are set out below.

Potential Risk	Mitigation
Additional time may be required to complete a formal Significance Assessment and determine the appropriate level of community engagement.	Ensures Council follows its adopted Significance and Engagement Policy before deciding on enduring agreements.
If a proposal is assessed as being of High Significance, a Special Consultative Procedure may extend the timeframe before agreements are executed.	The additional time provides greater public confidence and ensures Council has considered the level of engagement required by its own Policy before making its decision.
Additional staff resources may be required to prepare assessments, reports and community engagement material.	These activities are consistent with Council's governance responsibilities and may reduce the likelihood of future governance disputes or procedural challenges.
If Council proceeds without demonstrating compliance with its Significance and Engagement Policy, questions may arise regarding whether the adopted governance framework has been appropriately applied, leading any decisions to be susceptible to a judicial review challenge.	Completing and documenting the Significance Assessment before execution provides transparency and a clear governance record supporting Council's decision.
Limited public understanding of the agreements before execution may reduce confidence in the decision-making process.	Releasing the proposed agreements and determining the appropriate level of engagement before execution promotes openness, transparency and informed public participation.
Future councils may inherit governance and operational obligations established through the agreements without a clearly documented governance process supporting their execution.	A comprehensive governance process provides an enduring record demonstrating that Council considered the long-term implications before entering into the agreements.

Legal Considerations

This Notice of Motion acknowledges that the Resource Management Act 1991 provides the statutory framework for negotiating Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements.

However, the decision to execute those agreements remains a governance decision of the Far North District Council and should be made in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 and the Council's adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

The motion therefore seeks to ensure that Council can demonstrate that it has:

· applied the Significance and Engagement Policy before making its decision;

· completed a formal Significance Assessment for each proposed agreement;

· determined the appropriate level of community engagement based on that assessment;

· considered whether a Special Consultative Procedure is appropriate if any agreement is assessed as being of High Significance; and

· maintained a transparent governance process consistent with the principles of the Local Government Act 2002.

By following this process, Council reduces the risk of future procedural criticism and strengthens public confidence in both the decision-making process and the agreements ultimately entered into.

Impacts on Māori | Ngā pānga ki te Māori

This Notice of Motion is not intended to diminish the role of Māori in local government, nor does it seek to prevent or delay the negotiation of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements as provided for under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Rather, it seeks to strengthen the legitimacy and durability of those agreements by ensuring that the Far North District Council follows its own adopted Significance and Engagement Policy before deciding whether to execute them.

Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements are, by their nature, of direct significance to the Iwi and hapū that are party to them. The proposed agreements are intended to strengthen the relationship between Council and those Iwi and hapū and provide greater certainty regarding how the parties will work together in the future.

This Notice of Motion fully acknowledges and supports the importance of those relationships.

The Far North District Council has also deliberately established governance arrangements that provide for significant Māori participation in local government through Māori ward representation, Te Kuaka – Māori Strategy Committee, Te Hono, and other statutory engagement mechanisms. These governance arrangements ensure Māori perspectives are represented throughout Council's decision-making processes.

However, because the proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements establish enduring statutory relationships between Council and Iwi or hapū, they are also capable of affecting the governance of the wider district.

For that reason, this Notice of Motion submits that the Significance and Engagement Policy should be applied before the agreements are executed to determine the appropriate level of community engagement.

Applying the Policy does not diminish Māori participation. Rather, it complements existing Māori participation by ensuring that all communities can have confidence that Council has followed a transparent, consistent and well-documented decision-making process before entering into enduring agreements. Transparent governance benefits everyone.

It benefits Iwi and hapū by strengthening the legitimacy and durability of the agreements. It benefits Council by demonstrating compliance with its adopted governance framework. It benefits the wider community by providing confidence that decisions have been made openly, consistently and in accordance with Council policy.

Accordingly, the anticipated impact of this Notice of Motion on Māori is considered to be positive, as it promotes transparent governance and supports the long-term credibility and public confidence of the relationships established through Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements.

External Community Engagement | Whakawhiti kōrero ki te hapori o waho

The proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements are matters of significant public interest and are likely to attract substantial community interest and participation, given the differing and strongly divided views held across the district.

As an elected member, I have received numerous enquiries from ratepayers, community organisations and members of the public seeking information about the proposed agreements, including questions regarding:

· the purpose and legal effect of the agreements;

· whether the agreements create ongoing governance or financial obligations;

· whether the agreements will be publicly released before execution;

· whether the agreements have been assessed under the Far North District Council's Significance and Engagement Policy; and

· whether the wider community will have an opportunity to provide feedback before Council makes its decision.

Community engagement has occurred through a range of channels, including emails, telephone conversations, public meetings, social media engagement and discussions with residents throughout the district.

A consistent theme arising from those discussions has been a desire for greater transparency regarding the content of the proposed agreements and the process by which Council intends to approve them.

Many members of the public have expressed the view that they wish to understand the agreements before they are executed so they can better appreciate their purpose, implications and any ongoing commitments that may arise.

This feedback does not represent a unanimous view rather, it demonstrates a high level of public interest in ensuring that the decision-making process is transparent and consistent with the Far North District Council's adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

The purpose of this Notice of Motion is to respond to those governance concerns by requesting that Council first applies its adopted Significance and Engagement Policy to determine the significance of the proposed agreements and, based on that assessment, determine the appropriate level of community engagement before making its decision.

Take / Rationale

I commend this Notice of Motion to Council.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Significance and Engagement Policy 2024 - A5873273 ⇩

2. Mana Whakahono a Rohe with Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi 2025 - A5873279 ⇩

3. Email from Te Hono - A5873280 ⇩

7 Ngā Pūrongo / Reports

7.1 Transport Portfolio Holder Terms of Reference

File Number: A5840207

Author: Margriet Veenstra, Manager - Property Information & Business Compliance

Authoriser: Charlie Billington, Group Manager - Corporate Services

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

This report seeks Council approval to adopt the Transport Portfolio Terms of Reference and confirm the Transport Portfolio membership, following the earlier establishment of the Portfolio.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Portfolios provide a non-decision-making governance mechanism to support elected members to develop deeper subject matter understanding and provide oversight of key areas of Council activity.

· The Transport Portfolio supports Council’s significant responsibilities in roading, transport planning, and regional transport partnerships.

· This report seeks adoption of the Transport Portfolio Terms of Reference and confirmation of its membership, following the Portfolio’s earlier establishment.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) Adopt the attached Transport Portfolio Terms of Reference including the following membership;

Cr Ann Court – Northland Regional Transport Committee Appointment and Road Controlling Authority Forum appointment

Cr Rachel Baucke – Northland Regional Transport Committee Alternate

Cr Tāmati Rākena – Chairperson, North Hokianga Roading Working Group

Cr Felicity Foy – Chairperson, Te Koukou Committee for Transport and Infrastructure

1) Tāhuhu Kōrero / Background

The Far North District Council has established portfolios in previous terms as a governance tool to support elected members to specialise in key areas and strengthen oversight of Council activities.

Portfolios are strictly non-decision-making roles that allow councillors to deepen their understanding of council operations, champion issues, engage with communities, and shape policy. They provide oversight alongside senior management and staff, ensuring balanced presentation, strategic focus and stronger links between council priorities and community needs.

A Transport Portfolio was established by Council in December 2025, alongside other portfolios adopted at the same meeting (Resolution 2025/138). However, unlike the other portfolios, its Terms of Reference and membership were not confirmed at that time.

Transport is a core Council function, with significant operational, financial, and reputational implications, including:

· Maintenance and operation of the local roading network

· Delivery of capital works programmes

· Engagement with NZTA/Waka Kotahi and regional transport partners

· Responding to community expectations and requests for service

Given the scale and complexity of Council’s transport responsibilities, establishing a Transport Portfolio will:

· Provide consistent elected member oversight

· Strengthen strategic engagement with key partners

· Support better visibility of risks, priorities, and delivery performance

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Role of the Portfolio

The Transport Portfolio is intended to operate as a non-decision-making forum, consistent with Council’s existing portfolio structure.

Its purpose is to:

· Provide high-level information and briefing to the Portfolio Holder

· Support understanding of key transport issues, risks, and opportunities

· Enable the Portfolio Holder to represent Council effectively in regional and sector forums

The Portfolio Holder:

· Does not direct staff

· Does not make operational or policy decisions

· May only represent Council externally with formal authorisation

This approach ensures clear separation between:

· Governance (Council and elected members)

· Management (Chief Executive and staff)

Options

Option 1: Adopt the Terms of Reference as attached and confirm the membership (recommended)

Option 2: Agree amendments - Adopt the Terms of Reference and membership with amendments.

Option 3: Defer decision - Leave the report to lie on the table, deferring adoption of the Terms of Reference and confirmation of the membership pending further refinement.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

To confirm the membership and Terms of Reference of the Transport Portfolio and ensure clarity of roles and responsibilities and consistent transparent governance.

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

Supporting the portfolio will have an impact on staff resourcing and time, these costs are expected to be managed within existing budgets. As with other portfolios, the benefits include improved decision-making, better alignment between governance and delivery and reduced duplication of effort across the organisation.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Transportation Portfolio ToR - A5857005 ⇩

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 matter is 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.	The Local Government Act 2002, including requirements for transparency, accountability, and effective governance. Council’s governance framework, including the Code of Conduct and Standing Orders. Relevant transport legislation, regulations, and NZTA/Waka Kotahi requirements. Council’s adopted policies, strategies, and bylaws relating to transport and infrastructure. Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, where applicable to governance oversight responsibilities.
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 is a district wide matter for the governing body to decide.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The views from Māori have not been sought specifically to inform this work.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	This does not impact any identified persons in legislation.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Any costs are expected to be managed within existing budgets.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The CFO has not reviewed this report.

7.2 Future Economic Development Investment and Resourcing for the Far North District – Long Term Plan 2027–2037

File Number: A5830580

Author: Roger Ackers, Head of Strategic Reform Initiatives

Authoriser: Guy Holroyd, Chief Executive Officer

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek Council direction on the future provision and funding of economic development activities within the Far North District and to confirm that any future investment decisions are considered through the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2027–2037 process

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Economic development is a key contributor to community wellbeing, productivity, business growth, employment and long-term prosperity. Far North 2100 identifies resilient economic growth and sustainable prosperity as a strategic priority for the district and calls for a greater focus on investment, entrepreneurship, business development, tourism, innovation and economic diversification.

· The current regional economic development model is delivered primarily through Northland NZ, supported by district-level initiatives, iwi and Māori development activity, central government programmes and a range of public and private sector partnerships. Northland NZ is jointly owned by the four Northland councils and provides regional economic development and tourism functions on behalf of its shareholders.

· Council is now entering the development phase of the Long Term Plan 2027–2037. This creates an opportunity to consider a broader strategic question: What economic outcomes does the Far North want to achieve, and what delivery model and investment framework are best placed to achieve them?

· Recent work undertaken through the Northland Regional Deal and the GDP Targeting and Augmentation Model (GTAM) provides a stronger evidence base for economic development decision-making. The focus shifts from funding activities or organisations to identifying and investing in initiatives that can improve productivity, attract investment, grow quality employment, increase incomes and strengthen long-term economic resilience.

· This report does not seek a decision on a preferred funding option or delivery model. Rather, it seeks Council's endorsement to develop economic development investment and service delivery options for consideration through the Long Term Plan 2027–2037 process.

· The review will consider the future role of Council, the level of investment required, the relationship with Northland NZ and other partners, and the most effective mechanisms for delivering measurable economic outcomes for the Far North District.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) Agrees that the future scale, scope, priorities and delivery model for economic development activities within the Far North District should be reviewed as part of development of the Long Term Plan 2027–2037

b) Agrees that future economic development investment should be assessed against the economic outcomes sought by Council, including productivity growth, business development, quality employment, investment attraction, Māori economic development and regional prosperity

c) Agrees that options for future economic development investment, including investment in Northland NZ and alternative service delivery arrangements, be developed and reported back to Council; and

d) Requests the preparation of a detailed options assessment, implementation pathway and funding plan for consideration through the Long Term Plan 2027–2037 process.

1) Tāhuhu Kōrero / Background

Far North 2100

Far North 2100, adopted by Far North District Council at its November 2021 Council meeting following a recommendation from the Strategy and Policy Committee on 12 October 2021, is grounded in the vision of He Whenua Rangatira – a district of sustainable prosperity and wellbeing.

Economic prosperity is identified as a key component of community wellbeing.

Far North 2100 identifies:

· Low GDP per capita relative to many parts of New Zealand.

· Structural reliance on primary industries.

· Vulnerability to economic shocks.

· The importance of tourism, innovation, investment attraction and economic diversification.

· The need to promote resilient economic growth and sustainable prosperity.

The strategy specifically identifies actions including:

· Developing a long-term economic development plan.

· Supporting inward investment.

· Supporting entrepreneurship and innovation.

· Growing value-added industries.

· Improving productivity and workforce capability.

· Strengthening regional approaches to economic development.

Martin Jenkins Review

The Martin Jenkins Review of Economic Development Arrangements in Northland completed in July 2017, concluded that:

· There were no major gaps in the economic development services being delivered across Northland.

· There was limited duplication across agencies.

· Greater regional coordination would improve effectiveness.

· A shared regional economic development strategy was needed. Northland NZ has delivered Te Rerenga in this space.

· Māori economic development and regional destination management required greater emphasis.

· Northland Inc (now Northland NZ) should evolve into a jointly governed regional entity with enhanced district involvement.

The review concluded that economic development services generally generated benefits that outweighed costs and recommended strengthening regional coordination, governance and investment arrangements.

Following the July 2017 Martin Jenkins review, a further service delivery review was completed in 2019. That review assessed alternative governance and delivery models and concluded that a strengthened regional economic development organisation remained the preferred approach due to the benefits of regional scale, capability, coordination and governance.

Subsequent Service Delivery Review 2019

A subsequent review of service delivery options concluded that a regional council-controlled organisation remained the preferred delivery model and would provide:

· Regional scale.

· Greater capability.

· Access to specialist expertise.

· Better investment attraction capability.

· Stronger government relationships.

· Improved coordination of priorities across councils.

Northland NZ Today

Northland NZ is the region's economic development agency (EDA) and regional tourism organisation (RTO). It evolved from Northland Inc and operates as a council-controlled organisation jointly owned by Northland Regional Council, Far North District Council, Whangārei District Council and Kaipara District Council. The organisation was established to provide a coordinated regional approach to economic development, tourism, investment attraction and strategic economic leadership across Te Tai Tokerau.

It works alongside local government, iwi, central government agencies, industry and community partners to support economic growth, improve productivity, attract investment, grow business capability and strengthen regional prosperity.

The organisation is governed by an independent Board and is accountable to its shareholder councils through an annual Statement of Intent (SOI), quarterly reporting requirements and oversight from the Joint Regional Economic Development Committee (JREDC). The JREDC was established under the Local Government Act 2002 and acts as the shared governance forum for regional economic development matters, including shareholder oversight of Northland NZ.

Northland NZ currently delivers activities across four strategic priority areas: Investment and Infrastructure, Primary Sector Development, Tourism and Destination Management, and Innovation and Enterprise. These activities are supported by Māori Economic Development, Advocacy and Brand, Environmental Sustainability, Partnerships, and Organisational Capability functions.

Northland NZ receives operational funding primarily through the Investment and Growth Reserve (IGR), a regionally administered fund supported by contributions from the four Northland councils. Additional funding is secured through central government programmes, project-specific contracts, commercial partnerships and externally funded initiatives. The Investment and Growth Reserve also provides funding for project development and enabling investment activities across the region.

Under the current shareholder arrangements, Far North District Council contributes funding annually to the Investment and Growth Reserve (IGR), which funds the activities of Northland NZ and approved regional economic development initiatives. Council's current projected contribution is $413,000 in 2025/26, increasing to $500,000 in 2026/27 and $513,000 in 2027/28 under the current funding model.

Northland NZ has also played a central role in the development of the Northland Regional Deal proposal. The proposal identifies four priority growth sectors—future energy, marine manufacturing, primary industry and the visitor economy—which together have the potential to generate an estimated $977 million of additional regional GDP, over 6,000 jobs and approximately $877 million in additional exports if supported by appropriate infrastructure investment and enabling policy settings.

Economic Development Context for the Far North

Recent regional analysis undertaken through the Northland Regional Deal work highlights that economic development remains a significant strategic priority for the Far North District.

While Northland's economy has grown over the past decade, structural challenges remain including lower productivity, lower household incomes, infrastructure constraints and comparatively high levels of deprivation.

At the same time, the Far North has demonstrated strong growth in economic activity, employment and exports, particularly in sectors such as tourism, primary industry and emerging renewable energy opportunities.

The Regional Deal work identifies significant opportunities associated with future energy, marine manufacturing, value-added primary production and tourism, all of which have direct relevance to the Far North District and support the strategic outcomes sought through Far North 2100.

From Activities to Outcomes

Recent work undertaken through the Northland Regional Deal and the GDP Targeting and Augmentation Model (GTAM) signals a shift in thinking about economic development.

Historically, economic development investment has often focused on funding organisations, programmes and activities. GTAM instead focuses on identifying the initiatives, investments and interventions most likely to improve productivity, increase household incomes, stimulate business growth, attract investment and create quality employment opportunities.

Under this approach, the primary question becomes:

What economic outcomes does the Far North wish to achieve, and what investment framework, partnerships and delivery model are best placed to achieve them?

This provides a stronger basis for assessing future investment decisions through the Long Term Plan 2027–2037 process and aligns investment decisions with measurable economic outcomes rather than organisational structures alone.

Timing and Long Term Plan Alignment

The review of economic development investment is being undertaken alongside development of the Long Term Plan 2027–2037 and the Northland NZ Statement of Intent (SOI) process for 2027/28. This provides Council with an opportunity to consider future economic development outcomes, delivery models and funding arrangements alongside other LTP priorities.

Timing	Activity
July–August 2026	Council confirms scope of economic development review and desired outcomes.
July–September 2026	LTP strategic direction and service review discussions with elected members.
August–October 2026	Development of economic development options, delivery models and funding scenarios.
September 2026	JREDC considers shareholder expectations for the Northland NZ 2027/28 SOI.
October–December 2026	Assessment of options, costs, benefits and alignment with desired economic outcomes.
December 2026	Shareholder Letter of Expectations issued to Northland NZ.
Late 2026	Council workshop on economic development outcomes and future delivery options.
January 2027	Draft Northland NZ SOI received.
February–March 2027	Council and JREDC consider draft SOI and provide feedback.
Early 2027	Preferred approach included within Draft LTP material.
March–April 2027	Draft LTP consultation.
April 2027	Shareholder comments provided to Northland NZ.
May 2027	Final Northland NZ SOI received.
May–June 2027	LTP deliberations and adoption.
July 2027 onwards	Implementation of Council's adopted economic development investment and delivery approach.

The review proposed in this paper provides Council with an opportunity to determine:

• the economic outcomes it wishes to prioritise;

• which activities are best delivered regionally;

• where stronger district-level capability may be required;

• whether there are gaps in the current delivery model; and

• which initiatives are likely to generate the greatest economic return for the Far North.

The review should therefore consider not only institutional arrangements, but also how future investment can be directed toward high-impact initiatives that support productivity growth, business development, workforce capability, infrastructure-enabled growth and Māori economic development.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Why Review Economic Development Now?

The LTP 2027–2037 process provides the appropriate mechanism to consider:

· Future levels of investment.

· Desired outcomes.

· Service delivery models.

· Relationship with Northland NZ.

· Internal resourcing requirements.

· Alignment with emerging regional and local government reform.

Economic development funding currently sits alongside numerous competing priorities including infrastructure, climate adaptation, growth management and community services.

Council must determine the value it wishes to place on:

· Business growth.

· Employment outcomes.

· Inward investment.

· Tourism development.

· Workforce development.

· Māori economic development.

· Regional influence and advocacy.

Strategic Alignment

Future economic development investment aligns with:

· Far North 2100.

· Community wellbeing outcomes.

· Emerging LTP 2027–2037 outcomes.

· Te Rerenga.

· Regional Deal opportunities.

· Economic resilience and productivity goals.

Investment Considerations

Regardless of the delivery model ultimately adopted, future economic development investment will need to consider:

· priority initiatives capable of improving productivity and economic output;

· opportunities identified through the Regional Deal programme;

· enabling infrastructure requirements;

· workforce and skills development initiatives;

· Māori economic development opportunities;

· tourism and visitor economy growth opportunities; and

· investment attraction and business growth initiatives.

The Long Term Plan process provides an opportunity to determine the level of investment Council wishes to make toward these outcomes and the delivery model best placed to support them.

The following list of options are proposed for consideration through the LTP process as the basis of future economic delivery models.

Option 1 – Status Quo

Continue participation in the current regional model and maintain investment in Northland NZ through existing shareholder arrangements, the Investment and Growth Reserve (IGR), and the annual Statement of Intent process.

Advantages

· Lowest implementation cost.

· Maintains established regional partnerships.

· Retains regional capability and economies of scale.

· Avoids disruption to existing programmes.

· Continues access to specialist expertise and investment attraction capability.

· Supports continuation of Regional Deal and regional advocacy initiatives.

Disadvantages

· Limited ability to address district-specific priorities.

· Dependence on regional prioritisation processes.

· Limited local economic development capacity.

· May not fully address emerging Far North opportunities.

Option 2 – Regional Model Plus Enhanced Local Capability

Retain participation in Northland NZ while investing in additional district-level economic development capability to address local priorities and project development opportunities.

Advantages

· Retains regional benefits and economies of scale.

· Improves Council's ability to pursue local priorities.

· Supports project development and investment attraction.

· Better alignment between regional and local initiatives.

· Greater responsiveness to local opportunities.

· Enables targeted investment into initiatives identified through GTAM and Regional Deal analysis.

· Retains access to regional capability while strengthening local project development and delivery capacity.

· Supports a dual focus on regional collaboration and place-based economic development outcomes.

Disadvantages

· Requires additional operational funding.

· Potential overlap between regional and district activities.

· Requires clear role definition and governance arrangements.

· More complex operating model.

Option 3 – Full Internal Delivery

Bring all economic development activities currently delivered through Northland NZ into Council and cease reliance on the regional model.

Advantages

· Complete local control.

· Full alignment with Council priorities.

· Direct accountability to Council.

· Greater flexibility in resource allocation.

Disadvantages

· Significant establishment costs.

· Loss of regional scale and capability.

· Reduced access to regional networks.

· Potential duplication with neighbouring councils.

· Reduced influence in regional initiatives.

· Increased organisational risk.

Option 4 – Full Internal Delivery Plus Enhanced Capability

Bring all current Northland NZ functions into Council and invest further in economic development capability to support economic growth, project development, investment attraction and strategic partnerships.

Advantages

· Maximum local control and influence.

· Strong alignment with district priorities.

· Opportunity to create a dedicated Far North economic development function.

· Potential for stronger local project pipeline development.

· Enables direct prioritisation and funding of local economic growth initiatives identified through GTAM and future economic development planning.

Disadvantages

· Highest cost option.

· Significant staffing and resource requirements.

· Loss of regional efficiencies.

· Increased organisational and financial risk.

· May duplicate capabilities already available elsewhere.

· Greater risk that regional collaboration opportunities, economies of scale and regional investment attraction capability could be diminished.

Option 5 – Reduced Investment Model

Bring economic development functions in-house but reduce overall investment in economic development to minimise cost pressures and support ratepayer affordability.

Advantages

· Lower overall expenditure.

· Potentially supports rate affordability objectives.

· Retains local control over investment priorities.

Disadvantages

· Reduced economic development capability.

· Reduced ability to attract external investment.

· Lower project development and advocacy capacity.

· Greater reliance on opportunistic rather than strategic activity.

· Potential loss of long-term economic opportunities.

Option 6 – Exit Economic Development Investment

Discontinue investment in economic development activities and exit funding arrangements associated with Northland NZ and the Investment and Growth Reserve.

Advantages

· Lowest direct financial cost.

· Reduces Council expenditure commitments.

Disadvantages

· Loss of regional economic development capability.

· Reduced influence over regional economic priorities.

· Reduced access to investment attraction, business support and project development activities.

· Potential loss of Regional Deal and strategic partnership opportunities.

· Reduced ability to proactively influence economic outcomes.

· Inconsistent with Far North 2100 objectives and Council's broader wellbeing responsibilities.

· Economic development activity would still occur but with limited Council influence over priorities or outcomes.

Economic Development Review and LTP Alignment

The review of economic development investment is being undertaken alongside development of the Long Term Plan 2027–2037 and the Northland NZ Statement of Intent (SOI) process. This enables Council to consider future economic development outcomes, delivery models and funding arrangements alongside other LTP priorities.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The Long Term Plan 2027–2037 provides the appropriate mechanism for Council to consider the future role, investment and delivery of economic development activities. The recommendation does not predetermine a preferred option. Rather, it enables Council to undertake a structured assessment of future economic development outcomes, investment priorities, service delivery models and funding requirements before making decisions through the LTP process. The approach aligns with Far North 2100, the Northland Regional Deal programme and emerging GTAM work which emphasises investment in initiatives capable of improving productivity, economic resilience and long-term prosperity.

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

No additional funding is sought through this report.

However, Council currently has projected contributions to the Investment and Growth Reserve of:

· $413,000 in 2025/26;

· $500,000 in 2026/27; and

· $513,000 in 2027/28.

These contributions support Northland NZ and other approved regional economic development activities under the current shareholder arrangements. Future funding requirements will depend on Council's preferred economic development outcomes, investment priorities and delivery model, and will be considered through the Long Term Plan 2027–2037 process.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Far North 2100 - A5859301 ⇩

2. Martin Jenkins - Review of Economic Development 2017 - A5859303 ⇩

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	Low This report does not seek a decision on a preferred economic development investment model, funding level or service delivery arrangement. Rather, it seeks Council direction that future economic development investment and resourcing options be developed for consideration through the Long Term Plan 2027–2037 process. Any future funding and service level decisions would be subject to further Council consideration and community consultation through the Long Term Plan process.
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 aligns with: · Far North 2100 and its vision of He Whenua Rangatira – a district of sustainable prosperity and wellbeing. · The economic prosperity and wellbeing outcomes identified within Far North 2100. · The Local Government Act 2002, including Council's purpose to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future. · Te Rerenga – Northland Economic Development Strategy. · The development of the Long Term Plan 2027–2037 and associated strategic planning processes. · The Northland Regional Deal proposal and associated economic growth opportunities identified for Te Tai Tokerau
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 matter has district-wide relevance as it relates to potential future economic development investment, service delivery and economic outcomes across the Far North District. No Community Board consultation has been undertaken at this stage as the report does not seek a substantive decision on future service delivery arrangements or funding levels. Any future proposals requiring community input would be considered through the Long Term Plan 2027–2037 consultation process.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	· The report does not relate to land, water or statutory decision-making affecting Māori interests. However, economic development outcomes are of significance to Māori as partners in economic development, major landowners, investors, employers and contributors to regional prosperity. · The report recognises the importance of Māori economic development and notes that this is currently a component of the Northland NZ activity framework. Any future assessment of economic development investment and service delivery options will consider opportunities to support Māori economic aspirations and will be informed by engagement with iwi, hapū, Māori organisations and Post Settlement Governance Entities where appropriate. · The report is consistent with Council's commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi through supporting inclusive economic development and recognising the contribution of Māori to the economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of the district.
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).	Parties with an interest in this matter include: · Residents and ratepayers of the Far North District. · Businesses and industry groups. · Iwi, hapū and Māori organisations. · Northland NZ. · Northland Regional Council, Whangārei District Council and Kaipara District Council. · Central government agencies and economic development partners. · Community organisations and social sector partners.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	No additional funding is sought through this report. Council currently contributes to the Investment and Growth Reserve (IGR), which supports Northland NZ and approved regional economic development initiatives. Current projected contributions are: · $413,000 in 2025/26; · $500,000 in 2026/27; and · $513,000 in 2027/28. Future investment requirements will depend on Council's preferred economic development outcomes, investment priorities and service delivery model and will be considered through the Long Term Plan 2027–2037 process.
Chief Financial Officer review.	Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

7.3 Unbudgeted Capital Funding - Audio System Upgrades

File Number: A5837747

Author: Ruben Garcia, Group Manager - Community and Engagement

Authoriser: Ken Macdonald, Chief Financial Officer

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To obtain Council approval for unbudgeted capital expenditure to resolve audio amplification and livestream audio quality issues in Council Chambers and remote meeting locations, including at Te Ahu and the Turner Centre, to support effective public meeting participation and transparency.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· This report seeks Council approval for unbudgeted capital expenditure of up to $200,000, not to exceed $200,000, in 2026/27 to address ongoing audio issues affecting public meetings.

· Regular concerns and complaints have been received regarding poor audio quality, including in-room amplification and the quality of audio captured for livestreams and meeting recordings.

· The current ceiling-mounted microphone panel system in Council Chambers is no longer fit for purpose. It does not directly capture individual speakers and is affected by distance, room acoustics, background noise, and amplification feedback.

· Recent changes to the Council Chambers meeting layout have further reduced the effectiveness of the existing microphone panels, which are hard fixed and were designed for a previous room configuration.

· Remote meeting locations, including at Te Ahu and the Turner Centre, also experience audio quality limitations, primarily due to reliance on webcam-based audio pickup that is not suitable for larger formal public meeting environments.

· The recommended solution is a standardised microphone base unit and long gooseneck microphone system, consistent with established practice in mature councils in New Zealand and internationally.

· The proposed system will improve direct voice pickup, in-room amplification, livestream and recording quality, remote participation, public accessibility, and overall meeting facilitation.

· The solution also provides additional functionality, including request-to-speak and speaker queuing features, and is scalable for future enhancements such as electronic voting and translation.

· The recommended investment will provide a durable, fit-for-purpose, and future-ready solution that supports transparent, accessible, and effective Council decision-making.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council approve unbudgeted capital expenditure for 2026/27 of up to $200,000, not to exceed $200,000, to address audio amplification and livestream audio quality issues in Council Chambers and remote meeting locations, including at Te Ahu and the Turner Centre.

1) Tāhuhu Kōrero / Background

Council has received regular and ongoing complaints regarding audio quality during public meetings. These concerns relate to both in-room audio amplification and the quality of audio captured for livestreams and meeting recordings.

The current ceiling-mounted microphone panel system in Council Chambers is no longer considered fit for purpose. The system relies on microphones fixed overhead, at a distance from elected members, staff, and public speakers. This creates technical challenges with voice pickup, particularly where speakers are not directly beneath the panels or where room acoustics affect sound clarity.

The ceiling panels do not directly isolate individual voices. Instead, they capture a broad range of room sound, including background noise, movement, paper shuffling, side conversations, and general room reverberation. This creates an imbalanced signal-to-noise ratio, which reduces speech clarity and directly affects both in-room amplification and the quality of livestreamed and recorded meetings.

The effectiveness of the system has been further reduced by recent changes to the room layout for public meetings. The ceiling-mounted microphone panels are hard fixed and were designed around a previous room configuration. As a result, they are no longer positioned to maximise audio pickup from the current seating and speaking locations.

Audio quality issues also exist at remote meeting locations, including at Te Ahu and the Turner Centre, although the cause is more limited than in Council Chambers. At these locations, audio capture is currently reliant on webcam-based microphone pickup, which is not designed for formal public meetings involving multiple speakers across a larger room. This limits the ability to clearly capture voices, particularly where speakers are positioned away from the webcam, and can result in poor audio quality for remote participants, livestreams, and meeting recordings.

This report is required now to seek approval for unbudgeted capital expenditure to address the identified audio issues and improve the quality, accessibility, and transparency of Council’s public meetings, whether attended in person, viewed by livestream, or accessed through meeting recordings.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The recommended course of action is to replace the current audio capture arrangements with a standardised microphone and base unit system suitable for formal public meetings.

This type of system is a well-established solution used by mature councils in New Zealand and internationally (see attached list of Councils using this type of solution). It involves individual microphone base units at each seated position, with long gooseneck microphones positioned close to each speaker. This allows the system to directly capture the voice of the intended speaker, rather than relying on distant overhead microphones or webcam-based audio pickup.

A base and microphone system would improve both in-room amplification and the quality of audio provided to livestreams and meeting recordings. It would also support clearer participation by elected members, staff, submitters, remote participants, media, and members of the public.

The proposed solution is consistent with the type of meeting audio system used by councils of a similar size and scale, including Whangārei District Council. It reflects a standard approach for formal decision-making environments where clear speech capture, reliable amplification, and high-quality public meeting records are required.

Option 1: Status quo

Council could choose to retain the current audio arrangements, including the ceiling-mounted microphone panels in Council Chambers and webcam-based audio pickup at remote meeting locations.

This option is not recommended. It would not address the ongoing complaints about poor audio quality and would continue to affect in-room participants, livestream viewers, and those accessing meeting recordings. It also risks further reputational damage, particularly where members of the public are unable to clearly hear or understand Council debate and decision-making.

There is no immediate capital cost associated with this option; however, the underlying issues would remain unresolved.

Option 2: Minor adjustments to the current system

Council could make minor adjustments to the existing equipment, such as retuning the current audio system, repositioning available equipment where possible, or continuing to rely on existing webcam-based audio at remote locations.

This option is also not recommended. While minor improvements may be possible, they would not address the root cause of the issue. The current ceiling-mounted panels are hard fixed, positioned for a previous room layout, and do not provide direct voice pickup from individual speakers. Similarly, webcam microphones are not suitable for larger public meeting spaces with multiple speakers.

This option may involve lower immediate cost but would provide limited benefit and would not represent good long-term value.

Option 3: Preferred option - standardised microphone and base unit system

The preferred option is to implement a standardised microphone and base unit solution for Council Chambers and appropriate audio capture improvements for remote meeting locations, including Te Ahu and the Turner Centre.

This would include tabletop microphone base units and long gooseneck microphones at key speaking positions to ensure direct voice pickup. The system would be integrated with existing audio-visual, livestreaming, and recording systems to improve sound quality across all public meeting outputs.

In addition to improved audio quality, the proposed system provides a request-to-speak function. This allows elected members and other meeting participants to indicate when they wish to speak, supporting clearer speaker queuing and improved meeting facilitation by the Chair. The base unit touchscreen can also display relevant speaker order information, helping manage debate and discussion more effectively during formal meetings.

The proposed solution is also scalable. While the immediate need is to resolve audio quality issues, the system can be expanded or upgraded in future to support additional functionality, such as electronic voting and translation features. This means the investment is not limited to meeting today’s operational needs but also provides a platform that can support future improvements to Council meeting management, accessibility, and participation.

The benefits of this option include:

· clearer voice pickup from individual speakers;

· improved in-room audio amplification;

· improved livestream and recording quality;

· reduced background noise and room echo;

· better support for remote participation;

· improved accessibility for the public;

· request-to-speak functionality to support speaker queuing and meeting facilitation;

· touchscreen display of relevant speaker order information;

· a scalable platform that can support future upgrades, including voting and translation functionality;

· a more professional and reliable meeting environment;

· reduced reliance on unsuitable overhead or webcam-based microphones; and

· a standardised solution consistent with other council chambers and formal public meeting environments.

This option is recommended because it directly addresses the cause of the current audio issues and provides a durable, fit-for-purpose, and future-ready solution for Council’s public meetings.

The solution currently being considered is the DICENTIS Wireless Conference System. This system provides wireless microphone base units, long gooseneck microphones, request-to-speak functionality, speaker order display, and integration capability with existing audio-visual, livestreaming, and recording systems.

Further information is provided in Attachment 1, DICENTIS Wireless Conference System Product Brochure. Attachment 2, DICENTIS Wireless Conference System Installations in New Zealand, provides examples of councils and public sector meeting environments in New Zealand that have installed this same solution as their audio microphone system.

Risk and mitigations

The key risk of not proceeding is that poor audio quality will continue to affect public meetings, livestreams, and recordings. This may reduce public confidence, create frustration for elected members and staff, and limit the ability of the public to follow Council decision-making.

There is also a risk that minor or temporary fixes will not resolve the issue and may result in further cost without delivering a durable solution.

These risks are mitigated by approving a fit-for-purpose, standardised audio solution that is designed for formal meeting environments and integrated with Council’s existing livestreaming and recording systems.

Costs of each option

Option 1, the status quo, has no immediate capital cost but does not resolve the issue.

Option 2, minor adjustments to the current system, may involve some operational or minor capital cost but is unlikely to provide a reliable or long-term solution.

Option 3, the preferred option, requires unbudgeted capital expenditure of up to $200,000, not to exceed $200,000. Final costs will be confirmed through procurement, detailed design, and implementation planning.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommended option provides the most effective and enduring response to the audio issues currently affecting Council meetings. It addresses the core problem by replacing unsuitable audio pickup arrangements with a fit-for-purpose system designed for formal meeting environments. This will improve sound amplification in the room, enhance the quality of livestreams and recordings, support better meeting facilitation, and provide a scalable platform for future meeting technology needs.

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

This report seeks approval for unbudgeted capital expenditure in 2026/27 of up to $200,000, not to exceed $200,000, to address audio amplification and livestream audio quality issues in Council Chambers and remote meeting locations.

As this is an unbudgeted capital funding request exceeding $100,000, Council approval is required before the expenditure can proceed.

Indicative pricing estimates the proposed solution will cost between $175,000 and $200,000, GST inclusive. This estimate includes equipment, installation, and integration with Council’s existing audio-visual, livestreaming, and recording systems.

No further ongoing operational costs are anticipated as part of the proposed solution, aside from normal asset maintenance and support that would be managed within existing operational arrangements.

Funding source and general rates impact

The Finance Team has reviewed this proposal and has confirmed that, if approved, the unbudgeted capital expenditure will be loan funded.

Finance has calculated the indicative first-year rates impact based on the maximum capital expenditure request of $200,000.

The calculation assumes annual depreciation over a seven-year asset life of $28,571.43 and interest at 4.27% of $8,540. This results in an estimated total first-year cost of $37,111.43, or $42,678.14 GST inclusive.

Based on the rates impact calculation provided by Finance, the estimated first-year general rates impact is $0.24 per $100,000 of land value for ratepayers in the general differential. The estimated impact is $0.66 per $100,000 of land value for the commercial/industrial differential, and $0.12 per $100,000 of land value for the 50% land differential.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Attachment A - Commercial Brochure Dicentis Wireless Solution - A5841153 ⇩

2. Attachment B - DICENTIS Wireless Conference System Installations - A5841154 ⇩

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	Low. The decision is not considered significant under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The proposal does not alter Council’s strategic direction, change levels of service in a material way, or involve the transfer of ownership or control of a strategic asset. Formal public consultation is not considered necessary. The proposal responds to known and recurring complaints regarding audio quality and is intended to improve public access to Council meetings.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Council decision-making is required to be undertaken in a manner that supports transparency, good information, and effective public participation. Public meetings are a core part of Council’s democratic decision-making process, and the ability for people to hear and understand proceedings is fundamental to that process. Improving audio quality supports the intent of open and transparent local government by ensuring meetings can be followed by people attending in person, participating remotely, watching livestreams, or accessing recordings after the meeting. The recommended option supports Council’s commitment to transparency, accessibility, and effective governance. Reliable audio is an essential operational requirement for public meetings, particularly where meetings are livestreamed and recorded for public access. The proposed investment also supports a more consistent and professional meeting experience across Council Chambers and remote meeting locations.
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.	Audio feedback concerns and complaints from the public are regularly received in relation to both Council meetings and Community Board meetings hosted at remote locations. The issue therefore has district-wide relevance.
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 specific implications for Māori in relation to land, water, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna, or other taonga. However, improving the quality of public meeting audio will support better access to Council decision-making for all communities, including iwi, hapū, Māori communities, and Māori representatives participating in or observing Council meetings.
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).	Persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in this matter include all participants and audiences of public meetings, including elected members, staff, presenters, submitters, media, members of the public attending in person, and online audiences viewing livestreams or recordings. Consideration has been given to the need for all audiences, including youth, older people, and people with disabilities, to clearly hear and follow public meeting proceedings.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Details included in Section 3 of the report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

7.4 Decision on the Installation of a Memorial Seat for Stanley Julian at Taipa Beachfront

File Number: A5667986

Author: Mark Inglis, Facilties Lead - Technical Operations

Authoriser: Hilary Sumpter, Group Manager - Delivery and Operations

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek a decision on the installation of a memorial seat for Stanley Julian at Taipa beachfront.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· This report considers the implications of approving a memorial seat requested for Stanely Julian on the Taipa beachfront.

· The report addresses the issues of compliance with Far North District Council policy, affected parties, risks and mitigations, implications for Māori and estimated costs to Council.

· The proposal was considered by the Te Hiku Community Board at its meeting on 16 December 2025. The Board supported the application subject to hapū consultation.

· The results of hapū consultation were communicated to Council on 23 March 2026. Matakairiri te Hapū declined the proposal.

· The proposal is considered under the 2017 Arts and Memorials in Public Places policy.

· Since the purchase and installation of the memorial seat would be borne by the applicant, and ongoing maintenance costs of low value, the financial implications of this proposal are minor.

· The report recommends that the application be DECLINED.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council decline the proposal from the Julian family for the installation of a memorial seat for Stanley Julian, on the Taipa beachfront (Parcel ID LINZ/FNDC: 5231365) at the position indicated in Attachment B of this agenda report.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The family of Stanley Julian has applied to the Board to install a memorial seat on the beachfront at Taipa Beach. Stanley was a respected member of the Taipa community who had lived in Taipa for over 50 years. He passed away earlier this year. The seat is a gift he would have wished to donate and share with fellow beach users. The application is included as Attachment A to this agenda report.

The family requests that the seat be located on the foreshore of the Taipa beachfront in the position indicated the map detailed in Attachment B of this agenda report.

The proposed seat would be shaded by a pohutukawa tree but would not be close enough to interfere with its roots. There are no underground cables in the vicinity. The Roading Team has checked the proposal and notes the placement of the seat will not interfere with any road users or pedestrians.

The seat would be a simple bench design with no back, 1500mm long x 300mm wide x 100mm thick of macrocarpa, or similar, with rounded corners for safety, fixed onto two legs and concreted into the ground. There will be a small plaque attached of durable metal. The family will be donating and installing the bench-seat, to FNDC specifications.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

In considering this request, the following issues need to be addressed

· Far North District Council Policy – Council has current policy entitled - “Art and Memorials in Public Places 2017”, which is included in this agenda report as Attachment B. The relevant elements of the policy are considered below:

o Contribution to community wellbeing - one of the objectives of the policy is to recognise members of the community who have contributed to the wellbeing of the people within their area or the district. The proposal meets this objective.

o Community involvement – the policy states that there should be community involvement in decision-making about any proposed memorial. Given that the scale of this proposal is minor, it would be unnecessary to undertake a community consultation on the matter.

o Contribution to the identity of the area – the design of the proposed seat is consistent with the beachfront character of the area.

o Durable, easy to maintain and of good quality materials – the proposed seat is of similar durability and materials as the existing seats in the area.

o Comply with standards relating to design and colour – any approval would be subject to providing a compatible seat, consistent with those already in place.

o Enhance the public space – the additional seat and style of the unit would enhance the park by providing improved public amenity.

o Become Council property – the seat would become a Council asset.

· Community Board Recommendation – the board considered the proposal at its meeting on 16 December 2026 and approved the request, subject to approval by hapū/iwi on the design and location of the seat as per the resolution below:

Resolution 2025/1

That the Te Hiku Community Board approve the installation of a memorial seat for Stanley Julian on the Tāipa beachfront.

carried

Note: That Te Hiku Community Board approves the installation of a memorial seat for Stanley Julian on the Tāipa beachfront subject to written confirmation being received that local hapū/iwi approved the design and location of seat.

· Implications for Māori – the local hapū, Matakairiri te Hapū, was consulted and has declined the proposal using two main criteria when considering such requests:

o Where is the individual from?

o What did they contribute to the community?

Hapū stated that “Any foreshore development must have a close relationship with Ngati Kahū and the haukainga hapū of Maheatai – Matakairiri.”

In this instance Hapū decided that there was not sufficient closeness in the relationship with Ngati Kahu and Matakairiri.

· Affected and Interested Parties:

o Matakariki is mana whenua of this land and the key interested party. The hapū states that Meahetai/Taipā is culturally significant to Ngati Kahu, as it is the cradle of the Uri (descendants) of Ngati Kahu. It is critical that Council considers carefully the views of the hapū on this matter.

o In terms of other affected parties, it is unlikely that the loss of a small vacant section of the reserve would impact on members of the community.

· Risks and Mitigations – there is a risk of damage to the seat through graffiti or physical force. This would create addition work and cost for the FNDC District Facilities Team. Any damage would be funded through existing operational expenditure for Parks and Recreation. At the end of the life cycle of the asset, Council will also need to consider replacement or removal of the asset, which would become an additional cost. The current replacement cost is approximately $1,000.00 (excl. gst) including installation.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Since the proposal was declined by Matakairiri te Hapū, it is recommended that the proposal be declined.

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

The cost of the seat, and its installation, will be borne by the applicant, so there is no initial cost to Council for the asset. Operational expenditure for repairs and maintenance is estimated at no more than $200/annum over the 20-year lifecycle of the seat.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Attachment A - Application for memorial seat for Stanley Julian - A5504241 ⇩

2. Attachment B - Proposed location memorial seat Stanley Julian on Foreshore Road Taipa - A5668354 ⇩

3. Attachment C - Art-and-Memorials-in-Public-Places-2017. - A5668385 ⇩

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 establishment of a memorial seat for a notable member of the community is of significance, however since the value of the seat is modest, and proposed location uncontentious, the relative level of significance is low.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	This proposal is consistent with the principles and objectives of the following policy: https://www.fndc.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/18094/Art-and-Memorials-in-Public-Places-2017..pdf
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.	Community Boards are delegated to recommend to Council, the installation of works of art and memorials within their ward or subdivision. The board considered the proposal at its meeting on 16 December 2025 and approved the application subject to iwi/hapu approval of seat design and location.
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.	Matakairiri. - haukainga hapū of Maheatai, was consulted on this matter. The hapū representative was Trudy Allen in her role as Taipā Marae Enviro Kaitiaki. She is well versed in the issues facing this area, as she is the hapū representative working on the FNDC foreshore redevelopment project in Taipa. FNDC will continue to consult with Matakairiri on matters concerning this area.
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).	Matakariri is the key affected party which does not approve this proposal to proceed on their whenua, therefore a decline is recommended. For other parties who use the reserve, impacts would not be material.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Since the purchase and installation of the memorial seat is borne by the applicant and ongoing maintenance costs are likely to be low, the financial implications of this proposal are minor.
Chief Financial Officer review.	Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

7.6 Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 Amendments - Submission Analysis and Adoption report

File Number: A5864316

Author: Virginia Smith, Policy Advisor

Authoriser: Kate Ivicheva, Group Manager - Planning & Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek recommendation to Council for adoption of amendments to the Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Operational testing of the implementation of the Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy (Policy) identified that amendments were required to address three matters:

o The reconsideration process

o Credit and terminology issues in clauses 17.8, 18.1 and 18.8; and

o Minor technical corrections

· On 13 May 2026, Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation approved proposed amendments for consultation (resolution 2026/22, refers).^{^[1]}

· The amendments do not change the underlying charging methodology, schedule of fees, or core policy settings previously consulted on and adopted

· Consultation on the proposed amendments to the Policy (attachment 02) took place from 18 May 2026 to 8 June 2026

· 25 submissions were received. 4 were out of scope. Of the 21 in-scope submissions, the majority supported the proposed amendments

· Staff analysis concludes that no further drafting changes are required to the proposed amendments

· The recommendation is to adopt the proposed amending Policy in attachment 03 and delegate reconsideration panel membership selection to the Chief Executive.

· On 8 July 2026 Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation meeting recommended that council adopt the proposed amendments.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) Receive the Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 Amendments – Submissions Analysis Report in Attachment 1.

b) Adopt the proposed amendments to the Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 in Attachment 2

c) Resolves to commence the amended Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 on 27 July 2026.

d) Delegates to the Chief Executive the selection of the membership of the reconsideration panel, from suitably delegated officers, for the purposes of clause 28 of the amended Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025.

e) Authorise the Chief Executive to make any necessary minor drafting or presentations to the Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 to correct any errors or omissions, or to reflect the decisions made by Council.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Council adopted the Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Policy) on 7 October 2025, with the commencement date originally delayed to May 2026 (2025/136, refers). Council later resolved to move the commencement date to 1 July 2026 at its Council meeting held on 1 April 2026.

Implementation work began in November 2025. Through internal feedback, public enquiries, and operational testing, staff identified non-material changes that would make the Policy operate more efficiently and effectively. These changes were scheduled to occur at the next Policy review date.

Due to a legal compliance risk identified during the operational testing phase regarding the statutory decision timeframe for reconsideration applications, this amendment process was triggered, and all non-material changes were incorporated.

Council have completed consultation and met its legal obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). The submission analysis supports adoption of the amendments as consulted on, without further change. It is now enabled to determine whether to adopt the proposed amendments.

Date	Event
7 October 2025	Council adopted the Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 and delayed commencement to May 2026 (resolution ref 2025/136).
24 November 2025	Operational implementation planning began, covering process design, governance, communications, and systems.
1 April 2026	Council considered the operational implementation status update report and moved the commencement date to 1 July 2026. Policy amendment process activated.
13 May 2026	Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation approved the proposed amendments for consultation.
18 May 2026 – 8 June 2026	Public consultation was undertaken under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 25 submissions received No verbal submissions requested 4 submissions out of scope.
June 2026	Staff completed the submission analysis report and provided the amended Policy for decision.
8 July 2026	Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation Meeting – Submissions Analysis Report and amended Policy endorsed the report and attachments for to progress to Council for consideration and adoption decision.
22 July 2026	Submissions Analysis Report, amended Policy report and attachments for Council consideration and adoption decision.

At the 8 July 2026 Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation Meeting^{^[2]} Committee members raised questions about the membership of the Reconsideration Panel (Panel). Staff advised that the Panel would comprise of subject matter experts from the Infrastructure, Building Consents, Resource Consents, Finance and Policy teams.

In response to this matter, and to other feedback received at the meeting, staff will be presenting a briefing report to a future Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation meeting. The briefing report will address the Panel’s membership selection process, terms of reference, and reporting arrangements to support governance oversight.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Submission Findings

Twenty-Five submissions were received on the proposed amendments (Attachment 2). 4 submissions were assessed as out of scope because they addressed wider issues about development contributions rather than specific amendments consulted on.

Of the twenty-one in scope submissions,

· 15 supported the proposed amendments,

· 3 did not support one or more amendments and/or proposed changes, while

· 3 opposed the proposal to amend the policy altogether.

The majority of submissions support proceeding with the proposed amendments, with the strongest feedback focussing on how the delegated reconsideration panel should operate in practice; however, no submission identified any alternative process that will resolve the statutory time frame issue.

The submission analysis concludes that the balance of feedback supports proceeding with the amendment as consulted on.

Reconsideration process

The key legal and operational issues are that the current clause 28.3 requires reconsiderations^{^[3]} to go to a public Council meeting, yet the LGA requires that reconsideration decisions be notified within 15 working days. The Supporting Report presented to the 13 May 2026 Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation Meeting^{^[4]} identifies that ordinary Council meeting cycles, agenda lead-in times, and public notice requirements would often exceed that period.

Attachment 3 replaces that pathway with a panel of three suitably delegated officers, with discretion to refer significant matters to a commissioner, and a requirement to provide written advice on objection rights. This change preserves the right to seek reconsideration and objection, while making the process sustainable and workable in practice.

The submission analysis (Attachment 1) recommends retaining this amendment unchanged. It also notes that submitter concerns about safeguards are best addressed through implementation tools such as delegations, procedures, guidance, conflict management, and reporting, rather than further policy drafting.

Delegating membership to the Chief Executive is consistent with that approach. It allows the panel to be formed from suitably delegated officers with the right skills and availability to meet statutory timeframes, while keeping the policy wording unchanged.

Referring reconsiderations to a panel of delegated officers is consistent with the approach taken by other councils, including Whangārei, Kaipara, and Auckland Councils.

Credit provisions

The proposed amendments to clauses 17.8.a.iv, 18.1.b, 18.8.a and 18.8.b improve clarity and fairness in how credits are recognised. They separate HUE calculation from credit allocation, align terminology, strengthen cross-references, and recognise section 224(c) certificates issued before 1 July 2026 where title registration is delayed by Land Information New Zealand.

The Supporting Report^{^[5]} explains that these changes are intended to avoid inequity where developers have completed the Council approval process, but title registration is delayed for reasons outside their control. The amended policy text in Attachment 3 reflects that approach by extending historical credit recognition to allotments with either a registered title or a section 224(c) certificate issued before 1 July 2026.

Submission feedback supported retaining these amendments as drafted. The analysis found no drafting defect or new issue that would justify changing the proposed wording after consultation.

Technical corrections

The proposed technical amendments correct grammar, spelling, duplicated wording, headings, and cross references. The Submission Analysis (Attachment 1) reiterates the Supporting Report conclusion that these amendments are low-risk and high-value because they improve clarity, consistency, transparency, and legal defensibility without changing the underlying charging intent.

Attachment 3 incorporates these amendments into the full amended Policy text. Adopting the amendments without further change will ensure that the operative clauses, schedules, methodology, and explanatory material read as one coherent framework.

Legislative Compliance to support Policy amendment

The Policy is adopted and amended under the LGA. Sections 102(4)(b) of the LGA allows Council to amend the Policy at any time, provided it has first consulted on the proposed amendments in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 LGA.

LGA Section	Policy Requirement	Amendment Compliance
s102(4)(b)	Amending funding and financial policies	Enables Council to amend its financial policies adopted under section 101(2) LGA
S82 as directed by s102(4)(b)	Compliance with the principles of consultation and information requirements for public consultation when amending funding and financial policies	Enables Council’s discretion to ensure efficient use of Council resources. Considerations when using discretion: • known community views, • ability for public to provide their views • prudent use of Council resources • significance of decision in alignment with its significance and engagement policy • engagement material is clear about the scope of the consultation and feedback sought
s197AB(c)	Transparency	Enhanced cross-referencing and clear exceptions
s197AB(d)	Fairness and equity	Parallel treatment of residential and non-residential
s106(2)	Methodology clarity	Separation of HUE calculation from credit assessment
s199A	Reconsideration grounds	Reduced ambiguity minimises incorrect assessments
Schedule 13, Clause 2	Units of demand	Clear linkage between credits and demand factors

Risks and mitigations

The primary risk of not adopting the amendments is that clause 28.3 of the Policy will remain operationally unworkable, exposing Council to avoidable legal and service risks. This includes the risk that reconsideration decisions are not made within statutory timeframes, or that Council must rely on unsustainable Extraordinary Council Meetings to maintain legal compliance.

A smaller reputational risk remains that some stakeholders may perceive the amendments as a policy shift, even though the reports describe them as non-material changes that provide operational improvements and better usability. This risk is best managed through clear communication, transparent implementation, and written reasons for reconsideration decisions.

Options

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

1. Adopt the proposed amendments without further changes and delegate panel membership selection to the Chief Executive

· Consistent with previous Council decisions

· Consistent with submission analysis

· Resolves statutory workability issue

· Improves fairness and clarity

· Avoids reopening consultation

· Supports timely and efficient implementation

· Most cost-effective option

· Strongest alignment with LTP outcomes

· Council staff are currently developing Panel safeguards. processes and supporting material to address the concerns raised through the submissions.

· None identified

2. Do not adopt the amendments and retain the current version of the adopted Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 as adopted on 7 October 2025.

· No immediate change to the Policy text

· Council accepts identified legal compliance risk of not meeting the statutory timeframe

· Leaves the reconsideration process unworkable long term

· Policy retains drafting and cross-referencing issues

· Weakens fairness where section 224(c) Resource Management Act 1991 timing issues arise

· Weakest alignment with LTP because it undermines efficient administration and creates avoidable legal and operational risk

· Is the least cost-efficient option as it will require the most resourcing to achieve compliance

Option 1 is the recommended option, as it best reflects consultation feedback and Council’s prior decisions. It is also the most cost-effective and operationally efficient option, with the strongest alignment to LTP outcomes.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommend Option 1, as it addresses the identified legal and operational risks, enhances fairness and clarity, and remains within the scope of the amendments consulted on. It also reflects the predominant theme arising from submissions, namely, to proceed with the amendments as drafted, while managing panel safeguards through implementation rather than further policy amendment.

Delegating responsibility for selecting reconsideration panel members to the Chief Executive is an appropriate and proportionate administrative measure. This approach supports timely decision-making, enables the formation of panels based on relevant skills and expertise, and provides necessary operational flexibility, while remaining consistent with amended clause 28.3 as set out in Attachment 2.

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

There are no financial implications from the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments do not change the Policy’s fee schedule or funding settings.

Any additional initiatives, implementation, or enforcement costs that cannot be managed within existing budgets will need to be identified by the teams responsible for implementation and considered through the appropriate budgeting and planning processes.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 Submission Analysis Report June 2026 - A5818145 ⇩

2. Proposed-AMENDMENTS in Tracked Changes-Utu-Whakawhanake-Development-Contributions-Policy-2025 - A5819960 ⇩

3. Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 Amended June 2026 - A5818143 ⇩

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, the level of significance is low, as impacts are predominately administrative rather than financial or strategic, and community views are known through the Submissions Analysis Report.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Te Pae Tata – Three-Year Long-Term Plan, Infrastructure Strategy, Far North 2100, Te Pūtōrino / Kerikeri-Waipapa Spatial Plan Te Pae o Uta Revenue and Financing Policy Rating Policy Proposed District Plan The proposed amendments align with those strategic documents because they do not change the Policy direction or funding model. Instead, they improve transparency, fairness, and operational workability within the existing strategic framework.
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 a District Wide relevance, therefore Community Boards views were not sought.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	No consultation was sought with Iwi or Hapū, due to the nature of the amendments proposed.
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).	Developers
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The proposed amendments do not change the Policy’s fee schedule, or funding settings. Any additional initiatives, implementation, or enforcement costs that cannot be managed within existing budgets will need to be identified by the teams responsible for enforcement and considered through the appropriate budgeting and planning processes.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The CFO has reviewed this report

7.7 Mana Whakahono ā Rohe - Approval to Initiate Engagement with Hapū.

File Number: A5864966

Author: Llani Harding, Pouhautū - Manager - Te Hono

Authoriser: Aaron Taikato, Manuhautū Te Hono – Group Manager Te Hono

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to present the formal invitation from Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke, Ngāti Kura requesting that Far North District Council enter into a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe (MWhāR), and to recommend that Council formally initiate engagement with the Hapū under section 58P(4) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· On 2 June 2026, Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke, Ngāti Kura wrote to Far North District Council requesting that Council enter into a MWhāR with the Hapū.

· The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) provides different initiation pathways for MWhāR. An Iwi authority may initiate a MWhāR under section 58O, while a local authority may initiate a MWhāR with an Iwi authority or Hapū under section 58P(4) RMA.

· The request received from Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke, Ngāti Kura is appropriately treated as a formal request for Council to consider initiating a MWhāR under section 58P(4) RMA.

· Council has previously considered its general approach to MWhāR and resolved that Council may consider initiating a MWhāR with a Hapū or collective of Hapū where an established relationship exists.

· Council has an established and ongoing relationship with Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke and Ngāti Kura through a range of governance, infrastructure, environmental and resource management programmes.

· Council is only being asked to initiate engagement, not approve a MWhāR.

· Initiating engagement is consistent with Council's obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Local Government Act 2002, including supporting Māori participation in decision-making, recognising the role of kaitiaki, fostering constructive relationships with tangata whenua, and giving practical effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

· Initiating engagement does not predetermine the content of any future agreement, commit Council to any specific obligations, funding arrangements, governance arrangements, implementation programme or timeframes, nor remove Council's statutory decision-making responsibilities.

· The current resource management system is subject to legislative reform, with the Resource Management Act 1991 expected to be replaced by new legislation. The timing and content of replacement legislation remain uncertain and, the final legislative treatment of MWhāR agreements and their ongoing legal effect remains uncertain.

· On 14 July 2026 Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships considered this report and resolved to commend parts a) and b) of the recommendation below to Council.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council

a) receive the report Mana Whakahono ā Rohe – Approval to Initiate Engagement with Hapū; and

b) agree to:

i. formally initiate engagement with Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke, Ngāti Kura under section 58P(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the purpose of negotiating a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement;

ii. note that the process to be adopted, timeframes for negotiation, implementation arrangements, governance arrangements, review mechanisms, dispute resolution processes, resourcing requirements and any future commitments will be subject to negotiation between the parties and will not be agreed or implemented without being considered through the appropriate Council governance and statutory decision-making processes;

iii. note that initiation of engagement under section 58P(4) does not commit Council to any specific terms, obligations, funding arrangements, implementation programme or delegated authority:

iv. note that any proposed Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement would be reported back to Council for consideration before being finalised.

That the Far North District Council does not formally initiate engagement with Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke, Ngāti Kura under section 58P(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the purpose of negotiating a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement at this time.

1) Tāhuhu Kōrero / Background

Subpart 2 of Part 5 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 provides for MWhāR: Iwi participation arrangements. MWhāR are intended to assist tangata whenua and local authorities to discuss, agree and record how they will work together under the RMA, including how tangata whenua will participate in resource management processes.

The statutory purpose and intent of MWhāR includes:

· improving working relationships between tangata whenua and local authorities;

· enhancing Māori participation in resource management and decision-making processes;

· supporting effective and efficient resource management outcomes; and

· creating locally appropriate arrangements that reflect the relevant relationships, rohe and responsibilities of the parties.

In addition to the MWhāR provisions, Council exercises powers and functions under a range of legislation that recognises the interests of Māori in resource management and local government decision-making.

These include:

· section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991, requiring recognition and provision for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga;

· section 7(a), requiring particular regard to kaitiakitanga;

· section 8, requiring decision-makers to take account of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi;

· sections 4, 14 and 81 of the Local Government Act 2002, which require local authorities to provide opportunities for Māori participation in decision-making and maintain processes that support Māori contribution to local government decision-making.

MWhāR provides a recognised statutory mechanism through which councils and tangata whenua can build on existing relationships and agree how they will work together in relation to resource management matters.

Council has previously considered its general approach to MWhāR in the 2018 – 2022 triennium.

On 26 July 2018 the Governance and Strategic Relationships Committee recommended that Council may initiate a MWhāR with a Hapū or collective of Hapū once a relationship has been established.

On 25 October 2018 Council adopted Resolution 2018/29:

Council also subsequently considered specific MWhāR arrangements with Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi via the Strategy and Policy Committee in May 2022 Resolution 2022/30, when that Iwi authority formally invited Council to enter negotiations:

and ultimately entered into a MWhāR with Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi in August 2025.

Most recently, Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships adopted Resolution 2026/22 regarding this matter:

Council also has an established working relationship with Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke, Ngāti Kura through a range of programmes and initiatives, including:

· Kaikohe Wastewater Treatment Plant Working Group;

· Kaikohe Library and Civic Hub Steering Group;

· Kaikohe Placemaking Plan Working Group;

· Memorial Park Reserve Management Plan development;

· Rawiri Taiwhanga Memorial Park programme of works;

· Lake Ōmāpere related matters;

· Kaikohe Wastewater Treatment Plant consent processes;

· Wairoro Stream water take consent matters; and

· other resource management and community development initiatives.

Staff consider that the duration, breadth and continuity of these engagements demonstrate an established working relationship consistent with the approach contemplated by Council Resolution 2018/29.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Statutory Authority

MWhāR are provided for under Subpart 2 of Part 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (sections 58L–58U). The purpose of MWhāR is to provide a framework through which tangata whenua and local authorities can discuss, agree and record how they will work together in relation to resource management matters, including participation in decision-making processes and engagement on matters affecting their rohe.

A MWhāR agreement does not transfer Council’s statutory decision-making responsibilities or predetermine planning outcomes. Rather, it provides a statutory framework through which participation arrangements, engagement expectations, and process matters may be discussed and agreed.

Section 58P(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides that a local authority may initiate a MWhāR with an Iwi authority or with Hapū. Accordingly, Far North District Council has the statutory authority to initiate engagement with Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke and Ngāti Kura for the purpose of negotiating a MWhāR.

The request received from the Hapū is appropriately treated as a request for Council to consider exercising its discretion under section 58P(4). Unlike an initiation by an Iwi authority under section 58O, a request from Hapū does not create a statutory obligation requiring Council to enter into a MWhāR.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori Participation

In exercising its functions under the Resource Management Act 1991 Council must have regard to a number of statutory provisions relevant to Māori participation in resource management, including:

· section 6(e), requiring recognition and provision for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga;

· section 7(a), requiring particular regard to be given to kaitiakitanga;

· section 8, requiring decision-makers to take account of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Council also has obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to local authority decision-making processes and to establish and maintain processes that facilitate such participation.

Initiating engagement regarding a MWhāR is consistent with these statutory obligations and is based on a recognised legislative mechanism through which Council and Hapū can strengthen participation, engagement and relationship arrangements.

No Commitment to Future Arrangements

Council is only being asked to initiate engagement, not approve a MWhāR.

The recommendation contained in this report is limited to initiating engagement under section 58P(4).

Should Council resolve to initiate engagement, the Resource Management Act requires the parties to subsequently agree:

· the process to be adopted;

· the period within which negotiations are to be concluded; and

· how the MWhāR is to be implemented following conclusion of negotiations.

No such arrangements are proposed for approval through this report.

Initiation of engagement does not commit Council to:

· any particular terms of a MWhāR;

· any agreed timeframe;

· any governance arrangements;

· any implementation programme;

· any financial commitment;

· any staffing commitment beyond business as usual; or

· any delegation of statutory powers.

Any future arrangements arising from negotiations would remain subject to consideration and approval through Council's normal governance, financial and statutory decision-making processes before taking effect.

This would involve presenting the amicable draft to Council, ascertaining whether or not the content initiates the Councils Significance and Engagement policy as per the relevant provisions in the Local Government Act 2002

Reform Environment and Legislative Uncertainty

The current resource management system is subject to legislative reform, with the Resource Management Act 1991 expected to be replaced by new legislation. While the timing and content of replacement legislation remain uncertain, the current MWhāR provisions remain available.

This creates a limited window for Council to consider whether it wishes to utilise the existing statutory pathway before reforms occur. Current proposals indicate that MWhāR processes initiated under the RMA may have standing within the replacement system, although the final legislative position remains subject to Parliamentary approval.

Current reform material also indicates support for retaining participation mechanisms for Māori, but the final form of any replacement provisions is not yet known. While initiated MWhāR processes may be recognised within the replacement system, the final legislative treatment of MWhāR agreements and their ongoing legal effect remains uncertain.

While the timing and final content of the replacement legislation remain uncertain, there is currently no assurance that new MWhāR processes will be able to be initiated under the future legislative framework. Arrangements initiated under the current framework may be more likely to be recognised through transitional provisions. Accordingly, the opportunity to initiate a MWhāR process under the current legislative framework may not remain available indefinitely.

If Council decides not to initiate a MWhāR process at this time, existing engagement approaches would remain available. While these alternatives can support ongoing relationship-based engagement, they would not carry the same statutory weight as a MWhāR or provide the same level of certainty, consistency, and durability for participation arrangements. This may result in less clarity for hapū, Council staff, applicants and developers regarding engagement expectations, participation processes, and who should be involved in resource management matters.

Option 1 (recommended)

Recommend that Council formally initiate engagement with Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke, Ngāti Kura under section 58P(4).

Benefits

· Utilises the statutory pathway available to Council under the Resource Management Act.

· Is consistent with Council Resolution 2018/29.

· Recognises the existing relationship between Council and the hapū.

· Supports meaningful Māori participation in resource management decision-making.

· Recognises the role of hapū as kaitiaki within their rohe.

· Supports Council's obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Local Government Act 2002.

· Provides a structured framework within which expectations, roles and responsibilities can be discussed and clarified.

Implications

· Initiating engagement does not establish the content of any future agreement.

· Scope, process, timeframe, implementation arrangements, governance structures, monitoring requirements and dispute resolution processes would need to be negotiated.

· Any financial implications, resource commitments or implementation requirements would remain subject to future Council consideration and approval.

· Any final MWhāR arrangement would be brought back through the appropriate Council governance processes before being finalised.

Option 2: (not recommended)

That Council not initiate engagement at this time

· Benefits: This option recognises that Council is not automatically compelled to enter into a hapū MWhāR and may choose to defer a decision given that the future status of MWhāR provisions under proposed RMA reforms is uncertain.

· Risks: Deferring or declining initiation may be perceived as inconsistent with Council’s established relationship with the hapū and may miss an opportunity to clarify engagement expectations through a structured process.

· Implications: Council would need to clearly communicate its reasons for not initiating at this time and identify whether further engagement scoping or resourcing analysis is required before the matter returns for consideration.

3) TŪRARU ME TE WHAKAMAHINGA TŪRARU / RISK MANAGEMENT

The primary risks associated with the recommendation are:

· differing expectations between Council and the Hapū regarding the purpose, scope or outcomes of a MWhāR;

· expectations that initiation of engagement guarantees the completion of a MWhāR;

· future resourcing, implementation or funding requirements identified during negotiations;

· the possibility that negotiations do not result in a final agreement.

These risks can be managed through clear communication, agreed negotiation protocols, transparent governance processes and ensuring that any future commitments are separately considered through Council's normal decision-making and budgeting processes.

Risk	Potential Impact	Likelihood	Consequence	Mitigation
Reform uncertainty – status of MWhāR under replacement legislation	The RMA is expected to continue operating through a transitional period while the replacement resource management system is implemented. However, there is uncertainty about whether MWhāR processes that have not been initiated before Royal Assent will have standing in the future system. Current indications suggest that arrangements commenced under the RMA may be more likely to be recognised through transitional provisions.	Medium	Medium	If Council resolves to initiate, issue written invitations within 30 days of the resolution and before Royal Assent of the replacement legislation, where practicable. Seek further advice on transition provisions as the legislation progresses and report back to Council on any implications for the process.
Different expectations between Council and the Hapū regarding the purpose, scope or outcomes of a MWhāR.	Delays in negotiations or inability to reach agreement.	Medium	Medium	Establish clear expectations at the outset of negotiations and agree a negotiation framework before substantive discussions commence.
Perception that initiation of engagement commits Council to a final MWhāR agreement.	Public misunderstanding or concern regarding Council's intentions.	Medium	Medium	Clearly communicate that initiation under section 58P(4) only commences engagement and that any future agreement will require separate Council consideration and approval.
Future negotiation identifies resource, staffing or funding requirements.	Additional operational or financial pressures on Council.	Medium	Medium	Any proposed commitments will be assessed and reported separately through Council's normal budgeting and decision-making processes before approval.
Negotiations do not result in an agreement.	Time and resources expended without a final outcome.	Low	Medium	Establish realistic objectives, maintain good-faith engagement and utilise agreed dispute resolution processes where appropriate.
Concerns are raised by other Iwi or Hapū regarding the proposal.	Reputational impacts or requests for similar arrangements.	Low	Medium	Continue to assess any requests on their individual merits and in accordance with statutory requirements and previous Council direction.
Negotiated provisions are perceived as affecting Council decision-making authority.	Governance concerns raised by elected members or the community.	Medium	High	Ensure any draft agreement explicitly recognises Council's statutory responsibilities and decision-making powers and returns to Council for approval before any commitment is made.
Failure to progress the Hapū request.	Potential reputational impacts and deterioration of existing relationships.	Medium	Medium	Maintain open communication and utilise an agreed engagement process that reflects partnership and good-faith principles.
The proposal is perceived as creating precedent for future MWhāR requests.	Increased demand for similar arrangements and expectations from other groups.	Medium	Low	Note that each request must be considered on its own merits, statutory context, relationship history and Council circumstances at the time.
The proposal is misunderstood as approval of a MWhāR rather than approval to commence discussions.	Public concern, reputational impacts, or misunderstanding of Council's intentions.	Medium	Medium	Clearly communicate that Council is only being asked to initiate engagement, not approve a MWhāR. Any future agreement would require separate Council consideration and approval.

4) TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Option 1 is recommended because it utilises the structured statutory framework available to Council under the Resource Management Act, recognises the existing relationship between Council and the hapū and is therefore consistent with Council Resolution 2018/29, and supports meaningful Māori participation in resource management decision-making recognising Council's obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Local Government Act 2002.

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

There are no immediate budgetary implications in Council endorsing this recommendation. If Council resolves to initiate engagement, any costs associated with negotiation, technical support, legal review, implementation planning or future work programmes will be identified through the agreed process. Any commitments requiring new or additional funding will need to be assessed through Council’s usual budgeting, annual plan or long-term plan processes before they are confirmed

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Letter from Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke, Ngāti Kura to Far North District
Council - 2 June 2026 - A5835604 ⇩

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	Low. The current recommendation is limited to initiating engagement under section 58P(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and does not preclude consideration of wider community engagement in relation to future decisions which may arise as a result of the proposed engagement with hapu. The proposal does not involve approving a MWhāR agreement, or commit Council to any timeframe, implementation arrangement, funding commitment, governance change or level of service change. Any potential future agreement and associated implications would be subject to separate Council consideration and decision-making processes. Accordingly, staff consider that the proposal does not trigger significance under Council's Significance and Engagement Policy at this time.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Resource Management Act 1991, Local Government Act 2002, Te Pae Tata, Te Pae o Uta, Te Kiri Waiwai o Papatuanuku, FN2100
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 relevance to the Kaikohe-Hokianga ward specifically as Hapū are mostly located within these boundaries. Board views have not been sought for this committee meeting however Board Chairs will have opportunity to speak to this matter at Council.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The proposal aligns with Council's obligations under sections 6(e), 7(a) and 8 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and sections 4, 14 and 81 of the Local Government Act 2002. MWhāR provides a recognised statutory mechanism through which tangata whenua and local authorities can agree how they will work together in resource management matters. Initiating engagement supports Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles including partnership, good faith engagement, active protection, informed decision-making and meaningful Māori participation in matters affecting ancestral lands, waters, wāhi tapu and other taonga. The proposal recognises the role of Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke and Ngāti Kura as kaitiaki within their rohe and builds upon an established working relationship between Council and the Hapū. The recommendation is limited to initiating engagement only. No process, timeframe, implementation arrangement, governance structure, funding commitment or other obligation will be agreed without further negotiation and consideration through Council's normal governance, financial and statutory decision-making processes. Council is only being asked to initiate engagement, not approve a MWhāR. Any future agreement, implementation arrangements, funding commitments or governance matters would be separately considered by Council before any commitment is made.
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).	Ngā Hapū o Te Uri O Hua, Takotoke, Ngāti Kura, their members, relevant Iwi and Hapū, affected communities, elected members, Council staff and stakeholders involved in relevant RMA processes may have an interest in this matter. The Hapū have initiated the request for Council to consider a MWhāR, and further views would be considered through the agreed engagement and negotiation process if Council resolves to initiate.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no immediate budgetary implications from endorsing this paper. Any future financial implications arising from negotiation or implementation of a MWhāR would need to be identified, assessed and approved through Council’s ordinary financial planning and decision-making processes.
Chief Financial Officer review.	This report has been reviewed by the CFO

7.8 Scoping Report and Community Panels' Terms of Reference - Stage One Community Adaptation Planning

File Number: A5873826

Author: Katy Simon, Adaptation Programme Lead Climate Action and Resilience

Authoriser: Kate Ivicheva, Group Manager - Planning & Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek Council’s adoption of the scope proposed for Stage One Community Adaptation Planning, as set out in the final draft scoping report.

To seek Council’s adoption of the draft Terms of Reference for the Community Panels in Stage One Community Adaptation Planning.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Far North District Council (Council) has legislative responsibilities to appropriately plan for and manage short-, medium- and long-term risks from natural hazards.

· Council’s community adaptation planning is the primary planning process to address the projected significant increases in natural hazards risks to existing Council services and assets.

· Stage One Community Adaptation Planning is Council’s first adaptation planning project under Pou 1 of Te Hōtaka Urutau Hapori | Community Adaptation Programme.

· A scoping report is the main deliverable of phase one of the project. The scoping report sets the natural hazards addressed, planning outcomes and levels of detail, and main engagement approaches.

· The draft Terms of Reference sets working agreements for the upcoming Community Panels, community advisory bodies for the Stage One project.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) Adopt the scoping report for Stage One Community Adaptation Planning.

b) Adopt the Terms of Reference for Community Panels for Stage One Community Adaptation Planning.

1) Tāhuhu Kōrero / Background

Council established community adaptation planning in the Community Adaptation Programme | Te Hōtaka Urutau Hapori (Programme), approved and accelerated in August 2025. The Community Adaptation Programme supports Te Hiku o Te Ika – The Far North District to prepare for and respond to the impacts of climate change.

Stage One Community Adaptation Planning is Council’s first community adaptation planning project under Pou 1 of the Programme. The Stage One project is set up in five phases to match an adaptation planning cycle and will deliver Community Adaptation Plans by December 2027.

· Figure 1 Stage One project phases

A draft scoping report for the Stage One project is now complete. This scoping report progresses the project from phase one into phase two.

The scoping proposals presented in the draft report were shaped by:

- The policy and planning context;

- A stocktake of natural hazards and risk information, existing projects and initiatives; and

- Early engagement with community and haukāinga | local people in the project area.

A Technical Advisory Group and Project Steering Group were established during Phase One. These groups include staff and subject matter experts across Far North District Council, Northland Regional Council, Far North Holdings Inc. and more. Both groups gave input on and reviewed the initial scoping proposals.

Staff also presented reports on the Stage One scoping proposals to relevant committees and Community Boards:

· 17 June 2026: Te Koukou Committee for Transportation and Infrastructure endorsed the scoping proposals to include Council infrastructure elements and the approach to prioritise planning for settlements (RESOLUTION 2026/17).

· 29 June and 1 July 2026: Staff sought endorsement of sub-areas, community-centred approach and Member participation in Community Panels from Te Hiku and Kaikohe Hokianga Community Boards.

· 8 July 2026: Staff presented a complete draft scoping report to Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation for consideration and endorsement.

At the time of writing, Community Boards and Te Kūkupa meetings had yet to be held. Staff can speak to these outcomes when presenting this report.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Staff are seeking Council’s adoption of the scoping decisions presented in the main body of the final draft scoping report - Attachment A.

The final draft report contains scoping decisions on:

· Natural hazards and planning timeframes

· Scale and level of detail of a planning output:

o Areas (the broader landscape or catchment context within which settlements and individual elements sit)

o Settlements (towns, villages, marae-based communities, and other concentrated places where people, services, and assets are located together)

o Standalone elements (specific assets, places, or features of value that may be exposed to climate risk)

· Scale of engagement

· Roles and responsibilities

Scoping decisions are based on:

- Legislation and policy context (existing and anticipated)

- Known needs and issues of local communities

- Known interests, needs and issues for hapū and marae in the Stage One area

- Known overlapping resilience/adaptation projects and initiatives

- Available natural hazards modelling and information

- Available budget and resourcing

- Timeframes set by Te Hōtaka Urutau Hapori | Community Adaptation Programme

Appendices A and B in the draft Scoping Report summarise the background analysis and initial engagement that formed the scoping report. See Appendix A, Table A1.1: National Legislation & Direction, for a list of relevant legislation, policy and strategies.

This table summarises the main scoping decisions for Council’s consideration

Stage One Scoping Decisions	Report page
Stage One project will develop up to five Community Adaptation Plans.	12 - 13
Community Adaptation Plans will address coastal flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion and river (pluvial and fluvial) flooding across the short term (present), medium term (2060 – 2070), and long term (2090-2130.	7
Community Adaptation Plans will produce adaptation decisions across three scales: settlements, areas and standalone elements.	7-8
Settlements will have the most detail with adaptive pathways plans. Settlement adaptive pathways plans will focus on Councils’ and Council Controlled Organsations’ (CCO) services and assets, but may also include other public and private elements of value to communities. Council / CCO administered services and assets could include: roading, bridges and cycleways (prioritised for settlements) potable water and wastewater assets and services stormwater and drainage assets waste transfer stations and sites wharves, jetties and maritime assets related to ferry transportation services parks and reserves cemeteries Council property, including community centres, halls, libraries, and public toilets	10-11
High level recommendations (less detailed than adaptive pathways plans) will be created for area-wide issues and select standalone elements, including parts of the roading network. These recommendations are expected to be addressed through other planning and statutory processes.	10-11
Tangata whenua elements outside of priority settlements fall under Pou 2, Tuia ngā tai o te ao \| Tangata Whenua led adaptation.	8
Five Community Panels will be created. Community Panels will advise on adaptation planning and make recommendations to Council.	12
The wider public will be informed of the process and will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft adaptation plans.	15
Council is the final decision-maker, as the primary entity responsible for delivering Community Adaptation Plans.	15
Council will collaborate with Northland Regional Council as a key partner for implementation.	16
The project team will seek to collaborate with existing and anticipated CCOs and other regional service providers, such as Waka Kotahi, Department of Conversation, Te Whatu Ora and Ministry of Education.	16

Further Stage One project scoping

The scoping decisions presented in the final draft scoping report are intentionally broad. Further engagement, assessments, and technical review in project phases two and three will refine the scope.

Engagement with Community Panels, including hapū and marae representatives, and with the Technical Advisory Group will confirm:

Details on which priority settlements will be prioritised for detailed planning

Which parts of the roading network and standalone elements to plan for within each sub-area

Specific area-wide issues within and across the sub-areas

A more detailed risk and vulnerability assessment will be used to develop community risk profiles. These risk profiles will further refine priority elements by helping to prioritise critical elements and set the community’s acceptable levels of risk and tolerance of impacts on levels of service.

Decision options for the final draft scoping report

Recommendation (a) - Adopt the draft scoping report for Stage One Community Adaptation Planning.
Decision option	Pros	Cons
Option 1 - Adopt the final draft scoping report, as attached	- Delivers on the Community Adaptation Programme. The Stage One project can proceed. - Enables adaptation planning for a significant amount of Council services and assets. - Community Adaptation Plans will address risks and opportunities across the whole Stage One area. - Accommodates broader issues with more detailed planning, where prioritised.	- The draft Scoping Report only proposes detailed plans for settlements. - Time and resource constraints mean the Stage One project cannot develop detailed plans for all elements across the whole project area.
Option 2 – Adopt the final draft scoping report, pending changes as noted by Council	- The project team may be able to make minor to medium changes to the scope and still meet project timeframes.	- A large change to the scope may delay project timeframes and/or increase budget requirements.
Option 3 – Do not adopt	- Allows more time for Council to seek additional information or deliberation. - Staff can present future reports addressing the Council’s concerns.	- Contrary to Te Koukou Committee endorsement. - Triggers one-to-two-month delays with multiple flow-on effects. - Could increase project costs over time.

Draft Terms of Reference for Community Panels

Staff are also seeking Council’s decision on the draft Terms of Reference for the Community Panels - Attachment B.

Council has committed to establishing a community advisory body in every adaptation planning project under Pou 1, Community Adaptation Programme. For the Stage One project, this will be achieved by creating five Community Panels.

The Community Panels will be established by August 2026. The first sessions will take place by September 2026.

The draft Terms of Reference sets down responsibilities and working agreements amongst the Community Panel members and between each Community Panel and Council.

The working agreements laid out in the draft Terms of Reference are based on other local government examples and have been reviewed by the project team.

As set by the draft Terms of Reference, the Community Panels will:

· Provide community-endorsed recommendations for how their communities can prepare for, and adapt to coastal hazards, flood hazards and sea level rise.

· Co-develop Community Adaptation Plans for the project area and make recommendations to Council.

· Agree to act cooperatively and in good faith, for the benefit of their wider communities and future generations.

· Consists of full members, observers and support staff, with full members able to participate in session activities and recommendations.

o Relevant Community Board members will be full members.

o All other Elected Members will be observers.

· Reach decisions by consensus.

Receive an honorarium payment in recognition of their contribution (noting that hapū representatives will have separate compensation agreements).

Recommendation (b) - Adopt the draft Terms of Reference for Community Panels for Stage One Community Adaptation Planning.
Decision Options	Pros	Cons
Option 1 - Adopt the draft Terms of Reference for Community Panels, as attached	- Delivers community-centred commitment under the Community Adaptation Programme; Adaptation recommendations will come directly from the Community Panels. - Sets up feasible engagement within the project’s resourcing. - The Stage One project can proceed within the set timeframes.	- Poses a minor risk that the Community Panels will make recommendations to Council that Council does not approve or adopt. - This is mitigated through technical and feasibility assessments and regular governance briefings.
Option 2 – Adopt the draft Terms of Reference for Community Panels, pending changes as noted by Council	- The project team may be able to make minor to medium changes to the draft Terms of Reference still meet project timeframes and/or maintain a community centred approach.	- A large change to the draft Terms of Reference may delay project timeframes or may undermine the community-centred approach.
Option 3 – Do not adopt	- Allows more time for Council to seek additional information or deliberation. - Staff can present future reports addressing the Council’s concerns.	- Triggers one-to-two-month delays with multiple flow-on effects. - Could increase project costs over time.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The first recommendation supports the scoping proposals presented in the final draft scoping report, which has been developed through community and haukāinga engagement and a rigorous technical and feasibility review process.

The second recommendation, to adopt the draft Terms of Reference for Community Panels, supports sound working agreements based on other council examples and on the project team’s experience and expertise.

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

There are no additional financial implications for either the adoption of the final draft scoping report or the adoption of the draft Terms of Reference for Community Panels. Both deliverables are a planned part of the Stage One project.

The Stage One project is currently funded under the Long Term Plan 2024-2027, with an estimated total budget of $650,000.00 across the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 financial years. Northland Regional Council provides $100,000.00 in funding (included in the $650,000.00 total).

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Attachment A - Final Draft Scoping Report - Stage One Community Adaptation Planning - A5840647 ⇩

2. Attachment B - Draft Terms of Reference for Community Panels - A5840648 ⇩

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	Low (noting that the overall adaptation decisions are of high significance). Initial engagement has been carried out to inform these scoping proposals. The Community Panels will meet SEP requirements for finalising the scope.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Primary relevant legislation: - Resource Management Act 1991 - Local Government Act 2002 - Civil Management Emergency Management Act 2002 Relevant Council policies and strategies: - Te Taitokerau Climate Adaptation Strategy - Climate Action Policy - FN2100 - Te Pae o Uta See Appendix A, Table A1.1: National Legislation & Direction, in Attachment A for a complete list of relevant legislation, policy and strategies.
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.	Staff have presented a report to the Kaikohe Hokianga and Te Hiku Community Boards at their 29 June and 1 July meetings. These reports sought their endorsement of community scoping elements under their delegation.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The project seeks to fulfil the commitments set out under Te Hōtaka Urutau Hapori \| Community Adaptation Programme, which states that the programme will always support Council in giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Since 2024, this project has focused on relationship-building through early engagement with haukāinga, whānau, marae, and hapū representatives across the Ngāpuhi, Te Rarawa, and Te Roroa rohe. This early engagement and a haerenga trip in February 2026 informed the scoping proposals. Hapū and marae representatives will be asked to join the Community Panels. Haukāinga kaitiaki roles will also guide the project at an operational level.
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).	Adaptation planning will affect Hokianga communities, across all ages, abilities and backgrounds. For this reason, the adaptation planning is a community-centred process. The scoping proposals affirm this engagement approach.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Adaptation planning will affect Hokianga communities, across all ages, abilities and backgrounds. For this reason, the adaptation planning is a community-centred process. The scoping proposals affirm this engagement approach.
Chief Financial Officer review.	Type here

7.9 Membership Update for Committees of Council

File Number: A5875246

Author: Natasha Rmandic, Democracy Advisor

Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Manager - Democracy Services

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek Council approval in membership changes on various Committees of Council and Youth Engagement and Leadership Portfolio.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Since confirming the Committee and Portfolio Terms of Reference in December, a number of changes have been requested:

o Removal of Councillor Ann Court from Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation as per her request;

o Replace external appointment Pita Tipene with Hohipere Williams as the appointed representative for Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine to Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships;

o Appoint Councillor John Vujcich as a member to Te Koukou Committee for Transport and Infrastructure;

o Removal of Councillor Rachel Baucke from Youth Engagement and Leadership Portfolio as per her request.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) remove Councillor Ann Court from the Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation, effective immediately;

b) note that Councillor Ann Court’s removal from the Committee creates a vacancy in the role of Deputy Chairperson, which the Committee will determine;

c) replace Pita Tipene with Hohipere Williams as appointed member, as the representative for Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine on Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships;

d) appoint Councillor John Vujcich as a member of Te Koukou Committee for Transport and Infrastructure;

e) approve removal of Councillor Rachel Baucke from the Youth Engagement and Leadership Portfolio effective immediately;

f) note that Councillor Rachel Baucke’s removal from the Programme creates a vacancy;

g) And that the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate) update the relevant Terms of Reference to reflect the changes.

1) Tāhuhu Kōrero / Background

I. Councillor Ann Court is currently a member and Deputy Chairperson of Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation. Councillor Court has requested to be removed from the Committee to enable her to focus on her portfolio responsibilities. Because Committee membership is determined by Council, a Council resolution is required to give effect to this request.

II. At its Extraordinary Meeting on 15 April 2026, Council adopted a revised framework for external Māori representation on the Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships and confirmed appointments received from participating iwi and hapū entities.

a. Under that framework, iwi and hapū entities that hold a signed Memorandum of Understanding with Council may nominate one representative to Te Kuaka, subject to formal appointment by Council.

b. Pita Tipene was appointed as the representative for Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine pursuant to Council Resolution 2026/18.

c. At the Te Kuaka Committee meeting held on 19 May 2026, Rowena Tana, Chair of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine, advised the Committee that TRONH had resolved to appoint Hohipere Williams as its representative on Te Kuaka in place of Pita Tipene.

d. A letter confirming this change of appointment was subsequently received by Democracy Services on 19 May 2026.

e. As membership of Council committees must be formally determined by Council resolution, the change in representation now requires Council confirmation.

III. Councillor John Vujcich has expressed interest in being appointed to Te Koukou Committee for Transport and Infrastructure as a member. Because Committee membership is determined by Council, a Council resolution is required to give effect to this request.

IV. Councillor Rachel Baucke is currently a member of Youth Engagement and Leadership Portfolio. Councillor Baucke requested to be removed from the Programme to enable her to focus on other responsibilities. Council resolution is required to give effect to this request.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The proposed membership changes are administrative governance matters that give effect to requests received from elected members and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine. Council is asked to approve these changes.

Options

Option 1: Approve the proposed membership changes. This option would give effect to the requests received, confirm the nominated representative for Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine, and ensure membership records are current. It would support effective governance by clarifying who is appointed to each Committee or Portfolio and by enabling the relevant Terms of Reference to be updated.

Option 2: Decline one or more of the proposed membership changes. Council could choose not to approve some or all of the proposed changes.

Option 3: Defer the decision. Council could defer consideration of the membership changes to a future meeting.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Option 1 is recommended because it gives effect to the requests and nominations received, maintains accurate Committee and Portfolio membership records, and supports clear and current governance arrangements. The decision is administrative in nature, has a low level of significance, and can be implemented within existing resources.

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

There are no financial implications or budgetary provisions required as a result of the recommendations in this report. The matter relates to governance membership and appointment arrangements and can be managed within existing governance and democracy services budgets.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. 2025-12-11 Te Kūkupa Committee Terms of Reference - A5443635 ⇩

2. 2026-04-29 Te Kuaka Committee Terms of Reference - A5443633 ⇩

3. 2026-05-19 Letter from Te Runanga o Ngāti Hine - Hohipere Williams - A5849769 ⇩

4. 2025-12-11 Te Koukou Committee Terms of Reference - A5865453 ⇩

5. Youth Education and Leadership Pathway Portfolio Terms of Reference - A5875925 ⇩

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 proposed decision is assessed as having a low level of significance. It relates to internal governance membership arrangements and does not change levels of service, funding, strategic direction, or the delivery of Council activities. Wider community engagement is not considered necessary for this decision.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Under the Local Government Act 2002, Council is required to identify reasonably practicable options and assess the advantages and disadvantages of those options as part of its decision-making process. Committee membership is a matter for Council to determine by resolution. The proposed changes are consistent with Council’s governance arrangements and the relevant Committee Terms of Reference, subject to those Terms of Reference being updated following Council’s decision.
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 primary risk is that Committee and Portfolio membership information may not accurately reflect current appointments if Council does not confirm the changes. This risk is mitigated by seeking a formal Council resolution and updating the relevant Terms of Reference and governance records following the decision.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The proposed appointment of Hohipere Williams as the representative for Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine supports the framework for external Māori representation on Te Kuaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships and gives effect to the nomination advised by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine. The decision does not relate to land or a body of water and is not considered to have direct implications for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with ancestral land, water, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna, or other taonga.
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).	N/A
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no additional costs associated with the recommended option. Any administrative work required to update membership records, Terms of Reference, and meeting information can be managed within existing governance and democracy services budgets.
Chief Financial Officer review.	Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

7.10 Request to undertake public consultation on the disposal of a portion of park land at 1936 State Highway 10, Waipapa - home of Te Pūawaitanga

File Number: A5761517

Author: Michelle Rockell, Executive Projects Advisor

Authoriser: Hilary Sumpter, Group Manager - Delivery and Operations

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek a decision from Council on initiating public consultation for the proposed disposal of approximately 10 hectares of park land at 1936 State Highway 10, Waipapa to support the delivery of Te Puāwaitanga.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Te Puāwaitanga (Bay of Islands Sports Hub) is a council‑owned, multi‑sports facility located at 1936 State Highway 10, Waipapa, which opened for public use in April 2025.

· The land occupies approximately 46 hectares, with around 12 hectares developed to date and stage 2 development consented but unfunded.

· Council considered the concept of balance land (land not required for sports and active recreation purposes and available for infrastructure requirements and/or supporting funding opportunities for future development of the sports hub) in 2021 but deferred decision making. Increasing pressure around capital funding, operational costs and scope of future facilities has highlighted the need to revisit this issue.

· An updated 2026 needs assessment for Kerikeri and Waipapa identified approximately 20.8 hectares for sports and recreation, with an internal staff review indicating up to 30 hectares are required to support additional community uses.

· Without further governance direction on this landholding, the Waipapa Structure Plan process will rely on public input or technical assessments identifying the need to consider alternative land uses. This could result in limiting future flexibility and funding options for the development of the site.

· Masterplans from Far North Holdings Limited (FNHL), Stellar Projects and Woods all indicate an area of land located at the northern end of the site as most viable for retail and commercial activity. Investigating disposal of this area does not pose a risk to any land requirements for sports and active recreation.

· Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that public consultation be completed before disposal of part of park land.

· Public consultation is the first step to investigating additional funding to develop Te Puāwaitanga. This report does not make any decisions on the disposal of the park land.

· Staff sought views of the Bay of Islands - Whangaroa Community Board and a recommendation from Te Koukou Committee for Transport and Infrastructure which are included within the report.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council approves public consultation in accordance with section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 on the proposed disposal of approximately 10 hectares of park land located at 1936 State Highway 10, Waipapa (Lot 18 Deposited Plan 316057) as marked in Attachment F.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

A 2012 needs assessment of Kerikeri football sports fields identified a requirement for approximately 10 hectares of land to meet current and future demand. In 2019, the community identified a need for a consolidated sports hub, prompting the council to investigate suitable land options.

Following an investigation of three sites, Council resolved to purchase 1936 State Highway 10, Waipapa in 2020 for the development of the BOI Sports Hub Development (resolution 2020/9). The land is held as ‘park’ under the Local Government Act 2002.

Te Puāwaitanga - Bay of Islands Sports Hub opened at the site in April 2025. It is intended to be a multi sports hub, currently consisting of five fields and used primarily for football, league and cricket. The facility has cost over $10M to date and is unfinished, occupying approximately 12 hectares within a total landholding of around 46 hectares.

A 2020 Council report noted that while the total land area exceeded immediate sports hub requirements, this would allow for future expansion or alternative uses. Council subsequently confirmed the location of stage 1 in February 2021 (resolution 2021/1), deferring a decision on future use of balance of land. Balance land is defined as:

“land not required for sports and active recreation purposes and available for infrastructure requirements and/or supporting funding opportunities for future build/development of the sports hub”.

Resource consent for the sports hub was granted in two stages:

· Stage 1, including current fields and supporting infrastructure, has been completed.

· Stage 2 allows for additional fields, buildings and parking but does not have approval to proceed, remaining subject to further funding and consent conditions.

More detailed background information can be found in Attachment A.

Current sports hub operational costs and revenue streams

Costs to operate and maintain the current facility for the year 2026/2027 are:

General custodian and sports field services	~$290,000
Insurance	~$3,200
Depreciation^{^[6]}	~$377,200
Rates^{^[7]}	$25,235.31
Total	~$695,635.31

Costs are ward rated, with rating implications of $38.15 per ratepayer in the eastern ward.

The sports fields do not currently generate an income as hire fees are not charged. Holding events on site is complicated as large marquees or temporary structures erected on the fields may damage the irrigation infrastructure.

Potential sports and recreation requirements

Council completed an updated 2026 needs assessment in response to adopting Te Pātukurea – Kerikeri Waipapa Spatial Plan, which had revised growth protections and looked at alternative land use for parts of the council managed reserve at Harmony Lane, Waipapa (home of Baysport). A copy can be found in Attachment B.

In summary, the needs assessment identified a total of 20.8 hectares to accommodate sports demands to 2053, being:

· 14 football and rugby fields (allowing to relocate codes from Baysport)

· 1 grass cricket block and 4 artificial wickets (with potential to expand in the future)

· 2 softball diamonds

· 1 hockey turf

· Multi-sport club room, including 2 indoor courts, indoor gymnastic facility, changing rooms and toilets

· Walking track, informal areas and play area

· Carpark

· Future proofing area (carpark extension, tennis, croquet, dog walking)

An internal staff review identified an extra approximate 9 hectares for additional potential sports, recreation and community uses, bringing the total land requirement to approximately 30 hectares.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The Bay of Islands - Whangaroa Community Board were asked to present their views on the proposed public consultation at the 4 June 2026 meeting, for inclusion in this report to further a recommendation to Council.

The Community Board supported commencing public consultation but emphasised the need for a clear consultation question to avoid any confusion about how disposal proceeds would be used. Staff will work with the Communications team to ensure the wording is in plain English and develop a dedicated FAQ section to address potential questions, assuring the public that the land will only be disposed of only if acceptable commercial returns are possible.

The Community Board also requested that the Te Puāwaitanga Governance Group be engaged before consultation begins. Staff provided the Governance Group an update on the project and requested their feedback on the proposed public consultation.

The general sentiment from the Governance Group was positive, with members stating their support to see surplus land disposed to support future Te Puāwaitanga development, noting that in the past this was not supported as there was no guarantee the funds would go towards the sports hub. One member noted that the proposed area for disposal imposes over part of stage 2 of the resource consent; they were assured that restrictions and measures would be put in place to ensure that no parts of stage 2 would be lost to commercial development. The proposed plan is very high level that is likely to change as more detailed designs surface, supported by technical staff input.

The Community Board also sought clarification on what depreciation covers. This is now included as a footnote in the report, under Current sports hub operational costs and revenue streams.

On 17 June 2026, Te Koukou Committee for Infrastructure and Transport passed the following recommendation:

Strategic considerations for future use of 1936 State Highway 10, Waipapa

The following matters provide important context for determining the future use of 1936 State Highway 10, Waipapa and highlight the strategic, financial and operational considerations Council must consider.

· Waipapa Structure Plan

· The Waipapa Structure Plan provides a long‑term framework to guide land use, infrastructure and growth decisions for Waipapa. Without new governance direction on 1936 State Highway 10, Waipapa, the Waipapa Structure Plan process would rely on public input or technical assessments identifying the need to consider alternative land uses. Current government direction is that land allocation for Lot 18 shall be in its entirety as sports and active recreation, and Lot 17 shall continue as rural production.

· Seeking additional governance direction will set a clear signal into the Waipapa Structure Plan of Councils desire, or not, to achieve diversification of the site. A structure plan can and will recommend change of zoning, where evidence suggests a better arrangement of an area.

· The Waipapa Structure Plan is expected to be adopted by Council between August – December 2027. While not a statutory document, any plan change or resource consent must consider any Council adopted structure plan.

· Funding considerations for current and future sports hub

· There is strong community and sports sector interest in further development of Te Puāwaitanga. While some user groups may fundraise for specific facilities, there is an expectation that the council would support future stages through Long‑Term Plan funding or the provision of key infrastructure. Without clarity on the council’s financial contribution, community‑led fundraising efforts may be delayed or undermined.

· No single funding source is likely to cover all future development costs. External funding is inherently uncertain due to strong competition from other sporting, community and arts organisations, creating risks around both timing and scale. Council will need to carefully balance funding day‑to‑day services and future growth, while keeping costs affordable for ratepayers.

· Any development will require a diversified funding mix, including partnerships, private and community grants, central government initiatives, targeted rates, user charges, asset recycling and development contributions.

· Development costs have been considered for 3 scenarios:

Scenario	Cost
Completion of stage 2 of resource consent	~$14,500,000
2026 needs assessment	~$4,000,000 (excluding stage 2 of resource consent)
Additional aspirational activities	~$30,200,000
Total	~$48,700,000

Additional flood mitigation may be required, with an estimated cost of roughly $300,000. Costs are estimates at this stage.

· Relocation of Baysport football fields sports and subsequent development

· Baysport is home to a number of football field sports that wish to relocate to Te Puāwaitanga. However, the current resource consent does not provide sufficient capacity to relocate, and until lighting, upgraded changing facilities and clubroom facilities are provided at Te Puāwaitanga, football activities will continue to be accommodated at Baysport.

· The Kerikeri-Waipapa spatial plan identifies land at Baysport as future residential zoned activity, which while highly viable, cannot occur until further sports fields are developed at Te Puāwaitanga to support transition from Baysport to Te Puāwaitanga (with the exception of tennis and skating). The Kerikeri-Waipapa spatial plan talks about this transition being guided by future the Waipapa Structure Plan and master planning development in collaboration with subject matter experts and the community.

· Limitations on use arising from on-site infrastructure

· Current infrastructure installed on site is sufficient only to service the existing established activities. Cumulative effects of additional uses could place further pressure on infrastructure, create conflicts between users and increase parking demand.

· The on-site wastewater facility was designed to service the consented development, with any additional buildings requiring careful assessment to confirm capacity. The site has no connection to town water supply, with limitations on bore water take. Although treatment and filtration measures are in place, potable water availability requires further investigation to ensure compliance with all applicable water safety standards for a private supply.

· Water supply is also critical for field irrigation, as turf fields are sensitive to inadequate maintenance and represent a significant investment in the sports hub.

These considerations raise the question of whether the property should be held in its entirety for sport and active recreation, or whether some of it should also be held as balance land.

Answering this question provides:

· clear understanding of land allocation for current and future sport and active recreation uses, and what balance land is available for future infrastructure servicing or other funding opportunities,

· enable next steps to progress the relocation and development of Baysports playing fields to Te Puāwaitanga, while also unlocking opportunities for future development of this site,

· support to plan for future on-site water and wastewater treatment requirements, which are currently unknown,

· guidance to staff on next steps required to progress the sports hub and actions relating to the land, and

· clarity to the governance group, who will play a key role in operating and developing land associated with the sports hub, within the determined land parameters set by Council.

Possible development opportunities

In February 2026, FNHL presented Council with a draft masterplan for the site (attachment C). While there are inconsistencies, with sports codes not fully aligning with the needs assessment or resource consent, the plan proposes a retail development area at the northern end of the site. This is consistent with the masterplans prepared by Stellar Projects and Woods (attachments D and E).

Across all three plans, this is the only area identified as suitable for retail development. The Stellar Projects plans include a range of layouts that incorporate aspirational requirements (referred to as “balance land”), demonstrating that even with these requirements occupying approximately 30 hectares, there remains sufficient land to accommodate retail and commercial development.

The Woods report further supports this position, noting that the northern portion of the site benefits from frontage to State Highway 10, strong visibility and access and a strategic location within the Waipapa growth area. These factors contribute to its suitability for business park development and are expected to enhance land value.

In line with earlier governance direction to consider next steps for this site, staff have engaged with FNHL who have identified viable retail opportunities requiring approximately 10 hectares, of which approximately 3 hectares would be required for flood mitigation. Attachment F shows in red the total land area, and in blue the total area with retail and stormwater management.

Concerns were raised by elected members at the Te Koukou Committee for Infrastructure and Transport about water and wastewater requirements. Attachment C provides a high-level concept of potential commercial development; however, as the land is not currently available for disposal, staff cannot obtain detailed designs or confirm specific infrastructure needs.

Further planning will need input from technical staff to identify water, wastewater and other infrastructure needs, ensuring the requirements of Te Puāwaitanga are fully considered.

There is currently no budget allocated for future sports development at Te Puāwaitanga, including for the consented stage 2 works. The disposal of land not identified for sports and active recreation across any of the plans can provide a funding opportunity to support the delivery of the sports hub and associated infrastructure.

Notwithstanding land tenure changes, developers will need to request plan changes and/or resource consents as zoning provisions remain in place.

Restrictions on disposal of parks

Section 138 Local Government Act 2002 defines park as “land acquired or used principally for community, recreational, environmental, cultural, or spiritual purposes.” As such, 1936 State Highway 10, Waipapa is held as park under the Local Government Act 2002.

Section 138 also states that a proposal to sell or otherwise dispose of a park or part of a park must be consulted on before it is sold or disposed of.

Disposal of park land includes:

· sale of park

· lease or licence to occupy of more than six months that excludes public access to the park

Council must comply with this section.

Parks and Reserves Policy 2022

Schedule 2 – Criteria for acquisition, disposal and land exchange decisions for parks and reserves of the Parks and Reserves Policy 2022 states that a decision to sell a park will only occur after the below has been addressed:

· There are no other public works use for the land.

· Council has carried out a land status investigation and determined its obligations under the Public Works Act 1981.

· The local community board has been consulted.

· Council has considered its obligations under section 1 of the policy, being Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi.

· Council will engage, discuss and listen to local iwi on proposals to dispose of park land, and offer the land to iwi, as first right of refusal to purchase when the council is not legally required to offer the land to a former owner under the Public Works Act 1981.

Section 11 – Application of Revenue, states:

· All monetary proceeds from land sale will be deposited into a suitable council bank account.

· Council will apply the monetary proceeds to purchasing, taking on a lease, managing, administering, maintain, protecting, improving or developing parks and reserves in the same council ward to generally benefit the community from which the net monetary proceeds were derived.

Next steps

Council may now make a decision on the following options:

Option 1 (recommended option):

That Council approve public consultation in accordance with section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 on the proposed disposal of approximately 10 hectares of park land located at 1936 State Highway 10, Waipapa (Lot 18 Deposited Plan 316057) as marked in Attachment F.

Public consultation is a requirement under section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 to dispose of part of a park.

Option 2: Do nothing (status quo)

Option 2 means no decision is made on the land use at this time. Staff will continue to develop the Waipapa Structure Plan, relying on technical and public input to determine whether any balance land exists on the site, which could result in a conservative outcome where the Waipapa Structure Plan recommends the entire site remains for sport and active recreation.

This option may lead to loss of retail development opportunities as Council adoption of the Waipapa Structure Plan is not expected until end 2027.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Section 183 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to consult on the proposal to dispose of a park or a portion of a park.

Public consultation is the first step in determining whether disposing of any part of the land is a viable option that has community endorsement and could help fund future sporting development and associated infrastructure on the site.

The consultation process will seek community feedback to determine the level of public support for disposing of land for commercial purposes. Completing public consultation does not equate to a decision on disposal.

Following public consultation, staff will present analysis and decision reports to the Bay of Islands - Whangaroa Community Board, Te Koukou Committee for Transport and Infrastructure and Council for a decision in quarter four 2026.

If Council decides to dispose of the park land, it can establish a dedicated reserve account for Te Puāwaitanga. Any proceeds from the disposal would be allocated to this account to support future development. This will require a formal Council resolution.

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

The operational cost of consultation is expected to be minimal, involving primarily staff time and resources, and will be met from within existing budgets.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Attachment A - background - A5830964 ⇩

2. Attachment B - 2026 needs asessment - A5830969 ⇩

3. Attachment C - FNHL masterplan - A5830976 ⇩

4. Attachment D - Stellar Projects plan - A5830966 ⇩

5. Attachment E - Woods plan - A5830968 ⇩

6. Attachment F - proposed area for disposal - A5830980 ⇩

7. Attachment G - 50 year flood zone area - A5831219 ⇩

8. Attachment X - A5875797 ⇩

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	Medium significance for the community and ratepayers as per the Significance and Engagement Policy 2021. This means a need to ensure decisions reflect community needs and preferences, and public consultation should be conducted to gather feedback.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 states the definition of park as “land acquired or used principally for community, recreational, environmental, cultural, or spiritual purposes.” Section 138 also states that a proposal to sell or otherwise dispose of a park or part of a park must be consulted on before it is sold or disposed of.
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 is relevant to the Bay of Islands – Whangaroa ward, however the land may also be used by users from the District. As per the Bay of Islands – Whangaroa Community Board protocols, the Community Board may provide their views to Council in relation to community development plans and structure plans. The Bay of Islands – Whangaroa Community Boards views were sought at the 4 June 2026 meeting and included within the report.
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.	Ngāti Rēhia is a member of the governance group, has provided input into previous decision making and currently provides ground maintenance services to Te Puāwaitanga. The name Te Puāwaitanga was gifted by Ngāti Rēhia and was instrumental in defining the values for Te Puāwaitanga. Ngāti Rēhia have been advised of the proposed public consultation, with the Chairperson advising that “the commercial value of the property to help fund the next stage of Te Puāwaitanga would be a good option to consider”.
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).	Sporting codes that currently use Te Puāwaitanga, being football, rugby league and cricket, and other groups who may wish to use the area, including members of the public. The Te Puāwaitanga Governance Group has been advised of the proposed public consultation and have given support to continue investigations. Everyone will be able to provide input into public consultation, with feedback analysed and submitted to the Bay of Islands – Whangaroa Community Board, Te Koukou Committee for Transport and Infrastructure and Council.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications to commence public consultation.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

[1] Far North District Council. (2026). Ordinary Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation meeting, 13 May 2026. [Minutes]. InfoCouncil.

[2] Far North District Council. (8 July 2026) Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation Meeting. InfoCouncil

[3] A “reconsideration” is when a developer asks the council to look at a development contribution charge again because they think it was worked out wrongly. Under the Local Government Act 2002 s199A(1), this can happen if the amount was miscalculated, the council applied its policy incorrectly, or the information used had mistakes or was incomplete.

[4] Far North District Council. (2026). Ordinary Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation Meeting. Utu Whakawhanke Development Contributions Policy 2025 Proposed Amendment Approval for Consultation – Attachment 1 Supporting Report for Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 Amendment. [Agenda item 5.1]. InfoCouncil.

[5] Far North District Council. (2026). Ordinary Te Kūkupa Committee for Strategy, Policy and Regulation Meeting. Utu Whakawhanke Development Contributions Policy 2025 Proposed Amendment Approval for Consultation – Attachment 1 Supporting Report for Utu Whakawhanake Development Contributions Policy 2025 Amendment. [Agenda item 5.1]. InfoCouncil.

[6] Depreciation is collected for the following: carparking and accessway, electrical, fences, gates, sports fields, stormwater, containers, toilets, changing rooms and water and wastewater systems.

[7] Community sports grounds owned by council are non-rateable, however some of the land is not used for sporting purposes (farm activities and sheds). Quotable Value (QV) has advised that, from 1 July 2027, it will create two separate rating land portions, which will change the rating assessment. Any future changes to land use may result in further changes to the rating treatment.

Remit Title	Asking:	Staff Advice:	Recommended Priority:
a) Priorities for Dog Control Act Reform	That LGNZ advocate to government for the reform of the Dog Control Act 1996 to provide councils with more effective powers and tools to undertake their dog control responsibilities including: · greater scope for earlier intervention · stronger consequences for non-compliance · better ability for councils to set minimum requirements for dog owners - including for desexing and containment	Support FNDC support review of the Dog Control Act to provide stronger and clearer rules and regulations, including stronger and wider enforcement options.	1
b) Improved Regulation of Vape Retailers	That LGNZ advocate to central government for legislative change to provide territorial authorities with greater regulatory and enforcement powers over vape retailers, including the ability to control the location, density, operation, advertising, product visibility and compliance standards of vape stores within their districts.	Support During the development of the Council's Smokefree/Vapefree Policy, significant concern was identified within Far North communities regarding the increasing number of vape retailers and the impact of vaping on tamariki. Under the current legislative framework, councils do not have regulatory powers in relation to the location, density, or operation of vape retailers. Supporting this remit would advocate for legislative change to enable local councils to regulate the location, density, and operation of vape retailers within their districts in response to local community concerns.	5
c) Financial Support for Government Reform Implementation Costs	That LGNZ advocate to central government to provide specific targeted financial support to councils to implement the operational and governance changes that are proposed through the legislative reform programme, for example Simplifying Local Government and RMA reforms.	Support This remit was proposed by Whangarei District Council and supported by Council at meeting held 20 May 2026.	4
d) Removal of Representation Review Requirements During Simplifying Local Government Reform	That LGNZ advocate to the Government, on behalf of its members, for compliance relief from the upcoming representation review requirements in light of the significant reforms proposed through the Simplifying Local Government programme and the recent Head Start pathway, which may render any review undertaken before the 2028 elections redundant.	Abstain Regarding representation reviews: · Councils required to undertake a representation review must continue to comply with their obligations under the Local Electoral Act 2001 as the law currently stands. · This does not currently apply to FNDC, as it completed its representation review for the 2025 elections and is not due to undertake another review at this stage. · Where councils are amalgamated or replaced by a new entity, representation arrangements will need to be determined before the first election. The process is not yet known and may be addressed through the design and implementation of the new structure rather than a traditional representation review. · Any change to existing statutory obligations would require legislative provision. Until then, councils should continue planning under the current legislation. The concern raised by the remit is understandable, as some councils are currently required to undertake a representation review while their structure is also being changed.	7

e) Devolution of Place-Naming Authority to Territorial Authorities	That LGNZ advocate for legislative changes to devolve authority for officiating geographic place names from the Minister for Land Information to local authorities.	Support This remit was proposed by FNDC elected members and supported by Council resolution on 20 May 2026.	6
f) Enhanced Role for Government in Supporting Subnational Diplomacy	That LGNZ advocate to government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to formalise and increase its role in supporting subnational diplomacy including developing clear policy and capability to support and grow local government's contribution	Abstain FNDC does not recommend the remit be supported in its current form. Since the remit was developed, there have been significant changes. A review and redrafting would ensure the remit reflects current Government priorities, clearly defines its intent, and provides greater certainty regarding its implementation.	9
g) Bulk Funding of Transport Activities	That LGNZ calls on government, opposition parties and NZTA to support a move to bulk funding for basic and repeatable transport activities, thereby acknowledging the efficiency and financial gains, and reduction in funding risk, this change would provide to local government, and supports a trial of this proposed bulk-funding approach for the 2027 2030 funding round amongst a group of councils which have demonstrated strong performance in delivering public transport services and/or maintaining transport infrastructure.	Support FNDC supports approaches that provide greater funding certainty, improved long-term planning capability, and increased flexibility to manage transport investment across the network. For districts such as the Far North, where there are significant network management, resilience and maintenance challenges across a large geographic area, a bulk funding approach may enable more efficient allocation of resources and better alignment of investment with local priorities. FNDC considers that any funding model should continue to maintain appropriate accountability, transparency, and performance monitoring requirements while reducing unnecessary administrative burden.	2
h) Improving LTP Audit Requirements	That LGNZ advocate to government for improvements to the efficiency, proportionality, and cost-effectiveness of audit requirements for Long Term Plans and Consultation Documents, including: 1. Greater proportionality in audit requirements, ensuring that audit effort is aligned with council size, complexity, risk, and materiality; and 2. Reducing duplication across audit stages, particularly where similar information and assumptions are subject to repeated review; and 3. Improving standardisation, transparency, and cost control in audit delivery, to reduce rework and improve consistency across the sector, and to constrain excessive or escalating audit fees through greater transparency of audit pricing and benchmarking of costs across the sector.	Abstain FNDC staff recommend that this remit not be supported.	8
i) A Fairer Approach to Uneconomic Transport Infrastructure Funding	That LGNZ advocate for a fairer approach towards uneconomic transport infrastructure, where either NZTA commits to co-funding this infrastructure if councils remain legally obligated to own and maintain it, and/or the Government provides clearer guidance and support for councils downgrading or ceasing service to low traffic volume areas	Support FNDC supports a funding framework that more appropriately recognises the challenges faced by districts with extensive transport networks, dispersed populations, low rating bases, and significant resilience requirements. Uneconomic but essential transport infrastructure often provides critical access for residents, businesses, emergency services, and freight movements. A funding model that better reflects the strategic and social importance of these networks would assist rural and regional councils to maintain safe and resilient transport connections while improving equity across New Zealand's transport funding system.	3