Ordinary Council Meeting

Tuesday, 30 June 2020

I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held on:


Tuesday, 30 June 2020




Tauranga City Council

Council Chambers

91 Willow Street


Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website:

Marty Grenfell

Chief Executive


Terms of reference – Council






Mayor Tenby Powell

Deputy chairperson

Cr Tina Salisbury


Cr Jako Abrie

Cr Larry Baldock

Cr Kelvin Clout

Cr Bill Grainger

Cr Andrew Hollis

Cr Heidi Hughes

Cr Dawn Kiddie

Cr Steve Morris

Cr John Robson


Half of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting frequency

Six weekly or as required for Annual Plan, Long Term Plan and other relevant legislative requirements.


·        To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

·        To enable leadership of the City including advocacy and facilitation on behalf of the community.


·        Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

·        Exercise all non-delegable and non-delegated functions and powers of the Council.

·        The powers Council is legally prohibited from delegating include:

o   Power to make a rate.

o   Power to make a bylaw.

o   Power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan.

o   Power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report

o   Power to appoint a chief executive.

o   Power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement.

o   All final decisions required to be made by resolution of the territorial authority/Council pursuant to relevant legislation (for example: the approval of the City Plan or City Plan changes as per section 34A Resource Management Act 1991).

·        Council has chosen not to delegate the following:

o   Power to compulsorily acquire land under the Public Works Act 1981.

·        Make those decisions which are required by legislation to be made by resolution of the local authority.

·        Authorise all expenditure not delegated to officers, Committees or other subordinate decision-making bodies of Council.

·        Make appointments of members to the CCO Boards of Directors/Trustees and representatives of Council to external organisations.

·        Consider any matters referred from any of the Standing or Special Committees, Joint Committees, Chief Executive or General Managers.

Procedural matters

·        Delegation of Council powers to Council’s committees and other subordinate decision-making bodies.

·        Adoption of Standing Orders.

·        Receipt of Joint Committee minutes.

·        Approval of Special Orders.

·        Employment of Chief Executive.

·        Other Delegations of Council’s powers, duties and responsibilities.

Regulatory matters

Administration, monitoring and enforcement of all regulatory matters that have not otherwise been delegated or that are referred to Council for determination (by a committee, subordinate decision-making body, Chief Executive or relevant General Manager).



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

30 June 2020


Order Of Business

1         Apologies. 7

2         Public Forum.. 7

3         Acceptance of Late Items. 7

4         Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 7

5         Change to the Order of Business. 7

6         Confirmation of Minutes. 7


7         Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 7

8         Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 7


9         Recommendations from Other Committees. 7


10       Business. 8

10.1         Multipurpose Badminton Facility - Baypark / Te Maunga site assessment 8

10.2         Spring Street Carpark Building - Progress Report on Seismic Assessment 27

10.3         City Centre objectives and decision-making timetable. 33

11       Discussion of Late Items. 41

12       Public Excluded Session. 42

12.1         Civic Accommodation Update and Civic Precinct Planning. 42



1          Apologies

2          Public Forum  

3          Acceptance of Late Items

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

5          Change to the Order of Business

6          Confirmation of Minutes


7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions


9          Recommendations from Other Committees


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

30 June 2020


10        Business

10.1       Multipurpose Badminton Facility - Baypark / Te Maunga site assessment

File Number:           A11290629

Author:                    Robyn Scrimshaw, Reserves & Recreation Planner

Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Megan Cleverley, Team Leader: Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities

Mark Smith, Manager: Spaces & Places

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning

Authoriser:              Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth


Purpose of the Report

1.      To determine whether Trustpower Baypark (Baypark) is readily available and suitable as the location for a new multi-purpose badminton facility.


That  Council:

a)   Acknowledges there is available and suitable land at Trustpower Baypark for development of additional facilities but recognises that further strategic planning is required before development of the site is suitable.


b)   Approves Tatua Reserve as the most appropriate location for a new multi-purpose badminton facility.



2.      Bay of Plenty Badminton Association (BOP Badminton) first approached Council via an Annual Plan submission in 2008/09 to assist in finding a suitable location for a dedicated badminton facility. Investigation of potentially suitable Council-owned sites was undertaken from 2010 to 2012.

3.      Concurrent conversations took place between Tauranga City Venues Limited and BOP Badminton regarding Site 4, identified at Baypark (see Attachment 1).

4.      In 2014, BOP Badminton began discussions with BOP Polytechnic regarding potential land. The discussions between BOP Polytechnic and BOP Badminton continued until 2017 but were ultimately unproductive. In 2017, BOP Badminton again approached Council to reconsider Council-owned land, with work recommencing to identify a suitable site.

5.      An evaluation of potential Council-owned land identified Soper Reserve as the preferred location for the facility.

6.      In response to a submission by BOP Badminton on the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan in December 2018, Council’s Community and Culture Committee asked for further information regarding the proposal for a multipurpose badminton facility at Soper Reserve, and specifically to consider alternative sites.

7.      A thorough city-wide site assessment was undertaken on all parks and reserves sites 4000m2 or greater, to identify potential sites. Each site was scored and evaluated on the suitability of the facility being located there. This process endorsed Soper Reserve as an option and identified Tatua Reserve, Simpson Reserve and Baypark as alternative options. Simpson Reserve was then discounted due to it being in a residential area.

8.      On 14 February 2019, the Community and Culture Committee resolved that Tatua Reserve be approved as the site for the new multi-purpose badminton facility (subject to Baypark not being readily available or suitable) (M19/3.7). The motion to further investigate Soper Reserve as an option was lost.

9.      A detailed timeline of actions by BOP Badminton and Council can be found in Attachment 2.

Strategic / Statutory Context

10.    The Bay of Plenty Spaces and Places Strategy (March 2017) acknowledges the need to provide for a badminton facility, “all feasibility and planning work should consider the ability to accommodate badminton.”

11.    The Tauranga City Plan sets out in Chapter 20A.1.1.1 Policy – Role and Function – by providing for the role and function of Baypark through:

(a)     Enabling a wide range of event-related commercial, promotional, recreational, cultural, civic and educational activities to establish and operate;

(b)     Maintaining and enhancing opportunities for commercial, recreational, cultural, civic, and educational events that serve the City and sub-regional population.

12.    Baypark is a strategic asset for the city and requires an integrated development plan to address current and future recreation needs for the whole of Tauranga. The site is currently being considered as part of future planning for the city.

13.    The Tauranga Reserves Management Plan recognises BOP Badminton is endorsed to go onto Tatua Reserve, subject to Baypark not being readily available or suitable.

14.    Indoor court space has been considered as a limited part of the social infrastructure project currently being undertaken to address growth. Anecdotal evidence suggests there is insufficient court space to meet community needs.


15.    Following the decision to assess Baypark as a suitable location for BOP Badminton, four potential sites within Baypark were identified in conjunction with BVL (as illustrated in Attachment 1 with the red line illustrating the lease area of Baypark). The four initial sites were identified due to the absence of buildings and a lower rate of utilisation in terms of the overall site. BVL signalled to Council staff that a further fifth site (identified in purple on Attachment 1) was the preferred location by BVL for an extension of court facilities.

16.    The Baypark site is bound by SH29A, Truman Lane and the Baypark access road. This entire site is owned by Council and leased to BVL for the following use as in the lease:

Required Use: sporting, cultural, recreational and leisure facilities for the benefit of the Tauranga community as a whole, together with such ancillary uses as are reasonable to enjoy the Permitted Use and Required Use

Permitted Use: i) the uses allowed by the Resource Consents; ii) all activities which are permitted activities for the Land under the Tauranga City District Plan; and iii) any activities for which the Lessee has obtained a resource consent.

17.    The following criteria were used to consider “availability and suitability” of all potential sites at Baypark:

a.     Transportation / accessibility

b.     Car parking

c.      Waste management requirements

d.     Leasing considerations

e.     Land ownership / management

f.      Current uses / future uses

g.     Opportunities / constraints

h.     Other considerations

i.       City planning zoning

18.    The criteria with further context are explained and defined further in Attachment 3. The initial assessment identified that Sites 1 – 3 have defined current and future uses that made them unsuitable for development of a facility. Sites 4 and site 5 required further analysis which is also included in Attachment 3.  This analysis determined that either site 4 or 5 could support development of a physical recreational facility with most of the disadvantages able to be mitigated.

19.    When the criteria were applied to the two preferred locations (attachment 3), analysis determined that either site 4 or 5 could physically work. However, Badminton had requested independence and there was minimal need for Badminton to be located adjacent to the benefits BVL and the wider Baypark facilities could offer as a developed site to all sporting codes. A wider agreed strategic masterplan is required for the site before any development can occur.

Observations for the two preferred development sites’ availability and suitability at Baypark:

Site 4 at Baypark – adjacent to main entranceway

20.    Site 4 at Baypark has land suitable for future development. For BOP Badminton to develop this site, the area would need to be excluded from the BVL leased area and subsequently leased to BOP Badminton.

21.    If this did occur on site 4 without a plan for the wider Baypark site, it would limit opportunities for future potential plans. Including; traffic movement improvements around the entranceway and also impact on BVL’s ability to manage large volumes of people movement into the venue for events.

22.    BOP Badminton have difficulty using the current indoor sports network. The lighting in the facilities make the game difficult. It may be feasible to locate badminton facilities at Baypark but the location will not provide extra benefit to either badminton or BVL’s current operations.

Site 5 at Baypark – extension to existing Trustpower arena.

23.    Site 5 is a suitable site for development, ideally an extension of the indoor court space. BVL are planning to undertake this development. There is currently work underway to assess future facilities required before a financial commitment is made.

24.    The proposed extension of the arena would require capital to be built. It would then be integrated into the Baypark facilities available for all sporting codes to book, including BOP Badminton. It would not be a purpose-built facility to meet Badminton’s specific requirements. 

25.    BVL are opposed to separate management of facilities located centrally within their operations on Baypark so wouldn’t consider sub-leasing the new space. The integration of all facilities ensure demand for court space, event space and parking can be managed effectively.

26.    Baypark is a strategic asset for the city and the range of recreational opportunities required to be offered at this location is yet to be decided. Although the location is available for development it is not suitable at this time to independently allocate land. Multiple other work streams are being undertaken to address recreational needs city wide.


27.    The advantages and disadvantages of further development at Baypark and sporting code requirements has been discussed with the relevant stakeholders over several meetings and email communications.


BOP Badminton feedback

28.    BOP Badminton have expressed their desire to have a land only lease and autonomy in owning and managing the facility to ensure success. Reducing their expenditure in using other facilities will enable them to focus on the sport.

29.    The request for a land lease only on Council owned land was to ensure certainty of tenure and rent affordability. The rent would be set in line with other community groups occupying council land under the user fees and charges policy. 

30.    There has been difficulty in accessing facilities to undertake their activity due to limitations of the venues. Badminton requires no skylights or lighting above the court area as it impacts on the players’ ability to see the shuttlecock. A purpose-built facility will reduce the current barriers to participation felt by the community.

31.    Badminton are willing to accommodate other like sporting codes in the design of the facility such as Table Tennis, Indoor Bowls and BOP Parafed. Storage will be designed on site to accommodate the specialist equipment such as wheelchairs for Parafed and table tennis tables. This will also create a permanent revenue stream for the club.

32.    The limited choices for venues have impacted on the sport’s ability to be competitive for venue hire cost, location and time slot availability. BOP Badminton have previously utilised various school facilities.  This avenue is becoming unfeasible as schools have their own sporting demands to contend with.

33.    Badminton is a growing sport as it reaches a wide demographic and ability level due to the low impact nature of it.   The need for dedicated facilities was acknowledged in the 2017 Bay of Plenty Spaces and Places Strategy. There are currently five badminton clubs that would utilise the facility.

34.    Sport New Zealand, Sport Bay of Plenty and Badminton New Zealand have been assisting BOP Badminton to work through the access challenges the sporting code have been faced with to ensure the sport continues to thrive. They have supported the previous annual plan submissions to Council.

35.    To construct the facility, BOP Badminton and supporting codes will be working with local funders, sponsors and Trusts to access finance. This work will be supported by the feasibility study BOP Badminton will undertake as part of the preparation.

36.    Site 4 at Baypark was previously discussed between BVL and BOP Badminton. The discussion halted due to the BOP Polytechnic opportunity arising.

Bay Venues Limited (BVL) feedback

37.    BVL manage the Baypark site as an integrated business model with the different activities considered and planned to ensure harmonious running of the operations. BVL are opposed to having a facility on the site managed independently of their business due to the impact and inability BVL will have to mitigate the impact of the separate activity.

38.    BVL has expressed a desire to expand the current facilities due to the demand from all sporting codes on court space within their network and to integrate this new building into their current management of the site. A sublease to another entity as a standalone entity is not being considered by BVL. If a sublease was considered the rent charged by BVL would be at their discretion.

39.    The Baypark site has expanded the range of offerings from predominately speedway and rugby events to utilisation of the Trustpower Arena and supporting facilities to host events, conferences and large-scale concerts. This has created a multiuse site and revenue stream for BVL. Expansion of operations on this location is expected to continue to increase.

40.    BVL have raised a draft masterplan for their site. The plan has not been endorsed by Council and has activities planned for outside of the current lease area that are within the wastewater activity area. More discussion is required on development of the plan and the proposed activities on the site as to the best use of the land. The longer-term aspirations of the plan have been taken into consideration when assessing the potential locations within the site.

41.    Development of the site to minimise impact on operations is important to ensure activities can continue during the construction phase and completion of the project to not affect revenue streams. Visual impact of the construction and final product should also be in line with other facilities located in the vicinity. 

42.    The loss of the open space area between the two entrance driveways (i.e. Site 4) is an issue for BVL as it is used as an event ticket entry for Bay Dreams held in January due to the size and nature of the event. BVL have suggested they would like to hold other major events on the wider site.

43.    Indoor court space is located within the BVL network at Trustpower arena and Queen Elizabeth Youth Centre. The community halls also support this network as informal recreational indoor space.

Tatua Reserve is currently considered THE MOST appropriate location for a new multi-purpose badminton facility

44.    Tatua Reserve is classified to be developed into a community buildings reserve. The proposed badminton facility, of approximately 5000sqm, would take up a large proportion of the 7571sqm site and require reclassification to Recreation Reserve. The Mount Maunganui Playcentre is requiring relocation due to demands at Blake Park and is planned to be located adjacent. Parking demands will need to be incorporated into the design of the site.

45.    A feasibility study taking 3 – 4 months will be the next steps for BOP Badminton. This will address site specific questions. Depending on the outcome of the study BOP Badminton will look to start design and applications for funding in early 2021.

46.    Council will enter lease negotiations with BOP Badminton to lease a portion of the site. The rent will be set via the TCC user fees and charges at community rates. This will ensure affordability and autonomy in the operation of the facility.

47.    The City Plan allows for this activity to occur in this area. The building will require a resource consent but will be in synergy with other neighbouring buildings. Parking is anticipated to be discussed during this process. There may be a traffic impact assessment required due to the amount of courts and the impact on the network.

48.    Consultation with the Mount Playcentre regarding their specific on-site requirements and visions for the site are to occur concurrently with the design work.

49.    BOP Badminton will be enabled to meet their sporting code’s requirements including Bay-wide tournaments in this location when the need arises.

50.    A standalone facility will meet the strategic goals for the Bay of Plenty Spaces and Places Strategy and Tauranga Reserve Management Plan statements.

51.    The reserve is classified a Local Purpose (Community Building) Reserve to accommodate The Mount Maunganui Playcentre and other community organisations that have approached Council for a location. The size of Tatua means that the space for multiple buildings to be co-located will be lost when Badminton is constructed.


52.    Council can choose to agree that Baypark has land that is suitable and available for a multi-use Badminton facility; or that the land is not currently available or suitable due to the need to develop a strategic development plan and therefore that Tatua Reserve is the most appropriate location for BOP Badminton.

Option 1 (recommended option)

53.    Council agrees it would be inappropriate to currently commit land at Baypark without a strategic development plan and that Tatua Reserve is confirmed as the location for BOP Badminton.



Provides certainty to BOP Badminton in terms of independence and autonomy in management of a site and the sport. Positive engagement with club members.

Addresses the current very specific needs of BOP Badminton and the community’s participation in the sporting code.

Ability for BOP Badminton to commence feasibility study for a specific location.

Development of Tatua Reserve can commence and incorporate the relocation of the Mount Maunganui Playcentre from Blake Park.

Displaces other potential community organisations that could be co-located at Tatua Reserve.

Cost to Council to reclassify a portion of reserve.


Option 2 (not recommended)

54.    Council agrees that there is available and suitable land at Baypark, and it is appropriate to commit the most appropriate site to develop a Multipurpose Badminton Facility.



There is physical land available and suitable for future development at Baypark.

Site 5 has returned a positive geotechnical report to support.

No immediate direct cost to council.

Ability to use Tatua Reserve for multiple community buildings.


Impact on multiple streams of work currently underway to address recreational future needs for the wider city including development at Baypark.  It would not be suitable to develop a site at Baypark until these work streams have concluded and key decisions have been made in consultation with the community.

Sites 2-5 are currently within a leased area to BVL so are not immediately available without a lease variation if BVL were agreeable.

Building a multiuse badminton specific facility at Baypark on either location will limit the options to address the multi-use needs and requirements that could be co-located at Baypark.

Sites 1-4 require geotechnical investigations.

Current and future uses are limited for Waste Management.

BOP Badminton are further delayed awaiting plans for site from BVL.

Integration of Badminton into Baypark facilities will not meet user group needs.


55.    The governing documents; Statement of Intent (SOI), Enduring Statement of Expectations and Letter of Expectation developed collaboratively between BVL and Council set expectations on deliverables for the community for the coming year.

56.    SOI #4 Key areas of Focus for the 2019/2020 year shows an objective of BVL is to ensure the potential of our current facilities are optimised, and under the strategic pillar ‘Products and Experiences’ another objective is to provide a range of products and experiences that optimise the utilisation of our resources. A further facility at Baypark will assist BVL in achieving this objective.


57.    As outlined in Council’s Significance and Engagement policy, Tatua Reserve is part of the wider open space network which is a strategic asset for Council. This matter flows on from prior decisions that have been widely consulted on and this decision only involves a portion of the open space network.  This decision is therefore considered to be of medium significance.

58.    The decision resulting from the report will have an impact on the future use of this asset and will require ongoing targeted engagement with Tangata Whenua, surrounding occupants, user groups and the badminton community. The engagement will occur as part of the feasibility study, lease negotiations and resource consent application.

Next Steps

59.    A feasibility study would be undertaken by BOP Badminton on the finalised location. The resulting feasibility report would assess the project and ongoing viability of the proposed model. The report would be commissioned and financed by BOP Badminton and include the following considerations:

(a)     The potential site as assessed (size and shape are crucial and will influence the size and type of facility that can be constructed)

(b)     Preliminary spaces are identified including their size and functions (taking into consideration specific needs of the identified users and other potential users.)

(c)     Preliminary sketch of the floor plan

(d)     Preliminary estimate of costs

(e)     Preliminary facility usage model assumptions

(f)      Cost and revenue estimates

(g)     Business Plan is completed taking into consideration all the above

(h)     Feasibility study is completed with recommendations

60.    Once the feasibility study has been received by BOP Badminton it will be submitted to Council for an assessment against the Reserve Management Plan.

61.    BOP Badminton will be enabled to commission concept drawings and obtain costings for the facility as a location and size will be recommended.

62.    From the findings of the feasibility report, applications will then be able to be submitted by BOP Badminton to various funders to secure finance for the build.

63.    Reclassification of a portion of Tatua Reserve from Local Purpose (community building) to Recreation Reserve.

64.    Lease negotiations will be entered between the required parties, Council and BOP Badminton. Further consultation with the community and Tangata Whenua will be undertaken as required.


1.      Baypark Te Maunga Site Assessment Map - Multipurpose Badminton Facility - A9847636

2.      Badminton timeline document - A11295846

3.      Site analysis at Baypark - A11296226   

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

30 June 2020


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

30 June 2020


History of Badminton as taken from DC382 – Appendix D Part 1 and added to.

Item 1: History to the multipurpose indoor sports facility proposal at Soper Reserve.

·       In 2010 Council agreed to provide Council land for a dedicated badminton facility at Soper Reserve subject to:

the Bay of Plenty Badminton Association (BOPBA) being able to fully fund the development and operation of the badminton facility on an ongoing basis; and

the outcomes of the review of the reserve management plan for Soper Reserve support the development of the badminton facility on this site. 

·       In 2012 Council agreed to investigate the sale of Soper Reserve. Consequently BOPBA worked closely with the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic to see if this building could be developed on their site, which was making good process until the merger with the Waiariki Institute of Technology in 2017 and this is no longer option.

·       In 2017 Council agreed to remove Soper Reserve from the Land Investigation and Disposal Programme.

·       In 2018 Council agreed, in principle, to the allocation of Soper Reserve for the purpose of building a badminton / multi sport hub, noting that the final decision will be subject to consultation through the development of the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan.

·       In 2019 Council received a request from Sportclimbing Bay of Plenty to be considered as part of this facility. This is in addition to interest already expressed by Parafed Bay of Plenty, Tauranga Indoor Bowls and Table Tennis.

Table 1 below, provides a timeline associated with the proposed badminton / multi-sport facility.


Table 1: Summary of the history of the badminton facility proposal at Soper Reserve

2008/2009 Annual Plan


Bay of Plenty Badminton Association (BOPBA) made a submission to the 2008/09 Annual Plan for Council to allocate land for the development of a purpose built badminton facility.



Council resolved that an evaluation be undertaken of potential Council sites for the development of a badminton facility subject to BOPBA demonstrating their ability to financially fund the project. 

2009.07 – 2010.09

Site Evaluation Work was undertaken and provided in Report DC367.

The full Site Evaluation is attached to Report DC382




(Report DC367)

Following the Site Assessment Work, Council resolved to provide land at Soper Reserve for a badminton facility, subject to the outcomes of the review of the reserve management plan and consultation with the community.


The resolution stated:

(b) That the Strategy & Policy Committee approve in principle Option 2A - Provision of Council land for a dedicated badminton facility with the location being Soper Reserve from the attached evaluation.

(c) If Option 2 is approved in Resolution (b) this is on the basis that:

(i)         No Council funding is to be provided for the development and ongoing operation of the dedicated badminton facility on Council land, and

(ii)        Council is satisfied that Bay of Plenty Badminton Association (BOPBA) is able to fully fund the development and operation of the badminton facility on an ongoing basis.  This will require BOPBA to submit to Council a full funding plan and business case prior to a lease arrangement being entered into (estimated timeframe for this is 2012/2013), and

(iii)       The outcomes of the review of the reserve management plan for Soper Reserve support the development of the badminton facility on this site. 


Email update from Strategic Planner to Badminton confirming that the reserve management plan review for Soper Reserve would be undertaken in 2011/2012, with a decision made by June 2012 at the latest.



(Report DC161)

Through the 2012 Long Term Plan Deliberations Council resolved to proceed to consultation on the possible sale of Soper Reserve.



M15/34.47 – (Report DC181)

Through the 2015 Long Term Plan Deliberations Council resolved with respect to the potential sale of Soper Reserve to:


i.   Undertake further analysis as to whether some of the land is required for event purposes;

ii.  With regard to that part of the land considered surplus to requirement, identify persons to whom the land should be offered back to;

iii. If no offer back requirements exist, proceed to commence the consultation process to dispose of the property at 95 Newton Street [Soper Reserve], Mt Maunganui;


Progress discussions with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) with respect to the acquisition of the strip of land to the rear of 95 Newton Street to enable the whole of 95 Newton Street to be considered for disposal as one parcel; and


In conjunction with other open space land undertake a strategic review and propose any relevant plan changes for parcels of land that ought to be re-zoned prior to sale.



(Report DC252)

Council resolved to retain Soper Reserve by removing it from the Land Investigation and Disposal programme.


The Council report notes that:

·      The property at 95 Newton Street (Soper Reserve) was assessed in 2012 based on the Open Space Level of Service Policy 2010 and the Best Practice Guide to Open Space.  It was determined under this review that this land parcel was not required for sporting or recreation purposes in this industrial part of Mount Maunganui.  

·      Whilst the disposal of this site would not compromise the minimum level of service for this area, it forms part of the Industrial Reserves Network and, in accordance with the Reserves Management Plan (RMP) it provides an open space buffer between the industrial and adjacent non-industrial activities.  It also offers a space for community and recreation uses, which are otherwise not compatible in residential neighbourhood reserves. 

·      It is also noted that Council is yet to define its future role in the provision of land for community buildings, and until this work is undertaken within the Community Facilities Strategy and the Spaces and Places Plan, it is recommended that this asset be retained so as not to compromise future opportunities to deliver strategic outcomes under these initiatives.

2018 M18/43.23


The BOPBA submitted again for the allocation of Soper Reserve for a multi-purpose facility to cater for the growth of badminton and also Parafed Bay of Plenty and Tauranga Indoor Lawn Bowls and Table Tennis wishing to share this facility.


Through the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan deliberations, Council confirmed, in principle, the allocation of Soper Reserve for the purpose of building a badminton / multi sport hub, noting that the final decision will be subject to consultation through the development of the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan.


As a result BOP Badminton began working with Sport BOP to begin feasibility study work on Soper Reserve.


This proposal was included in the draft Tauranga Reserves Management Plan adopted by the Community and Culture Committee for consultation.



During Part 1 Deliberations on the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan the Community and Culture Committee did not make a decision on the proposal for the multi purpose badminton facility at Soper Reserve and requested further information regarding specific sites.



14 February 2019, the Community and Culture Committee resolved that Tatua Reserve is approved as the site for the new multi-purpose badminton facility (subject to Baypark not being readily available or suitable) ( M19/3.7).

The motion to further investigate Soper Reserve as an option was lost. It was determined Soper Reserve was to be retained as open space and utlised for an events space.

2019 – 2020

Investigation into availability and suitability of Baypark undertaken by staff in conjunction with BVL.  Including a geotechnical assessment of a potential site.



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

30 June 2020



BAYpark evaluation criteria

1.      Four sites were initially considered for further investigation regarding their availability and suitability.  These sites were selected by Council staff for investigation because there are no existing buildings and they are potentially not as heavily utilized as the rest of the site.

2.      Consultation on the four potential sites at Baypark with BVL provided a further fifth site (identified in red on appendix “1”) as a preferred location by BVL. BVL raised potential issues with the remaining sites.

3.      Refer to the attached map for an illustration of the location of the five sites (marked in blue) for further investigation. The red line illustrates the lease area.

4.      The following criteria as defined further below have been used to consider “availability and suitability”:

a.     Transportation / Accessibility

b.     Car parking

c.      Waste Management Requirements

d.     Leasing considerations

e.     Land Ownership / Management

f.      Current Uses / Future Uses by BVL

g.     Opportunities / Constraints from BVL

h.     Other Considerations (including geotechnical)

i.       City Planning Zoning

5.      A geotechnical assessment was recommended to be undertaken for the shortlisted sites that are considered to be “available and suitable” in light of this criteria.

geotechnical investigations

6.      Sites 1 – 3 were not progressed to geotechnical investigations on the recommendation of BVL and the fundamental flaws as identified in tables.

7.      Site 4 has the potential to be progressed to geotechnical investigation, this would be completed as part of a feasibility study.

8.      Site 5 was identified by BVL as a preferred location in discussions of potential locations for the facility. Site 5 was therefore progressed to Geotechnical investigation as a first priority.

9.      The completed geotechnical report demonstrates site 5 would support a building suitable to house a multi-purpose badminton facility.


10.    This proposal is supported in principle by Council transportation team from a roading and accessibility perspective. They noted that there is limited public transport / pedestrian / cycling access.

11.    The transportation team are currently undertaking investigations into the transport network in this area with the assistance of BECA. This site will be addressed as part of the investigation. 

12.    The recent commitment by NZTA to build the underpass as part of the B2B project will contribute to accessibility of this area by alternative modes of transport.


13.    Car parking requirements are set within the City Plan Chapter 20; Special Use – Baypark Zone as a minimum of 3,000 on-site car parks. Chapter 4 – General Rules also provides consideration of carparking requirements.

14.    The Council’s transportation team consider that car parking requirements can be addressed and managed through the resource consenting process, and could include consideration of sharing the existing carparks (and if required, limiting use of the badminton facility during major events).

15.    The city plan requires transport to undertake an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) for any site that requires >25 car parking spaces. Public Sports Courts, have a requirement for 3 spaces per court. Assuming a Badminton Facility would have e.g. 10 courts, the facility requires 30 parking spaces and thus an ITA.

Waste Management REQUIREMENTS

16.    The land to the south and east of the Baypark access road is owned by Tauranga City Council (Council) it is used and required for waste management purposes. This is the site of the existing Te Maunga Resource Recovery Park, Te Maunga Wastewater Treatment Plant, a timber processing facility, organics composting facility. There are future waste management plans for the vast majority of this area and a resource consent in place to facilitate this.

17.    All of the sites under consideration are located on the land that is designated for waste management purposes (Designation C93 in the Tauranga City Plan).

18.    All of the land under consideration that is located outside the area leased to BVL is required for current or future waste management purposes and is not available to be utilised for another purpose, including sporting and recreation purposes.

19.    The Council’s Drainage Services and Sustainability and Waste Teams do not oppose this development of this facility within the BVL lease area. The clubs should be made aware that the surrounding land is used for waste management purposes and there may be noise and odour associated with those activities.


20.    Four of the potential five sites are currently within BVL’s leased area. The lease between Council and BVL was entered into 21 September 2007 for 35 years with no rights of renewal (final expiry of lease is 2041)

21.    The lease restricts the use to the following;

(a)     Required Use: sporting, cultural, recreational and leisure facilities for the benefit of the Tauranga community as a whole, together with such ancillary uses as are reasonable to enjoy the Permitted Use and Required Use

(b)     Permitted Use: i) the uses allowed by the Resource Consents; ii) all activities which are permitted activities for the Land under the Tauranga City District Plan; and iii) any activities for which the Lessee has obtained a resource consent.

22.    If the use or activity is not permitted pursuant to the City Plan then the sub-lessee will need to apply for the resource consent.

23.    The lease allows for subleasing of areas with Councils consent as head lessor. The consent given by Council would include consenting to the charges. Consent can not be unreasonably withheld by the head lessor.

24.    A variation of the lease could be negotiated by agreement of both parties.  The variation could include agreement on exclusion of certain areas, rent paid for BVL and the sublease arrangement.


25.    The land Baypark is located on including the five potential sites is owned by the City Waters division of Council.

26.    The land for four of the sites is currently within BVL’s leased area and therefore is managed by BVL on Council’s behalf.

27.    Badminton’s initial approach to Council was for land only and they have expressed a desire to fund the build and therefore own their own facility within the indoor facility network. The ability to have a purpose built facility and access to meet the demand of their users is important to them.

28.    BVL currently manage the Trustpower Arena and other indoor facilities located within the Baypark area. There are various subleases for facilities that exist within this arrangement.

Current uses and future uses 

29.    The site is currently used as a multisport facility with integrated management across the multiple facilities. There are a variety of functions occurring within Baypark. BVL have aspirations to further utilise the site to increase the offerings.

30.    Development of another multiuse facility within this site will assist this site in being a destination to complete sporting activities. This increase in use needs to be managed with the waste management purpose of the wider area.

31.    The potential future uses are currently being considered for recreational needs in Tauranga City. The part that Baypark will play in delivery of the different activities is yet to be decided but as a strategic asset will be a key part of the network. Consultation with stakeholders and the community will be required.

32.    A part of the wider site will be required for waste management purposes, this will restrict the activities that can occur on the area.

City planning zoning

33.    Chapter 20 – Special Use Zone – Baypark within the City Plan

34.    The Special Use Zone - Baypark provides a centrally located multi-use events centre accommodating a wide range of activities ranging from local, national and international events and sporting fixtures, including speedway, rugby, conferences, trade shows, commercial activities and awards dinners. Baypark represents a significant recreation asset to the City and the sub-region and makes a major contribution towards the social, cultural and economic well-being of the community.

35.    Baypark comprises a large array of facilities, including a stadium, pavilions, playing fields, a speedway track, administration offices, sports and exhibition centre and parking areas. The overall approach with the Special Use Zone – Baypark is to enable the flexible use of this major multipurpose facility, while ensuring adverse environmental effects from activities are minimised.

analysis of potential sites at baypark based on criteria.

Refer to the attached map for an illustration of the location of the 5 sites for further investigation.

Site 1


Land Ownership / Management

Site is owned by TCC 


Current Uses:

Stormwater cleanfill


Future Uses:

Long term resource consent in place for use for stormwater cleanfill. Required for City waters functioning.



Not within BVL leased area



Not able to be built upon due to land condition

Permanent infrastructure undesirable

Resource consent conditions


Other considerations:

Within the Te Maunga Future Development Odour Buffer Zone


City Plan zoning & Overlays:

Industry Zone

Designation C93 for the purpose of Waste Management



Do not progress due to fundamental Resource Consent for waste.


Site 2


Land Ownership / Management

Site is owned by TCC

Site is leased by Bay Venues Limited


Current Uses:

Leased in part to a commercial paintball operator


Events staging area


Future Uses:

Potential site for future arena expansion



Industrial size building already exists adjacent to the site.



BVL declined to progress this location

Sublease in place with other operators who may be disrupted by badminton.

Area is used by BVL for bus and overflow parking.

Also used for event facilitation and access to concreted area.


Other considerations:

Within the Te Maunga Future Development Odour Buffer Zone


City Plan zoning & Overlays:

Special Use Bay Park Zone

Designation C93 for the purpose of Waste Management



Do not progress due to known constraints.


Site 3


Land Ownership / Management

Site is owned by Tauranga City Council

Site is leased by Bay Venues Limited


Current Uses:

Multipurpose outdoor zone

Outdoor concerts

Informal recreation activities

Overflow parking



Future Uses:

Adjacent to storage area.



Expansion to storage area possible.



BVL declined to progress this location

Loss of open space

Unfavourable ground conditions – poor drainage


Other considerations:

Within the Te Maunga Future Development Odour Buffer Zone


City Plan zoning & Overlays:

Special Use Bay Park Zone

Designation C93 for the purpose of Waste Management



Do not progress due to ground conditions.


SITES 1 – 3 have fatal flaws that discount them from progressing investigations into development of these areas.

36.    Further Analysis of site 4 to Criteria Application

(a)     Baypark is located adjacent to central arterials to provide ease of transportation choices. Site is centrally located for geographical spread of users to access. There are public transport and alternative transport access for school age children challenges.

(b)     There will be carparking provided as part of the location adjacent to the facility. Carparking will be independent of the wider Baypark facility and activities. Overflow parking would be on the roadway.

(c)     Waste Management do not need this piece of the site in the foreseeable future to fulfil the waste management function. It will be in the future odour buffer zone and require a reverse sensitivity agreement.

(d)     The land is included in the BVL leased area. To lease to BOP Badminton it will need to be excluded from the BVL lease via a variation to the lease in agreement with BVL.

(e)     The underlying land is owned by Tauranga City Council – City Waters. Designation C93 for the purpose of Waste Management

(f)      The area is currently used as open space and when a major event takes place has previously been used as a fixed ticket entry point. There is no known future for infrastructure in this area.

(g)     Erection of a facility in this location would be in synergy with adjacent buildings.

(h)     A geotechnical assessment is required to determine land conditions.

(i)      Chapter 20 of the City Plan permits a wide range of recreational activities on this site.

Advantages of proceeding

Disadvantages of not proceeding

·   Rent for the facility is set in line with other community facilities via TCC user fees and charges.

·   Parking will be independent from Baypark functions.

·   Visual impact will be minimal as similar industrial buildings.

·   Alternative entrances to Baypark are currently functional.

·   Baypark have another indoor facility close by to potentially utilise if overflow is required.

·   Frees up court space at Baypark and other indoor facilities.

·   BOP Badminton will manage the building within lease constraints in conjunction with TCC.

·   It is anticipated that BOP Badminton will apply for funding from sources other than Council. No foreseen impact on rates.

·   Lease negotiations are only between BOP Badminton and TCC. TCC retains head lessor capacity.

·   The City Plan allows this activity in this space.

·   Meets strategic goals for Bay of Plenty Spaces and Places Strategy and City Plan objectives.

·   BOP Badminton will have the ability to permanently house other sporting codes such as Table Tennis.

·   Baypark lose potential alternative events entrance.

·   BVL lose ability to develop this site at Baypark.

·   Traffic movements could impact on entranceway.

·   Loss of open space on the site.

·   Potential to widen the entranceway to Baypark will be removed.

·   BOP Badminton do not need to access the wide range of facilities on offer at the Baypark location.

·   Badminton specific lighting means the facility wouldn’t be suitable for other indoor ball sports.



37.    Further Analysis of Site 5 to Criteria application

(a)     Baypark is located adjacent to central arterials to provide ease of transportation choices. Access to the facility will be booked by BVL in competition with other user groups requiring indoor court space.

(b)     Carparking will be managed as part of the wider Baypark facility and concurrent uses.

(c)     Waste Management do not need this piece of the site to fulfil the waste management function. It will be in the future odour buffer zone.

(d)     The land is included in the BVL leased area.

(e)     The site is owned by Tauranga City Council – City Waters. BVL will have management of the Facility once BVL commission the building.

(f)      The area is currently used as carparking for predominately the Trustpower arena activities. The area was earmarked for expansion of the indoor court facilities adjacent.

(g)     Erection of a multiuse facility in this location would be in synergy with adjacent buildings.

(h)     A geotechnical assessment was undertaken for this site with the results indicating that the land was suitable for a building.

(i)      Chapter 20 of the City Plan permits a wide range of recreational activities on this site.

Advantages of proceeding

Disadvantages of not proceeding

·  BVL will gain an income stream from the rent and extra capacity.

·  Impact on the transportation network will be co-ordinated with the rest of the site by BVL.

·  BVL will integrate the facility into the existing management of the Baypark site.

·  BVL will design the facility to integrate into surrounding facilities.

·  Facility will be located adjacent to existing indoor court space.

·  On site catering able to be utilised for tournaments.

·  If facility is designed to house Badmintons specific needs then will meet strategic goals for Bay of Plenty Spaces and Places Strategy and City Plan objectives

·   Rent will be set by BVL outside of User fees and Charges.

·   Will increase the demand on parking as parking space will be lost.

·   BVL will require additional capital to fund the Facility.

·   BOP Badminton will not have autonomy.

·   BVL will be required to accommodate other sporting codes or events to meet capacity.

·   Use of the facility will be limited by other events occurring on the wider site.

·   The income earned will go to BVL not to BOP Badminton and this will impact on feasibility of BOP Badminton operating in the space.

·   Disruption to BVL business during construction.



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

30 June 2020


10.2       Spring Street Carpark Building - Progress Report on Seismic Assessment

File Number:           A11592510

Author:                    Paul Muller, Team Leader: Facilities

Authoriser:              Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services


Purpose of the Report

1.      To provide an update of the seismic work that is currently being undertaken and planned for the Spring Street Carpark.


That the Council:

(a)     Receives the Spring Street Carpark Building - Progress Report on Seismic Assessment



Executive Summary

2.      Seismic assessment was undertaken on the Spring Street carpark building to evaluate the floor systems. Works has identified what is required to secure the block wall on the north eastern side of the building. Geotechnical investigation on the ground conditions need to be done for the next phase of the assessment.


3.      This building has not previously had a seismic assessment undertaken, as the date of design (1994) placed it outside the age of buildings for which assessments were required by the Building Act.  However, the recent learnings from the Canterbury and Kaikoura earthquakes have highlighted that buildings such as this with long span precast concrete floors warrant assessment.  New national technical guidance to assist engineers with the assessment of these structures was released in November 2018.  

4.      In order to evaluate the floor systems, an understanding of the response of the building overall needs to be established.  The seismic assessment for this building is therefore being worked through progressively to ensure that the scope and extent of the assessment is appropriate, and the costs of the assessment can be managed.

5.      The following stages has been completed to date:

(a)     Preliminary appraisal- identified the floor system was designed before the current code for the seating provisions of precast came into force.

(b)     Qualitative assessment of the potential seismic risks – assessment and review of available documentation and a comprehensive inspection of the building.

(c)     Targeted seismic assessment findings – focus on the previous highlighted risk areas, incorporating intrusive investigations to establish the a-constructed nature of the precast concrete floor slab seatings and masonry wall connections.

6.      This initial work has identified some immediate requirements which will be undertaken at a cost estimate of $141,000.

7.      Work stream planned to be done next:

(a)     Detailed seismic assessment (DSA) including geotechnical investigation.

(b)     Seismic strengthening of the block wall on the north-eastern side following completion of the DSA.

8.      The work undertaken indicates that the building is still compliant with current legislation and fit for use however further work is required to fully understand the earthquake risk of this building and any subsequent work that is required to be undertaken in line with the Building Act.

Strategic / Statutory Context

9.      This is managed within the requirements of the Building Act.

Financial Considerations

10.    Estimated Geotechnical investigation cost of $87,000.

11.    Estimated retrofitting of the north-eastern block wall cost of $141,000.

12.    Additional costs may be incurred following the completion of the Detailed Seismic Assessment.

Legal Implications / Risks

13.    Building Act provides the legal framework for dealing with earthquake prone buildings.

Consultation / Engagement

14.    Consultation with lease holders will be done once we know the works program.


15.    This issue is of low significance in terms of TCC’s TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

16.    Geotechnical investigation to be completed to complete the overall Detailed Seismic Assessment. The cost for this is estimated at $87,000.

17.    Retrofitting the connection of the north-eastern block walls to the floor slabs. The cost for this is estimated at $141,000 excluding contingencies.


1.      Kestrel Group - Spring St Parking Building - Progress Report on Seismic Assessment - A11594256   

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

30 June 2020


PDF Creator




PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

30 June 2020


10.3       City Centre objectives and decision-making timetable

File Number:           A11574694

Author:                    Ross Hudson, Strategic Advisor

Authoriser:              Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth


Purpose of the Report

1.      To seek agreement to the development of a refreshed direction and set of objectives for the city centre and a co-ordinated programme across key workstreams to inform decisions feeding into the 2021-31 Long Term Plan (LTP).


That the Council:

(a)     Agrees to produce a refreshed ‘direction’, objectives and priorities for the city centre in partnership with key stakeholders to inform Council’s 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

(b)     Agrees that the proposed decision-making timetable and associated work is appropriate to the development of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.



Executive Summary

2.      Council has a set of current work programmes that support the revitalisation of the city centre, its wider role in the development and wellbeing of the city and the meeting of our Community Outcomes. These include the Urban Spaces programme, plans for the redevelopment of Council’s Willow Street site and its surrounds and the Te Papa/Cameron Road programme. Priority One also provides some ‘on the ground’ development facilitation support to private and public development interests.

3.      These programmes are underpinned by the City Centre Strategy (2012), the City Centre Spatial Framework (2017) and more recently by the emerging Te Papa Spatial Plan and Urban Form & Transport Initiative (UFTI) and Council’s Community Outcomes. Whilst these provide some strategic basis for Council’s interventions in the city centre, they do not provide a succinct direction and set of objectives for the city centre over the next 10+ years that Council, public and private sector city centre investors and the community can coalesce around.

4.      As we move towards the LTP and reconsider the role and function of the city centre post Covid-19 and in the context of a clearer spatial plan for Te Papa and the city, we are of the view that a refreshed ‘direction’ for the city centre is required, co-designed with those with the capacity to effect change through investment and articulated succinctly in a short public-facing document. This refreshed direction would inform an integrated and targeted programme by Council over the LTP period with a focus on prioritised actions to meet measurable objectives.

5.      Attachment 1 to this report provides a ‘strawman’ set of objectives, potential projects, benefits and indicators. We are seeking initial feedback on these and will look to refine them and develop a set of ‘investment statements’ covering the ‘live’, ‘work’, ‘learn and play’ themes as the basis for the refreshed ‘direction’. Investor feedback suggests that a common and consistent narrative and agreed set of objectives and investments will help enable the investment in accommodation and commercial floor space that the city centre needs to be successful of itself and for the wider city.

6.      Also below is an indicative timetable for dialogue and decisions that would feed-in to the LTP process. This outlines a co-ordinated approach to the development of a refreshed direction and Council work programme.


The rationale for a refreshed direction for the city centre

7.      There is significant development interest in the city centre and whilst investor confidence will undoubtedly have been hit by Covid-19, the changing nature of retail and new emerging work behaviours, there is significant potential for new commercial and accommodation investment. However, investors and developers are in competition and face information barriers and ‘first mover’ risks. Consistent feedback through Priority One is that a clear direction and a common narrative for the city centre, along with facilitation and a partnership approach to precinct-level investment, will catalyse an acceleration in and potentially a more collaborative and scaled approach to investment. Additionally, because Council’s own sites and development plans are of significant interest to the market, delays and indecision precipitate market uncertainty. Property development has high upfront costs and risks. A shared direction, clear and consistent plans and investment timeframes and facilitation to mitigate regulatory risks can position the city centre as a safe and valuable investment proposition.

8.      Council has invested in the city centre in the past five years, notably in the Tidal Steps, Durham Street, supporting the Tertiary Campus and now infrastructure and streetscape projects in Wharf Street and Elizabeth Street. It is also considering options for the development of a new Civic Administration Building. Beyond these projects, plans for community facilities at Willow Street, Memorial Park Aquatics & Recreational Facility, a public transport hub, the Waterfront from Dive Crescent to Memorial Park, the Tauranga and Wharepai Domains and smaller Urban Spaces projects are all at varying stages of consideration.  Some of these projects are controversial or have controversial aspects, as is our approach to parking supply and pricing, the changing functions of Cameron Road and the broader rationale for investment in the city centre ahead of other community centres. Where we plan to make multi-million-dollar investments, we should be clear what we expect to get in return by way of co-investment, returns to Council through rates and value for the city in terms of our strategic objectives and Community Outcomes.

9.      Community feedback suggests that a large proportion of the community wants the city centre to succeed. In February 2020, WSP reviewed and summarised 12 recent engagement exercises spanning the last three years. Seven strong themes emerged from this review, one of which focused on the desire for a thriving city centre. Specifically, people would like the city centre to provide higher density residential options, civic and community amenity and for issues such as homelessness to be addressed.

10.    More recently, when people were asked, via the Vital Update survey, an unprompted question on what they would like to change in Tauranga, 11% said they would like a well-planned, vibrant city centre (this came third, behind a desire for less traffic congestion and improved transport infrastructure – 41%, and better public transport – 12%). Recent engagement on the Te Papa Plan also reinforces support for a higher density living environment, amenity and vibrancy (see below).

11.    Community engagement consistently captures the views of those in our community who support the value proposition of density, amenity and vibrancy in the city centre. However, there is also value in providing residents who expect to benefit less directly from these outcomes with a clearer and more succinct narrative as to how successful outcomes for the city centre benefit the wider city, through the creation of jobs and housing choice, support for a sustainable transport network and less environmentally disruptive development. Transparency over Council’s direction and investment priorities for the city centre should help in that regard.

12.    All of the above imply the need for a clear direction and set of objectives and interventions. In order to provide those, we need to be clear in our understanding of what is feasible and what roles and functions the city centre should play in the city.

The role and importance of the city centre

13.    It is not the intention of this report or the proposed process to completely re-evaluate the role and importance of the city centre as these are, arguably, already reasonably well documented. However, our priorities and approach may require a shift in emphasis to ensure we are aiming at feasible and affordable targets for the next 10+ years.

14.    The draft UFTI Final Report points to the importance of a revitalised city centre that provides ‘work’, ‘live’, ‘learn and play’ opportunities for residents in the immediate neighbourhood and also for the Te Papa peninsula as part of an integrated multi-modal corridor of centres from Mount Maunganui through to Tauranga Crossing. It also points to the need for ‘regional’ scale public facilities on either side of the harbour bridge, a position that is re-enforced by the 2019 Community Facilities Needs Assessment. That assessment identified a redeveloped Central Library (and community space) and CBD Aquatics and Recreational Facility as necessary investments to meet current and emerging need for a catchment covering the intensification areas of Te Papa and the Tauranga side of the harbour.

15.    UFTI has also confirmed the Smartgrowth projections that most professional service jobs will be located in current employment areas, of which the city centre is the primary location. Using those projections, we provisionally estimate the potential for an additional 150 employees per annum in the city centre, the majority of whom would be based in professional and personal services sectors. This should translate into investment into new floorspace, albeit that the investment models and working practices are likely to evolve quickly and will need to be more adaptable as a result of greater use of digital tools and more flexible transport options.

16.    The role of the city centre as a civic, cultural and community centre for Te Papa and the city is relatively uncontentious. The scope, scale, and timing of specific investments is the issue. The relationship between investment in community facilities and public space, and commercial and accommodation investment in the city centre and Te Papa may require further work to define priorities. This work should build on known opportunities, both in terms of facilities and spaces where there is an identified need of investment and where community, potential resident and investor interest aligns.

17.    The potential of the city centre as a residential centre is perhaps less clear. New investments such as the Latitude apartments and the residential components of the Farmers development are encouraging, but the value proposition for at-scale investment at different price points over time is less well understood. Landowners and developers predominantly have office space in their sights, with housing or mixed-use developments seen as a riskier and potentially a lower return proposition. This may change, particularly if the appeal of the city centre as a living environment improves and, if we are to realise intensification in the city centre and Te Papa in support of housing, transport and community outcomes, it will need to.

18.    The recent Te Papa engagement found that there is significant community support for higher density living:

 “recognising the benefits of having more people living in the city centre to then support increased retail, hospitality and commercial activity, and create a more vibrant city centre. This is interlinked with amenity improvements to the streetscape, open spaces, and community facilities, including continuing to develop the waterfront as a key destination.”

19.    The Te Papa programme is provisionally projecting up to 19,259 new homes within the Te Papa study area over the next 30 years, of which between 50 and 100 homes per annum may be delivered within the City Centre and City Living zones (average over the long term). The mix and scale of new accommodation is expected to change over time, with serviced apartments, student accommodation and hotels also being part of the mix, in addition to the provision of residential units. We are provisionally of the view that putting greater emphasis on the role and potential of the city centre as a residential community in a refreshed ‘direction’ will help to shift the perspectives of investors and potential residents. For this to become a reality will require co-investment by Council, community partners and the private sector.

20.    The importance and impact of city centre activity on the transport network over time is now broadly understood. UFTI, the developing Transport System Plan System Operating Framework, the Te Papa Spatial Framework, and Cameron Road short-term multi-modal improvement projects will help define how we anticipate people journeying to and from the city centre over the coming years, with a shift towards public transport, walking and cycling; commuter travel decisions being key to the sustainability of the network. However, we do not yet have a transport and movement plan specific to the city centre itself, or a plan for the provision and pricing of parking. Similarly, the location, timing and funding of the proposed public transport hub is not yet agreed. If we are to realise objectives for the city centre as a place to ‘work’, ‘live’, ‘learn and play’ in the context of our broader Te Papa and UFTI objectives, a coherent and consistent plan for movements to, from and within the city centre will be required. In particular, as it pertains to public and private investment decisions and the most efficient use of valuable space, a clear plan for the provision/removal and pricing of parking space will be integral to those objectives, as it is in every city.

21.    Public and private investment in the city centre potentially represents a value proposition for Council. Bar some resilience and renewal issues, the core infrastructure capacity required for growth is already in place. Total capital value (CV) in the city centre (Marsh Street to 4th Avenue) was essentially flat between 2009 and 2015. However, it jumped by 41% (a $531m increase) through the 2018 revaluation and we could expect to see a further significant rise through the 2021 revaluation. The general rates take for the same area in 2020 was just under $6m, having risen by 15% over the previous two years. If public and private investment were to accelerate in delivery of a set of shared objectives, the rates contribution of the city centre would continue to rise relative to other parts of the city. Measuring CV and rates growth provides a useful indicator of increased private investment levels and returns to Council from any investments made. 

Objectives and workstreams

Direction and co-ordination

22.    The Strategy team is working with Priority One as the convenor of investor input, internal programme leads and, pending agreement to the proposed resolutions, with Council to generate an initial draft of a refreshed ‘direction’ for the city centre that would then be turned into a succinct public-facing document for broader stakeholder and community discussion. We would envisage this ‘direction’ being revisited once Council has completed its ‘Strategic Framework’ process beyond the upcoming LTP.

23.    We are also co-ordinating the current city centre-related workstreams and decision-making processes, to identify any additional work required to inform LTP decisions and to begin to establish a draft LTP programme across those workstreams. The timetable under Next Steps below summarises the proposed outputs over the next six months and the flow of dialogue and decisions with Council.

24.    To initiate discussions on objectives and priorities we have created a ‘strawman’ set of objectives and identified potential projects and their benefits for initial consideration. This is Attachment 1 to this report. Following feedback we would also propose to create a set of ‘investment statements’ and a draft narrative as the basis for a refreshed document that sets a shared direction for the city centre.

Civic Precinct and Council’s land holdings

25.    The process for the re-planning of the Willow Street site and its surrounds and the dependencies with other projects is the subject of a separate report in the confidential section of this Council meeting.

26.    Council will need to determine its priorities and timeframes for development of this precinct. Key requirements identified through previous work include a new central library and community space, bus/transport facility, civic administration building, associated civic public space, and a hotel; with potential for aspirational developments including a museum and performance venue. Next steps for the Devonport Rd site, Harrington St parking building/site, the Durham St (TV3) site and Masonic Park should be considered as within the initial scope for this process, even if only to exclude them for them to be resolved through separate processes.

27.    Feedback from the development community is that they want to see early resolution of the Devonport Rd development agreement and clarity on Council’s and/or Willis Bond’s plans for the TV3 site, as decisions on the uses and partnerships for those strategic sites will either delay or help catalyse decisions on other sites.

Te Papa and transport

28.    As is noted above, the success of the Te Papa objectives and those of the city centre are intrinsically linked. The Indicative Business Case (IBC) and Spatial Plan set out a programme to support future growth along the peninsula, including transport and social infrastructure initiatives. Both place significant emphasis on revitalisation of the city centre as a means to attract more people to live, work and play in and around the area. The next steps of the Te Papa Spatial Plan and Implementation Plan development will incorporate and inform the refreshed city centre ‘direction’ process and LTP planning.

29.    In the wider context, transport was the biggest issue raised through the Te Papa engagement and the IBC includes ongoing investment to support active modes and public transport in the city centre, as well as business case development for the transport hub and wider active modes and public transport connections to the city.

Urban Spaces

30.    The scope and scale of the Urban Spaces programme for the coming LTP will need consideration in the context of the workstreams above. The programme is currently guided by the City Centre Spatial Framework 2017 and the ‘current’ City Centre Strategy, which essentially provide principles, spatial context and a longlist of opportunities.

31.    Beyond the current projects (Wharf St, Elizabeth St, Strand Extension), the expansion of the Elizabeth St project to a full linear park, Aspen Reserve upgrade and the waterfront Wharewaka are under consideration through the Crown Infrastructure Partners and Provisional Growth Fund processes. Memorial Park Walkway, a Waterfront Masterplan (seawalls, Strand carpark, Dive Crescent) and further street and laneway upgrades aligned to private investment and Te Papa/UFTI priorities should also be within scope for LTP consideration, along with plans for ‘activation’ of the city centre through arts and events partnerships. The team will look to tailor a programme of work to agreed objective and priorities.

Strategic / Statutory Context

32.    Council’s draft Community Outcomes (2020), the City Centre Strategy (2012), City Centre Spatial Framework (2017), draft UFTI Final Report (2020), Te Papa Indicative Business Case and draft Spatial Plan (2020) and the draft Tauranga Urban Strategy (2019) inform Council’s current and emerging approach and priorities for the city centre.

Financial Considerations

33.    The development of a refreshed ‘direction’ for the city centre will be produced using existing resources. There may be downstream financial considerations through the LTP.

Legal Implications / Risks

34.    No legal implications have been identified. However, as this programme develops, information on development interests in the city centre may be subject to commercial confidentiality.

Consultation / Engagement

35.    The primary stakeholders for the proposed refreshed city centre ‘direction’ are investors. It is intended that documentation produced will have investors as its primary audience. However, we expect community interest and have identified two options for community engagement. We can either consult with the community on a draft ‘direction’ later this year as an input to the LTP, and/or we can consult with the community through the LTP, attaching a refreshed city centre ‘direction’ to the LTP consultation document and any accompanying investments on which we intend to consult.


36.    The production of a refreshed city centre ‘direction’ is considered to be of moderate significance. The work programmes that it overarches will be of high significance in due course.

Next Steps

37.    The table below summarises a draft timetable for dialogue with and decisions by Council in relation to the above workstreams.

Report – City Centre Objectives

30th June

Report – City Centre Developments, Willow Street

30th June

Exec briefing – workshop 1 – Willow St Masterplan [Scope of interest, projects, review of current Masterplan]

Early July

Developer workshop and interviews (Priority One)


Exec briefing – workshop 2 – Willow St Masterplan [Priorities and partnership agreement]

Late July

Draft ‘City Centre Direction’ document (internal version)

10th August

Report – Te Papa Spatial Plan

1st September UFTD

Report– City Centre ‘Direction’ and Council Priorities

1st September UFTD

Report – Willow St Masterplan and priorities

1st September UFTD

Draft (v1) Indicative LTP programme

14th September

Draft City Centre Direction & Objectives (stakeholder version)

14th September

Exec briefing – Indicative LTP programme

21st September

Report – Vision (final) and Proposed LTP programme

13th October UFTD

Refinement of LTP programme

Oct onwards



1.      City Centre Objectives - A11583276   

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

30 June 2020


Attachment 1 – “Strawman” City Centre Objectives & Programme



Intervention logic/ Problem

Projects (current and potential)

Potential Assets



People have safe, convenient, sustainable options to travel to, from and around the city centre from Te Papa and the wider city, in support of UFTI and Te Papa Spatial Plan objectives

Access is constrained by infrequent bus services, lack of transport hub, inadequate non-car options.


·    Cameron Road does not provide safe, multi-modal access


·    Safe, multi-modal access from suburbs is constrained


Lack of clear transport/movement plan for city centre


Lack of clear parking plan covering supply and pricing and balancing short-term needs with longer-term priorities


·    On-street parking diminishes walkability, street appeal and activation


·    Off-street at-grade parking excludes higher value uses (Strand, Dive Cres, Cliff Road)




Parking strategy (pricing, supply, buildings vs at grade, divestment)


Cameron Road interventions


Bridge via Dive Cres?



Memorial Park Walkway


Waterfront / Dive Cres / Cliff Road masterplan(s)


Regional PT Fare Review


Neighbourhood greenways studies


Te papa wide walking and cycling investment


City Centre ‘movement plan’


Ferry project

Transport hub


Parking buildings


Accessible streets and spaces


New connections to and from the city centre


Consistent journey times





Transport network viability and offset investment elsewhere


Greater spend in city centre


Lower proportion of journeys in Single Occupancy Vehicles


Parking revenues, or capital return through divestment


Opportunities for more optimal use of public space


[See also Te Papa/Cameron Road IBC]



Inward journeys not in SOV


Transaction data

Parking revenues




Private and public investment in the city centre accelerates, providing new office, accommodation and retail space

Significant development interest is, in part, constrained by –


·    Lack of clear direction / shared narrative for city centre

·    Uncertain demand and market information

·    First-mover risk

·    Development and planning risk

·    Conservative landowners / land-banking

·    Site amalgamation and redevelopment constraints

·    Lack of amenity and quality retail

·    Post-Covid market uncertainties and changing demand

·    Lack of sufficient returns vs alternative investments



Shared direction and opportunity identification


Development facilitation, planning support to scale and de-risk projects


Council land and development projects


Investment in urban spaces and community facilities, aligned with public and private investments


Consider incentives to stimulate private investment that make longer-term rates returns.




Target 150 extra accommodation units per annum (residential + other) [see Te Papa IBC]


Target 150 extra employees per annum [Market Economics research for Smartgrowth, Te Papa, UFTI]


Civic Administration Building


Development of TV3 site


Private investment in key sites and amenities (e.g. small supermarket)


Target $250m per annum growth in CV (Marsh St – 4th Ave)

(45:45:10, accommodation, office, retail)

Wealth creation


Agglomeration benefits


Appeal as commercial centre for business relocations


Housing numbers and catalyst for Te Papa


Reduced transport network impact from proximity to work and amenity



Greater viability of retail


Appeal as education centre


Returns to Council

# employees per annum

# residential per annum

# other accommodation per annum

$ investment per annum

capital value growth

Rates take

Office space utilisation




KI employment

The city centre has community facilities and cultural experiences that attract locals and visitors, befitting its role as the primary centre of Te Papa and the primary civic centre of the city

It lacks community facilities and

fails to house and represent the city’s heritage and culture effectively, due to investment constraints





Willow Street Masterplan and agreed investment priorities


Memorial Park investment plan


Domain investment plan


Elizabeth St West plan


Central Library and community space:

·    Library, heritage collection and community space that meets needs of Te Papa / Otumoetai catchments and wider community [see Library BC and CFNA]


Memorial Park Aquatics & Rec:

·    Aquatics & Rec to serve Tauranga side of harbour and catalyse Te Papa housing investment


Performance Venue (TBD)


Stadium (TBD)


Museum (TBD)





Cultural and community wellbeing


Increased visitor / tourism spend


Investor perception

City centre stakeholder perception

Public perception


Visitor spend

The city centre has ‘quality’ urban spaces and events that foster identity and reflect cultural heritage, encourage social and economic interactions and act as a catalyst for investment.






A lack of ‘good quality’ public realm and built form that reflects heritage and culture detracts from the appeal of the city centre as a place to invest, and to live, work, play and learn.



Urban Spaces programme and Spatial Framework implementation


Waterfront masterplan


Events, Arts and Culture plan


Development partnerships



Higher quality streets, laneways and other urban spaces -


Civic Plaza

Wharf Street

Elizabeth Street

Strand Extension

Waterfront projects

Memorial Park Walkway

Laneway network

Public art e.g. street art, large format installations


Community and cultural wellbeing


Safety and walkability


Investment catalysts

As above





Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

30 June 2020


11        Discussion of Late Items  

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

30 June 2020


12        Public Excluded Session  



That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution

12.1 - Civic Accommodation Update and Civic Precinct Planning

s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7