Agenda of City Future Committee meeting - Tuesday, 14 October 2025

Chair	Cr Marten Rozeboom
Deputy chair	Cr Rod Taylor
Members	Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular Cr Hautapu Baker Cr Glen Crowther Cr Rick Curach Cr Steve Morris Cr Kevin Schuler Cr Hēmi Rolleston Mayor Mahé Drysdale (ex officio) Arthur Flintoff - Tangata Whenua Representative
Non-voting members	(if any)
Quorum	Half of the members present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.
Meeting frequency	Six weekly

Role

The role of the City Future Committee is:

· To consider strategic issues and opportunities facing the city and develop a pathway for the future.

· To consider Tauranga’s strategic responses at a sub-regional, regional, and national level as appropriate.

· To ensure there is sufficient land supply for housing and for commercial and industrial purposes.

· To ensure there is sufficient and appropriate housing supply and choice in existing and new urban areas to meet current and future needs.

· To ensure that Tauranga’s urban form and transport system enables, supports and shapes current and future sustainable, vibrant and connected communities.

· To ensure there is a clear and agreed approach to achieve measurable improvement in transport outcomes in the medium to long-term including transport system safety, predictability of travel times, accessibility, travel choice, mode shift and improved environmental outcomes.

· To enable Tauranga’s urban centres to thrive and provide a sense of place.

· To ensure that council and partner investments in Tauranga’s build environment are economically and environmentally resilient.

· To work with all key partners to enhance, protect and restore (where necessary) the wellbeing of our natural environment and harbour to ensure the people of Tauranga can thrive and enjoy the lifestyle this city provides.

· To review and determine the policy framework that will assist in achieving the desired strategic and operational priorities and outcomes for the city.

Scope

· Development and ongoing monitoring and update of the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan and associated programmes and network operating plans.

· Development and ongoing monitoring and update of the Future Development Strategy and urban settlement patterns, including structure plans as required.

· Development and oversight of urban centres strategies, neighbourhood plans and master-plans.

· Development and oversight of the Compact City programme in support of higher development densities and the provision of a greater range of housing options.

· Development of City Plan changes and related matters for adoption by Council.

· Contribution to matters related to the SmartGrowth Strategy and input to the SmartGrowth Leadership Group.

· Regular monitoring of future strategic and growth-related projects including future strategic transport projects (i.e. projects where the project purpose definition, business case, and funding are yet to be in place).

· Development of strategies, policies, plans and programmes for the medium to long term delivery of social, environmental, economic, cultural and resilience outcomes.

· Ensuring that social, environmental, economic and cultural wellbeings are promoted through all strategic work considered by the Committee.

· Consideration of significant natural hazards risks across the city, as they apply to current and future land-form and built environment.

· Develop, review and approve policies, including as appropriate the development of community consultation material, the undertaking of community consultation, and the hearing of and deliberating on community submissions.

· Develop, review and approve bylaws to be publicly consulted on, hear and deliberate on any submissions and recommend to Council the adoption of the final bylaw. (The Committee will recommend the adoption of a bylaw to the Council as the Council cannot delegate the adoption of a bylaw to a committee.)

Power to Act

· To make all decisions necessary to fulfil the role, scope and responsibilities of the Committee subject to the limitations imposed.

· To establish sub-committees, working parties and forums as required.

Power to Recommend

· To Council and/or any standing committee as it deems appropriate.

Chair and Deputy Chair acting as Co-Chairs

· While the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee roles are separately appointed it is the intention that they act as co-chairs.

○ Only one person can chair a meeting at any one time. The person chairing the meeting has the powers of the chair as set out in standing orders and has the option to use the casting vote in the case of an equality of votes.

○ The rotation of the meeting chairs is at the discretion of the Chair and Deputy Chair and subject to their availability, however it is expected that they will alternate chairing meetings when possible.

○ When the Deputy Chair is chairing the meeting, the Chair will vacate the chair and enable the Deputy Chair to chair the meeting. The Chair will be able to stay and participate in the meeting unless they declare a conflict of interest in an item, in which case they will not participate or vote on that item.

○ The Chair and Deputy Chair will attend pre-agenda briefings and split any other duties outside of meetings, e.g. spokesperson for the Committee.

○ The Chair and Deputy Chair will jointly oversee and co-ordinate all activities of the Committee within their specific terms of reference and delegated authority, providing guidance and direction to all members and liaising with Council staff in setting the content and priorities of meeting agendas.

○ The Chair and Deputy Chair will be accountable for ensuring that any recommendations from the Committee are considered by the Tauranga City Council.

City Future Committee meeting minutes

12 August 2025

UNCONFIRMED

A logo of a company

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

MINUTES

City Future Committee meeting

Tuesday, 12 August 2025

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public forum.. 4

3.1 Liz Davies - SociaLink - Speaking about planning for people and social infrastructure in new developments. 4

3.2 Teisha Jackson - Speaking about 'Sleep n Go Pod' 4

4 Acceptance of late items. 5

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 5

6 Change to order of business. 5

7 Confirmation of minutes. 5

7.1 Minutes of the City Future Committee meeting held on 16 June 2025. 5

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 5

9 Business. 5

9.1 Status Update on actions from prior City Future Committee meetings. 5

9.2 Quarterly Update - Growth, Land Use Planning and Transport Strategy Projects - August 2025. 6

9.3 Te Tumu Wastewater Servicing Options. 6

9.4 Waters Planning Update. 7

9.5 Submission on Phase 2 of the Resource Management Reforms - Going for Housing Growth. 8

9.6 Lead Level of Service Policy Review.. 8

10 Discussion of late items. 9

11 Closing karakia. 9

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

City Future Committee meeting

HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council Chambers, Level 1 - 90 Devonport Road, Tauranga

ON Tuesday, 12 August 2025 AT 9.30am

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Cr Marten Rozeboom (Chair), Cr Rod Taylor, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Kevin Schuler, Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Mr Arthur Flintoff, Cr Hēmi Rolleston
IN ATTENDANCE:	Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (Chief Financial Officer), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Community Services), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance), Alastair McNeill (General Manager: Corporate Services), Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: City Development & Partnerships), Andy Mead (Manager: City Planning & Growth), Carl Lucca (Team Leader: Structure Planning), Brad Bellamy (Principal Planner (Structure Planning)), Wally Potts (Director: City Waters), Peter Bahrs (Manager: Water Services), Claudia Hellberg (Team Leader: City Waters Planning), Clare Sullivan (Team Leader: Governance Services) and Anahera Dinsdale (Governance Advisor).
EXTERNAL:	Liz Davies (SociaLink), Teisha Jackson & Rānui Samuels (Sleep N Go Pod)

Timestamps are included at the start of each item and signal where the agenda item can be found in the recording of the meeting held on 12 August 2025 on Council's YouTube channel.

1 Opening karakia

Cr Hēmi Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Apology

Committee Resolution CFC/25/5/1

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the apology for absence received from Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular and lateness from Mayor Drysdale be accepted.

Carried

3 Public forum

Timestamp: 2:03 minutes

3.1 Liz Davies - SociaLink - Speaking about planning for people and social infrastructure in new developments

Key Points

· Community wellbeing had to be placed at the heart of planning for the city’s future.

· Thriving communities didn’t just happen, they were the result of intentional planning.

· Ms Davies had been asked by Councillors, in response to community request, to undertake a community and social services assessment in Pāpāmoa East due to the lack of services and community spaces available, to support people who were unable to travel to Tauranga. She had also made a submission to the Annual Plan based on social infrastructure.

· Council needed to rely on Central Government to assist in social infrastructure and this was lacking at times.

· Ms Davies noted that she was available and open to kōrero with Councillors.

In response to questions

· A report on an assessment of social infrastructure for Pāpāmoa East would be developed by Socialink and be available November 2025. It would be useful to hold a workshop with Elected Members once the report was completed for further discussion on the issue.

Timestamp: 10:05 minutes

3.2 Teisha Jackson and Rānui Samuels - Speaking about 'Sleep n Go Pod'

Key Points

· Tauranga faced a problem of people finding somewhere safe to sleep. Homelessness in Tauranga was rising, noting that many people worked but could not afford to pay rent.

· Manaakitanga was at the heart of Sleep N Go. The solution was practical, scalable and designed to meet the multiple needs of travellers, workers and those in need.

· The Sleep N Go initiative offered three models all fitted with power source, ventilation and lighting. These included:

o Pods in small fixed locations located in CBD areas ideally near transport hubs.

o Buses converted to coach with private sleeping bags and available and on demand.

o Sleep N Go Motel, housing 30-40 pods in a warehouse.

· The Sleep N Go initiative was of a high standard, had controlled entry, CCTV, fire safety and at base bookings where appropriate.

· Mr Samuels noted they would like to partner with Council and with Council’s support, Sleep N Go pods would be able to deploy within months and not years.

Action

· That staff report back to Elected Members on other avenues of funding and grants outside of the Annual Plan.

4 Acceptance of late items

Nil

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to order of business

Nil

7 Confirmation of minutes

Timestamp: 20:50 minutes

7.1 Minutes of the City Future Committee meeting held on 16 June 2025

Committee Resolution CFC/25/5/2

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Minutes of the City Future Committee meeting held on 16 June 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest2QQ

Nil

9 Business

Timestamp: 21:37 minutes

9.1 Status Update on actions from prior City Future Committee meetings

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

Committee Resolution CFC/25/5/3

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Status Update on actions from prior City Future Committee meetings".

Carried

Timestamp: 22:12 minutes

9.2 Quarterly Update - Growth, Land Use Planning and Transport Strategy Projects - August 2025

Staff Andy Mead, Manager: City Planning & Growth

Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Actions

· Staff provide a report to the Tauranga and Western Bay of Plenty Transport Committee around the connection between Transport Strategy Projects and the New Zealand Transport Association Arterial routes projects.

· Staff provide the Committee with a report that includes the minimum, medium and maximum average costs for the new dwellings typologies.

At 10.08am, Mayor Mahé Drysdale entered the meeting.

Committee Resolution CFC/25/5/4

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Quarterly Update - Growth, Land Use Planning and Transport Strategy Projects - August 2025".

(b) Notes that the Government’s ‘plan stop’ announcements are highly likely to affect the planning pathway for the following projects with low probability for a plan change under the RMA:

(i) Keenan Road urban growth area

(ii) Review of industrial and commercial zoned areas

(iii) Proposed Upper Belk Road urban growth area.

(c) Notes that the Government’s ‘plan stop’ announcements may also affect the planning pathway for the Te Tumu urban growth area project in the same way as (b) above, and that staff will report back in the near future when further information is available.

Carried

Timestamp: 56:48 minutes

9.3 Te Tumu Wastewater Servicing Options

Staff Claudia Hellberg, Team Leader: City Waters Planning

Andy Mead, Manager: City Planning & Growth

Brad Bellamy, Principal Planner (Structure Planning)

Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Actions

That staff report back to the Committee on:

· The resilience of the wastewater system if delivered.

· The impact costs if delivered in an alternative way.

· The cost breakdown for Te Tumu wastewater services and include the Development Contribution’s depended on if needed to complete the project and what does not need to be included in the delivery.

Committee Resolution CFC/25/5/5

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Te Tumu Wastewater Servicing Options ".

(b) Notes the Eastern Corridor Wastewater options reassessment project programmed for the 2025/26 financial year and that this project will involve the Te Tumu landowners and the parallel wastewater investigations they are undertaking.

(c) Notes that staff will continue to liaise with developers who wish to deliver alternative wastewater infrastructure at their own cost, subject to all relevant planning, technical, and statutory requirements, and that staff will report back on the options developers have considered.

(d) Notes that there is infrastructure challenges associated with Te Tumu other than wastewater servicing (particularly access and stormwater management) and these need to be resolved as a package to enable development to proceed.

Carried

At 11.05am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.15am the meeting reconvened.

Timestamp: 1 hour 46:30 minutes

9.4 Waters Planning Update

Staff Claudia Hellberg, Team Leader: City Waters Planning

Peter Bahrs, Manager: Water Services

Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Actions

That staff provide the Committee with:

· The indicative costs for Cameron Road stormwater delivery.

· The Cherrywood Shopping Centre stormwater costs and funding source (development contributions and rates funded).

· The Mana whenua working group names mentioned in paragraph 13 of the report.

Committee Resolution CFC/25/5/6

Moved: Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Waters Planning Update".

Carried

Timestamp: 2 hours 11:40 minutes

9.5 Submission on Phase 2 of the Resource Management Reforms - Going for Housing Growth

Staff Carl Lucca, Team Leader: Structure Planning

Ashlee Peters, Senior Planner (Policy)

Andy Mead , Manager: City Planning & Growth

Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

The Chair noted that the members had previously held open meetings and workshops on this item which were available on Council’s YouTube Channel and invited any members of the public who wished to have a further discussion on this to reach out to any of the Elected Members.

Committee Resolution CFC/25/5/7

Moved: Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Submission on Phase 2 of the Resource Management Reforms - Going for Housing Growth".

(b) Endorses the submission on Phase 2 of the Resource Management Reforms – Going for Housing Growth (Attachment 1).

(c) Approves delegation to the General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance to make minor and editorial changes to the submission.

Carried

Timestamp: 2 hours 11:45 minutes

9.6 Lead Level of Service Policy Review

Staff Vicky Grant-Ussher, Policy Analyst

Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

Committee Resolution CFC/25/5/8

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Lead Level of Service Policy Review".

(b) Agrees to update the name of the policy to “Standards for Developing Levels of Service Policy”

Carried

10 Discussion of late items

Nil

11 Closing karakia

Cr Hēmi Rolleston closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 12pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the City Future Committee meeting held on 14 October 2025.

......................................................

Cr Marten Rozeboom

CHAIR

City Future Committee meeting Agenda

14 October 2025

9 Business

9.1 Vale Street, Windsor Road and Grange Road Safety Improvement Options

File Number: A18654007

Author: Rhulani Mothelesi, Senior Transport Engineer

Karen Hay, Team Leader: Engineering Services

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, Acting GM Transport & Water's divisions

Purpose of the Report

1. To update the City Futures Committee on investigations into community-requested safety improvements submitted through the 2025/26 Annual Plan process.

2. To present options for improving access and safety along several routes and intersections identified in the submissions

Recommendations

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Vale Street, Windsor Road and Grange Road Safety Improvement Options ".

(b) Thanks, Mr Sanson, Pillans Point School principal and local community members, for their contribution to this report and the effort and time taken to support the initiatives.

(i) On-road path along Vale Street using existing shoulder and a pedestrian refuge near Grange Road. Estimated cost ~$443 to~$497K.

(ii) Convert Windsor Road to one-way southbound with a bi-directional cycleway on the eastern side. ~200k

(iii) Install a zebra crossing near Milton Road to support vulnerable users. ~ $150-$170K

(iv) Undertake further design to determine the possibility of a crossing upgrades at Grange–Pillans–Hinewa intersection, noting the current constraints.

(d) Notes that the following are not recommended at this stage but will be monitored.

(i) A pedestrian crossing at Vale–Landscape intersection and

(ii) The upgrade of the pedestrian island at Grange-Coach as it is deemed appropriate given traffic volumes.

(e) Endorses the inclusion of the recommended safety improvement projects in the transport capital programme. Due to the scale of the programme and existing budget constraints, these projects will be prioritised against other projects and considered through the Annual Plan and Long-Term Plan processes.

(f) Targets delivery in the 2026/27 financial year, subject to prioritisation and funding approval.

(g) Funding of these projects is expected to be fully covered by Council, as NZTA is unlikely to contribute 51%, given current government priorities.

Executive Summary

3. Following Council’s 26 May 2025 annual plan deliberations, staff investigated safety concerns raised in submissions about pedestrian and cycle access in Ōtūmoetai — including access to Pillans Point School and Bureta Shops. A summary of those submissions are attached in Attachment 1.

4. Council requested further investigation into demand, work with submitter, engage with schools and report back.

5. Staff collaborated with Mr Sanson, who developed a concept plan for Vale Street outlined in (Attachment 2). We acknowledge the significant effort from both Mr Sanson and other members from the community, including Pillans Point school in preparing their submission and supporting material.

6. Key routes and intersections were assessed —specifically Vale Street, Windsor Road, and parts of Grange Road. This included site visits, school engagement, traffic data analysis, and demand assessments.

7. Based on the investigations, safety improvements are recommended as outlined in the proposed resolutions of this report.

8. The recommended safety improvements range in cost from $60K to $497K, with a total estimated cost ranging between $801K to $946K. Costs will be refined during the design process. Early concept designs are included in Attachment 2,3 and Attachment 4.

9. Due to budget constraints, delivery will need to be carefully programmed within the transport capital programme. If savings are realised, and with Council approval, smaller-scale projects may be delivered earlier—subject to prioritisation.

10. Each intervention is proposed to be delivered as a stand-alone project. This means each project can progress as soon as its funding is confirmed. This approach allows enables the potential to deliver outcomes sooner.

Background

11. Concerns about pedestrian and cyclist safety in the Ōtūmoetai area such as Vale Street and various locations on Grange Road - particularly for children - were raised by the community through 2025/26 Annual Plan submissions.

12. The Council resolved (CO/25/14/15) that:

(a) Requests staff to collaborate with the submitter, who has offered to develop an early design for a path on the northern side of Vale Street (along the golf course) at no cost.

(a) Requests that the outcome of this investigation be reported to the September City Future Committee meeting.

(b) Work with schools and community to understand pedestrian demand at various locations to support accessibility and safety to and from school.

(c) Ensures that the outcomes of these investigations are shared with the submitters, and that, where feasible, the projects are to be prioritised within the transport capital programme against other projects to determine their priority.

(d) Allocates $10,000 operational expenditure to support further investigation into accessible crossing facilities between Vale Street and Pillans Point School, noting that the majority of work will be undertaken using in-house capability.

(e) Adds these projects to the Community Response Programme, where they may be progressed if there is available budget within the transport programme.

13. Additionally, staff were asked:

(a) To determine if a zebra crossing instead of signalised pedestrian crossing would be feasible across Ngatai Road in the vicinity of Short Street and;

(b) That Windsor Road also be reviewed in the context of demand and if any interim measures /minimum viable product could be delivered.

Barriers to walking and cycling to and from school

14. NZTA’s national research highlights that the key barriers to walking and biking to school include unsafe routes, fast and heavy traffic, hard to cross roads, and concerns about personal safety. Having safer routes together with education initiatives encourages more students to walk, bike or scooter to school, which in turn supports reduced congestion.

15. The transport capital programme continues to support projects to make school journeys safer. TravelSafe also undertakes practical education initiatives to support journeys to and from school. Tauranga’s active mode use (10-14 year olds) is lagging behind the national average, except for cycling, which is slightly ahead. See Figure 1 for details.

Pedestrian and cycling demand analysis

16. The community often asks why pedestrian facilities or footpaths are not delivered more quickly, or why some are not recommended at all. Staff apply a consistent prioritisation approach to pedestrian crossing requests. This ensures fairness, transparency, and equity in decision-making. It also supports efficient use of resources and helps build public confidence in our processes.

17. Requests are assessed using Austroads’ standard tool. This evaluates demand, traffic conditions, user vulnerability, travel time impacts, and cost. The approach is evidence-based and aligns with NZTA guidance and Safe System principles. It helps identify the most cost-effective and appropriate crossing solution for each location. Engineering expertise is also applied, considering onsite conditions, road geometry, safety risks, and local factors.

18. The examples below are from the tools assessment. The first example shows the outcome for a road with over 10,000 vehicles a day. Most vehicles exceed the 50km/h speed limit, and 20 to 40 pedestrians and cyclists cross during peak hours.

19. In this scenario, a zebra crossing may be appropriate. While a signalised crossing generally has a lower Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) due to higher construction and maintenance costs, it may still be justified based on context-specific needs, reduced traffic delays, or other safety risks. Figure 2 provides an overview of all crossing options and their associated BCRs.

20. In contrast, roads with ~1,000 vehicles/day and similar pedestrian demand and similar vehicle speeds may not warrant formal crossings. The “no facility” option may still meet acceptable safety levels.

21. Figure 3 illustrates a typical output for such a scenario, where all feasible options return a BCR of less than one. As the pedestrian Level of Service and perceived safety for the “no facility” option is rated Level D (i.e. acceptable), a formal crossing is not warranted.

Prioritisation of recommended safety improvements

22. Safety improvements identified as needing intervention are then prioritised based on the following criteria:

(a) Safety risk/ exposure (e.g. Traffic volumes, speed, crash history);

(b) Pedestrian and cyclist demand (especially vulnerable users);

(d) Cost-effectiveness and feasibility.

Ōtūmoetai accessibility context

23. The Ōtūmoetai Spatial Plan (2023–2050) is a long-term framework to guide future development across the Ōtūmoetai Peninsula. The plan was shaped by community input and reflects shared aspirations for a vibrant, resilient future, and how people will move around. The plan provides a clear foundation for investment decisions that improve travel choices, access and network resilience.

24. Figure 4 below, shared by Mr Sanson, shows key local connections that support students travelling to the Ōtūmoetai cluster of schools. It highlights the most direct route to Pillans Point School, along Vale Street that connects to Bureta shops and public transport facilities. The largest safety barrier is the lack of a safety crossing at the Grange and Vale Street intersection.

Statutory Context

25. The provision of safe and accessible routes to schools, shops, and public transport in New Zealand is guided by several key frameworks:

(a) Land Transport Act 1998: Establishes the legal basis for transport safety and infrastructure planning.

(b) Safer Journeys for Schools Guidelines: Promotes a Safe System approach to improve safety around schools.

(c) NZTA’s Pedestrian Network Guidance: promotes a Safe System approach and inclusive design, encouraging road controlling authorities (RCAs) to consider the needs of all users, particularly vulnerable road users, when planning and implementing pedestrian facilities (paths and crossings).

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

26. This contributes to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcome(s):

	Contributes
We are an inclusive city	ü
We value, protect and enhance the environment	ü
We are a well-planned city	ü
We can move around our city easily	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	ü

27. Providing safe and accessible routes aligns with Council’s vision of developing a well-planned city that supports movement and offers a range of sustainable transport choices, which also supports carbon emission reduction.

28. Accessible routes with safe crossing facilities enable local communities to navigate the city safely and inclusively, whether travelling to work, school, shops, or public transport, while accommodating people of all ages and abilities.

Options Analysis

29. To inform the appropriate safety and accessibility improvements, staff have undertaken site visits, engaged with local schools and collected relevant data - including traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and active mode demand data.

Vale Street connection between Landscape Road and Bureta Road

30. Vale Street carries approx. 2,200 vehicles/day between Landscape Rd and Grange Rd, and 7,300 vehicles/day between Grange Rd and Bureta Rd. A peak hour count recorded more than 40 active mode users or 84 over the two hour morning peak, with ~50% cycling/scootering on-road. Over the two hour period, ~12 were students. .

31. Four options have been developed for consideration. A detailed comparison and assessment of the options is presented in Table 1 of Attachment 5:

(a) Option 1 is to retain the status quo. Not recommended as it does not address the identified accessibility and safety issues raised by the community.

(b) Option 2: Using tactical urbanism approach using temporary, lower-cost interventions is recommended. Mr Sanson prepared a concept plan which is attached in Attachment 2. The concept includes.

(i) a mostly on-road path that uses the existing shoulder to connect Vale Street from Landscape Road, through the golf course, to the Bureta Road intersection. This is contingent on successful negotiation with the golf course.

(ii) a pedestrian refuge is proposed on the western side of the Vale Street–Grange Road intersection to improve access.

(iii) This option is recommended as it provides the most direct route to Pillans Point School and is more cost-effective at $497K, (compared to the $880K option presented previously) avoiding the high stormwater mitigation costs of the original off-road proposal. The option returns a BCR of 6.7.

(c) Option 3 is a scaled-down version of Option 2 is not recommended The on-road path would start at the proposed pedestrian refuge (#92 Vale Street), not at Landscape Road. This option retains some parking on the golf course side. It comes at a reduced cost of $417K but does not offer the most direct connection between Landscape Road and Bureta Road.

(d) Option 4 - a crossing at the Grange Road and Vale Street intersection only. This is not possible without a major upgrade to the intersection, due to poor road geometry and intersection layout, property boundary constraints and limited visibility. The cost would be significant. A pedestrian refuge can be placed further along Vale Street to support access to the proposed on-road path if that option proceeds.

Pedestrian crossing assessments

32. The following assessments have been made for various crossing as requested by the local community with a location map in Attachment 6.

33. The following are recommended (subject to prioritisation and funding):

(a) Grange Road at Milton Road intersection.

(i) 58 active mode users during a peak hour

(ii) more than half comprising children or elderly individuals

(iii) one or two carparks are needing removal, which may not be supported by businesses

(iv) A footpath extension of 20m is included on Milton Road to provide access across Milton Road further away from the intersection.

(b) Grange Road intersection with Pillans Road and Hinewa Road.

(i) The existing traffic volumes and pedestrian demand support the provision of a non-priority crossing facility (e.g. a refuge or kerb extensions).

(ii) However, the road is too narrow to accommodate these treatments, and visibility is significantly constrained due to the intersection’s location on a crest.

(iii) Further design work is required to identify a suitable location for a crossing facility at this location.

34. Crossing improvements are not recommended at this stage for the following locations:

(a) Vale Street and Landscape Road intersection:

(i) Low vehicle volumes at this location

(ii) Vehicle arrivals during peak periods occurring approximately every 30 seconds, allowing sufficient gaps for pedestrians to safely cross.

(b) Grange Road and Coach Drive intersection:

(i) The existing pedestrian refuge, which was constructed in 2019, remains appropriate given the traffic volumes and estimated demand.

(ii) A zebra crossing at this location results in an indicative BCR of 0.6.

Ngatai Road & Short Street Pedestrian Crossing

35. We have reassessed the planned signalised crossing on Ngatai Road near Short Street. It is already funded and scheduled. The signalised crossing was based on demand form Accessible Streets for Ōtūmoetai project.

36. Revised analysis shows a zebra crossing will meet current demand and is feasible at this location. It will cost around $150,000 to $170,000, compared with the $594,000 currently allocated for a signalised crossing. This change means the remaining budget could be redirected to other higher-priority projects.

Windsor Road Corridor Safety Improvements

37. Windsor Road carries between 1,800 and 4,900 vehicles per day, with higher volumes between Princess Road and Anne Road. Peak hour counts show 130 active mode users near Charles Street and 136 near Princess Street.

38. To achieve similar safety and accessibility outcomes as Vale Street at lower cost, staff investigated a value-for-money alternative to the previous Accessible Streets proposal. This approach reallocates road space without moving kerbs and uses bolt-down lane separators instead of concrete kerbing, reducing construction costs to around $200K.

39. Advantages and disadvantages are outlined in Table 2 of Attachment 5, including a comparison with a “do-nothing” scenario. A high-level concept plan is included in Attachment 3.

Financial Considerations

40. For the medium to long term option that includes all recommended options above, the Transport’s capital programme is constrained. Due to the reduction in NZTA partnership funding, Council’s ability to deliver capital projects is reduced.

41. NZTA funding contributions for walking and cycling projects in this 2024-2027 NLTP round is highly unlikely.

42. The projects could be considered as part of upcoming annual plan deliberations or the next Long Term Plan. An option does exist that savings within the Transport programme is utilised to support delivery, where possible.

43. Summary of costs are outlined in Figure 5 below, including a 20% risk allowance and priority comparisons.

44. The table below outlines the typical cost range for crossing improvements in Tauranga. compared against similar projects in other territorial authorities, where such information is available.

45. While crossing costs in Tauranga are in line with other major cities, several site-specific and market factors can increase costs. These include:

(i) Material and freight costs – Transporting concrete and asphalt into the Bay of Plenty is expensive, especially for smaller jobs with limited bulk buying.

(ii) Contractor availability – High demand and low local capacity mean contractors charge more, particularly for short or low-margin projects.

(iii) Traffic management – Urban roads need extensive traffic control, adding cost even for short-term works.

(iv) Drainage complexity – Coastal and flood-prone areas often need extra stormwater infrastructure, even for minor upgrades.

(v) Design and consenting – Small projects still require full design, safety audits, possible consents, lighting, and power connections, which can drive up total cost.

(vi) Site constraints – Narrow corridors, underground services, and existing infrastructure often need custom solutions, which may increase cost.

Legal Implications / Risks

46. The key identified risks include:

(a) The transport capital programme is constrained due to reduced NZTA partnership funding, limiting the Council's ability to deliver capital projects. An option exists where minor projects may proceed earlier if transport savings are realised and prioritised.

(b) Parking loss is likely to be unpopular. This risk will be mitigated through clear communication and engagement to explain the benefits and gather feedback.

(c) Implications for the leased golf course for the Vale Street option. Collaboration with the golf course will seek to mitigate any potential challenges.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

47. If improvements proceed, local hapū will be engaged to ensure their views are considered and incorporated.

CLIMATE IMPACT

48. The recommended crossing improvements support the Climate Investment and Action plan as it supports walking, biking, and micro-mobility transport modes and improves access to public transport.

Consultation / Engagement

49. The TravelSafe team engaged with local schools in late May 2025 to discuss the identified safety and accessibility issues and gather feedback on the most significant transport challenges currently affecting their students. A summary of the feedback received is provided in Attachment 7.

50. A letter from the Principal at Pillans Point was shared as part of Mr Sanson’s report and reads :

“I am writing on behalf of the students, parents, and wider community of Pillans Point School to express our serious and urgent concerns regarding the safety of Grange Road, particularly for our children travelling to and from school.

Our primary concern is the significant risk posed to child and community safety due to the current conditions of Grange Road. The volume and speed of traffic, combined with a lack of safe walking and cycling infrastructure to cross the road safely, have created a hazardous environment. Parents are increasingly reluctant to allow their children to walk or cycle to school, instead opting to drive them, which in turn exacerbates traffic congestion and further compromises safety around the school gates.

From a community perspective, the road is a major barrier to a more active and connected

community. It discourages residents from using alternative, more sustainable modes of transport and creates a constant source of stress and worry for families. We believe that addressing the safety issues on Grange Road is not just a school concern but a community-wide priority.”

51. The school also undertook a survey of the local school community and in summary,

(a) 81% live on the western side of Grange Road,

(b) 85% said that Grange Road was a barrier to allow students to walk or bike to school.

(c) 94% said they would be more inclined to allow their child to walk, bike or scooter if there was a safe way to cross Grange Road or travel along the side of the Golf Course.

52. At this stage, no further community engagement is considered necessary until funding of the recommended crossing improvements is allocated. Once funding is allocated, community and iwi engagement will be undertaken during design development of the recommended crossing improvements. Feedback will be sought and incorporated into the designs where possible.

Significance

53. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

54. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region.

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the decision.

55. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the proposal is of medium significance. However, this matter is likely to be of high interest to the local community.

ENGAGEMENT

56. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the proposal is of medium significance, officers are of the opinion that the following consultation/engagement be undertaken:

57. Staff will share the outcome of the investigation with members of the community who made the submissions to the Annual Plan, including the locations where crossing improvements are not warranted or recommended.

58. Once a project’s approved, staff will consult with affected parties and interested groups. This ensures we get the right input before the design progresses and prior to implementation.

Next Steps

59. Should the City Futures Committee accept the recommendations, the recommended crossing improvements will be included for Council’s consideration at the upcoming Annual Plan and/or LTP deliberations.

60. While Spaces and Places support the path the leased golf course, further engagement with the golf course is required to address any potential concerns.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Summary of submissions - A18900798 ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - Concept Design from Mr Sanson - A18900797 ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Concept Design for proposed Windsor Road One-way system - A18900795 ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Concept designs for proposed crossing improvements - A18900793 ⇩

5. Attachment 5 - Options assessment - A18900792 ⇩

6. Attachment 6 - Pedestrian crossing location map and summary of assessments - A18900796 ⇩

7. Attachment 7 - Summary of feedback from engagement with local schools in May 2025 - A18900794 ⇩

City Future Committee meeting Agenda

14 October 2025

9.2 Harbour Drive Safety Improvement Options

File Number: A18653997

Author: Karen Hay, Team Leader: Engineering Services

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, Acting GM Transport & Water's divisions

Purpose of the Report

1. To present short and long-term options for consideration. Short-term measures aim to address immediate safety and amenity concerns, while long-term options could be considered during the next Annual Plan or Long-term Plan (LTP) deliberations.

Recommendations

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Harbour Drive Safety Improvement Options".

(b) Approves the short-term option to:

(i) install boulders

(ii) change angle parking to parallel parking

(iii) upgrade areas where cars park to reduce rutting

(c) Approves that the $35,000–$38,000 to fund the short term option will be funded using savings from Transport’s existing FY26 budget, noting this is solely Council funded.

(d) Endorses Option 3 as the preferred option at an estimate of $2.3M that includes:

(i) Replacing the exiting path to between 3.5m and 4m along its length

(ii) Includes provision of approximately 32 parallel parking spaces, picnic tables, traffic calming using chicanes, additional planting and 200m of boardwalk.

(iii) Notes the benefit cost ratio of 2 associated with this investment.

(e) Note that the recommended medium-term option will need to be considered through the upcoming Annual Plan/ LTP deliberations. Given the current national funding priorities, it is unlikely this project will receive NZTA funding contribution.

(f) If funding is confirmed, then engagement with the local community and hapū will be undertaken to help inform design.

(g) Thanks Mr McHardy and residents for their time and effort to collaborate with Council staff on this matter.

Executive Summary

2. The Ōtūmoetai Spatial Plan identifies a number of connections that link neighbourhoods with centres, schools, employment, public transport, parks, and community facilities. The plan promotes safe, walkable environments and better travel options for people of all ages and abilities. Harbour Drive and surrounding paths are highly utilised facilities that provide for recreation and connect local neighbourhoods.

3. On 22 July 2025, Harbour Drive resident Matt McHardy addressed the City Delivery Committee, voicing concerns about narrow footpaths, antisocial behaviour, berm damage, and offering the following suggestions for Council consideration to improve safety and amenity in the area.

(a) Introduce a one-way traffic system to help reduce antisocial behaviour and improve traffic flow.

(b) Lower the speed limit from 50km/h to 40km/h for improved safety.

(d) Widen the shared path and install boulders (as on Beach Road) to prevent berm damage and vehicle encroachment.

(e) Convert angle parking to parallel to deter drug-related activity and other anti-social behaviour patterns.

4. Staff have met with Mr McHardy and several residents to present and gather feedback on the proposals outlined in this report. There is alignment around the preferred short-term option of using boulders and parallel parking and not progressing a one-way system. The community's preference is to replace the entire existing path—ideally with a boardwalk, include the upgrade of the seawall and provide more access points to the beach.

5. The medium term recommended option (Option 3) is replacing the existing shared path, provision of picnic tables, rubbish bins, reseeding the area, planting and 200m of boardwalk at key locations at a cost of $2.3M.

6. The cost includes a standard 30% risk allowance to cover uncertainties at this early stage, such as potential cost increases due to design changes, unforeseen site conditions, and market fluctuations.

7. With changes in government priorities and ongoing financial pressures, walking and cycling projects—such as Harbour Drive—have been reprioritised resulting in no co-funding available for this type of project currently. In response, Council could consider the following recommended options:

(a) Approval of recommended option as a short-term solution to deter antisocial behaviour on the berm, by converting parking to parallel configuration. This will be delivered within existing budgets, with repairs and grass seeding already underway.

(b) Notes that changing parking may be perceived by the wider community as spoiling their current enjoyment of the area; however the trade-off is to provision more green space and accommodate future widening of the shared path.

(c) Recommend the Harbour Drive medium – long term solution (Option 3) be included as part of the upcoming annual Plan/Long-term plan deliberations noting this would be solely Council funded at this point.

Background

8. There is currently no funding available for the Harbour Drive shared path. A budget bid was prepared for walkway or pathway development for the 2024-2034 LTP and submitted as part of a previous Low-Cost Low Risk (LCLR) bid to NZ Transport Agency (NZTA). Given the change in government priorities, funding was not allocated for this or any other walking and cycle related projects.

9. Harbour Drive - Kulim Park is highly utilised route for walking and cycling. The count comparisons below are based on data from electronic counters currently available on the network. A count was undertaken on Harbour drive comparing the volume of users in the highest hour peak against that of Kulim Park. 82% used Harbour Drive or estimated at 708 average weekday number.

Figure 1: Average daily pedestrian and cycle volumes 2024

Statutory Context

10. The provision of safe and accessible routes in New Zealand is guided by several key frameworks including:

(a) Land Transport Act 1998: Establishes the legal basis for transport safety and infrastructure planning.

(b) NZTA’s Pedestrian Network Guidance: promotes a Safe System approach and inclusive design that considers the needs of all users, when planning and implementing pedestrian facilities (paths and crossings).

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

11. This contributes to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcome(s):

	Contributes
We are an inclusive city	ü
We value, protect and enhance the environment	ü
We are a well-planned city	ü
We can move around our city easily	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	ü

12. The recommendations support local communities in moving around the city safely and inclusively, catering to all ages and abilities, while supporting how we value and protect our environment.

13. Safer roads and environments encourage more people to walk, cycle, or use public transport, promoting healthier lifestyles and supporting environmental outcomes.

Options Analysis

One Way Traffic System (Not recommended)

14. The suggestion to consider a one-way traffic system on Harbour Drive to help reduce antisocial behaviour and improve traffic flow was investigated. With around 600 vehicles per day, a one-way route from Bureta Road to Maxwells Road is the only feasible option due to the left-in/left-out configuration at the Maxwells Road and Chapel Street intersection. However, this would divert traffic to Kulim Avenue and Ngatai Road, unlikely to be supported by residents in those streets.

Figure 1: One Way System overview

Speed reduction from 50km/h to 40km/h (Not recommended)

15. Under the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024, lowering speed limits from the default 50 km/h—such as to 30 or 40 km/h—is considered an exception and must meet specific criteria before approval by the NZTA Director.

16. Lowering the speed limit from 50 km/h to 30 or 40 km/h requires evidence of safety risk (e.g. crash history or infrastructure ratings), public consultation of at least six weeks, a cost-benefit disclosure outlining safety, travel time, and cost impacts, and approval as an Alternative Method Proposal by the Director.

17. The proposed limit must also align with rule classifications or justify why speed reduction is preferred over other safety measures. Harbour Drive is unlikely to meet these criteria due to low risk and lack of crash data, albeit the potential for strong community support is demonstrated.

Install temporary or permanent speed humps to calm traffic.

18. While speed humps are effective in slowing traffic, staff have highlighted concerns about increased noise and potential vibration. Chicanes, which reduce speed by altering the road layout, offer a quieter and smoother alternative, though they require more space. Chicanes are an alternative and are recommended instead.

Short, medium and to longer-term options

19. While an option of ‘do nothing’ exists, community feedback does indicate a desire for improvement. Detail of the short and longer term options are attached in Attachment 1.

20. In the short term the recommended option is to change the parking to parallel and utilise boulders to formalise parking arrangements. Additionally, an upgrade of the newly parked area will be upgraded to help reduce rutting.

21. This option provides more greenspace for use by the community, supports the medium to long term proposal of widening the path and precludes people using the berm area for antisocial behaviour.

22. The cost estimate is between $35-$38K and can be accommodated within Transport programme, where savings can be reallocated.

23. Reseeding of damaged berm and remediating potholes along the berm will be undertaken through the maintenance programme.

Medium to Long Term Option – Shared path and other improvements

24. The recommended width of shared paths is based on peak-hour use by both pedestrians and cyclists. A minimum width of 3 metres is needed, with 4 metres preferred to comfortably accommodate current and future demand.

Figure 2: Average daily pedestrian and cycle volumes 2024

25. The current path width ranges between 1.2m and 1.4m along its length. The options presented in Attachment 1 include formalising parking, provision of additional planting and widening the path to 3.5m for the majority of its length.

26. We recommend replacing the entire path rather than adding to the existing one. Matching levels between old and new sections is difficult and could lead to uneven surfaces and safety risks. A full replacement avoids these issues and reduces long-term maintenance.

27. The preferred option is estimated to cost $2.3M,(including 30% risk allowance given the early stages of the project development). An indicative BCR is 2.

28. In summary, the following is included in the cost estimate above.

(a) Replace the entire path with concrete which would reduce future maintenance costs and provides 200m of boardwalk to be incorporated at key locations.

(b) Change parking to parallel car parking along the roadside, incorporating grass between patterned surfaces.

(c) Install chicanes at four locations to reduce vehicle speeds and preclude the challenges with burnouts and excessive speed.

(d) Replace existing rubbish bins, excluding recycling bins in line with Council resolution CO/25/14/16, which aims to reduce public recycling bins due to high contamination levels and to achieve cost savings.

(e) Addition of picnic tables and seating.

Financial Considerations

29. If Council endorses spending the recommended quick win option of installing bollards and changing parking to parallel parking, this can only be delivered by using savings through the existing transport budget to a maximum of $35-$38K, noting this is solely Council funded.

30. For the medium to long term option, Transport’s capital programme is constrained. Due to the reduction in NZTA partnership funding, Council’s ability to deliver capital projects is reduced. Prioritisation of this project against several other projects will be required with delivery timeframes yet to be finalised. This project could be considered by Council through the next Annual Plan process.

31. A value for money lens has been applied against the options. A summary of each of the options and costs is outlined in the table below. NZTA does not require economic evaluations for projects under $2 million, given the known overall benefits these bring. For this project, an assessment has been undertaken using NZTA’s Monetised Benefits and Costs Manual relating to walking and cycling.

32. The BCR shows if a project’s benefits are worth the cost. If the BCR is over 1, the benefits outweigh the cost resulting in good investment. The higher the number, the better the value for money.

33. The recommended option has a BCR of 2 i.e. replacing of the path. The higher BCR is due to reduced overall long-term maintenance costs The recommended option has a BCR of 2 i.e. replacing of the path. The higher BCR is due to reduced overall long-term maintenance costs. The table below presents cost of options and associated BCR’s.

34. Permeable parking options like grasscrete or gobi blocks cost $219K less than asphalt which represents a better value for money option.

Legal Implications / Risks

35. The key risks identified include:

(a) Constrained funding associated with walking and cycling projects due to lack of NZTA funding and its priorities.

(b) Consultation may not receive the level of support needed for the project which may impact cost and time.

(c) There is a risk that changes to parking may be unpopular with some residents. Council will address this through clear communication and engagement to explain the benefits and gather feedback.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

36. We take a deliberate approach to engaging with Tangata Whenua. Staff have initiated contact with local hapū, and if the project proceeds, further engagement with hapū representatives will ensure Māori perspectives are reflected through a Te Ao Māori lens through the design process.

CLIMATE IMPACT

37. The proposed changes on Harbour Drive support the Climate Investment and Action plan as it supports use of the street for a variety of public transport, walking, biking, and micro-mobility transport modes.

Consultation / Engagement

Previous Engagement

38. Following multiple requests from Harbour Drive residents in 2024, Council proposed to install 10-12 new LED streetlights to help improve safety and visibility by illuminating the car parking areas on the northern/harbour side of the street, especially at night. Council staff door-knocked and hand delivered letters to about 60 Harbour Drive properties in February 2025 seeking their feedback on the proposal. The majority of feedback received – in-person and via emails and phone calls - was not in favour of the proposed streetlights due to potential increased light spill onto their properties, spoiling their views of the harbour, and devaluing their properties.

39. Many residents felt that other measures, such as the ones discussed in this report, would be more effective at deterring antisocial behaviour. A decision was made not to go ahead with the streetlighting which was communicated to residents in April 2025.

Recent Engagement

40. Staff met with Mr McHardy and other resident representatives to work through the options presented in this report. There is a desire to complete additional works which include:

(a) Upgrade of the seawall to remediate areas of failure and align with Trinity Wharf Level of Service. This is part of Council’s renewal programme and falls outside of the scope of this project and is not programmed within the LTP. Notwithstanding, routine maintenance is undertaken, and on updated assessments identifying further significant intervention, these are then programme for consideration in Long Term Plans.

(b) Replace the path in its entirety with the preferred option of a boardwalk. While Council could consider this as a preferred option, note the return on investment is negative. A boardwalk is expensive and therefore not considered the best value for money.

(c) Additional access points to the beach. There are currently three access points to the beach. While more access could be beneficial, it is not included in the current options. However, it could be considered as part of future planning. Any additional access would best be undertaken with a longer term seawall renewal work and would come with extra costs.

41. Overall the proposals presented in this report are supported, noting the financial and value for money challenges.

Significance

42. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

43. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the issue.

44. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the proposal is of medium significance.

45. However, this matter is of high interest to local communities affected by the decision.

ENGAGEMENT

46. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the matter is of medium significance, officers are of the opinion that the following consultation/engagement is suggested/required under the Local Government Act.

(a) Provide residents on Harbour Drive and the wider community an update in relation to the short-term option of using boulders and amending parking arrangements to parallel parking, noting that maintenance is already underway.

(b) When funding is confirmed, further engagement on the preferred option of extending the path, seating and other amenity improvements will take place, prior to finalising the design.

Next Steps

47. Provide an update to residents on the outcome of this meeting and Harbour Drive and proposal to address the issues in the short term.

48. Utilise savings from existing Transport Programme (~ $35-$38K) to deliver the quick wins. Procurement opportunities will be reviewed to ensure the best value for that delivery occurs and determine if it could be done for less.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Harbour Drive Option Analysis - A18901451 ⇩

City Future Committee meeting Agenda

14 October 2025

9.3 Commercial Activities in Council Facilities Policy Review

File Number: A15797762

Author: Sandy Lee, Policy Analyst

Gert van Staden, S&P Partnerships and Facilitation Team Leader

Alison Law, Head of Spaces & Places

Authoriser: Barbara Dempsey, Acting General Manager Infrastructure and Operations

Purpose of the Report

1. To rescind the Commercial Activities in Council Facilities Policy 2010.

Recommendations

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Commercial Activities in Council Facilities Policy Review".

(b) Approves the recommendation to rescind the Commercial Activities in Council Facilities Policy 2010.

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Council’s (the council) Commercial Activities in Council Facilities Policy 2011 (the policy) was developed in 2010 following some public concerns about council operating commercial activities that compete with the private sector. The policy was put in place to outline what factors will be taken into consideration when the council is deciding whether to provide a commercial activity.

3. As the policy has not been reviewed since it was adopted, a review was undertaken to check whether it still aligns with current practices and if the policy is still necessary. Feedback was sought from relevant council staff, Bay Venues Limited (BVL) and the mainstreet organisations. Discussions indicated that the policy is no longer in use, the ownership and operation of commercial activities has changed, and new policies now guide decision-making.

4. The City Future Committee is asked to rescind the policy. There are no legal or financial risks associated with the decision.

Background

5. During the 2009-19 Long Term Plan (LTP) consultation process, a few submitters raised concerns about the council operating the gym at Baywave and the unfair competitive advantage over the private sector given alleged ratepayer subsidies. Their key concerns were that:

· The council should not provide commercial services/facilities that compete with the private sector;

· The private sector should have competitive opportunities to secure the rights to provide commercial activities;

· The private sector is disadvantaged when the council provides services/facilities at a subsidised rate.

6. The policy outlines the four factors that the council will consider in decision-making, these are: financial considerations, strategic/role alignment, competitive issues, and whether the commercial activity will be provided by the council or a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO). Financial aspects included whether the activity could help generate revenue and reduce rates requirements, and the policy was developed as a support policy for the lead Revenue and Financing Policy.

7. Since the policy was adopted in 2011, BVLhas been formally established as a CCO to take over the ownership and/or operation of key recreational and community facilities on the council’s behalf, including the facilities at Baywave^{^[1]}.

Review of the policy

8. Feedback on the policy was sought from staff in relevant teams to understand how and when the policy is used. The conversations highlighted little awareness of the policy and how it compared to commercial activities under the Use of Council Land Policy 2022.

9. Feedback was also sought from BVL to determine whether they use the policy, as well as from the four mainstreet organisations^{^[2]} representing the businesses in their local areas.

10. The Use of Council Land Policy, which is currently under review, makes provision for commercial activities on council land, stating that while land is primarily for community use, private or commercial use may also be allowed. The provisions for commercial use can be found in the principles section of the Use of Council Land Use Policy, as well as Section 6 and 7, which indicates how commercial activities are to be managed.

11. It is important to note that the Use of Council Land Policy provides for a different set of commercial activities, in contrast to the Commercial Activities in Council Facilities Policy, which specifically provides guidance on activities within a Council-owned facility.

Statutory Context

12. Under Part 5 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), local authorities may conduct commercial activities through Council-Controlled Organisations or Council-Controlled Trading Organisations^{^[3]} with certain expectations and obligations to enable council oversight and to ensure transparency, accountability, and alignment with community interests.

strategic alignment

13. This contributes to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcome(s):

	Contributes
We are an inclusive city	ü
We value, protect and enhance the environment	☐
We are a well-planned city	☐
We can move around our city easily	☐
We are a city that supports business and education	ü

14. The recommendation to rescind the policy helps remove an unnecessary and out-dated document. This helps ensure decision-making about commercial activities is informed by the more recent Use of Council Land Policy which supports a strong and vibrant city, including through the activation of the city through businesses that have a community benefit.

Options Analysis

Whether to continue with this policy

15. The main commercial activities operated by the council are the leasing and hiring out of land and facilities and the operation of Tauranga Airport. Other commercial activities, including cafes and eateries, are run by private sector operators who lease facilities from the council. Guidance on whether to provide a lease for a commercial activity is informed by the Use of Council Land Policy^{^[4]} where a proposed activity is assessed against the principles of the policy.

16. In 2022, BVL developed their own Local Competition Policy (attachment 2) with reference to the council’s Commercial Activities in Council Facilities Policy and sets out when they might get involved in providing a commercial activity. The policy was to address similar concerns about BVL’s unfair competitive advantage due to funding from the council, with the policy clearly stating that council funding goes towards the provision of community facilities and not their commercial activities. Council staff provided feedback on the policy before it was finalised by BVL.

Options table for the commercial activities policy

	Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
a.	Rescind the Commercial Activities in Council Facilities Policy 2010. Recommended.	· Saves resources on updating an unused, out of date policy. · Decision-making on commercial activities in council facilities can continue to be guided by the Use of Council Land Policy. · Avoids any confusion by staff and stakeholders about which policy applies to what type of commercial activity. · BV have their own Local Competition Policy that informs their decision-making.	· Without a policy, Council would rely on case-by-case decisions for commercial activities in facilities, which may create uncertainty and inconsistent decisions.
b.	Merge the Commercial Activities in Council Facilities Policy with the Use of Council Land Policy 2022 that is currently under review.	· Specific consideration of the competition issues, as well as the financial and strategic issues, can be included into the Use of Council Land Policy to inform decision-making.	· The factors for consideration specified in the policy are already taken into account when deciding whether to provide a lease to a commercial activity under the Use of Council Land Policy. · Many aspects of the commercial activities policy are unnecessary in the land use policy.
c.	Status quo. Continue with the Commercial Activities in Council Facilities Policy.	· None.	· Time and resources used to keep an unused policy updated. · Contrary to the views of operational staff.

Financial Considerations

17. There are no financial implications associated with the decisions in this report.

Legal Implications / Risks

18. There are no legal implications associated with the decisions in this report.

Consultation / Engagement

19. Discussions took place with staff within the council’s Spaces and Places team to understand how and when the policy is currently used. Most of the staff were not aware of the policy and had therefore not used it, while some in the property leasing team were unsure when this policy should be used or when the Use of Council Land Policy was more appropriate.

20. BVL was also contacted for feedback on the policy who indicated that they do not use council’s policy as they have their own policy that informs when and where they may get involved in providing a commercial activity.

21. All four mainstreet organisations were contacted via email and invited to provide feedback on the policy. The Mount Business Association raised concerns about the frequency of markets on council land and the negative impacts they had on established local businesses. Their feedback was noted but they were also informed that activities on council land such as markets are covered under the Use of Council Land Policy which was to be reviewed this year.

Significance

22. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

23. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the decision.

24. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

25. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

26. Following direction from the committee, the policy will be removed from the council webpage.

Attachments

1. Commercial Activities in Council Facilties Policy 2011 - A18803265 ⇩

2. Local Competition Policy BVL - A18828188 ⇩

City Future Committee meeting Agenda

14 October 2025

9.4 Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy Review

File Number: A18182348

Author: Sandy Lee, Policy Analyst

Reena Snook, Baycourt Community & Arts Centre Manager

Nelita Byrne, Manager: Venues & Events

Authoriser: Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory and Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To rescind the Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy 2011.

Recommendations

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy Review".

(b) Approves the recommendation to rescind the Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy 2011.

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Council’s (the council’s) Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy 2011 (Attachment 1) was developed to address the issue of booking conflicts in council’s network of community facilities, specifically, indoor sports facilities, community halls and centres, and Baycourt Community & Arts Centre (Baycourt). The policy outlines the factors that will be considered when deciding how bookings will be prioritised in conflict situations.

3. A review of the policy was signalled as an action in the council’s Community Centres Action and Investment Plan 2023^{^[5]}, as the policy has not been reviewed since it was developed. Baycourt is now the only facility covered by the policy that is still under the ownership and management of the council, with most other facilities having been transferred over to Bay Venues Limited (BVL).

4. The teams managing the council’s three community facilities^{^[6]} indicated that booking conflicts are not a current issue and they do not have any use for the policy. BVL also indicated they are developing their own prioritisation policy and will seek input from Councillors and the appropriate council teams in the process.

5. The City Future Committee is asked to rescind the policy. There are no legal or financial risks associated with the decision.

Background

6. When the Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy 2011 was developed, booking conflicts were primarily experienced in the indoor sports facilities network, and particularly at the Queen Elizabeth Youth Centre (QEYC), which was often booked for non-sport exhibitions and events. Though the construction of the Mercury Baypark Arena was intended to help alleviate some of the demand issues, the policy was still deemed necessary to deal with booking conflicts if they arose^{^[7]}.

7. In 2013/14, BVLwas established to take over the ownership and operation of the network of swimming pools, indoor sports facilities, and community halls and centres on behalf of the council^{^[8]}. In August 2015, a contractual obligation was created requiring BVL to follow the Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy^{^[9]} in their operations, but the contract was superseded by the Enduring Letter of Expectation in 2018 with no explicit requirement carried forward.

Review of the policy

8. In reviewing the policy, we spoke to the council teams that currently manage the community facilities, the CCO Specialist, and BVL staff to understand whether booking conflicts are an issue and what the best way of managing the prioritisation of use is to ensure alignment with the council’s strategic priorities.

9. Feedback from the council teams was that booking conflicts are rarely, if ever, an issue and the strategic priorities for each facility inform their prioritisation decisions as and when needed. For Baycourt facilities, the Venue Prioritisation Procedure and the Baycourt Booking Procedure^{^[10]} guide how bookings are managed and processed.

10. BVL staff who manage the swimming pools, community halls and centres, and indoor sports facilities, indicated booking conflicts generally only occur with the indoor sports facilities and the 25m pool at Baywave, with most users wanting to use the courts and pool during the same ‘peak’ times. BVL work with the sports codes and users to find the best possible outcome. With the compromise from the sports users, booking conflicts are otherwise relatively rare and the stated purpose for each facility generally guides booking prioritisations^{^[11]}. Rather than continue with the council’s policy, BVL preferred instead to develop their own prioritisation policy to formalise their approach with Councillor and council staff input.

11. We also researched how other councils manage booking conflicts which highlighted that booking prioritisations tend to be in specific terms and conditions, rather than a policy.

Statutory Context

12. Under section 10(b) of the Local Government Act 2022 (the Act), local authorities are required to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of their communities. Community facilities are integral to this requirement, providing spaces for people to connect, socialise and participate in a wide range of social, cultural, sporting and recreational activities^{^[12]}.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

13. This contributes to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcome(s):

	Contributes
We are an inclusive city	ü
We value, protect and enhance the environment	☐
We are a well-planned city	☐
We can move around our city easily	☐
We are a city that supports business and education	☐

14. The provision of community facilities plays an important role in supporting the wellbeing of communities which is a key goal in creating an inclusive city. Ensuring access to these facilities by different community groups is best achieved by the organisation responsible for managing the facilities, as they can work directly with the communities to understand and respond to their needs.

Options Analysis

Whether to continue with the policy

15. Based on the current levels of demand for the use of spaces within Baycourt, The Cargo Shed and The Historic Village, booking conflicts are not an issue and staff have indicated that the few situations that do arise are manageable with the existing strategies and procedures in place.

16. BVL is developing their own prioritisation policy for all the community halls and centres, and indoor sports facilities that they own and/or manage on the council’s behalf. BVL will seek input from Councillors and relevant council teams on the policy once drafted.

17. There is therefore no use for this policy.

Table 1: Options for whether to continue to the policy

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Rescind the council’s Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy 2011.

Recommended

· Staff can continue to manage booking prioritisation decisions with the existing strategies and procedures in place.

· Eliminates the need for resources to keep an unused and unneccesary policy updated.

· BV are better positioned to develop a prioritisation policy for the facilities they own and manage.

· Relevant council staff can input on BV’s policy to ensure alignment with the council’s strategic priorities.

· A policy can be developed at a later stage if/when booking conflicts become an issue.

· May be more demand on these facilities, as well as the new community facilities within Te Manawataki o Te Papa, at a later stage that necessitate a prioritisation policy.

Update the Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy with only the community facilities currently operated by the council in scope.

· Greater consistency and transparency in how prioritisation decisions are made for the facilities.

· Enables BVL to develop their own prioritisation policy with Councillor and council staff input.

· Different strategic purposes for each of the facilities mean an overarching prioritisation policy may not be appropriate.

· Resources required to keep the policy updated when it does not address a current issue in the facilities.

· Duplicates the existing strategies and procedures already in place that guide decision-making when required.

Update the Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy with all community facilities managed by the council and by BVL in scope.

· Greater consistency and transparency in how prioritisation decisions are made for all community facilities.

· Inconsistent with BVL’s preference to develop their own prioritisation policy for the facilities they own and/or operate.

· No legal obligation for BVL to follow the policy unless the next Letter of Expectations (2026/27) to BVL states that the policy is to be included in their next Statement of Intent (2026/29).

Financial Considerations

18. There are no financial impacts associated with the decision in this report.

Legal Implications / Risks

19. There are no legal implications associated with the decision in this report.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

20. The recommendation to rescind the policy does not have any direct impact on the council’s Te Ao Māori approach. However, supporting BVL to develop their own prioritisation policy for the indoor community facilities they own and operate, will enable them to work directly with mana whenua, as well as other facility users, to ensure their prioritisation approach in accordance with the principle of rangatiratanga and responds to the needs and interests of mana whenua.

Consultation / Engagement

21. Engagement with the council teams who manage Baycourt, The Cargo Shed and The Historic Village indicated that all three facilities have slightly different utilisation and strategic priorities. As a community arts centre, Baycourt facilities are prioritised for community uses/users with travelling commercial acts typically scheduled around them. Bookings at The Historic Village are generally on a first-come, first-served basis, while The Cargo Shed, under shared management with Otamataha Trust through the Taumata Kahawai Governance Group, have an agreement that the space is used equally for cultural, community and commercial events.

22. For indoor sports facilities, BVL run biannual workshops with sports codes to understand what their needs are for courts for the incoming season and when they need them, and workshop with the sports codes and clubs a prioritisation approach.

Significance

23. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

24. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region;

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the decision; and

25. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

26. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

27. Following direction from the committee, the policy will be removed from the council webpage.

28. Council staff will work with BVL staff on BVL’s prioritisation policy to ensure alignment with the council’s strategic priorities.

29. Staff will also update the Baycourt Booking Procedure to include a strategic statement to formalise the existing strategic objective for the facility which will be signed-off by the executive leadership team.

Attachments

1. Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy 2011 - A18801465 ⇩

2. Ownership and Managment of Indoor Community Facilities List - A18806134 ⇩

City Future Committee meeting Agenda

14 October 2025

9.5 Updating Policy Delegations Due to Organisational Reset

File Number: A18717553

Author: Sharon Herbst, Policy Analyst

Josh Logan, Team Leader: Policy & Corporate Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to update delegations to external policies due to an organisational reset.

Recommendations

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Updating Policy Delegations Due to Organisational Reset".

(b) Notes the administrative updates required to policy documents following the recent organisational reset, as outlined in the attached table.

(c) Agrees that these updates do not alter the intent or substance of the policies and therefore do not require formal consultation.

(d) Delegates authority to the General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth to make the necessary amendments to the policy documents to reflect the updated role titles, including minor formatting amendments.

Executive Summary

2. Following the recent organisational reset, a review of existing policy documents was undertaken to identify any references to roles or positions that have since changed. This assessment has confirmed that while several role titles have been updated or redefined, the substantive content and intent of the policies remain unaffected.

3. To ensure clarity and accuracy in our documentation, we propose updating the relevant policy documents to reflect the new role titles. A summary table outlining the proposed changes is attached for reference. The table also includes some policies that require updating that are already in planned reviews and thus will be updated in that process.

4. As these updates are administrative in nature and do not alter the policy content, scope, or application, formal consultation is not required. The changes will support consistency across policy documents and improve ease of interpretation for staff and stakeholders.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

5. This contributes to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcome(s):

	Contributes
We are an inclusive city	ü
We value, protect and enhance the environment	ü
We are a well-planned city	ü
We can move around our city easily	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	ü

Collectively, the policies being updated contribute to all the Strategic Community Outcomes.

Options Analysis

Issue 1: Updating policy delegations

6. Following the recent organisational reset, an assessment of existing policy documents has confirmed that while several role titles have been updated or redefined, the substantive content and intent of the policies remain unaffected. To ensure clarity and accuracy in our documentation, we propose updating the relevant policy documents to reflect the new role titles. A summary table outlining the proposed changes is attached for reference (Attachment One).

7. Table 1: Updating policy delegations

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Update the relevant policy delegations as proposed in the attached table

Recommended

· Ensures policy documents accurately reflect the current organisational structure

· Reduces confusion by aligning role titles with actual responsibilities

· Maintains trust in governance by keeping documentation current and clear

· Requires administrative effort to update multiple documents

· May prompt minor queries or clarification requests during transition

Retain the status quo and do not update relevant delegations.

· Avoids immediate administrative workload

· Delegations may reference outdated or incorrect role titles, leading to confusion or misinterpretation

Financial Considerations

8. There are no financial considerations associated with this report

Legal Implications / Risks

9. There are no legal or risk matters associated with this report.

Significance

10. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

11. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the matter.

12. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

13. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the matter is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Next Steps

14. The minor changes to policy documents will be made and the documents uploaded to the council website.

Attachments

1. Summary Table of Proposed changes to External Policy Delegations - A18901026 ⇩

City Future Committee meeting Agenda

14 October 2025

9.6 City Future Committee Work Programme - November 2025 to June 2026

File Number: A18837279

Author: Josh Logan, Team Leader: Policy & Corporate Planning

Carl Lucca, Team Leader: Structure Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on and seek endorsement of the City Future Committee Work Programme – November 2025 to June 2026.

Recommendations

That the City Future Committee:

(a) Receives the report "City Future Committee Work Programme - November 2025 to June 2026".

(b) Endorses that the following policy reviews be put on hold at this time for reasons outlined in Table 1, Option B:

(i) Large Water Users Policy 2019

(ii) Water Meters Policy 2019

(iii) Airport Bylaw 2016

(c) Endorses the Committee’s Proposed Work Programme, and notes that the programme will continue be updated on an ongoing basis and reported to this Committee.

Executive Summary

2. The City Future Committee was established by Council on 10 December 2024. The approved Terms of Reference determine the scope and role of the Committee.

3. The proposed work programme for the Committee over the next eight months is outlined in Attachments one to three.

4. The attached work programme includes reporting relating to the following key areas of Council:

(a) City Planning and Growth (Attachment A)

(b) Infrastructure, including transport, 3-waters, waste and sustainability (Attachment A)

(c) Council’s policy programme (noting that some specific policies go to Audit & Risk and the full bylaw programme to Council). (Attachment B)

5. For context, the attachment also includes a table outlining reporting to full Council and other committees, that inter-relates to the City Future Committee work programme, e.g., approval of City Plan changes under the Resource Management Act, together with various policy and bylaws not covered by the City Future Committee.

6. The proposed City Future Committee work programme will continually be updated and discussed with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee on an ongoing basis. It is expected that it will be reported on a six-monthly basis to the Committee.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

7. This contributes to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcome(s):

	Contributes
We are an inclusive city	ü
We value, protect and enhance the environment	ü
We are a well-planned city	ü
We can move around our city easily	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	ü

8. Collectively, the matters considered by the City Future Committee will contribute to all the Strategic Community Outcomes.

Options Analysis

9. As part of the policy work programme (Attachment 3) it is proposed that staff put three policies on hold at this time for the reasons outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Reasons for and against continuing with the review of waters policies and the airport bylaw.

Policy

Option A: Reasons for doing the review now

Option B: Reasons against doing the review, at this time (Recommended)

Large Water Users Policy 2019

It guides allocation of water resources efficiently and sustainably and to ensure the allocation assessment for large water user applicants is transparent.

Current policy notes March 2023 as a review date, so a review is due.

Waters team undertook a preliminary review of the policy in April 2024, identifying areas for consideration in a review.

The Council decision to move water services to a Water Organisation (WO) by July 2027 is likely to result in new policies being adopted by the new water services organisation.

The proposed WO is likely to take a different approach to a LWUP with both urban and rural users involved and therefore the policy will need a significant overhaul for it to work in the context of a future WO.

The policy revision and update will be on the items for consideration as part of the transition plan to a WO.

As relatively few Large Water User applications are received annually, they can continue to be managed within the principles of the existing policy. The level of change to the policy at this time would be minor and would be outweighed by the more significant changes needed once the WO is established.

The areas for consideration in a policy review that were identified in the preliminary review in April 2024 may still inform a future review of this policy.

Water Meters Policy 2019

It sets out the responsibilities for the management of water meters.

Current policy notes March 2023 as a review date, so a review is due.

Waters team have advised that changes are not necessary for this policy.

The Council decision to move water services to a WO by July 2027 is likely to result in new policies being adopted by the new water services organisation.

Airport Bylaw 2016

The purpose of this Bylaw is to protect the safety of Airport users and property used in connection with the Airport.

Although there is no legal requirement for the bylaw to be reviewed it is good practice to regularly review the rules for ensure safety of airport users and property used in connection with the airport.

The current Airport Bylaw is made under the Airport Authorities Act 1966, this has now been replaced by the Civil Aviation Act 2023 (CAA). The CAA retains the ability to make bylaws and requires airports be registered by 5 April 2030, before bylaws can be made under this Act, or current bylaws can remain in force.

There is no information to date on how long the registration and assessment process would take. The Ministry of Transport is leading the registration process. We therefore recommend pausing the review until more information is available.

Legal Implications / Risks

10. There are no legal or risk matters associated with this report.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

11. Matters of specific relevance to Mana Whenua are included in the work programme, and over time additional matters of relevance will be added. Individual matters on the work programme that have a Te Ao Māori impact will be addressed in those respective reports. Council staff have presented to the Rangapu on the draft Work Programme (28 August 2025), and this provided Rangapu members an opportunity to provide a view on those matters which they have an interest in being involved in.

CLIMATE IMPACT

12. Matters with a climate impact are included in the work programme, and over time additional matters will be added. Individual matters on the work programme that have a climate impact will be addressed in those respective reports.

Consultation / Engagement

13. It is not proposed that consultation be undertaken on the work programme itself. Matters will be identified for inclusion in the work programme through a range of sources including connection with the community. Individual matters on the work programme will require consultation / engagement, and that will be addressed in those respective reports.

Significance

14. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

15. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the matter.

16. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

17. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the issue is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Next Steps

18. The Committee’s forward work programme will continue to evolve and be updated over time.

Attachments

1. Attachment A: City Future Committee 2025-2026 Reporting Programme - A18848189 ⇩

2. Attachment B: Policy and Bylaw - Work Plan - For CFC - A18889108 ⇩

[1] BVL was established in 2013 from the merger of Tauranga City Venues Limited and Tauranga City Aquatics Limited.

[2] Downtown Tauranga, Mount Business Association, Pāpāmoa Unlimited and Greerton Village Community Association.

[3] Organisations where council is at least a 50% shareholder and they must be publicly consulted on before being formally established.

[6] Baycourt as well as The Historic Village and The Cargo Shed which were established after the policy was put in place.

[7] The policy replaced the council’s Queen Elizabeth II Youth Centre and Memorial Hall Usage Policy 1992 and applied to a broader network of community facilities.

[8] A Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) wholly owned by Tauranga City Council. See Attachment 2 for a list of all the indoor community facilities and who owns and manages them.

[9] A service contract between TCC and BV (signed 8 Aug 2016) listed several council policies that BVL was required to follow, including the Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy.

[10] This procedure currently sits under the lead Prioritising Use of Indoor Facilities Policy. Both procedures are currently under review to assess their effectiveness and ensure they remain fit for purpose in supporting strategic and operational outcomes.

[11] As a rough estimate, BVL staff indicated booking conflicts to be less than 5% of all bookings after discussions and compromises are reached with sports, though there are a number of sports that do want more space at peak times. Generally, if possible, community bookings are only relocated to an alternative venue for ‘significant events’ with advanced notice (sometimes up to a year) given.

[12] The provision of community facilities is also considered a ‘core service’ of local authorities under the proposed Local Government (Systems Improvements) Amendment Bill.

[13] Stellar pathway: Council & Committees → City Future Committee → 2025 → Actions Requested by City Future Committee meetings.


AGENDA City Future Committee meeting Tuesday, 14 October 2025
I hereby give notice that a City Future Committee meeting will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 14 October 2025
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Chambers Level 1 - 90 Devonport Road Tauranga
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive

Status of actions	No. actions
Closed (completed since the last report)	8
In progress	4
Pending (waiting on something)	1
To be actioned	0
Total actions included in this report	13