Agenda of Ordinary Council meeting - Tuesday, 7 October 2025

unconfirmed Extraordinary Council meeting minutes

15 August 2025

A logo of a company

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

MINUTES

Extraordinary Council meeting

Friday, 15 August 2025

Order of Business

1 Opening karaka. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public forum.. 4

3.1 Cr John Grant Thames Coromandel District Council 4

4 Declaration of conflicts of interest 4

5 Business. 5

5.1 Local Waters Done Well - Update Report 5

6 Closing karakia. 9

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Extraordinary Council meeting

HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council Chambers, L1, 90 Devonport Road, Tauranga

ON Friday, 15 August 2025 AT 8:03 AM

PRESENT: Mayor Mahé Drysdale (Chair), Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular (online via audio link for parts of the meeting), Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Cr Rod Taylor, Cr Hēmi Rolleston

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: City Development & Partnerships), Kathryn Sharplin, (Manager: Finance), Stephen Burton (Transformation Lead: Water Services), Fiona Nalder (Principal Strategic Advisor), Cathy Davidson (Manager: Directorate Services), Charles Lane (Team Leader: Commercial Legal), Stacey Mareroa-Roberts (Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement), Wally Potts (Head of City Waters), Clare Sullivan (Senior Governance Advisor), Caroline Irvin (Governance Advisor),

EXTERNAL: Ian Morton (Thames Coromandel District Council)

Jaron Shaw and Cameron Walker (Department of Internal Affairs)

Timestamps are included beside each of the items and relate to the recording of the meeting held on 15 August 2025 at TCC Website

online attendance

Due to online connection difficulties, Deputy Mayor Scoular was present for the vote on resolution (b) (i) but not present for any of the remaining votes (resolutions - parts 1 to 6) that made up the substantive motion.

1 Opening karaka

Cr Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia

2 Apologies

Nil

At 8.06am the meeting adjourned.

At 8.09am the meeting reconvened.

3 Public forum

Timestamp: 15:53 minutes

3.1 Cr John Grant - Thames Coromandel District Council

· Cr Grant noted that elected members and staff from Thames Coromandel District Council (TCDC) had undertaken robust financial analysis on four options for a water services model. Consultation showed that 51% supported the lower cost model which would be a joint water services delivery plan.

· Financial analysis had shown that a Tauranga City Council (TCC)/Western Bay Of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC)/Thames Coromandel District Council Water Services model was in the best interests of their communities.

· TCDC had spent considerable time working through a proposed partnership with TCC and WBOPDC.

· Cr Grant, on behalf of TCDC, felt that the best solution for the three Councils was a joint Water Services Organisation.

4 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

recognition

· The Mayor recognised the following staff who were leaving their employment at Tauranga City Council and thanked them for their contribution to the city during their employment: Ceilidh Dunphy, Coral Hair, Dan Smith and Paul Davidson. He acknowledged that Paul Davison had completed 20 years of service with Council.

· The Mayor also noted that Mr Nigel Tutt, Chief Executive of Priority One, was leaving to take up another position elsewhere.

5 Business

Timestamp: 30.16 minutes

5.1 Local Waters Done Well - Update Report

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager Strategy, Growth & Governance

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager; Finance

Charles Lane, Team Leader, Commercial Legal

External Jaron Shaw and Cameron Walker, Department of Internal Affairs

Ian Morton, Thames Coromandel District Council, Project Director

recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Waters Done Well - Update Report".

(b) After taking into consideration the information contained in this ‘Local Waters Done Well – Update Report’:

Either

i) Reconfirms the resolution of 5 August 2025 that the Water Service Delivery Plan will be prepared for the duration to deliver through an in-house model.

ii) Other …

A MOTION WAS PROPOSED

Moved: Cr Rolleston

Seconded: Cr Crowther:

That the Council:

(b) After taking into consideration the information contained in this ‘Local Waters Done Well – Update Report’:

i) Reconfirms the resolution of 5 August 2025 that the Water Service Delivery Plan will be prepared for the duration to deliver through an in-house model.

For: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach and Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Against: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

equal 5/5

The vote was declared a tie. Pursuant to Standing Order 19.3, the Mayor used his casting vote and voted against the motion.

LOST

A FURTHER MOTION WAS PROPOSED

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Waters Done Well - Update Report".

(b) After taking into consideration the information contained in this ‘Local Waters Done Well – Update Report’:

ii) Notes that the establishment of a multi-council water organisation will be subject to the partner councils being satisfied with the results of the due diligence process, and in particular that Western Bay of Plenty District Council is satisfied that the concerns expressed by iwi within the WBOPDC (WBOPDC) rohe area have been appropriately considered.

iii) Receives the letter from Mayor James Denyer of 6 August 2025, outlining his view that WBOPDC is "not in a position to be able to submit a Water Services Delivery Plan by the 3 September deadline" and his request that Council considers a "multi-council CCO with WBOPDC with a stand-up date of 1 July 2027.

iv) Receives the letter from Mayor Len Salt and members of the Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC) Local Waters Done Well (LWDW) working group of 13 August 2025, outlining their view that a TCDC in-house delivery model "is not in the best long-term interest for our community."

v) Notes that on 12 August, Mayor Denyer requested a Crown facilitator be appointed to WBOPDC and that members of the TCDC LWDW working group requested TCDC form part of the facilitator’s remit.

vi) Requests staff prepare a Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) on the basis that services will be delivered through status quo arrangements until:

30 June 2027

vii) And thereafter through a three-waters multi-council CCO with

a. Western Bay of Plenty District Council

AND

b. Thames-Coromandel District Council

viii) Notes that the WSDP includes stormwater, and that due to a combination of practical constraints and the statutory deadline for submission of the WSDP that

a. further work will be done to consider other aspects of stormwater management including assets, ownership, charging and following further information Council may, at a later date, decide to retain stormwater in-house.

ix) Confirms the due diligence process will include detailed comparative analysis of in-house and CCO options.

x) Requests a project plan on the implementation of these resolutions through until September 2028 for Council approval and that staff report quarterly to Council on engagement, progress against the project plan, what has been completed in the last quarter and what is proposed in the following. Reports will include tracking to budget and highlighting any risks.

xi) Considers holding joint council meetings with partnering councils and meetings with iwi partners on decisions relating to subregional waters in the future.

The motion was taken in parts in the following order:

Resolution CO/25/0/1

Part 1

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council

(b)

viii) Notes that the WSDP includes stormwater, and that due to a combination of practical constraints and the statutory deadline for submission of the WSDP that

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach and Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Carried

Resolution CO/25/0/2

Part 2

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Waters Done Well - Update Report".

(b) After taking into consideration the information contained in this ‘Local Waters Done Well – Update Report’:

ii) Notes that the establishment of a multi-council water organisation will be subject to the partner councils being satisfied with the results of the due diligence process, and in particular that Western Bay of Plenty District Council is satisfied that the concerns expressed by iwi within the Western Bay of Plenty District Council rohe area have been

appropriately considered.

v) Notes that on 12 August, Mayor Denyer requested a Crown facilitator be appointed to WBOPDC and that members of the TCDC LWDW working group requested TCDC form part of the facilitator’s remit.

Carried

Resolution CO/25/0/3

Part 3

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(b)

vi) Requests staff prepare a Water Services Delivery Plan (WSDP) on the basis that services will be delivered through status quo arrangements until:

30 June 2027

Carried

Resolution CO/25/0/4

Part 4

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(b)

vii) And thereafter through a three-waters multi-council CCO with

c. Western Bay of Plenty District Council

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Cr Glen Crowther, and Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Carried

Resolution CO/25/0/5

Part 5

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(b)

vii) AND

d. Thames-Coromandel District Council

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach and Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Carried

Resolution CO/25/0/6

Part 6

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(b)

ix) Confirms the due diligence process will include detailed comparative analysis of in-house and CCO options.

xi) Considers holding joint council meetings with partnering councils and meetings with iwi partners on decisions relating to subregional waters in the future.

Carried

6 Closing karakia

Cr Rolleston closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 11.38 am.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary meeting of the Tauranga City Council held on 7 October 2025.

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

Mayor Mahé Drysdale

CHAIR

unconfirmed Ordinary Council meeting minutes

16 September 2025

A logo of a company

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

MINUTES

Ordinary Council meeting

Tuesday, 16 September 2025

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 4

3 Public forum.. 4

4 Acceptance of late items. 4

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 4

6 Change to the order of business. 4

7 Confirmation of minutes. 4

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 August 2025. 4

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 5

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions. 5

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees. 5

Nil

11 Business. 5

11.1 Te Maunga Site - Council Activities and Ngā Pōtiki Relationship. 5

11.2 Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Update. 6

11.3 Mount Parking Management Plan - Consultation Summary and Options. 8

11.4 City Centre Parking - Short Term Incentive Options. 10

11.5 Transport Resolutions Report No.57. 11

11.6 Tauranga Eastern Link Tolling Submission. 12

11.7 Fees and Charges Review: Confirmation of scope. 12

11.8 Status update on actions from prior Council meetings. 13

12 Discussion of late items. 13

13 Public excluded session. 13

13.1 Asset Realisation Reserve - Disposal of Surplus Properties. 14

Confidential Attachment 2 11.8 - Status update on actions from prior Council meetings........ ........ 14

14 Closing karakia. 14

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council meeting

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

ON Tuesday, 16 September 2025 AT 9.30am

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Cr Rod Taylor, Cr Hēmi Rolleston

IN ATTENDANCE:

Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Barbara Dempsey (Acting General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure (City Ops & Spaces and Places), Nic Johansson (Acting General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure (Waters & Transport)), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth), Kathryn Sharplin (Acting COFO (Chief Financial Officer)), Andrew Mead (Head of City Planning & Growth), Cashy Ball (Principal Advisor to the Executive), Mike Naude ( Portfolio Manager: Civic Development), Alison Law (Head of Spaces & Places), Ross Hudson ( Manager: Strategic Planning & Partnerships), Cayley McLean (Principal Strategic Waste Planner), Wally Potts (Director of City Waters), Keren Paekau (Acting Head of Strategic Māori Engagement), Cynthia Hamel (Acting Team Leader), Ange Webster (Māori Engagement – City Waters), Anahera Sadler (Pou Matauranga), Shawn Geard (Manager: Transport Systems Operations), Mike Seabourne (Head of Transport), Holly Riddell (Corporate Planner), Clare Sullivan (Senior Governance Advisor), Anahera Dinsdale (Governance Advisor).

EXTERNAL:

Kaumatua Des Tata, Wi Piahana, Puhirake Ihaka and Ms Kura Martin, Spencer Webster (CEO – Ngā Pōtiki), Sam Toulin (Apollo).

Timestamps are included beside each of the items and relate to the recording of the meeting held on 16 September on the Council website

The Mayor opened the meeting and acknowledged that it was the 50^th anniversary of Te Wiki o te Reo Māori

1 Opening karakia

Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Apology

Resolution CO/25/24/1

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the apology for absence received from Cr Curach be accepted.

Carried

3 Public forum

Timestamp: 4 minutes

Naming of Building – Mareanui

· Cr Rolleston welcomed kaumatua of Ngai Tamarāwaho and Ngati Tapu and members of the Otamataha Trust.

· Kaumatua Wi Piahana and Des Tata gifted the name Mareanui to the building at 90 Devonport Road. The name was the name of a pa site in this area. The name reflects the many mara (gardens) that were in the area and fed the ‘multitudes of people’ that occupied this space.

4 Acceptance of late items

Nil

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to the order of business

The Mayor advised that lunch would be taken at approximately 12.15pm.

7 Confirmation of minutes

Timestamp: 21 minutes

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 August 2025

Resolution CO/25/24/2

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 August 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees

Nil

11 Business

Timestamp: 23 minutes

11.1 Te Maunga Site - Council Activities and Ngā Pōtiki Relationship

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

External Spencer Webster, CEO – Ngā Pōtiki

Resolution CO/25/24/3

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Te Maunga Site - Council Activities and Ngā Pōtiki Relationship".

(b) Acknowledges the cultural and environmental concerns raised by Ngā Pōtiki regarding Council activities on the Te Maunga Site.

(c) Recognises the relationship that Ngā Pōtiki has with its culture and traditions with respect to their ancestral lands and cultural landscapes and seascapes, and notes that this includes the Te Maunga site and Te Tāhuna o Rangataua.

(d) Agrees to progress discussions with Ngā Pōtiki, with the view of developing a Memorandum of Understanding for the Te Maunga site and incorporating co-design principles for environmental and cultural restoration, site management, and community interface, where appropriate and practical. Technical design and operation of core infrastructure (e.g. wastewater treatment) will continue to be led by Council.

(e) Notes that while many existing activities at Te Maunga cannot be practically or feasibly relocated due to significant prior investment, operational dependencies and regulatory or contractual constraints, some solid waste facilities[1] are nearing end of life and could be relocated as part of the future approach to the solid waste network (currently under review).

(f) Endorses staff to:

(i) Progress and report back a Solid Waste Programme Business Case in the assessment of options with final decisions on preferred approaches to be made by Council.

(ii) Explore and progress opportunities for land acquisition and alternative sites to enable the transition of “offensive” solid waste activities from Te Maunga.

(g) Notes that:

(i) The definition of “offensive” solid waste activities will be informed by engagement with Ngā Pōtiki.

(ii) Indicative timeframes for relocation of facilities and activity decisions will be incorporated into the Solid Waste Programme Business Case, which is expected to be presented to Council for consideration and approval in early 2026; with transition anticipated over 8-12 years.

(iii) This applies only to solid waste facilities deemed appropriate to be relocated and does not include the closed landfill, wastewater or stormwater activities or Bay Venues activities on the Te Maunga site.

For the purposes of this report, solid waste refers to non-liquid materials such as general refuse, recyclables, green waste, construction and demolition materials, and special or hazardous solid wastes, consistent with the broad definition of waste under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. It excludes wastewater, stormwater, sewage, biosolids and other liquid discharges, which are managed under separate infrastructure and regulatory frameworks. The term solid waste facilities refer specifically to the land and associated infrastructure at Te Maunga currently occupied by the transfer station, Material Recycling Facility (MRF), untreated timber processing area, and the unused organic composting facility, as shown in Attachment 1: Map of Waste Facilities at Te Maunga.

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Carried

At 10.40AM the meeting adjourned.

At 10.47AM the meeting reconvened.

Timestamp: 1 hr 18 minutes

11.2 Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Update

Staff Alison Law, Head of Spaces & Places

Mike Naude, Portfolio Manager: Civic Development

External Sam Toulin, Apollo

Action

· That the Chief Executive review and report back on the previous report and discussion at the Council meetings on 24 October 2024 and 12 November 2024 and any outstanding invoices for MPAC.

Key Points

Staff clarified the following points:

· Options 1 & 2 analysis outlining the key advantages and disadvantages for the location of the centre were from a previous report and not relevant to the Geotech report for the alternative location. The Geotech results for the alternative location over the existing pool were no worse than the current site.

· The Geotech report for the new site had similar findings as the Memorial Hall/QR2 site.

· There were advantages for traffic and parking with the new site with an entrance/exit off Devonport Road.

· The spend of $4.7 million included invoices received after the report presented in October 2024 and was made up of $1.64M Opex and $3.1M Capex.

Resolution CO/25/24/4

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Memorial Park Aquatic Centre update" with the corrections noted.

(b) Receives the preliminary geotechnical report: Memorial Pool Aquatic Centre – Alternative Site Feasibility Study prepared by Apollo Projects dated 29 August 2025; and

(c) Agrees to advance the Memorial Park Aquatics Centre project to concept stage with an in-principle decision that the Centre would be constructed over the current Memorial Pool. Noting the intention for construction to start in 2027/28 on a re-designed, value for money indoor and outdoor facility that can provide for lane swimming, aquatic sports, learn-to-swim, hydrotherapy and play.

(d) Endorses the next steps being:

(i) Establish a Memorial Pool Aquatic Centre Project Steering Group including Elected Members (to be advised), to develop scope from the ground up and develop the engagement process.

(ii) Progression of the design, based on concept principles developed by the Steering group, through concept stage at a design fee of $50,000 excl. GST.

(e) Confirms the engagement of Apollo Projects to complete the Concept Design and Concept Estimate Stage of the Project.

(f) Notes that in making an in-principle decision that the site of the existing Memorial Park pool is the preferred location for the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre, Council confirms its intention to retain the existing Queen Elizabeth Youth Centre and Memorial Hall facility, and instructs Bay Venues to identify the lowest investment required (capital and operational expenditure) to keep that facility operating until earthquake strengthening upgrades are required (currently 2041).

Carried

Timestamp: 2 hrs 2 minutes

11.3 Mount Parking Management Plan - Consultation Summary and Options

Staff Shawn Geard, Manager: Transport Systems Operations

Mike Seabourne, Head of Transport

Actions

· Staff to contact staff from Bay of Plenty Regional Council raising the idea of a hop-on-hop-off bus in the Mount Maunganui area for who it might be considered by discussed at the Joint Transport Committee.

· Staff to find and circulate feedback from the community from an engagement completed in 2020 on the Mount Maunganui plan.

Consideration on this item was paused to welcome and acknowledge Mr Mikaere Sydney at 12:08pm.

At 12.26pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1.14 pm the meeting reconvened.

The recommendations were taken in parts:

Resolution CO/25/24/5

Part 1

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Mount Parking Management Plan - Consultation Summary and Options".

(b) Requests staff to proceed with development of a detailed plan for implementation of:

(i) Sailsbury Avenue/ The Mall bylaw changes to support cruise ship tour operator traffic management

(ii) Additional time restrictions for Victoria Road, Marine Parade, and The Mall, and development of an increased enforcement programme

(iii) Fixed License Plate Recognition enforcement along Mount Maunganui main street

Carried

Resolution CO/25/24/6

Part 2

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council

(d) Requests staff to develop a Mount Maunganui Parking Management Plan to support future investment decisions including, but not limited to, options for:

(i) Angled parking on The Mall

(ii) Paid parking at TCC owned offstreet carparks

(iii) A new offstreet carpark in the vicinity of Coronation Park

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Hēmi Rolleston Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Carried

Resolution CO/25/24/7

Part 3

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council

(d) Requests staff to develop a Mount Maunganui Parking Management Plan to support future investment decisions including, but not limited to, options for:

(iv) Development of a business plan supporting financially sustainable parking in Mount Maunganui

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Hēmi Rolleston Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular and Cr Steve Morris

Carried

Timestamp: 4 hrs, 7 minutes

11.4 City Centre Parking - Short Term Incentive Options

Staff Shawn Geard, Manager: Transport Systems Operations

Mike Seabourne, Head of Transport

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "City Centre Parking - Short Term Incentive Options".

(b) Requests Staff to proceed with:

(i) Status quo (recommended)

Alternatives (individually or a mix of):

(ii) Further assessment of financial impacts associated with 60 minutes free and paid thereafter

(iii) User engagement on price changes associated with Free after 3pm (off-street parking only)

(iv) Development a Dynamic pricing programme

(v) Implementation of an initial 30-minute free period through changing the provided no-payment grace time

(vi) Installation of additional ‘P5’ loading bays and mobility spaces, including business engagement on appropriate locations

A MOTION WAS PROPOSED:

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "City Centre Parking - Short Term Incentive Options".

(b) Requests Staff to proceed with:

(v) Implementation of an initial 20-minute free period through changing the provided no-payment grace time

(vi) Installation of additional ‘P5’ loading bays and mobility spaces, including business and accessibility sector engagement on appropriate locations

(vii) Report back on options for parking validation including potential models, costs, and benefits.

AN AMENDMENT WAS MOVED:

Moved: Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the Council:

(i) Change the pricing in the City Fringe zone to $1 per hour for the first 7 hours, with a daily maximum charge of $7.

For: Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Steve Morris

Against: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Hēmi Rolleston Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Abstain Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

LOST

The substantive motion was put to the meeting:

Resolution CO/25/24/8

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "City Centre Parking - Short Term Incentive Options".

(b) Requests Staff to proceed with:

(v) Implementation of an initial 20-minute free period through changing the provided no-payment grace time

(vi) Installation of additional ‘P5’ loading bays and mobility spaces, including business and accessibility sector engagement on appropriate locations

(vii) Report back on options for parking validation including potential models, costs, and benefits.

Carried

Timestamp: 5 hours:23 minutes

11.5 Transport Resolutions Report No.57

Staff Shawn Geard, Manager: Transport Systems Operations

Mike Seabourne, Head of Transport

Resolution CO/25/24/9

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Transport Resolutions Report No.57".

(b) Resolves to adopt the proposed traffic and parking controls associated with general safety, operational or amenity purposes as outlined in Appendix A, Attachments 7.1 7.2, 7.7, 7.9 ,7.11, 7.16 and 7.23. The changes are to become effective on or after the 16 September 2025 subject to installation of appropriate signs and road markings, where appropriate.

Carried

At 2.59pm the meeting adjourned.

At 3.05pm the meeting reconvened.

Timestamp: 5 hours: 36 minutes

11.6 Tauranga Eastern Link Tolling Submission

Staff Andrew Mead, Head of City Planning & Growth

Christine Jones, General Manager, Strategy, Partnerships & Growth

Resolution CO/25/24/10

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Tauranga Eastern Link Tolling Submission".

(b) Retrospectively approves Tauranga City Council’s ‘Tauranga Eastern Link Tolling’ submission.

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Hēmi Rolleston Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Cr Steve Morris

Carried

Timestamp 5 hours:45 minutes

11.7 Fees and Charges Review: Confirmation of scope

Staff Holly Riddell, Corporate Planner

Christine Jones, General Manager, Strategy, Partnerships & Growth

Action

· That staff provide Councillors with information on the review of certain fees and charges that will be a focus for the financial year 2026/27, for the purposes of discussing with constituents.

Resolution CO/25/24/11

Moved: Cr Kevin Schuler

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Fees and Charges Review: Confirmation of scope".

(b) Confirms the review of the following user fees and charges will be a focus for the 2026/27 financial year:

· Parks and Recreation

· Use of Council Land

· Cemetery and Crematorium

· Libraries

· Baycourt

· Animal Services

· Alcohol Licensing

· Trade Waste

· Building Services.

· Cost recovery for illegal dumping

· Boat ramp parking

· Overweight vehicle permits

· Section 224 sign-off inspections

Carried

Timestamp: 5 hours 53 minutes

11.8 Status update on actions from prior Council meetings

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager, Strategy, Partnerships & Growth

Resolution CO/25/24/12

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Status update on actions from prior Council meetings".

(b) Attachment 2 can be transferred into the open when the report that generated the action is no longer confidential.

Carried

12 Discussion of late items

Nil

13 Public excluded session

Resolution to exclude the public

Resolution CO/25/24/13

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting at 3.25 pm.

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

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

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

13.1 - Asset Realisation Reserve - Disposal of Surplus Properties

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

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

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

Confidential Attachment 2 - 11.8 - Status update on actions from prior Council meetings

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

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

Carried

The meeting resumed in open from 3.56 pm.

14 Closing karakia

Deputy Mayor Scoular led the Council in a karakia to close the meeting.

The meeting closed at 3.58pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 7 October 2025.

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

Mayor Mahé Drysdale

CHAIR

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

7 October 2025

11.2 Elected Members' Code of Conduct

File Number: A14299755

Author: Clare Sullivan, Senior Governance Advisor

Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

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

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of the report is to consider and approve an updated Code of Conduct for elected members and for those appointed to Council committees or sub-committees.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Elected Members' Code of Conduct".

and

EITHER

(b) Adopts the updated Code of Conduct (Attachment 1 of this report); and

EITHER

(i) Binding on the Council

(ii) Non-binding on the Council

(d) Provides for a committee to consider and decide on complaints of breaches under the Code of Conduct and

EITHER

(i) establishes a committee as soon as possible to consider and decide on complaints of breaches under the Code of Conduct (either binding or non-binding on the Council)

(ii) defers establishing a committee to consider and decide on complaints of breaches under the Code of Conduct (either binding or non-binding on the Council).

(e) Reconfirms the existing Code of Conduct included (Attachment 3 of this report).

Executive Summary

2. The Council is required to have a Code of Conduct under Clause 15, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002). The existing Code of Conduct was adopted in July 2020 and remains in operation unless and until replaced.

3. A Code of Conduct provides a framework where governance is undertaken with the highest degree of integrity, standards of behaviour are agreed, and where good debate and free expression of all views is carried out in a civil and respectful way. It also provides a framework for resolving situations that cannot be resolved in an informal and amicable way.

4. An updated Code of Conduct is recommended to be adopted based on the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) template incorporating best practice and recommendations from the Local Government Commission and includes recent legislative changes, including the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Act 2022.

5. Information sessions have been held with elected members regarding the Code of Conduct on 13 March 2025 and 4 September 2025. Elected members’ feedback includes emphasis on informal resolution, team cohesion and respectful conduct.

6. It is recommended that the draft Code of Conduct be adopted, with or without amendments, as this:

· aligns with sector best practice and recent legislation

· clarifies unacceptable behaviour

· strengthens governance through clearer processes and independent complaint handling

· distinguishes between trivial and serious breaches of the Code and avoids spending time and resources on hearing complaints on inconsequential matters

· enhances transparency via updated interest and gift registers

· prepares Council for transition to a national Code of Conduct if that occurs.

7. Failure to adopt an updated Code of Conduct may undermine public trust, and deferring adoption prolongs reliance on an outdated framework. Material breaches may impact on Council’s reputation if not managed transparently and the updated Code continues with the independent investigator approach.

8. The Council has decisions to make including:

· Binding recommendations: Does the Council opt to be bound by an independent investigator’s findings?

· Committee establishment: Does the Council opt to set up an independent committee now or provide for the ability to set up a committee at a later date? Does the Council opt to be bound by an independent committee’s recommendations?

· Council makes decisions on breaches of the Code of Conduct: Does the Council opt to retain decision making on recommendations from an independent investigator and/or independent committee?

9. The previous elected Council established a Code of Conduct Committee comprising of independent members to decide on complaints referred to it.

10. Next steps include:

· publishing the adopted Code of conduct on council’s website and distribute to members

· monitoring the release of any national Code of Conduct by the Secretary of Local Government

· depending on the Council’s decision to establish an independent Committee, determining the terms of reference and call for expressions of interest for membership

· the Chief Executive compiling a list of independent investigators to be agreed in consultation with the elected members.

11. The Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, if enacted as currently drafted, provides the opportunity for the Secretary of Local Government to issue a standardised Code of Conduct. If the Secretary issues such a Code of Conduct, all councils will be required to adopt it. The Local Government Commission has been tasked with preparing a draft standardised Code of Conduct and has recently consulted on its draft. The latest information we have is that the Bill is likely to be enacted before the end of 2025 and that the Local Government Commission will report to the Minister on their draft standardised Code of Conduct on a similar timeframe.

12. An alternative recommendation (recommended resolution (d)) has been provided to reaffirm the existing Code of Conduct if Council believes this approach is sufficient in light of a potential standardised Code of Conduct being mandated in 2026.

Background

13. A Code of Conduct is designed to promote effective working relationships between elected members, the Chief Executive and staff, and the community and contributes to:

· good governance of the city

· effective decision-making and community engagement

· building community confidence in our systems and processes and increasing the credibility and accountability of the Council with its communities

· building a culture of mutual trust and respect between elected members and with the Chief Executive and the Executive Team.

14. The Code of Conduct is not a means of preventing members from expressing their views provided they are clearly signalled as personal views. Rather the Code of Conduct is designed to promote good debate and free expression of all views by providing a framework to ensure the means of debate is carried out in a civil and respectful way. It works alongside other mechanisms, like Standing Orders, that provide rules for the conduct of meetings, while a Code of Conduct governs the day to day and less formal relationships.

15. The Code of Conduct sets boundaries on standards of behaviour and is based on elected members committing to developing meaningful relationships, working well together and working as a team.

16. The TCC Code of Conduct was adopted in July 2020 and remains in force until it is replaced. The Code is outdated as there have been legislative changes that are not reflected in it, and also an updated template issued by LGNZ which includes some best practice matters. It is timely to review and update the Code of Conduct.

17. TCC’s current Code of Conduct distinguishes between trivial and serious breaches of the code and the draft Code provides more clarity around this.

18. It also provides a framework for situations when resolution cannot be reached between parties. A complaint regarding a breach of the Code can only be made by members themselves, or the Chief Executive, who can make a complaint on behalf of their staff.

Strategic / Statutory Context

19. Clause 15 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 states that a council must adopt a Code of Conduct for members and that it may be amended or replaced at any time but may not be revoked without replacement and requires a vote of at least 75 percent of members present at the meeting. An elected member must comply with the Code of Conduct.

20. If Council chooses not to adopt an amended Code of Conduct, the current Code of Conduct will remain in place. Recommended resolution (d) has been provided to formalise this as a positive action, though such a resolution is not strictly necessary as the effect of passing no resolution will be the same (i.e. the existing code continues).

21. The Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill (“the Bill”) published on 14 July 2025 is due to be enacted before the end of 2025. Under the Bill a national Code of Conduct may be issued by the Secretary of Local Government (Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs) under Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002 and, if issued, this Code of Conduct will be required to be adopted by all councils. There is no definite timeframe for the Secretary to do this and each council’s Code of Conduct will continue to have effect after the Bill is enacted until the Secretary approves and issues a national Code of Conduct. The Bill states that this is to strengthen council transparency and accountability. Currently each council adopts their own Code, mostly based on templates developed for the sector, and these reflect each council’s decisions and preferences.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

22. 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	☐

Code of conduct

LGNZ Template

23. LGNZ issued a new template in 2022 which includes best practice and recommendations identified in the 2021 Local Government Commission’s report to the Minister of Local Government on Local Government Codes of Conduct. The Office of the Auditor General had reported on Codes of Conduct in 2006 and had noted there were a number of issues with managing Code of Conduct breaches but found that overall councils’ compliance was high and councils see value in having a Code of Conduct.

24. A significant change in the LGNZ 2022 template is the emphasis on managing specific types of behaviours, such as bullying and harassment, regardless of where the member is engaging, such as social media, in meetings, or other types of interactions between members. The following has been included in the template:

· An explicit description of unacceptable behaviours.

· An acknowledgement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the foundational document for Aotearoa New Zealand and a description of Te Tiriti principles and how they apply to councils

· An acknowledgement of the principles of good governance^{^[2]}

· An amended approach to investigating and assessing alleged breaches designed to ensure the process is independent and focused on serious rather than minor or trivial complaints.

25. The LGNZ template recommends adopting a policy for dealing with alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct with a choice of doing this at the same time as adopting the Code of Conduct or separately. The draft Code of Conduct includes a policy in section 9.

26. The Local Government Commission in their report stated that “codes should provide for the proactive release of investigation outcomes in a timely manner and consistent fashion, in line with LGOIMA”. The draft Code of Conduct clearly states that all reports from the Chief Executive, including the full independent investigator’s report, will be received in a public meeting, unless grounds exist for the exclusion of the public in section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA).

27. The LGNZ template provides case studies for assessing potential breaches. The LGNZ template will be made available on TCC’s website for members’ and the public’s information and reference. The case studies have not been included in the draft Code of Conduct.

Tauranga City Council’s Code of Conduct

28. An elected members briefing was held on 13 March 2025 to consider a new Code of Conduct and the key changes to the LGNZ template to gauge whether these amendments should be incorporated into the new Code of Conduct. A follow-up briefing was held on 4 September 2025.

29. Elected members’ feedback was that the focus should be on supporting members to develop and strengthen positive and meaningful relationships and working well together as a team. Any issues arising between parties should firstly be facilitated in an informal, proactive and conciliatory way.

30. A Code of Conduct also identifies a process to follow if a more serious breach of the Code of Conduct occurs or where resolution between parties was not possible.

31. A clean copy of the draft Code of Conduct is set out in Attachment 1 for ease of reading. A tracked changed version of the current Code of Conduct in Attachment 2 sets out the changes, additions and deletions recommended to be adopted. For completeness, a clean copy of the existing Code of Conduct is included as Attachment 3. Commentary on each section in the draft Code of Conduct is set out below.

Introduction - Section 1

32. The Introduction section of the Code of Conduct includes wording from the LGNZ template sections “Why a code of conduct?” and “Review and amendment” and summarises the templates appendix on legal requirements for a Code of Conduct without repeating the wording of the legislation. It includes wording from the current Code of Conduct’s Scope (section 3) and retains the declaration of office made by members from the current Code of Conduct.

33. The draft TCC Code of Conduct keeps the same format as the previous Code of Conduct and does not follow the LGNZ template which has parts and appendices attached to each part. The proposed format is considered easier to read.

Members’ commitment – Section 2

34. This is a new section taken from the LGNZ template and sets out what members are committing to when adopting the Code of Conduct.

Definitions – Section 3

35. This is a new section taken from the LGNZ template. The current section 3, Scope, has been moved in part to the Introduction section of the draft Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct will apply to an elected or appointed member of the Council or any committee or sub-committee. A section on definitions helps to understand who the Code of Conduct applies to.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi – Section 4

36. This is a new section taken from the LGNZ template and sets out a commitment for the Council to operate in a manner that recognises and respects the significance of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

37. This section sets out the Council’s obligations in decision-making to provide for Māori participation in local authority decision-making, as set out in Principle 14(1) (d) and section 81 of the LGA 2002.

38. The Council has the option of alternative wording, for example referring to TCC’s Our Direction, Te Ao Māori approach.

“Tauranga City Council will understand and apply key Māori concepts to enhance outcomes for our communities, thereby bringing to life the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. These are set out in Our Direction, Te Ao Māori Approach. Te Ao Māori is the Māori world, where the world is perceived holistically, acknowledging the interconnectedness and interrelationships of all living and non-living things. When in balance, this supports healthy environments and healthy communities. These life giving principles are acknowledged and underpin all aspects of Māori society:

· Manaakitanga - ahurutanga/haumarutanga – a strong duty of care and safety for our people

· Rangatiratanga - mana motuhake – self determination; tikanga – best practice; tāuutuutu – reciprocity

· Kaitiakitanga - stewardship of the natural environment

· Whanaungatanga - relationships and network support systems

· Wairuatanga - mana atua & whakapono - a well-grounded belief system that supports instinct and intuition in line with whāia te tika – the pursuit of the right way forward

· Tūmanako - the objectives and aspirations of the community whai rawa/ōhanga – financial sustainability, economic health and business strategy

· Te Reo Māori - active commitment to protect and promote this taonga, the Māori language, for future generations of all New Zealanders”

Principles of good governance – Section 5

39. This section was previously called “Values” and the principles taken from the LGNZ template are similar to the values. The track change version highlights where the current values line up with the LGNZ principles and where these have been moved to the Behaviours Section 6.

40. The principle of free speech from the current Code of Conduct has been reworded to

“Free speech: members will respect and foster the free exchange of information and the expression of diverse opinions by other members.”

41. The wording of the Free Speech principle aligns with the Bill that intends add two new governance principles:

· Fostering the free exchange of information and expression of opinions by elected members; and

· Fostering the responsibility of a local authority’s elected members to work collaboratively to set its agenda, determine its policy and make decision on behalf of its communities.

Behaviours – Section 6

42. The current TCC Code of Conduct includes a section on roles and responsibilities. This is not included in the LGNZ template and it is recommended that this section be deleted. This information is held in other documents such as the Local Governance Statement. The new section “Behaviours” sets out the standards of conduct that members agree to whenever they are on Council business and includes explicit descriptions of unacceptable behaviours. In doing so the Code of Conduct sets boundaries on standards of behaviour.

43. These behaviours are covered under the headings of:

- Respect

- Bullying, harassment, and discrimination

- Sharing information

- Expressing personal views publicly

- Provide equitable contribution

- Disrepute

- Use of position for personal advantage

- Impartiality

- Maintaining confidentiality

44. Social media protocols in Appendix A are recommended to be included in the draft Code of Conduct. The LGNZ template refers members to the LGNZ Good Governance Guide for social media protocols, however the Guide does not specify social media protocols. The Guide provides helpful information for members on using social media and keeping safe.

Register of Interests – Section 7

45. The requirement for elected members to declare pecuniary (financial) interests has tightened up since the current Code of Conduct was adopted, with new legislation passed in 2022^{^[3]} which supersedes this section of the Code of Conduct.

46. The new legislation did not require members to declare the pecuniary interests of their associates (defined as as a spouse or domestic partner or any family members living with them) or require declarations of non-pecuniary (non-financial) interests, both of which are covered by the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 (“LAMIA”).

47. To meet both laws we have developed a form for members to complete that includes two sections, one section to cover the pecuniary interest requirements as set out in the LGA 2002 and one section to cover the non-pecuniary interest requirements as set out in LAMIA. TCC was previously providing a summary of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary information to the public on the Council website to promote transparency, and this has been continued. Appendix C is no longer fit for purpose and will be deleted. Appendix B has details of the new and existing legislation relating to declarations of interest.

48. It is recommended that a section on Register of Interests is retained and updated to refer to the new legislation rather than relying on members finding the information in Appendix B.

Regulatory Register

49. TCC’s current Code of Conduct includes a requirement to complete a Regulatory Register (in section 9.2) where there is potential for elected members to be seen to be influencing a regulatory and/or compliance outcome.

50. The inclusion of the Regulatory Register was designed to:

· promote greater transparency for the public and staff working in the regulatory and compliance areas of Council.

· provide protection for elected members from perceived conflicts of interest.

· provide protection for staff from perceived pressure and interference in regulatory and compliance decisions.

51. This register was rarely used, and it is recommended that the Regulatory Register requirement be deleted from the Code of Conduct.

Gift Register – Section 7.2

52. The Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Act 2002 also supersedes this section of the Code of Conduct and requires a description of gifts of more than $500 to be declared as well as travel outside of New Zealand that is not paid for by the member or their family. It is recommended that this section be retained and amended to refer to the new legislation rather than relying on members finding the information in Appendix B

Dress Code

53. The LGNZ template does not include any commentary on members’ dress code, and it is recommended that the TCC Code of Conduct follow this lead and remain silent on members’ dress code. It is recommended that this section be deleted.

Undischarged Bankrupt – Section 8

54. The Council has a choice under Clause 5 of Schedule 15 of the Local Government Act 2022 to include a requirement for a member to declare whether or not they are an undischarged bankrupt. TCC’s current Code of Conduct includes this requirement, and it is recommended that this section remains in the Code of Conduct.

Policy on dealing with alleged breaches of the Code – Section 9

55. The LGNZ template states that to be effective a Code of Conduct needs to be ‘owned’ by elected members and that members must be comfortable with the content and the processes for investigating breaches. The LGNZ template has outlined a process for investing and assessing alleged breaches that is independent and focused on serious rather than minor or trivial complaints.

56. TCC’s current Code of Conduct already distinguishes between minor or non-material and serious or material breaches. The definition of materiality was included in the TCC Code of Conduct to provide for this distinction. This definition does not appear in the LGNZ template, but the intent is similar. It is recommended that the definition of materiality be retained.

57. Members at the time the Code of Conduct was adopted in 2020 had experience of breaches occurring and spent time on the breaches section to ensure it fitted with their lived experience. New Appendix C sets out the steps when a complaint has been received and there are minor changes proposed to the current appendix.

58. The principles that will guide any investigation have been re-worded in the LGNZ template but essentially stay the same.

Independent Investigator – Section 9.4

59. The LGNZ template gives two options, a single step or two step assessment process to be followed after a complaint is received. Both are independent of the Council.

60. A single step process, in which the chief executive refers all complaints to an independent investigator who determines whether the complaint is valid and, if so, recommends an action(s) appropriate to the level of materiality or significance of the breach.

61. A two-step process, in which the chief executive refers all complaints to an initial assessor who determines whether the complaint is valid and, if so, can refer the complaint to a mayor/ chair or recommend that the parties undertake mediation. Where the nature of a breach is significant and where mediation is not an option (or not agreed to) then the initial assessor will refer the complaint to an independent investigator, who may also re-assess the complaint.

62. It is recommended that a single step process is included in the draft Code of Conduct to avoid double handling.

Independent Investigator’s Powers – section 9.4.2

63. The LGNZ template gives options for the recommendations of the independent investigator to be binding or non-binding on the Council, or the committee with the delegated powers to make decisions. The LGNZ rationale for opting for the recommendations to be binding are:

“A key principle is that the process for investigating an alleged breach must be politically independent and be seen to be so. The proposal for investigating and making recommendations is designed to achieve that independence, however, the perception of independence and objectivity may be lost if it is elected members who decide the nature of the action to be taken when a complaint is upheld, particularly in councils with small numbers of elected members.

One solution is for a local authority to agree to be bound by an independent investigator’s recommendations. A slight variation would be to create an independent committee to consider an independent investigator’s recommendations and either endorse or amend them. The local authority would agree to be bound by that external committee’s recommendations.”

64. The draft Code of Conduct provides for either/or wording depending on the decision of the Council to be bound or not bound by the independent investigator’s recommendations, and these are highlighted in yellow in both the track change version and clean copy of the draft Code of Conduct.

Code of Conduct Committee

65. The Council can establish an independent committee to consider and decide on complaints referred to it.

66. The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) was critical of the failure to guard against the risk of members with an interest in a complaint taking part in the decision on whether or not to uphold a complaint. Those members who are interested parties in the complaint should not take part in discussions on the matter or decide or determine penalties.

67. To avoid that situation and ensure processes are free of bias, especially when all councillors might be seen to be interested parties, it was recommended by the OAG that councils consider establishing an independent committee to consider and decide on complaints of breaches of the code.

68. The Code of Conduct Committee was established in September 2020 after calling for expressions of interest. Six people were appointed, and the idea was that a three-person committee would meet, based on their availability and experience, to consider the outcome of any breach. The Committee did not meet. Information on this Committee is available on the Council’s website.

69. The terms of reference for the Code of Conduct Committee were:

(a) To consider and decide on Code of Conduct complaints referred to the Committee, including the findings of an independent investigator, and determine whether or not a penalty or action should be imposed, and if so, the nature of that penalty or action;

(b) To refer the final Code of Conduct Committee decisions to the Chief Executive for implementation;

(c) To consider any matters relating to the Code of Conduct and/or the behaviour of elected members referred to it by the Council for advice.

And that in fulfilling the terms of reference the Code of Conduct Committee will:

(d) In considering a report from the Chief Executive, ask, if necessary, the investigator to provide briefing on their findings and invite the complainant and respondent to speak to any written submissions that might have been made;

(e) Conduct its business in open meeting, except where the alleged breach concerns matters that justify the exclusion of the public, in which case it will be a closed meeting;

(f) Ensure that penalties or actions recommended in response to a serious breach of the Code are proportionate to the breach and consistent with the actions set out in the Code.

70. The draft Code of Conduct refers to a committee with delegated responsibility to consider the independent investigator’s recommendations relating to complaints of breaches of the Code. This enables the Council to establish a committee now or at a later stage, without having to change the Code of Conduct to do so.

71. If the Council does set up a committee with delegated responsibility the Council will need to decide if the Council would agree to be bound by that committee’s recommendations.

72. The recommendations have an either/or choice to establish a committee as soon as possible or defer establishing a committee.

Actions that may be applied when a breach has been confirmed – section 19.6

73. Actions that may be taken against a member found to be in breach are set out in section 19.6. and is taken from the LGNZ template. This section includes a set of principles and a fuller list of actions than the current Code of Conduct and a note on which actions would typically be reported to a public meeting.

Options Analysis

74. The Council has the following options:

Option	Advantages/disadvantages
Option 1 – Adopt the draft Code of Conduct *(recommended)*	The Code is based on a best practice template. Aligns the Code with up-to-date legislation relating to elected members. Consistent with Codes adopted by other councils.
Option 2 - Do not adopt the draft Code of Conduct	Members may require more time to consider the draft Code. This would result in a delay to introducing a new Code and the continuation of the current out of date Code. This may undermine public trust, and deferring adoption prolongs reliance on an outdated framework.
Option 3 – Adopt the draft Code of Conduct with amendments	Members can opt to make changes to the draft Code.

Financial Considerations

75. Costs relating to complaints will be met within the Governance budget where possible.

Legal Implications / Risks

76. The current Code of Conduct continues in place until an amended Code of Conduct is adopted by the Council. An elected member must comply with the Code of Conduct.

77. A breach of the Code of Conduct does not constitute an offence under the Local Government Act 2002.

78. If a complaint is potentially a legislative breach, and outside the scope of the Code of Conduct, the Chief Executive will refer the complaint to the relevant agency. If a member is convicted of a criminal offence punishable by two or more years imprisonment, or if they cease to be or lose their status as an elector then an elected member is automatically disqualified from office. Prosecution by the Audit Office for breaches of the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 which leads to conviction can also lead to the member losing office.

79. Inviting the Auditor-General to prepare a report on any financial loss or damage suffered by a local authority as a result of a breach could potentially lead to the member having to personally make good the loss or damage.

80. Material breaches may impact on Council’s reputation if not managed transparently.

81. Codes of Conduct are helpful in clarifying the requirements about members’ conduct in relation to staff and are considered to play an important role in reducing legal risk for councils in the area of employment disputes with chief executives and employment law risks.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

82. The adoption of the Code of Conduct aligns with all the principles of Te Ao Māori. The Code sets out a commitment for the Council to operate in a manner that recognises and respects the significance of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

CLIMATE IMPACT

83. The adoption of Code of Conduct is an administrative requirement and does not impact on the climate.

Consultation / Engagement

84. There is no requirement to consult or engage the community about the contents of the Code of Conduct.

Significance

85. 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.

86. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

88. 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.

Next Steps

89. Next steps are:

· publish the adopted Code of Conduct on TCC’s website and distribute to members

· monitor the release of any national Code of Conduct by the Secretary of Local Government

· depending on the Council’s decision to establish an independent Committee, determine the terms of reference and call for expressions of interest for membership

· the Chief Executive to compile a list of independent investigators to be agreed in consultation with the elected members.

Attachments

1. Code of Conduct 2025 - Draft without track changes - A18538213 (Separate Attachments 1)

2. Code of Conduct 2025 - Draft with track changes - A18499588 (Separate Attachments 1)

3. Code of Conduct - final adopted 14 July 2020 - A11610616 (Separate Attachments 1)

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

7 October 2025

11.3 Standing Orders

File Number: A17100981

Author: Clare Sullivan, Senior Governance Advisor

Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

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

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of the report is to adopt an updated Standing Orders based on a plain English version and decide on the Standing Orders which are discretionary.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Standing Orders ".

EITHER

(b) Adopts the Standing Orders (Attachment 1 of this report) with the following retentions and changes:

(i) Based on the plain English version based on Local Government New Zealand’s template which includes additions to the “principles” section and retains the free speech principle.

(ii) Change the time frame when the Council must resolve to continue a meeting from eight to six hours (Standing Order 4.2 (b))

(iii) Retain the delegation to the Chief Executive during the election interregnum period (Standing Order 6.6)

(iv) Add new Standing Orders 8.9 to 8.12 relating to urgent meetings following an election that may be called as set out in the legislation but not previously in Standing Orders.

(v) Add quorum provisions for the Mayor appointed as a member of a joint committee solely due to section 41A (5) of the Local Government Act 2002 (where the Mayor is a member of each committee) they are not counted towards the quorum (Standing Order 11.4).

(vi) Retain the leave of absence provisions in Standing Order 13.3.

(vii) Retain the apologies provisions in Standing Order 13.5.

(viii) Retain the right for members to attend by audio-visual link (Standing Order 13.7)

(ix) Add quorum provisions which enables members to be counted towards a quorum when attending meetings by electronic link (Standing Order 13.8).

(x) Change time limits for public forum/delegations’ speakers to five minutes (excluding questions) with a limit of two speakers per organisation and tighten up restrictions on who can speak at the Mayor/Chair’s discretion (Standing Orders 15.1, 15.2, 16.1 and 16.2).

(xi) Add that for petitions presented in an electronic format, the petitioner must indicate as best they can when presenting the petition how many signatories live within the Tauranga City Council boundaries (Standing Orders 17.1 (b)).

(xii) Retain the casting vote provision for the Mayor/Chair (Standing Order 19.3).

(xiii) Retain the recording of a division if the vote is not unanimous (Standing Order 19.4 (e)).

(xiv) Retain the ability to use a suitable electronic voting system (Standing Order 19.4)

(xv) Add references to Code of Conduct previously removed in 2021 as these did not apply to Commissioners (Standing Orders 20.2 – 20.3).

(xvi) Add time limits of five minutes when speaking to motions and amendments (Standing Order 21.2).

(xvii) Retain Option C for motions and amendments (Standing Order 22.4) and Appendix 5.

(xviii) Add new Standing order 23.5 enabling the meeting to amend a motion subject to the agreement of the mover and seconder.

(xix) Add additional “reasons for not accepting an amendment” to Standing Order 23.6

(xx) Add in where “reasons for decisions” are able to be included in a resolution (Standing Order 23.13).

(xxi) Add criteria on what is included in Minutes, agreed at the Council workshop on 3 December 2024 (Standing Order 28.2).

(xxii) Retain Appendix 8 on workshops and add a few additional points as set out in the Guide to Standing Orders relating to workshops.

Executive Summary

2. Council is asked to adopt updated Standing Orders based on Local Government New Zealand’s (LGNZ) plain English template, incorporating legislative updates and discretionary provisions. The revised Standing Orders set out in Attachment 1 aim to improve clarity, accessibility, and alignment with current legal requirements.

3. The updated Standing Orders:

· align with best practice and statutory obligations and ensures Council processes remain lawful and consistent

· enhances transparency and inclusivity for the public

· reinforces behaviour standards and promotes governance integrity by reinstating Code of Conduct references

· provides for operational efficiency by including time limits for speakers

· facilitates modern governance tools (e.g. electronic voting)

4. The current Standing Orders were adopted on 22 February 2021. Standing Orders stay in place until changed with a 75% majority of members present and voting. If members choose not to adopt these draft Standing Orders the current ones will continue to apply. The updated version includes legislative changes since the previous version was adopted and this legislation applies even when the standing orders have not been updated but it is best practice to adopt standing orders that are consistent with the current legislation.

5. The Council is asked to make decisions on discretionary matters. These are set out in more detail in the Options section of the report. Feedback from elected members on these discretionary matters has been included in the updated version. The main discretionary matters for the Council to decide on are:

· Right to attend by audio or audio-visual link – recommend retain

· Quorum provisions which enable members to be counted towards a quorum when attending meetings by electronic link – recommend add

· Mayor/chair casting vote – recommend retain

· Option for speaking to and moving motions and amendments – recommend retain Option C

· Time limits for speaking to motions and amendments – recommend add 5 minutes

· Time limits for public forum and deputations – recommend add 5 minutes (excluding questions)

· Code of Conduct provisions – recommend add these back in

· Electronic voting provisions – recommend these be retained

· Criteria for electronic petitions to determine how many signatories live in Tauranga City – recommend add

· Formalising what is included in minutes – recommend add

6. Minor changes proposed to be included or retained in the updated Standing Orders are itemised in the report and in the recommendations.

7. LGNZ also produced a Guide to Standing Orders (see Attachment 2) which includes non-essential matters transferred from the previous Standing Orders template. This Guide discusses individual clauses and is helpful to be read alongside the Standing Orders. The Guide discusses the discretional matters for councils to consider and provides commentary on workshops/briefings which are included in Appendix 8. Staff intend that this Guide be added to the Council’s Standing Orders website.

8. Next steps include publishing the updated Standing Orders and Guide on Council’s website, distributing these electronically to elected and appointed members and monitoring and reviewing the electronic petition provisions after one year.

9. These Standing Orders will continue to have effect until Council amends them or a national set of Standing Orders are issued by the Secretary of Local Government which will be required to be adopted by all councils. This change is proposed in the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill that will likely be enacted before the end of 2025. Standards New Zealand is currently developing a set of standardised Standing Orders at the request of the Minister. It is not clear when any new set of standardised Standing Orders will be issued once the Bill has been enacted.

Background

10. Standing Orders adopted on 22 February 2021 (see Attachment 3), continue to apply to the meetings of the Council and its committees and stay in place until changed with a 75% majority of members present and voting.

11. Standing Orders contain rules for the conduct of the proceedings of local authorities, committees and subcommittees. Their purpose is to enable local authorities to exercise their decision-making responsibilities in a transparent, inclusive and lawful manner which contributes to greater public confidence in the quality of local governance. Standing Orders are also a means of recording the Council's agreed principles of behaviour within meetings.

12. The Standing Orders are structured in three parts:

· Part 1 deals with general matters

· Part 2 deals with pre-meeting procedures

· Part 3 deals with meeting procedures

· Appendices

13. An updated version of Standing Orders was released by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and this version is used as the basis for the draft Council’s Standing Orders recommended for adoption. This puts standing orders into plain English so that everyone can understand them. This version has been updated with new legislation or legislation that was not previously included. The design is more user friendly and makes it easier to navigate by shifting non-essential matters to the Standing Orders Guide. There is no track change version from the current Standing Orders as there are many changes however the standing orders referred to in this report are highlighted in yellow for easy reference.

14. LGNZ also produced a Guide to Standing Orders which includes non-essential matters transferred from the previous template e.g. protocols for livestreaming of meetings. This Guide discusses individual clauses and is helpful to be read alongside the Standing Orders. The Guide discusses the discretional matters for councils to consider and provides commentary on workshops/briefings. It also discusses appointment of co-chairs. The Guide looks at local government’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and gives examples of what could be included in standing orders e.g. holding meetings on marae, inviting mana whenua organisations to appoint representatives on council committees and working parties.

15. Three sessions have been held with elected members relating to Standing Orders including a training session on 27 August 2024, a workshop on minutes on 3 December 2024 and a briefing session on Standing Orders and Code of Conduct on 13 March 2025. Feedback from elected members has been included in the draft Standing Orders.

Statutory Context

16. The Council is required by Clause 7, Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002 to adopt a set of Standing Orders that control the way the Council's meetings are conducted. The Standing Orders must not contravene the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002), the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) or any other Act. All members of a local authority must abide by standing orders.

17. Amendments to Standing Orders require a vote of not less than 75% of members present and voting. Members must comply with Standing Orders.

18. Much of what is covered in Standing Orders capture the statutory requirements around meetings, and references are made at the end of each Standing Order to the legislative provisions in both LGA 2002 and LGOIMA. However, there are those standing orders which are not statutory requirements, and these could be suspended at any given meeting.

19. If the Council decides to suspend any of the non-statutory standing orders during a meeting, the reason for the suspension must be stipulated and resolved by 75% of those present and voting.

20. Clause 16, Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002 states that a member of a council must abide by the standing orders.

21. The Mayor or Chair has the power to decide on any matter that is raised in the meeting and for any matter that is not specifically stated in the Standing Orders.

22. The Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill (the Bill) published on 14 July 2025 is due to be enacted before the end of 2025. Under this Bill a national set of Standing Orders, and a national Code of Conduct, may be issued by the Secretary of Local Government (Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs) under Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002 and, if so, these will be required to be adopted by all councils. There is no definite timeframe for the Secretary to do this and the council’s set of Standing Orders continue to have effect after the Bill is enacted until the Secretary approves and issues a national set. The Bill states that this is to strengthen council transparency and accountability. Currently each council adopts their own Standing Orders, mostly based on templates developed for the sector, and these reflect each council’s decisions on discretionary matters and preferences.

23. Standards New Zealand has been requested by the Minister to develop draft standardised Standing Orders for consideration once the Bill has been enacted. At this stage it is unclear on what timeframe such standardised Standing Orders would be approved by the Secretary and issued to the sector for implementation.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

24. 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	☐

Options Analysis

25. Council needs to decide on discretionary Standing Orders and these are set out below.

Resolution to continue a meeting

26. Standing Order 4.2(b) Meeting duration, currently requires a meeting to resolve to continue after eight hours. The updated version recommends this is reduced to six hours.

Delegation to Chief Executive during election interregnum period

27. Provision has been included in Standing Order 6.6 since 2020 for the Chief Executive to make decisions on urgent matters in the period when the election result has been declared but the Mayor and Councillors have not been sworn in. Any decision is made in consultation with the Mayor elect and reported to first meeting of new council. This is a long-standing practice and is adopted generally by local government. Including this provision stops the need for a report to the Council at the end of each term to get this delegation and for this reason is recommended to be included.

Leave of absence

28. Standing Order 13.3 sets out the provisions relating to members leave of absence. The Council considered a report at its 28 April 2025 meeting on a leave of absence policy (as part of the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy) and left the report to lie on the table until further discussions had been held.

29. A report including a recommended revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy is elsewhere on this meeting’s agenda. The revised policy on leave of absence does not require any changes to the provisions in Standing Order 13.3.

Recording of apologies

30. Standing Order 13.5 sets out the provisions relating to recording apologies. It is recommended that the current provisions for members to be recorded as absent on council business or if they request absent due to sickness or other relevant reasons beyond the member’s control be retained.

Right to attend by audio or audio-visual link

31. Members’ and the public’s (for deputations and public forum) right to attend by audio or audio-visual link (Standing Orders 13.7 to 13.16) is included in the current Standing Orders. It is recommended that these provisions continue as they provide for meetings to be held remotely and gives flexibility for all members to attend and vote remotely at any time.

32. Since 1 October 2024, the legislation was changed permanently to enable members who join by audio or audio-visual means to be counted as part of the quorum. Previously emergency provisions during Covid and civil defence emergencies applied but these were temporary. Standing Order 13.8 clarifies the legislation. This provision is not discretionary if the Council agrees to include Standing Orders 13.7 to 13.16.

33. If the Council does not wish to have this provision Standing Order 13.7-13.16 must be deleted before the Standing Orders are adopted.

Time limits for public forum and deputations

34. Public Forums are a defined period of time, usually at the start of a meeting, which, at the discretion of a meeting, is put aside for the purpose of public input. Public forums are designed to enable members of the public to bring matters, not necessarily on the meeting’s agenda, to the attention of the council. In the case of a committee or subcommittee, any issue, idea or matter raised in a public forum must fall within the terms of reference of that committee.

35. A time of 30 minutes is provided for at the beginning of each meeting to hear from the public. Individuals and organisations have time limits and asking questions of speakers is optional. It is recommended that the public forum continues and is set at 30 minutes.

36. Currently there is a time limit of five minutes for speakers (including questions) with a limit of two speakers per organisation in Standing Orders 15.1 and 16.1. The LGNZ version suggests a time limit of 5 minutes (excluding questions). It is recommended that the LGNZ provision applies. The Council has the option to decide on a different time limit.

37. The Mayor/Chair has discretion of extending or restricting speaking times and to decline to hear a speaker or terminate a presentation. Mayor/Chair discretion in Standing Orders 15.2 and 16.2 has been extended.

Criteria for electronic petitions

38. The Council has been receiving the majority of petitions in electronic formats and this trend is likely to continue. These petitions do not provide information on whether signatories live within the Tauranga City Council boundaries and the elected members have requested that this information be provided.

39. The format of electronic petitions available online require only an email address, not a physical address and generally this information is not gathered using existing online petition formats.

40. It is recommended that Standing order 17.1 (b) be added so that petitioners must indicate as best they can when presenting electronic petitions how many signatories do live within the Tauranga City Council boundaries. It will be up to the petitioner to create a petition that will ensure this information is gathered or when presenting the petition, they have contacted each signatory and asked them where they reside.

41. It is not a staff responsibility to check petitions to determine this information. It is only statutory demands for polls under the Local Electoral Act 2001 that require the Council to check the address of each signatory and make sure they are on the electoral roll.

42. The Council has the option of including this provision and seeing how this works in practice and reviewing it after a year.

Mayor/Chair casting vote

43. Standing Order 19.3 allows for the Mayor/Chair to exercise a casting vote where there is an equality of votes. A casting vote in a council’s Standing Orders is optional under cl. 24 (2) Schedule 7, LGA 2002. The casting vote option has been included to enable a meeting to conduct and conclude important business without the risk that a vote might be tied and as a result, a significant statutory timeframe might not be met. The Council can decide whether the casting vote provision continues, is removed, or is limited.

44. The limited provision option would enable a casting vote to be used only for prescribed types of decisions. This option could specify, for example, that a casting vote can only be used for the adoption of statutory plans, such as the Annual Plan and Long-Term Plan.

45. If the Council decides not to have a casting vote, then Standing Order 19.3 must be deleted before the Standing Orders are adopted.

Electronic voting

46. The audio system installed in the new Council Chambers at 90 Devonport Road has the functionality to allow electronic voting, although it has yet to be enabled or tested. To use the functionality the Standing Orders must provide for that to occur.

47. The current Standing Orders 19.4 (c) provides for an electronic system to be used (where a suitable system is available) instead of a show of hands, vote by voices or division. The result must be publicly displayed and notified to the chair who must declare the result.

48. If meetings are held off-site the electronic voting functionality will most likely not be available.

49. It is recommended that Standing Order 19.4 (c) that enables a suitable electronic voting system to be used is retained.

Method of Voting – Divisions and electronic voting

50. Standing Order 19.4 (e) states that when a vote is not unanimous, the names of the members voting for or against or abstaining are to be recorded in the minutes.

51. The audio system installed in the new Council Chambers at 90 Devonport Road has the functionality to allow electronic voting – which includes recording for, against and abstain.

52. It is recommended that this provision be retained.

Code of Conduct

53. The references to the Code of Conduct in Standing Orders 20.2 and 20.3 were removed when the Commissioners were in office as they were not elected members, and these did not apply. It is recommended that Standing Orders 20.2 and 20.3 be added back in. These relate to behaviour at meetings being consistent with the Code of Conduct and retractions and apologies where comments have contravened the Council’s Code of Conduct.

Time limits for speaking to motions and amendments

54. Commissioners removed Standing Order 21.2 relating to time limits on speaking to motions and amendments. Previously this was five minutes. The Council has the option to include a time limit of five minutes, or a different time limit.

55. It is recommended that a time limit is included to enable Council and Committee meetings to be more efficient. Time limits can be extended by a resolution of Council or at the chair’s discretion.

Option for speaking to and moving motions and amendments

56. The LGNZ standing orders template offers councils a choice of three frameworks, Options A, B or C, for speaking to and moving motions and amendments.

(a) Option A is more formal and restricts the number of times members can speak and move amendments. For example, members who have moved and seconded a motion cannot then move and second an amendment to the same motion, and only members who have not spoken to the motion, or substituted motion, may move or second an amendment to it.

(b) Option B has less restrictions than Option A. While limiting the ability of movers and seconders to move amendments, this option allows other members, regardless of whether they have spoken to the motion or a substituted motion, to move or second an amendment.

(c) Option C (Standing Order 22.4) is more flexible than the other two options as it removes the limitation on movers and seconders and is suitable for councils with smaller numbers of decision makers. Option C is the option in the current standing orders. For these reasons Option C is recommended.

Amendments to motions

57. A new Standing Order 23.5 has been added to the LGNZ template to enable the meeting to amend a motion provided the mover and seconder of the original motion agree to its amendment. It is recommended that this new Standing Order be included as this is an efficient way of amending motions.

Amendments to be relevant and not direct negatives

58. A statement has been added to Standing Order 23.13 to clarify when “reasons for decisions” are to be included in the minutes. This was agreed at the minutes workshop with elected members.

“If a resolution is different to the staff report and the “why” this decision was made is unclear, the resolution can include “reasons for decision”.

59. Reasons for not accepting an amendment have been added to Standing Order 23.6 in the LGNZ template and it is recommended these be accepted as they provide clarity around amendments.

Minutes

60. Following a workshop on 3 December 2024 it was agreed that the minutes of Council and Committee meetings would record decisions only. Further matters to be included in minutes were also subsequently agreed and these have been added to Standing Order 28.2 (v) to (x).

(v) the timestamp for each report on the livestream recording be included in the minutes for ease of reference;

(w) discussion on concerns raised at the meeting as requested by the chair at times are to be recorded in the minutes;

(x) actions requested during the meeting are recorded in the minutes and the chair states clearly what these actions are during the meeting (note these are not resolutions).

61. There were business practices that were agreed at the minutes workshop which have not been included in the Standing Orders as they fall outside the scope. For example, it is now a practice that a follow-up action list is attached to the agenda for those actions requested in (x) above to show progress and completion and the Executive Summary section in each report is now fuller to enable elected members to rely on reading this to understand what they are being asked to decide on.

62. The current minutes have been following this format since December 2024 and the changes to the Standing Orders will formalise this format.

Appendix 8 Workshops

63. The LGNZ template does not include Appendix 8 relating to workshops. This information is included in the Guide. It is recommended that Appendix 8 be retained and is supplemented by additional information from the Guide. This helps provide clarity to members and the public around workshops and is more conveniently located in Standing Orders.

Non-discretionary Standing Orders

64. Other additions to standing orders which are not discretionary are listed in the table below:

Standing Order

Commentary

8.9-8.12 An urgent meeting may be called

Provisions for calling urgent meetings after an election are set out in the legislation but not previously recorded in Standing Orders.

11.4 Quorum for Mayor as member of a joint committee

New standing order to clarify when a Mayor is counted towards a quorum of a joint committee.

If the Mayor is a member solely due to s 41A (5) of the Local Government Act 2002 (where the Mayor is a member of each committee) the Mayor is not counted as a member of the committee for determining a quorum. However, if the Mayor has been appointed to a joint committee due to their role or experience that is named as a council representative on the joint committee, then they will count as part of the quorum. This is set out in Clause 6A of Schedule 7 LGA 2002.

Financial Considerations

65. There are no financial considerations relating to the adoption of Standing Orders.

Legal Implications / Risks

66. The LGNZ template has been developed in conjunction with members of Taituarā’s Democracy and Participation Working Party and is based on the 2003 model standing orders published by the Te Mana Tautikanga o Aotearoa Standards Authority and updated every three years.

67. The new template includes legislative changes since the previous version of Standing Orders. The legislation applies even when the standing orders have not been updated. It is best practice to adopt standing orders that are consistent with the legislative changes since the previous version was adopted.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

68. The adoption of Standing Orders aligns with the principle of manaakitanga, a strong duty of care and safety for people as it is considered best practice both from a Western and a Te Ao Māori perspective to have open, transparent and inclusive meetings.

CLIMATE IMPACT

69. The adoption of Standing Orders is an administrative requirement and does not impact on the climate.

Consultation / Engagement

70. Elected members were engaged on discretionary elements of the Standing Orders however there is no requirement to consult or engage the public on changes to Standing Orders.

Significance

71. 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.

72. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

74. 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.

Next Steps

75. The updated Standing Orders and the Guide to Standing Orders will be published on the Council’s website and provided electronically to members and appointed members on committees. Staff will monitor and review the electronic petition provisions after one year.

76. Implement the proposed national set of Standing Orders if they are issued by the Secretary of Local Government.

Attachments

1. Standing Orders Draft July 2025 - A17718219 (Separate Attachments 1)

2. LGNZ Guide to 2025 Standing Orders Template - A17718163 (Separate Attachments 1)

3. Standing Orders Final adopted 22 February 2021 - A12465166 (Separate Attachments 1)

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
1	Adopt the revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025. Recommended (Resolution (b))	· The policy will provide guidance on making decisions on leave of absence.	· None
2	Do not adopt the revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025.	· None	· The policy will not incorporate leave of absence provisions.

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

7 October 2025

11.5 Street Use and Public Places Bylaw Review: Issues and Options

File Number: A18201153

Author: Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Shawn Geard, Manager: Transport System Operations

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

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek Council’s direction on the issues identified through the review of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Street Use and Public Places Bylaw Review: Issues and Options".

(b) Approves the following options for the purpose of developing a draft bylaw:

No.	Issue	Option
1	Definition of pedestrian way	Option 1B: Amend the pedestrian way definition to 1.8 metres wide and located 1.5 metres from any shop front, unless otherwise specified by Council resolution.
2	Definition of a mobile shop	Option 2B: Amend the definition of a mobile shop to include services – ‘a vehicle from which goods or services are offered for sale.’
3	Approach to setting rules for street dining	Option 3A: Set allowance for street dining in non LTO areas and the ability for Council to set additional LTO zones. (Status quo) Or Option 3B: Require *all businesses* across the city to have an LTO for any street dining. Or Option 3C: Allow *businesses in non LTO zones* to use a set area and anything in addition would require an LTO. Or Option 3D: Allow *all businesses* (including current LTO areas) to use a set area and any additional area would require an LTO.
4	Approach to setting rules for retail displays	Option 4A: Current approach of allowing an area up to 1.5 square metres and not extending more than 1.5 metres from the shop. (Status quo) Or Option 4B: In addition to Option 4A, allow for Council resolutions to set areas that require permits for retail display. Or Option 4C: Require a permit for retail display across the city. Or Option 4D: Allow some area for retail display and require a permit/LTO for any additional area.
5	Approach to set rules for non-retail displays	Option 5A: Require permission for anything to be displayed on council owned land. (Status quo) Or Option 5B: Allow other types of displays and advertising activations to be displayed in the area (up to 1.5 square metres and not extending more than 1.5 metres from the shop) specified for retail displays. Or Option 5C: Option 5B, with the addition of allowing for Council to make resolutions to set areas that require permits for non-retail displays. Or Option 5D: Require a permit for all non-retail displays across the city. Or Option 5E: Allow a set area for non-retail display and require a permit/LTO for any additional area.
6	Approach to setting rules for signs	Option 6A: Current approach with general conditions and permission for set types of signs. (Status quo) *Note:* As part of the review process the general sign conditions in the bylaw will be clarified and updated.
7	Approach to setting rules for real estate signs	Option 7B: Clarify the current rules by amending the bylaw to include: · a definition of a real estate sign · a maximum number of real estate signs for each premises · placement, number and duration conditions for open homes and auctions signs · conditions of an open home or auction real estate sign

(c) Request that a draft bylaw be prepared based on the direction provided and then presented to Council for consideration prior to adoption for consultation.

Executive Summary

2. The Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018 (bylaw) sets the rules for public spaces in Tauranga to ensure public safety, accessibility and enjoyment for the community. It covers a wide range of activities including signage, trading, street dining, skating and scooter use, and busking.

3. On 24 March 2025, Council directed staff to review the bylaw, with a focus on street dining and broader footpath use. The initial review has identified several issues for Council to consider, including the definitions of ‘pedestrian way’ and ‘mobile shop’, as well as how to set rules for street dining, retail displays, other types of displays, and signage.

4. The report recommends changing the definitions of ‘pedestrian way’ and ‘mobile shop’ to improve clarity, consistency and enforceability. Options for street dining, displays and signs reflect two approaches to regulation: either allowing the under set conditions outlined in the bylaw, or requiring separate approval through a licence or permit application.

5. Allowing activities under set conditions is easy to understand, cost effective to manage, and less costly for businesses. However, it lacks flexibility and does not allow for fees to be charged for the activity.

6. Requiring a permit or licence provides greater flexibility, and the ability to set fees, but it can be more complex and costly to administer.

7. Staff recommend retaining the approach of allowing signs under set conditions. The implementation costs of a permit approach for signage would outweigh any benefits from being able to set fees for this use of council owned land.

8. No recommendations are presented for street dining and displays (both retail and non-retail) because both regulatory approaches result in the same safety outcome, and the costs and benefits depend on the level of fees set for a licence or permit for these activities.

9. The bylaw aligns with Tauranga City Council’s strategic community outcomes and reflects the principles of manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga by helping to ensure public spaces are safe and accessible, and the environment and community assets are protected.

10. There are no immediate financial implications from Council deciding on the options presented in this report. However, if the outcome of the review results in additional activities requiring a licence or permit, there may be financial implications. These potential costs are not yet known, as the associated fees have not been established. Fees, if any, will be considered and set through the Council’s Annual Plan process.

11. Initial engagement with Fire Emergency NZ (FENZ), Police, Mount Mainstreet, Downtown Tauranga, Te Rangapū’s policy subcommittee and the chair of Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao has been undertaken.

12. Council’s direction on the issues will inform the development of a draft bylaw. A draft bylaw will be presented to Council on 29 October 2025 for adoption for community consultation.

Background

13. Tauranga has many public places for our communities to connect, relax and enjoy the outdoors. These spaces also support movement, whether walking, cycling or using mobility aids, especially along footpaths and shared walkways. However, because these spaces are shared, different uses can sometimes conflict, causing safety issues or impacts on people’s enjoyment.

14. The bylaw aims to balance these competing needs by setting rules to ensure footpaths and other public places are safe, accessible and enjoyable. Some activities like hosting an event or street dining need permission to ensure they are safe and do not conflict with other uses. While other activities, such as retail display and signage, are generally allowed by default under certain conditions.

Current bylaw rules

15. The bylaw’s primary footpath rule is that the pedestrian way must always remain unobstructed. The pedestrian way is the portion of the footpath intended exclusively for pedestrian use. It is currently defined as 2.5 metres wide and positioned 1.5 metres from any shop front, unless otherwise specified by Council resolution[4].

16. The bylaw allows for businesses, in non-licence to occupy zones, to place a restricted number of tables and chairs outside their premises[5] and allows Council to set areas (by resolution) where a licence to occupy (LTO) is required for street dining. There are currently four LTO zones for street dining across the city[6].

17. The bylaw allows for businesses to display merchandise outside their shop. Businesses can use an area up to 1.5 square metres and not extending more than 1.5 metres from the shop.

18. Businesses can also have one business sign (and additional magazine signs) with the placement and size set out in the bylaw. Different types of signs such as real estate, garage sale, election and community signs are also allowed across the city provided they comply with the provisions in the bylaw. The provisions for election signs are set out in the Local Elections Policy which is due for review in the first quarter of next year.

19. Other types of displays and fixtures (coin activated machines, planter boxes, temporary fences, and advertising activations) are not permitted on Council owned land without written permission from Tauranga City Council Staff.

20. The bylaw also covers building identification, trading, mobile shops, fences and trees that may impact public places and general nuisance, safety and damage to public places. A copy of the bylaw is attached in Attachment 1 and a summary of the provisions is provided for reference in Attachment 2.

21. Tauranga Council staff use a mix of education, warnings and enforcement to help people understand and comply with the bylaw. Staff engage with our customers in the first instance to educate them and provide an opportunity to be voluntarily compliant and only take the appropriate enforcement action if necessary.

Consideration of LTO fees triggered a wider bylaw review

22. On 24 March 2025, Council resolved to review the bylaw ‘Approves Option 2a: Staged rollout to include charges for current areas this Annual Plan, followed by a review of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw during FY26 in time for a full city implementation in the next Annual Plan’. In considering LTOs Council also discussed the broader commercial use of council owned landed. As a result, the review has focused on street dining, retail display, other types of displays and signs.

23. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires existing bylaws to be reviewed every 10 years. As the bylaw is due for review in 2028, undertaking a full review now while looking at LTO provisions is efficient and avoids duplication.

24. The review aims to determine whether the bylaw is still needed, aligns with current legislation, community needs and is effective and easy to understand. The review also provides an opportunity to inform and consult with the community on the rules for our public places.

Issues for consideration

25. This report presents issues identified during the initial stages of the review. These issues have been identified through the Council resolution from 24 March 2025, feedback from staff across the organisation and pre-engagement with Fire Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), the Police, Mount Main Street, Downtown Tauranga, Te Rangapū policy subcommittee and the chair of Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao.

26. The issues can be split into two broad categories: Issues around clarifying the language and improving structure of the bylaw, and issues focused on use of the road reserve, and particularly the footpath, including:

· pedestrian way

· mobile shops

· street dining

· retail displays

· non-retail displays

· general signage

· real estate signs.

27. Staff are seeking Council’s direction on these issues.

28. As the clarity and structural issues do not impact the bylaw’s content or intent, they will be addressed during the drafting process of the bylaw. These proposed changes will include clearer language, clarified definitions, and the addition of a contents page and explanatory notes.

Statutory Context

29. The ability for Council to make a bylaw comes from legislation that sets out the purpose for which the bylaw can be made. This bylaw is made under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), the Health Act 1956 and the Litter Act 1979. Generally, bylaws are made to:

· protect the public from nuisance;

· protect, promote and main public health and safety; and to

· minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

30. The LGA sets out the process and consultation requirements for making and reviewing a bylaw. Section 155 sets out that Council must determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem and does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This analysis will be included when a draft bylaw is presented to Council for adoption for community consultation.

31. The special consultative procedure must be used when amending a bylaw unless the proposed changes are minor or are correcting errors.

32. Staff are considering making both the pedestrian way (refer to paragraph 40) and mobile shop (refer to paragraph 42) provisions under the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA) in addition to the LGA. Any bylaw made under the LTA must be sent to the Minister, who may at any time disallow the bylaw or any part of it. This requirement may mean the bylaw may take longer to be adopted than if these provisions were only made under the LGA.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

33. 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

34. The bylaw aligns with all five community outcomes. It contributes to:

· an inclusive city by ensuring public access and enjoyment of public spaces

· valuing, protecting and enhancing the environment by setting rules around pollution and damage of public places including trees and plants

· a well-planned city by setting rules for furniture, signage and trading in public places including mobile shops

· being able to move around the city easily by protecting pedestrian access, regulating footpath use, prohibiting the unsafe use of skateboards and scooters and ensuring visibility and safety around intersections and crossings

· being a city that supports business and education by allowing business signs, retail display and street dining to support commercial activity.

35. Reviewing the bylaw provides an opportunity to ensure the bylaw aligns with these strategic community outcomes.

Options Analysis

36. The purpose of the bylaw is to ensure the safety and enjoyment of everyone using our public spaces, as well as to protect our community assets. There are two approaches to setting rules to achieve this:

· setting a general default rule/allowance, or

· requiring approval in the form of a permit or licence.

37. Table One summarises the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. The options presented for regulating street dining, retail displays, and non-retail displays include the two approaches, as well as a combination of both.

Table One: Comparison of general rules and requiring approval.

Approach

Advantages

Disadvantages

General allowance – no permission required as permission is provided for in the bylaw

· Simple to understand and communicate.

· Simpler to monitor.

· Lower administrative costs for businesses and Tauranga City Council.

· Less flexibility to accommodate individual circumstances.

· Could be seen as overly restrictive.

· No scope to recover monitoring and enforcement costs through fees.

· No ability to charge fees for the use of council land.

Require approval in the form of permit or licence

· Allows for a case-by-case assessment if required.

· Can include conditions tailored to specific situations.

· Greater flexibility for changing the permit or licence conditions compared with changing the bylaw.

· Allows for fees to be charged.

· More complex and costly to administer.

· May discourage some businesses from activating the street.

Issue One: Pedestrian way

38. A clear pedestrian way is essential for creating safe, accessible and efficient public spaces. It ensures people can more freely without obstacles, reducing the risk of accidents and improving accessibility for all users, including those with mobility challenges. Unobstructed pedestrian ways are also crucial for emergency access.

39. It is important to have a pedestrian way that works for our city. The current bylaw’s definition goes beyond what is necessary for safe pedestrian movement and is not practical given the physical constraints of many of Tauranga’s footpaths. Staff propose amending it in line with NZTA’s pedestrian network guidance.

40. Staff are also proposing to make the provisions around keeping the pedestrian way clear under the Land Transport Act 1998[7] in addition to the LGA. This would allow for infringement fines to be available as an enforcement tool for any breaches.

Table Two: Pedestrian way definition options

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 1A: Retain the current: 2.5 metres wide and located 1.5 metres from any shop front, unless otherwise specified by Council.

(Status quo)

· No advantages identified with this option.

· Does not reflect the physical constraints of most footpaths in the city.

· Enforcement is not possible in all locations across the city.

Option 1B: Amend the pedestrian way definition to 1.8 metres wide and located 1.5 metres from any shop front, unless otherwise specified by Council resolution.

Recommended.

· Consistent with NZTA’s pedestrian network guidance.

· Reflects the physical constraints of most footpaths in the city.

· Easier for people to comply with and be enforced.

· No disadvantages identified with this option.

Issue Two: Mobile shops

41. Under the bylaw, mobile shops are required to have a licence in Tauranga, and the licence conditions set out the rules for operating a mobile shop in the city. These conditions include areas where a mobile shop must not trade, as well as general conditions prohibiting operating in locations that would obstruct or be likely to obstruct traffic or views of other road users.

42. Over the past year, we have received 85 customer communications directly related to mobile shops (see Attachment 3). Most of these are around mobiles shops obstructing pedestrian areas and parking spaces, safety concerns and operating in prohibited locations or without a licence.

43. Some mobile shops provide services but do not have a licence to do so. The bylaw defines a ‘mobile shops’ as ‘a vehicle from which merchandise can be sold’. This creates both ambiguity for service based mobile shop operators and enforcement challenges.

44. Staff recommend changing the definition to include services. This proposed change aligns with the definition of a mobile shop in the LTA which would allow any mobile shop provision to be made under the LTA. This would mean that the infringement fees (under the LTA) could be used as a tool to help improve compliance.

45. Changing the definition also addresses concerns raised by Te Rangapū, that traditional Māori healing practitioners are precluded from having a mobile shop licence under the current definition.

46. Advantages and disadvantages of expanding the definition of a mobile shop to include services are outlined below.

Table Three: Mobile shop definition options

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 2A: Retain the current definition.

(Status quo)

· No advantages identified with this option.

· Those wanting to provide serves from a mobile shop are not able to apply for a mobile shop licence.

· Does not allow for infringement fees under the Land Transport Act to be applied to help improve compliance.

Option 2B: Amend the definition of a mobile shop to include services – ‘a vehicle from which goods or services are offered for sale’

Recommended.

· Allows for infringement fees under the Land Transport Act to be applied to help improve compliance.

· Allows for the mobile shop licence conditions to apply to mobile shops offering services.

· Responds to feedback from Te Rangapū to consider the definition of a mobile shop.

· Provides a consistent approach to mobile shops.

· No disadvantages identified with this option.

Issues Three: Street dining

47. On the 24 March 2025, Council directed staff to review the bylaw to consider a full city implementation of street dining LTOs. This is presented as Option 3B in Table Four below.

48. Alternatives include retaining the current rules, allowing businesses outside of LTO zones to use a set area with the option to apply for an LTO if they wish to use additional area and applying this approach to all businesses not just those outside the current LTO zones.

49. Feedback from the Te Rangapū policy subcommittee raised concern around street dining (and other commercial activities) occurring on significant Māori sites. Requiring LTOs for street dining allows for more flexibility to consider compared with automatically allowing it under set conditions in the bylaw.

Table Four: Street dining options

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 3A: Set allowance for street dining in non LTO areas and the ability for Council to set additional LTO zones.

(Status quo)

· May be simpler for businesses already operating street dining as there will be no change.

· No additional cost or administration for businesses outside the current LTO areas – as current street dining provisions will remain.

· Less administration costs for businesses and Tauranga City Council.

· Allows Council to set additional LTO zones in the future if required.

· Inconsistent rules across the city may lead to confusion or perceived unfairness.

· Does not allow for street dining fees to be charged in areas where LTOs are not required.

Option 3B: Require all businesses across the city to have an LTO for any street dining.

· Consistent approach across the city.

· Potential for Tauranga City Council to better manage public space – including accessibility.

· Allows for consideration of significant Māori areas and archaeological sites when assessing applications.

· Allows option for fees to be charged across the city.

· Consistent with the approach used by other metro councils.

· Provides greater flexibility to change rules via licence conditions if required.

· Increased administrative costs for businesses and Tauranga City Council.

· Likely to be more difficult to monitor.

· May discourage small or new businesses from offering street dining.

Option 3C: Allow businesses in non LTO zones to use a set area and anything in addition would require an LTO.

· Allows for street dining while maintaining the ability to set LTO conditions for larger areas.

· Reduces costs for businesses, in non LTO zones, wanting to use only the set area.

· Requires a new implementation system.

· Inconsistencies between LTO and non LTO areas.

· Could be difficult to monitor and enforce the ‘set area’ and the LTO area.

· Additional costs for those businesses in non LTO zones wanting to use additional space.

· Potential for increased administrative costs for Tauranga City Council.

· Less scope to consider significant Māori areas and archaeological sites in the set areas.

Option 3D: Allow all businesses (including current LTO areas) to use a set area and any additional area would require an LTO.

· Sets a uniform rule across the city.

· Simplifies the process for businesses only wanting to use the set area for street dining.

· Potential lower costs for businesses in current LTO zones that only want to use the set area.

· Requires new implementation system.

· Transition arrangements for businesses with current LTOs.

· Additional administration costs.

· Additional costs for those businesses in non LTO zones wanting to use additional space.

· Could be difficult to monitor and enforce the ‘set area’ and the LTO area.

· Less scope to consider significant Māori areas and archaeological sites in the set areas.

50. No staff recommendation has been made on the preferred approach to regulating street dining, as all options achieve the same safety and accessibility outcomes.

Issue Four: Retail display

51. While considering LTO fees for street dining at their 24 March 2025 meeting, Council noted their intention to explore licences/permits for other uses of Council owned land. One such use is retail display. The bylaw allows a specified area[8] outside a business to be used for retail display.

52. Table Five below sets outs the different options for regulating retail display across the city. Option 4B retains the current allowance but introduces the ability for Council to designate, by resolution, areas where a permit is required. This approach aligns with the existing framework for street dining. Alternative options include requiring a permit for all retail display (Option 4C) or allowing a standard display area for all businesses with the option to apply for a permit to use additional space (Option 4D).

Table Five: Retail display options

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 4A: Current approach of allowing an area up to 1.5 square metres and not extending more than 1.5 metres from the shop.

(Status quo)

· Maintains current expectations for businesses.

· No additional administrative costs for businesses and Tauranga City Council.

· Provides a clear allowance for footpath use.

· Does not account for site specific constraints or high pedestrian areas.

· Does not allow the option of fees for the use of council land.

· Inconsistent with the current approach for street dining in LTO zones.

· Does not allow for significant Māori areas and archaeological sites to be considered.

Option 4B: In addition to Option 4A, allow for Council resolutions to set areas that require permits for retail display.

· Provides a clear allowance for footpath use.

· Allows flexibility to adapt requirements based on local conditions.

· Consistent with the current general framework for street dining – particularly if permits were required in the same zones as the street dining LTOs.

· Allows the option for some fees to be charged for use of council land if a permit system is introduced in some areas.

· In areas where set areas are provided for there would be no ability to set fees.

· Potential to be seen to be unfair if some places in the city required a retail display permit and others did not.

Option 4C: Require a permit for retail display across the city.

· Potential for greater control and oversight as assessments can be carried out based on location, safety and amenity.

· Allow for significant Māori areas and archaeological sites to be considered.

· Allows option of fees to be charged for displays across the city.

· Consistent with street dining LTOs.

· Provides greater flexibility to change rules via the licence conditions if required.

· Increased administrative costs.

· Potential barrier for small businesses wanting to utilise the footpath.

· Likely to be more difficult to monitor.

Option 4D: Allow some area for retail display and require a permit/LTO for any additional area.

· Supports small scale display activities.

· Allows for greater oversight based on scale and impact.

· Allows option for fees to be charged for areas that extend beyond a set area.

· Increased administrative costs.

· Likely to be more difficult to monitor.

· Less coverage for fees for using council land.

· Inconsistent with the current approach for street dining in LTO zones.

53. Staff have not identified a preferred option for retail display, as all approaches deliver the same safety and accessibility outcomes.

Issue Five: Non-retail displays

54. Although the bylaw permits retail displays under defined conditions, it does not explicitly address other types of non-retail displays like coin activated trading machines and other advertising activations. However, it includes a provision requiring written approval for any material or object to be deposited or placed in a public area.

55. Many of these types of displays across the city do not currently have written permission to be located on council owned land.

56. Table Six sets out different options for addressing other types of displays. Many of these options and their associated advantages and disadvantages depend on the direction given for retail display. For example, if Council decide to allow a set area for retail display, then Option 5B (allowing non-retail displays to be placed in this set area) applies. However, if Council decide on permits for retail display this option is no longer valid.

Table Six: Options for non-retail displays and fixtures

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 5A: Require permission for anything to be displayed on council owned land.

Note: Redrafting of the bylaw would make it clearer that this provision includes other types of displays and temporary fixtures, including trading devices and advertising activations.

(Status quo)

· Allows option for some fees to be charged for use of council land.

· Allows for consideration of the appropriateness of the display or advertising activation.

· Allows for significant Māori areas and archaeological sites to be considered.

· May be seen as inconsistent if retail displays are allowed for.

· Potential costs for businesses.

Option 5B: Allow other types of displays and advertising activations to be displayed in the area (up to 1.5 square metres and not extending more than 1.5 metres from the shop) specified for retail displays.

Note: This option is only valid if either options 4A or 4B for retail display are aproved.

· Maintains current expectations for businesses.

· No additional administrative costs for businesses and Tauranga City Council.

· Provides a clear allowance for footpath use.

· Does not account for site specific constraints or high pedestrian areas.

· Does not allow for the appropriateness of the display or advertising activation to be considered.

· Does not allow the option of fees for the use of council land.

· Inconsistent with the current approach for street dining in LTO zones.

· Does not allow for significant Māori areas and archaeological sites to be considered.

Option 5C: In addition to Option 5B, allow for Council to make resolutions to set areas that require permits for non-retail displays.

· Provides a clear allowance for footpath use.

· Allows flexibility to adapt requirements based on local conditions.

· Consistent with the current general framework for street dining – particularly if permits were required in the same zones as the street dining LTOs.

· Allows option for some fees to be charged for use of council land if a permit system is introduced in some areas.

· In areas where set areas are provided for there would be no ability to set fees.

· Potential to be seen to be unfair if some places in the city required a permit and others did not.

Option 5D: Require a permit for all non-retail displays across the city.

· Potential for greater control and oversight as assessments can be carried out based on location, safety and amenity.

· Allows for significant Māori areas and archaeological sites to be considered.

· Allows option of fees to be charged for displays across the city.

· Consistent with street dining LTOs.

· Provides greater flexibility to change rules via the licence conditions if required.

· Increased administrative costs.

· Potential barrier for small businesses wanting to utilise the footpath.

· Likely to be more difficult to monitor.

Option 5E: Allow a set area for non-retail display and require a permit/LTO for any additional area.

· Supports small scale display activities.

· Allows for greater oversight based on scale and impact.

· Allows option for fees to be charged for areas that extend beyond a set area.

· Increased administrative costs.

· Likely to be more difficult to monitor.

· Less coverage for fees for using council land.

· Inconsistent with the current approach for street dining in LTO zones.

57. Staff have not identified a preferred option, as all approaches deliver the same safety and accessibility outcomes.

Issue Six: Signs

58. Signs support businesses and provide information to the community but can also impact safety, accessibility and the enjoyment of public spaces.

59. There are many types of signs across the city and the bylaw specifically mentions business signs, magazine signs, real estate signs, garage sale signs, election signs[9] and community signs. Many signs do not comply with the bylaw provisions because of where they are located.

60. We have received just under 90 customer communications around signage over the past year (see Attachment 3). The concerns raised related to whether the signage had the required approvals, interference with public spaces, including parking and pedestrian access and visual amenity, and safety concerns.

61. Tauranga City Council staff currently take a primarily reactive approach to sign breaches, starting with education and progressing to the seizure of signs when compliance cannot be achieved, or the owner cannot be identified.

62. Table Seven sets out the advantages and disadvantages of the different options for signs. Option 6A is recommended because the implementation costs of a permit approach are not likely to be recovered by the potential fees that could be charged.

Table Seven: Options for signs

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 6A: Current approach with general conditions and permission for set types of signs.

Recommended.

Note: Under this option, staff propose to clarify and update the general sign conditions in the bylaw including a provision on illumination, luminescence and the movement of material that may cause distraction such as flashing or revolving lights and lasers.

· Maintains current expectations for businesses.

· Sets a consistent rule for signs on council land across the city.

· Simpler to monitor.

· Less administrative costs.

· Does not allow scope for fees to be charged for using council land for signage.

· Does not allow for significant Māori areas and archaeological sites to be considered.

Option 6B: Option 6A with the addition of the ability for Council to make resolutions to set areas that require approval/permits for signs.

· Allows flexibility to adapt requirements based on local conditions.

· Consistent with the current general framework for street dining – particularly if permits were required in the same zones as the street dining LTOs.

· Allows option for some fees to be charged for use of council land if a permit system is introduced in some areas.

· Potential to be seen to be unfair if some places in the city required a permit for a sign and others did not.

· Any approval or permit approach would be costly for council and businesses.

· Any fees charged for signs would be unlikely to cover the administration and implementation costs of a permit system.

Option 6C: Require approval/permits for all signs across the city.

· Allows for greater oversight and flexibility based on location and impact.

· Allows option for fees to be charged for signage on council land for all types of signs.

· Provides greater flexibility to change rules via the licence conditions if required.

· Increased administrative and monitoring costs.

· Potential permit fees are unlikely to recover implementation costs.

· Increased costs for businesses wanting to put signage on Council land.

· Difficult to monitor.

Option 6D: Combination of Option 6A and 6C where some signs are provided for in the bylaw and other types require a permit.

· Sets a consistent rule for some types of signs on council land across the city.

· Allows for greater oversight of some types of signs.

· Allows for fees to be charged for some types of signage on council land.

· May be difficult to justify why particular types of signs require permission and others do not.

· May be inconsistent across different types of signs.

· Difficult to monitor.

· Could be confusing for businesses.

Option 6E: Other - changing the type/number of signs permitted.

Note: Refer to issue seven, real estate signs below.

Issue Seven: Real estate signs

63. The bylaw allows real estate signs to be placed outside the property being sold and be removed two weeks after the property is sold. It also allows open home and auction signs to be displayed 3 hours prior to and up to the end of the open home or auction.

64. Recently there has been an increase in the number of non-compliant real estate signs, in particular private viewing signs. The bylaw review provides an opportunity for Council to consider and clarify the rules for real estate signs.

65. The options available will depend on the direction given on the broader topic of signs in issue six above. If Council opts for an approval-based approach for all signs, including real estate signs, no decision is required on the options below.

Table Eight: Options for real estate signs

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 7A: Retain current approach for real estate signs.

Note: This option is not applicable if option 6C has been selected for issue six on signs above.

· Maintains current expectations for real estate businesses.

· Less administrative costs.

· Does not allow scope for fees to be charged for using council land.

· Does not clarify the current rules for real estate signs.

· Does not address the increasing number of real estate signs being displayed on council land.

Option 7B: Clarify the current rules by amending the bylaw to include:

· a definition of a real estate sign

· a maximum number of real estate signs for each premises

· placement, number and duration conditions for open homes and auctions signs

· Conditions of an open home or auction real estate sign

Recommended

Note: If a permit approach is chosen for all signs (option 6C) these clarifications could be included in the permit conditions.

· Provides greater clarity around the conditions for real estate signs.

· Ensures safety and amenity value is maintained by setting a maximum number of signs.

· Allows more time for open day and auction signs to be displayed.

· Changes may be confusing for businesses.

· Could be viewed as overly restrictive.

Option 7C: Require approval for all real estate signs on Council land.

· Allows for greater oversight and flexibility based on location and impact.

· Allows option for fees to be charged for real estate signs on council land.

· Provides greater flexibility to change rules via the licence conditions if required.

· New system required to manage approval requests.

· Increased implementation costs.

· Potential permit fees are unlikely to recover implementation costs.

· Increased costs for businesses/vendors wanting to put real estate signs on Council land.

· Difficult to monitor.

Option 7D: No real estate signs permitted on Council land but allow for permission to be sought to place a sign on the closest possible council land location, if the property has no street visibility.

· Reduces safety risks of signs.

· Reduces negative amenity impacts of signs.

· Supports equitable marketing opportunities across different property types.

· Simple to understand and monitor.

· Increased administrative costs.

· Increased costs for businesses/vendors wanting to place real estate signs on Council land.

· Could be viewed as overly restrictive.

· Could be seen as inconsistent if other types of business signs are permitted on Council owned land.

Financial Considerations

66. The cost of reviewing the bylaw will be funded from the existing policy and bylaws budget.

67. There are no immediate financial implications from Council deciding on the options presented in this report. However, if the outcome of the review (the adopted bylaw) results in additional activities requiring a licence or permit, there may be financial implications. These potential costs are not yet known, as the associated fees have not been established. Fees will be considered and set through the Council’s Annual Plan process.

Legal Implications / Risks

68. There is a risk that some of the options considered will be perceived negatively by businesses and the wider community. This risk will be managed through effective engagement and consultation.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

69. The review of the bylaw reflects the principles of Manaakitanga by ensuring public spaces are safe, accessible, and welcoming for all. It also aligns with the principle of Kaitiakitanga through supporting the protection of the environment. The bylaw regulates activities that may damage trees, distribute soil or contribute to pollution while protecting the environment and community assets.

70. The proposed amendment to the mobile shop definition enables traditional Māori healing practices such as mirimiri[10] and romiromi[11] to be offered from mobile shops, responding to feedback from Te Rangapū and supporting Māori-led enterprise.

71. The Te Rangapū policy subcommittee raised the importance of ensuring the cultural appropriateness of allowing activities like street dining on significant Māori and archaeological areas. An approval-based approach has more scope for considering this.

72. The bylaw review will also consider amending the bylaw to support culture and Te Ao Māori values in public spaces by clarifying that approval for waiata is not required on Mauao. The bylaw currently requires written permission from council staff for preaching, singing, performing music, lectures or busking in a public place.

CLIMATE IMPACT

73. There are no direct or specific climate change impacts resulting from considering the options in the bylaw review. However, the bylaw itself provides an important regulatory tool to help protect environmental assets in public spaces, in particular trees and vegetation, that help contribute to climate resilience.

Consultation / Engagement

74. Staff have engaged with Fire Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), the Police, Mount Main Street, Downtown Tauranga, Te Rangapū policy subcommittee and the chair of Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao.

75. Conversations with FENZ focused on the building identification provisions in the bylaw and staff engaged with Police on the areas where skateboards and roller skates are prohibited.

76. Discussions with the chair of Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao focused on the bylaw’s application to Mauao to ensure this remained appropriate. The bylaw was seen to still have value as a tool to help protect Mauao especially the natural environment. Any requests for activities on Mauao would be guided by the reserve management plan and consultation with Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao. The importance of waiata on Mauao was highlighted and how the bylaw could recognise this. Staff will incorporate this feedback into the draft bylaw.

77. Mount Mainstreet expressed significant concern around Council considering additional fees for businesses in the Mount given the current business environment and the increase in rates and recent LTO fees. They note that ‘there has been a notable increase in commercial vacancies on Mount Mainstreet, which traditionally has very low store vacancies with 10 businesses either closing or relocating since January 2025. Feedback from members indicates mounting pressure due to a combination of declining consumer demand and rising operational costs.’

78. Downtown Tauranga expressed their desire for any changes to be fair and equitable. They want the same rules to apply to all businesses in Tauranga regardless of where they are located. In considering displays they favour allowing a set area for this, provided it is not less than the current set area for retail display, with the option on applying for a permit for additional space. Downtown Tauranga supports the current approach for signs but consideration for a permit to display extra signs depending on the size of the shop.

79. As part of the development of the Use of Council Land policy in 2020 almost 500 people were asked what they thought businesses should pay for the ongoing commercial use of public space. The survey used the example of tables and chairs outside a cafe/restaurant next door to a reserve and found that most people (around 70%) would like council to charge market value. A further 24% supported council charging a small fee.

80. Community consultation on the Street Use policy, carried out in late 2023, asked whether people supported phasing in street dining charges for businesses using public streets and footpaths. Of the 317 submitters, views were mixed: 48 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 42 percent agreed or strongly agreed. Those opposed to charging cited the need to support vibrant street dining and struggling businesses. Supporters felt that commercial use of public space should be charged, noting that street dining can inconvenience other users and encroach too much on pedestrian areas.

Significance

81. 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.

82. 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.

83. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the issue of the bylaw is of medium significance, however direction on the options presented in this report is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

84. In accordance with the legal requirement in the LGA, community consultation will be carried out on the draft bylaw, using the special consultative procedure[12].

85. The special consultative procedure requires a Statement of Proposal, the opportunity for people to present their views to Council, and a consultation period of no less than a month.

Next Steps

86. Council’s direction on the issues will be incorporated into the development of a draft bylaw. The draft bylaw will be bought back to Council on 29 October 2025 for adoption approval for community consultation.

87. If Council adopts the draft bylaw for community consultation, this will to be carried out in November/December 2025.

Attachments

1. Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018 - A18778575 ⇩

2. Summary of provisions in the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw - A18878570 ⇩

3. Summary of customer communications - A18878608 ⇩

[2] Referred to as the Nolan principles, drawn from the UK Government’s Committee on Standards in Public Life and the findings of the 1994 Nolan Inquiry

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life

[3] Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Act 2022 that amended the LGA (sections 54A-I) introduced the compulsory requirement for elected members to complete a pecuniary interest form and for a summary of the forms to be made publicly available.

[4] The Council resolution made on 29 April 2024 specified a 1.5m pedestrian way width for Maunganui Road, Pacific Avenue, Prince Avenue, Banks Avenue and Salisbury Avery to reflect current use.

[5] All businesses operating from fixed premises are permitted to place a maximum of 2 tables each with 1 umbrella and 4 chairs on the footpath. Food and beverage businesses may place additional tables, chairs and umbrellas subject to conditions.

[6] Inner City Centre, South City Centre, Mount Main Street and Mount Central.

[7] Land Transport Act 1998, section 22AB (1) (zk).

[8] An area up to 1.5 square metres and not extending more than 1.5 metres from the shop.

[9] The specific sites where election sites are permitted are set out in the Local Elections Policy. This policy is on the schedule to be reviewed and will be presented to the City Futures Committee for consideration early next year.

[10] Mirimiri is a Māori Maori healing practice that targets physical, mental, emotional and spiritual imbalances, tension and pain.

[11] Romiromi is a Māori bodywork tradition that fcuses on clearing blockags in the body’s energy systems and restoting physical aligment.


AGENDA Ordinary Council meeting Tuesday, 7 October 2025
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 7 October 2025
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Chambers Mareanui 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

Chair	Mayor Mahé Drysdale
Deputy Chair	Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular
Members	Cr Hautapu Baker Cr Glen Crowther Cr Rick Curach Cr Steve Morris Cr Marten Rozeboom Cr Kevin Schuler Cr Rod Taylor Cr Hēmi Rolleston
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	Three weekly or as required

Key change in 2024	Reason for change
Inclusion of public transport travel section	To promote the use of public transport.
Provision for media subscription	To provide access to news content and analysis.
Changes to fees for hearings	To align with the current Local Government Members Determination.
Changes to the receipt of gifts	To align with the pecuniary interest requirements in section 54F (1) (b) Local Government Act 2002.

Proposed Change	Reason for Change
Inclusion of leave of absence section	To set out the criteria for considering leave of absence and delegation for considering if any leave of absence is paid or not paid.
Amendments to staff delegations in sections 5.1.5, 6.1 and 6.2	As a result of the organisational reset, relevant responsibilities of the Manager: Democracy Services role have been assumed by the Head of Governance, Strategy & Climate Resilience role.

Public Excluded Attachment	Reason why Public Excluded
Item 11.6 - Endorsement for New Civil Defence Emergency Management Controllers & Recovery Managers - Attachment 2 - Controllers Recovery endorsement letter - Sept 2025	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons.