Agenda of Ordinary Council meeting - Wednesday, 29 October 2025

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

29 October 2025

11.2 Issues and Options for Dog Management Policy and Bylaw and Keeping of Animals Bylaw Review

File Number: A18204388

Author: Vicky Grant-Ussher, Policy Analyst

Brent Lincoln, Team Leader: Animal Services

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

Purpose of the Report

1. To consider the issues arising from the review of council policies and bylaws associated with dogs and animals and to provide direction on the issues and options presented in the report.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Issues and Options for Dog Management Policy and Bylaw and Keeping of Animals Bylaw Review".

(b) Provides direction on the following issues for the purpose of developing draft policy and bylaws:

(i) retain existing approach to dog management in public places but review the resourcing of education and enforcement through the Long Term Plan (Issue 1: Option C)

(ii) make targeted changes to dog restrictions at public places containing or adjacent to special ecological areas identified as high priority (for example, coastal dunes, and Shark Alley) (Issue 2: Option B)

(iii) require dogs to be on leash in urban city centre spaces (including Red Square, Masonic Park, the waterfront) (Issue 3: Option B)

(iv) require dogs to be on leash on selected shared paths (for example Marine Parade Coastal Pathway, the Beach Road walkway and the Papamoa Shared Path) (Issue 3: Option F)

(v) clarify the definition of play spaces and exercise equipment to include active recreation equipment (for example, skate parks and basketball courts) (Issue 3: Option H)

(vi) prohibit dogs from parks that are fenced for accessibility and inclusion purposes (Issue 3: Option I)

(vii) prohibit dogs in all cemeteries and burial grounds (unless permitted by the cemetery manager) and require dogs to be on leash in heritage reserves where dogs are not otherwise prohibited (Issue 3: Option L)

(viii) include bylaw provisions to address issues with cats (Issue 4: Option A)

(ix) do not include bylaw provisions to address issues with cats (Issue 4: Option B)

(x) add a maximum number of dogs per property (in addition to the current per person limit) (Issue 4: Option C)

(xi) add an ability for dog walkers with relevant training to request a licence from Tauranga City Council to walk more than four dogs at a time (Issue 4: Option D)

(xii) retain the current limit allowing up to four dogs to be walked at a time (Issue 4: Option E)

(xiii) reduce the number of poultry that can be kept in the residential zone without a licence to 6. (Issue 4: Option F)

(xiv) require a licence to keep poultry other than chickens in the residential zone. (Issue 4: Option G)

(xv) add a general requirement for those keeping animals in Tauranga to abide by the direction of an authorised officer (Issue 4: Option H)

(c) Notes that draft policy and bylaws will be prepared based on the direction provided and then provided to Council for consideration prior to adoption for consultation early next year.

Executive Summary

2. This report presents the findings of a comprehensive review of Tauranga City Council’s Dog Management Policy and Bylaw, alongside the Keeping of Animals Bylaw. The review was initiated in response to Action 23 of the Nature and Biodiversity Action and Investment Plan, to update the Dog Management Bylaw for Tauranga City to review existing, and include additional, dog prohibited areas to protect threatened species. The review also aims to ensure alignment with statutory obligations under the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 2002, while responding to community feedback and operational challenges.

3. The review identifies several key issues requiring Council direction. These include the overall approach to dog management in public spaces, the protection of Special Ecological Areas (SEAs), the regulation of dogs in urban and shared spaces, the potential introduction of cat-related provisions, and various licensing and registration matters. Data collected from Tauranga City Council records and ACC statistics indicate that while dog-related incidents have increased in absolute terms, the rate of incidents relative to the dog population has remained stable. Information from external agencies such as the Department of Conservation (DOC), Forest and Bird and Western Bay Wildlife Trust (WBWT) suggests that wildlife incidents involving dogs and cats remain a concern.

4. Council staff recommend a number of targeted changes to address these issues. These include:

· Retaining the existing approach to dog management in public places but review the approach to enforcement including the revenue and finance funding needs assessment for dog management through the LTP

· Permanent dog restrictions be introduced in high-priority Special Ecological Areas such as Shark Alley and coastal dunes, where seasonal restrictions have proven ineffective.

· In urban city centre spaces, including Red Square, the Waterfront and Masonic Park, dogs should be required to be on leash to reflect community preferences and mitigate risks associated with transport corridors.

· On selected shared paths, such as the Marine Parade Coastal Pathway and Papamoa Shared Path, require dogs to be leashed to reduce conflicts between users.

· Updates to the definition of play spaces and exercise equipment to prohibit dogs on active recreation features, and fenced parks designed for accessibility and inclusion purposes.

· Prohibiting dogs from all cemeteries and burial grounds unless permitted by the cemetery manager and requiring dogs to be leashed in heritage reserves where they are not otherwise prohibited.

5. The report also considers whether to introduce bylaw provisions for cats, such as requiring microchipping, desexing, and registration. While DOC, SPCA, and WBWT support such measures, enforcement under the Local Government Act is limited, and staff do not make a recommendation at this stage. Instead, continued support for desexing initiatives through community grants is proposed as an alternative.

6. Additional licensing recommendations include introducing a maximum number of dogs per property, requiring a licence to keep poultry other than chickens in residential zones, and reducing the number of poultry allowed without a licence to six. A general requirement for animal owners to comply with directions from authorised officers is also recommended to support responsive management of emerging issues.

7. Council is asked to provide direction on these options to enable staff to begin to prepare draft bylaws and policies, along with the required Statements of Proposal and section 155 analysis, for Council consideration in early 2026. This stage will include further advice on exact boundaries for areas subject to change based on the direction provided from this report. These drafts will be subject to public consultation via the Special Consultative Procedure, reflecting the high significance of the proposed changes.

Background

8. The current Dog Management Policy and Bylaw and Keeping of Animals Bylaw were last reviewed in 2018^{^[2]}. This review is an action from the Nature and Biodiversity Action and Investment Plan to update the Dog Management Bylaw for Tauranga City to review existing, and include additional, dog prohibited areas to protect threatened species. An early review also helps to better balance the bylaws work programme.

9. To best meet regulatory requirements the Dog Management Policy and Bylaw should be reviewed together. The Keeping of Animals Bylaw has been included in the review given the similar subject matter. To support the review a pre-engagement survey was conducted from 1 June - 30 June 2025, gathering community views on a range of topics. A summary of responses is provided in Attachment 1.

10. In 2025 there is around 1 dog for every 10 people in Tauranga. There are several sources of information on dog related incidents (for example Tauranga City Council tracking, ACC information, DOC reported incidents and, research reports). A summary of information on dog incidents is provided in Attachment 2. Key insights include:

· Wildlife incidents noted by DOC, WBWT and Forest and Bird over the term of the bylaw include fatal dog attacks on a juvenile fur seal and a penguin, and evidence of cats killing diving petrel and rock pigeon.

· Tauranga City Council records show the annual number of people attacked by dogs has slightly increased over the period of the bylaw (63 – 71) however when compared with the number of dogs the proportion has remained relatively static. The rate of people rushed at has declined (92 – 80). There was an outlier in rushing incidents in the 2024 year, with a significant increase in dog rushing complaints made to Tauranga City Council (108) which has now stabilised in 2025.

· ACC dog related incidents and Tauranga City Council records of dog incidents have increased over the term of the bylaw, however when compared with the number of dogs the proportion has remained relatively static. It is important to note that this data includes aggression related incidents but also incidental dog injuries for example, tripping over a dog. Tauranga has a relatively high number of ACC incidents (3.22% in 2023) relative to registered dogs when compared to the national average of territorial authorities (2.37% in 2023) however as noted earlier this includes non-aggression related injuries.

· Dog related incidents occur in both public and private settings. One research study found around 64% of dog bite incidents happened in private settings and 36% of dog bites happened in public settings^{^[3]}. Public places highlighted as most likely to have a dog-related incident for adults were public streets or walkways. Another source noted streets, beaches and parks as also having a high level of dog related incidents for children^{^[4]}.

· Research on dog bites in public places found the majority occurred when a dog was off leash prior to the incident, with a smaller portion still occurring while a dog was on leash.

11. Issues involving animals other than dogs are relatively rare (1-2 per year) and generally involve animals escaping, likely reflecting the primarily urban character of Tauranga. A summary of these incidents is provided in Attachment 2.

Statutory Context

12. The Dog Management Bylaw is made under the Dog Control Act 1996 and Local Government Act 2002. Offences under the Bylaw can result in infringement fines or prosecution. Section 20 of the Dog Control Act sets out the purposes for which a council may make a bylaw, which includes setting rules for dogs in public places, setting standards for animal welfare, limiting the number of dogs, confining dogs, impounding and desexing dogs in certain circumstances.

13. The Dog Management Policy is required under the Dog Control Act 1996 and compliments the Dog Management Bylaw. There are certain features required in a Dog Management Policy that are outlined in Section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996. When adopting a Dog Management Policy, the Council must have regard to:

· the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

· the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

· the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

· the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

14. The Keeping of Animals Bylaw is made under the Local Government Act 2002 which does not permit infringement fines, prosecution is the only recourse to offences under this bylaw.

15. Note that any prohibition of dogs in public places do not apply to disability assist dogs as defined within section 2 and Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

16. 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	☐
We are a city that supports business and education	☐

17. Effective dog and animal management ensures that dogs and animals do not cause distress or nuisance to the community (particularly children), wildlife and the environment.

18. Action 23 in the Nature and Biodiversity Action and Investment Plan is to update the Dog Management Bylaw for Tauranga City to review existing, and include additional, dog prohibited areas in order to protect threatened species. The Tauranga Reserves Management Plan management statements for the Kōpūrererua Valley notes to “consider excluding dogs from significant habitat value areas in the valley”.

Options Analysis

Issue 1: Overall approach to dog management in public places

19. The current Dog Management Policy sets out the general approach that dogs can be exercised unleashed in public places so long as, when circumstances require, the dog can be leashed. There are exclusions to this which include:

· streets and footpaths (leashed)

· Pilot Bay, Mauao, Mount Maunganui (main) beach, Moturiki, and Ōtūmoetai Pa Reserve (prohibited)

· on or 10m around play or exercise equipment (prohibited)

· specific coastal dunes areas (leashed)

· near surf life-saving clubs and flagged lifeguard areas (prohibited).

· temporary restrictions for events or protecting wildlife (leashed or prohibited).

20. This approach is intended to maximise opportunities for dogs and their owners to socialise and exercise, while minimising any potential danger, distress, or nuisance from, or caused by, dogs. This approach also allows flexible use of available open space, which is particularly useful in areas of the city with gaps in open space provision (for example, Te Papa South) and to take advantage of multiple uses of open space (for example, grass sports fields, stormwater reserves, coastal reserves).

21. The current approach to enforcing restrictions on dogs in public places relies on most residents adhering to the rules. Enforcement of breaches of the bylaw are targeted to reported incidents and through occasional proactive patrols. Infringement fines can be issued for those not adhering to rules, however resourcing constraints limit the level of active enforcement possible. Feedback through the pre-engagement survey noted that enforcement was a key concern, particularly for non-dog owners. This feedback was echoed by DOC, Forest and Bird, and the WBWT who noted that active education and enforcement would help support wildlife protection.

22. Currently, Animal Services resources aimed at dog management are primarily funded through user fees and charges (approximately 90%), with a small contribution from general rates (approximately 10%)^{^[5]}. At present animal services use a modern regulatory approach to compliance focussing on responding to highest risk areas and leveraging community partners, education and outreach to influence wider behaviour. Survey responses suggest that compliance measures are important to non-dog owners and dog owners alike. Greater education and enforcement is also important to support environmental outcomes outlined in paragraphs 25 to 30. At present the resourcing of dog related education and enforcement is restricted by the difficulties in raising additional fee revenue to cover the cost. Reviewing Tauranga City Council’s Funding Needs Assessment to consider the appropriate balance of user fee revenue to rates revenue for the activities may allow for additional resourcing for education and enforcement to be further considered^{^[6]}.

23. The animal services team also provides education and awareness raising events throughout the year to help encourage responsible dog ownership and reduce dog related incidents. In the 2024/25 year Tauranga City Council delivered bite prevention education to 260 students across four schools. Through community grant funding Tauranga City Council funds the SPCA to provide desexing vouchers to those in hardship. Twelve dogs were desexed between October 2024 and March 2025. This included several situations where an applicant was living with a dog in a vehicle.

24. In the workshop on user fees and charges on 9 October 2025 the Council asked for further advice on a responsible dog ownership scheme. Depending on the design of such a scheme this may help address dog management issues. Although there is little evidence of the effectiveness of such schemes, desexing dogs has been linked to lower aggression and roaming behaviour. Both the SPCA and the NZ Veterinary Society support a responsible dog ownership scheme. The existing bylaw and policy drafting would enable Council to introduce a responsible dog ownership scheme.

Table One: General approach to dog management

Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
Option A: Retain existing approach to dog management in public places	· Avoids additional costs and resources required to change approach (e.g. signage, communication campaigns). · Community is aware of the existing rules. · Uses education programmes and targeted funding to help reduce dog related incidents. · Maximises opportunities for dogs and their owners to socialise and exercise off leash. · Continues to provide some dog free spaces to the community (Mount, Main Beach, Pilot Bay etc) and parts of spaces (e.g. play spaces).	· Research suggests public dog related incidents were with off leash and unsupervised dogs so default off-leash approach may be contributing to incidents.
Option B: Consider classifying dog access rules to every open space as permitted, leash control or prohibited	· May give more certainty to open space users as to whether dogs will be present in open space and/or leashed. · Research suggests public dog related incidents were with off leash and unsupervised dogs so reducing off-leash opportunities may reduce incidents. · May reduce conflicts between dogs and other users.	· Is a significant change in approach and requires planning to identify permitted, leash and prohibited areas and significant communications to the community. · Likely to limit opportunities for dogs and their owners to socialise and exercise off leash (which is important to manage dog behaviour and support activity goals). · May still have issues where people do not follow the rules.
Option C: Retain existing approach to dog management in public places but review the resourcing of education and enforcement through the LTP (recommended)	· Opportunity to reconsider the Funding Needs Assessment given the survey results suggesting dog management is important to non-dog owners and dog owners alike. · Greater funding for enforcement could result in better awareness and compliance with existing rules and support overall compliance through perceptions of enforcement. · Would support any changes to further educate or enforce restrictions put in place for wildlife. · Supported by DOC.	· Greater enforcement may not fully address conflicts with other users as enforcement is still unlikely to be present at all times.

Issue 2: Special Ecological Areas

25. A Special Ecological Area (SEA), is a protected geographic area identified in the City Plan for its significant ecological value, such as indigenous vegetation, fauna habitats, and biodiversity. SEAs may be on private or public land. Several SEAs within Tauranga intercept public land and open spaces where dogs can be exercised.

26. Currently a range of non-regulatory approaches are being used to enhance and protect wildlife values in Special Ecological Areas. These include:

· providing information that raises awareness of the value of these areas

· pest control, including smart traps that target feral cats

· community funding grants to the SPCA to implement desexing vouchers to low-income households (from October 2024 to March 2025 12 dogs and 41 cats were neutered)

· temporary restrictions under the bylaw during breeding seasons.

27. The current temporary restrictions are used to prohibit dogs in Shark Alley^{^[7]} during the dotterel breeding season (1 August - 31 January). Both DOC and WBWT have indicated that the current seasonal restrictions are not effective in changing dog owner behaviour and given that wildlife such as seals and penguins are present year-round, would like to see permanent restrictions in this area and a buffer area around the location. They would like this to be supported by signage and enforcement and an alternative additional accessibility pathway further along Marine Parade.

28. In the Nature and Biodiversity Action Plan, Action 23 is to update the Dog Management Bylaw for Tauranga City to review existing, and include additional, dog prohibited areas in order to protect threatened species. Legislation already exists that prohibits the killing, injury, pursuing or disturbing of wildlife by dogs, however the presence of dogs in an area can also impact wildlife. When dogs chase birds, this can impact birds’ energy reserves and ability to feed and can detrimentally impact nesting success. Even the presence of dogs (without direct interference) has been shown to impact feeding rates of coastal/estuary birds due to the need to maintain surveillance which can have implications for weight gain and therefore successful migration^{^[8]}. The issue of cats and their impact on wildlife is discussed separately in paragraph 37-39.

29. Complicating the protection of SEAs from dogs, is that many are existing popular dog walking locations. These areas are often substantial walkways that offer a natural setting and therefore are sought out by residents for their wellbeing benefits. Some also provide water access areas for dogs to cool off. This includes areas such as the Waikareao Estuary, the Kōpūrererua Valley, Matua Salt Marsh, the Waimapu Estuary among others. Spaces were assessed against criteria as outlined in Attachment 3, with priority areas for change outlined in Option 2 in the table below.

30. WBWT, Forest and Bird, SPCA and commentary from the public survey advocated for creating alternative dog exercise areas to balance areas where dogs are prohibited. Given the permissive nature of our current bylaw council staff do not consider there is a need for alternative dog exercise areas. In Tauranga, almost all parks and reserves welcome dogs (for example Miles Lane, Greerton Park, and Bayfair Reserve are commonly known as areas popular for exercising dogs). Public requests for fenced dog parks are also common. At TECT Park (located in Western Bay of Plenty but part-funded by Tauranga City Council) there is a 1-hectare dog exercise area available for residents to exercise their dogs in a fenced location. Council staff have previously investigated the possibility of creating designated dog exercise areas within the city boundaries. However, this has been unsuccessful due to difficulties identifying a suitable location that was of a sufficient size and would not result in a neighbourhood losing the amenity of their local reserve^{^[9]}.

Table Two: Special Ecological Areas

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option A: do not make changes to dog restrictions in public places containing or adjacent to SEAs but use an education approach in tandem with community partners to encourage behaviour change in these spaces.

· Able to share a wider ecological message on the importance of SEAs.

· Less confrontational than enforcement messaging.

· People may be more willing to change behaviour when those in their community champion this.

· Covers all actions that may be impacting the birds e.g. cats and human behaviour.

· Retains options for dogs to cool off in warm weather.

· People may still choose not to comply.

· Not linked to enforcement.

Option B: Make targeted changes to dog restrictions at those public places containing or adjacent to SEAs identified as high priority (coastal dunes, Shark Alley).

(recommended)

· Protects wildlife and habitats from direct disturbance by dogs in key habitat areas.

· Retains options to exercise and socialise dogs nearby

· Supported by the SPCA.

· Changes are linked to spaces that are already monitored.

· Retains options for dogs to cool off in warm weather.

· Recognises that council staff have put in a temporary seasonal restriction at Shark Alley for several years during dotterel breeding seasons.

· Does not address all SEAs where dogs may be impacting wildlife.

· Shark Alley having year round restrictions may impact dog owners who need to use the accessibility beach mats.

· May require additional resourcing as council staff will need to patrol additional areas and outside current core work hours.

· Other avenues to reduce impact on wildlife (cats, pests) are not addressed.

Option C: Consider changes to dog restrictions at all public places containing or adjacent to Special Ecological Areas. This could include:

· Leash restrictions

· Restricting dogs to formed paths

· Protects wildlife and habitats from direct disturbance by dogs in all SEAs

· Provides enforcement options for those not following the rules.

· Supported by WBWT.

· Likely to significantly reduce off leash options to socialise and exercise dogs.

· Would require additional resource to monitor additional areas and outside current core work hours.

· Reduces options for dogs to cool off in warm weather.

· Would need further work to consider Waikareao Estuary approach due to legal issues (para 42-43)

Issue 3: Community Spaces

Urban City Centre spaces

31. With the development of urban spaces in the city such as Masonic Park, the waterfront and Red Square these spaces are now being used in a different way to previously. Dogs are not required to be on leash in these spaces as they are not footpaths or streets. Given the small scale of these spaces and the adjacent transport corridors off leash dogs may not be appropriate in these areas. The pre-engagement survey showed 88% of non-dog owners and 75% of dog owners agreed that dogs should be required to be on leash in city centre spaces. Current rules requiring dogs to be at least 10 metres from play equipment would apply to the waterfront playground area.

Table Three: City Centre Spaces

Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
Option A: City centre spaces remain off leash	· Dogs are able to remain off leash in city centre. · Access to the water remains for dogs to cool off. · The playground area and 10m buffer provide a dog free option.	· City Centre users may not feel comfortable around off leash dogs. · Does not reflect community preferences. · May not be appropriate for dogs to be off leash in urban spaces given surrounding environment (transport corridors).
Option B: Require dogs to be on leash in urban city centre spaces, including Red Square, Masonic Park, and the waterfront (recommended)	· Reflect community preferences. · May be more appropriate for dogs to be on leash in urban spaces given surrounding environment (transport corridors).	· Access to the water for dogs to cool off in the city would be limited. · Reduces off-leash options within the City Centre.
Option C: Require dogs to be on leash in urban city centre spaces, including Red Square, Masonic Park, but excluding the waterfront	· Reflect community preferences. · May be more appropriate for dogs to be on leash in urban spaces given surrounding environment (transport corridors). · Access to the water remains for dogs to cool off and retains an off-leash option. · Supported by SPCA.	· City Centre users may not feel comfortable around off leash dogs on the waterfront. Noting that the playground area and 10m buffer provide a dog free option.

Shared paths

32. Based on transport definitions, a shared path means a path that may be used by some or all of the following persons at the same time: pedestrians, cyclists, riders of mobility devices and riders of wheeled recreational devices. The current definition of footpath in the Bylaw (requiring dogs to be on leash) does not apply to shared paths in parks and reserves. Examples include the Marine Parade Coastal Pathway, the Beach Road walkway (Kulim Park to Fergusson Park), and the Papamoa shared path. The popularity of shared paths has led to incidences where uncontrolled dogs and other users have come into conflict. The pre-engagement survey showed 83% of non-dog owners and 50% of dog owners agreed that dogs should be required to be on leash on shared paths in parks and reserves.

Table Four: Shared paths

Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
Option D: Retain current off-leash status	· No restrictions for dogs and allows owners to make case by case assessment if on or off leash is appropriate for their dogs.	· Difficultly managing shared paths conflicts between cyclists, scooters, mobility device users, and dogs. · Not supported by non-dog owners, mixed support from dog owners.
Option E: Require leashing on all shared paths	· Strongly supported by non-dog owners, mixed support from dog owners. · Helps to manage shared paths conflicts between cyclists, scooters, mobility device users, and dogs. · Consistent approach to all shared paths.	· Concerns were raised around leashes causing a hazard in certain circumstances. · May restrict area for off-leash exercise for dogs due to a number of walkways in parks meeting the criteria as a shared path.
Option F: Require leashing on selected shared paths (recommended)	· Helps to manage shared paths conflicts between cyclists, scooters, mobility device users, and dogs on identified paths. · Can target restrictions to areas with greater evidence of issues. · Supported by SPCA and DOC. · More likely to retain off-leash exercise for dogs compared with option two.	· Reduces consistency which may make it harder for people to know when to leash dogs.

Play spaces and exercise equipment

33. Since the previous review of these bylaws the Play and Active Recreation Action and Investment Plan has invested in a wider and more diverse range of play and active recreation features in our parks and reserves. As such the existing approach of requiring dogs to be 10m from a play space or exercise equipment does not explicitly cover some active recreation equipment.

34. Tauranga City Council is currently progressing options for fenced play spaces to support the safety of young children and those with diverse needs (approximately 2-3 across the city). As part of this planning, it has been identified that dogs may be a hazard for children in this environment. Therefore, it is proposed that these parks become dog prohibited spaces. The planning for these spaces will include consideration of alternative dog friendly spaces nearby for those that wish to use these with their dogs. Without restrictions it is possible that these spaces will be used as de-facto fenced dog parks undermining the purpose of providing a safe space for young children.

Table Five: Play spaces and exercise equipment

Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
Option G: Retain current rules (10m from play or exercise equipment)	· No changes required.	· Ambiguity around what spaces are dog prohibited. · Does not support accessibility goals to provide fenced play areas for accessibility purposes.
Option H: Clarify the definition of play spaces and exercise equipment to include active recreation equipment (e.g. skate parks and basketball courts) (recommended)	· Provides greater clarity about which spaces should be dog prohibited. · Removes dogs from active recreation spaces that are likely to be highly frequented by children reducing the danger to children from dogs.	· Restricts spaces, or parts of spaces that dog owners can take dogs.
Option I: Prohibiting dogs from parks that are fenced for accessibility and inclusion purposes (recommended)	· Removes dogs from spaces targeted to support the needs of young children and those with accessibility needs therefore reducing the danger to children from dogs. · Provides a choice of dog free park space for those that would like that option.	· Restricts spaces, or parts of spaces that dog owners can take dogs. · May require additional resources to implement.

Cemeteries, burial grounds and heritage reserves

35. Issues have been raised with cemetery spaces being used as spaces to exercise dogs regardless of the current cemetery rules requiring permission to have dogs in cemeteries. There has been evidence of dog fouling in these spaces. As the Pyes Pā cemetery is located within Western Bay of Plenty District, we cannot make a Bylaw that includes that area.

36. Heritage reserves contain historical features that should be protected. Dogs are prohibited from Ōtūmoetai Pa Reserve but are otherwise permitted in other heritage reserves. There are 13 heritage reserves that are not otherwise cemeteries^{^[10]}. The pre-engagement survey showed 44% of non-dog owners felt that dogs should not be allowed in cemeteries, heritage reserves and burial grounds, and 41% agreed they should be allowed but leashed. Among dog owners 18% felt dogs should not be allowed, with 58% agreeing that dogs should be allowed but on leash.

Table Six: Cemeteries, burial grounds and heritage reserves

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option J: Retain current cemetery rules, where dogs are not allowed without permission, and no standard requirement for heritage reserves

· No change required.

· Does not address concerns of impact of dogs fouling in these spaces.

· Not supported by non-dog owners or dog owners.

· Relies on compliance with cemetery rules.

· Does not address potential damage from dogs in heritage reserves.

Option K: Require leashing in all cemeteries, burial grounds and heritage reserves where dogs are not otherwise prohibited.

· Supported by non-dog owners and dog owners.

· Would address impact of dogs fouling in these spaces and potential damage from dogs in heritage reserves.

· Undermines existing cemetery rules.

· Reduces off leash exercise options (particularly in Te Papa South where there is a gap in open space provision).

Option L:

· Prohibit dogs in all cemeteries and burial grounds (unless permitted by the cemetery manager) and;

· require leashing in heritage reserves where dogs are not otherwise prohibited

(recommended)

· Supports the current cemetery rules.

· Supported by non-dog owners.

· Would address impact of dogs fouling in these spaces and potential damage from dogs in heritage reserves.

· Not supported by dog owners.

· Reduces off leash use of heritage reserves (particularly in Te Papa South where there is a gap in open space provision).

Option M:

· Prohibit dogs in all cemeteries and burial grounds (unless permitted by the cemetery manager) and prohibit dogs in heritage reserves

· Creates consistency across spaces.

· Would address impact of dogs fouling in these spaces and potential damage from dogs in heritage reserves.

· Supported by non-dog owners.

· Not supported by dog owners.

· Reduces use of heritage reserves for the exercise and socialisation of dogs and owners.

Issue 4: Licensing and Registration

Regulating cats

37. Cats are noted as an advisory pest in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council Pest Management Plan. Areas of particular concern are around Mauao and Moturiki with evidence of cats killing diving petrel and rock pigeon^{^[11]}. Smart traps are also used in more rural areas to manage pests such as feral cats. The traps are located to avoid residential dwellings and contain technology which releases the trap when a microchip is detected.

38. At present there is no national legislation requiring cats to be desexed and registered and therefore cat provisions are enabled through Local Government Act 2002 bylaw making powers. These powers do not allow infringement fines but can be enforced through prosecution where this is in the public interest. Predator Free analysis in 2024 found 23 councils with cat related provisions in their bylaws. This included nine requiring microchipping, nine requiring desexing and 19 setting a maximum limit on the keeping of cats. As noted in paragraph 23 Tauranga City Council provided community grants to the SPCA to provide desexing vouchers for low-income households to encourage desexing.

39. DOC, SPCA and WBWT all support regulating cats, with DOC noting the impact cats have had on wildlife on Moturiki, wetland areas (particularly those with boardwalks) and the potential for feral colonies to develop.

Table Seven: Regulating cats

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option A:

Create bylaw provisions, for example, require cats to be registered, microchipped and neutered.

no staff recommendation

· Sets a position on microchipping, desexing and registration which may encourage pet owners to comply.

· Helpful to support wider use of traps without accidental injury to pet cats.

· No infringement fees are possible and the test for prosecution means that any enforcement is unlikely to be possible.

· Additional administrative costs to try and encourage compliance.

· Other initiatives such as desexing vouchers may be more effective.

Option B:

Do not create bylaw provisions and continue to support funding to enable low-income households to neuter and microchip cats

no staff recommendation

· Initiatives such as desexing vouchers may be more effective.

· Does not create an expectation of enforcement that may not be able to be met.

· No additional resource required.

· Does not set a position on microchipping, desexing and registration which may encourage pet owners to comply.

· Does not support wider use of traps without accidental injury to pet cats.

Other licensing issues

40. Several other issues have been raised related to licensing related concerns and an analysis of each issue is provided in Table Eight. A minor drafting change to clarify the ability to desex repeatedly roaming dogs is also suggested in response to SPCA feedback.

Table Eight: Other licensing issues

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option C

Add a maximum number of dogs per property (in addition to the current per person limit)

(recommended)

· Allows for a check for property suitability when multiple people have multiple dogs at a property.

· Would require a joint application for a licence for dog owners in this situation.

Option D

Add an ability for dog walkers with relevant training to request a licence from Tauranga City Council to walk more than four dogs at a time

no staff recommendation

· Allows for dog walkers to provide for more dogs potentially reducing costs for the service.

· Reflects feedback from dog walkers.

· Provides an incentive for training to dog walkers.

· Supported by dog owners.

· Mixed support from non-dog owners.

· Requires administration to approve dog walkers and licence fee may be needed.

· Current bylaw limit was introduced to control irresponsible commercial dog walkers so increasing the number may reintroduce issues.

Option E

Retain the current limit allowing up to four dogs to be walked at a time

no staff recommendation

· Current bylaw limit was introduced to control irresponsible commercial dog walkers and since there have been less issues raised.

· Less administratively burdensome.

· Mixed support from non-dog owners.

· Not supported by dog owners.

· Does not reflect feedback from dog walkers.

· Does not provides an incentive for training to dog walkers.

Option F

Reduce the number of poultry that can be kept in the residential zone without a licence to 6.

(recommended)

· Reduces the maximum number of poultry that can be kept without a licence to reflect the increasing density of urban form.

· Allows more poultry with a licence where this is appropriate.

· Increases administration for those with 7-12 heads of poultry and licence fee may be needed.

Option G

Require a licence to keep poultry other than chickens in the residential zone.

(recommended)

· Requires a licence for larger poultry and disruptive poultry allowing council staff to consider conditions to reduce the possibility of nuisance.

· Currently no evidence of complaints in the residential zone so may not be an issue.

· Increases administration for those with poultry other than chickens in the residential zone and licence fee may be needed.

Option H

Add a general requirement for those keeping animals in Tauranga to abide by the direction of an authorised officer

(recommended)

· Provides an ability to respond to nuisance complaints that may not be anticipated.

· Could support temporary issues (for example, requiring additional hygiene measures during avian flu outbreaks).

· Public may still not comply with directive given the lack of enforcement options available under the Local Government Act 2002.

Financial Considerations

41. Changes to dog restrictions may involve a reprioritising of enforcement resource in the short term due to the limited funding options under the current Revenue and Finance Policy other than increasing dog registration fees. In the Long-Term Plan a different balance of funding could be considered through the Funding Needs Assessment which could allow for a larger general rates contribution. At present the Funding Needs Assessment requires 70-100% of the animal services activity to be funded through user fees and charges and 0-30% through general rates and/or subsidies and grants. Changes to implement cat bylaw provisions would involve additional administrative costs and an assessment of the appropriate enforcement support required.

Legal Implications / Risks

42. The Waikareao Estuary is classified as a Wildlife Refuge under the Wildlife Act 1953 and as such the bringing of animals into the estuary is prohibited under the Wildlife Act. The exact area that is covered by the classification is provided in Attachment 4 and includes areas of the boardwalk and reserve trails. DOC have noted that at present they are not actively enforcing the requirement.

43. Given that bylaws cannot conflict with other legislation, should the Council wish to consider dog regulation in this area further work will be needed to ascertain the appropriate legislative approach to any regulation.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

44. The Environment Strategy and Nature and Biodiversity Action and Investment Plan was developed with input from Te Rangapū. The desire to enhance, protect and restore SEAs is a key part of this strategy.

45. New Zealand research suggests that Māori communities are disproportionately impacted by dog related incidents as outlined in Attachment 2. The direct causal link for this is not clear, however actions to prevent and reduce dog related incidents are likely to particularly benefit Māori communities.

46. Council staff meet with the Te Rangapū policy subcommittee on 16 October 2025 and summary of their feedback is attached in Attachment 5.

CLIMATE IMPACT

47. Actions to reduce the impact of dogs on wildlife in SEAs will contribute to the goal of enhancing nature and biodiversity.

Significance

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the issue is of high significance.

ENGAGEMENT

51. Noting the above assessment, that the issue is of high significance, officers are of the opinion that a Special Consultative Procedure is required under the Dog Control Act 1996, together with notification to all registered dog owners within the district at the point the draft bylaw is adopted for community consultation.

52. A pre-engagement survey was undertaken in June to inform this report. Key stakeholders were also contacted to share their views on the proposed options within this report and their views have been noted within the report where relevant. Council staff meet with the Te Rangapū policy subcommittee on 16 October 2025 and summary of their feedback is attached in Attachment 5.

Next Steps

53. Following the Council’s direction on the Issues and Options provided in this report, council staff will prepare the draft bylaws and policy and draft Statements of Proposals (including the section 155 analysis required under the Local Government Act 2002) for consideration in early 2026. This stage will include providing further advice on exact boundaries for areas subject to change based on the direction provided from this report.

Attachments

1. Public pre-engagement survey - A19132584 ⇩

2. Research and statistics on dog related incidents - A19132631 ⇩

3. Assessment of high priority public places for dog regulations to protect wildlife - A19132759 ⇩

4. Waikareao Wildlife Refuge Area - A19050091 ⇩

5. Te Rangapu policy committee feedback - A19132775 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

29 October 2025

11.3 Adoption of 2024/25 Annual Report

File Number: A18769779

Author: Sheree Covell, Manager: Treasury & Financial Processes

Rachel Burt, Corporate Planner

Authoriser: Kathryn Sharplin, Acting COFO - Finance & Digital

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to adopt the 2024/25 Tauranga City Council Annual Report.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report titled "Adoption of 2024/25 Annual Report".

(b) Receives the Audit NZ report on Tauranga City Council’s 2024/25 Annual Report.

(c) Adopts the audited Tauranga City Council 2024/25 Annual Report, as required under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.

(d) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any necessary minor changes to numerical, wording or layout to the 2024/25 Annual Report before final publication.

(e) Receives the audited 2024/25 Annual Report Summary, which uses approved content only and notes that no new content may be introduced in the Summary that is not already included in the full Annual Report.

(f) Receives the 2024/25 Annual Report highlights, which summarises key achievements from the year.

Executive Summary

2. The 2024/25 Annual Report is presented for adoption by Council.

3. Audit NZ is currently auditing the Annual Report and will present its opinion at this meeting after which it is recommended that Council adopt the audited Annual Report.

4. The final Annual Report and summaries will be tabled at the meeting due to awaiting verbal clearance from Audit NZ.

5. Feedback from the Councillors and discussions with Audit NZ have shaped the final version of the attached document. This report aims to be transparent, consistent, and easy to read for the community.

6. The non-financial performance results for the 2024/25 year are:

Key Performance Measures	Achieved	Not Achieved	Not Measured
82 total measures	63	16	3

7. The key financial metrics for the 2024/25 financial year are as follows:

Key Financial Metric	2025 Budget (LTP)	2025 Actual	Variance to Budget
Debt Summary
Capital programme ($m)	431	329	(102)
Operational expenditure of a capital nature ($m⁾	78	86	8
Net debt ($m)	1,450	1,312	(138)
Debt to revenue ratio (Financial Strategy)	277%	246%	(31%)
Debt to revenue ratio (LGFA compliance)	234%	224%	(10%)
Financial limit on borrowing (debt to revenue ratio - bespoke)	330%	330%	0%
Operational Summary
Total revenue including all asset development revenue	652	579	(73)
Capital subsidies	120	71	(49)
Total operating revenue	470	474	4
Total operating expenditure	573	584	11
Balanced budget – LGFA & Financial Prudence requirement ($) ¹	16	(39)	(56)
Balanced budget – LGFA & Financial Prudence requirement (%)	103%	93%	(10%)

1 the balanced budget less than 100% due to non-funded depreciation, capitalised DC interest, and loan funded expenditure per page 74 of section 2 of Annual Report.

Background

8. The 2024/25 Annual Report is being presented to Council for formal adoption.

9. The draft Annual Report was first shared with the City Delivery Committee on 22 July 2025. A workshop was held on 7 August 2025 to gather feedback. The full draft document was then presented to the Committee on 2 September 2025. Feedback from both sessions was incorporated into the version circulated to the mayor and councillors on 3 October.

10. Audit New Zealand will complete its audit before adoption. The Audit Director will present the audit opinion at this meeting.

11. Following the presentation of the audit opinion, Council will be asked to adopt the audited Annual Report. The final version will be made publicly available.

12. A draft Summary Annual Report will also be provided. This includes financial highlights and extracts from the front sections of the full report. The Summary will be audited and published within one month of adoption. No new content may be introduced in the Summary that is not already included in the full Annual Report.

13. Councillors requested that a one-page highlights document be developed to present key information from the Annual Report in a clear and accessible format for the community. A draft version of this summary will be provided for review.

Statutory Context

14. The Annual Report is prepared each year in accordance with generally accepted accounting practise in New Zealand and compliant with the requirements in section 98 of the Local Government Act 2002. The Annual Report is required by section 98 of the Local Government Act 2002 to be completed, and the audited Annual Report adopted by Council within four months of the end of financial year.

15. Council is also required make publicly available within one month of the adoption of the Annual Report, both the report and summary prepared under section 98(4)(b).

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

16. 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

While adoption of the Annual Report itself does not directly contribute to the outcomes, the document does describe how Council contributes to achieving the strategic community outcomes. All outcomes are covered in this respect.

Options Analysis

17. There are no options presented in this report.

Financial Considerations

18. The Annual Report provides a report to the community of Council’s performance against the proposed services and capital investment set out in the Annual Plan and the 2024-34 Long-term Plan.

Legal Implications / Risks

19. Local Government Act 2002 requires the Annual Report to be adopted within four months of balance date. Council’s that do not adopt an Annual Report within the legislative timeframe are required to make a disclosure in that Annual Report as to why the timeframe was not met and this will be published in the Office of Auditor General’s report for non-compliance.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

20. The Annual Report presents information under the heading “partnership with Tangata Whenua.” and refers to elements reflecting Council’s approach to Te Ao Māori. However, the information covered by this report is not directly impacted by that approach.

CLIMATE IMPACT

21. Similarly, the information under the heading “sustainability approach - Te Ahunga Toitū” will refer to but is not directly impacted by Council’s approach to climate impact. Again, the information covered by this report is not directly impacted by that approach.

Consultation / Engagement

22. The Annual Report will be made publicly available after adoption. The 2024-34 Long-term Plan which the years results are measured against was consulted on before being adopted. There is no consultation on the Annual Report itself

Significance

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

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

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

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

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

27. The adopted report will be loaded to the Tauranga City Council website and copies of the Annual Report Summary will be distributed.

Attachments

Nil

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

29 October 2025

11.4 Street Use and Public Places Bylaw Review - draft bylaw

File Number: A18456942

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 approval to consult on the proposed draft amended Street Use and Public Places Bylaw.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Street Use and Public Places Bylaw Review - draft bylaw".

(b) Adopts the draft Street Use and Public Places Bylaw (Attachment 1 of this report) and Statement of Proposal (Attachment 2 of this report) for community consultation.

(c) Resolves, in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw (Attachment 3 of this report):

(i) is the most appropriate way to help protect the community from public nuisance and offensive behaviour, protect public health and safety, and protect council-controlled public places and the environment from misuse

(ii) is the most appropriate form of the bylaw

(iii) is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, noting that any implications are considered reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society as they are necessary to protect public safety, amenity and the rights or others using public places.

(d) Authorises the General Manager: Regulatory and Community Services to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation changes to the draft Street Use and Public Places bylaw, statement of proposal and related consultation material before 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. During the initial stages of the review issues relating to the pedestrian way, definition of a mobile shop, use of the footpath outside businesses and real estate signs were identified. On 7 October 2025 Council gave direction on these issues and this direction has been incorporated into a proposed draft bylaw.

4. The draft bylaw also includes structural changes, clarification of language, refined and new definitions, and the addition of explanatory notes to help make the bylaw easier to understand.

5. Council is asked to adopt the draft bylaw (Attachment 1) and accompanying statement of proposal (Attachment 2) for community consultation to be carried out in November/December 2025.

6. Council is required[12] to confirm that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to manage issues like public nuisance, offensive behaviour, health and safety risks, and the misuse of community assets. Council must also confirm that the bylaw is in the right form and consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990. Attachment 3 sets out these considerations.

7. If Council adopts the draft bylaw, it will go out for community feedback through the special consultative procedure as required under the LGA and Land Transport Act 1998.

8. Targeted consultation will also be carried out with stakeholders including the Police, main street organisations, current licence to occupy and mobile shop holders, local real estate companies, Hospitality New Zealand, Tauranga Māori Business Association (TMBA), Toi Kai Rawa, Tauranga Business Chamber, Fire Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) and Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao.

9. Community consultation will seek feedback on proposed changes to the definition of a mobile shop, the rules around businesses using the footpath, and rules relating to real estate signs.

Background

10. 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.

11. On 24 March 2025, Council directed staff to review the bylaw, with a focus on street dining and broader footpath use. The initial review identified several issues, which Council considered and provided direction on at their meeting on 7 October 2025. This direction has been incorporated into a draft bylaw for community consultation and includes:

· changing the pedestrian way definition

· changing the definition of a mobile shop to include those offering services

· broadening the scope of what can be displayed on the footpath by businesses

· applying consistent rules for all businesses across the city that wish to use the footpath for street dining and commercial displays (allowing a standard area to be used, with any additional space requiring approval from Tauranga City Council)

· clarifying the rules for real estate signs.

12. The review has led to the proposal to remove existing sections on trading, markets, mobile shops and events. These will be replaced with a single simplified clause requiring approval for all commercial activity, large scale and commercial filming, and events. This allows for greater flexibility in managing these activities and makes the bylaw easier to understand.

13. The review identified that sections 23 to 28 are no longer necessary, as their content is already addressed in legislation. Removing these sections avoids duplication of legislation, streamlines the bylaw, and reduces the risk of inconsistency if legislation changes.

14. The proposed draft bylaw also includes structural changes, clearer language, and updated and additional definitions, and a contents page and explanatory notes to support interpretation. Some of the new definitions have been added to enable Council’s direction on footpath use to be incorporated in the bylaw.

15. Council is asked to adopt the proposed draft bylaw (Attachment 1) and statement of proposal (Attachment 2) for community consultation. The proposed changes to the bylaw are shown in red.

Statutory Context

16. The ability for Council to make a bylaw comes from legislation that sets out the purpose for which the bylaw can be made. The current bylaw is made under the LGA, the Health Act 1956 and the Litter Act 1979. Generally, bylaws are made to:

· protect the public from nuisance;

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

· minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

17. Proposed amendments to the bylaw include making both the pedestrian way and mobile shop 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.

18. Under the LGA the special consultative procedure must be used when amending a bylaw. This also applies to a bylaw made under the LTA. Section 22AD of the LTA also specifies that Tauranga City Council must also give notice in writing to a number of parties including any affected local community, the Commissioner of Police and any other user group that it considers affected.

19. Section 155 of the LGA 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 is presented in Attachment 3.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

20. 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

21. 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 street dining 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.

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

Options Analysis

23. The table below sets out the advantages and disadvantages of approving the proposed draft bylaw and statement of proposal for consultation.

Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
Option 1: Approve the draft Street Use and Public Places Bylaw and the statement of proposal for community consultation. Recommended.	· Community feedback on the proposed changes can be considered. · Meets Council’s statutory requirement to review the bylaw by 2028. · Consistent with Council’s resolution (24 March 2025) to review the bylaw.	· Resources used for required consultation.
Option 2: Retain the current Street Use and Public Places bylaw and do not approve the draft bylaw and statement of proposal for community consultation. Under this option, the bylaw review would be paused, and no changes would be made to the bylaw. Note: The statutory review of the bylaw is required by 2028.	· No resources will need to be used for consultation.	· No opportunity for community feedback on the bylaw. · Could mean that Council’s statutory requirement to review the bylaw by 2028 may not be met. · Does not align with Council’s resolution on 24 March 2025 to review the bylaw.

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 1: Approve the draft Street Use and Public Places Bylaw and the statement of proposal for community consultation.

Recommended.

· Community feedback on the proposed changes can be considered.

· Meets Council’s statutory requirement to review the bylaw by 2028.

· Consistent with Council’s resolution (24 March 2025) to review the bylaw.

· Resources used for required consultation.

Option 2: Retain the current Street Use and Public Places bylaw and do not approve the draft bylaw and statement of proposal for community consultation.

Under this option, the bylaw review would be paused, and no changes would be made to the bylaw.

Note: The statutory review of the bylaw is required by 2028.

· No resources will need to be used for consultation.

· No opportunity for community feedback on the bylaw.

· Could mean that Council’s statutory requirement to review the bylaw by 2028 may not be met.

· Does not align with Council’s resolution on 24 March 2025 to review the bylaw.

Financial Considerations

24. The cost of consulting on the proposed draft bylaw will be funded from the existing policy and bylaws budget.

Legal Implications / Risks

25. There is a risk that the bylaw will be perceived negatively by businesses and the wider community. This risk will be managed through effective engagement and consultation.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

26. 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.

27. The proposed amendment to the mobile shop definition enables traditional Māori healing practices such as mirimiri[13] and romiromi[14] to be offered from mobile shops, responding to feedback from Te Rangapū and supporting Māori-led enterprise.

CLIMATE IMPACT

28. 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 other vegetation, that help contribute to climate resilience.

Consultation / Engagement

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

30. 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.

31. 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 have incorporated this feedback into a draft bylaw.

32. 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 licence to occupy 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.’

33. 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.

Significance

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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 the decision on the options presented in this report is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

37. In accordance with the legal requirement in the LGA and the LTA, community consultation will be carried out on the draft bylaw, using the special consultative procedure[15].

38. 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.

39. As noted in the statutory context section (paragraph 9) the LTA also requires that written notice of the consultation be provided to a number of stakeholders including any affected local community, the Commissioner of Police and any other user group that it considers affected.

40. In addition, we propose undertaking targeted consultation with the main street organisations, current licence to occupy holders, mobile shop licence holders, local real estate companies, Hospitability New Zealand, Tauranga Māori Business Association (TMBA), Toi Kai Rawa, Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) and Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao.

41. Community consultation provides the opportunity for the community to consider the rules for the use of public places and it will ask people for feedback on:

· changing the definition of a mobile shop to include those offering services, to provide a consistent approach and allow for infringement fees (under the Land Transport Act 1998) to be used to help with compliance;

· businesses across the city using a set area of the footpath outside their premises (for street dining and commercial display), with the option of seeking approval to use additional area; and

· setting a limit on the number of real estate signs that can be displayed.

Next Steps

42. If Council approves the proposed draft bylaw and statement of proposal for community consultation this will be carried out in November/December 2025.

43. If there are any submitters who wish to speak to their submission, Council will hold hearings early next year. Council will then deliberate on the issues raised and consider formally adopting the bylaw.

Attachments

1. Draft Street Use and Public Places Bylaw - A19034122 ⇩

2. Draft Statement of Proposal - A19083708 ⇩

3. Section 155 consideration - A18993609 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

29 October 2025

11.5 Event temporary alcohol-free areas 2025/2026

File Number: A18878444

Author: Nigel McGlone, Manager: Compliance Services

Jenna Quay, Events Facilitation Manager

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

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek Council approval for temporary alcohol-free areas to support safe hosting of events across Tauranga for the 2025/2026 summer period.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Event temporary alcohol-free areas 2025/2026".

(b) Agrees the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas are appropriate and proportionate, and justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

(c) Resolves under clause 9 of the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2018 to implement temporary alcohol-free areas to support events across Tauranga for the 2025/2026 summer as follows:

Tauranga City Council New Year’s Eve community events and Soper Reserve events as per below table:

Fergusson Park	Fergusson Park including Tilby Drive from the intersection of Tainui Street and Waratah Street (all inclusive) from 10am, 31 December 2025 to 6am, 1 January 2026.
Gordon Spratt Reserve	Gordon Spratt Reserve and Alice Way (all inclusive) and Parton Road (between Tara Road and Papamoa Beach Road) from 10am, 31 December 2025 to 6am, 1 January 2026.
Tauranga Racecourse Reserve	Tauranga Racecourse Reserve from 10am, 31 December 2025 to 6am, 1 January 2026.
Soper Reserve	Soper Reserve and Newton Street (all inclusive) as follows from 6am to midnight on the following dates. · 7 February 2026, postponement date 14 February 2026 (Rockstock Tauranga) · 28 February 2026 (Beast of a Feast) · 21 March 2026 (Tauranga Moana Irish Festival)

Mercury Baypark New Year’s Eve event, covering the streets identified in the table below from 10am, 31 December 2025 to 3am, 1 January 2026.

Girven Road	From Gloucester Road to Maunganui Road
Maunganui Road	From Girven Road to State Highway 2
State Highway 2/Te Maunga Lane	From Maunganui Road to Sandhurst Drive
Te Maunga Lane	All inclusive
Truman Lane	All inclusive
Mangatawa Link Road	All inclusive
State Highway 29A	From Truman Lane to Maunganui Road/Te Maunga Lane (including the roundabouts)
Gloucester Road	From Eversham Road to Girven Road
Eversham Road	All inclusive
Tudor Place	All inclusive
Palliser Place	All inclusive
Harrow Place	All inclusive
Exeter Street	All inclusive
Lambeth Terrace	All inclusive
Dover Place	All inclusive
Weymouth Place	All inclusive
Eversham Road Reserve	All inclusive
Kingsley Place	All inclusive
Penrhyn Place	All inclusive
Ernie Way	All inclusive
Hadleigh Reserve	All inclusive

Bay Oval events, covering Blake Park and the surrounding streets identified below for the following times and dates, 10am to midnight 17 January 2026 for Black Clash, 10am, 31 January 2026 to 1am, 1 February 2026 for FISHER and 10am to midnight on 7 February 2026 for UB40.

Blake Park	All inclusive (Skate Park and overflow carpark)
Hull Road	All inclusive
Maunganui Road	From Tweed Street to Puriri Street
Hinau Street	All inclusive
Miro Street	From Kawaka Street to Puriri Street
Kawaka Street	All inclusive
Totara Street	From Hull Road to Puriri Street
Tawa Street	From Kawaka Street Puriri Street
Matai Street	All inclusive
Puriri Street	All inclusive

Executive Summary

2. Each year NZ Police request temporary alcohol-free areas associated with various events across Tauranga to reduce the risk of alcohol-related harm in and around event areas and support event organisers in delivering safe and well-run events with minimal disruption to nearby residents.

3. The areas requested in attachment one support the New Year’s Event community events, events at Baypark, Soper Reserve and the Bay Oval for the 2025/2026 summer.

4. The Alcohol Control Bylaw 2018 (the Bylaw) provides for Council to put in place temporary alcohol-free areas for events by publicly notified resolution.

5. This report seeks Council approval for the various temporary alcohol-free areas at event locations to support safe hosting of a number of events across Tauranga this summer.

6. If approved council officers will place a public notice as required and develop a communications plan that will include installation of temporary signage. NZ Police will enforce the alcohol-free areas when in place.

Background

7. The purpose of the Bylaw is to control the consumption of alcohol in public places to reduce potential alcohol-related harm. As well as setting out permanent alcohol-free areas, clause 9 of the Bylaw states Council may, by resolution, prohibit the consumption, bringing and possession of alcohol on or in a public place for a time and/or event specified in that resolution (temporary alcohol-free area).

8. Each year, temporary alcohol-free areas are requested around key events across the city. These help Police manage potential alcohol-related disorder, reduce the risk of alcohol-related harm in and around event areas, and support event organisers in delivering safe and well-run events with minimal disruption to nearby residents.

9. The attached letter (attachment one) from NZ Police outlines the events where temporary alcohol-free areas have been requested, this request is also supported by staff. This enables NZ Police to better support the community celebrations and concerts and minimise any potential alcohol related crime and disorder.

10. The request covers three of the five New Year’s Eve community events where permanent alcohol-free areas are not already in place and events at Mercury Baypark, Soper Reserve and the Bay Oval.

11. Temporary alcohol-free areas are not required for the NYE community celebrations planned for the Tauranga city centre and Blake Park, Mt Maunganui as these event sites within existing alcohol-free areas.

12. The table below sets out the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas for the New Year’s Eve community events and Soper Reserve events.

Fergusson Park	Fergusson Park including Tilby Drive from the intersection of Tainui Street and Waratah Street (all inclusive) from 10am, 31 December 2025 to 6am, 1 January 2026.
Gordon Spratt Reserve	Gordon Spratt Reserve and Alice Way (all inclusive) and Parton Road (between Tara Road and Papamoa Beach Road) from 10am, 31 December 2025 to 6am, 1 January 2026.
Tauranga Racecourse Reserve	Tauranga Racecourse Reserve from 10am, 31 December 2025 to 6am, 1 January 2026.
Soper Reserve	Soper Reserve and Newton Street (all inclusive) as follows from 6am to midnight on the following dates. · 7 February 2026, postponement date 14 February 2026 (Rockstock Tauranga) · 28 February 2026 (Beast of a Feast) · 21 March 2026 (Tauranga Moana Irish Festival)

13. To support the concert, at Mercury Baypark a temporary alcohol-free area, covering the streets identified below is proposed from 10am, 31 December 2025 to 3am, 1 January 2026.

Girven Road	From Gloucester Road to Maunganui Road
Maunganui Road	From Girven Road to State Highway 2
State Highway 2/Te Maunga Lane	From Maunganui Road to Sandhurst Drive
Te Maunga Lane	All inclusive
Truman Lane	All inclusive
Mangatawa Link Road	All inclusive
State Highway 29A	From Truman Lane to Maunganui Road/Te Maunga Lane (including the roundabouts)
Gloucester Road	From Eversham Road to Girven Road
Eversham Road	All inclusive
Tudor Place	All inclusive
Palliser Place	All inclusive
Harrow Place	All inclusive
Exeter Street	All inclusive
Lambeth Terrace	All inclusive
Dover Place	All inclusive
Weymouth Place	All inclusive
Eversham Road Reserve	All inclusive
Kingsley Place	All inclusive
Penrhyn Place	All inclusive
Ernie Way	All inclusive
Hadleigh Reserve	All inclusive

14. To support the Bay Oval events, covering Blake Park and the surrounding streets identified below for the following times and dates, 10am to midnight 17 January 2026 for Black Clash, 10am, 31 January 2026 to 1am, 1 February 2026 for FISHER and 10am to midnight on 7 February 2026 for UB40.

Blake Park	All inclusive (Skate Park and overflow carpark)
Hull Road	All inclusive
Maunganui Road	From Tweed Street to Puriri Street
Hinau Street	All inclusive
Miro Street	From Kawaka Street to Puriri Street
Kawaka Street	All inclusive
Totara Street	From Hull Road to Puriri Street
Tawa Street	From Kawaka Street to Puriri Street
Matai Street	All inclusive
Puriri Street	All inclusive

Statutory Context

15. The proposed temporary-alcohol free areas are consistent with the purpose of the Bylaw to reduce alcohol-related harm in our community.

16. In accordance with section 147B of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas are proportionate responses and place reasonable limitations of people’s rights and freedoms. The time periods for the proposed alcohol-free areas reflect the time period of concern for potential alcohol related crime and disorder.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

17. 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	☐

18. The proposed temporary alcohol-free areas are consistent with the purpose of the bylaw to reduce alcohol-related harm in our community.

19. The proposed temporary alcohol-free areas will help people feel safer in their communities, a key goal of Council’s Tauranga Mataraunui – Inclusive City Strategy and community outcome. This in turn contributes to the community and inclusivity pillar of the vision for Tauranga, Together we can … lift each other up, as outlined in Council’s Our Direction framework.

Options Analysis

2. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of approving the temporary alcohol-free areas.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
1	Approve the temporary alcohol-free areas (recommended)	· Police are enabled to successfully limit alcohol harm and manage public disorder in public places around events. · Police are provided with an additional tool to support a safer environment for the community. · The community can enjoy a safer environment in these areas and when attending events.	· Some residents and visitors may view the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas as being too restrictive.
2	Do not approve the temporary-alcohol free areas	· Nil	· The ability of the NZ Police to successfully limit alcohol harm and manage public disorder along the coast and at events would be reduced.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Approve the temporary alcohol-free areas

(recommended)

· Police are enabled to successfully limit alcohol harm and manage public disorder in public places around events.

· Police are provided with an additional tool to support a safer environment for the community.

· The community can enjoy a safer environment in these areas and when attending events.

· Some residents and visitors may view the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas as being too restrictive.

Do not approve the temporary-alcohol free areas

· Nil

· The ability of the NZ Police to successfully limit alcohol harm and manage public disorder along the coast and at events would be reduced.

Financial Considerations

20. Implementing the alcohol-free areas involves costs related to public notification and the installation of temporary signage. The total estimated cost to cover all areas is approximately $4,300, which will be met within existing budgets.

Legal Implications / Risks

21. To activate Police powers under Section 170(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council must provide at least 14 days public notice and install signage for any temporary alcohol-free areas. This enables the Police to carry out search powers immediately and without further notice in those areas for alcohol.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

22. The proposed temporary alcohol-free areas align with the principles of Manaakitanga – a strong duty of care and safety for our people and Kaitiakanga – stewardship of the natural environment.

CLIMATE IMPACT

23. There are no direct or specific climate change impacts resulting from the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas this is a regulatory procedure.

Consultation / Engagement

24. As clause 9 of the Bylaw provides Council with the power to put in place temporary alcohol-free areas by resolution, public consultation is not required. Public consultation was carried out when the Bylaw was developed.

25. Council officers have worked with the Police to determine the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas. Although Council has the power to make the Bylaw and put in place the alcohol-free areas it is the Police that enforce these.

Significance

26. 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.

27. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

29. 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

30. In accordance with the Bylaw, public notice will be given prior to the temporary alcohol-free areas taking effect and a communications plan covering each area and event will be implemented, including but not limited to erecting signage required to inform public of the temporary alcohol-free areas, dates and times. This will ensure Police can exercise the power of search under the Local Government Act 2002.

Attachments

1. NZ Police request for temporary achohol-free areas for events 2025/2026 - A19059481 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

29 October 2025

11.6 Cambridge Road Closed Landfill Infrastructure Upgrade: Unbudgeted Expenditure

File Number: A19035828

Author: Greg Steele, Head of City Operations.

Sharon Herbst, Policy Analyst

Authoriser: Barbara Dempsey, Acting General Manager Operations and Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. Request for approval of unbudgeted capital expenditure in the 2025/26 financial year to complete compliance works required under an abatement notice issued by Bay of Plenty Regional Council for the Cambridge Road closed landfill site, noting that additional environmental issues at the wider site are being investigated.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Cambridge Road Closed Landfill Infrastructure Upgrade: Unbudgeted Expenditure".

(b) Approves an additional capital budget of $1,497,085 for the completion of compliance works at 278 Cambridge Road.

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Council (the council) is required to undertake urgent infrastructure upgrades at the Cambridge Road closed landfill site to comply with an abatement notice issued in July 2024 by Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BoPRC).

3. The notice relates to unauthorised discharges of leachate and stormwater from a historic overflow landfill area at 278 Cambridge Road into the Kopurererua Stream.

4. Design and consenting work have been completed, but physical works were delayed due to seasonal restrictions. The deadline for compliance is 1 May 2026.

5. The total cost of the required works is $1,497,085. No budget has been allocated for this work in the 2025/26 financial year.

6. The proposed works include leachate and stormwater infrastructure, easement documentation, asbestos sampling and monitoring, project management, and contingency.

7. The works are essential to avoid legal penalties, reputational damage, and environmental harm.

Background

Cambridge Road Closed Landfill

8. The Cambridge Road closed landfill was operational from the mid-1960s until 1998 (municipal waste) when closure was completed. During that time, it was the main refuse disposal site for domestic and commercial refuse from Tauranga. Resource consents were obtained in 1995 to monitor and manage the ongoing discharges from the site, which expire in May 2030.

9. Beginning in 2020, council staff undertook a project to begin getting the site ready for re-consenting in 2030, which included a remediation project to rectify issues with the leachate collection system. Part of this project was also to purchase the section of the neighbouring property at 278 Cambridge Road that was identified as having been used as an overflow landfill during the 1980s. By purchasing the land, this enabled the council to then bring the area into the existing discharge consents for the closed landfill, and design and install the infrastructure required to manage the discharges for which it is ultimately responsible.

10. In 2020, the council and the neighbouring landowners (Trust) entered a section 17 Public Works Act acquisition agreement for the landfill area of 278 Cambridge Road. The Trust was compensated for the acquisition, and a compensation certificate was registered over the property to indicate the council acquired the landfill area and compensated the Trust. Prior to the final survey being completed, it was identified that the required buffer zone around the edge of the landfill had not been included. It was decided to register a covenant over the buffer zone rather than acquiring the additional area of land. This was more cost effective, identified the risk of waste beyond the original boundary for current and future landowners, and enabled restrictions on the additional area.

11. Work on the covenant began in 2023, with an agreement signed in 2024. A separate title for the acquired land was issued in November 2024, and the restrictive covenant was registered against the landowner’s title in March 2025. As the design progressed for the physical works required, it became clear that an easement was required for stormwater diversion infrastructure crossing the neighbouring property. The agreement for easement was executed in September 2025.

12. In July 2024 BoPRC issued an abatement notice, requiring the council to address the stormwater and leachate discharges from the land at 278 Cambridge Road. Leachate is currently discharging from the land, eventually into the Kopurererua Stream, which is an unauthorised discharge.

13. The design and consent work required to enable the works to become compliant has been completed (2024/25 FY), and the physical works were intended to be completed last financial year, however the consent included a condition of no winter works, which meant we were unable to commence works until September 2025. The deadline to comply with the abatement notice is 1 May 2026.

14. Based on initial concept designs, the original engineer’s estimate for the physical works was $380,000 which was expected to be covered by the $405,000 budget in the 2024/2025 financial year. The budget was spent in 2024/2025 on the planning stage of the project.

15. However, the contractor’s price has come back at $889,026.33 after the design and contaminated soils management plan were peer reviewed and detailed design completed. This review identified gaps and required revisions to meet the abatement notice conditions, which contributed to the increased cost. The contractor was procured via the City Waters Construction Services supplier panel due to the urgent nature of the work and based on the engineers estimate, complied with the procurement policy. The contractor’s price has been reviewed by a Quantity surveyor and was reduced to the current price after reviewing recommendations provided.

16. The design and consent work has proved costly, as well as having to pay for a project manager (engagement cost $172K) to oversee this programme. The project manager was engaged externally due to insufficient expertise and internal resource availability to deliver the project. This design, consenting and project management work spent the 2024/2025 capex that was budgeted. Once physical works commence, the external project manager’s role will reduce.

17. Based on the contractor’s programme, the physical works are expected to take 14 weeks.

18. Asbestos testing has been completed onsite to mitigate any accidental finds triggering cease works under the consent conditions. Asbestos has been identified; therefore, an asbestos assessor and removalist will be engaged to oversee the works to enable the works to continue once started.

19. There have been no funds budgeted for the 2025/26 FY.

Wider Site Issues at Cambridge Road Closed Landfill

1. BMX Track

20. The Tauranga BMX track at 262 Cambridge Road sits within the footprint of the wider Cambridge Road closed landfill.

21. Leachate has been coming up through the BMX track due to insufficient/inadequate stormwater and groundwater infrastructure installed beneath and around the track, as well as the high groundwater table. The track was built by the BMX club in 2011. Clean fill was brought in to build on top of the cap, but it is unclear what infrastructure is installed beneath the track. Cracks have formed which the council Spaces and Places team are regularly repairing, and there is also a soft spot on one area of the track.

22. A high-level investigation has been drafted on remediation options, including a staged approach, however, a cost estimate has not yet been provided and detailed design yet to be completed. Due to the proposed scale, it could be similar cost to the physical works at 278 Cambridge Rd.

23. A human health risk assessment has been completed, and the risk was determined to be low. Advice has been provided to the BMX club and contractors working on the site. The area the BMX track is on is leased by the BMX club, the track is their asset, and maintenance of the track is their responsibility, however as the site is on a closed landfill the council has an obligation regarding the underground issues.

24. The stormwater from the BMX track is currently connected to the leachate ponds due to being contaminated with leachate, but BoPRC have advised that discharging stormwater into the pond will not be accepted when we apply to renew the consents.

2. Remainder of Site

25. A comprehensive site investigation is required to identify any additional areas that may require remediation in preparation for the reconsenting of the Cambridge Road closed landfill, with the current consents set to expire in 2030. Leachate has been observed in the drain along the access road heading into Cambridge Park, which indicates further infrastructure upgrades will be required.

26. Council staff intend to undertake a full site investigation during the current financial year to identify any additional areas requiring remediation and what would be required to ensure compliance. Funding may be required in the 2026/27 financial year to address any issues identified. At present, there is no capital expenditure budget allocated for the Cambridge Road site in future years. A report outlining the findings of the investigation and recommended actions will be provided to Council upon completion.

Statutory Context

27. The works are required under the Resource Management Act 1991 to comply with the abatement notice and prevent environmental harm.

28. Non-compliance risks infringement notices with fines up to $4,000, prosecution with one-off fines up to $600,000 for councils, daily penalties for ongoing breaches, and enforcement orders from the Environment Court requiring remedial action.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

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

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

30. The recommended works directly support council’s strategic outcome of valuing, protecting and enhancing the environment by preventing unauthorised leachate and stormwater discharges into the Kopurererua Stream, thereby reducing pollution and ecological harm. The project also contributes to Tauranga being a well-planned city by ensuring legacy infrastructure is brought into compliance with environmental regulations and future-proofed ahead of re-consenting in 2030. The works align with the council’s Climate Action & Investment Plan and Nature and Biodiversity Action & Investment Plan and reflect responsible stewardship of land and water resources.

Options Analysis

31. The design and consent work has been completed. The physical works are required to meet legal obligations and avoid significant risks.

32. No alternative options are considered feasible given the statutory requirements and environmental risks.

Financial Considerations

33. The total cost of the works is $1,497,085. No budget has been allocated in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

Works	Costs
Planning	$42,327
Physical Works	$904,501
Works Monitoring/Project Management	$300,742
Contingency 20%	$249,514
Total	$1,497,085

34. The expenditure will be loan-funded and requires an increase in Council’s borrowing limit for 2025/26. Associated opex costs will be $105,000 depreciation per year and loan interest will be $71,112 per year. Ongoing monitoring and other operational costs are already included in operating budgets.

35. Delaying a decision on this project may result in further cost escalation due to contractor price increases, longer lead times for securing materials and specialist services, and potential non-compliance with the abatement notice deadline of 1 May 2026.

Legal Implications / Risks

36. Failure to comply with the abatement notice may result in infringement notices, prosecution, and enforcement orders.

37. Council is legally responsible to give effect to the Resource Management Act.

38. The works will ensure compliance with the Resource Management Act and mitigate environmental and reputational risks.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

39. The Cambridge Road Closed Landfill compliance works respond to an abatement notice requiring urgent environmental remediation. The project involves discharges into the Kopurererua Stream, a waterway of significance to mana whenua. The project presents an opportunity to strengthen kaitiakitanga through improved stewardship of land and water, and to engage tangata whenua in the design and monitoring of the leachate and stormwater systems.

40. Ngāi Tamarawaho were engaged prior to the submission of the resource consent application. During this engagement, they reviewed the proposed design and expressed interest in opportunities for training, native planting, and ongoing involvement in the project.

41. Cultural engagement will continue as the project progresses, with a view to ensuring meaningful participation by mana whenua in both environmental and design outcomes.

CLIMATE IMPACT

42. The proposed works directly support Tauranga’s climate adaptation goals by mitigating unauthorised leachate discharges that contribute to nutrient loading and ecological degradation in the Kopurererua Stream and downstream environments. While the infrastructure itself does not significantly reduce emissions, it prevents environmental harm and supports biodiversity by protecting freshwater ecosystems. The project aligns with TCC’s Climate Action & Investment Plan and Nature and Biodiversity Action & Investment Plan by addressing pollution risks and enhancing resilience to climate-related impacts such as increased rainfall and stormwater runoff. Opportunities to incorporate nature-based solutions and minimise embodied emissions should be considered during implementation.

Consultation / Engagement

43. Initial engagement has occurred with Ngāi Tamarawaho during the planning phase. Broader consultation with affected landowners has also taken place to support easement agreements and temporary occupation arrangements required for the works. While formal public consultation has not been undertaken due to the urgent nature of the compliance response, engagement with tangata whenua, landowners, and relevant stakeholders will continue as the project progresses. This includes ongoing liaison with the Takawaenga Māori Unit and opportunities to strengthen relationships with mana whenua, environmental groups, and the local community.

Significance

44. 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.

45. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

48. Subject to Council approval of the unbudgeted expenditure, the project team will proceed with finalising contractual arrangements and commence physical works, in accordance with consent conditions. Engagement with tangata whenua, affected landowners, and relevant stakeholders will continue throughout the delivery phase. Progress will be monitored to ensure compliance with the abatement notice by the 1 May 2026 deadline, and updates will be provided to Council as required.

Attachments

Nil

[2] The current Dog Management Policy and Bylaw and Keeping of Animals Bylaw are available to view at https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/council/policies-and-bylaws

[3] Wake, A., Minot, E., Stafford, K., & Perry, P. (2009). A survey of adult victims of dog bites in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 57(6), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2009.60928

[4] Natasha Duncan-Sutherland, Mareta Hunt, Michael Shepherd, Bridget Kool, Caregiver perspectives on the value of dogs and their effects on children in private and public spaces, Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, Volume 78, 2025, Pages 36-44, ISSN 1558-7878, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2025.01.002

[5] Animal Services work aimed at animal management other than dogs is 100% rate funded.

[6] Note these issues were recently discussed in greater detail in the Council workshop on user fees and charges on 9 October 2025.

[7] The beach area between Moturiki and Mussell Rock.

[8] Kedzlie, C., Ingham, M., Miratana, K., Moneda, A., & Strawbridge, K. (n.d.). Reducing dog disturbance to wildlife: What strategies are effective to encourage responsible dog owner behaviour to protect bird life?. University of Canterbury, Research for Resilient Environments and Communities.

[9] Several sites across the city were considered for a smaller dog agility park, including Lake Taurikura Drainage Reserve, Gordon Carmichael Reserve, Waipuna Park and Graham Park. This would support consolidation of the two local dog agility clubs in one location. However, this did not proceed.

[10] Heritage reserves other than cemeteries include: 50 Golden Sands Drive, Fantail Drive Reserve – Te Ouwe pā, Faulkner Park, Gate Pa Domain – Pukehinahina, Matiu Kauri Grove, Milford By the Sea Historic Reserve, Monmouth Redoubt, Pataka O Nga Tupuna Reserve, Pitau Road Reserve, Te Auhi Reserve, Te Pahou Reserve/Hammond Street Reserve, Teal Reserve and Omanawa Falls Reserve which is out of the district and therefore unable to be included in the bylaw.

[11] Western Bay Wildlife Trust; Kororā/Little Blue Penguin Research and Monitoring Report; Current trends and key threats (2023) https://www.westernbaywildlife.nz/

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

[14] Romiromi is a Māori bodywork tradition that focuses on clearing blockages in the body’s energy systems and restoring physical aligments.

[16] Stellar pathway for completed Council actions: Council and Committees (Agendas and Minutes -> Council -> Actions Requested by Council -> ‘Closed actions from Council’.


AGENDA Ordinary Council meeting Wednesday, 29 October 2025
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Wednesday, 29 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

Public Excluded Attachment	Reason why Public Excluded
Item 11.7 - Status update on actions from prior Council meetings - Attachment 2 - Actions from Council (public excluded) - as at 20 October 2025	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

Status of actions	No. actions
Closed (completed since the last report – includes one action in public excluded agenda)	7
Pending (waiting on something)	4
In progress	10
To be actioned
Total actions included in this report	21