Agenda of City Delivery Committee meeting

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

Role

The role of the City Delivery Committee is:

· To ensure and report delivery against agreed targets and benchmarks across capital investment, operating activity, and engagement.

· To ensure community involvement in, and support for, Council projects, proposals, initiatives and services.

· To monitor delivery of activity by community-led organisations receiving Council funding, partnering with, or otherwise contracted to, Council.

· To determine the reporting frequency for financial performance targets across the organisation, and to measure and regularly report on delivery against those.

· To review and improve public confidence and participation in Council decision making processes.

· To measure delivery of projects by ensuring that approved projects are effectively planned and delivered in full, on time, in scope, and within budget.

· To determine the reporting frequency for performance measures for non-financial activity and regularly report against those measures.

· To ensure the Annual Report provides relevant, transparent and accurate information.

Scope

· All projects, both capital and operating, where the business case has been approved are included in the scope of the Delivery Committee.

· Develop and monitor delivery of a council-wide engagement and communications strategy.

· Lead the development of relationships with community organisations, schools, businesses and other groups to broaden Council’s reach into the community and use of available resources.

· Receive and consider feedback from the community including, but not limited to, the annual residents’ survey.

· Review statements of intent and receive reporting of the Local Government Funding Agency.

· Receive reporting from all other Council-controlled organisations.

· Receive reporting from Priority One.

· Receive reporting by Mainstreet organisations as appropriate.

· Receive reporting against partnership agreements with key cornerstone organisations (as per the Community Funding Policy) and from other community-led organisations as appropriate.

· Assess the organisation’s processes to ensure these are not constraining the organisation in delivering value for money.

· Review the proposed approach and options for procurement processes that the Committee considers significant having taken into account value, risk, and public interest.

· Take necessary steps to ensure that procurement processes provide value-for-money.

· Approval of tenders and contracts that are outside of approved staff delegations.

· Ensure that where projects have a potential negative environmental impact, appropriate mitigation is considered in design, delivery, and eventual operations.

· Monitor the delivery of projects. (Note that the development of future strategic and growth-related projects, including future strategic transport projects, will be monitored by the City Future Committee until the project purpose definition, business case, and funding are in place).

· Review regular financial performance reporting, including reporting against strategic outcomes, the Long-term Plan, the Annual Plan, and other strategic and implementation documents.

· Review non-financial performance reporting.

· Provide oversight on the preparation of the Annual Report and other external financial reporting required by legislation to ensure it not only meets legislative requirements, but that it provides transparent, relevant and accurate information.

· To reassess financial reporting targets for the next Long-term Plan process and make recommendations to Council accordingly.

Power to Act

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

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

Power to Recommend

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

Chair and Deputy Chair acting as Co-Chairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Delivery Committee meeting minutes

15 December 2025

A logo of a company

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

DRAFT MINUTES

City Delivery Committee meeting

Monday, 15 December 2025

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public forum.. 3

3.2 Steve & Danielle Rundle – Harrier Street 4

3.1 Robyn & Warren Dassler (on behalf of the Dassler family) – Harrier Street 4

4 Acceptance of late items. 5

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 5

6 Change to order of business. 5

7 Confirmation of minutes. 5

7.1 Minutes of the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 4 November 2025. 5

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 6

9 Business. 6

9.1 Status Update on actions from prior City Delivery Committee meetings. 6

9.2 City Operations Year in review 2024/2025. 7

9.3 Aspen Reserve Upgrade Options. 7

9.4 Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Project Update. 8

9.5 Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Prioritisation and Programme Status. 8

10 Discussion of late items. 10

11 Public excluded session. 11

11.1 Te Maunga Wastewater Treatment Plant Bioreactor 1 Renewal Works and New Inlet Works advance works - Direct Appointment of Contractor 11

12 Closing karakia. 11

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

City Delivery Committee meeting

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

ON Monday, 15 December 2025 AT 1:30 pm

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular (Chair), Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Cr Rod Taylor, Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Tangata Whenua Representative Ms Jacqui Rolleston-Steed
IN ATTENDANCE:	Alastair McNeil (Acting COFO – Commercial & General Counsel), Reneke van Soest (General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure), Clare Sullivan (Senior Governance Advisor), Anahera Dinsdale (Governance Advisor), Sarah Holmes (Team Leader: Governance & CCO Support Services)
EXTERNAL:	Danielle and Steven Rundle, Robyn and Warren Dassler.

Timestamps are included at the start of each item and signal where the agenda item can be found in the recording of the meeting held on 15 December 2025 on Tauranga City Council YouTube Channel.

1 Opening karakia

Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Apology

Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/1

Moved: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the apology for absence received from Mayor Mahé Drysdale be accepted.

Carried

3 Public forum

Timestamp: 2 minutes

3.2 Steve & Danielle Rundle – 9 Harrier Street

Key Points

· Property owners of 9 Harrier Street report severe subsidence affecting #7 and #9 Harrier Street.

· Purchased property in 2020 based on council assurances that prior instability issues were resolved and signed off. Council documentation included a 50-year guarantee, creating a reasonable expectation of land stability.

· Land beneath the property was built on a 10-metre deep waterway and was now sinking.

· Owners felt misled and unsupported, citing lack of warning and contradictory council actions.

· At an on-site meeting, council staff suggested legal action before inspecting the property.

· Tauranga City Council’s Chief Executive’s letter indicated “little scope for change”, which owners argued ignored legal responsibility and noted that Councillors were in their place to advocate for residents against internal resistance and ensure transparency.

· Properties are unsellable, creating significant financial and emotional stress for affected families.

· Requested that Council acquire the affected properties at a fair and reasonable price to provide resolution as the properties were unsellable.

Timestamp: 8 minutes

3.1 Robyn & Warren Dassler (on behalf of the Dassler family) – 7 Harrier Street

Key Points

· Represented the family at 7 Harrier Street and referred to a detailed evidence-based report submitted in August, which took months of research to prepare.

· Copies of the report were provided to councillors, but no response was received from the Mayor despite a request to be kept informed.

· The Chief Executive’s letter effectively closed the door on resolution while claiming discussions were still open, creating confusion and disappointment.

· The family questioned what “open to discussion” meant if councillors had already decided there was no responsibility and little scope for change.

· The property was unsellable, sinking, and located in a flood zone. The family expressed frustration at perceived tactics to delay and exhaust affected residents.

· They emphasised that the law remained on their side and that the issue was about decency and accountability.

· The Chief Executive’s statement that it was “not fair on other ratepayers” for council to intervene was described as offensive.

· The family argued this was an insurance matter and not their responsibility to rectify council mistakes.

· They noted council had previously purchased private homes for infrastructure projects and should consider acquiring their two unsafe properties.

· The sections were on unstable land and part of a historic waterway.

· The family suggested converting the land into a car park or safe public space for Yatton Park visitors, citing congestion and safety risks for children.

· Elected members were urged to free affected families from this situation and show leadership.

· The family stressed they were seniors with no appetite for legal battles and expected council to act in good faith.

· They appealed for courage, resolution, and fair treatment, not special treatment.

· The report was based on council documents, and they reminded councillors of their obligation to represent ratepayers.

In response to questions:

· Mr Dassler advised that the property was not saleable and they could not attempt to sell a property that no one could build on again.

· Stormwater drains had been installed recently, however these only took the street water.

Actions Requested:

· That Cr Taylor & Cr Curach review the report provided by petitioners and have a discussion with Chief Executive on next steps.

4 Acceptance of late items

Nil

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to order of business

Nil

7 Confirmation of minutes

Timestamp: 15 minutes

7.1 Minutes of the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 4 November 2025

Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/2

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the Minutes of the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 4 November 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Business

Timestamp: 16 minutes

9.1 Status Update on actions from prior City Delivery Committee meetings

Staff Alastair McNeil, Acting COFO: Commercial & General Counsel

Actions Requested:

· That staff highlight current updates for pending/longer term actions in red font (adding the update date) for future reports.

· Meeting of 4 November 9.1 – Annual Resident Survey re staff communicating organisational reset to the community: That staff work with Deputy Mayor Scoular and Councillor Morris to determine further steps required to ensure the organisational reset is communicated appropriately to the community. (Status to be changed from ‘Closed’ to ‘In progress’).

· Meeting of 4 November 2025, 9.2 – City Centre development incentive fund – Annual Report action re feasibility study: That staff provide the Members with a copy of the feasibility study. (Status to be changed from ‘Closed’ to ‘In progress’).

· Meeting of 7 April 2025, 3.2 - Public Forum Ms Turner: that staff investigate further to determine a better bus route option for Ms Turner. (Status to be changed from ‘Closed’ to ‘In progress’).

· Meeting of 8 October 2024 – Executive Summary: Status to be changed from ‘Closed’ to ‘In progress’

· Meeting of 4 November 2025, 9.1 – Annual Resident Survey re communicating to our people on what is going well: Staff to clarify the source of the strategic content pillars, and ensure these align with current strategic direction.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/3

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the City Delivery Committee:

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

Carried

Timestamp: 28 minutes

9.2 City Operations Year in review 2024/2025

Staff Greg Steele, Head of City Operations

Actions Requested

That staff:

· Provide the Committee with further details on the allocations to City Ops and how they compare with a contract model.

· Provide the Committee members with a spreadsheet of costs as set out in the report for 2023/2024, 2024/25 actuals, the numbers reported in November 2024, annual plan 2025/2026, current forecast 2025/2026 and draft 2026/2027, including allocations and headcounts for the same periods.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/4

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "City Operations Year in review 2024/2025".

Carried

Attachments

1 Item 9.2 - Presentation - City Ops Report - FY24.25 Year in Review - 15 December 2025

Timestamp: 1 hour and 19 minutes

9.3 Aspen Reserve Upgrade Options

Staff Ana Hancock, Team Leader: Design

Emily McLean, Manager: Urban Centres Development

Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/5

Moved: Cr Kevin Schuler

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Aspen Reserve Upgrade Options".

(b) Approves Option 1 for the development of Aspen Reserve.

For: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Crs Kevin Schuler, Glen Crowther, Steve Morris, Marten Rozeboom, Rod Taylor, Hēmi Rolleston and Tangata Whenua Representative Ms Jacqui Rolleston-Steed

Against: Crs Hautapu Baker and Rick Curach

carried 8/2

At 3.31pm the meeting adjourned.

At 3.46pm the meeting resumed in open.

Timestamp: 2 hours 16 minutes

9.4 Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Project Update

Staff Karen Hay, Team Leader: Engineering Services

Reneke van Soest, General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure

Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/6

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Project Update ".

Carried

Timestamp: 2 hours and 27 minutes

9.5 Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Prioritisation and Programme Status

Staff Karen Hay, Team Leader: Engineering Services

Reneke van Soest, General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure

Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/7

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report " Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Prioritisation and Programme Status".

(b) Approves the prioritisation matrix and the associated weightings for ranking small-scale projects within a bulk fund, noting that this does not prevent the bulk fund from being prioritised within the wider Annual Plan and Long-Term Plan processes.

(i) Safety exposure – 45%

(ii) Active road user demand – 35%

(iii) Community risk – 10%

(iv) Ease of delivery – 10%

(c) Approves use of $536K of the $1,147M savings as a rates/cost neutral alternative (i.e. depreciation generated by replacement projects are same as savings from projects) and notes that for the balance, the reduced borrowing will also lead to savings in budgeted interest costs.

(d) Approves progressing the following rapidly deployable projects totalling $536K, including the previously committed Grenada Street crossing (Council resolution CDC/25/6/1).

(i) James Cook Drive (near Victory St) refuge island

(ii) Enforcement CCTV cameras at multiple high risk school locations

(iii) Mt. Maunganui Primary School Safety Improvements on Orkney Road

(iv) Bethlehem College zebra crossing on Elder Lane at the intersection of Moffat Road.

(e) Supports in principle utilising available capacity within the transport budget within a fiscal year to deliver rapidly deployable projects, contingent upon necessary internal review and Council approval, including any related or associated initiatives. The condition of these principles include:

(i) Operate within the allocated budget, leveraging any underspends to accelerate delivery of agreed projects and enable quicker activation of initiatives important to the community and Council.

(ii) Utilise only funding sources that have no impact on rates or existing funding commitments.

(iii) No additional operational costs are expected from these rapidly deployable projects. This represents a direct swap between savings from loan-funded projects and new loan-funded projects.

(iv) That these funding sources be applied where genuine savings are achieved or where financial headroom exists. This is subject to approval considering the wider fiscal strategy.

Carried

10 Discussion of late items

Nil

11 Public excluded session

Resolution to exclude the public

Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/8

Moved: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
11.1 - Te Maunga Wastewater Treatment Plant Bioreactor 1 Renewal Works and New Inlet Works advance works - Direct Appointment of Contractor	s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

The meeting commenced in public excluded at 4:16pm.

The meeting continued in open at 4:35pm.

12 Closing karakia

Cr Hautapu Baker closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 4:36pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 10 March 2026.

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

10 March 2026

10.2 Quarter 2 Financial Monitoring

File Number: A19432252

Author: Kathryn Sharplin, Head of Finance

Tracey Hughes, Manager: Organisational Financial Performance and Corporate Planning

Sheree Covell, Manager: Treasury & Financial Processes

Susan Braid, Finance Lead Capital Performance and Community Investment

Authoriser: Craig Rice, Chief Operating and Financial Officer

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the financial performance of the Council against budget for the six months to 31 December 2025.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Quarter 2 Financial Monitoring".

(b) Recommends to Council to approve opex budget revisions as outlined in Table 3b of this report totalling $1.2m.

Executive Summary

2. This report presents the financial performance of Council for the first half of the 2025-26 financial year to 31 December 2025. It compares actual results to the Annual Plan and indicates a forecast year-end position.

3. At the end of quarter two, operating, capital and treasury metrics are within year-to-date budgets and comply with relevant policies.

4. The year-to-date surplus before gains and losses is $11m favourable to the Annual Plan. Prior to the January weather event and recovery efforts a full year surplus would have been projected to be above budget by $6m (see attachment 1). However, this excludes the costs to date of the response and recovery and any future costs and offsetting revenues.

5. Capital expenditure of $192m has been delivered in the first half of the 2025-26 financial year. The full-year forecast spend from project managers is $414m against the Adopted 2026 Annual Plan budget of $502m and the full year approved budget of $481m.

6. The Treasury position shows debt forecast under budget, with appropriate hedging and debt maturity levels. Both interest rate hedging and debt maturity levels are within recommended levels.

7. A recommendation to Council is sought to approve 4 opex budget carry forwards from 2024-25. Table 3b shows that funding for these items was available at the end of the 2025 financial year.

8. The analysis in the report focuses on variances in revenue, expenditure and capital delivery, and the ongoing management of the Council’s debt and financial position. Further detail can be found in Attachments 1, 3 and 6.

Background

9. This report is for monitoring and reporting purposes showing Council’s December 2025 year-to-date financial performance against year-to-date Annual Plan budgets.

10. Attachment 1 provides the profit and loss (P&L) with additional historical data and a breakdown of employee costs and other expenses, along with variance analysis by category.

11. Attachment 2 provides a breakdown of the depreciation forecast along with some information on why depreciation results against budget can vary so significantly.

12. Attachment 3 tracks movements between the agreed annual plan 2026 and the approved budget used for operational management. These differences arise because of movements in the capital programme (including opex projects), carry forwards of expenditure budgets and associated funding from 2024/25 where appropriate, approved changes under delegation (Chief Executive and General Managers), and net neutral reallocations between P&L categories.

13. An overview of capital expenditure is provided in Attachment 4, noting that the capital programme is more thoroughly explored through the 2nd Quarter 2025/26 Capital Programme Performance report on this agenda.

14. Attachment 5 provides detailed information supporting tables 2 and 3.

15. Treasury metrics for the quarter are supplied in Attachment 6.

DISCUSSION

Operating Results

16. The year-to-date operating result and full year forecasts to budget are shown in table 1 below. The full Profit and Loss report and variances are provided in Attachment 1 to this report.

17. In summary, the year-to-date surplus before gains and losses is $11m favourable to the Annual Plan, with a forecast full year surplus in Table 1 below projected to be on budget with a placeholder for net expenditure arising from the January weather event. The financial impacts of this event are further explored later in this report.

18. Operating revenue is above budget by $9m, due to payments for subsidies and grants including Tauriko West developer agreements received ahead of budgeted timing for this project. Capital revenue is behind by $10m, mainly vested assets and NZTA revenue due to slower capital delivery, however development contributions revenue has been strong in the early part of the year due to revenue from the Tauriko Business Estate and Citywide Building.

19. Revenue for operating grants and subsidies will be significantly impacted this year by the receipt of bulk funding from developers for Tauriko West, which was not anticipated until the 2026/27 financial year. $16m unbudgeted revenue is forecast for this financial year.

20. Operating expenditure is under budget by $12m year to date with positive variances in most categories apart from employee costs, and depreciation. The variance in Grants expenditure is partly related to timing and the remainder is expected to be offset by revenue.

21. Personnel costs are over annual plan budget, noting the impact of redundancy payments of $1.2m and a budgeting error relating to how we report internal resource for opex of a capital nature ($1.5m, offset in other operating costs). Direct salary costs are otherwise on budget, although capitalised salaries are running behind budget year to date.

22. A review of controllable costs by activity indicates that most overspends are related to timing or offset by additional revenue or underspends in other expenditure categories. Exceptions include legal and recruitment costs in support services, and revenue shortfalls in Environmental Planning, Building Services, and to a lesser extent in Cemeteries and Parking Management. Environmental Planning and Building Services are forecasting lower full year revenue by $6m due to lower levels of building and development activity than budgeted, offset by forecast increased revenue in Regulatory Services of $2m.

Table 1: YTD Operating Result

23. Attachment 1 contains a breakdown of significant variances to annual plan budget. Many of these variances will relate to a timing mismatch, however forecasts indicate that positive variances in operating grant revenue, net finance costs, and some other operating costs are permanent, along with negative variances in fees and charges, capital grants and subsidies, personnel expenses and depreciation.

Depreciation

24. The forecast for depreciation has been increased by $7m for the current year after a thorough review of expected capitalisation. Planning and forecasting for depreciation is dependent on a number of inputs which are constantly moving, such as project cost and timing to completion, and which individually can have significant impacts on timing of depreciation movements. These variables are itemised in Attachment 2, along with a break-out of the depreciation forecast generated from our most up to date inputs.

25. This forecast includes $2.7m relating to the finance lease treatment of 90 Devonport Road, and $0.8m for the annual impairment of the property subdivision right relating to the Te Tumu land block, previously unbudgeted. The remainder is generated essentially by the full year impact of the 2025 capitalisation in the Spaces & Places activity. To date there has been no write-off of assets relating to the Mauao landslides. These write offs will flow through in the year end results.

26. Growth councils with large capital programmes such as TCC are impacted more than most in their depreciation costs by capital programme updates and asset revaluation outcomes, making it challenging to reliably budget cost impacts through annual plans. For illustration of this challenge Table 2 below compares the variances against budget experienced by TCC against those experienced by other growth councils (data taken from their annual reports). Significant variances are both common and almost always in excess of budget.

Table 2 – Depreciation Comparison of variances

January Weather Event Financial Implications

27. The 6-month results (attachment 1) do not include the impacts on the January weather event. To date we have spent c$1.7m on response and recovery. This includes support to impacted businesses, legal fees related to internal reviews, on- going physical works and equipment hire and welfare support for impacted families.

28. For the Beachside Holiday Park there has been around $250k of refunds paid and it is expected that there will be a further $30k of refunds processed in the coming weeks. The budgeted $470k surplus for Beachside is more likely to be a $700k deficit for the year. This is based on the assumption that the holiday park will not open again in the 2025/26 year and reflects lost revenue and revised operational costs.

29. The additional costs of recovery are being worked through and will be substantial. Much of this will be reported as operational costs and expenditure for the third quarter and full year forecasts will be updated in the next monitoring report. Presently, as we await confirmation of ongoing costs and clarification on an agreed way forward, we cannot reliably forecast the impact for the current financial year, except to indicate that it is unlikely the additional surplus of $6m in the initial Q2 forecast will occur.

30. With regard to compensating income, staff are working with various government agencies and insurers to determine the potential insurance claims and other funding available to offset these costs. To date, TCC has received $100k in grants, $12k in donations and $1m in insurance (related to the hot pools and holiday park assets and which has yet to be allocated). There has been no material adjustment to the revenue forecasts for these or other potential claims noting that there is also a loss of revenue to the holiday park for this financial year that could be as high as $1.5m.

Approval of budget and funding carry forward from 2024/25

31. Attachment 2 outlines the movement between the adopted Annual Plan 2026 and the Approved Budget that the organisation is working to.

32. The budget movements can occur for a number of reasons:

(a) Budgets have been reallocated to different line items or activities (with nil effect on total budget or funding)

(b) Approval under delegated authority (Chief Executive or General Manager) to address specific budget issues in the existing work programme or to accommodate new initiatives.

(d) Budget has been redistributed between capex and opex to align with accounting requirements with no impact on funding

(e) Carry forwards (revenue and expenditure with associated funding) have been requested. These are the only items that require Council approval. The items in Table 3a below are already approved through prior resolutions of Council. A recommendation for Council to approve the items in Table 3b totalling $1.2m is included in this report. The tables outline the budget and expenditure for these items in 2025 and validate the availability of funding to be carried forward.

Table 3a

Table 3b

Capital Delivery

33. An overview of capital expenditure is provided in attachment 4.

34. Capital expenditure of $192m has been delivered in the first quarter of FY26 (including operational projects of a capital nature but excluding vested assets, land sales and Bay Venues-funded new capital).

35. The full year forecast spend from project managers is $414m against the full year approved budget of $481m.

36. At the time of writing this report, project managers across the business were working to rephase capital budgets flowing into the Draft 2027 Annual Plan. This will result in a downward revision of the full year budget for FY26 to pre-empt carry forward requests (and reduce any budgets no longer required to complete a project) to bring it closer to the forecast spend for the year. An overview of this iterative approach to carry forwards and its benefits was presented at the Council workshop on 12 February 2026.

37. A summary of budget adjustments actioned since the 2026 Annual Plan was adopted, including contingency specific adjustments, is provided in the tables below and detailed views are provided in attachment 5.

38. Contingency budgets of $37m remain in FY26 and approx. $3m of these are forecast to be spent by year end. Some of these contingency budgets will be given up as savings (budget reductions) as project milestones are reached and reported back in the next quarterly monitoring report. We are already seeing some evidence of this in the latest Draft 2027 Annual Plan updates.

Table 4

Table 5

Treasury

39. All treasury matters remain within policy. Attachment 6 is a detailed status report showing all metrics that are monitored and measured.

40. The net debt budget set in the 2026 Annual Plan is $1.50b. The current forecast net debt for June 2026 is $150m lower than budgeted at $1.65b. The main factors contributing to the lower forecast are $78m lower opening debt than forecast in the 2026 Annual Plan, $100m lower capex which are offset by lower than budgeted land divestment.

41. The charts below show the actual and expected cash flows for the remainder of the year resulting in the forecast debt position.

42. The first chart starts with opening debt (green bar on left of graph, then shows actual cash flows leading to net debt at 31 December 2025 (green bar in the middle of the graph). The various columns on the right-hand side show forecast flows for the remainder of the year. The second chart is a simplified version of the first and combines actual and forecast cash flows. It should be noted that the actual amounts below are extracted from a treasury report that does not account for accruals, GST or general ledger accounts, and will not align directly to the operational and capital performance report.

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

10 March 2026

10.3 2nd Quarter 2025/26 Capital Programme Performance

File Number: A19801195

Author: Alex Johnston, Team Leader CPAD

Authoriser: Craig Rice, Chief Operating and Financial Officer

Purpose of the Report

1. To update the Committee on the progress of the capital programme

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "2nd Quarter 2025/26 Capital Programme Performance".

Executive Summary

2. Project reporting is aligned with the revised budget 2025/26 of $481.4m. As of the end of Q2 (end December), year-to-date expenditure amounted to $191.5m, compared to the year-to-date revised budget of $244.5m. The forecast from project managers for the financial year-end is projected to be $414.3m.

3. High-level information regarding capital project performance is available in Attachment 1 - Q2 Capital Programme Performance. Currently, 10 out of 236 active projects are indicated to be at an overall red status. Most of these projects remain in the planning/design phase, presenting opportunities to achieve value for money through scope refinement and the procurement process. The most significant High-Risk project remains to be the Te Maunga Landfill Project. Additional details on all red status projects can be found in Attachment 2 – Red Status Projects

4. There are 13 projects on hold, pending funding or further direction. The list of on-hold projects is provided in Attachment 3 – On-Hold Projects

5. Over the past three months, procurement activity has been comparatively light, with 11 procurement activities undertaken, totalling $2.12m.

6. Nine procurement activities were completed through direct appointment or closed competition using established panel arrangements, predominantly via the Waters Framework Panel. The remaining two procurements, with a combined contracted value of $188,000, were awarded outside of panel arrangements, through either direct appointment or closed competition processes.

7. For the forthcoming 3‑month period, 20 procurements are scheduled, with an estimated total value of $16.5m. Most of this value is expected to be delivered through the Waters Framework Panel.

Overall, procurement activity has been modest in the recent period, with a notable increase anticipated in the upcoming quarter. The continued reliance on established panel arrangements supports efficient procurement delivery.

8. Council continues to face risks arising from uncertainty in project pipelines, which can impact funding confidence and the ability to engage effectively with the supply chain. This is being managed through clearer programme planning, the development of prioritised backlogs, and ongoing oversight of delivery constraints.

9. Managing stakeholder expectations within constrained budgets remains an ongoing challenge and is being addressed through proactive engagement across planning, design and delivery phases, with a continued focus on achieving balanced and value‑focused community outcomes. The upcoming Local Waters Done Well transition presents resourcing and continuity risks, which are being actively managed through targeted recruitment, forward planning of delivery strategies, and close co-ordination with transition teams to support programme continuity during the period of change.

10. The National Infrastructure Plan released by the infrastructure Commission on 17 February sets out a number of priorities for the coming decade. It urges government and councils to address deferred renewals, especially in hospitals and water networks, and to adopt road-pricing tools such as time-of-use charges before committing to new and expensive transport projects. The plan also emphasises “asset stewardship” — actively planning for declining demand, prioritising maintenance ahead of expansion and even recycling surplus assets — and it calls for more investment in cost-effective flood protection as part of climate-resilience strategies. Further priorities include a durable resource-management and spatial planning framework, up-zoning along public-transport corridors, and creating predictable policy settings so the economy can be electrified without ad-hoc interventions

11. New value for money controls have been introduced to strengthen investment discipline and oversight. This has included mandatory benchmarking within business cases and internal project reviews to providing earlier and more consistent challenge to project scope, costs and benefits.

12. A centralised consultancy gateway has also been established for consultant and contractor engagements aiming to improve engagement practices, prioritising the use of internal resources where available and providing practical guidance to lift consistency and value from external consultancy spend.

Background

13. This report is for monitoring and reporting purposes to show Council’s performance of projects against Annual Plan and Long Term Plan budgets up to the end of the 2^nd Quarter (Dec).

Discussion

14. The Annual Approved Budget was initially adopted at $502m. Following the end of Quarter 1, this was revised to $491m. A further revision was made at the conclusion of Quarter 2, resulting in a current budget position of $481.4m. A detailed explanation of the movements between these budget revisions is outlined in the Quarter 2 Financial Results

15. The current forecast to financial year end is $414m, with most delivery groups forecasting an underspend. Ongoing Annual Plan activity will see this forecast likely to move down. Further information on performance is provided in Attachment 1 – Q2 Capital Programme Performance

16. Red projects have reduced from 24 projects to 10 Projects with an even split across the Project Delivery groups, the majority of which, are in the planning or design phases and only one project in implementation. A slight increase of Amber Projects up 2 to 54, these Amber projects are managing their risks within their project teams.

17. The remaining projects are being managed through current project governance. Where direction is required, and sufficient information is available, separate reports will be provided to the appropriate committee for a decision.

18. A total of 13 projects remained on hold at the end of the 2nd quarter. The key reasons these projects were on hold, was funding uncertainty is the most common driver. Several projects cannot proceed until external funding (e.g. NZTA/NLTP, Crown or IAF funding) is confirmed or approved. Governance or political decisions pending, where elected member direction is required before scope, timing, or investment can be confirmed. Business case or scope resets, often due to updated growth assumptions, alignment with other programmes, or the need to reassess value for money. Strategic reprioritisation, where projects are intentionally paused to focus resources on higher priority commitments. Overall, projects on hold reflect timing and funding constraints, controls and process improvements

19. The Stage Gate Review process strengthens and formalises Council’s existing project assurance arrangements rather than introducing a new layer of governance. It builds on current stage gate practices by providing clearer, more consistent review points at key stages of the project lifecycle, particularly for medium, large and extra‑large projects. This approach improves transparency, supports value for money decision making, and gives greater confidence that projects are aligned to Council priorities, appropriately scoped, and ready to progress before further funding is released. The intent is to support delivery outcomes and reduce risk, while maintaining existing delegated authorities and project ownership.

20 Oversight of the process is provided by the Stage Gate Review Committee. The Committee has the authority to either approve projects to proceed through a stage gate, place projects into an internal review where further assurance is required, or halt projects where readiness or value for money cannot be demonstrated. This authority ensures that issues relating to scope, cost, risk, or strategic alignment are identified and addressed early, before commitments escalate. The Committee does not take on delivery responsibility; instead, it provides independent assurance and advice to strengthen decision making and safeguard Council’s investment on behalf of the community.

Upcoming Stage Gate reviews:

Project Title	Delivery Team Group	Project Size	Moving to Stage	Stage gate Month
Arterial Route Review and Implementation	Transport	Large	Design	April
Cameron Road Upgrade Stage 2 (CRS2)	Waters	Large	Design	April
Arataki Clubroom Sports Facility	Spaces & Places	Medium	Implement	April
Aspen Reserve	Spaces & Places	Medium	Implement	April
Gordon Spratt Car Park Extension	Spaces & Places	Medium	Implement	March
Waterfront Connection Stage 2	Spaces & Places	Medium	Design	March
Wharepai & Tauranga Domains	Spaces & Places	Medium	Implement	April
Mt Maunganui WS Main Upgrade	Waters	Medium	Design	March
Historic Village Grounds Development	Spaces & Places	Medium	Implement	April

21. Chief Executive Key performance indicators

The Chief Executive’s Project Performance KPIs focus specifically on the delivery and performance of Council’s capital and major projects, providing assurance that projects are managing cost, risk, scope, and time effectively and delivering value for money. These are new performance measures, and Council is currently working through their definition, baselining, and reporting approach to ensure they are fit for purpose and support consistent, ongoing tracking, which has started.

22. Project Delivery Risk

Area	Risk	Mitigation Strategy
Community Infrastructure	Stakeholder expectations exceed available budgets, impacting community outcomes	Active engagement with stakeholders (including Mana Whenua) through planning, design and delivery to keep them informed of design changes and budget implications, with focus on balanced community outcomes
	Uncertain project pipeline reduces ability to achieve cost and efficiency gains with the supply chain
	Funding uncertainty may lead to external funders reallocating investment away from council projects.
Waters	Insufficient resourcing to deliver the waters programme during the Local Waters Done Well transition	Recruitment and onboarding of new staff is underway, with delivery and transition resourcing requirements closely monitored and managed
	Contract panel expiry timing may conflict with future water service organisational changes	Delivery strategy is being worked through using existing panels, with active engagement with the transition team / WBOP to avoid adverse impacts on a future organisation.
Transport	Funding and pipeline uncertainty limits the ability to deliver prioritised transport projects	A clear backlog of projects and prioritisation criteria have been developed, with savings escalated to Executive Managers as they are identified
	Reliance on third parties reduces control over programme delivery and approvals	Engagement with external parties (e.g. PowerCo and KiwiRail) through their prescribed processes to progress required designs and approvals.
	Single‑year funding assumptions constrain efficient staging of design and construction activities
Digital Services	Limited organisational capacity to absorb digital change alongside business transformation
	Organisational fatigue reduces the ability to absorb and adapt to new ways of working
	Low risk tolerance for digital systems constrains delivery flexibility

23. Attachment 4 – Complete Project List provides a full list of all active projects including their status for information purposes.

24. Internal project reviews are underway across approximately 26 LTP projects worth $250m of over the next six months. Benchmarking data base work is underway with teams working with external and internal teams to capture the data and principals of these.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

25. This report has no direct impact on Council’s Te Ao Māori approach. It relates to internal project performance monitoring and assurance arrangements, focusing on governance, reporting, and executive oversight of project delivery. The matters addressed do not change policy, decision‑making frameworks, service delivery, or engagement practices with mana whenua, and do not affect outcomes, rights, or interests for Māori. As such, no specific Te Ao Māori considerations are triggered by this report.

Legal Implications / Risks

26. This monitoring report has no specific legal implications or risks.

Consultation / Engagement

27. This report is made public.

Significance

28. 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.

29. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Attachments

1. Q2 - Capital Programme Performance - A19830460 (Separate Attachments 1)

2. Q2 Capital Programme Performance - Red Status Projects1 - A19837751 (Separate Attachments 1)

3. Q2 - On Hold Projects - A19830742 (Separate Attachments 1)

4. Q2 - Complete Project list - A19830740 (Separate Attachments 1)

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

10 March 2026

10.4 Wharepai Domain

File Number: A19731395

Author: Ana Hancock, Team Leader: Design

Emily McLean, Manager: Urban Centres Development

Authoriser: Reneke van Soest, General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement for the preferred option to upgrade the Hamilton Street and Cameron Road edges of Wharepai Domain, using the remaining FY25/26 City Centre Green Spaces budget, and to outline the funding implications for delivery.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Wharepai Domain".

(b) Endorses Option 2 for the upgrade of the Wharepai and Tauranga Domain frontage

(d) Notes that the FY26/27 budget is currently proposed for de‑prioritisation, which impacts delivery timelines.

Executive Summary

2. This report recommends upgrading the Hamilton Street and Cameron Road frontages of Wharepai Domain, leveraging planned fence renewals and required tree replacements to address long‑standing issues. The works would significantly improve amenity, accessibility, event operations, and tree protection at a key gateway into the city centre. It is proposed that we use the City Centre Green Spaces budget for this purpose. There is $1,056,340 remaining in this Financial Year and $1,102,827 currently available in FY26/27, however the FY26/27 budget is currently identified for deprioritisation.

3. Wharepai and Tauranga Domain is one of Tauranga’s most important inner‑city reserves, hosting major outdoor events, winter sports, and daily community use. However, narrow and missing footpaths, poor‑quality gravel carparks, failing tree‑pit edging, and a constrained vehicle entrance limit safe access, reduce event efficiency, and impact the presentation of the Domain. The mature Pūriri avenue along Cameron Road is a distinctive and valued feature, but current conditions do not adequately protect or showcase it.

4. The investment opportunity is strengthened by the alignment of upcoming fence renewals, required tree removals, and obligations under the Monmouth Redoubt resource consent. Coordinating these works delivers clear value‑for‑money by reducing duplication, minimising disruption, and enabling Council to efficiently deliver upgrades that enhance a key gateway, improve accessibility for all users, support major events, and protect significant urban trees.

5. Three options are outlined in this report.

(a) Option 1 (approximately $500,000) offers moderate improvements that can be delivered within this financial year, and makes the most of timing with planned renewals, however, retains several key problems that result in poorer outcomes.

(b) Option 2, the recommended approach, at approximately $1-2 million delivers the greatest long-term value, accessibility, and city-centre amenity but at the highest upfront cost.

(c) Option 3, the status quo, renews fences and replaces trees but leaves critical accessibility, event‑flow, and amenity issues unresolved.

6. There is a medium level of confidence for cost estimates for Options 1 and 2.

7. Option 2 best aligns with the City Centre Action and Investment Plan by enhancing walking connections, supporting the Sports and Events Precinct, improving the quality and identity of the city centre, and strengthening links to the future green necklace. Improved surfaces and access also support inclusion, safety, and the long‑term health of the Pūriri avenue.

8. A risk analysis has been undertaken, and the key risks relate to delivering the project within this financial year. This can be mitigated through proceeding with option 1 only (without the tree pit works and the sealing of carparks) or using carry forwards to complete part of Option 2. The design is flexible allowing some parts of the scope to be completed and other parts deferred until there is more budget available.

9. The consequences of not proceeding with Option 1 include:

(a) Growth of events at Wharepai Domain is limited due to accessibility limitations and requirements for road closures.

(b) A missed opportunity to improve accessibility and meet TCC’s strategic objectives for an inclusive city

(c) Wharepai Domain and access down the the Waikareao estuary via Hamilton Street continues to be underutilised by the community,

10. Additional consequences of not proceeding with Option 2 include:

(a) A key entrance into the City Centre continues to look untidy and unloved.

11. Construction impacts can be managed through staging and early engagement with event organisers, sports clubs, neighbours and adjacent businesses.

12. Next steps include implementing the Communications and Engagement Plan, completing detailed design (including tree pits), coordinating with Asset Managers on fence and tree renewals, and commencing construction within the financial year, subject to archaeological authority requirements and alignment with planned works.

Background

13. At the 15 December 2025 City Delivery Committee meeting, Council resolved to allocate part of the City Centre Green Spaces budget on an upgrade of Aspen Reserve. Staff were subsequently requested to outline how the remaining City Centre green spaces budget could be used.

14. The City Centre Green Spaces budget fills critical gaps where no other budget source exists. It enables Council to enhance open spaces, improve access, and lift the green‑space level of service across the city centre in line with the City Centre Action and Investment Plan (City Centre AIP). Investment is prioritised based on greatest need, opportunities to unlock or improve public access, and the ability to coordinate works with adjacent development or renewal activity to maximise cost efficiency and community benefit.

15. Tauranga and Wharepai Domain is a major sports park and events venue in the north of the city centre. It fronts Hamilton Street and Cameron Road and is framed by mature trees on both boundaries. The 100 year old Pūriri tree avenue along Cameron Road, creates a key gateway into the city for people arriving from Ōtūmoetai and the Mount and is highly valued by the community. Wharepai Domain hosts premier events during summer months and provides field space and club rooms for winter sport. Tauranga Domain has been identified as the preferred location for a potential major sports stadium.

Figure 1, Wharepai Domain showing the location of planned asset renewals and key accessible issues.

Problem definition and reasons for investment

16. Reasons for investment include desired outcomes, existing issues and timing with planned renewals.

Improving amenity at a key gateway to the city centre

17. Wharepai Domain forms a major gateway for those entering the city from Ōtūmoetai, the Mount, and State Highway 2.

(a) The gravel carparks, uneven surfaces, the lack of marked carparking spaces, and failing tree‑pit edging create a low‑quality and untidy frontage.

(b) Enhance the Domain’s appearance and usability by creating a more attractive, well‑kept edge with sealed surfaces, clear carpark layouts, and high‑quality tree‑pit surrounds, lifting the presentation and function of this prominent inner‑city reserve.

(c) Strengthen the city’s gateway experience by improving the quality of the Hamilton Street and Cameron Road frontages and better showcasing the mature Pūriri avenue, that strengthens a distinctive and valued gateway feature.

Poor pedestrian access and need for accessibility improvements

18. Accessibility is critical for users of the reserve, including event goers and people with mobility needs. Current issues include:

(a) A 92m long missing footpath section on Hamilton Street, limiting access to the reserve and requiring temporary traffic management to manage access into events;

(b) The Cameron Road footpath is narrow, limited on one side by a fence and overhanging cars on the other side with restricted room for pedestrians to pass each other;

(d) Unsealed carparks on Cameron Road tripping hazards from loose gravel and tree roots.

Event related constraints may prevent the development of more events in this location

19. Wharepai is the city’s premier outdoor event venue, hosting concerts, festivals, and community sports events of up to 9,000 attendees. Other outdoor event venues are constrained by noise restrictions or sporting events. While well‑used, there are several issues at Wharepai Domain that reduce efficiency:

(a) Lack of a Hamilton Street footpath forces some events to close the road for pedestrian access.

(b) The narrow Cameron Road footpath outside Wharepai Domain cannot accommodate crowds arriving for large events.

(c) The Hamilton Street vehicle entrance is too narrow for event trucks, requiring reversing manoeuvres that block traffic and create safety risks.

Tree protection of the iconic 100-year-old Pūriri Avenue

20. The avenue of mature Pūriri trees down Cameron Road is unique in the world as far as we know. The trees were planted in the 1940s and are in good condition, despite being located along a busy main road. These trees provide important canopy cover in the city centre and a number of environmental, ecological and human benefits which are important to maintain and protect. They are a key feature of the entrance to the city centre and are valued by the community. Measures in place to protect the trees are currently inadequate:

(a) The Gravel carparks between the trees are untidy, uneven, and lack marked spaces, contributing to a lack of amenity at a key gateway into the city centre for people coming from State Highway 2, the Mount and Ōtūmoetai,

(b) Existing tree pits with low timber edging are failing, cannot contain mulch, and offer little protection from vehicles.

Timing with planned renewals

21. There is a strong opportunity to address these issues now due to the alignment of renewal activities on both road frontages. The boundary fences along Cameron Road are due for renewal this financial year. In addition, the row of ageing cypress trees on Hamilton Street requires removal and replacement due to ongoing limb‑failure risks and their unsuitability for a high‑use urban reserve. These works are supported by a resource‑consent requirement associated with the Monmouth Redoubt remediation project, which includes a financial contribution to tree removals and replacement along the Hamilton Street frontage.

22. In response to the problems identified above, staff have identified four key outcomes for the upgrade:

(a) Provide a more inclusive city by improving accessibility for all.

(b) Support the growth of events at Wharepai Domain which will in turn support community connection and enjoyment and increase the vitality of the city centre.

(c) Protect existing trees by defining space with tree pits that prevent vehicle damage and Improve the gateway to the city: Tidy, visually appealing streets with pedestrians visible on the footpath create an entrance to the city that feels vibrant, safe and welcoming. improve maintenance.

23. This report puts forward three options for consideration.

(a) Option 1 delivers on outcomes (a) and (b) by:

(i) Constructing a new 3m wide footpath on Hamilton Street between Cameron Road and the vehicle entrance gate half way down the hill.

(ii) Widening of the footpath on Cameron Road outside Wharepai Domain to 3m wide.

(iii) Provision of two accessible carparks

(iv) Widening the vehicle access into Wharepai Domain from Hamilton Street.

(b) Option 2 (recommended) includes the scope from Option 1 and also delivers on outcomes (c) and (d) by:

(i) Constructing of new tree pit surrounds that are more robust and attractive than existing

(ii) Sealing the carpark surface on Cameron Road with a permeable paved product

(c) Option 3, the status quo, renews fences and replaces trees but leaves critical accessibility, event‑flow, and amenity issues unresolved.

24. A concept plan showing both Options 1 and 2 is provided in Attachment 1.

25. Each of these three options are discussed in further detail below with pros and cons identified.

26. Some further commentary on Options 1 and 2:

(a) Further investigation and design work is required prior to construction. As the design at this stage is only at concept level, the cost estimates and programme are provisional.

(b) Both options provide a very practical, value for money approach, using simple, robust, easy to maintain and tried and tested materials.

(c) Both options can be delivered in whole or in part, as a single package, or staged over a number of years as budget allows, however in the case of the footpaths, the best value for money outcome would be to construct the footpaths in this Financial Year to tie in with the programmed renewal works.

27. Wharepai Domain is a valuable but currently under‑utilised asset. Option 2 creates significantly better connections to this green, leafy oasis in the heart of the city. Strengthening these links would help activate the Domain and encourage more everyday use. By tying more directly into the city’s “green necklace,” people could enjoy a seamless experience—going for a run, then a swim—offering an appealing alternative to Mauao and enhancing the vibrancy of the city centre.

Statutory Context

28. The Wharepai Domain is classified as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act. The Tauranga Reserves Management Plan states that Wharepai, while being used for sports, must also be maintained as a space for major events and to provide inner city green space.

29. There are a number of archaeological features on and surrounding the reserve so an archaeological authority will be required.

30. There are resource consent conditions associated with the recent Monmouth Redoubt remediation works that require the removal and replacement of trees along Hamilton Street as a mitigation for the loss of three 100 year old trees at Monmouth Redoubt.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

31. 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 that is easy to move around	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	☐
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	ü

32. This project contributes to a number of key objectives in the City Centre AIP including:

(a) An accessible city centre that supports walking, cycling, micro-mobility and public transport for all ages and abilities;

(b) A city centre with identity and culture;

(c) An engaging city centre, that is vibrant and inclusive, with exciting things to do for people of all ages, stages and abilities; and

(d) A city in nature.

33. It also contributes to the evolution of the area into the Sports and Events Precinct (City Centre AIP) contributing to the priority actions of creating well-designed pedestrian connections with good wayfinding that will eventually link to adjacent precincts and city centre parking structures, facilitating efficient movement to places of interest.

34. This proposal addresses the selected community outcomes in the following ways:

(a) Providing sealed surfaces that are wide enough for a mobility scooter to use and pass others (e.g. a person pushing a pram) increases the accessibility of the city, and helps with feelings of inclusion.

(b) Providing permeable paving along Cameron Road and improving the tree pits protects the valuable avenue of Pūriri trees, supporting the health and longevity of the trees.

(c) Enhancements to the footpath network improves overall walkability in the area, making it simpler and more convenient for people to move around—whether they are attending events, walking down to the Waikareao Estuary walkway or simply travelling through the neighbourhood.

(d) Improving footpaths and widening the vehicle access on Hamilton Street makes it more affordable, easier and safer to host events at Wharepai Domain.

Options Analysis

35. A comparison of the pros and cons for each of these options is listed in the table below:

Pros

Cons

Option 1

Complete the following works in this Financial Year:

1. Construct a 3 m wide footpath on Hamilton Street.

2. Widen Cameron Road footpath to 3 m.

3. Provide two accessible carparks adjacent to Wharepai Domain.

4. Widen the Hamilton Street vehicle access into Wharepai Domain.

Significantly improved accessibility for mobility users, event attendees, and general pedestrians.

Improved event operations: safer manoeuvring at the entrance and reduced need for road closures.

Highly likely that construction can be completed within this Financial Year

Does not address gravel carpark amenity, tripping hazards, or root protection on Cameron Road.

Tree‑pit failures and vehicle root damage likely to continue without raised, robust surrounds.

Lower overall gateway quality than other options.

Cost Estimate

Approximately $500,000, including cultural monitoring, design and project management costs. A 20% contingency would bring the total to approximately $600,000.

There is currently $1,056,340 available in FY 25/26 which could cover these costs.

There is a medium level of confidence for these costs.

Option 2 (Incl. Option 1)

Recommended

Commence the following in this financial year and complete in the next Financial Year, and/or when the City Centre Green Spaces budget is available.

5. Renewed raised tree pit surrounds for 33 Pūriri trees (both sides of Cameron Road). (Corten steel or timber edging depending on available budget). Tree pit renewals can be prioritised based on available budget, proximity to Domain gateways and condition.

6. Permeable sealing of the gravel carpark surface on both sides of Cameron Road. Sealing carparks will be prioritised based on available budget, on accessibility needs and proximity to Domain gateways.

Improved amenity and gateway presentation at a key city entrance.

Best long‑term protection for the Pūriri avenue; Note that corten has lower maintenance costs in comparison with timber.

Improved accessibility and parking efficiency through sealed surfaces and clear delineation.

Strong alignment with “city in nature” and green‑network aspirations.

Has budget available in this Financial Year to commence works

Highest cost presented.

Will require a carry forward of approximately $600k of the FY 25/26 budget

To complete the full scope of 33 trees and replacement of gravel with a permeable paved product will require the FY26/27 budget.

Greatest construction disruption due to works required in the road shoulder on both sides of the road. works on both sides.

Cost estimate for Option 1 + 2

Approximately $1,900,000 including cultural monitoring, design and project management costs. A 10% contingency would bring the total to approximately $2,100,000.

There is currently $1,056,340 available in FY 25/26, and $1,102,827 which could cover these costs.

There is a low level of confidence with these costs.

The cost estimate for both options were arrived at via a quote received from a contractor for the scope described in Option 1 plus upgrades to the tree pits and paving as described in Option 2 – but only for the ten trees in front of Wharepai Domain. The estimate for Option 2 was effectively extrapolated from the contractor quote.

Option 3

Retain the status quo

Lowest immediate cost.

Meets statutory obligations regarding tree replacement.

No major construction disruption beyond fence and tree works.

Does not address any longstanding accessibility issues, including missing footpaths, narrow footpaths, and lack of mobility parking.

Event challenges persist, maintaining higher operating costs and continued need for road closures. There are also higher staff costs in supporting event organisers.

No improvement to the key gateway frontage, leaving the area looking tired and inconsistent with city-centre aspirations.

Does not enhance connectivity to the “green necklace” or leverage Wharepai Domain’s potential as a major green asset.

Cost Estimate

The fences along Cameron Road will be renewed using the Reserve Structures renewal budget and the trees will be removed and replaced along Hamilton Street. This has a combined cost of approximately $450,000.

36. In summary, Option 2 delivers the greatest long-term value, accessibility, and city-centre amenity but at the highest upfront cost. Option 1 offers moderate improvements but retains several key problems that will limit future usability and require more maintenance. Option 3 is lowest cost but fails to resolve the main issues and misses the opportunity to better integrate Wharepai Domain into the city centre.

37. It is noted that there is flexibility in how these options can be delivered subject to budget availability. For example, the tree surrounds could be updated, but the paving deferred, or alternatively, only some of the tree surrounds are updated. We seek approval to spend the available budget, whether it is just FY25/26 or FY25/26 and FY26/27.

Financial Considerations

38. The City Centre Green Spaces budget has $1,056,340 in this Financial Year and $1,102,827 in FY26/27. This budget was created to be to be spent on enhancement to green spaces within the city centre, such as Aspen Reserve, the Domain, improvements to tree pits and the Green Necklace.

39. If Option 1 is endorsed, it is likely that works will get started in April/May. It is expected that construction will take three to four months, so there is a chance that there will be a small carry forward (potentially $200,000 - $300,000) into the next financial year.

40. If Option 2 is endorsed, it is expected that construction will take four to six months. Depending on the prioritisation of work this may require the FY26/27 budget to be available to spend. This would also require a larger carry forward, potentially in the order of $600,000 - $700,000.

41. It is understood that prioritisation work underway for the FY26/27 Financial Year indicates that the City Centre Green Spaces budget is proposed to be deprioritised for the next Financial Year and will not be available. If Council were to approve Option 2, the completion of the tree pit and paving works could be delayed to a future year subject to available budgets.

42. The tree removals and replacement on Hamilton Street is funded through a financial contribution of $220,000 from the Monmouth project, which is out of the City Centre Historical and Cultural Precinct bulk fund.

Legal Implications / Risks

43. There are no legal implications.

44. Key risks identified include:

(a) Road safety (High) - A road safety risk of trucks reversing in Hamilton Street if neither Options 1 or 2 are selected.

(b) Tree health (Medium) - A risk that the avenue of Pūriri trees could be undermined in the future as they continue to mature if Option 2 is not endorsed.

(c) PowerCo box relocation (High) - It is noted that there is currently a power box in the grass berm that would be in the middle of a new footpath down Hamilton Street. We have been advised that it will likely take six months before Powerco can process the application, and if approved, it probably will take a year or more before construction can take place. Despite this, we recommend installing the footpath now and relocating the powerbox if approved by Powerco. The cost for relocation of the power box is unknown, but could be anywhere between $80,000 and $250,000.

(d) Loss of carparks (Low) - If Option 2 is approved, there is a small risk that there could be a reduction of up to five carparks on Cameron Road. This is because the tree pits surrounds haven’t been designed yet. Likewise, we need to do more investigation into how the permeable seal is applied where there are exposed tree roots. However we will work with the arborists and the transport team to keep any loss of parking to an absolute minimum.

(e) Service relocation (High) - There are a number of services beneath the berm on Hamilton Street where the footpath is proposed. There are one to two infrastructure lids which will likely require lowering. The condition of the pipes is currently unknown, and there may also be unknown services. Further investigation is required if either Option 1 or 2 are selected. Depending on findings, this may impact on project cost and project timeframes.

(f) Programme Delay (High) - Given the short time between Council decision making on March 10 and the end of the Financial Year, the biggest project risks relate to the programme and spending within the Financial Year. In addition to risks associated with services, other programme related risks include getting the archaeological authority approved, and securing a contractor to be ready to start works shortly after Council approval.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

45. There are three hapū with an interest in the city centre area: Ngāi Tamarāwaho, Ngāti Tapu and Ngāi Tukairangi. We have informed the three hapū of the proposed project and let them know that it requires approval by the City Delivery Committee before it can proceed.

46. There is an existing pou at the corner of Hamilton Street and Cameron Road that has probably not been maintained since it was installed in 2013. Refurbishment of this pou is proposed as part of the project scope. We intend to work with the hapū on refurbishment of the pou and the application for an archaeological authority. There is also the potential to provide for additional cultural narrative through the application of Mahi Toi.

47. The hapū will also be invited to undertake cultural monitoring and a blessing before and after the construction of the project.

CLIMATE IMPACT

48. The options presented have potential climate impacts. Concrete is known to create greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, the recommended options seek greater levels of protection for the avenue of 45 Pūriri trees. The Pūriri trees provide a variety of very important functions that relate to our changing climate and environment. The Pūriri trees provide carbon storage and sequestration, air pollution removal, stormwater interception, and they reduce heat island effects. The Pūriri is also considered a cornerstone species for native birds, because they provide a year-round, consistent food source.

Consultation / Engagement

49. Various staff currently have relationships with a number of stakeholders (such as event organisers, sports clubs and nearby businesses) and have received feedback from these stakeholders about the issues that they currently experience. We will rely on some of these relationships to engage on this project.

50. Staff have begun preparing a Communications and Engagement plan for this project. Communication and engagement activities pre-construction will also include the following:

(a) Engagement with the two sports clubs (Tauranga Sports and Ōtūmoetai Football Club) that regularly use Wharepai Domain.

(b) Engagement with nearby businesses and residents such as Mag and Turbo, NZ Blood and the Courthouse whose staff are high users of the parking along Hamilton Street and Cameron Road.

(c) Communications with people that use the area regularly – such as posters with QR codes, and flyers placed under the wipers of parked cars.

(d) The Events team have started speaking to community event organisers that are outgrowing other venues. It is noted that engagement with event organisers has already taken place, which has contributed to the scope of this project. We will reconnect with event organisers as appropriate (via the events team).

51. We will work with the TCC Comms team and the contractor to provide communications before and during construction.

Significance

52. 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.

53. 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 proposal.

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

ENGAGEMENT

55. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the proposal is of medium significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision. Council staff will engage with the relevant hapū and implement the Communications and Engagement Plan outlined above in paragraph 53.

Next Steps

56. Following confirmation of the preferred option and project budget, staff will:

(a) Implement the Communications and Engagement Plan

(b) Complete detailed design of the tree pits surrounds

(d) Work with the Asset Managers on the planned renewals.

Attachments

1. Wharepai Domain Concept design - A19773281 ⇩

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

10 March 2026

10.5 Play Space Investment Programme - FY26-27

File Number: A19498594

Author: Sonya McCall, Open Space & Community Facilities Planner

Ross Hudson, Manager: Strategic Planning and Partnerships, Spaces and Places

Authoriser: Reneke van Soest, General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to complete the action for staff to bring the play programme back to City Delivery Committee for confirmation/amendment prior to finalisation of budgets for Annual Plan 2026/2027

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Play Space Investment Programme - FY26-27".

(b) Agrees the priorities for the FY27 play investment programme, noting implementation timeframes will depend on the finalisation of Annual Plan 2027.

(c) Agrees to progress with the development of a new major play space at Sydenham Botanic Park and to engage on an alternative option at Lees Park that does not include a young children’s playground.

Executive Summary

2. Play spaces are a core part of vibrant, inclusive communities, supporting physical activity, social connection, and everyday use of reserves. Council invests in play through a planned, citywide approach that prioritises safety, asset condition, equity of access, and community outcomes.

3. This report returns the play programme to the City Delivery Committee following the Committee’s April 2025 decision to endorse the FY27 play investment programme subject to confirmation or amendment prior to finalisation of Annual Plan 2027 budgets. Since that time, Council’s fiscal environment has changed significantly, with increased pressure on rates and a stronger focus on reducing capital expenditure and ongoing operating costs.

4. As a result, while the April 2025 programme provided a sound basis for engagement and early project development, the recommended FY27 programme has been reviewed and reshaped within a more constrained fiscal context.

5. All FY26 projects are underway, with two projects (Hopukiore playground and Carlton Street Reserve skatepark) requiring carry‑forward funding into FY27 due to extended engagement and design phases. In reviewing the FY27 programme, staff reassessed project readiness, engagement status, asset condition, delivery timing, community expectations, and equitable provision of play across the city. As a result, some projects are recommended to proceed or be carried forward, while others are recommended for deferral and rephasing.

6. A key decision is required for Brookfield. Engagement in 2025 identified a preference for developing a new major play space at Sydenham Botanic Park rather than upgrading Lees Park playground, driven by Sydenham’s larger footprint, existing amenities, and ability to deliver a more inclusive, multi age play experience. This option would require a higher capital investment (approximately $1.3m) but would provide Brookfield with a major neighbourhood play space. An alternative, lower cost option to upgrade Lees Park (approximately $0.5m) would deliver a smaller scale, neighbourhood level outcome if Council wishes to prioritise cost containment.

7. The recommended FY27 play programme capital budget is approximately $4.3m (excluding renewals funding of approximately $180k). This represents a reduction from earlier projections (of approximately 6.3m) through a combination of deferrals, reprioritisation, the inclusion of approximately $1.7m in forecast carry forward funding from FY26, deferral of approximately $2m previously identified for commencing implementation of the updated Memorial Park site plan. This total programme budget costs consist of a mix of detailed designs, concept design and costs based on previous projects. Budgets include contingency and will be designed to be delivered within budget.

8. While this approach reduces FY27 capital expenditure and associated rates pressure, it is acknowledged that deferring or downsizing projects has impacts on community outcomes and carries reputational risk where engagement has already occurred. To manage this risk, following today’s decisions, at an appropriate time in the project lifecycle targeted communications will be undertaken to clearly update affected communities and stakeholders on the outcomes, rationale, and next steps. Other risks include dependency on external parties and potential cost escalation through project deferrals.

9. The recommended programme continues to align with the Play, Active Recreation and Sport and Reserves and Open Space Action and Investment Plans, the Open Space Level of Service Policy, and wider strategic outcomes relating to inclusion, accessibility, wellbeing, and quality neighbourhood environments. Longer term priorities and reflecting any changes to levels of service will be considered through the Long Term Plan 2027-2037.

Background

10. On 7 April 2025, the City Delivery Committee (the Committee) considered a report (Attachment A) on Play Space Investment Prioritization for FY25-26. This report set out why we invest in these activities and how prioritisation is undertaken.

11. The City Delivery Committee resolved (CDC/25/2/7) that it:

(a) Receives the report "Play Space Investment Prioritisation for FY25-26".

(b) Agrees the Financial Year 2026 play investment programme, which allocates existing budgets, and approves engagement to commence following adoption of the Annual Plan 2026.

(c) Endorses the Financial Year 2027 play investment programme, which allocates existing budgets, pending Annual Plan 2027, to enable engagement to commence.

12. While the City Development Committee endorsed the FY27 programme in April 2025 to enable design and engagement on some projects to occur in FY26, the Committee requested staff to bring the programme back to Committee for confirmation/amendment prior to formation of draft budgets for AP27.

Statutory Context

13. In line with resolution CDC/25/2/7 all FY26 actions are in progress - refer Attachment B for a status update.

14. Since the April 2025 report, updated circumstances have led to a proposal that some projects originally scheduled for FY27 be deferred, while others are recommended to be brought forward to better align with current priorities and resource availability. Delays have occurred for Hopukiore playground and Carlton Street Skate Park, primarily due to extended engagement and design phases to allow time to fully consider what we heard from the community and to ensure we could achieve what we needed to within budget, resulting in the need to carry forward budgets into FY27. Today’s decision on these will be reflected in the carry forward process that will be actioned as part FY27 annual plan. This is explained in Table 1 below, and options are provided in Attachment C.

15. As noted in the April 2025 report, the proposed programme for Financial Year 2027/2028 onwards will be presented for consideration as part of the Long Term Plan 2027 process and will reflect the outcome from the upcoming Open Space Level of Service Policy Review.

Table 1: Status of projects with FY27 capex (per April 2025 report - CDC/25/2/7)

FY26 projects with forecast carry forwards
Hopukiore Mount Drury Reserve, Mount Maunganui - Play space Redevelopment and Reserve Enhancement	In progress – Carry forwards required to complete	‘Love, Wish, Wonder’ engagement and engagement on concept options has been completed. Currently in design phase and reviewing costs. Construction anticipated to commence later in 2026.
Carlton Street Reserve, Otumoetai - skatepark redevelopment +/ pump track	In progress– Carry forwards required to complete	Community engagement on the location was undertaken in 2025. Engagement with schools and skatepark users to be undertaken in Feb 2026. The design will provide additional certainty into the required works. Construction anticipated to commence Oct/Nov 2026.
Play space and Reserve Enhancement - Minor
Maungatapu play facility	Recommend defer	Council staff are working with Rangataua Sports Club to look at opportunities there for the wider community. These discussions are constructive and ongoing, but further work is required to understand the opportunities and feasibility.
Parkdale Park, Papamoa	Recommend defer	Recent assessment has found a lifespan of these assets longer than previously assessed. This has been extended due to recent repairs and refurbishing, and the ability to ‘sweat’ the metal framed equipment longer. Proposed to defer renewal/enhancement to understand how this site is to be used following the development of the Simpson Reserve playground.
NR13 The Lakes - Reserve and playground development	Recommend defer	This reserve will not be vested by the developer in time for reserve development to occur in FY27.
Playspace and Reserve Enhancement - Major
Brookfield - Major neighbourhood play space (depending on investigations)	In progress – Decision on site required	Engagement on whether to progress with an upgraded play space at Lees Park or a new larger play space at Sydenham Botanic Reserve was undertaken in 2025. A decision on which option to proceed with is required. Refer paragraph 16 below for more information. Construction at either site is scheduled for FY27. It may be necessary to defer part of this budget to FY28 for delivery resourcing purposes. If budget reprioritisation is required through Annual Plan 2027 this could be deferred – noting a key risk that community engagement has commenced.
Papamoa (proposed Simpson) new destination playground development and reserve enhancement	In progress and recommended to phase delivery over FY27 and FY28.	‘Love, Wish, Wonder’ engagement was undertaken in 2025. Concept development is underway. Engagement on the concept is expected in April/May 2027. Construction scheduled for FY27. It may be necessary to defer part of this budget to FY28 for delivery resourcing purposes. If budget reprioritisation is required through Annual Plan 2027 this could be deferred – noting a key risk that community engagement has commenced.
Memorial Park playground and surrounds (note this was not included in the April 2025 report as it was on hold at that time, however funding was allocated in the LTP commencing FY27)	Recommend re-commence planning (engagement & design)	Many of the playground structures and supporting assets at Memorial Park have reached or are nearing the end of their useful life, with some - such as the bridge link - being removed due to safety and structural deterioration. A new concept plan for the park was developed with key stakeholders in 2023, and with the aquatic facility footprint now confirmed, it is proposed to progress planning for the renewal or replacement of the Memorial Park playground, including broader community engagement.

Brookfield Play

16. The Play Active Recreation and Sport Action and Investment Plan (PARS AIP) promotes the development of a major play space within every suburban area. A major play space has a playground footprint of approximately 600-800m² excluding areas of park left open for informal play – examples include Te Papa o Takaro o Tongaparo – Ila Park (Ohauiti) and Pacific Park (Arataki), compared to neighbourhood play spaces which tend to have a playground footprint of <500m². This additional footprint provides space to provide a more diverse range of playground equipment to meet a wider user group in terms of the number of experiences for people of different ages and abilities, and the larger reserves can accommodate more supporting infrastructure such as toilets and gathering spaces. The Reserves and Open Space AIP has an action for Sydenham Botanic Park, to support for the future development of the park to provide amenity and passive space for the Brookfield neighbourhood. Engagement indicated that the Brookfield community was seeking more and better play opportunities than are currently provided, rather than simply retaining the status quo.

17. While Lees Park provides neighbourhood open space in Brookfield, it is too small and constrained to provide a play space at the larger scale that allows retention of grassed open space for ball sports and passive use. However, an upgraded neighbourhood playground at Lees Park could still respond to community feedback by providing improved equipment, safety, accessibility and play value within a local‑scale setting.

18. As such, staff considered whether a major play space could be developed on nearby Sydenham Botanic Park. A play space on that park would be located at the top of the park near the existing toilets. While Council manages this space, it is owned by Perpetual Guardian Trust. Perpetual Guardian Trust have indicated their support for a play space that is appropriately designed in such a way that it supports the botanical purposes of the park.

19. It is recognised that Te Kura o Mauanui is located nearby (72 Millers Road). School staff have advised council staff that they do not want the school play facilities promoted for community use, holding concerns about visibility, damage, and littering. The Ministry of Education confirmed that the playgrounds at the former Brookfield School are similarly unavailable for wider community use, with one playground being used by Tauranga Special School. It is also noted that school playgrounds do not deliver the same outcomes as a public reserve and play space. For example,

(a) school playgrounds are not available during school hours

(b) they are often age specific, so they are not designed to provide play experiences for pre-school children, which does not provide for an inclusive family experience.

(c) the playgrounds are located for school design, rather than being located with visibility or clear access from the street.

(d) school playgrounds tend not to have publicly available supporting infrastructure or accessibility features such as toilets, access pathways or accessible playground surfacing.

20. Engagement with the tag-line ‘Pick your Place to Play’ asking the community whether their preference is to progress with an upgraded play space at Lees Park or a new play space at Sydenham Botanic Reserve was undertaken in 2025. The engagement material made clear that both options could deliver improved play outcomes, but at different scales and with different levels of diversity and amenity.

21. Engagement found that respondents were dissatisfied with both parks, with particularly strong concern about ageing equipment and dog issues at Lees Park. A majority (149 v 98) preferred Sydenham Botanic Park for a new playground for reasons including its larger footprint and better amenities, including nearby toilets. People emphasised the need for improved safety, accessibility, and artificial shade. This preference reflected a desire for a larger play space that could cater for a wider range of ages and abilities and provide a broader set of play experiences. If Sydenham were developed, respondents commonly suggested youth‑focused features - such as a basketball hoop - for Lees Park. Refer to Attachment D for a copy of the engagement report.

22. In summary, the options for Brookfield are either an improved neighbourhood playground at Lees Park that responds to calls for better local play, or a larger, more diverse play space at Sydenham Botanic Park that integrates play within a wider botanical park environment and supports a broader range of experiences, ages and abilities. Development of initial concepts for engagement will be developed once a decision on the site/s has been made. Engagement on the concept design of the park/s will then be undertaken.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

23. 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 that is easy to move around	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	☐
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	☐

24. The programme aligns with the community outcomes by improving accessible neighbourhood spaces, enhancing environmental quality through nature‑based design, and supporting well‑planned, easily navigable communities through equitable distribution of play opportunities.

Options Analysis

25. There are two topics with their own options:

(a) Topic 1: FY27 Play Programme

(b) Topic 2: Brookfield Play

26. Topic 1: FY27 Play Programme. There are two options:

(a) Option 1: Proceed with the recommended programme and engagement approach

(b) Option 2: Proceed with a different programme and / or engagement approach.

27. Option 1: Proceed with the recommended programme and engagement approach (recommended)

Benefits

The proposed programme:

· provides a coherent, city‑wide programme that balances renewals, upgrades, and new provision rather than treating sites in isolation.

· reduces reputational risk by delivering on completed and ongoing engagement, maintaining community trust and confidence in Council decision‑making

· Prioritises health and safety and equitable play provision across the city and our communities

· is informed by Community Voice and past engagements

· takes into account demographics (age, population, deprivation)

· provides for the diversity of play interests our rangatahi have and increases the distribution of accessible play spaces

· is efficient in combining renewals with reserve enhancements such as additional greening, pathways, and space for community gathering

· we have heard from the community that supporting amenities such as nature and other landscaping are important

· achieves cost savings compared to the programme endorsed in April 2025.

Disbenefits

· Deferral of some projects and/or components still occurs within the recommended programme, which carries community engagement risk, particularly where expectations have been raised, will include communication to manage perceptions of delay.

· Deferring a project delays the community receiving the outcomes, meaning that current tamarki and rangataahi may miss out on the benefits as they ‘grow out’ of the activity.

· Deferrals may create a backlog in project delivery, increasing pressure in future years.

· Capital and associated operational expenditure increases ongoing lifecycle and maintenance commitments.

· May not meet the expectations of the City Delivery Committee

· Capital expenditure and associated operational expenditure

Key Risks / Considerations

· Budget uncertainty: Implementation is dependent on final AP27 budget decisions; any reduction in budgets or carry forward approvals may require reprioritisation or deferral of recommended projects, impacting planned delivery timeframes.

· Dependency on external parties: Projects involving developers (e.g., NR13 The Lakes) or third‑party landowners (e.g., Sydenham Botanic Park) carry uncertainties around timing, approval processes, and long‑term agreements.

· Cost escalation: Market volatility in construction and play equipment may impact affordability, requiring scope refinement or re‑phasing.

28. Option 2: Proceed with a different programme and / or engagement approach.

29. Should the full budget allocation recommended be secured, the recommended programme can proceed as planned; otherwise, adjustments will required based on final budget approvals. In reprioritising, the focus should remain on safety and project readiness which may involve decommissioning certain playground components prior to their replacement or upgrade for safety purposes. However, this approach carries the risk of delaying projects where community engagement is already underway. Refer to Attachment C which provides an options assessment on a site-by-site basis.

Benefits

Would depend on what changes are made, for example:

· Meets the expectations of the City Delivery Committee.

· Opportunity for cost savings

Disbenefits

Would depend on what changes are made, for example:

· If we just rely on the maintenance and renewals programme, we cannot provide the additional experiences and amenities that meet community expectation and ultimately increase patronage. For example, the provision of pathways alongside a playground renewal provides for both improved accessibility and a place for roller and wheely play.

· Deferring a project means that current tamarki and rangataahi may miss out on the benefits as they ‘grow out’ of the activity.

· Deferring a project delays the community receiving the outcomes, meaning that current tamarki and rangataahi may miss out on the benefits as they ‘grow out’ of the activity.

· Deferrals may create a backlog in project delivery, increasing pressure in future years.

· Deferring a project that has a renewals funded component may increase operational costs as more maintenance is required to extend the life of the asset to keep it safe.

Key Risks / Considerations

· Project readiness and safety risks: Some assets are nearing end of life; delaying renewals increases safety, maintenance, and operational risks/costs.

· Engagement and expectation management: Several FY27 projects have already undergone community engagement. Changes to the programme may create reputational risk if communities perceive that their input is not being acted upon.

· Equity impacts: Deferring projects in high need suburbs may exacerbate inequitable access to quality play spaces - particularly where existing equipment is outdated or provides limited accessibility. ‑need suburbs may exacerbate inequitable access to quality play spaces

30. Topic 2: Brookfield Play. There are two options:

(a) Option 1: Upgrade Lees Park as a local neighbourhood play space only

(b) Option 2: Develop a new major neighbourhood playground at Sydenham Botanic Park + add proceed to engagement on installing a basketball hoop at Lees Park and other potential changes (with a rangatahi/youth focus)

31. Engagement undertaken in 2025 identified a community preference for developing a new major neighbourhood play space at Sydenham Botanic Park over upgrading the existing playground at Lees Park, largely due to Sydenham’s larger footprint, existing amenities, and ability to support a more inclusive, multi‑age play experience. However, this option requires a higher capital investment (approximately $1 million) compared with upgrading Lees Park (approximately less than $0.5 million). Given the current constrained fiscal environment and the cost difference between the two options, staff consider this to be a matter of direction and investment prioritisation for Council to determine. The alternative options therefore present a trade‑off between cost containment and the scale and quality of play outcomes delivered for the Brookfield community.

32. Option 1: Upgrade Lees Park as a local neighbourhood play space only

Benefits

· Lowest-cost option (up to $500k capital investment incl. renewals)

· Responds to the longstanding community desire to upgrade Lees Park and acknowledges its value and familiarity for nearby residents, kindergarten and Plunket users.

· Addresses high dissatisfaction (81%) with the current park – In particular the old/limited equipment and allows for a refreshed but small-scale play offer.

· Maintains the fenced play environment highly valued for safety, especially for toddlers and neurodiverse children.

· No dependency on third‑party landowners.

· Avoids any perceived impacts on Sydenham Botanic Park’s botanical character.

· Addresses community perception of lack of investment in Lees Park and the wider Brookfield area relative to other areas.

Disbenefits

· Does not align with the majority preference: more respondents preferred Sydenham Botanic Park (149) vs Lees Park (98), primarily because of its larger footprint and ability to provide a broader, more inclusive play experience.

· Does not provide a major neighbourhood play space for Brookfield/Bellevue within 1.5 km - a key strategic gap and one reason many respondents preferred Sydenham Botanic Park.

· Site constraints limit the diversity of play experiences, accessible play, and range for different ages — a major engagement theme.

· Fewer supporting amenities (toilets, community gathering spaces), which community strongly prioritised. Toilets are not planned or proposed at Lees Park (as noted in the community engagement material).

· Does not address perceptions that Sydenham Botanic Park is underutilised or unsafe.

· Dog issues (off-leash use inside fenced space near the playground) remain a challenge.

Key Risks / Considerations

· Continued conflict between dog use and play – a dissatisfaction driver, and a barrier to kindergarten use.

· Risk of ongoing dissatisfaction if the upgrade is perceived as minimal or insufficient for a growing suburb.

· Equity risk: the community continues without a diverse multi-age play space.

· Design trade-offs inevitable due to the limited site footprint.

33. Option 2: Develop a new major neighbourhood playground at Sydenham Botanic Park + add a basketball hoop (rangatahi focus) (recommended)

Benefits

· Aligns with the majority preference: more respondents preferred Sydenham Botanic Park (149) vs Lees Park (98), primarily because of its larger footprint and ability to provide a broader, more inclusive play experience.

· Enables a high-quality, multi-age, major play space with diverse equipment, good shade, nearby toilets, and space for community gathering - all high-priority factors from engagement.

· Supports activation of Sydenham Botanic Park, addressing current perceptions of underuse and improving safety by increasing presence and visibility.

· Adds a basketball hoop at Lees Park - directly responding to strong rangatahi feedback, where basketball was the most suggested alternative use for Lees Park (noting basketball was listed as an example alternative use in the engagement materials).

· Offers the opportunity for a design at Sydenham Botanic Park that is sympathetic to botanical values and supports horticultural learning.

Disbenefits

· Higher project cost and complexity compared with upgrading Lees Park alone. Approximately $1.3M (including non-play upgrades).

· Some residents wanting a full upgrade at Lees Park may feel their preferred option is not fully met.

· Some respondents expressed a desire for Sydenham Botanic Park to remain quiet/natural and worry a playground could impact its tranquil character.

· Safety perception issues (secluded areas, antisocial behaviour) must be addressed through design and CPTED.

· Expectations must be managed to avoid misunderstanding that Lees Park is still a “full” playground.

· Some respondents liked that there was no playground at Sydenham Botanic Park as they could exercise their dog in all areas of the park.

Key Risks / Considerations

· Landowner approval risk; Sydenham Botanic Park is owned by the Perpetual Guardian Trust; while the playground has been approved in principle subject to being relocated outside the daffodil planting areas, the Perpetual Guardian Trust will need to review and approve the plans.

· Investment on non-Council land that can be managed via an appropriate agreement.

· Design must carefully integrate botanical values - failure to do so may lead to opposition.

· Dog-use patterns may shift; both parks already face dog-management issues and rule clarity challenges.

· Need to communicate clearly that Lees Park will not continue to be a playground for young children.

· Need to engage on the updated concept plan for the reserve with the inclusion of a basketball hoop.

Financial Considerations

34. This programme allocates existing budgets in draft Annual Plan 2027 and Long Term Plan 2024-2034 that are allocated for playground renewals and reserve upgrades – specifically the Play AIP, and part of the Reserves AIP, Reserves and Open Space – Space for Culture and Storytelling programme, Reserves and Open Space – Investing in Spaces for Community programme, Playground Shade, Accessibility Hotspots, TRMP (Tauranga Reserves Management Plan) ‘bulk fund’ budgets. In response to the current constrained fiscal environment, the FY27 capital programme has been reviewed and reprioritised to reduce capital expenditure while continuing to address safety, asset condition, and key community needs.

35. The recommended FY27 play programme capital budget is approximately $4.3 million (excluding renewals funding of approximately $180,000) – opex, including repairs and maintenance (R&M) and deprecation (approx $215,000pa) is assumed to commence from FY28.

36. Planning for FY28 (through the Long Term Plan) will include consideration of any additional operational (R&M) expenditure arising from the FY27 play programme. Operational impacts are assessed through the design phase, with a focus on durability, efficient maintenance, and whole‑of‑life cost management, and are informed by close collaboration with asset managers. Where projects involve renewal or replacement of existing playgrounds, minimal or no additional R&M expenditure is anticipated, noting that new assets typically require less maintenance in the short term. However, increases in the quantity of equipment or changes in use patterns, may result in some additional reactive maintenance initially or over time. Any anticipated increases will be refined through design and reflected in FY28 planning, with consideration for ongoing financial pressures and any changes to levels of service. A new playground, such as at Simpson Reserve or Sydenham Botanic Park is anticipated to require annual R&M in the order of $20,000, which includes regular playground inspections.

37. Delays have occurred for Hopukiore playground and Carlton Street Skate Park, primarily due to extended engagement and design phases to allow time to fully consider what we heard from the community and to ensure we could achieve what we needed to within budget, resulting in approximately $1.67M in carry forwards in FY27 being forecast. The resulting forecast carry forwards of approximately $1.67 million into FY27. Today’s decision on these will be reflected in the carry forward process that will be actioned as part FY27 annual plan.

38. Table 2 below is based on the recommended option. Alternative options for each site, with differing capital and operational implications, have also been identified and are outlined in Attachment B to inform decision‑making.

Table 2: Financial considerations for recommended option

Site	Status	FY27 CAPEX Implications
1. Hopukiore Mount Drury Play space Redevelopment and Reserve Enhancement	In progress	Approx. $537,000 is forecast to be spent in FY26, with approx. $1.03M forecast as carry forwards into FY27.
2. Carlton Street - skatepark redevelopment +/ pump track	In progress	Approx. $107,000 is forecast to be spent in FY26, with approx. $674,000 forecast as carry forwards into FY27.
3. Brookfield - Major neighbourhood play space (depending on investigations)	In progress	Progression of $1,343,349 (including $113,349 renewals + $300,000 for non play elements) - if Sydenham Botanic Park. $500,000 – if Lees Park. If Sydenham Botanic Park proceeds, additional R&M opex anticipated in the order of $20,000 annually – to be considered in the design phase and included in LTP27 planning.
4. Simpson Reserve new playground development and reserve enhancement	In progress	Progression of $2,332,909 (+$170,000 in FY26 as a possible carry forward).
5. Maungatapu play facility playspace & reserve enhancement	Recommend defer	Reduction of $350,000 capex
6. Parkdale Park playspace & reserve enhancement	Recommend defer	Reduction of $285,000 capex (and deferral of $65,000 renewals)
7. NR13 The Lakes – New reserve and playground development	Recommend defer	Reduction of $375,000 capex
8. Memorial Park	Recommend commence planning	Within S&P Planning operational budgets. Existing capital budgets for delivery are included in FY27, but are recommended to be deferred to commence in FY28.

Legal Implications / Risks

39. While managed by council, Sydenham Park is owned by the Perpetual Guardian Trust. The development by council of new assets on the park will require an update of current agreements to reflect the council investment and enable appropriate maintenance. In general, the Trust is supportive of initiatives that encourage greater use of the park. As landowners, Perpetual Guardian may wish to be made aware of health and safety protocols during construction.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

40. Te Rangapū o Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana provided input into the Play, Active Recreation and Sport AIP which provides the strategic guidance for this programme of work. Early engagement with mana whenua has been and will continue to be undertaken as projects on this programme commence. Reserves are places where Tauranga’s culture and history can be celebrated.

CLIMATE IMPACT

41. The programme enhances biodiversity by integrating planting, shade trees, and, in some instances, nature‑based design that strengthen ecological function across neighbourhood reserves.

Consultation / Engagement

42. For projects scheduled / proposed to be delivered in FY27, the following engagement has been undertaken or is planned:

(a) Carlton Street Skatepark - Community engagement on the within the park was undertaken in 2025. Engagement with schools and skatepark users on the design is underway (commenced Feb 2026).

(b) Hopukiore (Mount Drury) Reserve playground - Engagement was undertaken in 2025. The project is currently in design phase and reviewing costs. Construction is anticipated in mid-late 2026.

(c) Simpson Reserve Playground – Initial ‘Love, Wish, Wonder’ was undertaken in 2025. Engagement on the concept is expected in April/May 2027.

(d) Brookfield play – Engagement on whether to progress with an upgraded play space at Lees Park or a new play space at Sydenham Botanic Reserve was undertaken in 2025. Engagement on the design of the park/s will be undertaken.

Significance

43. 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.

44. 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 .

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

ENGAGEMENT

46. 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

47. If the recommended option is progressed, the following actions will be progressed.

(a) Hopukiore Mount Drury play space redevelopment and reserve enhancement – finalise design and progress to construction.

(b) Carlton Street Reserve - skatepark redevelopment +/ pump track – finalise design and progress to construction.

(c) Brookfield - Major neighbourhood play space (depending on investigations) - progress with design and round 2 engagement

(d) Simpson Reserve new playground development and reserve enhancement – finalise concept designs and progress to engagement in Autumn and construction in 2027.

(e) Memorial Park - Re-commence planning, and report back as part of LTP planning for the FY28 play programme.

Attachments

1. Attachment A - CDC 10 March 2026- Report to the City Delivery Committee - 7 April 2025 - A19767485 (Separate Attachments 1)

2. Attachment B - CDC 10 March 2026 - FY27 Play Programme - Status Update - A19778388 (Separate Attachments 1)

3. Attachment C - CDC 10 March 2026 - Site Specific Options - Play Programme FY27 - A19778399 (Separate Attachments 1)

4. Attachment D - CDC 10 March 2026 - Brookfield 'Pick your place to play' Engagement Report - A19778277 (Separate Attachments 1)

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

10 March 2026

10.6 Major Projects Update - Transport

File Number: A19776084

Author: Chris Barton, Portfolio Manager: Infrastructure

Authoriser: Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide an update to Committee on the transport major projects in implementation and delivery including Pāpāmoa East Interchange, SH29 Tauriko Enabling Works and Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Major Projects Update - Transport".

Executive Summary

2. This is an update report on the status and progress on the three major transport projects which are in delivery phase, the Pāpāmoa East Interchange, SH29 Tauriko Enabling Works and Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay projects. The Cameron Road Stage 2 and Connecting Mount Maunganui projects are being reported to City Futures Committee.

3. This report is being provided as the projects are high value, complex, and have a high risk profile with potentially significant consequences.

4. Overview timeframes for delivery of the five major transport projects are outlined below:

5. Overall the construction of the Pāpāmoa East Interchange and SH29 Tauriko Enabling Works projects are progressing well, and are being delivered on time, within budget, safely and without significant stakeholder issues or traffic disruption.

6. The Pāpāmoa East Interchange is on-track for completion in late March.

7. At Tauriko, the SH29 / Kaweroa Drive / Redwood Lane roundabout and Kaweroa Drive connection between SH29 and the Tauriko Business Estate was completed in late 2025, and significant progress has been made at the Tauriko Village and SH29 / Cambridge Road intersection this year, with works on track for completion in 2027.

8. The Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay project is progressing through design development including further assessment of the existing Hairini Bridge to inform structural capacity and design options.

9. Key risks are reflected in project updates with ‘amber’ status. The key current risk for SH29 Tauriko Enabling Works is continuing to manage traffic and disruption through remaining construction, and for Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay the key risk is scope and cost confirmation particularly regarding the Hairini Bridge as the first phase of the design is developed.

Pāpāmoa East Interchange

10. The Pāpāmoa East Interchange is a key roading connection to improve network connectivity for existing residents and also enable ongoing growth and continued residential & commercial development.

11. Construction is progressing well with works currently ahead of programme and costs forecast to be within budget.

12. An overview of the project status is as below:

	Status	Comments
Cost		Original LTP Budget $79.3m. Current estimates are within budget.
Time		Baseline completion mid-2026. Currently ahead of programme, on track for completion in late March / early April 2026.
Safety		Appropriate safety management with regular audits. Over 140,000 worker hours on site to date without any serious harm incidents.
Scope		Project scope confirmed with no substantive changes.
Stakeholders		No current major disruption or complaints. Ongoing traffic management on TEL required to facilitate final bridge works.
Risk		Active management of live risks with contingencies in place. With construction now well progressed the residual risk profile continues to reduce, which has enabled a recent contingency review and release.

13. Works are well advanced on all interchange ramp connections, with the current focus on progressing the overbridge. At the bridge site, abutments are now in place, the overbridge beams have been installed and the bridge deck has been poured.

14. Following early opening in August 2025, the TEL eastbound exit ramp connection to Te Okuroa Drive continues to operate.

15. Through the design development, procurement and delivery phases staff have optimised scope, procured smartly, worked collaboratively with the Contractor to mitigate and avoid realisation of risks and actively monitored residual risk, which has resulted in significant savings and release of budgeted contingency.

16. The overall interchange is programmed for completion and opening in late March / early April 2026. Final completion is subject to progress with final works in completing bridge construction, asphalting, road marking and commissioning.

17. Following project completion and reviews a project close-out report is planned to be provided to the City Delivery Committee in June 2026.

SH29 Tauriko Enabling Works

18. The Tauriko West Enabling Works project supports both residential and industrial growth - it will directly enable initial development of up to 2,400 new homes in the Tauriko West development area and enable ongoing development of over 100 hectares of industrial land in the Tauriko Business Estate, which is anticipated to provide up to 6,000 additional jobs within the city.

19. An overview of the project status is as below:

	Status	Comments
Cost		LTP Budget $240.8m. Current estimates are within budget.
Time		Construction progressing on programme: - Redwood / Kaweroa / SH29 Roundabout – completed in 2025. - Tauriko Village / Cambridge Rd / SH29 - scheduled to be complete in 2027.
Safety		Continuous safe delivery – approx. 350,000 worker hours to date without any serious harm incidents.
Scope		Scope confirmed with no substantive changes.
Stakeholders		Actively working with project neighbours and travelling public, however anticipate ongoing traffic disruption during construction. Temporary SH29 single direction detour required in April (for up to 1 week) to facilitate service installation and SH29 road crossings.. Plans currently being confirmed.
Risk		Active management of live risks and contingencies in place, however this remains a high-risk project with significant residual risks. Managing traffic throughout construction to minimise disruption remains a key challenge and risk.

20. At the Tauriko Village section of the site, the new large retaining walls are now completed, waters infrastructure installation is progressing well and SH29 road widening near Tauriko School is well advanced, preparing for a traffic switch to the new pavement in April.

21. Significant progress was made in January at the SH29 / Cambridge Road intersection during a temporary Cambridge Road lane closure, completing major pavement construction at the intersection.

22. The infrastructure development is well aligned with the recent confirmation of the Tauriko West plan change, with both components working together to enable land development activities to commence. Earthworks are now underway within the Tauriko West development area.

Fifteenth Avenue to WElcome Bay Upgrade

23. This project seeks to address current and growing issues with peak hour congestion, poor level of service, access and safety problems, and walking and cycling deficiencies on the key city arterial transport corridor of Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay including the Hairini Bridge.

24. An overview of the project status is as below:

	Status	Comments
Cost		LTP Budget $170.2m. Current estimates are within budget. NZTA co-funding approved for pre-implementation phase.
Time		Progressing to programme.
Safety		No current issues.
Scope		Some scope elements to be further refined through the pre-implementation phase.
Stakeholders		Extensive further engagement is planned through design phase in advance of construction. Noting plans are currently being refined, it is anticipated further stakeholder communication and engagement will be completed at 30-50% and 85% design stages, which will be indicatively mid and late 2026.
Risk		Some key risks remain which will be further addressed through the pre-implementation phase. It is noted that a key project hold point remains confirmation of the Hairini Bridge structural capacity. Managing traffic through construction to minimise disruption and staging works in alignment with other networks activities is a key challenge and risk. This will be further informed as the construction methodology is developed with the ECI contractor. There may be opportunities to advance some construction enabling works in advance of implementation co-funding approval gateway, however confirming NZTA co-funding for these elements may be a risk.

25. The first phase of design works are underway – with a current key focus on the Hairini Bridge structural elements and confirmation of bridge structural capacity. A detailed update on the bridge is planned to be provided to the City Delivery Committee in June.

26. The overall programme is for designs to be complete and construction to commence from 2027, with construction completion indicatively estimated in early 2029.

27. Coordination of construction methodologies, staging and timing with other key projects affecting arterial roading corridors (particularly the Cameron Road Stage 2 upgrade project) will remain a key focus as designs and programmes develop to ensure overall traffic disruption during construction is minimised as much as possible.

Next Steps

28. A major projects update report will be provided to future City Delivery Committee meetings.

Attachments

Nil

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

10 March 2026

10.7 Resource and Building Consent: 6-monthly update

File Number: A19777807

Author: Alex Miller, Head of Environmental Planning

Steve Pearce, Head of Building Services

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

Purpose of the Report

1. This report provides a regular update on Council’s performance in processing building and resource consents for the period July to December 2025, and expands on efforts to improve delivery of these services

2. This report is provided at the request of the Committee, following the presentation of reports on Council’s performance in building and resource consent processing on 4 June 2025 and on 22 July 2025.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Resource and Building Consent: 6-monthly update".

Executive Summary

3. Council received 1,003 building consent applications in the reporting period (July – December 2025), down from 1,062 and 1,098 in the same period of the previous two years. 932 were granted in the reporting period. Statutory timeframe compliance improved to 94% in the last quarter, up from 83% and 75% in prior years. During the reporting period 8,641 inspections were completed, with 747 Code Compliance Certificates (CCCs) issued—both decreases from previous years. A total of 337 new dwellings were consented, slightly below the forecast, but up compared with last year, largely due to a number of medium density (townhouse) developments in Pāpāmoa and Te Papa.

4. Resource consent volumes showed a very small decline, with 277 received in the reporting period, down from 286 in the same period last year. Timeliness remains strong, with 96% of new decisions and 93% of all consents issued within statutory timeframes. 95% of applications were approved, with 5% returned due to insufficient information. The number of returned applications has decreased from previous years, which may indicate a broader improvement in the quality of applications. 98.5% of decisions have been issued on a non-notified basis, which is consistent with long-term observations

5. Both Building and Planning Activities have active continuous improvement programs in place, which target consistency, efficiency, and customer experience along with issues which arise through regular auditing and review.

6. Similarly, both Activities are currently subject to significant focus from central government, with ongoing updates to regulation, standards, direction, as well as wider legislative reform.

7. Next steps: Staff will provide performance and improvement updates every six months.

BUILDING CONSENTS

8. Council received a total of 1003 applications for Building Consents (including amendments) in the period July-December, which compares with 1062 and 1098 for the same period in the two previous years. We granted 932 applications in that same period compared with 1015 and 1039 in the two previous years.

9. Compliance with statutory timeframes continues to improve. In the first quarter of the financial year, we achieved an average of 90% of applications granted within the statutory timeframes and in the second quarter we achieved an average of 94%. This is compared with an average of 83% and 75% for the last two financial years.

10. We completed 8641 building inspections in the period July – December 2025, which is also down compared with 8885 and 9573 for the same timeframe in the two previous years. The number of granted CCCs follows the same pattern – 747 last year, compared with 871 and 901 in the two previous years. Inspection wait times remain low, generally sitting at 1-2 days, and CCC timeframe compliance remains high at 98% for this period.

11. Council issued building consents for 337 new dwellings and issued CCC for 278 in the period July to December 2025. The forecast demand was 369 for this period. This obviously remains below our forecast demand, however the volume consented is higher than in the same period last year (247). This volume seems to have been influenced by a large number of medium density (townhouse) developments consented in October and November, particularly in the Te Papa and Pāpāmoa wards but also to a lesser extent in Arataki and Otūmoetai.

IANZ Assessment

12. Building Consent Authorities must meet the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006. These include requirements to have and implement a number of systems in place. This includes a quality management system, regular audits of both processes and technical decisions, ongoing training and development, and systems in place to identify and act on improvements from complaints, staff suggestions and any other issues identified, amongst other things.

13. BCAs are regularly audited by MBIE’s appointed assessor, International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) to ensure that they are complying with all of the requirements of the regulations. Tauranga’s BCA was assessed by IANZ in September 2025 over a 5 day period.

14. The audit result was the best result Tauranga has had with only three minor issues identified, and all resolved satisfactorily within the required period. Those issues related to the following:

(a) The recording of appropriate reasons for decision on granting of extensions of time. This was resolved while the assessment team were on site.

(b) The appropriate management of the statutory clock on CCC applications. The assessors identified three CCC applications where the clock hadn’t been managed as per the statutory requirements, although noting that in all of these examples the issue did not impact the compliance with the statutory timeframes. This was resolved by updating some process documentation and additional training.

(c) One of our experienced technical staff had been issued a second 5 year exemption from obtaining a building qualification on the basis of their experience and other qualifications/professional licences, and this was not considered appropriate. This issue has since been resolved.

By comparison in 2023 seven minor issue and one repeat issue were identified, and in the previous assessment in 2021 a total of 16 were identified. The number and scale of the issues identified in this assessment compares very favourably with other BCAs around the country, and places Tauranga City Council amongst the highest performing.

15. When concluding on the compliance and risk category of the BCA the assessment report notes the following.

Consideration, as at the end of the on-site assessment phase of this assessment has determined that the BCA is considered to pose a Low Risk. The main reasons for considering this risk category were:

· Only three general non-compliances were raised, and one of these was resolved during the assessment.

· The BCA had a highly engaged leadership team, who demonstrated a good understanding of accreditation requirements.

· The BCA had a dedicated quality manager that had good oversight of the BCA’s quality processes.

· The BCA had good internal audit and continuous improvement systems in place to identify and manage issues as these arose.

· The BCA was seen to have taken actions to address recommendations made during the previous assessment.

If the BCA is able to demonstrate an equally good or better performance during its next assessment in two years’ time it is likely that the BCA may be categorised as extra low risk at that time.

16. The next audit will be in September 2027, at which time we will be working hard to achieve the “extra low risk” category; to date, only one BCA has ever achieved this result.

Granny Flats / Detached Minor Residential Units (DMRUs)

17. The new Small Standalone Dwelling provisions were finalised and announced on 15 December 2025, effectively providing a pathway for property owners to have a new small dwelling built on their property without obtaining a building consent.

18. Changes to the Building Act were supported by the introduction of a National Standard for Detached Minor Residential Units, to provide an option for these builds to proceed without a resource consent, noting that this largely enables the additional building in a density context, and other city plan provisions continue to apply.

19. Despite a significant amount of communication through conventional and social media platforms, it has not always been clear that there are still a number of steps that must be followed before constructing a granny flat.

20. It should also be noted that development contributions still apply to granny flats built through the PIM / permitted process, and in some cases these can be present a substantial cost.

21. A basic set of plans and other information must be submitted to the Council prior to works commencing. This application is assessed at a high level to confirm that the building is new, standalone, single storey, and (very importantly) unaffected by natural hazards. The detailed design and construction can only be completed by Licensed Building Practitioners and there are a number of criteria that the buildings must meet, but do not form part of the Council’s assessment.

22. Importantly, while the building must comply with the building code, the legislation specifically prevents that council from assessing this. As a result, however, the council is also not liable for any of these non-consented small standalone dwellings.

23. At the time of writing, Council has received three applications. One has been issued, one was rejected for a lack of information, and the other was withdrawn by the applicant partway through the process.

New dwelling numbers in October and November

24. As noted above, the number of new dwellings in October and November was higher than in previous months. This stands out as a possible sign of increasing house supply.

25. An analysis of the new dwellings in these months (shown in the table below) shows that these numbers are driven by medium density residential developments. The projects consented in these two months, are mostly made up of two to three storey and in blocks of two to four dwellings per block. The single storey dwellings tend to be more common in the kaumatua/retirement village developments.

26. The medium density residential development typology has become a much more common consent type in the past few years, and these numbers suggest that this will continue.

Acklam Avenue, Otūmoetai	Construct four three-bedroom and two two-bedroom units across two blocks.
Nga Potiki Lane, Pāpāmoa	Construct 16 single-level two-bedroom dwellings across four blocks
Devonport Road, Tauranga South	Construct two two-storey blocks with a total of 20 one-bedroom dwellings
Manson Street, Gate Pa	Construct two two-storey two-bedroom detached dwellings and one two-storey block with three two-bedroom dwellings and one three bedroom dwelling
Neil Place, Gate Pa	Construct five two-storey two-bedroom dwellings
Constellation Way, Pāpāmoa	Construct four two-storey three-bedroom dwellings
Henderson Crescent, Parkvale	Construct four single-level two-bedroom dwellings across two blocks
Eighteenth Avenue, Tauranga South	Construct nine one bedroom dwellings over three floors.
Grange Road, Otūmoetai	Construct four two-storey two-bedroom dwellings and three two-storey three bedroom dwelling across three blocks.
Briarley Street, Tauranga South	Construct six two-story two-bedroom dwellings and two two-storey three-bedroom dwellings across three blocks.
Grenada Street, Arataki	Construct 15 single level two-bedroom dwellings and two three-bedroom dwellings across seven blocks

rESOURCE cONSENTS

27. Council has received 277 resource consent applications in the reporting period (July-December), which is consistent with the same period in previous years (2024/25: 286, 2023/24: 260). Resource consent applications continue to be highly variable month-by-month.

28. Council has issued decisions for 278 resource consent applications in this period. Compliance with regulatory timeframes remains strong, reflecting an ongoing focus on timeliness and efficiency.

29. Within this reporting period, and consistent with long term trends, the majority (95%) of decisions were to approve the consent. The remaining 5% were returned as a result of insufficient applications, with no refusals issued in this period.

30. Similarly, 98.5% of decisions have been issued on a non-notified basis, which is consistent with long term observations.

31. This committee has previously requested an update on the number of applications relating to developments on land classified as Maori Owned, which is provided below.

Notable applications:

32. Council has received and processed (or is processing) applications in relation to a number of significant developments across the city, including:

(a) Classic Developments Ltd / Tauriko West: Subdivision and land use consent to enable 360 lots. At the time or writing, a decision for this application is imminent, pending agreement on consent conditions.

(b) Venture Projects Smiths Ltd / Smiths Farm, Bethlehem: A subdivision and land use consent to enable a 364 lot development in Tauriko. This application is being processed externally, given Council’s involvement as the previous land owner.

(c) Camdon Investments Ltd / Durham St: An application for student accommodation for the University of Waikato, housing up to 72 students in the city centre (pictured right)

(d) EL Properties Ltd / Kaweroa Drive, Tauriko: An application to establish accommodation facilities for up to 180 seasonal workers within the Tauriko Industrial Zone.

Notification in relation to housing density

33. In December 2025, several members of the development/applicant community raised concerns about Council’s approach to notification decisions, specifically in relation to housing developments involving four or more dwellings. It was suggested that there had been a significant increase in applications being notified. A review of recent applications confirmed that there had been no substantial increase in applications being notified.

34. Council met with those members of the development community in order to better understand their experiences.

35. Based on concerns raised in these discussions, Council has reviewed and refined it’s approach to notification decisions for these applications, in order to ensure that it was implementing plan change 33 appropriately, and in line with the intent of the MDRS.

36. As a result of this engagement, a regular forum has been established between Council planning staff and a group of local consultants active in housing applications, in order to highlight issues and work through them in a constructive and collaborative way.

National Direction and Legislative Reforms

37. In late December 2025, a suite of updated national directions were approved, in the form of three new instruments and amendments for seven existing instruments. These changes came into effect from 15 January 2026. Of particular relevance:

(a) The National Policy Statement for Natural Harzards (NPS-NH): this requires Council’s to identify, assess and manage natural hazards through planning decisions, introducing a new framework for risk assessment and a requirement to utilise the “best available” information.

(b) National Environmental Standards for Detached Minor Residential Units (NES-DMRU): This NES is complimentary to the building act reforms for granny flats, and provides a pathway for these builds to proceed as a permitted activity subject to conditions being met.

(c) Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL): Amendments include a pathway to enable development of LUC3 land, which had previously been restricted. Note that these updated provisions favour density, rather than large lot/lifestyle development, which provides a natural limitation on it’s applicability.

38. In late 2026, the RM reform programme progressed with the introduction of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill as replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act. Submissions on these bills closed on 13 February 2026, with a Select Committee process to follow and an expectation that new legislation will be passed into law late 2026.

39. Staff are working with colleagues from both the Western Bay subregion (BOPRC and WBOPDC) and large metro Councils from across the country to identify opportunities for collaboration, and development of consistent approaches to implementation.

Statutory Context

40. Building Consents and Resource Consents are both regulatory functions with set processes, which are set out in their respective legislation.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

41. 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 that is easy to move around	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	ü
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	☐

Financial Considerations

42. There are no financial considerations or impacts as a result of this paper.

Legal Implications / Risks

43. There are no legal implications or risks as a result of this paper.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

44. The RMA requires consideration of cultural effects, and in many cases this will require applicants to consult with relevant iwi and hapu.

45. Staff and applicants are guided by Council’s ‘Consultation with Tangata Whenua on Resource Consent Applications Policy’.

Significance

46. 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.

47. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

50. Staff will continue to provide regular updates on consent processing performance and ongoing improvement on a six-monthly basis.

Attachments

Nil

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

10 March 2026

10.8 Rapidly Deployable Project Endorsement

File Number: A19765679

Author: Karen Hay, Team Leader: Engineering Services

Mike Seabourne, Head of Transport

Authoriser: Reneke van Soest, General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. This report seeks a decision to progress the next tranche of rapidly deployable projects, using budget savings.

2. Responds to council action request that staff provide a regular report on which transport projects might be uplifted for additional savings.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Rapidly Deployable Project Endorsement ".

(b) Endorses delivery of the next tranche of rapidly deployable projects, outlined in Figure 1 of this report, with a total value of $753K. These include:

(i) Tweed Street zebra crossings, which are scheduled for delivery over two financial years.

(ii) The Vale Street project to progress through the design phase to position it for consultation and potential delivery in FY27, pending funding approval.

(iii) The Monawai Street zebra crossing and the Joyce Road footpath, which are targeted for completion within this financial year.

(iv) Close‑out of residual works from the previous LCLR programme, including the Maranui Street and Palm Springs Boulevard/Papamoa Beach Road pedestrian crossings.

Executive Summary

3. Transport is essential to how people move around Tauranga. Whether planning new projects or maintaining current infrastructure, the primary goal is to enable safe and efficient travel for everyone, regardless of their chosen mode of transport.

4. On 10 February 2026, Council resolved that an estimated $735K saving be re‑prioritised to deliver rapidly deployable projects, consistent with the approved prioritisation framework.

5. Projects are ranked using the Council‑approved weighting model (safety exposure, active road user demand, community risk, and ease of delivery). Staff will undertake targeted engagement before construction.

6. Council has approved funding for the FY26 Rapidly Deployable Programme totalling $1.271 million ($536k and $735k respectively) across 10 projects. Approval is now sought to progress the second tranche of projects, including an $18k increase from $735k to $753k. The increase in cost relate to expenses incurred from remaining low-cost, low-risk projects that began in FY25.

7. Estimates are based on historical contractor rates. Value for money is further explored during detailed design and tender evaluations. Costs stay within the approved budget, with no impact on current or future budgets or rates.

8. The risk assessment determined that most projects carry minimal risk, making them suitable for rapid deployment. However, challenges such as parking loss and delays in power connections have been identified, resulting in extended timelines for certain projects until fiscal year 2027.

9. Alternatively, Council may opt to retain these savings for this financial year, in which case the identified projects would be prioritised for delivery within the prioritised programme as funding becomes available in future periods.

10. Staff remain committed to implementing value for money initiatives. Where feasible, design work has been completed internally, while consultants have been engaged selectively for specialist or independent assessments. This strategy has resulted in approximately $85,000 in savings across five projects, and has contributed to the enhancement of internal capability, accumulation of institutional knowledge, and staff development.

Background

11. At its meeting on 10 February, the Council considered the Miro Street report and resolved (CO/26/2/1) that the estimated saving of $735,000, is re-prioritised to deliver rapidly deployable projects, in accordance with City Delivery Committee Resolution CDC/25/0/7 (recommendation (e) of the report “Transport Minor Safety and Accessibility Prioritisation and Programme Status” from 15 December 2025).

12. During the City Delivery meeting held on 15th December, the prioritisation matrix and corresponding weightings for ranking small-scale projects within the bulk fund were also approved. These include:

(a) Safety exposure – 45%

(b) Active road user demand – 35%

(d) Ease of delivery – 10%

13. The following projects were approved for rapid deployment with a total value of $538K Including Grenada Street crossing, which is already committed though previous Council resolution (CDC/25/6/9).

(a) James Cook Drive (near Victory St) refuge island

(b) Enforcement CCTV cameras at multiple high risk school locations

(d) Bethlehem College zebra crossing on Elder Lane at the intersection of Moffat Road.

Statutory Context

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

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

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

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

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

15. 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 that is easy to move around	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	ü
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	ü

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

17. Safe and accessible crossings help everyone in the community travel around the city easily, regardless of age or ability.

Options Analysis

18. Given the previously approved Rapidly Deployable projects prioritisation matrices and projects tabled, the next tranche of projects is proposed for deployment.

19. Designing and delivering all projects at once increases costs and places pressure on available resources and market capacity – that demand increases cost.

20. A staggered approach enables a steady, manageable flow of work through the supply chain, managing our resources, helping maintain quality and affordability - creates cadence and predictability.

21. An overview of the process for the rapid deployment of projects is outlined in Figure1 below.

Figure 1: Overview of rapid deployment of projects

22. Some projects may progress ahead of other projects in the prioritised programme, as these are considered low risk or designs have advanced to stage that makes them suitable for rapid deployment.

23. To maintain delivery momentum, the next tranche of projects will proceed through design and, where feasible, either commence or complete construction within the current financial year. Targeted community consultation will be undertaken where required and may extend delivery timeframes for some projects.

24. Completing the design phase within one financial year and commencing construction in the subsequent year maintains project momentum and ensures preparedness for delivery as soon as funding and approvals are secured.

25. Alternatively, Council may choose to retain the savings for other Council priorities.

Financial Considerations

26. The FY26 Rapidly Deployable Programme has a total approved budget of $1.271 million, funded through realised savings, and supports the delivery of 10 high‑community‑value projects.

27. Of the total budget, $536k and a further $735k were approved through earlier Council resolutions. The estimated cost of the next tranche of projects is $753k, representing an $18k increase on the previously approved allocation

28. Figure 2 shows the tranche two projects. Further details of current and proposed rapid deployment projects in the short term are outlined in Attachment 1.

Project Name	Spend FY26	Spend FY27	Total Cost
Tweed Street zebra crossing (near #109)	$ 83,178	$ 61,822	$ 145,000
Tweed Street zebra crossing (between Orkney and Campbell)	$ 83,178	$ 61,822	$ 145,000
Vale Street shared path between Landscape Rd and Bureta Rd	$ 55,788	$ 441,212	$ 497,000
Monowai St zebra crossing - at Grenada St	$ 170,000	$ -	$ 170,000
Joyce Road footpath between Hanlow Place and St Thomas Ave	$ 92,633	$ 4,447	$ 97,080
N.000046.36 Safe Network Programme	$ 268,226
Total Tranche 2	$ 753,003	$ 569,303	$ 1,054,080

Figure 2: Proposed uplifted projects for next tranche of rapidly deployable projects

29. $268,226 is required under the Safe Network Programme to close out residual works from the previous LCLR programme, including (but not limited to) the Maranui Street crossing and safety improvements on Papamoa Beach Road near Palm Springs.

30. The ongoing annual operating costs for all projects amount to 3% of their value. If maximum savings are achieved, the net additional operating cost will be $22.6K per year starting in FY27. This proposal remains cost neutral because both the implementation of replacement budgets and the net operating cost have already been accounted for in the budget.

Value for Money

31. Staff continue to work to progress value for money initiatives. The Transport Engineering Services Team and Transport Project Delivery team have worked together to steadily develop the expertise and depth of talent within their respective areas.

32. The result has seen an increasing portion of the projects of varying sizes and complexity been delivered by our skilled, inhouse, transport designers and project managers. Consultants are still used - for instance, where independent and/or external reviews are required, for specialised design works, and for the purposes of developing and training the inhouse team. This deliberate engagement and delivery approach generates cost savings and an increase in staff development opportunities.

33. Impact:

(a) Approximately $85k saved - so far - across five projects

(b) Staff apply their training and technical expertise and continue to build up knowledge and experience along the way, leading to stretch opportunities and greater job satisfaction

Legal Implications / Risks

34. The key risk to the programme are:

(a) Projects are initiated and assessed to confirm feasibility. While some would be approved for delivery through annual plan processes, public consultation may not yet have taken place. Balancing safety outcomes with parking availability during consultation can be challenging. These discussions may lead to delays and in some cases, projects are placed on hold. Early engagement is critical to minimise these risks.

(b) Meeting community expectations around project delivery can be challenging, particularly when some initiatives take several years to implement. While funding constraints are a key factor, having a fair and consistent process for evaluating projects helps support clear communication about delivery timeframes and priorities

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

35. Minor projects such as pedestrian crossings support the principles as outlined in the Te Ao Māori approach, including Manaakitanga, meaning care and safety of our people.

36. All projects are shared with hapū as part of our regular engagement and consultation process to enable feedback and due consideration.

CLIMATE IMPACT

37. These projects support the Climate Investment and Action Plan as it supports walking, biking and micro-mobility transport modes and improves access to public transport.

Consultation / Engagement

38. Targeted engagement with directly affected parties will be carried out early in the process, as some initial consultation occurred some time ago. This engagement will take place before the projects move into implementation to ensure any views are considered.

Significance

39. 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.

40. 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 .

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

43. However, targeted community engagement will be undertaken to ensure any views are taken into account, prior to delivery of the project.

Next Steps

44. Continue with delivery of the rapidly deployable projects.

45. Provide a further update on progress to the City Delivery Committee June meeting.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Approved and Proposed Rapidly Deployable Projects FY26/27 - A19773756 ⇩

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

10 March 2026

10.9 Hairini Slip Lane Trial - Update

File Number: A19711866

Author: Kurt Graham, Project Manager

Authoriser: Reneke van Soest, General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide the City Delivery Committee with an update on the Hairini Slip Lane Trial and to seek approval to extend the trial until construction of the Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay Upgrade commences.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Hairini Slip Lane Trial - Update".

(b) Approves extending the current trial until construction of the Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay Upgrade commences.

Executive Summary

2. Following longstanding requests from Ngāi te Ahi Hapū and Hairini residents, the Hairini Slip Lane was reopened to traffic outside of the morning peak on a trial basis beginning 20 October 2025. The trial was endorsed following a report to the City Deliver Committee Meeting on 22 July 2025 (attachment 1). The objective of the trial was to assess whether controlled reopening could improve access for the local community without compromising safety, public transport efficiency, or wider network performance.

3. Engagement prior to the trial indicated strong local support, with 80% of surveyed Hairini residents in favour. Feedback received approximately two months into the trial has been overwhelmingly positive, with all but one respondent supporting continuation. Ngāi te Ahi Hapū have also expressed satisfaction with the operational outcomes and support an extension.

4. Monitoring to date has shown only minimal increases in vehicle speeds and traffic volumes, with no operational or safety concerns identified. Observations and feedback indicate that time restrictions outside the morning peak are effectively discouraging use of the residential network as a through‑route.

5. Given the positive community feedback, the safe operation of the slip lane during the trial period, and the upcoming Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay Upgrade works—which will alter traffic movements in the area—it is recommended that the trial be extended until construction of those works commences. This approach avoids premature permanent changes while ensuring the community continues to benefit from improved access.

6. No further physical works are required at this time. An independent Safe System Audit will be undertaken (estimated cost $5,000) to ensure continued safe operation for the extended period; this is funded within the existing project budget under the annual plan.

Background

7. For the purposes of this report, the area referred to as “Hairini” is that which is bordered by Turret Road, State Highway 29 and the Waimapu Estuary. (Refer figure 1).

8. The land upon which the Hairini Slip Lane was constructed was originally acquired under the Public Works Act for the purpose of creating the slip lane for egress out of Hairini. However, following completion of the Welcome Bay Underpass the slip lane was subsequently closed to general traffic and reserved for bus use only. This decision was based on safety concerns of the three-lane merge as well as operational efficiency.

9. Ngāi te Ahi Hapū and a number of local residents opposed the full‑time closure. The matter was raised at the April 2024 TW/TCC Committee meeting at Hairini Marae, where Ngāi te Ahi proposed limited‑hours reopening. At the June 2024 TW/TCC Committee meeting at Waikari Marae, Commissioners committed to investigating a trial reopening.

10. Staff subsequently prepared an initial design and began further engagement with the Hapū, including holding meetings with the Hapū representatives and two engagement sessions at Hairini Marae.

11. Staff also worked with Hapū to develop options and a Communications and Engagement Plan for the residents of Hairini. This targeted engagement included developing a survey to understand the thoughts and wishes of Hairini residents.

12. The survey focussed on Hairini only, as they were identified as the community that would be adversely impacted the most by the trial. A letter with the survey link was sent to all residents in Hairini, including property owners and businesses.

13. In total 92 responses were received:

(i) 80% were in support or strongly in support of a trial

(ii) 20% were against or strongly against the trial

14. At City Delivery Committee meeting on 22 July 2025 the committee resolved to undertake a 3-month trial.

15. The trial commenced on 20 October 2025 and was initially scheduled to conclude on 20 January 2026.

16. In December 2025 (approximately two months into the trial) a follow-up email to respondents of the initial survey sought feedback on the trial to date. 41 responses were received and all but 1 was positive and expressed a desire to see the trial extended. The resident in opposition who lives on Hairini Street, is concerned with the additional traffic and feels that vehicles continue to speed through the area, creating ongoing safety concerns. They are also concerned that as more members of the public become aware of the opening and begin using this route, these issues are likely to worsen.

17. Ngāi te Ahi Hapū who have worked closely with TCC throughout this project, have expressed their satisfaction with the outcome and wish to see the trial extended.

18. Monitoring throughout the trial period from a radar camera between Haukore Street and Tamahika Street indicated:

13. Speeds: minimal increase in average daily operating speeds (approximately 37 km/h → 40 km/h. While daily maximum speeds remained between 56 and 60 km/h.)

14. Volumes: The volume of traffic passing the monitoring location (between Haukore Street and Tamahika Street) has increased by approximately 300 vehicles per day since the trial started. The bus lane has also seen volumes increase to 250-300 vehicles per day. The monitoring shows approximately 130 of these additional movements are generated by vehicles turning towards the bus lane from Wickham Place and Haukore Street. Approximately 40 vehicles per day from Tamahika Street and Hairini Street north of the camera are also using the slip lane. Site observations also show a number of vehicles turning towards the slip lane from Stephens Place, which the camera is unable to observe and count. This suggests that external through‑traffic is minimal — estimated in the order of 100 vehicles per day.

15. Behavioural outcome: observations indicate time restrictions are deterring through‑traffic (“rat‑running”) and no adverse operational issues have been observed or reported to date. The only safety concern noted to date was from the resident in opposition, who is concerned with the additional traffic and feels that vehicles continue to speed through the area, creating ongoing safety concerns. They are also concerned that as more members of the public become aware of the opening and begin using this route, these issues are likely to worsen

Statutory Context

19. The Hairini Slip Lane is designated in Council’s Traffic & Parking Bylaw as a Bus Lane at all times.

20. Consistent with the initial trial, it is not proposed to amend the Bylaw for the extension. Instead, Council will continue the trial on a discretionary non‑enforcement basis outside weekday morning peak hours (6:30–9:30am), with the bus lane remaining enforceable during morning peak. Clear signage and communications will continue to mitigate user confusion.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

21. 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	☐
We are a well-planned city that is easy to move around	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	☐
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	☐

22. Allowing time‑restricted access improves local egress from Hairini at appropriate times of the day while maintaining morning‑peak bus priority.

23. During off‑peak periods, Welcome Bay Road / Turret Road traffic generally flows well and the bus lane is used infrequently (approximately one bus every 20 minutes), indicating under‑utilisation in those periods. Opening the slip lane outside morning peak supports better utilisation of existing infrastructure and may slightly reduce demand at the SH29 roundabouts.

Options Analysis

24. Three options were considered:

i. Option 1: Extend the trial until commencement of the Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay Upgrade physical works (Recommended)

Rationale: Strong community support; positive monitoring results; minimal operational/safety impacts; pending network changes from the Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay Upgrade works mean a temporary approach is prudent.

How it would work: Continue the current time restricted access and monitoring regime; complete an independent Safe System Audit; report back prior to construction commencing.

Key risks & mitigations:

· Legal/Bylaw perception risk: Continue clear communications and signage; ensure bus lane enforcement remains during morning peak.

· Public expectation risk: Emphasise that the extension is temporary and will be reviewed after the Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay Upgrade works.

(i) Safety risk: Address through ongoing monitoring and the Safe System Audit; set early termination triggers if adverse trends occur.

Indicative triggers for review/termination of the trial:

· Statistically significant increases in crashes or near‑misses;

· Observations of increased risk such as significant increases in vehicle speeds or volumes;

· Adverse impacts on bus operations during permitted hours.

ii. Option 2: End the trial and revert to bus only access (not recommended)

Rationale: Contradicts strong local support and positive trial feedback; reduces local accessibility benefits; foregoes learnings ahead of Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay Upgrade works.

When appropriate: If monitoring or the audit identifies a material safety or operational concern.

iii. Option 3: Target resident only access to the slip lane (not recommended)

As per item C) of resolution CDC/25/4/3 from 22 July 2025, staff have investigated options for creating resident only access through the slip lane.

Legal position (summary): Legal advice stated that Section 22AB(1) of the Land Transport Act sets out the matters that a Council can make a bylaw on. There is a catch-all power in sub-paragraph (zk) as follows:

“regulating any road-related matters not addressed by paragraphs (a) to (zj), including (but not limited to) enhancing or promoting road safety or providing protection for the environment”.

This clause provides a general bylaw‑making power that could, in principle, enable a bespoke restriction allowing public transport and residents while excluding the wider public. However, the legal advice also noted that there would still be a need to show that this restriction is reasonable in the circumstances and there is a good chance that any Court (were such a bylaw ever challenged) would carefully scrutinise whether any limits on the public use of a road was reasonable. That is, the public’s use of a road is often seen as an important right.

Conclusion: not recommended at this time, as the current trial has been operating successfully. Therefore, attempting to create resident only use of the bus lane would expose Council to unnecessary legal risk. Additional legal costs for further input into the bylaw would also be expected, and the consultation and implementation of the bylaw would also take considerable time and effort.

Financial Considerations

25. No further works are expected. An independent post construction Safe System Audit will be completed at an estimated cost of $5,000 given this will be in place longer term than originally planned. This can be met from existing budgets under the current Annual Plan. Ongoing monitoring will be covered within business‑as‑usual staff resources.

Legal Implications / Risks

26. It is proposed to continue operating on a discretionary basis, whereby Council choose not to enforce the bus lane Bylaw outside of the morning peak, rather than changing the existing bylaw.

27. Legal and reputational risks are mitigated by:

(i) Maintaining clear signage and communications;

(ii) Ensuring enforcement during morning peak;

(iii) Explicitly signalling the temporary nature of the extension pending the Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay Upgrade;

(iv) Completing an independent Safe System Audit and continuing monitoring;

(v) Clear triggers for review or early termination (see Option 1).

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

28. The extension of the trial is expected to continue the benefits noted under this section in the initial report to the City Delivery Committee on 22 July 2025.

29. The trial has been undertaken in partnership with Ngāi te Ahi Hapū, with hui and targeted engagement shaping the approach and time restrictions. Extending the trial is expected to continue the positive outcomes identified in the initial report to the City Delivery Committee on 22 July 2025. Hapū have expressed support for the extension.

CLIMATE IMPACT

30. The extension of the trial is not expected to have any negative environmental impacts. The trial enables residents to minimise travel distances to the Turret Rd Bridge.

Consultation / Engagement

31. Extensive consultation was undertaken in the leadup to the initial trial as noted in the Report dated 22 July 2025. In December 2025 approximately two months after the trial was implemented an email was sent to all respondents of the initial survey, requesting feedback on the trial to date. Ngāi Te Ahi Hapū were also asked to provide feedback. The majority of feedback was very positive with all except one respondent expressing desire for the trial to be extended.

Significance

32. 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.

33. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

36. If the trial is extended an independent Safe System Audit will be undertaken. Monitoring will continue with use of existing cameras.

Attachments

1. City Delivery Committee 2025-07-22 13794 Report - 9.2 Hairini Slip Lane Trial - Survey Results and Recommendations.DOCX - A18390246 ⇩

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

10 March 2026

10.10 Six-Monthly Non-Financial Performance Report 2025/26

File Number: A19421641

Author: Rachel Burt, Corporate Planner

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

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide information on Council’s non-financial performance for the first six months of 2025/26.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Six-Monthly Non-Financial Performance Report 2025/26 ".

Executive Summary

2. This report, together with the material in Attachment One, provides an overview of Council's progress towards meeting the non-financial performance measures and achieving the levels of service set in the Long-term Plan 2024-34.

3. Across the 82 non‑financial performance measures set for the 2025/26 year, 54 measures (66%) are currently on track. A further 3 measures (4%) are tracking within 5 percent of their targets. Eighteen measures (22%) are off track at this point in the year, and data for 7 measures (9%) is not yet available.

4. Performance measures are reported against the five community outcomes adopted in the LTP 2024–2034. Reporting for the 2025/26 financial year remains aligned with this existing framework and does not include the two new community outcomes adopted at the 18 November 2025 Council meeting. Measures aligned to these new outcomes will be incorporated into reporting from the 2026/27 financial year.

Background

5. The Long-term Plan (LTP) sets out the levels of service that Council commits to delivering, as determined through consultation with the community.

6. The Local Government Act 2002 requires local authorities to report on how well they are performing in delivering these agreed levels of service to their communities as measured by non-financial performance measures.

7. The 2024-34 Long-term Plan includes 82 performance measures, 23 of which are mandatory measures prescribed under section 261B of the Local Government Act 2002.

Discussion

8. The following charts provide an overview of the 82 non-financial performance measures by overall performance and by outcome.

9. Where data is not currently available, the majority of these relate to measures which are only surveyed or calculated at one point through the year. Comments within the report indicate why and when results will become available.

10. The 3 measures that are off track but within 5% of their target are detailed below:

#	Outcome	Performance Measure	Target	Result YTD
SSP13	An inclusive city – Tauranga Mataraunui	Percentage of known dogs that are registered	95%	92%
SSP36	A well-planned city – Tauranga - Tātai Whenua	Percentage of building consent applications approved within statutory timeframes	95%	92%
SSP58	A city we can move around easily – Tauranga Ara Rau	Average quality of ride of the sealed road network as measured by Smooth Travel Exposure e.g. percentage of smooth travel exposure	92%	91%

11. The 18 measures that are off track are within the following outcomes:

#	Outcome	Measure	Target	Result YTD
SSP03	An inclusive city – Tauranga Mataraunui	Number of stakeholder interactions with community organisations	1150	527
SSP08	An inclusive city – Tauranga Mataraunui	Percentage of residents satisfied with the range and frequency of event experiences in Tauranga	75%	50%
SSP09	An inclusive city – Tauranga Mataraunui	Percentage of residents satisfied with the accessibility and quality of Tauranga’s arts, cultural, and events spaces.	75%	54%
SSP10	An inclusive city – Tauranga Mataraunui	Percentage of households that are within 500m of a neighbourhood area open space	95%	87%
SSP12	An inclusive city – Tauranga Mataraunui	Percentage of animal complaints involving a rush or attack on a person contacted within 60 minutes where there is an ongoing risk to safety	95%	88%
SSP18	A city that values, protects and enhances our environment – Tauranga Taurikura	Percentage of vegetation canopy cover in Tauranga	≥22%	16%
SSP30	A well-planned city – Tauranga - Tātai Whenua	There will be sufficient residential zoned land provided with development capacity for at least: 1) 3 years 2) 10 years 3) 30 years	Not achieved *	Not achieved
SSP31	A well-planned city – Tauranga - Tātai Whenua	There will be sufficient business zoned land provided with development capacity for at least: 1) 3 years 2) 10 years 3) 30 years	Achieved	Not achieved
SSP32	A well-planned city – Tauranga - Tātai Whenua	Percentage of residents satisfied with the city centre as the commercial and cultural heart of Tauranga	50%	22%
SSP34	A well-planned city – Tauranga - Tātai Whenua	The number of new civic buildings delivered with a minimum Green Star rating of 5 stars	1	0
SSP46	A well-planned city – Tauranga - Tātai Whenua	The percentage of residents who are aware of ways they can conserve water and have taken steps to do so	85%	78%
SSP56	A city we can move around easily – Tauranga Ara Rau	Duration of peak across the transport network (where traffic is travelling at 50% of free flow speed of 59k/hr)	330	393
SSP57	A city we can move around easily – Tauranga Ara Rau	Travel times are reliable during peak hours (95% of trips should occur within +/- 25% of the average duration)	A variation of no more than 25%	38%
SSP64	A city we can move around easily – Tauranga Ara Rau	The proportion of people who journey to work by active modes (walking/jogging/cycling)	7%	5%
SSP65	A city we can move around easily – Tauranga Ara Rau	The proportion of people who journey to work by public transport	3%	2%
SSP66	A city we can move around easily – Tauranga Ara Rau	Average weekday city centre on-street and off-street parking occupancy rate	75%	71%
SSP70	A city that supports business and education – Tauranga a te kura	Domestic and international tourism spending in the city	Increasing (>-2.2%)	-5.8%
SSP79	Organisational Capability	Percentage of residents who are satisfied or neutral that the Council makes decisions in the best interests of the city	Increasing (≥55%)	52%

Financial Considerations

12. There are no financial considerations in relation to this report as it is a monitoring report.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

13. The residents’ perception survey referenced in this report is drawn from a demographically representative sample of the area. This includes Māori and reflects the area’s demographic profile across ethnicity, age, gender, geographic distribution and socio-economic status.

Legal Implications / Risks

14. Risks are elevated for those measures tracking below target as this is the midpoint mark for the reporting year. Corrective action will need to be accelerated to turn around off track measures.

Statutory Context

15. Monitoring non-financial performance is a key function of the committee.

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 that is easy to move around	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	ü
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	ü

17. This report is reporting on the six-month performance measures by community outcome.

Options Analysis

18. There are no options associated with this report. The report is provided as information only.

Significance

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the matter is of low significance. The report is for monitoring purposes and there are no decisions to be made.

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

23. This report ensures monitoring of Council non-financial performance. The non-financial monitoring report summary will be presented on the Council website.

Attachments

1. Six Monthly Non-Financial Performance Report 2025-26 - A19767058 (Separate Attachments 1)

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

10 March 2026

10.11 Annual Residents Survey 2025/26 - Wave Two Results

File Number: A19485142

Author: Rachel Burt, Corporate Planner

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

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the results from the Annual Residents Survey for the second quarter of 2025/26 (Wave Two).

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Annual Residents Survey 2025/26 - Wave Two Results".

Executive Summary

2. The Annual Residents Survey is conducted in four waves each year to capture community perceptions of council services and initiatives. This report presents the Wave Two results for 2025/26.

3. Wave 2 results show encouraging improvement across most service areas, while reputation and affordability remain areas of concern.

4. Overall performance has lifted to 47% (net score +20), and reputation has improved to 29% (net –21), still below neutral but trending upward.

5. Perceptions of value for money have edged up to 31% (net –10), suggesting growing confidence in council services.

6. Core services continue to strengthen, with roads and footpaths showing the largest gain at +10.2% year-on-year, and high-performing areas such as waste management (78%) and outdoor spaces (80%) maintaining strong results.

7. Affordability measures, while still challenging, show modest improvement: rates (25%), rent (21%), and cost of living (21%).

8. Community feedback highlights priorities around homelessness and housing, transport and congestion, affordability, and safety in public spaces, alongside praise for libraries, parks, and facilities.

9. Overall trend: the city is showing solid progress in core services and infrastructure, supported by improving perceptions of value and reputation. While affordability and reputation remain below neutral, the upward trend provides a strong foundation for continued improvement.

ANNUAL RESIDENTS SURVEY

10. The Annual Residents Survey forms part of a wider set of information we have around engagement with the Tauranga community and their wants, needs and perceptions of council and of Tauranga as a place to live.

11. Survey results help council staff assess the performance of council against a set of pre-determined actions and performance levels, including those outlined in the 2024-34 Long-term Plan.

12. Using a post-to-online method, surveys have been undertaken with Tauranga residents during this second wave. An invitation letter, containing an embedded link to an online survey, was sent to a random selection of residents, sourced from the Electoral Roll, with a subsequent reminder follow up.

13. Wave Two fieldwork was conducted from 3 November 2025 – 19 December 2025. The number of participants in Wave Two was 155.

14. A summary of the high-level survey results for 2025/26 year-to-date (YTD) compared to the full year 2024/25 and their trends is shown in the table below:

Measure	2024/2025 Result	Nett Score 2024/25	2025/2026 YTD Result	Nett Score 2025/26 YTD Result	Change from Previous Year (%)
Overall performance	44%	18%	47%	20%	6.8% 5
Overall reputation	26%	-23%	29%	-21%	11.5% 5
Overall value for money	30%	-16%	31%	-10%	3.3% 5
Overall core service deliverables	62%	49%	64%	52%	3.2% 5
Overall water management	59%	40%	59%	48%	0% =
Overall roads and footpaths	49%	28%	54%	32%	10.2% 5
Overall waste management	76%	68%	78%	73%	2.6% 5
Overall outdoor spaces	76%	69%	80%	74%	5.3% 5
Overall public facilities	71%	64%	72%	72%	1.4% 5

15. Perceptions of Council performance and services show broad-based improvement in the 2025/26 year-to-date results:

· Overall performance rose to 47%, with the net score increasing from +18 to +20, while reputation improved to 29% (net -23 → -21), remaining below neutral but trending upward.

· Value for money edged up to 31%, supported by a notable net improvement from -16 to -10, signalling easing concerns.

· Core operational measures strengthened, with overall core service delivery rising to 64% (net +49 → +52), water management holding steady at 59% but lifting its net score from +40 to +48, and roads and footpaths recording the largest gain at 54% (net +28 → +32; +10.2% year-on-year). High-performing areas continued to improve, with waste management increasing to 78% (net +68 → +73), outdoor spaces rising to 80% (net +69 → +74; +5.3%), and public facilities improving to 72% (net +64 → +72).

· Overall, the YTD results indicate steady gains across most dimensions—particularly in infrastructure services—while reputation and value for money, though improving, remain priority areas given their still negative net scores.

16. Verbatim comments from the second wave reflects a broad range of community priorities across Tauranga.

· Many comments highlighted the growing visibility of homelessness, particularly in the city centre, and linked this to housing shortages, high living costs, and limited social support.

· Affordability was a recurring concern, with residents calling for better management of rates and fees.

· Transport and roading issues were frequently raised, including congestion, poor road conditions, and parking challenges.

· While libraries, parks, pools, and other facilities were generally praised, respondents suggested upgrades and improved access. Water management also featured, with comments on stormwater, flooding, and drinking water quality.

· Safety in public spaces was a common theme, with calls for better lighting, CCTV, and community policing.

· Waste management and sustainability attracted attention, with suggestions for improved rubbish collection and stronger environmental initiatives.

· Tourism feedback focused on Tauranga’s beaches and natural attractions but noted limited activities and high costs.

· Across all topics, residents emphasised the need for clearer communication and transparency from Council, alongside practical investment in core infrastructure and services to support growth.

17. Further information on each of the overall sections and the measures within, along with a summary of the verbatim comments, are included in the report as Attachment 1.

RATES, RENT, AND LIVING AFFORABILITY

18. On 9 December 2024, Council resolved to add additional questions on household rates affordability, rental affordability, and the cost of living in Tauranga to the Annual Residents Survey. These have been included since Wave 3 2024/25.

19. Across all three measures, perceptions of affordability have improved year-on-year, though overall sentiment remains negative. The proportion of residents who consider rates affordable increased from 21% (n=207) in 2024/25 (W3–W4) to 25% (n=241) year-to-date in 2025/26—a 19% uplift. However, the nett score eased slightly from -30 to -31, showing that rates are still viewed as unaffordable by most respondents.

20. Rent affordability rose from 18% (n=39) to 21% (n=40) (+16.7%), with a notable improvement in the nett score from -43 to -36. This result should be interpreted cautiously due to the small renter sample.

21. Perceived cost-of-living affordability improved from 17% (n=265) to 21% (n=308) (+23.5%), alongside a nett score shift from -44 to -36.

22. Overall, these year-to-date results suggest modest easing in affordability pressures. However, persistently negative nett scores highlight ongoing strain on households and the need for continued measures to support affordability.

Measure	2024/2025 Result (W3 & W4)	Nett Score 2024/25	2025/2026 Result YTD	Nett Score 2025/26 YTD Result	Change vs Last Year (% and Trend)
Rates in Tauranga are affordable for my household	21% (n=207)	-30%	25% (n=241)	-31%	19.0% 5
Rent in Tauranga is affordable for my household	18% (n=39)	-43%	21% (n=40)	-36%	16.7% 5
The cost of living in Tauranga is affordable for my household	17% (n=265)	-44%	21% (n=308)	-36%	23.5% 5

Table 1: Additional questions on household rates

COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS YEARS

23. To provide the Council with a performance comparison against the last two full-term elected Councils, a summary of the high-level survey results for the 2025/26 is presented in the table below. This responds to an elected member request from a previous committee meeting. Also for comparative purposes is a comparison of the average result from 2015/16 to 2018/19 and how the current results compare are outlined below.

	13/14 Result	14/15 Result	15/16 Result	16/17 Result	17/18 Result	18/19 Result	Avg 15/16-18/19	25/26 YTD Result	Change (% and Trend)
Overall performance	65%	67%	75%	74%	73%	66%	72%	47%	-34.7% 6
Overall reputation	-	-	55%	51%	53%	44%	51%	29%	-43.1% 6
Overall value for money	-	-	59%	57%	58%	48%	56%	31%	-44.6% 6
Overall core services deliverables	-	-	79%	79%	73%	71%	76%	64%	-15.8% 6
Overall water management	-	-	65%	68%	67%	64%	66%	59%	-10.6% 6
Overall road and footpaths	-	-	76%	68%	63%	56%	66%	54%	-18.2% 6
Overall waste management	-	-	75%	75%	61%	66%	69%	78%	+13.0% 5
Overall outdoor spaces	-	-	83%	86%	82%	81%	83%	80%	-3.6% 6
Overall public facilities	-	-	76%	79%	78%	73%	77%	72%	-6.5% 6

Table 2: 2025/26 results compared to previous years.

MEASURES OF INTEREST

24. The 2024/25 full year report highlighted two areas of council performance as measures that have the highest impact on residents’ overall perception of the Council combined with relatively low performance. The results for wave two for these areas are discussed below and in the attached report.

25. The below graphs used are XmR (Moving Range) charts. An XmR is a type of control chart used in process improvement and statistical analysis to monitor the variation in a single data series over time. The charts below track individual data points, showing how each measurement compares to the overall average and upper and lower control limits (shaded blue area), which define the expected range of natural variation. The XmR chart helps identify trends, shifts, or unusual variations in a process, making it useful for detecting changes and ensuring that processes remain stable and predictable.

IMAGE AND REPUTATION

Graph 1: Image and Reputation Year to Date (YTD)

Graph 2: Image and Reputation by wave

26. Council’s image and reputation has seen significant ups and downs over the past five years, but the overall direction is positive. Satisfaction dropped sharply from around 42% in 2019/20 to just 18% in 2020/21. Since then, results have steadily improved, reaching about 29% in the 2025/26 year-to-date figures. Wave-to-wave data shows short-term fluctuations within this broader trend, with scores ranging between 18% and 32% since 2021/22. Recent waves in 2024/25 and early 2025/26 show modest gains, suggesting improvements are holding rather than reversing. Although the long-term average is still below pre-2020 levels, the consistent upward movement and reduced volatility point to growing stability in public perception. Ongoing monitoring will confirm whether this shift is lasting or part of a cycle.

VALUE FOR MONEY

Graph 3: Value for Money Year to Date (YTD)

Graph 4: Value for Money by wave

27. Perceptions of value for money have remained relatively stable over time, with some moderate fluctuations. Satisfaction started at around 43% in 2019/20, dropped to 35% in 2020/21, and then held close to the long-term average of 36–38% through 2022/23. A gradual decline followed, reaching a low of about 31% in 2024/25, before rebounding to nearly 39% in the 2025/26 year-to-date result. Wave-to-wave data shows short-term volatility, including a recent dip in the latest wave (2025/26 W2) after a strong peak in W1. This pattern suggests that while the overall trend is positive, perceptions remain sensitive to external factors or specific council actions. Maintaining improvements will require consistent delivery and clear communication of value to residents.

Statutory Context

28. The Annual Residents Survey allows effective monitoring of performance and insights to be gained to inform future planning.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

29. 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 that is easy to move around	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	ü
We are a vibrant city that embraces events	ü

30. The annual residents survey is a legislative requirement which is reported on quarterly and produced as an annual report.

Options Analysis

31. There are no options associated with this report. The report is provided as information only.

Financial Considerations

32. There are no financial implications or risks associated with this report.

Legal Implications / Risks

33. There are no legal implications or risks associated with this report.

Consultation / Engagement

34. This report is made public.

Significance

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the matter is of low significance, as it is reporting results and no decisions are sought.

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

39. The next wave (Wave 3) for 2025/26 is due to be collected during February and March 2026 with the results scheduled to be reported to this committee in April 2026.

Attachments

1. Annual Residents Survey 2025_26 - Wave 2 - Performance Report - A19594894 (Separate Attachments 1)

[1] Stellar pathway: Council & Committees → City Delivery Committee → 2025 → Actions from City Delivery Committee meetings.


AGENDA City Delivery Committee meeting Tuesday, 10 March 2026
I hereby give notice that a City Delivery Committee meeting will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 10 March 2026
Time:	9:30 am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Chambers Level 1 - 90 Davenport Road Tauranga
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive

Status of actions	No. actions
Closed (completed since the last report)	4
Pending (waiting on something)	13
In progress	12
To be actioned	1
Total actions included in this report	30