|
|
|
|
AGENDA
Ordinary Council meeting Tuesday, 3 March 2026 |
|
|
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary meeting of Council will be held on: |
|
|
Date: |
Tuesday, 3 March 2026 |
|
Time: |
9:30 am |
|
Location: |
Tauranga City Council Chambers L1, 90 Devonport Road Tauranga |
|
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz. |
|
|
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive |
|
Membership
|
Mayor Mahé Drysdale |
|
|
Deputy Chair |
Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular |
|
Members |
Cr Hautapu Baker Cr Glen Crowther Cr Rick Curach Cr Steve Morris Cr Marten Rozeboom Cr Kevin Schuler Cr Rod Taylor Cr Hēmi Rolleston |
|
Quorum |
Half of the members present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd. |
|
Meeting frequency |
Three weekly or as required |
· To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City.
· To enable leadership of the City including advocacy and facilitation on behalf of the community.
· To review and monitor the performance of the Chief Executive.
Scope
· Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.
· Exercise all non-delegable and non-delegated functions and powers of the Council.
· The powers Council is legally prohibited from delegating include:
○ Power to make a rate.
○ Power to make a bylaw.
○ Power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan.
○ Power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report
○ Power to appoint a chief executive.
○ Power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement.
○ All final decisions required to be made by resolution of the territorial authority/Council pursuant to relevant legislation (for example: the approval of the City Plan or City Plan changes as per section 34A Resource Management Act 1991).
· Council has chosen not to delegate the following:
○ Power to compulsorily acquire land under the Public Works Act 1981.
· Make those decisions which are required by legislation to be made by resolution of the local authority.
· Authorise all expenditure not delegated to officers, Committees or other subordinate decision‑making bodies of Council.
· Make appointments of members to the council-controlled organisation Boards of Directors/Trustees and representatives of Council to external organisations.
· Undertake statutory duties in regard to Council-controlled organisations, including reviewing statements of intent, with the exception of the Local Government Funding Agency where such roles are delegated to the City Delivery Committee. (Note that monitoring of all Council-controlled organisations’ performance is undertaken by the City Delivery Committee. This also includes Priority One reporting.)
· Consider all matters related to Local Water Done Well.
· Consider any matters referred from any of the Standing or Special Committees, Joint Committees, Chief Executive or General Managers.
· Review and monitor the Chief Executive’s performance.
· Develop Long Term Plans and Annual Plans including hearings, deliberations and adoption.
Procedural matters
· Delegation of Council powers to Council’s committees and other subordinate decision-making bodies.
· Adoption of Standing Orders.
· Receipt of Joint Committee minutes.
· Approval of Special Orders.
· Employment of Chief Executive.
· Other Delegations of Council’s powers, duties and responsibilities.
Regulatory matters
Administration, monitoring and enforcement of all regulatory matters that have not otherwise been delegated or that are referred to Council for determination (by a committee, subordinate decision‑making body, Chief Executive or relevant General Manager).
|
3 March 2026 |
Order of Business
3.3 Residents from Nautilus Apartments
5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open
6 Change to the order of business
8 Declaration of conflicts of interest
9 Deputations, presentations, petitions
10 Recommendations from other committees
11.1 Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2026 Deliberations
11.3 Elected Members' Expenses and Resources policy - home security allowance
11.4 Status update on actions from prior Council meetings
13.1 CCO Board appointments - Bay Venues Limited and Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited
13.2 University of Waikato MoU and Student Accommodation
13.3 Special litigation report
Confidential Attachment 2 11.4 - Status update on actions from prior Council meetings
|
3 March 2026 |
3 Public forum
3.1 Jessica Walker from the SPCA will address their submission on the Draft Street Use & Public Places Bylaw
Nil
3.2 Hayden Duncan from Bower Real Estate will address their submission on the Draft Street Use and Public Places Bylaw
Nil
3.3 Residents from Nautilus Apartments
Nil
|
3 March 2026 |
4 Acceptance of late items
5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open
6 Change to the order of business
8 Declaration of conflicts of interest
9 Deputations, presentations, petitions
10 Recommendations from other committees
|
3 March 2026 |
11 Business
11.1 Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2026 Deliberations
File Number: A19546452
Author: Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst
Shawn Geard, Manager: Transport System Operations
Authoriser: Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory and Community Services
Purpose of the Report
1. To consider the issues raised by submitters on the draft Street Use and Public Places Bylaw and decide whether to adopt the bylaw.
|
That the Council: (a) Receives the report "Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2026 Deliberations". (b) Approves the following amendments to the draft Street Use and Public Places Bylaw: (i) a maximum size requirement of 1200mm high x 800mm wide for real estate signs (ii) open home and auction signs may only be displayed on the day of the open home or auction. (c) Resolves, in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 that the proposed Street Use and Public Places Bylaw (Attachment One): (i) is the most appropriate way to help protect the community from public nuisance and offensive behaviour, protect public health and safety, and protect council-controlled public places and the environment from misuse (ii) is the most appropriate form of the bylaw (iii) is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, noting that any implications are considered reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society as they are necessary to protect public safety, amenity and the rights of others using public places. (d) Adopts the final Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2026, to come into force on 1 July 2026. (e) Authorises the General Manager: Regulatory and Community Services to make any necessary minor final edits to the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2026, prior to publication.
|
Executive Summary
3. The consultation took place from 13 November 2025 to 16 December 2025, receiving 112 submissions (included in Attachment Two), with two submitters wishing to speak to Council today.
4. Of the 112 submitters, 34 submitters commented on the mobile shop definition, 73 commented on the proposed footpath use for businesses, and 40 commented on the proposed rules for real estate signs.
5. The consultation results showed support for the proposed changes to the bylaw, including expanding the definition of a mobile shop to include service providers (76% support), enabling businesses to use 1.5 square metres of the footpath without a licence (74% support), and introducing limits on real estate and directional signs (58% support).
6. Submitters also raised broader concerns, including pedestrian safety, dog control, skateboard and scooter use, homelessness and parking. These matters will be considered through other bylaw reviews, operational process or upcoming policy reviews.
7. The draft bylaw responds to Council’s direction to ensure clearer, more consistent rules for footpath use, mobile shops, real estate signage, and commercial activity in public places.
8. The draft bylaw simplifies several sections, updates definitions, improves structure and clarity, and reduces duplication with existing legislation. It also incorporates new provisions made under the Land Transport Act 1998, requiring the final bylaw to be sent to the Minister of Transport[1].
9. After considering submissions, council staff recommend adopting the draft bylaw with two amendments:
· a maximum size requirement of 1200mm hight x 800mm wide for real estate signs, to ensure consistency with business signs and responding to submitter feedback.
· limit open home and auction signs to being displayed only on the day of the open home or auction, to reduce unnecessary visual clutter and ensure signs remain relevant to the event.
10. One submission from the SPCA calls for Council to prohibit setting off fireworks in public places unless approval has been granted by the council. This has been included as option because it reflects community concern, including past submissions, complaints and national level petitions.
11. As regulating fireworks was not included in the earlier draft bylaw consultation, Council will need to undertake a separate consultation process if it wishes to include this provision in the bylaw.
12. Staff recommend adopting the bylaw now, and if Council wishes to consider regulating fireworks undertake consultation in the first quarter of the new financial year. This timing would allow any resulting amendments to come into effect before fireworks can be sold from 2 November 2026 to 5 November 2026.
13. There are no immediate financial implications associated with adopting the bylaw, although future fees for footpath use may apply depending on decisions made through the fees and charges process.
14. In accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA), the proposed bylaw is assessed as:
· the most appropriate and proportionate method for managing public spaces
· the most appropriate form of bylaw, and
· consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
15. Council is asked to consider the issues raised by submitters, make determinations under section 155 of the LGA, adopt the final bylaw, and provide direction on a potential bylaw amendment prohibiting fireworks in public places.
Background
16. The Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018 (the bylaw) sets rules for public spaces to ensure public safety, accessibility and enjoyment. It covers a wide range of activities including signage, trading, street dining, skating, scooter use, and busking.
17. On 24 March 2025, Council directed council staff to review the bylaw, with a focus on street dining and broader footpath use. The initial review identified several issues, which Council considered and provided direction on at their meeting on 7 October 2025. This direction was incorporated into a draft bylaw for community consultation and included:
· changing the definition of the pedestrian way
· expanding the definition of a mobile shop to include service providers
· broadening the scope of what can be displayed on the footpath by businesses
· applying consistent rules for all businesses across the city wishing to use the footpath for street dining and commercial displays (allowing a standard area to be used, with any additional space requiring approval from Tauranga City Council)
· clarifying rules for real estate signs and capping the number of directional real estate signs.
18. The current bylaw sections on trading, markets, mobile shops and events, have been replaced in the draft bylaw with a single simplified clause requiring approval for all commercial activity, large‑scale commercial filming, and events. This streamlines how these activities are managed and makes the bylaw easier to understand.
19. The draft bylaw also removes sections 23 to 28, as these matters are already covered by the LGA reducing duplication and the risk of inconsistency. In addition, the draft bylaw includes structural improvements, clearer language, updated and new definitions, and includes a contents page and explanatory notes to support interpretation. It also includes new definitions needed to reflect Council’s direction on footpath use.
20. During consultation the community was specifically asked if they:
· supported expanding the definition of a mobile shop to include service providers;
· supported allowing all businesses across the city to use a set area of the footpath (1.5 square metres) for street dining and commercial display without a licence;
· supported limits on real estate signs (sole agency, multiple agencies, and open home/auction) and directional real estate signs; and
· wanted to provide any other feedback on the draft bylaw.
21. A total of 112 submissions were received (Attachment Two). Of these, 34 submitters commented on the mobile shop definition, 73 commented on the proposed footpath use for businesses, and 40 commented on the proposed rules for real estate signs.
22. A summary of the submissions is provided in Attachment Three.
Submission Summary
23. 76% of the 34 submitters who commented supported expanding the definition of a mobile shop to include service providers, noting benefits such as increased vibrancy, support for small businesses, and clearer, more consistent rules.
24. Those submitters who did not support the change were concerned about the suitability of certain services in public spaces, potential impacts on amenity, fairness to permanent businesses, and issues such as mobile shops occupying car parks or creating visual clutter.
25. Other issues relating to mobile shops were also raised including the limiting the number or mobile shops, increasing licence fees and concerns about parking and mobile shops being used for accommodation.
Chart One: Support for including services in the
mobile shop definition (34
submissions)
26. 74% of the 73 submitters who commented supported allowing businesses to use a standard 1.5 square metre area without a licence, highlighting benefits such as added vibrancy, stronger hospitality and retail activity, and the city’s outdoor culture.
27. However, submitters also raised concerns about pedestrian accessibility and safety, particularly for elderly people and those with disabilities, alongside existing congestion and limited enforcement, and differing views on whether the proposed area was too small.
Chart Two: Support for use of footpath for street
dining & commercial display (73 submissions) 
28. Some submitters also noted their opposition to businesses being charged for the use of the footpath and one said they should be charged for using public spaces.
29. Of the 40 submitters who commented, 58% supported the proposed limits on real estate signs (covering sole‑agency, multi‑agency and open‑home signage) and the same proportion supported the proposed cap of four directional signs.
30. Supporters highlighted reduced visual clutter, improved safety, and greater fairness between agencies. However, some submitters were concerned that the restrictions could reduce marketing effectiveness, while others either wanted fewer signs (including a complete ban) or more flexibility, such as additional directional signs for open homes. Several submitters also noted the need for clearer definitions and size limits.
Chart Three: Support for proposed real estate sign rules (40 submissions)
31. The SPCA’s submission asks Council to prohibit setting off fireworks in public places unless approval has been granted by the council to reduce harm to animals, prevent fire risks and improve public safety.
32. Regulating fireworks was not included in the Statement of Proposal and draft bylaw that was consulted on. Under sections 82 and 156 of the LGA, Council cannot make a significant change to a proposal after consultation without providing the community with the opportunity to provide feedback on that change. A prohibition on fireworks in public places is a substantive policy decision and therefore falls within this requirement. If Council wishes to consider introducing a prohibition on fireworks in public places, this will require additional consultation through a Special Consultative Procedure.
33. Submitters also raised a range of additional issues, including:
· safety concerns about electric scooters and bikes on footpaths, with calls for enforcement or speed limits
· dog and cat related issues, such as dogs off-leash and leaving waste in public spaces
· concerns about homelessness and nuisance behaviour
· parking concerns and a recommendation for a pedestrian only zone in Mount Maunganui
· requests for public notice boards for community events and more opportunities for commercial activities
34. These matters have either will be considered through other bylaw reviews, operational process or upcoming policy reviews (see Attachment Five).
Statutory Context
35. The ability for Council to make a bylaw comes from the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), the Health Act 1956 and the Litter Act 1979.
36. Proposed amendments to the bylaw include making both the pedestrian way and mobile shop provisions under the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA) in addition to the LGA due to the ability to issue infringement fees under this legislation. Any bylaw made under the LTA must be sent to the Minister, who may at any time disallow the bylaw or any part of it.
37. Section 155 of the LGA sets out that Council must determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem and does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This analysis is presented in Attachment Four.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
38. 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 |
39. The draft bylaw aligns with all five community outcomes. It contributes to:
· an inclusive city by ensuring public access and enjoyment of public spaces
· valuing, protecting and enhancing the environment by setting rules around pollution and damage of public places including trees and plants
· a well-planned city that is easy to move around by setting rules for street dining furniture, signage and trading in public places including mobile shops, protecting pedestrian access, regulating footpath use, prohibiting the unsafe use of skateboards and scooters and ensuring visibility and safety around intersections and crossings
· being a city that supports business and education by allowing business signs, retail display, mobile shops and street dining to support commercial activity
· being a vibrant city that embraces events by providing an approval process for events on Council land and enabling street performances.
Options Analysis
40. For the matters consulted on (mobile shop definition, footpath use by businesses and real estate sign rules) on, the majority of submitters supported the draft approach, and those who opposed it did not raise any new issues that had not already been considered. Accordingly, the issues and options analysis contain in the original report (item 11.5 Street Use and Public Places Bylaw Review: issues and Options ) remains valid and is not repeated here.
41. In addition, some submitters raised other matters relating to real estate signage, specifically regarding the permissible size of signs and the duration that open home and auction signs may be displayed. These issues have been assessed under the ‘Other matters relating to real estate signs’ section, which sets the options, associated advantages and disadvantages, and a recommended approach.
42. The issue raised by the SPCA regarding the regulating fireworks is addressed in the ‘Fireworks in public places’ section. Direction is sought from Council on this matter.
43. Other issues and concerns raised by submitters, that fall outside the scope of the bylaw review, were considered but discounted after assessment, or are more appropriately addressed through other bylaws or operational processes, are presented in Attachment Five.
Other matters regarding real estate signage
44. The current bylaw allows real estate signs to be placed outside the property being sold and requires their removal within two weeks of the sale. It also permits open home and auction signs to be displayed three hours prior to the event. However, the current bylaw does not specify a limit on the number of signs permitted or provide for directional real estate signs.
45. The draft bylaw included definitions for real estate signs and directional real estate signs and set limits on the number of each that may be displayed. As above (paragraph 40) staff recommend Council adopt these provisions.
46. Some submitters highlighted the need for maximum dimensions and the permitted times for auction/open home signs to be specified in the bylaw.
‘The changes need to reiterate the times they are permitted to be out eg day of the open
home only not all weekend and half the next week as is often the case’
‘I think there also needs to be a size restriction for the proposed one real estate sign.’
47. Council staff recommend applying the same maximum dimensions as those currently used for business signs. This ensures safety and consistency. Staff also recommend limiting the display of auction or home open signs to the day of the open home or auction. This aligns with the duration permitted for directional real estate signs in the draft bylaw and provides greater clarity.
Issue One: Real estate signage dimensions and duration of open home/auction signs
|
Options |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Option 1A: No amendment to the draft bylaw
|
· No change for businesses. · Allows agents flexibility to choose sign size.
|
· Risk of visual clutter or inconsistent sign size and signs remaining for longer periods reducing amenity values. · Potential safety implications. · Inconsistent with the approach for business signs where a size limit is specified. · Potential for increasing sign sizes for competitive reasons. · Does not respond to the issues raised by submitters.
|
|
Option 1B: Amend the draft bylaw by including: · maximum sign dimension requirement 1200mm high x 800 mm for real estate signs. · open home and auction signs may only be displayed on the day of the open home or auction. Note: The proposed dimensions are equivalent to the maximum dimensions for business signs set out in the current bylaw. Recommended |
· Reflects feedback from submitters on the need for size specifications and duration limits. · Reduces visual clutter and helps maintain amenity values. · Supports pedestrian and road safety by minimising large signage. · Consistent maximum size dimensions for both business signs and real estate signs. · Provides consistency between the duration rules for directional reals estate signage and open home/auction signs. · Allows more time for open day and auction signs to be displayed than in the current bylaw (3 hours prior and up until end of the open home/auction).
|
· Could be viewed as overly restrictive. · Decreased flexibility for agents to choose sign size. |
Adoption of draft bylaw
48. The recommended option above has been incorporated into the bylaw proposed for adoption.
Issue Two: Adoption of the bylaw
|
Options |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Option 2A: Do not adopt the draft bylaw.
|
· No change for businesses. |
· No updates from the outcome of the review will be reflected in the bylaw. · Most submitters support the proposed change indicating low support of the status quo. · The bylaw cannot use Land Transport Act infringement fees to support compliance of mobile shops. · A further review will be legally required to be undertaken in 2028. |
|
Option 2B: Adopt the draft bylaw with the following amendments: · a maximum sign dimension requirement 1200mm high x 800 mm wide. · open home and auction signs may only be displayed on the day of the auction or event. Recommended |
· Most submitters support the proposed changes. · Allows for infringement fees under the Land Transport Act to be applied to help improve compliance. · The proposed bylaw includes clearer language, updated and new definitions, and includes a contents page and explanatory notes to support interpretation. · Helps maintain safety and amenity values by setting a clearer rule for real estate signage. |
· Requires administrative changes and may have implementation costs. · May result in additional costs for businesses in non LTO zones that wish to use space beyond the set area allowance. |
Fireworks in public places
49. The regulation of fireworks, raised by the SPCA has been included as an option for Council to consider because it reflects increased community concern and ongoing feedback to Council.
50. Regulation of fireworks has been raised with council in past submissions, complaints, and consultation processes. It has also been raised by the public at national level, including recent petitions to Parliament calling for tighter controls, signalling growing interest in reducing harm associated with fireworks.
51. Other councils (including Auckland, Wellington, and Hamilton) already have stronger regulatory approaches, including bans on fireworks in public places such as beaches, reserves, and sports fields.
52. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of regulating fireworks in public places. It is recommended Council consider prohibiting fireworks in public places. If Council decides to propose proceeding with a prohibition, further community consultation will be required.
Issue Three: Fireworks in public places
|
Options |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Option 3A: Retain current approach for fireworks - not prohibited in public places by the bylaw. (Status quo)
|
· Retains scope for traditional celebrations and community practices. · Avoids any potential delays to the bylaw and additional consultation costs. · Does not require additional enforcement responsibilities. · Prevents any displacement to private property. |
· Does not address safety, and nuisance concerns. · Does not respond to growing concern about safety, nuisance and environmental impacts associated with fireworks. · Continued impact on animals and people, particularly those with sensory sensitivities and young children. · Inconsistent with regulatory approaches in other metro councils (Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch). · Does not address the costs of the damage caused by fireworks. |
|
Option 3B: Propose to prohibit setting off fireworks in public (as defined by the draft bylaw[2]) places without approval from the council. Directs staff a prepare a draft amendment to the bylaw prohibiting fireworks in public places. Note: Any community consultation would be undertaken during the first quarter of the new financial year. This would allow any potential changes to be put in place through a bylaw amendment before fireworks can be sold from 2 November to 5 November 2026. Recommended |
· Reflects growing concern about safety, nuisance and environmental impacts associated with fireworks. · Provides for the opportunity for the community to give feedback. · Potential to reduce costs associated with fireworks damage (playgrounds, bins, vegetation, and wildlife harm). · Reduces fire risk and noise disturbance. · Potential to reduce fireworks injuries. · Aligns with the approach in Hamilton, Auckland and Wellington. |
· May limit traditional celebrations and restrict community practices. · Could be seen as overly restrictive and that responsible users are punished for the behaviour of a minority. · May result in more fireworks on private property which could be less safe or more densely built up. · Enforcement challenges and greater demands on enforcement officers.
|
Financial Considerations
53. The financial considerations are dependent on the fees associated with the approval process required under the proposed bylaw. These fees will be considered in the fees and charges process for the next financial year.
54. The cost of consulting on the proposed bylaw amendment on fireworks will be funded from the existing policy and bylaws budget.
Legal Implications / Risks
55. There is a risk that the proposed changes to the bylaw could be perceived negatively by businesses and the wider community.
56. There are legal implications if Council considers changing the rules on fireworks on public places without community consultation.
TE AO MĀORI APPROACH
58. The proposed amendment to the mobile shop definition enables traditional Māori healing practices such as mirimiri[3] and romiromi[4] to be offered from mobile shops. This responds to feedback from Te Rangapū and supports Māori-led enterprise.
CLIMATE IMPACT
59. There are no direct or specific climate change impacts resulting from considering the options in the bylaw review. However, the bylaw itself provides an important regulatory tool to help protect environmental assets in public spaces, in particular trees and other vegetation, that help contribute to climate resilience.
Consultation / Engagement
60. Consultation was carried out of the draft bylaw in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. Further consultation will be required if Council wish to consider prohibiting fireworks on public places.
Significance
61. 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.
62. 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.
(c) the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.
63. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of medium significance.
ENGAGEMENT
64. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the issue is of medium significance, and consultation has been undertaken on the draft bylaw, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.
65. However, any decision on the issue of fireworks will require consultation. Staff considered the option of delaying the adoption of the bylaw until Council made a decision on fireworks and any resulting consultation had taken place, but this option was discounted because it would delay unrelated provisions of the bylaw. Conducting separate consultation on fireworks also allows for more focused engagement solely on this issue.
Next Steps
66. If Council adopts the bylaw, it will be sent to the Minister of Transport in accordance with the Land Transport Act. The Minister may, at any time disallow the bylaw or any part of it.
67. If adopted, the bylaw would come into effect on the 1 July 2026. This effective date allows time for the approval process and associated fees for footpath use beyond the standard 1.5 square metres to be established and also provides for any changes that may be required as a result of the Minister of Transport’s review.
68. If Council decides to consider prohibiting fireworks public places, staff will prepare an amendment to the bylaw. This will be presented to Council for approval, with the intention that consultation occurs in the new financial year so that any potential changes can be in place before fireworks can be sold from 2 November to 5 November 2026.
1. Proposed
Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2026 - A19123951 ⇩ 
2. Submissions
on the draft Street Use and Public Places Bylaw - A19688645 ⇩
3. Submission
summary - A19596195 ⇩
4. Section
155 Analysis - A18993609 ⇩
5. Responses to
other issues raised by submitters - A19767443 ⇩
|
3 March 2026 |
11.2 Draft Dog Management Bylaw and Policy and Keeping of Animals Bylaw for adoption for consultation.
File Number: A19522355
Author: Vicky Grant-Ussher, Policy Analyst
Oscar Glossop, Team Leader: Animal Services
Authoriser: Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory and Community Services
Purpose of the Report
1. Provide further direction on certain issues and give approval to consult on the attached draft Dog Management Bylaw and Policy and Draft Keeping of Animals Bylaw.
|
That the Council: (a) Receives the report "Draft Dog Management Bylaw and Policy and Keeping of Animals Bylaw for adoption for consultation." (b) Agree to the following approaches to be included in the draft Bylaws, Policy and Statement of Proposal for public consultation:
(c) Agree to adopt for consultation the attached draft Dog Management Bylaw (Attachment 1) and Policy (Attachment 2) and draft Keeping of Animals Bylaw (Attachment 3) and Statement of Proposal (Attachment 4). (d) Resolves, in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 (Attachment 5) that the draft Dog Management Bylaw and draft Keeping of Animals Bylaw: (i) are the most appropriate ways to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally from dogs, and to protect public health and safety and minimise nuisance from the keeping of animals (ii) are the most appropriate forms of the bylaw (iii) are not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, noting that any implications are considered reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society as they are necessary to protect public safety, amenity and the rights of others using public places. (e) Delegate to the General Manager: Regulatory and Community Services authority to make any amendments necessary to give effect to decisions in recommendation (b) and any minor or typographic changes required prior to public consultation.
|
Executive Summary
2. On 29 October 2025 Council gave direction on several issues and options as part of the review of the Dog Management Policy and Bylaw, and the Keeping of Animals Bylaw. Some matters require further consideration and are set out in this report. These include decisions on:
· the waterfront leash area
· the Shark Alley dog prohibited area
· the approach to fenced public places provided for accessibility and inclusion
· rules to transit dogs through coastal dunes.
The report also provides further information on the Waikareao Wildlife Refuge.
3. Following the 29 October Council meeting, a fatality related to roaming dogs in Northland has resulted in central government asking for urgent advice on dog control legislation. As yet no changes have been proposed, but council staff will continue to monitor the issue throughout the bylaw review process.
4. Whilst Tauranga City Council dog related incidents have been largely static over the period of the bylaw, several changes are proposed in the bylaw to reduce the risk of dog attacks. This includes changes to the number of dogs that may be kept on a property, and changes to dog rules to better protect the public in community spaces. As part of the review process Council also agreed to review the resourcing of education and enforcement in the upcoming Long-Term Plan.
5. Since the 29 October Council meeting, issues have also been raised about how bees are regulated under the bylaw given the enforcement challenges. Options are provided within this paper to either retain the current approach, or to remove the requirements and focus on education only.
6. A draft policy and draft bylaws have been prepared based on the recommendations in this paper but will be adjusted to reflect your decisions before public consultation, planned for Wednesday 1 June 2026 to Saturday 1 July 2026.
7. Public consultation will follow the Special Consultative Procedure and include notice of the review to every registered dog owner in the district to meet legislative requirements. This will be timing to coincide with dog registration notifications. Social media and print ads will also be used to raise awareness of the bylaw review.
Background
8. The current Dog Management Policy and Bylaw and Keeping of Animals Bylaw were last reviewed in 2018. This review is an action from the Nature and Biodiversity Action and Investment Plan to update the Dog Management Bylaw for Tauranga City. It includes reviewing existing dog-prohibited areas and adding new ones to protect threatened species.
9. On 29 October 2025, council staff provided Council with issues and options for the review which included feedback from a community survey, the Department of Conservation, community stakeholders, and the Te Rangapū policy subcommittee. Council gave direction, which has been incorporated into the draft policy and bylaws attached to this report. Attachment 6 outlines the decisions made on 29 October 2025 and how they have been incorporated into the draft bylaws and policy.
10. Since the 29 October Council meeting, a fatality in Northland has prompted central government scrutiny of dog control legislation with the Local Government Minister asking for urgent advice from officials on options to address the issue. Under the Dog Control Act 1996 dogs must be kept under control at all times however there are issues enforcing this requirement. This death was one of three in the last four years in Northland with groups of roaming dogs identified as a key concern. In Western Bay of Plenty District in 2025 a young boy was also the victim of a fatal dog attack involving three dogs. As yet council staff do not have an indication of what the proposed central government changes may involve but will continue to monitor the issue throughout the bylaw review process.
11. Whilst dog incident statistics have been relatively static in Tauranga (see Attachment 7), through the bylaw review three options were approved to reduce the risk of dog attacks this includes:
· reviewing the resourcing of education and enforcement though the upcoming long-term plan
· proposed changes to limit the number of dogs that may be kept on a property[5]
· changes to better manage dogs certain in community spaces (for example, shared paths, city spaces, spaces fenced for accessibility and inclusion reasons and active recreation areas).
Statutory Context
12. The Dog Management Bylaw and Dog Management Policy are made under the Dog Control Act 1996, and any amendments require the use of a Special Consultative Procedure which includes the requirement to prepare a Statement of Proposal (Attachment 4) and give notice of the draft policy to every person who is, according to its register, the owner of a dog. The Keeping of Animals Bylaw is made under the Local Government Act 2002.
13. Under Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 Council needs to assess whether the bylaw and its proposed form is the most appropriate way to address the issues raised and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
14. 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 |
☐ |
|
We are a city that supports business and education |
☐ |
|
We are a vibrant city that embraces events |
☐ |
15. Effective dog and animal management ensures that dogs and animals do not cause distress or nuisance to the community (particularly children), wildlife and the environment.
16. Action 23 in the Nature and Biodiversity Action and Investment Plan is to update the Dog Management Bylaw for Tauranga City to review existing, and include additional, dog prohibited areas to protect threatened species. The Tauranga Reserves Management Plan management statements for the Kōpūrererua Valley notes to “consider excluding dogs from significant habitat value areas in the valley”.
Options Analysis
Issue 1: Waterfront area
17. Council staff proposed requiring dogs to be on leash on the waterfront. At the 29 October Council meeting, staff were directed to limit the on-leash area to allow for off leash options in other parts of the waterfront.
18. Table One: Waterfront area requiring leashing
|
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Option A Limit the leash restricted area to 1 Dive Cresent (the northern waterfront park entrance) to the base of the Matapihi bridge. (map in attachment 1 page 9) Recommended |
· Ensures dogs are on leash in busier waterfront areas likely to be popular with young children. · Provides an off-leash access to the water north and south of the main waterfront section. |
· Restricts the area where dogs may be off leash relative to option C. |
|
Option B Require dogs to be on leash in all public waterfront areas.
|
· Consistent with footpaths and other urban parks. · Ensures dogs are on leash in busier areas that are likely to be popular with young children. |
· Restricts off leash areas more than option A and C. · Reduced option for off-leash water access for dogs. |
|
Option C Limit the area where dogs need to be on leash to the green space north of the waterfront playground. |
· Provides an off-leash option for dogs to enter the water at the tidal steps. · Less restrictive for dogs relative to option A and B. |
· Dogs will not be on leash on the tidal steps which can be busy and likely to be popular with young children. |
Issue 2: Shark Alley
19. Council agreed to extend dog restrictions to Shark Alley to better protect wildlife including seals, diving petrel and kororā (little blue penguin). Currently, seasonal restrictions are in place for the beach area only. The proposed option introduces a permanent prohibition on dogs in this area. Two potential boundary options for this prohibition are proposed in Table Two for consideration.
20. Table Two: Shark Alley boundaries
|
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Option A Use the current Shark Alley area limits but extend the prohibition on dogs to year round.
|
· Maintains the same boundaries as the current seasonal restriction and leash area. |
· Does not provide a buffer for wildlife that live in the coastal dunes. · Less clear boundary for enforcement. |
|
Option B Prohibit dogs year round in Shark Alley and include the adjacent dunes, grassed area, boardwalk and greenspace up to the kerb of Marine Parade opposite 31 Marine Parade (map Attachment 1, page 11) Recommended |
· Provides a greater buffer for wildlife that frequent the coastal dunes. · Provides a clear boundary for enforcement. |
· Area differs from the current seasonal restriction and leash area which may cause confusion. |
Issue 3: Specified fenced public places
21. A few parks and reserves are being investigated for fencing to make them more accessible and inclusive, with a particular focus on creating safe spaces for the unhindered exploration and enjoyment for young children and disabled people. It is expected that three or four of these spaces will be developed in the near-term.
22. Council staff propose prohibiting dogs within these fenced spaces specified for this purpose. When fencing is designed for each space council staff will assess the appropriate dog requirements for each space. The intention is to ensure dog-free access to the fenced area but, where appropriate, allow dogs elsewhere in the park. The delegation to approve dog requirements for each space would sit with the Team Leader: Animal Services consistent with the other delegations within the bylaw[6]. Each space will be listed in an attachment to the bylaw as a ‘specified fenced public place’. This approach avoids capturing other parks, reserves or public places that are fenced for other reasons, like traffic safety.
23. Further direction is needed on dog rules for the area surrounding the fenced area with options outlined in Table Three.
24. Table Three: Specified fenced public places
|
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Option A Prohibit dogs from the specified fenced public places – fenced area only. |
· Provides a consistent approach. · Limits area dogs are restricted. |
· Does not manage dogs outside the fenced areas, which may still cause conflicts between vulnerable users and dogs. |
|
Option B Prohibit dogs from the specified fenced public places – whole park, reserve or place is dog prohibited.
|
· Reduces conflicts between vulnerable users and dogs. |
· Would limit the area dogs have access to more than may be required to ensure the safety of users. |
|
Option C Prohibit dogs from specified fenced public places – fenced area, as well as tailored rules for exit, entry and transit specific to each space. Recommended |
· Allows restrictions to be tailored to the space to minimise restrictions whilst still ensuring the safety of users. · Would reduce conflicts between vulnerable users and dogs. |
· Approach would not be consistent across spaces (but signs would convey rules). |
Issue 4: Beach accessways
25. The Council agreed to consult on prohibiting dogs within the vegetated dune area. Further direction is required on the rules for dogs transiting through coastal dunes.
26. Table Four: Beach accessways
|
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Option A Allow off-leash transit through designated beach accessways.
|
· Least possible restrictions. · Minimal change in rules for those already using the beach accessways to transit their dogs. |
· Dogs may not stick to the accessway area which may result in disturbance to dunes or wildlife or other beach users. · Inconsistent with Papamoa Dune area rules, which require leashing through dunes. |
|
Option B Allow on-leash transit through designated beach accessways.
Recommended |
· Ensures dogs stick to accessways reducing disturbance to dune or wildlife or other beach users. · Consistent with Papamoa Dune area rules which require leashing through dunes. |
· Change in rules for those already using the beach accessways to transit their dogs. · Greater restrictions relative to Option A. |
Issue 5: Bee Regulation
27. Urban beekeeping can support food security, and support biodiversity outcomes. Issues periodically arise in relation to bee excrement on neighbouring properties or potential bee stings. Currently the Keeping of Animals Bylaw allows bees to be kept on private property unless, in the opinion of an authorised officer, the bees are causing a public safety or nuisance issue.
28. Whilst the ability to remove beehives causing issues is appropriate in principle, the existing test based on “in the opinion of the authorised officer”, can result in council staff being pulled into subjective neighbour-to-neighbour disputes. A recent case before the Enforcement Decision Group (EDG) at Tauranga City Council highlighted the difficulties in the current subjective assessment. Given these difficulties the EDG requested that staff consider the impact bee regulation was having on resourcing.
29. Council staff have investigated and in the last two years 38 complaints have been lodged about bees of which 34 are around nuisance from bee excrement, 3 are about stings and 1 about an allergy. These complaints resulted in a total of 163 hours of staff time to follow up.
30. Council staff propose amending the bee provisions to remove the current assessment and instead use the new general powers clause (clause 13), which allows an authorised officer to issue reasonable written instructions where this is necessary to:
· Ensure compliance with the bylaw;
· Protect public health and safety;
· Prevent or mitigate nuisance.
1. This is intended to give authorised officers a more defensible basis to act with a more proportionate response[7] and avoid getting drawn into nuisance level complaints.
2.
31. Table Five: Bee Regulation
|
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Option A Continue with current bylaw provision that allows bees to be removed if in the opinion of the authorised officer they are causing a public safety or nuisance issue. |
· Gives residents an avenue to request bee safety and nuisance issues be followed up. |
· Enforcement action is unlikely to be successful if decisions are challenged due to the subjective nature of the test and difficulty proving that bee nuisances are caused by neighbouring beehives as opposed to wild bees. · Resource required to investigate and respond to issues. |
|
Option B Remove the specific bee provision and instead use the new general powers clause (clause 13), which allows an authorised officer to issue reasonable instructions where this is necessary Recommended |
· Reduces the expectation of enforcement that may not be possible. · Reduces resource required to investigate and respond to nuisance issues. · Retains an ability to issue a written direction where this is reasonable (for example where health and safety concerns exist). |
· May help manage expectations from residents that bee issues, particularly nuisance issues such as bee droppings be followed up with enforcement. · No specific provision to remove bee hives causing a public safety or nuisance issue, however an instruction could be given in writing where this is reasonable (for example where health and safety concerns exist). |
Drafting clarifications and updates
32. In addition to the issues raised, changes have been made to the bylaws and policy to improve the drafting and are marked up in the attached bylaws and policies. These changes include:
· updating definitions for consistency with other bylaws and policies
· replacing current subjective decision making with more specific powers (refer Issue 5 for more information)
· removing redundant sections, improving phrasing or provide greater clarity.
Waikareao Wildlife Refuge Update
33. At the Council meeting, the Department of Conservation raised issues about the wildlife refuge status of the Waikareao Estuary. Council staff were instructed to investigate this issue further.
34. Newspaper clippings from the time suggest the purpose of the status was to reduce the impact of game hunting on wildlife. The clippings note the return of ducks and birds to the area following the decree. Council staff provided DOC with these findings and DOC indicated an openness to work on updating the status to allow dogs if safeguards were in place (likely leash restrictions).
35. Given that the Waikareao Estuary was not assessed as the highest priority area for dog restrictions, no changes are proposed to the draft bylaw at this stage, however this information could support future reviews of the bylaw.
Financial Considerations
36. Timing the consultation to coincide with dog registration will help reduce costs by utilising registration letters to notify dog owners of the proposed changes. Digital and print ads will raise awareness of the consultation and are expected to cost approximately $1500.
37. Responding to submission enquires and analysing submissions is expected to take 2-3 weeks of a policy staff member’s time, depending on the level of response to the survey. The pre-engagement survey in June 2025 had 1671 responses.
Legal Implications / Risks
38. The proposed consultation approach is consistent with the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 2002. A section 155 analysis has been prepared to ensure that the proposed changes are the most appropriate way to address the issues raised and do not unjustifiably limit rights under the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Attachment 5).
TE AO MĀORI APPROACH
39. The Te Rangapū policy subcommittee provided input into the review issues and options considered on 29 October 2025. The subcommittee supported the proposed changes to better protect wildlife and manage community spaces. Te Rangapū will be notified that the review is open for formal consultation.
CLIMATE IMPACT
40. Actions to reduce the impact of dogs on wildlife will contribute to the goal of enhancing nature and biodiversity.
Significance
41. 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.
42. 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.
(c) the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.
43. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the issue is of high significance. However, the decision to adopt the draft bylaws and policies for consultation is of low significance as this flows from previous decisions made by Council.
ENGAGEMENT
44. Noting the assessment, that the issues are of high significance, officers are of the opinion that a Special Consultative Procedure is required under the Dog Control Act 1996, together with notification to all registered dog owners within the district at the point the draft bylaw is adopted for community consultation. The draft Keeping of Animals Bylaw will be included in this consultation for expediency.
45. Consultation is proposed to run from 1 June 2026 to 1 July 2026. In addition to notification to registered dog owners, council staff will use social media, print media and signage (at sites where changes are proposed) to raise awareness of the review. Interested stakeholders will be notified of the consultation.
Next Steps
46. Council staff will make any amendments necessary to give effect to decisions in recommendation (b) and prepare consultation material for launch in June 2026. Emails and letters will be sent to registered dog owners alongside the dog registration process.
47. Print ads and social media will run during the consultation period.
1. Draft
Dog Management Bylaw - A19766595 ⇩
2. Draft
Dog Mangement Policy - A19766596 ⇩
3. Draft
Keeping of Animals Bylaw - A19766597 ⇩
4. Draft
Statement of Proposal - A19762680 ⇩
5. Section
155 Analysis - A19762683 ⇩
6. Previous
Council Decisions - A19673031 ⇩
7. Research and
Statistics on Dog Related Incidents - A19132631 ⇩
|
3 March 2026 |
11.3 Elected Members' Expenses and Resources policy - home security allowance
File Number: A19379584
Author: Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience
Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst
Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth
Purpose of the Report
1. To seek Council approval for adding wording to the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy. This wording will provide for a home security allowance.
|
That the Council: (a) Receives the report "Elected Members' Expenses and Resources policy - home security allowance". (b) Adopt the draft revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources policy, incorporating the addition of the home security section. (Attachment 1). (c) Approves retrospective reimbursement of any home security eligible under the Elected Members Expenses and Resources Policy which was installed from 1 July 2025, being the date the Local Government Elected Members (2025/26) Determination 2025 came into force, where all requirements of the Policy have been met except for a security threat and risk assessment being authorised prior to the installation. The security threat and risk assessment must still be completed and conclude that a security system is needed for reimbursement to occur. |
Executive Summary
2. On 18 November 2025 Council agreed to amend the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy (the ‘policy’) to include a home security allowance. The resolution set out eligibility criteria, security threat and risk assessment requirements, maximum allowance limits and conditions that apply when a member moves house, or their position becomes vacant
3. This report responds to that resolution by presenting a proposed new ‘Home Security’ section within the policy. The section includes the eligibility criteria and conditions that apply when an elected member changes their primary residence or when their position becomes vacant, including cases of non-re-election (see Attachment 1).
4. There is no specific budget allocation for this allowance. The financial impact will depend on uptake, and any costs will be met from existing governance budgets.
Background
5. The Local Government Elected Members (2025/26) Determination 2025 (“the Determination”) issued by the Remuneration Authority includes provision for a new home security allowance to be available for elected members. On 18 November 2025 Council decided to make this allowance available to all elected members and that:
· the required security threat and risk assessment would be prepared in house
· the maximum allowances will be in accordance with the current Determination[8]
· if an elected member changes their primary residence a new application (supported by a new risk assessment) may be made for the new residence
· if an elected member’s position becomes vacant all allowances (including installation) scaled back proportional to the period of the financial year that the member was in position
· approvals for the allowance will be made by the mayor and chief executive, with mayoral claims approved by the deputy mayor and one other councillor.
6. The Determination 2025 came into force on 1 July 2025.
7. These changes have been incorporated into the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025. The amendments are shown in red on page 5 of the revised draft policy (Attachment 1).
8. As required, the draft policy was submitted to the Remuneration Authority for consideration. On 21 November 2025, the Authority approved the draft policy as submitted.
9. Staff have also prepared a security threat and risk assessment form to determine eligibility for reimbursement of home security expenses.
Statutory Context
10. The Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) empowers the Authority to determine the allowances and expenses for elected members and approve rules proposed by councils for reimbursing expenses.
11. The Local Government Elected Members (2025/26) Determination 2025 allows for reimbursement for up to $4,500 for installing a home security system and up to $1,000 per annum for monitoring, call outs and repairs based on a safety risk assessment.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
12. This contributes to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcome(s):
|
Contributes |
|
|
We are an inclusive city |
ü |
|
We value, protect and enhance the environment |
☐ |
|
We are a well-planned city that is easy to move around |
☐ |
|
We are a city that supports business and education |
☐ |
|
We are a vibrant city that embraces events |
☐ |
13. The addition of the home security allowance promotes wellbeing by supporting the safety of elected members.
Options Analysis
14. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of adopting or not adopting the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy with the inclusion of a home security allowance section.
|
3. Option |
4. Advantages |
5. Disadvantages |
|
6. Option A: Adopt the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources policy, incorporating the addition of the home security section. |
· Enhanced safety for elected members where there is an identified risk. · Sets clear eligibility and conditions to ensure consistent application. · Aligns with Remuneration Authority Guidance. |
· No specific budget allocation and uptake could create costs. · Requires processes for risk assessments and approvals. 7. |
|
8. Option B: Do not adopt the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources policy, incorporating the addition of the home security section. |
· Avoids financial impact of allocating home security allowance. · Eliminates the need for new processes such as security threat and risk assessment. 9. |
· No financial support for security measures when there is an identified threat. · Council has already resolved to include these provisions so not adopting could create reputational issues. |
Financial Considerations
15. The financial impact of the proposed changes to the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy will depend on the uptake of the home security allowances. The maximum potential impact is likely to be 10 elected members x $4,500 for installation plus $1,000 per annum for monitoring, call-outs and repairs i.e. $55,000 in total. There is no separate budget provision for the allowance. Any expenditure will be managed within the current governance budget.
16. As noted in paragraph 6 the Determination came into force on 1 July 2025. The Council could choose to retrospectively apply the policy to any home security installed since 1 July 2025 if it complies with the policy adopted.
Legal Implications / Risks
18. In addition, there are governance and financial risks if approval processes and audit trails are not robust, and reputational risks if the allowance is perceived as inequitable or lacks transparency. These risks are mitigated by defining eligibility criteria, referencing the limits set in the Local Government Members Determinations and specifying conditions for when an elected member moves house or vacates their position.
TE AO MĀORI APPROACH
19. The principle of Manaakitanga meaning, Ahurutanga/haumarutanga – a strong duty of care and safety for our people – underpins the provision of a home security allowance, which is based on a security threat and risk assessment.
CLIMATE IMPACT
20. Decisions on the provision of a home security allowance do not directly relate to climate change impact.
Significance
21. 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.
22. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:
10. (a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region
11. (b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the decision.
12. (c) the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.
23. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance.
ENGAGEMENT
24. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.
Next Steps
25. If Council adopts the revised policy, it will take effect from the date of adoption.
1. Draft
revised Elected Members Expenses and Resources policy - A19382785 ⇩ 
|
3 March 2026 |
11.4 Status update on actions from prior Council meetings
File Number: A19660802
Author: Clare Sullivan, Senior Governance Advisor
Sarah Holmes, Team Leader: Governance & CCO Support Services
Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth
Please note that this report contains confidential attachments.
|
Public Excluded Attachment |
Reason why Public Excluded |
|
Item 11.4 - Status update on actions from prior Council meetings - Attachment 2 - Actions requested from Council as at 19 February - public excluded |
s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons. |
Purpose of the Report
This report provides a status update on actions requested during previous Council meetings.
|
That the Council: (a) Receives the report "Status update on actions from prior Council meetings". (b) Attachment 2 is to remain in the public excluded section to maintain the privacy of natural persons (as per s7(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).
|
Background
1. This is a recurring report provided to every second Council meeting. The next report will be to the 21 April 2026 meeting.
2. The attached update includes all open actions and actions completed since the last report on 16 December 2025.
3. Once reported, completed actions are archived and made available to Elected Members in their Stellar library.[9]
Discussion
4. A summary of outstanding and recently closed actions, as at 19 February 2026, is provided in the table on the following page:
|
Status of actions |
No. actions |
|
Closed (completed since the last report – includes one action in the public excluded agenda) |
10 |
|
Pending (waiting on something) |
5 |
|
In progress |
5 |
|
To be actioned |
1 |
|
Total actions included in this report |
21 |
5. The full status update information is provided as Attachment 1 (20 actions from public agenda items) and Attachment 2 (1 closed action from public excluded agenda items).
1. Actions
requested from Council as at 19 February 2026 - A19786413 ⇩
2. Actions requested from Council as at 19 February - public excluded - A19786167 - Public Excluded
|
3 March 2026 |
13 Public excluded session
Resolution to exclude the public
[1] This process allows for the Minister to consider the adopted bylaw at which point they may choose to disallow any part of it.
[2] Means an area that is open to or used by the public, and which is owned, managed, maintained or controlled by Tauranga City Council. Public places include, but are not limited to roads, streets, footpaths, alleys, cycle tracks, lanes, accessways, carparks, reserves, parks, domains, beaches, foreshore, berms, verges and recreational grounds.
[3] Mirimiri is a Māori healing practice that targets physical, mental, emotional and spiritual imbalances, tension and pain.
[4] Romiromi is a Māori bodywork tradition that focuses on clearing blockages in the body’s energy systems and restoring physical aligments.
[5] Previously this was a per dog owner limit which could result in a higher number of dogs being kept on a property.
[6] The Team Leader: Animal Services has delegation to approve temporary dog on leash areas or dog prohibited areas for leisure and cultural events in parks, reserves, and other public places; or to protect threatened or “at risk” wildlife or Special Ecological Areas vulnerable to dogs.
[7] Provided that directions are necessary, proportionate to the risk, and the least restrictive option.
[8] In preparing the draft updated policy, we have proposed that the maximum allowances should be tagged to the limits in the Determination that applies when approval is sought. This future-proofs the policy so that amendments aren’t required as and when a future Determination changes the limits.
[9] Stellar pathway for completed Council actions: Council and Committees (Agendas and Minutes -> Council -> Actions Requested by Council -> ‘Closed actions from Council’.
