LGOIMA Requests

Thank you for your request dated 13^th October 2025 under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA). 

We have considered your request and can advise that the information you sought is being released. The documents are in this link – withheld due to privacy

However, some details have been redacted in accordance with section 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA, in order to protect the privacy of natural persons. 

The information you have requested is attached;

• Child Protection Policy 

• DOP-12 Responsibility of an Aquatics Instructor 

• DOP-6 Managing Pool Alone Policy 

• DOP-5 Supervision of Children 

I refer to your official information request dated 8^th October 2025. The information you have requested is below.

1. The 2024-2025 budget for road maintenance for the unsealed portion off the road, excluding berm maintenance. 

Budgets are not broken down per road, so this question is unable to be answered.  Road maintenance for sealed and unsealed road is a Lump Sum cost per year and responsive to levels of service and performance requirements. 

Breakdown for grading (labour/contractors) and materials of the above mentioned area 
Grading of the unsealed portion of Rangitikei Valley Road is $2,973.91 per grade or $11,895.64 per year. 

The 2024-2025 itemised expenditure for road maintenance for the unsealed portion off the road, excluding berm maintenance of the above-mentioned area. 
$13,939.92 of re-sheeting and $2,480.10 of dust suppressant 

2. The cost of the one off 1000 L dust, control, road surface sealing application carried out approximately October 2024 

Cost for materials and cost for application. 

Approximately $3,500.00 per 1000L inclusive of application 

The answers to your questions are below.  All documents are included in this link – LG_2389_Documents_for_release.zip
The link will expire after 7 days so remember to save any documents you wish to have continued access to. We recommend that this link is opened on a PC. 

Please note that some documents have had details redacted under Section 7(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to protect the privacy of individuals. 

1. Any policies, guidance, advice, or instructions (internal or external) regarding the treatment, inclusion, or exclusion of unopposed candidates in the candidate profile booklet. 

            There are no policies or instructions regarding this. All guidance, advice and instructions are provided in response to question 4.  

2. Any correspondence (including but not limited to emails, letters, meeting notes, reports, and Teams or chat messages) between Council staff, Electoral Officers, contractors, or third parties relating to the treatment or handling of unopposed candidates in the candidate profile booklet. 

There was no correspondence on this prior to the candidate profile booklet being published (except for that which is supplied in response to question 3). All correspondence post-publication is supplied in response to question 4. 

3. The full correspondence referenced in your response, being the email(s) between the Electoral Officer and the Deputy Electoral Officer relating to the proofing of voting documents and the candidate profile booklet. 

Documents are included in the link above  

4. Any subsequent correspondence, advice, decisions, or discussions since the release of the candidate profile booklet that address or explain the approach taken to unopposed candidates, including how this has been communicated to elected members, staff, or the public. 
   Documents are included in the link above. 
   This article is referenced in the document ‘Q4 - 16 Sep - Legal advice’ 
   Old software blamed for wiping ‘face of Māori ward’ from voter booklet | The Post 

The files you have requested are contained in this link – LG_2386_Documents.zip

Please note that some information has been withheld (redacted) under section 7(2)(a) to protect the privacy of individuals. 

I refer to your official information request dated 01 September 2025.

The information you have requested is below.

1. Does your Council recognise SASMs (or an equivalent mechanism) in your planning instruments and/or in a non-regulatory way?

Manawatū District Council is responding to this LGOIMA request on the understanding that the term ‘SASM’ is a reference to the National Planning Standards 2019 and the associated list of sites and items associated with the term under the district-wide Matters Standard

Manawatū District Council is midway through the Sectional District Plan Review project of the first generation Manawatū District Plan.  Council has not yet completed a review of SASMs provisions or areas – this was scheduled for the coming years, working with mana whenua across the district.  This work has been stopped as a result of ‘Plan Stop’ changes to the Resource Management Act (which came into effect on 21 August 2025).

While MDC does not have a SASM chapter in our District Plan, there are sites and areas within the District Plan which have been associated with tangata whenua values (i.e. an “equivalent mechanism”). We have answered the questions to our best ability based on these sites and areas given that we have not specifically recognised SASMs in our planning instruments.

2. How many SASMs are currently recognised in your district/region?

• As Council has not completed a project to identify SASMs in the district, a universally accepted accurate number is not available.  However, areas and features of significant to Māori identified in Statutory Acknowledgements are  considered as part of  plan change and consenting processes.  There are approximately 22 sites or areas which are definable from maps or easily identifiable from locality descriptions. However,  some areas which are mentioned include rivers, lagoons, coast, duneland, ranges, coastal area and large land areas which have within them multiple named (but not mapped) former settlement sites, cultivation areas, eeling grounds, former pa, urupa, waka landing area and other features.  The statutory acknowledgements name over 200 such sites or features of which over 150 may be within the Manawatū District

The statutory acknowledgements can be found here: Microsoft Word - District Plan MASTER 1.docx

• Three marae buildings are specifically mentioned in the district plan heritage schedule, but seven are identified on planning maps:
• Poupatatē
• Te Tikanga (Tokorangi)
• Te Hiiri
• Taumata o Te Rā
• Aorangi
• Kauwhata (Kai Iwi Pā)
• Te Rangimarie
• The district plan also identifies five pa sites and at least 39 other archaeological sites which have probable Māori associations, but for which the degree of significance to Māori is not established.

3. Please share with us any information you can on where they are located (including any maps you have) and information on whether (and if possible, how many) you have any SASMs on a closed register. Please provide any information you can on the SASMs you hold information on.

• The District Plan planning maps show the location of all sites in the Manawatū District, including mapped statutory acknowledgement areas (but not the large number of small sites within them). These can be accessed at the following links: :

• District Plan | MDC Public Map Gallery,
• Iwi Statutory Areas | MDC Public Map Gallery

• Although the district plan maps show the locations of Marae, their names are not shown.   To locate the marae mentioned by name, refer to Map Page » Māori Maps.
• Manawatū District Council does not operate a closed register.

4. What types of SASMs are currently recognised by your council?

E.g. wāhi tapu, wāhi tūpuna, statutory acknowledgement areas, urupā, pā, cultural resources, cultural landscapes, natural features etc.

The District Plan recognises the following areas:

• Natural Environment Values section of the Plan
• Significant Amenity Features (SAFs),
• Significant Natural Areas (SNAs),
• Natural Features and Landscapes (NFLs) under the.
• These can be viewed via the following links:
• NFL-APP1 - Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes (PDF File, 1.6 MB)
• NFL-APP2 - Significant Amenity Features (PDF File, 821.3 KB)
• Historical and Cultural Values part of the District Plan
• Schedules for marae, urupā, middens and other archaeological and social heritage .
• HH-SCHED3 - Marae Buildings (PDF File, 126.2 KB)
• HH-SCHED4 - Sites with Heritage Value - Archaeological Sites and Cemeteries (PDF File, 220.2 KB)
• Council also recognises Statutory Acknowledgements (STAT-APP1) under the District Plan section ‘How the Plan Works’.

• STAT-APP1 - Statutory Acknowledgements (PDF File, 4.6 MB)

The District Plan can be accessed at the following link: District Plan | Manawatū District Council.

5. How many SASMs are land-based, water-based, or are across both land and water?

Council does not have definitive information available to answer this question.  We estimate that:

• Of the 22 areas identified in maps in Statutory Acknowledgments five are predominantly water-based (rivers, lagoons and wetlands), fifteen are predominantly land-based, and two are on margins of water bodies (representing a combination of the two).

6. What are the potential implications associated with the recognition of SASMs in your district/region?
• E.g. are there any tikanga requirements, additional controls on development, special requirements for earthworks, water-takes, building etc.

This answer depends on how the SASM equivalent area is defined in the District Plan.

• Where a resource consent application is near or within a statutory acknowledgement area, this triggers the requirement to engage with the iwi or hapū holding mana whenua over the area.
• Where a resource consent application relates to an Outstanding Natural Feature or Landscape, the applicant is required to consider impacts on cultural values & engage with the iwi or hapū holding mana whenua over the area.
• Archaeological Authority processes via Heritage New Zealand will be activated where an archaeological site is being modified.

7. What processes and areas of your council use SASMs?

• Resource consenting, Notices of Requirement, District Plan development, and infrastructure projects.

8. What is the rationale and evidence used to support the use of SASMs in these processes?

• In some cases, agreements have been made between a particular iwi or hapū and Council on a particular project or natural feature (such as the Ōroua River Declaration which is an agreement between Ngāti Kauwhata and Council agreeing to collaborate on matters related to the Ōroua River).
• Iwi/hapū management plans, where present, are also used to inform involvement of iwi and hapū in particular areas. An example of this is the Rangitāne o Manawatū Environmental Management Plan, linked here: 57b92ad3b10ef727320a03d722b3cd02025611b0.pdf. Council also has statutory obligations to engage with tangata whenua over certain matters, particularly the requirement to engage iwi authorities in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act.  Other times, Council chooses to engage in good faith, regardless of the presence or absence of statutory acknowledgement.
• Council often needs to obtain consent from the Horizons Regional Council, particularly in the case of large infrastructure projects. Sites and areas of relevance to any ongoing Treaty Settlement processes, along with any requirements to engage from Horizons Regional Council through both statutory and non-statutory iwi authorities, and any other processes which indicate an iwi authority must be engaged are undertaken where required.

9. What rationale and evidence base does your council use when considering whether a SASM should be recognised in your council processes?

• Where a statutory acknowledgement area is present, the relevant Treaty Settlement legislation usually requires the consenting authority to consider proximity of any consent application to a statutory area, e.g. section 31 of Rangitāne o Manawatū Claims Settlement Act 2016.
• In the case of the SAFs, NFLs, and heritage items in the District Plan, this was determined by a plan change process under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act, which requires engagement with affected parties including iwi and hapū.
• Future work to identify SASMs was to be informed by collaborating with mana whenua.

10. Are there any other relevant statistics or other information relating to SASMs that you can provide that would help us understand how and why SASMs are recognised by your council in your district/region?

• No other information has been identified.