Tēnā koe,

Thank you for contacting us. Your request has been logged under the Local
Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

We will respond to your request as soon as possible and in any case no
later than within 20 working days.  

You can also call us freephone 0800 932 463. Please quote Request No.
OIA251551 if you require any further information.

If you would like to notify us about anything further regarding this
matter, you can reply to this email.

Ngā mihi,

Whangarei District Council

 

--EmailIdentifier---eyJJSWQiOiIwYTdmOGJlMC1hYzM1LTQ5ZmItOWFjNC0yMDRkNTQyOWYwMTgiLCJIIjoiISFIQXVXTmgwdUNVbnI0SWU5RWx1aStZIn0=---EmailIdentifier--

Tēnā koe Mr Green, 

 

I refer to your request OIA251551 (Our Reference) under the Local
Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), seeking
further information and documentation about Pohe Island Playground.

 

The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 requires
that we advise you of our decision on your request no later than 20
working days after the day we received your request. Unfortunately, it
will not be possible to meet that time limit, and we are therefore writing
to notify you of an extension of the time to make our decision, to 31
March 2025. 

 

This extension is necessary because your request involves a search through
a large quantity of information not held in a single electronic file and
meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with our
operations necessary to make a decision on your request.

 

While the new deadline is extended to 31 March 2025,  under section
14(1)(a), we will try and come back to you with a response as soon as
possible.

You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of
this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
[1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.

 

Regards,

Georgina

Official Information Requests Team  

Whangarei District Council | Te Iwitahi | Private Bag 9023, Whangarei 0148
| [2]www.wdc.govt.nz

WDC Call Centre 09 430 4200

 

[3]WDC - Final email sig

 

 

Dear Whangarei District Council,

 

I am writing to formally request further information under the Local
Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) regarding
the Pohe Island Playground. This follows the Council’s response to my
previous request, which omitted key details and left several critical
questions unanswered.

 

Information Requested

Communications Between Fiona Pratt and Playground Centre In the Council’s
response, it was stated that no records exist of communications between
Fiona Pratt and Playground Centre prior to February 21st, 2024. Given the
nature of this project and the significant issues that have arisen, it
seems highly unlikely that no emails or correspondence exist.

 

Please confirm whether a thorough search was conducted across all Council
email systems and document repositories.

 

If such communications do exist but have been withheld, please specify
under what section of the Act they are being withheld.

 

If Fiona Pratt was not the person responsible for dealing with the initial
discovery of the borer issue  please provide the name of the person or
people who were responsible for dealing with this.

 

Details of Repairs Since August 15, 2024 The response indicated that
details of all repairs since the last communication between Michal Maddox
and Dean Hawkins on August 15, 2024, were attached. However, no such
attachment was provided.

 

Please supply these details as originally referenced.

 

Questions Requiring Responses

Reliance on Playground Centre’s Own Assessment

 

Playground Centre supplied timber that was later found to be
borer-infested and now shows visible signs of rot. Yet, Whangārei District
Council has accepted Playground Centre’s own “specialist” assessment that
the equipment is structurally sound without engaging an independent
engineer.

 

Why has the Council relied solely on the supplier’s assessment rather than
seeking an independent engineering evaluation of the structural integrity
of the affected equipment?

Has the Council considered the potential conflict of interest in accepting
assurances from the company that supplied the compromised product?

 

Compliance with the NZ Building Code

My previous request explicitly asked whether the playground equipment with
rotten posts meets both the NZ Playground Safety Standards (NZS 5828:2015)
and the NZ Building Code. The response only stated that “playgrounds
generally do not need a building consent,” which does not address whether
the equipment complies with the Building Code.

 

Can the Council now directly confirm whether the affected equipment meets
the structural requirements of the NZ Building Code (B1 – Structure)?

If the equipment does not comply, what steps will be taken to rectify the
issue?

Assessment by a Chartered Professional Engineer According to the NZ
government’s official guidance (Building.govt.nz), a building consent is
not required for most playgrounds. However, if the playground was designed
by a chartered professional engineer, the owner (Council) is responsible
for ensuring it meets Building Code requirements.

 

Was the Pohe Island Playground designed by a chartered professional
engineer from Playground Centre?

If so, was the engineer’s original design based on timber that was not
compromised by borer infestation and rot?

Given the current deterioration, has the Council sought a reassessment
from a chartered professional engineer to determine whether the current
condition of the playground still meets the original design’s safety and
structural integrity?

If not, why not?

 

Justification for Not Engaging an Independent Engineer

 

Given the safety concerns and structural integrity issues associated with
the timber poles, why has Whangārei District Council not engaged an
independent engineer to assess the equipment instead of relying solely on
Playground Centre’s assurances?

 

Additional Information

To ensure clarity in your response, I would appreciate the following:

 

Format: Please supply the information in electronic format (PDF or Word).

Response Timeline: As per LGOIMA, I understand that the Council is
required to respond within 20 working days. Kindly confirm receipt of this
request and provide a timeframe for when I can expect the requested
information.

If any part of my request is unclear or requires further clarification, I
am happy to assist. In the event that the requested information cannot be
provided in full, please supply any available information and explain why
certain data may be withheld under the provisions of the Act.

 

I look forward to your timely response.

 

Yours faithfully,

David Green

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
2. Link to the Whangarei District Council's website.
http://www.wdc.govt.nz/

Tēnā koe David,

 

I refer to your request with reference number OIA251551 for Information
about “Pohe Island Playground”. Your request was referred to council’s
Parks and Recreation Department for consideration to the following
questions/requests:

 

Information Requested

Communications Between Fiona Pratt and Playground Centre in the Council’s
response, it was stated that no records exist of communications between
Fiona Pratt and Playground Centre prior to February 21st, 2024. Given the
nature of this project and the significant issues that have arisen, it
seems highly unlikely that no emails or correspondence exist.

 

 1. Please confirm whether a thorough search was conducted across all
Council email systems and document repositories

A search was undertaken using specific words across council systems to
identify the requested documents.

 2. If such communications do exist but have been withheld, please specify
under what section of the Act they are being withheld.

Council information is not held in a single file and an examination has
been completed using specific words to narrow down the search. As stated
previously “The material represents our best efforts to locate relevant
material. However, the search process is by no means an exact science it
is possible that there may be other items of relevance that have
unintentionally been missed in the search.

 3. If Fiona Pratt was not the person responsible for dealing with the
initial discovery of the borer issue, please provide the name of the
person or people who were responsible for dealing with this.

The contractor who was installing the playground first spotted the issue
and brought it to Fiona’s attention.  Fiona informed Playground Centre and
the issue continued from there.

 

 

Details of Repairs Since August 15, 2024, the response indicated that
details of all repairs since the last communication between Michal Maddox
and Dean Hawkins on August 15, 2024, were attached. However, no such
attachment was provided.

 

o Please supply these details as originally referenced.

On the files supplied, please see some information regarding repairs on
page one of the communication file (this has been sent to you previously).
Please note the following comment from the department regarding this
question, “We sprayed the borer and removed some areas of rot and filled
the area”

 

Questions Requiring Responses

 

# Reliance on Playground Centre’s Own Assessment

 

# Playground Centre supplied timber that was later found to be
borer-infested and now shows visible signs of rot. Yet, Whangārei District
Council has accepted Playground Centre’s own “specialist” assessment that
the equipment is structurally sound without engaging an independent
engineer.

 

# Why has the Council relied solely on the supplier’s assessment rather
than seeking an independent engineering evaluation of the structural
integrity of the affected equipment?

WDC has engaged The Play Inspection Company to undertake an independent
audit of the playground on 16/02/24. This was completed by Philippa
Bollond. At the time of inspection, there were no high-risk items
identified that relate to the condition of the timber poles in question.

 

# Has the Council considered the potential conflict of interest in
accepting assurances from the company that supplied the compromised
product?

Yes

 

Compliance with the NZ Building Code

 

# My previous request explicitly asked whether the playground equipment
with rotten posts meets both the NZ Playground Safety Standards (NZS
5828:2015) and the NZ Building Code. The response only stated that
“playgrounds generally do not need a building consent,” which does not
address whether the equipment complies with the Building Code.

Playgrounds are exempt from needing building consents as they are covered
by the playground standards – NZS5828:2015.  However, the playground
equipment must be designed or reviewed by a chartered professional
engineer.  Playground Centre have provided documentation certifying the
playground products.

 

# Can the Council now directly confirm whether the affected equipment
meets the structural requirements of the NZ Building Code (B1 –
Structure)?

Yes, as above.  Also had an independent playground inspector audit the
playground, which passed the audit with only a few low-risk issues to
monitor.

 

# If the equipment does not comply, what steps will be taken to rectify
the issue?

According to documentation, it complies with necessary NZS

 

Assessment by a Chartered Professional Engineer According to the NZ
government’s official guidance (Building.govt.nz), a building consent is
not required for most playgrounds. However, if the playground was designed
by a chartered professional engineer, the owner (Council) is responsible
for ensuring it meets Building Code requirements.

 

# Was the Pohe Island Playground designed by a chartered professional
engineer from Playground Centre?

See above – the playground was signed off by a professional engineer

 

# If so, was the engineer’s original design based on timber that was not
compromised by borer infestation and rot?

One would assume so

 

Given the current deterioration, has the Council sought a reassessment
from a chartered professional engineer to determine whether the current
condition of the playground still meets the original design’s safety and
structural integrity?

# If not, why not?

Council have not yet sought a reassessment from a chartered professional
engineer. WDC are meeting with the playground supplier on 27/03/25 to
discuss this in detail.

 

# Justification for Not Engaging an Independent Engineer

We are still working with Playground Centre within the warrantee period.

 

# Given the safety concerns and structural integrity issues associated
with the timber poles, why has Whangārei District Council not engaged an
independent engineer to assess the equipment instead of relying solely on
Playground Centre’s assurances?

As stated above, we have not solely relied on Playground Centres
assurances and have consulted with an independent playground consultant.

 

 

The material represents our best efforts to locate relevant material.
However, the search process is by no means an exact science and given the
broad scope of your request it is possible that there may be other items
of relevance that have unintentionally been missed in the search.

 

I hope this information is of some assistance in responding to your
request. If you believe we have not responded appropriately to your
request, you have the right by way of complaint, under section 27(3) of
the Act, to apply to the Ombudsman to seek an investigation and review of
the decision.

 

Regards,

Georgina Ellis

Official Information Requests Team  

Whangarei District Council | Te Iwitahi | Private Bag 9023, Whangarei 0148
| [1]www.wdc.govt.nz

WDC Call Centre 09 430 4200

 

[2]WDC - Final email sig

 

 

 

show quoted sections