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