A G E N D A

 

 

Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee MEETING

 

WMMP Submissions

 

Meeting Date:

Monday, 18 June 2018

Time:

9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

 

 

Group Members

Chair:  Councillor Kerr

Ex Officio: Mayor Hazlehurst

Councillors Heaps, and Lyons (HDC)

Councillors Brosnan (Deputy Chair), Dallimore and Tapine (NCC)

(Quorum= 4 at least one Councillor from each Council)

Officer Responsible

Waste and Data Services Manager (Mr M Jarvis)

Secretary

Carolyn Hunt (Extn 5634)

 

 

Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee – Terms of Reference

 

Background

Section 43 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 states that a territorial authority must adopt a waste management and minimisation plan which provides:

 

·         objectives, policies and methods for effective and efficient waste management and minimisation,

·         collection, recovery, recycling, treatment and disposal services

·         facilities for waste management

·         waste minimisation activities including education and public awareness; and

·         a framework for funding implementation, grants and advances of money

 

The Solid Waste Management Committee which had been set up with Napier City Council, jointly prepared a Waste Minimisation Plan (WMMP) which was formally adopted in 2012.  This committee was disestablished upon adoption of the WMMP. In early 2014 the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee was established to meet to oversee and manage a range of programmes and interventions to achieve effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the Omarunui landfill catchment.

 

The WMMP must be reviewed every 5 years. A Waste Assessment, which is the first step of the review has been undertaken and options are being developed for the WMMP. It is proposed that all submissions on the draft WMMP are heard by a joint committee of Napier City and Hastings District Council:

 

Purpose

·           To approve the content of the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for public consultation.

 

·           To hear submissions and make recommendations to the constituent Councils on the draft regional Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2011-2017.

 

·           To be responsible for overseeing, supporting, monitoring and reporting progress toward achieving the intent of WMMP. As well as representing the interests of participatory Councils in the WMMP.

 

·           To review the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan at least every six years to meet the requirements of the WMA 2008

 

Members

Three elected members appointed from Hastings District Council

Three elected members appointed from Napier City Council

 

Name

The Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

 

Status

By agreement of the local authority members, the Joint Waste Futures Joint Project Steering Committee has been established as a Joint Committee under clause 30A of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

Delegated Authority

The Joint Committee will have responsibility and authority to:

 

1.     Accept and hear submissions on the joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017-2023, and report back to the individual Councils on an as required basis.

 

2.     To make recommendations to each participant Council on the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

 

3.     To monitor performance and progress to give effect to the purpose of the WMMP and to make recommendations to the constituent Councils accordingly.

 

 

Administering Authority and Servicing

Hastings District Council shall administer the Joint Committee meetings.

 

Meetings

The Hastings District Council’s Standing Orders will be used to conduct the Joint Committee meetings.

 

The Joint Committee shall meet as and when required as agreed for the achievement of the purpose of the joint committee.

 

Quorum

The quorum at any meeting shall be not less than four (4) including not less than two representatives of each of the member bodies.

 

Voting

The members shall strive at all times to reach a consensus.

 

Each representative shall be entitled to one vote at any meeting.

 

There shall be no casting vote.

 

Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

The Joint Committee shall also appoint by simple majority vote, a Chairperson from one Council and a Deputy Chair from the other Council.

 

Variations

Any Member may propose an amendment (including additions or deletions) to the Terms of Reference which may be agreed to by the Joint Committee.

 

Variations to the Terms of Reference must be referred to the constituent Councils for ratification.

 

Term of Office

The primary purpose of this Joint Committee is the approval and adoption, by both Councils, of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. However the Joint Committee will continue to meet as and when required to oversee performance of the WMMP in operation.

 


 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee MEETING

 

Monday, 18 June 2018

 

VENUE:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

TIME:

9.00am

 

A G E N D A

 

 

 

1.         Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

2.         Conflict of Interest

Members need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have. 

3.         Consideration of General Business Items

4.         Confirmation of Minutes

Minutes of the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee held Thursday 23 November 2017.

(Previously circulated)

5.         Draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Consultation - Hearing of Submissions                                                                                                           7

 

 

     


File Ref: 18/506

 

 

REPORT TO:               Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

MEETING DATE:        Monday 18 June 2018

FROM:                           Waste Minimisation Officer

Angela Atkins

Waste Minimisation Lead

Rhett van Veldhuizen

SUBJECT:                    Draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Consultation - Hearing of Submissions        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1      The purpose of this report is to present to the Committee, the submissions received on the draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) and to attain decisions for incorporation into the final plan for Council adoption by 30 June 2018.

1.2      This issue arises from legislative provisions within the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requiring Council to review their WMMP every six years.  The Joint WMMP must be reviewed by 30 June 2018.

1.3      The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4      The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of local government is to fulfil the statutory requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in regard to consultation and decision making.

1.5      This report concludes by asking the Joint Committee to make recommendations on the decisions and amendments for incorporation into the Joint WMMP to be completed for adoption by both Councils by 30 September 2018.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1      The Council’s draft Joint WMMP was adopted on 20 December 2017. A comprehensive community consultation via the statement of proposal was then carried out.  The community were asked three key questions regarding kerbside collection services. A total of 6,120 and submissions were received. In addition to this, considerable feedback was also obtained on the issue of waste minimisation education – this is outlined further in attachment 3 of this report.

2.2      Status quo was not included as an option by the Joint Committee during the drafting of the Joint WMMP, following assessment of all options using a pre-defined scoring method for achieving the overarching goals of the WMMP.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       In addition to this covering report  the agenda includes:

·    a consolidated report outlining the issues raised in submissions in respect to waste minimisation education received online and in hardcopy (Attachment 3).

·    a report in respect of the submissions received (Attachment 2).

3.2      Accompanying the agenda are two separate documents which contain the written submissions in numeric order.

3.3      The following process has been undertaken by officers reviewing all of the submissions. The assessment and review of submissions commenced after the consultation period closed on Monday 26 March.  Every comment submitted via the submission form was tagged with all applicable themes to complete an analysis of the submissions. 

4.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND CONSULTATION

4.1      In conjunction with Napier City Council, Hastings District Council implemented an extensive campaign to inform the Hawke’s Bay community of the opportunity to review the draft Joint WMMP and to submit on the consultation via an online or written submission.  The consultation was undertaken between 19 February and 23 March 2018.

4.2      In addition to a consultation document being delivered to all rural and urban households, key marketing and communication channels incorporated into the campaign included radio and print advertising, digital ad placements, Facebook posts and advertising, media releases, attendance at eight community events across Hawke’s Bay and several supermarket foyers.

4.3      While sections 82 and 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 provide the principles behind consultation under that Act; and s82A covers information to be provided to the public, they collectively give a framework within which there is a great deal of flexibility for the Council over the detailed manner in which consultations is undertaken.  The process followed in this case satisfies that framework, and has focused on making it as simple as possible for people to add their voice to the discussion.  In order to limit the barriers to participation, submitters were not required to identify themselves or where they were from.  For that reason, while we have received many opinions and useful viewpoints, the views expressed are self-selected and cannot be regarded as representative of the whole community.

4.4      The consultation document contained two submission forms (attachment 4), one for urban residents and one for rural residents and focused on the three key questions regarding kerbside collection, as this was considered to be the most relevant to residents.

4.5      The consultation also sought feedback on the draft Joint WMMP (statement of proposal) which included the 44 initiatives of the action plan.

4.6      The public were also encouraged to provide written submissions if they wished to comment in more detail on the proposals contained in the draft Joint WMMP.

5.0       CONSULTATION RESULTS

5.1      Section A – Statistical Analysis

5.2      The Joint WMMP consultation process set about obtaining community views and preferences in respect of three key questions regarding kerbside service (rubbish, recycling, organics) and education/information. 6,120 submissions were received during the consultation period, consisting of 87 written submissions and 6,033 submission forms (online and posted) from the consultation document.

5.3      For the written submissions, the types of submitters are categorised below, indicating a high representation in the written submissions from individual households. Waste industry providers were also relatively more prominent.

5.4       Figure 1: Written WMMP submissions – categorised by submitter type.

5.5      Limited data was collected on the type of submitters that completed the submission form but many would fit within the same prominent categories of ‘Individual households’ and ‘Residents and concerned ratepayers’.

5.6      The following graphs detail the statistical responses received to the questions asked on the submission form. It should be noted that 92% of the respondents currently receive a kerbside collection service and the split between Napier and Hastings residents was approximately 50/50.

5.7      Figure 2: Joint WMMP submission form responses – Key Question 1, kerbside rubbish collection

5.8      2653 respondents commented about wheelie bins for rubbish. Refer to table 1 (5.17) which details the key themes of the comments received.


 

5.9      Figure 3: Joint WMMP submission form responses – Key Question 2, kerbside recycling collection

5.10    2634 respondents commented about kerbside recycling. Refer to table 2 (5.18) which details the key themes of the comments received.

5.11    Figure 4: Joint WMMP submission form responses – Key Question 3, organic waste collection

5.12    2562 respondents commented about kerbside organic waste collection. Refer to table 3 (5.19) which details the key themes of the comments received.

 

5.13    Figure 5: Joint WMMP submission form responses – Education (urban)

 

5.14    Figure 6: Joint WMMP submission form responses – Education (rural)

 


 

5.15    Section B – Consultation Themes

5.16    Further to the above, key themes from the submitter’s comments were identified for each of the submission questions, with the highest scoring themes detailed below.  The full lists can be viewed in Attachment 3.

5.17    Table 1: Key Question 1, kerbside rubbish collection

Theme

# of comments received

Wheelie bin too big

686

supportive of proposal

648

In favour of status quo

398

Incentivise diversion

353

Suggest a frequency (W/F/M)

335

Rates

285

Estimated cost

243

Other collection and processing option

230

Have a private operators collection service

228

Price too expensive

220

Flexibility/choice in service available

184

On-site storage or access prevents use of wheelie bin

160

Neither

122

Health and safety raised

94

Litter management

88

Not using single use plastic

85

User pays

65

Street scape of either using bags or bins

62

Wheelie bin too small

50

 

5.18    Table 2: Key Question 2, kerbside recycling collection

Theme

# of comments received

Suggest a frequency (W/F/M)

600

Recycling wheelie bin rather than crates

375

Supportive of proposal

294

Too many crates

274

Education / info on how and what to recycle

266

Other options/suggestions for recycling

259

Estimated cost

236

Residents have own crates now

232

On-site storage / access carrying to kerb

203

Wind-blown litter from open topped crates

188

Use drop-off facilities

184

In favour of status quo

181

Price too expensive

161

Rates

134

Neither

116

Incentivise diversion

103

Expand service to include bags and polystyrene

88

Flexibility/choice in service available

85

Crates too big

81

Health and safety raised

55

 

5.19    Table 3: Key Question 3, organic waste collection

Theme

# of comments received

on-site feed/compost of green waste

744

Suggest a frequency (W/F/M)

431

Use a private operator for a current service

378

Supportive of proposal

373

Incentivise diversion

279

Use drop-off centre

189

Wheelie bin too big

173

No interest in service

169

Different sized bin (140, 120 or 80 L)

165

Estimated cost

165

Education/info about green waste

124

Rates – impact on/increasing

105

Price too expensive

95

Other options suggested

78

Smell/pests from storing recycling

57

Seasonal/infrequent use required

52

 

5.20    Section C – Overall direction for an enhanced waste management system

5.21    The analysis in sections A and B considers the feedback in its component parts.  This section provides commentary on the overall themes regarding an enhanced waste management system for the future.

5.22    The Joint WMMP consultation process set about obtaining community views and preferences and the following table summarises feedback received, grouped within key themes. This is a compilation of feedback received via both written submissions and completed submission forms (posted and online).

5.23    The list of submitters wishing to speak to the committee regarding their submission has been grouped into these themes where possible.


 

5.24    Table 4: Summary of Joint WMMP Submission Feedback

Issue/Action

Summary of feedback received – key themes

Submitter Categories

Kerbside collection service– rubbish and recycling, council service

Key Questions

1 & 2

Type of Service

Flexibility of services

·      “One size fits all service” may not meet needs of all - offer different sized wheelie bins for different sized households, ability to choose bin/crate size and number

·      Frequency of service required varies for households

·      Option to use own crates rather than council provided crates, or wheelie bin for recycling rather than crates

·      Proposed services penalise low waste generators

·      Sharing bin/s option, communal bins – e.g. for multi-unit dwellings, retirement villages

·      Bins vs Bags

·      Support for status quo services

·      Bins made of plastic - is there any recyclable content/are they recyclable?

·      Bags – continue with plastic or return to paper?

·      Support wheelie bins if the cost is not significantly higher than current service cost

·      Wheelie bins address issues with vermin and litter, although noted litter issues continue with recycling crates unless lidded

·      Ensure/promote that wheelie bins/crates are made from recycled plastic

Capacity of bins

·      Capacity of refuse and recycling bins/crates greater than required

·      May increase not reduce waste

·      Suggest offer even smaller size for refuse and organic waste

·      Larger families need bigger wheelie bin (e.g. 240L option), and/or more than 3 or 4 crates

Collection frequency

·      Mixed support for weekly versus fortnightly collection of recycling, some support for monthly collection for low waste producers

·      Concerns that fortnightly collection could create confusion

Ownership of bins/crates

·      Who owns the council bins/crates?

·      Already have own crates – can these be used rather than council crates?

·      Identification of bins by address

·   Concerns around bin theft, damage – who’s cost to replace?

Storage and cleanliness

·   Support for three as opposed to four recycling crates – will crates be stackable?

·   Wheelie bins too big for some, storage space an issue for small properties

·   Cleaning of bins and odour, particularly in summer months

·   Weekly collection best to reduce insect/vermin issues

·   Some consider wheelie bins cleaner than rubbish bags

·   Options for wheelie bin liners

·   Why not collect recycling in one wheelie bin - less smelly and dirty?

Access  for services

·   Distance from house to collection point/kerbside

·   Insufficient kerbside space for bins/crates

·   Street terrain

·   Ability to manoeuvre (wheelie bins) or pick up (crates) due to age of person/location of home

·   Issues with wheelie bins for properties with steps, long/steep drives (bags easier)

·   Can council provide an attachment for tow bar for those living down long drives?

Health and safety

·   Safety of public of placing bins at kerbside and obstruction of the public using nearby footpaths and roads

·   Health and safety of collectors

·   Who is responsible for health and safety of the collectors - councils or contractor?

·   Weight/number of bins a handling issue for some - recycling in one wheelie bin may be easier

·   More obstacles, more vehicles on the roads

·   Materials contamination (issue for waste industry providers/processors)

·   Concern about contamination of recyclables and organic waste

Street Amenity

·    Street amenity compromised

·    Litter from crates

·    Bins/crates left on berm following collection

·    Weekly collections so streets remain tidier

·   Wheelie bins and crates with lids for litter prevention

·   Appearance of bins from multi-unit complexes

·   Wheelie bins considered by some as aesthetically nicer (compared to bags / crates)

Individual households

Residents and concerned ratepayers

Multi-unit households

Businesses 

Waste industry providers

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

 

Cost of service

Funding

·   Confusion whether rate funded or user pays, and whether proposed costs replace or are in addition to current rates charges

·   Who pays for rental properties - ratepayer or tenant?

·   Need to de-mystify costs – keep it simple and transparent

Provide comparison:

·   Council versus private operator costs

·   Status quo versus proposed costs

·   Is there the ability to opt out of a service(s)?

·   Some support for user-pays refuse bags to drive waste minimisation

·   View by some that waste collection services should be free, particularly diversion activities such as recycling collection (and organics) – to incentivise reduction

·   Different wheelie bin sizes with increasing differential cost as size increases

·   Concern that low waste generators will subsidize high waste generators

Affordability

·   Paying for services and/or capacity that are not needed

·   Increased costs over current service provision and effect on low income residents

·   Question whether cost estimates are correct – is there a breakdown?

·   Subsidies for lower income households and payment plans

·   Financial incentives, e.g. rebate for those using service less frequently

·   Viewed by some as too expensive/additional cost

Residents and concerned ratepayers

Individual households

Multi-unit households

Businesses

Government authorities

 

Collection service for rural areas

·      Increase rural recycling services and provide accessible cost effective rural transfer station to reduce barriers to rural waste management

·      Support for extension of collection systems to maximum number of households

Rural residents

Iwi

Para Kore

Collection service for business districts

·      Target the businesses to help reduce waste

·      More recycling in CBD i.e. businesses and urban houses/units/rest homes

Waste industry providers

Residents and concerned ratepayers

 


Kerbside collection service– organic waste, council service

Key Question 3 Organic waste

Householders/community

·   Mixed response from householders – some support for kerbside organic waste collections, others feel not required (as already compost at home or use private green waste collector)

·   Support for smaller kerbside bin, small benchtop bin for food scraps

·   Potential health risk perceived if proposed organic waste not taken away weekly, hygiene, insect/vermin risk and odours

·   Funding/affordability – similar to feedback on refuse/recycling collection services, particularly in terms of being viewed as an additional cost, support for ability to opt in/opt out, and subsidies for lower income households

·   Free of charge disposal of green waste from households and agriculture

·   Some support for council investment in a commercial composting plant

·   Promotion of  home composting and worm farming, bokashi – including subsidy, education

·   Continued support for Para Kore programme

·   Contamination of kerbside organics bin, e.g. wrapping/packaging

·   Green waste bin not suitable for those who spray lawn etc.

·   Sharing bin/s option, communal bins – note ability for neighbours to share private green waste collection service

·   Incentivise by free/low cost purchase/buy back of compost from transfer station – closing loop

Private sector

·   Support  for current organic waste service providers

·   Support increased organic waste diversion

·   Support Councils investigating funding of existing organic waste models e.g. credit towards commercial collections

Individual household

Iwi

Para Kore

Waste industry providers

 

Education

Waste education

·   Councils do not meet waste education expectations of community, strong indication that more is needed

·   Increased education in schools seen as a high priority

·   Support for education of commercial, industrial and business premises/operations

·   Education on good recycling practice seen as a high priority

·      Encourage households to manage organic waste, educate on how to do so correctly

·      Identify and target households that do not recycle

·      Increase funding for education

·      Provide information about what is recyclable/compostable

·      Education for farmers on available resource recovery for farms

·      Provide Resource Recovery Awards targeted at businesses/institutions/individuals/households

·      Keep all education/info on ‘what to do’ simple

·      Questions around recycling markets – Where does it go? Is it done so responsibly? Can it be processed in NZ? What happens to profits?

·      Greater emphasis on “refusing and reducing” waste - landfill last resort

·      Support businesses that use environmentally friendly products and/or materials and those that encourage recycling at the source

Residents and concerned ratepayers

Waste industry provider

Farmers

Environmental groups

Iwi

Para Kore

 

 

Facilities

 

·      Support diversion of metal by trialling bags/bins at construction sites

·      C&D waste stream needs to be further addressed in the Joint WMMP Increase landfill rates (tax or levy) to encourage diversion

·      Increase recovery activities at transfer stations

·      Lobby Government against ETS charges

·      Recommend free disposal at Transfer Stations for residents holding community services card

·      Consider other new facilities – waste diversion + job creation benefits

·      New drop-off and/or recycling facilities

·      Soft plastic recycling facility

·      Recycling factory to mend, upcycle

·      Provide ‘other’ containers at rural depots for materials such as oil, chemicals

·      Other technology – e.g. bio plastics processing, waste to energy, pyrolysis

·      Support council and community groups partnering in community recycling/recovery centres (including for example Men Sheds, ‘Remakery’) and a region wide resource recovery network.

Environmental groups

Waste industry providers

Iwi

Legislation

 

·      Priority products -  lobby Central Government to introduce mandatory priority products where they don’t compete with existing recycling and processing services offered by waste industry providers

·      Support for container deposit scheme, tyres, hazardous waste and e-waste product stewardship

·      Support for phasing out single use plastics

·      Organics and recyclables targets need greater stretch

·      Target manufacturers, not end of chain

·      Bylaws - revise and align both council’s bylaws

·      Introduce licensing of collectors

·      Ban mixing of waste streams

·      Ban commercial use of large wheelie bins for mixed waste streams

·      Increase enforcement

·      Bylaw regulation may increase illegal dumping

·      Include provisions for management of household medical waste, mercury contamination, fluorescent tubes, CFLs, controlled waste (e.g. sanitary) in bylaw

Waste industry providers

Environmental groups

Iwi

Para Kore

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

 

Diversion Initiatives

Special and hazardous, farm, commercial and industrial wastes

Special waste

·      Household medical waste requires management to remove it  from the domestic waste stream

·      Suggested that councils develop a Household Hazardous Waste Strategy, educate and enforce correct segregation, containment, treatment and disposal, expand Joint WMMP action plan to include and include in bylaw

·      Increase frequency of hazmobile collection

·      Special waste streams need to be further addressed in the Joint WMMP

Farm waste

·      Lack of feasible options for farm waste recycling and those available are cost prohibitive

·      Commercial and industrial waste

·      Commercial and industrial waste streams need to be further addressed in the Joint WMMP

·      Support for councils to engage commercial waste advisor

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

Medical Officer of Health

Farmers

Environmental groups

Para Kore

Soft plastics

·      Include within kerbside recycling collection

·      Drop off points for soft plastics e.g. supermarkets

·      Soft plastic recycling facility for Hawke’s Bay?

Residents and concerned ratepayers

Community involvement

·      Seed funding and grants from contestable fund for local waste minimisation initiatives

·      Engagement with Maori to support waste minimisation efforts

·      Support for events management and public litter and recycling bins

·      Inorganic waste solutions needed e.g. phone up service and collection for a charge

·      Incentives to lessen household waste.

·      Voucher system (e.g. free compost from transfer station)

·      Free workshops (e.g. composting, smart shopping)

·      ‘Pay as you throw’ charging (e.g. West Auckland)

Residents and concerned ratepayers

Waste industry providers

Environmental groups

Farmers

Iwi

Para Kore

Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation

Data collection

·      Improve quality of data and reporting to increase resource recovery

·      Publish evaluation of social behaviour arising from initiatives in the Joint WMMP

·      Support three-yearly Solid Waste Analysis Protocol audits

Environmental groups

Other

Private sector perspective

·      Improved resource recovery

·      Support consistent council collection methodology for region

·      Support improvements to recycling collection system and kerbside sorting to increase quality of products

·      Support soft  plastic recycling

·      Commercial waste businesses may be compromised

·      Oppose competition by councils for services already adequately provided by commercial waste industry operators

·      Oppose council wheelie bin services for refuse and organic waste

·      Support for on-shore processing facilities

·      Support Councils working with local waste industry providers on alternative waste solution options and local processing in the first instance (e.g. utilise equipment, expertise and experience)

·      Support councils’ protecting local and New Zealand owned waste industry providers

·      Believe that relationship commercial operators have with customers provides compliance with waste separation

·      Believe that council contract terms and conditions locking councils in for an extended period of time will limit ability to respond to technology changes,  and reduce future tenderers in the market, thereby raising prices

·      Support local business

Waste industry providers -  particularly those that collect and process waste

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

Illegal dumping

·      Environmental and disease transmitting consequence

·      Disposal charges increase illegal dumping/introduce rate-funded charges for domestic users/fines for perpetrators

·      People should be fined if caught littering

·      Potential that increased refuse/recycling costs will lead to increased dumping

·      Funding waste drop off at transfer station to reduce roadside, river dumping?

·      Wheelie bins seen as a ‘potential’ curbing of dumping behavior

Residents and concerned ratepayers

Individual households

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

Medical Officer of Health

 

Other

·   Concern Joint WMMP does not provide enough emphasis on other waste streams as opposed to the councils’ collection services

·   Acknowledge Māori kaitiaki of land and waterways

Residents and concerned ratepayers

Iwi

 

5.25  The following key areas are noted where little or no feedback was received. This is likely a reflection of who the submitters were (predominantly householders) and their resulting focus on kerbside services and costs to ratepayers.

5.26    Key gaps in online and postal submission feedback were around:

·    Role of iwi and representative groups (e.g. Para Kore) within waste minimisation / diversion initiatives

·    Role of local businesses within waste minimisation/diversion initiatives

·    How grants/funding mechanisms can be used to support/stimulate waste diversion initiatives

·    Ongoing management and potential future changes to council’s waste infrastructure, including Omarunui Landfill and potential joint ventures 

·    Increased consistency of waste services and key messaging across Hastings and Napier

·    Need for and approach to improved data on waste management and diversion

6.0       ADDITIONAL POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

6.1      Late Submissions

6.2      At the time of writing this report 44 late submission forms had been received via the post and the content of these submissions is comparable to the submissions already analysed Submissions were received and accepted up until 17 April 2018 to allow for those that may have been held up with the postal service.  It is at the committee’s discretion as to whether or not these 43 submissions are to be considered and accepted. The late submissions have not been included in any of the analysis contained in this report.

6.3      Locally Owned Waste Operators

6.4      The locally owned waste operators who offer wheelie bin services have provided written submissions.  They raise a number of issues and concerns that relate to the content, and proposed options identified in the draft Joint WMMP. 

6.5      In summary these operators would like to see the status quo maintained, however they are open to further review/investigation of the current system and the incentivising of the existing green waste collection service they provide.  There was also general support of the recycling options that included Council supplied crates.  It is clear from their perspective that if the Councils were to change from bags to bins it would have a seriously negative impact on these businesses.  They felt residents would not be well served by this change as it would result in less flexibility in waste disposal choice, increased illegal dumping and higher costs for some initially then for everyone in the long term.

6.6      Medical Officer of Health

6.7      The Medical Officer of Health was specifically consulted with as part of the consultation process as required by Section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.  The Act does not prescribe how a Council must consult with the Medical Officer of Health. A submission (#10083) was received and is included in the compilation of written submissions. The Medical Officer of Health submission will be included in the documentation that forms the final Joint WMMP.

6.8      The Medical Officer of Health submission states the “the assessment has been comprehensive and summarises key issues to be addressed in the new plan.”  The Medical Officer of Health raises two issues which from a public health perspective warrant further investigation; Medical Waste and Contaminated Soil.

6.9      Education

6.10    The community consultation has identified a number of ideas and opportunities for increased education with residents and business on waste services that will be utilised by officers when developing future education campaigns.  Further information regarding the education themes and scores can be found in attachment 3. 

7.0       KEY POINTS FROM CONSULTATION FOR ASSESSMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS

7.1      Below is a further summary of key points arising from the feedback themes presented in Table 4 to assist the committee in confirming the wording for each initiative of the action plan for inclusion in the final WMMP based on the submissions received and speakers heard.

7.2      Key Question 1, kerbside rubbish collection

7.3      Cost of council provided waste services – there appears to be some difference of opinion around proposed costs, including how they compare to current costs, and the need for increased understanding of rate-based versus user-pays charging (and connection to waste minimisation objectives).

7.4      Media Release - There was some initial concern from submitters around the funding mechanisms for the kerbside services and a media release was issued on 5 March 2018, Talking Costs: Waste Minimisation Consultation, to provide further detail.

7.5      Type of collection services offered for rubbish – generally there appears to be support for a move from refuse bags to wheelie bins, so long as costs are not significantly higher. There are also requests for flexibility on the size of the bin and frequency of servicing to encourage greater diversion.

7.6      Rural services for rubbish – some interest to expand kerbside collection services to rural areas in the Hastings district.

7.7      Key Question 2, kerbside recycling collection

7.8      Type of collection services offered for recycling – Concerns around recycling crates are generally based on footprint size, and potential for litter from loose paper etc. Stackable and/or lidded crates may address some storage and windblown litter concerns. There are also requests for flexibility on the size of the bin and frequency of servicing to encourage greater diversion.

7.9      Rural services for recycling – some interest to expand kerbside collection services to rural areas, both kerbside extension and drop off facilities.

7.10    Commercial waste services –general support for local service providers and local (on-shore) recycling where possible – some questioning of the appropriateness and method of off-shore recycling.

 

7.11    Key Question 3, organic waste collection

7.12    Organic waste collection and alternatives – there does not appear to be a strong desire for a council-provided organic waste collection, although further emphasis on education, promotion and incentivising of home composting options is supported.

7.13    Commercial waste services – support for commercial organic waste services to remain as is, general support for local service providers and local (on-shore) recycling where possible.

7.14    Waste education – clear support for increased focus on waste minimisation education initiatives, potentially focusing on recycling and education in schools in the first instance.

 

7.15    Other Action Points from the Joint WMMP

7.16    Waste services for business districts and multi-unit dwellings – concerns were expressed around accessibility, storage, and limited space at kerbside for refuse and recycling bins/crates for higher density developments.

7.17    Product Stewardship – there was some feedback on product stewardship from the general public, although some support for ‘buy-back’, container deposit schemes.

7.18    Concerns around other key waste types - construction and demolition, special, farm and commercial and industrial wastes – resulted in limited feedback received, although there was some interest in increased hazardous waste services. Interest was expressed in council involvement within the soft plastic recycling service (e.g. increased collection/drop-off options, support for soft plastic recovery).

7.19    Improvement of waste facilities – interest/support expressed for the development of community recycling/recovery centres.

7.20    Regulation – limited feedback received, although support expressed from a number of submitter types for increased enforcement around illegal dumping.

8.0       CONCLUSIONS

8.1      Key Question One – There is both support and concern when it comes to the introduction of wheelie bins as the standard receptacle for Council kerbside refuse collection. In the poll the 80 litre wheelie bin scored higher with around two thirds of the responses and the 120 litre wheelie bin a third.

8.2      The 80 litre option is the cheaper of the two, which may have contributed to the choice as cost was a common theme of the comments. However, the analysis of the themes in the comments show another driver that could have contributed to this result. Allowing for the provision of excess volume, even using the small 80 litre wheelie bin is seen as an issue for the respondents. There is variety in the amount of recyclables and waste a household produces due to household size and the way it is managed.

8.3      Providing for excess volume is seen as a negative incentive and unfair for households that are small or put great effort in diversion of waste from landfill. Flexibility in volume and respective charge is seen as fair and positive incentive. The submissions contained requests for flexibility in various ways, including the wheelie bin size, frequency of collection and the addition of a user-pays element to the service.

8.4      The local waste (collection) industry support the overarching goal of resource recovery and waste reduction but oppose the receptacle change for Council services. A large regional contract for residential kerbside collection is seen to be compromising local business and Council’s ability to respond to market and technology changes. It is suggested Council build upon and support services adequately provided commercially and protect local business.

8.5      Key Question Two – The proposed changes to the kerbside recycling service consulted upon is the introduction of council provided crates and a possible change in collection frequency for either Hastings or Napier. Unlike the waste collection, the slightly more expensive option scored higher in the poll. The weekly collection scored 54% and themes in the comments suggest that a weekly service is easier to remember and results in the storage of less recyclables between pick-ups. Cost will have contributed to the score but is less prevalent in the comments.

8.6      There are however concerns, questions and suggestions. Many believe wheelie bin collections for recyclables are a more convenient option and result in far less windblown litter. A large proportion of current users of the service use their own crates and are happy with this approach. Similar to waste collection, the variety in household size and ways in which they manage recycling resulted in themes around flexibility in the number of crates, the crate size and frequency of collection.

8.7      Many use the drop-off stations provided across the region in addition to the kerbside service. Some only use the drop-off centres as they regard the kerbside collection as messy or have no other option because the live outside the collection zone.

8.8      There is also a lack of understanding concerning the recycling service. The costs, the way it is funded currently and how to best utilise this service often surface in the comments of respondents.

8.9      The local waste (collection) industry does not have a large involvement with collection of kerbside recycling service provision. Some operators provide recycling services to business users and one operates the drop-off centre for recyclables in Austin Street, Napier. There is support for the focus on quality of the collected recycling material as it results in better, often local sales.

8.10    Key Question Three – The provision of a collection service for organic waste is new. The poll question for this service provided choices for the weekly collection of garden waste only or the inclusion of food waste using a 240 litre wheelie bin, investigation funding existing models or not using the service. 58% of the respondents would use the service, which indicates the disposal of organic waste is part of many household waste management activities and a kerbside service would be a welcome addition. Around 38% selected the option with the inclusion of food waste. 31% of the respondents indicated they would not use the service and 11% support funding existing organic waste models, a very broad initiative.

8.11    When examining the written comments it becomes very clear that there is no greater variety in the production and management of waste than within the organics. All households produce food/kitchen waste and the household size and habits will affect the amount. This however is outweighed by the garden waste, which ranges from none to trailer loads per month. Garden waste production has a seasonal character, contribution to constant change.

8.12    Many of the respondents that would not use the service or would like to see funding of existing models process garden and/or kitchen waste on-site using compost or worm farm systems. The themes in the comments refer to the many additional options available to dispose of organic material, including commercial green waste collection, drop-off centres like transfer stations, BioRich, PacPac, removal by the gardener, on-site burning and through the wheelie bin collection for rubbish. 

8.13    The use of on-site systems like composting and worm farming was by far the highest scoring theme in the comments. It is interesting to note that households that compost often refer to the use of a food waste service, while households that use worm farms or in-sink disposal struggle with green waste.

8.14    There is also a large group of households that use commercial collection services for organics. They indicate they are satisfied with the level service and the flexibility provided. This flexibility consist of bin size, and frequency ranging from weekly to monthly or on-call.

8.15    On-site solutions require commitment, drop-off centres transport and no two sections are the same. Disposal of green waste through refuse bags or wheelie bin collection has a negative impact on the landfill but the provision of organics collection requires great flexibility in frequency and volume if it is to cater for a large proportion of the community.

8.16    The draft Joint WMMP proposed an action plan of initiatives and the committee must confirm the wording for each action for inclusion in the final plan based on the submissions received and speakers heard.

 

9.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Waste Minimisation Officer titled Draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Consultation - Hearing of Submissions dated 18/06/2018 be received.

B)        That the written and verbal submissions attached and the late submissions be received.

C)        That the decisions and amendments made at this Committee meeting be incorporated into the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018-2024.

D)        That officers reply to all submitters that provided contact details and thank them for their submissions, advise of any Council decisions in responses to the submissions as amended by the Council at this meeting.

E)        That the issues raised in submissions that require further action by the Council through the Committee structure be noted and brought forward by officers as appropriate.

F)        That the Council resolves, in terms of Section 82  and 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, that the principles set out in that             section have been observed in such a manner that the Hastings        District Council considers, in its discretion, is appropriate for the        decisions made during the course of this meeting.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Sections 82 & 83 LGA 2002

PRJ18-7-0101

 

2

WMMP Consultation - Written Submissions Report by Morrison Low

PRJ18-7-0102

 

3

WMMP Consultation - Submission Results report

PRJ18-7-0100

 

4

Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

PRJ17-113-0002

 

5

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

PRJ18-7-0106

 

6

Submission #1 - Margaret and Colin Palmer

PRJ18-7-0005

Vol 1 of 2

7

Submission #2 - Terry Manning

PRJ18-7-0006

Vol 1 of 2

8

Submission #3 - Leana Du Toit

PRJ18-7-0007

Vol 1 of 2

9

Submission #4 - PS Brough

PRJ18-7-0008

Vol 1 of 2

10

Submission #5 - Margaret Hollis

PRJ18-7-0009

Vol 1 of 2

11

Submission #6 - Valarie McDonnell

PRJ18-7-0010

Vol 1 of 2

12

Submission #7 - David Ferguson

PRJ18-7-0011

Vol 1 of 2

13

Submission #8 - Merle and Malcolm Campbell

PRJ18-7-0012

Vol 1 of 2

14

Submission #9 - Ian and Diane Thompson

PRJ18-7-0013

Vol 1 of 2

15

Submission #10 - Tony and KA Hughes

PRJ18-7-0014

Vol 1 of 2

16

Submission #11 - Shane Allen

PRJ18-7-0015

Vol 1 of 2

17

Submission #12 - Barbara and Peter Holland

PRJ18-7-0016

Vol 1 of 2

18

Submission #13 - Paul O'Regan

PRJ18-7-0017

Vol 1 of 2

19

Submission #14 - David and Barbara Appleton

PRJ18-7-0018

Vol 1 of 2

20

Submission #15 - Emma Koch

PRJ18-7-0019

Vol 1 of 2

21

Submission #16 - Pat Berry

PRJ18-7-0020

Vol 1 of 2

22

Submission #17 - Andy Gifford

PRJ18-7-0021

Vol 1 of 2

23

Submission #18 - Shelia Edwards

PRJ18-7-0022

Vol 1 of 2

24

Submission #19 - Edward Visser

PRJ18-7-0023

Vol 1 of 2

25

Submission #20 - Tony Rosoman

PRJ18-7-0024

Vol 1 of 2

26

Submission #21 - Elizabeth Beall

PRJ18-7-0025

Vol 1 of 2

27

Submission #22 - M Price

PRJ18-7-0026

Vol 1 of 2

28

Submission #23 - Peter Ashley

PRJ18-7-0027

Vol 1 of 2

29

Submission #24 - Craig Gillespie

PRJ18-7-0028

Vol 1 of 2

30

Submission #25 - Jessie and John Moir

PRJ18-7-0029

Vol 1 of 2

31

Submission #26 - S Dougan

PRJ18-7-0030

Vol 1 of 2

32

Submission #27 - Charles Pagler

PRJ18-7-0031

Vol 1 of 2

33

Submission #28 - L Dolieslager

PRJ18-7-0032

Vol 1 of 2

34

Submission #29 - Paul Bailey

PRJ18-7-0033

Vol 1 of 2

35

Submission #30 - Julia Butler

PRJ18-7-0034

Vol 1 of 2

36

Submission #31 - Janice Winter

PRJ18-7-0035

Vol 1 of 2

37

Submission #32 - No Name

PRJ18-7-0036

Vol 1 of 2

38

Submission #33 - Brian Gestro

PRJ18-7-0037

Vol 1 of 2

39

Submission #34 - 3R Group

PRJ18-7-0038

Vol 1 of 2

40

Submission #35 - Darryl and Christine Hook

PRJ18-7-0039

Vol 1 of 2

41

Submission #36 - Marilyn Skyrme

PRJ18-7-0040

Vol 1 of 2

42

Submission #37 - No Name

PRJ18-7-0041

Vol 1 of 2

43

Submission #38 - AD Walker

PRJ18-7-0042

Vol 1 of 2

44

Submission #39 - The Cathedral Environment Justice and Peace Network

PRJ18-7-0043

Vol 1 of 2

45

Submission #40 - P Thompson

PRJ18-7-0044

Vol 1 of 2

46

Submission #41 - Digby Young

PRJ18-7-0045

Vol 1 of 2

47

Submission #42 - Mike Martin

PRJ18-7-0046

Vol 1 of 2

48

Submission #43 - Rosemary Severinsen

PRJ18-7-0047

Vol 1 of 2

49

Submission #44 - Craig Morley (repeat submission #65)

PRJ18-7-0048

Vol 1 of 2

50

Submission #45 - Phil Appleford

PRJ18-7-0049

Vol 1 of 2

51

Submission #46 - Kathy McKee

PRJ18-7-0050

Vol 1 of 2

52

Submission #47 - Brooke Montaperto, Bin Hire Company

PRJ18-7-0051

Vol 2 of 2

53

Submission #48 - HB Waste Assn

PRJ18-7-0052

Vol 2 of 2

54

Submission #49 - Glass Packaging Forum

PRJ18-7-0053

Vol 2 of 2

55

Submission #50 - Scrap Metal Recycling Assn - Korina Kirk

PRJ18-7-0054

Vol 2 of 2

56

Submission #51 - Sue Dick

PRJ18-7-0055

Vol 2 of 2

57

Submission #52 - Grey Power Hastings - Marie Dunningham

PRJ18-7-0056

Vol 2 of 2

58

Submission #53 - Linda and Darry McNeilly, Bay Environmental Bins

PRJ18-7-0057

Vol 2 of 2

59

Submission #53 Supplementary Information received 30 May 2018

PRJ18-7-0105

Vol 2 of 2

60

Submission #54 - Peter McLean

PRJ18-7-0058

Vol 2 of 2

61

Submission #55 - Eddie and Jill Powles

PRJ18-7-0059

Vol 2 of 2

62

Submission #56 - Green Sky Waste Solutions Ltd

PRJ18-7-0061

Vol 2 of 2

63

Submission #57 - Tim Coombs, Hawke Packaging

PRJ18-7-0062

Vol 2 of 2

64

Submission #58 - Judy Mills

PRJ18-7-0063

Vol 2 of 2

65

Submission #59 - Will Foley, Federated Farmers of NZ

PRJ18-7-0064

Vol 2 of 2

66

Submission #60 - Brendon Walker - Waste Management

PRJ18-7-0065

Vol 2 of 2

67

Submission #61 - Belinda Baxter

PRJ18-7-0066

Vol 2 of 2

68

Submission #62 - Peter Scott

PRJ18-7-0067

Vol 2 of 2

69

Submission #63 - Cynthia Growden

PRJ18-7-0068

Vol 2 of 2

70

Submission #64 - Robin and Dianne Thomas - Arindee Holdings T/A Kerbisde Services

PRJ18-7-0069

Vol 2 of 2

71

Submission #66 - Nigel Halpin, Biorich Ltd

PRJ18-7-0071

Vol 2 of 2

72

Submission #67 - Judy S

PRJ18-7-0072

Vol 2 of 2

73

Submission #68 - No Name

PRJ18-7-0073

Vol 2 of 2

74

Submission #69 - Allan C Cochran

PRJ18-7-0074

Vol 2 of 2

75

Submission #70 - Environment Centre HB

PRJ18-7-0075

Vol 2 of 2

76

Submission #71 - Matthew Burnside

PRJ18-7-0076

Vol 2 of 2

77

Submission #72 - John Adams

PRJ18-7-0077

Vol 2 of 2

78

Submission #73 - Robin and Margaret Gwynn

PRJ18-7-0078

Vol 2 of 2

79

Submission #74 - Richard Barfoot

PRJ18-7-0079

Vol 2 of 2

80

Submission #75 - Tony and Christine Smith

PRJ18-7-0080

Vol 2 of 2

81

Submission #76 - Mike Smith

PRJ18-7-0081

Vol 2 of 2

82

Submission #77 - GD and AJ Curtis

PRJ18-7-0082

Vol 2 of 2

83

Submission #78 - Zoe Barnes

PRJ18-7-0083

Vol 2 of 2

84

Submission #79 - Robert and Deborah Burnside, Clean Earth

PRJ18-7-0084

Vol 2 of 2

85

Submission #80 - Hamish Sisson, Interwaste

PRJ18-7-0085

Vol 2 of 2

86

Submission #81 - Para Kore

PRJ18-7-0086

Vol 2 of 2

87

Submission #82 - Ngati Parau

PRJ18-7-0088

Vol 2 of 2

88

Submission #83 - Medical Officer of Health

PRJ18-7-0089

Vol 2 of 2

89

Submission #84 - HB DHB

PRJ18-7-0090

Vol 2 of 2

90

Submission #85 - Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated

PRJ18-7-0093

Vol 2 of 2

91

Submission #86 - Lance Simon

PRJ18-7-0095

Vol 2 of 2

92

Submission #87 - Bruce Bisset

PRJ18-7-0098

Vol 2 of 2

93

Submission #88 Tony Williams (late submission, received via HDC LTP)

PRJ18-7-0104

Vol 2 of 2

 

 

 


Sections 82 & 83 LGA 2002

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


WMMP Consultation - Written Submissions Report by Morrison Low

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


WMMP Consultation - Written Submissions Report by Morrison Low

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


WMMP Consultation - Written Submissions Report by Morrison Low

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


WMMP Consultation - Education Question Results report

Attachment 3

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Options Table District Specific Waste Issues

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Submissions from submission forms

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator