AGENDA

Planning and Strategy Committee

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Duncan McCann (Chairperson)

Aleisha Rutherford (Deputy Chairperson)

Grant Smith (The Mayor)

Brent Barrett

Lorna Johnson

Susan Baty

Karen Naylor

Rachel Bowen

Bruno Petrenas

Jim Jefferies

Tangi Utikere

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

 

 

 

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

 

5 November 2018

 

 

 

Order of Business

 

1.         Apologies

2.         Notification of Additional Items

Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to receive the Chairperson’s explanation that specified item(s), which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded, will be discussed.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7) must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7A) may be received or referred to a subsequent meeting for further discussion.  No resolution, decision or recommendation can be made in respect of a minor item.

3.         Declarations of Interest (if any)

            Members are reminded of their duty to give a general notice of any interest

            of items to be considered on this agenda and the need to declare these interests.

 

4.         Public Comment

To receive comments from members of the public on matters specified on this Agenda or, if time permits, on other Committee matters.

(NOTE:     If the Committee wishes to consider or discuss any issue raised that is not specified on the Agenda, other than to receive the comment made or refer it to the Chief Executive, then a resolution will need to be made in accordance with clause 2 above.)

5.         Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                     Page 7

“That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 1 October 2018 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”  

6.         Review of Wastewater Bylaw - S155 Determinations                                     Page 13

Report, dated 9 October 2018 presented by the Strategy and Policy Manager, Julie MacDonald.

7.         Kerbside Organic Waste Collection Trial Findings by other Territorial Authorities Page 27

Memorandum, dated 19 October 2018 presented by the Waste Management Manager, Stewart Hay.

8.         Committee Work Schedule                                                                                Page 73

   

 9.        Exclusion of Public

 

 

To be moved:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

 

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the above table.

Also that the persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been excluded for the reasons stated.

Chief Executive (Heather Shotter), Chief Financial Officer (Grant Elliott), Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer (Ray Swadel), Acting General Manager – Strategy and Planning (David Murphy), General Manager - Community (Debbie Duncan), Acting General Manager – Customer (Sheryl Bryant), Human Resources Manager (Wayne Wilson), General Manager - Marketing and Communications (Sacha Haskell), Acting Operations Manager (Ray McIndoe) because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with advice on matters both from an organisation-wide context (being members of the Council’s Management Team) and also from their specific role within the Council.

Legal Counsel (John Annabell), because of his knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with legal and procedural advice.

Acting Governance and Support Team Leader (David Murphy) and Committee Administrators (Penny Odell, Rachel Corser and Courtney Kibby), because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with procedural advice and record the proceedings of the meeting.

[Add Council Officers], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report and answering questions, noting that such officer will be present at the meeting only for the item that relate to their respective report.

[Add Third Parties], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

 

 

   


 

Palmerston North City Council

 

Minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 01 October 2018, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillor Duncan McCann (in the Chair), The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Non Members:

Councillors Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM and Leonie Hapeta.

Apologies:

The Mayor (on Council Business), Leonie Hapeta (early departure) and Bruno Petrenas (early departure on Council Business)

 

Councillor Leonie Hapeta was not present when the meeting resumed at 9.42am. She entered the meeting again at 11.13am during consideration of clause 65. She was not present for clauses 61 to 64 inclusive.

 

  

60-18

Apologies

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the Committee receive the apologies.

 

Clause 60-18 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9.01am

The meeting resumed at 9.42am  

When the meeting resumed Councillor Leonie Hapeta was not present.

 

61-18

Public Comment

Public Comment was received regarding concerns about the Defence Forum being held in the city at the end of the month, from the following people:

-     Fred Hirst

-     Teanau Tuiono

-     Maruna Engu

-     Peter Wheeler

 

Kerry Hocquard also made public comment regarding the lack of policy information on the conference website, for example the Smokefree Policy.

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.  That the public comment be received for information.

 

Clause 61-18 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

 

62-18

Confirmation of Minutes

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 3 September 2018 Part I Public and Part II Confidential be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

Clause 62-18 above was carried 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Abstained:

Councillor Lorna Johnson.

 

63-18

Notice of Motion - PNCC Venues Policy

 

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1.  That the Chief Executive be instructed to develop a PNCC Venues Policy which includes hireage and allowable uses of PNCC venues, ensuring it is consistent with our investment policy and other broadly accepted ethical standards such as the Human Rights Act and NZ Bill of Rights Act.

 

 

 

Clause 63-18 above was carried 11 votes to 4, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Aleisha Rutherford.

Against:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Adrian Broad, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

  

64-18

Advice on notice of motion to develop a PNCC Venues Policy

Memorandum, dated 19 September 2018 presented by the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Lew Findlay QSM.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the advice on the notice of motion to develop a PNCC Venues Policy, as contained in the memorandum dated 19 September 2018 and titled `Advice on notice of motion to develop a PNCC Venues Policy’ be received.

 

Clause 64-18 above was carried 14 votes to 1, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Against:

Councillor Bruno Petrenas.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10.54am

The meeting resumed at 11.12am

 

Councillor Leonie Hapeta entered the meeting at 11.13am

 

65-18

Proposed District Plan Change C: Kakatangiata Stage 1 - Kikiwhenua Residential Area

Memorandum, dated 20 September 2018 presented by the Acting City Planning Manager, Jono Ferguson-Pye.

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That Proposed District Plan Change C: Kakatangiata Stage 1 – Kikiwhenua Residential Area be approved for public notification under clause 5, schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2.   That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to Proposed District Plan Change C: Kakatangiata Stage 1 – Kikiwhenua Residential Area prior to public notification.

 

Clause 65-18 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Note:      Councillor Adrian Broad declared a conflict of interest in item 65-18 above and                 withdrew from discussion and voting.

 

66-18

Pressure Sewer Policy

Memorandum, dated 4 September 2018 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum.

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the draft Palmerston North City Council Pressure Sewer Systems Policy be received.

2.   That the Committee approve consultation on the draft Pressure Sewer Systems Policy with target stakeholder groups only.

3.   That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be given authorisation to approve minor amendments to the draft Pressure Sewer Systems Policy.

 

Clause 66-18 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

 

67-18

Flygers Line Remediation Options

Memorandum, dated 18 September 2018 presented by the Transport & Infrastructure Manager, Robert van Bentum.

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1.  That Council note the current position regarding long term remedial options for the Whiskey Creek flood damage to Flygers Line and that a further report will be presented in April 2019 following further discussions with Horizons Regional Council.

 

 

 

Clause 67-18 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

 

68-18

Committee Work Schedule

 

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1.   That the Planning and Strategy Committee receive its Work Schedule dated October 2018.

 

Clause 68-18 above was carried 16 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

     

The meeting finished at 12.43pm

 

Confirmed 5 November 2018

 

 

 

Chairperson


 


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Report

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           5 November 2018

TITLE:                            Review of Wastewater Bylaw - S155 Determinations

DATE:                            9 October 2018

PRESENTED BY:            Julie MacDonald, Strategy and Policy Manager, Strategy and Planning

APPROVED BY:             David Murphy, Acting General Manager - Strategy and Planning

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1.   That the Council determines under section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the issues relating to:

·    Controlling the quality of wastewater discharges into the wastewater network;

·    Proper identification of the point of discharge for wastewater connections;

·    Managing blockages and access to public wastewater assets on private property;

·    Identifying wastewater servicing areas;

·    Restricting building over wastewater assets;

·    Managing infiltration and inflow from poor connections;

·    Preventing unauthorised connections to the wastewater network; and

·    Protecting wastewater assets.

2.   That the Council determines under section 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 that the standalone form of bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw.

3.   That the Council determines under section 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 that a bylaw addressing wastewater activities is unlikely to give rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

 

 


 

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity

Proposed changes to the Wastewater Bylaw have been identified to support the development of a policy on Pressure Sewer Systems.  Rather than introduce these changes as an amendment to the Bylaw, it is proposed to review the Bylaw early and incorporate the proposed changes as part of that review.

OPTION 1:

Determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the identified issues related to the wastewater activity. (recommended)

Community Views

Initial community views on this bylaw have not yet been sought.

Benefits

A determination under S155 that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the identified issues related to the wastewater activity, including changes relating to pressure sewer systems, will enable the current bylaw to be redrafted and prepared for public consultation.

Risks

No risks identified.

Financial

Costs can be met within current budgets.

OPTION 2:

Do not determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the identified issues related to the wastewater activity.

Community Views

Initial community views on this bylaw have not yet been sought.

Benefits

No benefits identified.

Risks

While the existing Wastewater Bylaw would continue to be operative, if it is not reviewed before 2022 it would be automatically revoked two years later.  Furthermore, the policy on Pressure Sewer Systems would be unsupported by the current Bylaw.

Financial

No financial costs have been identified.

The recommendations contribute to Goal 4: An Eco City

The recommended option contributes to the outcomes of the Eco City Strategy

The recommended option contributes to the achievement of action/actions in the Three Waters Plan

The action is: Adopt a pressure sewer policy for the City, supported by revisions to the Wastewater Bylaw (by end of 2018/2019)

Contribution to strategic direction

The development of a pressure sewer policy was identified as part of the Three Waters Plan, along with consequent changes to the Wastewater Bylaw to support the implementation of that policy.  While the draft policy is currently under consultation, the review of the Wastewater Bylaw is being recommended now so that the bylaw drafting process can start as close to the completion of the policy as possible.

 

Rationale for the recommendations

1.         Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1       In October 2018 the Planning and Strategy Committee approved the draft Pressure Sewer Systems Policy for consultation.  That consultation process is underway, and the draft Policy is scheduled for consideration in December 2018.

1.2       Changes to the Wastewater Bylaw are necessary to support the development of Pressure Sewer Systems Policy.

1.3       The Council is required to review the Wastewater Bylaw, which was adopted in 2017, within five years of it being adopted.  Council officers are proposing to bring this review forward to incorporate the changes required to support the Pressure Sewer Systems Policy.

2.         Background and previous council decisions

2.1       The Three Waters Plan, adopted in 2018 as part of the Council’s Strategic Direction, identified the development of a Pressure Sewer Systems Policy, with consequent changes to the Wastewater Bylaw to support the implementation of that policy. 

2.2       The Council adopted the Wastewater Bylaw in May 2017.  This was a new bylaw, and therefore it is required to be reviewed within five years of adoption, and thereafter every 10 years.

2.3       A bylaw review begins with a determination by the Council under section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002.  This is a determination that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems.  A report is attached which provides analysis of the perceived problems (i.e. issues) that need to be addressed, along with a consideration of the reasonably practicable options to address those issues.

3.         Description of options

3.1       There are two options with regard to the review of the Wastewater Bylaw: to determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems, or to not make that determination.

4.         Analysis of options

4.1       If the Council does not determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems, this effectively ends the review.  To not make this determination would be to identify an alternative method as being more appropriate for addressing the perceived problems, and the Bylaw would not be needed.  No further work on the Bylaw would be done, and unless a different decision was made at a later date the current Bylaw would be automatically revoked two years after the five-year review deadline was reached (i.e. in 2024).  This is not recommended by officers.

4.2       Officers recommend that the Council determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems.  The current Bylaw is working well, and is ensuring a consistent approach is taken to managing demands on wastewater infrastructure.  This is demonstrated by the approach taken to the issue of pressure sewer systems, which is coordinating the responses through policy and regulation to ensure that a clear direction is provided to the development community.  The combination of policy and regulation provides clarity around ownership, maintenance obligations, and technical requirements, while safeguarding the core infrastructural assets in a sustainable way.  Continuing with the Bylaw, and refining it through the proposed review, is the preferred option.  Therefore, officers recommend that the Council determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.

4.3       If the Committee agrees that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem then there are two consequential determinations to make.  The first is that the form of the bylaw is the most appropriate form.  The second determination is whether the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.  The accompanying report attached as attachment 1 provides a discussion of these matters, and recommends that the standalone form of bylaw is the most appropriate form, and that the bylaw, when drafted, is unlikely to give rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990. 

5.         Conclusion

5.1       Officers recommend that the Council determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems relating to the wastewater activity.  Further, it is recommended that Council also determines that the standalone form of bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and that the bylaw to be drafted is unlikely to give rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

6.         Next actions

6.1       If the Committee makes the decisions recommended by officers, then the bylaw will be drafted.  The main scope of changes relate to the Pressure Sewer Systems Policy, but officers will also scrutinise the current Bylaw for any improvements that can be made.

6.2       Officers will undertake some pre-consultation engagement with identified stakeholders during this drafting process.  More information on this engagement is provided in section 7 of this report.

6.3       The draft Bylaw will then be presented to the Committee in 2019 for approval for public consultation.

7.         Outline of community engagement process

7.1       Given the recent adoption of the current Bylaw, officers do not anticipate that sweeping changes to the Bylaw will be necessary.  The majority of changes are likely to be related to the Pressure Sewer Systems Policy, and are likely to be mostly technical in nature.  To that end, pre-consultation engagement will be focussed on the following stakeholders:

·    Approved service contractors

·    Architects

·    Engineering consultants

·    Property Developers

·    Surveyors

Officers will also engage with Rangitāne through the bi-monthly engagement meetings to ascertain any concerns they may have which could be addressed through the bylaw.

7.2       Following pre-consultation engagement, officers will draft the Wastewater Bylaw for the Committee to approve for public consultation.  Information on that consultation process will be provided at that time.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual: clause 168.3

Yes

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

No

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

Yes

Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

No

 

 

Attachments

1.

S155 Determinations Report on Wastewater Bylaw

 

    


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Memorandum

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           5 November 2018

TITLE:                            Kerbside Organic Waste Collection Trial Findings by Other Territorial Authorities

DATE:                            19 October 2018

PRESENTED BY:            Stewart Hay, Waste Management Manager, Infrastructure

APPROVED BY:             Ray Swadel, Acting Chief Infrastructure Officer

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO PLANNING AND STRATEGY COMMITTEE

1.   That the findings outlined in the Memorandum dated 19 October 2018 and titled `Kerbside Organic Waste Collection Trial Findings by Other Territorial Authorities’ be received and used to inform preparation of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan to be considered at the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting in December 2018.

 

 

1.         ISSUE

1.1       Officers included Programme 1370 – Trial kerbside organic collection service during the 10 Year Plan process for consideration, with a proposed operational budget of $450,000 to undertake trials and investigations to inform a potential kerbside organic collection service.  The programme was proposed to occur in Year 2 (2019/20).of the 10 Year Plan

 

1.2       Programme 1370 – Trial kerbside organic collection service was included in the consultation process for the 10 Year Plan as a programme that was considered but not funded in the 10 Year Plan.

 

1.3       Thirteen (13) submissions were received in total for Programme 1370, a majority of which (70%) were in support of the trial being funded, with the remainder either against or neutral.

 

Of those submissions in support of the trial kerbside organic collections service, about half were in favour of a food waste kerbside collection service, with the remainder being supportive of either a green waste service, a co-collected green waste and food waste service, or not indicating a preference.

 

1.4       During the 10 Year Plan deliberations, the following recommendation was adopted by Council:

That the Chief Executive report back to Council on the findings from other Territorial Authorities across Aotearoa who have trialled kerbside organic waste collections, with options around implementation.

1.5       This memorandum provides the requested report back on findings from other Territorial Authorities, with options around implementation and supporting material to inform future decision making.

2.         BACKGROUND

2.1       Officers presented a report to the Finance and Performance Committee in June 2017, outlining options for enhanced recycling and waste management services.

 

2.2       The report provided detail on a number of specific services along with indicative costs in order to indicate direction for Officers when planning for the then proposed 2018/28 10 Year Plan process.

 

2.3       Officers presented a ‘two level’ package approach for consideration to enable enhanced waste diversion in the City. 

 

2.4       Of the options presented some have been included within the service delivery of the waste activity (e.g. reduced E-waste charges and dedicated investigations of illegal dumping incidents).  Others were included in the Waste Plan as actions to investigate (e.g. mattress recycling and a new drop off site for recycling and green waste in the north west of the City).  Two were included as programmes for consideration in the 10 Year Plan process (partially rated kerbside rubbish collection service and a trial for a kerbside organic collection service).

 

2.5       In April 2018, Officers commissioned external consultants, Eunomia Research and Consulting Limited, whose specialist areas includes waste management and minimisation.  The report provided potential diversion of organic material (Food Waste and Green Waste) that is currently going to landfill if Council were to introduce an kerbside organic collection service.  Eunomia provided this report in early May 2018, entitled ‘Diverting Organic Waste – Potential Tonnages’, which has been attached to this report as an Appendix 1.

 

2.6       A further report was prepared by Eunomia in October 2018, detailing best practices and effectiveness of various organic waste systems: ‘Organic Waste Collections – Best Practice’, which also been attached to this report as an Appendix 2.

 

2.7       Information from both of these reports has been used in this report to respond to the instruction in Clause 1.4.

3.         Territorial Authorities in aotearoa – kerbside organic collections

3.1       The information and data analysis in the following sections, has been drawn from the two reports provided by Eunomia where appropriate.

3.2       There are some Council provided kerbside organic waste collections in New Zealand, although at present these are not common.  There is a grouping of organic collection services introduced between 2006 – 2009; but since then there has been little change.  Recently however, many larger Councils have indicated they are considering introducing a kerbside organic collection service within the next few years (Eunomia, October 2018, section 3.1).

4.         Kerbside organic waste collections – exisitng, planned and signalled

4.1       Currently only seven Councils in New Zealand offer a kerbside organic collection service, with five other Councils either planning or signalling introduction of a service.  

4.2       Of the eight Councils currently providing a kerbside organic collection service, the target materials are:

·    Three Councils provide a co-collected food and garden waste collection

·    Three Councils provide a garden waste only collection service

·    Two Council provide a food waste only collection service

4.3       Table 1 below provides details on the existing, planned and signalled services from other Councils in New Zealand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Existing, Planned and Signalled Council Kerbside Organic Collection Services

Territorial Authority

Status

Service Type

Other Comments

Timaru (2006)

Existing

Food and Garden waste co-collected in a 240L wheeled bin

Fortnightly

Rates Funded

Selwyn

(2006)

Existing

Food and Garden waste co-collected in a 240L wheeled bin

Fortnightly

Rates Funded

Christchurch (2009)

Existing

Food and Garden waste co-collected in a 80L wheeled bin

Weekly

Rates Funded

Whakatane

Existing

Garden waste collection in a 240L wheeled bin

Fortnightly

Rates Funded

Kawerau

Existing

Garden waste collection in a 240L wheeled bin

Fortnightly

Rates Funded

South Taranaki

Existing

Garden waste collection in a 240L wheeled bin

Fortnightly

Rates Funded

Raglan (2016)

Existing

Food waste collection

Weekly

Rates Funded

Auckland Council

(2018)

Existing & Rolling Out

Food waste collection – started in Papakura.

23L Kerbside Bin, with a 5L indoor caddy

Weekly

Rates Funded

Hamilton City Council

Planned

Food Waste Collection – likely, implemented with new contract in 2020

Weekly

Rates Funded

Tauranga City Council

Planned

Food Waste Collection – most likely not yet confirmed, implementation with new contracts in 2021/2022, plus a user pays subscription garden waste collection

Weekly

Rates Funded

Western Bay District Council

Planned

Food Waste Collection to urban and suburban areas included in all options going out for community feedback

Weekly

Rates Funded

Wellington Councils

Signalling

Food Waste Collection – following Auckland Council implementation with interest

 

Hawkes Bay (Napier and Hastings)

Signalling

Signalling organic collection service investigation in their WMMP (Waste Management & Minimisation Plan)

 

 

4.4       The majority of Councils that are considering a kerbside organic collection service have indicated the target material will be a food waste only collection (Eunomia, October 2018, section 3.1.2).

5.         kerbside organic waste collections – trial and system performance

5.1       Where food waste is collected separately from green waste, the quantities collected are straight forward to predict and calculate from both trials and existing collection services.

5.2       Table 2 below shows participation and capture rates for studies where food waste was the target material.

Table 2: Food Waste Only Collection Performance

Scheme/Study

Participation Rate

Capture Rate

Kg (per participating HH* per week)

Kg (per HH* per week) #

Christchurch Food Waste Trials (2002)

23% opt in

 

4.0

 

Putaruru Food Waste Trials (2011)

58%

43%

1.75

1.11

Auckland Food Waste Trials - North Shore (2014)

72%

50%

4.0

3.8

 

*HH = Household

# Estimated based on access of service

Capture Rate – % of material captured in the collection system that was previously estimated going to landfill

 

5.3       Table 3 below shows participation and capture rates for collection systems and studies where food waste and green waste are co-collected together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Food and Green Waste Co-Collection Performance

 

Scheme/Study

Participation Rate

Capture Rate

Kg (per participating HH per week)

Kg (per HH per week) #

Christchurch Trials (2005)

94%

 

12 - total

2.4 - food waste

1.85

Food Waste

Christchurch Collections

(2009 on)

50-60% set out

50% Food Waste

5.7 - total

2.5 - food waste

 

North Shore Trials (2003)

53% Food & Garden

42% Food Only

55% Food Waste

(estimated)

 

1.68

Food Waste

Timaru (2007 Audit)

78%

40%+ Overall

53 – 60% Food Waste

2.86 – food waste

2.32

Food Waste

Selwyn

 

 

13.5 - total

 

 

*HH = Household

# Estimated based on access of service

Capture Rate – % of material captured in the collection system that was previously estimated going to landfill

 

5.4       The data in Tables 2 and 3 above, illustrate there is a wide range of performance variation for both separately collected and co-collected services (Eunomia, October 2018, section 2.1). 

5.5       For co-collected services, the 2003 North Shore trial demonstrated a participation rate of 53% for both food and green waste.  An audit showed that 20% of the bins contained green waste only – indicating that 80% of the households using the service used it for food waste (i.e. 42% of households).

 

 

 

6.         palmerston north Kerbside collection service: potential diversion – food waste

6.1       Council has had two solid waste analysis protocol (SWAP) audits carried out on the kerbside residual waste stream in July and November 2017.  These show the composition of kerbside household waste currently going to landfill (residual waste). 

6.2       The 2017 SWAP audits showed that on average, 30.7% of the waste placed on the kerbside for collection by households is food waste. 

6.3       The SWAP audits included all households – those that use a private wheeled bin service as well as those that use the Council’s bagged kerbside collection service. 

6.4       Every residual waste collection container contains food waste, and the quantities are fairly similar (although households with a 240L wheeled bin do put out more food waste per collection than other households). 

6.5       By using data provided by the private sector, and data collected during the SWAP audits for the bagged service, the total quantity of food waste collected from households in their kerbside residual waste is estimated to be 4,680 tonnes per annum.

6.6       No kerbside service will ever extract 100% of the targeted materials from the residual waste stream.  Experience from overseas systems, and trials and services provided in New Zealand suggest that the capture rate for food waste varies between 40% - 80%, with most food waste collections successfully diverting around 55%-60% of food waste.  On this basis, the estimated quantity of food waste that could be expected to be diverted from the residual waste stream is just under 3,000 tonnes per annum.

6.7       Table 4 below shows data for food waste from the recently completed 2018 Waste Assessment.  The data shows that currently 5.4% of food waste generated in Palmerston North is diverted from landfill.

Table 4: Sources and quantities of Food Waste Generated

Source

Quantity Per Week (tonnes)

Quantity Per Annum (tonnes)

Percentage

Kerbside residual waste

90

4,680

71%

Other to residual waste

30

1,560

23.6%

Food waste diverted

6.8

354

5.4%

Totals

126.8

6,594

100%

 

7.         palmerston north Kerbside collection service: potential diversion – green waste

7.1       Using the data collected in the 2017 SWAP audits and a similar methodology (as discussed in clause 6 above), the total quantity of green waste collected from households in their kerbside residual waste is estimated to be 3,900 tonnes per annum (or 25.7%).  As described above, no service could ever extract 100% of the target material from the residual waste stream.  A Council kerbside green waste collection service could divert up to 2,500 tonnes from household kerbside residual waste.

7.2       However, when a green waste collection service is introduced (even if mixed with food waste), it has been observed in other New Zealand Councils (and internationally) that the total amount of material collected increases significantly.  Essentially, green waste that was previously managed through other methods (e.g. composted at home, collected by existing commercial green waste collection systems, or taken directly to a transfer station and/or facility for processing) will now be placed in the Council provided kerbside service.  Collecting and processing this extra material has the effect of increasing the costs in providing the service. (Eunomia, May 2018 pg. 3)

7.3       Taking this into consideration, a Council provided kerbside green waste collection service could expect to receive up to 7,500 tonnes per annum (2,500 tonnes from the residual waste stream and up to 5,000 tonnes that is currently been managed in other ways).

7.4       Table 5 below shows data for green waste from the recently completed 2018 Waste Assessment.  The data shows that currently 54.5% of green waste generated in Palmerston North is diverted from landfill.

Table 5: Sources and quantities of Green Waste Generated

Source

Quantity Per Week (tonnes)

Quantity Per Annum (tonnes)

Percentage

Kerbside residual waste

75

3,900

33.8%

Other to residual waste

26

1,352

11.7%

Green waste diverted

121.2

6,300

54.5%

Totals

222.2

11,552

100%

 

7.5       There is very little green waste in the Councils bag collection stream, which indicates either that householders using the Councils bag service have little or no green waste (unlikely, but perhaps the case for small flats, units and apartments), or they are using alternatives to manage their green waste (such as home composting, existing commercial green waste collection services, comingling with commercial waste collection services, or taking it to the PNCC Awapuni, PNCC Ashhurst, or Matthews Ave transfer stations). 

8.         key issues, risks and points when considering kerbside organic collections

8.1       Council needs to consider what type of organic collection service to investigate implementing; food waste only, green waste only or a combined food and green waste service.

 

8.2       Food waste is typically present in all household kerbside residual waste containers, and there is very little seasonal variation in the quantities disposed of.  However green waste quantities are subject to seasonal variations, and are not typically present where the size and type of residual waste collection service is restricted (e.g. a bag collection service).

 

8.3       Services that collect food waste separately are generally collected weekly.  Fortnightly collections are more common where food waste and green waste are collected together, or green waste is collected separately.

 

8.4       Separate collections of food waste and green waste can result in higher collection costs.  However, separate collection systems allow for system configurations that can lower overall system costs.  E.g. green waste can be collected less frequently, and the green waste that is collected can be processed in cheaper windrow composting system rather than more expensive in-vessel or windrow vermicomposting systems, as would be required if it were co-collected with food waste.

 

8.5       Co-collection of food waste and green waste restricts the flexibility of the processing systems in many ways:

 

·    Collection of food waste is best done weekly to avoid odour issues

·    Collecting less frequently generally results in lower participation and capture of the food waste

·    ‘Free’ and frequent collection of green waste often results in large quantities of green waste being collected that was not previously present in the kerbside residual waste stream, this could be constrained by a smaller bin option

·    All material collected must be processed in more expensive systems that are appropriate for food waste

·    Contamination is generally more difficult to control in co-collection systems

(Eunomia, October 2018, section 2.1.1).

 

8.6       Officers have considered a range of possible configurations for a kerbside organic collection service, these are summarised in Table 6 below.

 

Table 6: Table summarising potential options available to Council

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Status Quo – No Change to current Level of Service (LOS)

·    No increase in rates

·    Current green waste system working well

·    May result in minimal future increase in diversion of waste from landfill

Green waste and food waste co-collected

·    High increase in diversion likely

·    Reduction in Council provided rubbish collection service probable

·    Contamination Risk

·    High cost - Rates increase of approximately $80 per HH

·    Collection of material already being diverted

·    Risks to existing functioning diversion services (Refer Table 5)

Green waste and food waste collections, separate collections

·    Maximum increase in diversion likely

·    Reduction in Council provided rubbish collection service probable

·    Contamination risk in the green waste service

·    High cost - Rates increase of approximately $80 per HH

·    Collection of material already being diverted

·    Risks to existing functioning diversion services (Refer Table 5)

Food waste only collections

·    Moderate increase in diversion likely

·    Reduction in Council provided rubbish collection service possible

 

·    Moderate Cost - Rates Increase of approximately $50 per HH

Green waste only collections

·    Minor increase in diversion

·    Contamination Risk

·    High Cost - Rates Increase of approximately $80 per HH

·    Collection of material already being diverted

·    Risks to existing functioning diversion services (Refer Table 5)

 

8.7       Further investigation needs to be undertaken to determine the best system configuration (continue with the status quo, food waste only, green waste only, food and green waste co-collected, or both food waste and green waste collected separately) to determine the impact on diversion rates, total system costs, and impacts of introducing a new service on existing diversion services already provided.

 

8.8       Based on the potential diversion figures in the Clauses 7.1 and 7.3 of this Report, modelling by Eunomia suggests the cost of providing the services detailed in Table 6 would add approximately $50 - $80 to the targeted rate.  This represents an increase of 40 – 63 % to the current kerbside recycling rate of $126.  These are very high-level preliminary cost estimates to provide some indication of cost per rate payer if a service level change was to be adopted.

 

8.9       Contamination is a major issue in our current co-mingled non-organic recycling service offered to all households in the city, and may be an even larger problem in a kerbside organic collection service.  The effect of contamination in the organic collection service has serious downstream effects in the composting operation.  The composting operation at Awapuni is currently operating to a very high standard.

 

8.10     The information presented in this memorandum is a general overview of the some of the key factors that are likely to affect the performance of a kerbside organic collection service (either separately or co-collected).

9.         implementation options

9.1       Officers will be presenting the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) to Council shortly for consideration to consult.

 

9.2       Officers will recommend that Council signals in the Draft WMMP for consultation, its intention to undertake an options study on organic collections followed by a trial if required.  The purpose of a trial would be to explore the diversion of waste from landfill that could be achieved from implementing the recommended organic service from the options study.  The cost of providing this service could also be more accurately estimated if a trial was undertaken.

9.3       Officers may recommend that funding for an options study be provided in the Annual Budget 2019/20, subject to feedback on submissions received on the Draft WMMP.  With further funding provided in the Annual Budget 2020/21 to undertake a trial, if appropriate.

10.       summary

10.1     There are considerable configuration options for a kerbside organic service, which need to be fully investigated through an options study if any change in this area is proposed. 

 

10.2     An options study would include a range of configurations, costings and impacts on existing services (both Council and private), as well as expected diversion of waste from landfill.

 

10.3     Palmerston North already capture 54.5 % of the estimated green waste through the services currently available.  As previously discussed, a capture rate of 40% - 80% is what is typically expected for a kerbside organic service; the current systems are already capturing a significant portion of the green waste effectively.  The current system is a cost effective and efficient service that is continuing to grow annually.

 

11.       Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?

Yes

Are the decisions significant?

No

If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?

No

Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?

No

Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?

No

Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?

Yes

Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?

No

The recommendations contribute to Goal 4: An Eco City

The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Eco City Strategy

The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Waste Plan

The action is: Investigate asset management for the rubbish and recycling activity

Contribution to strategic direction

Contributes to the development of future options to assist with the planning of the future direction for the Waste Activity

 

 

Attachments

1.

Diverting Organic Waste - Potential Tonnages

 

2.

Organic Waste Collections - Best Practice

 

    


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


 

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


 

 

 


PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

 

Committee Work Schedule

TO:                                Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE:           5 November 2018

TITLE:                            Committee Work Schedule

 

 

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1.   That the Planning and Strategy Committee receive its Work Schedule dated November 2018.

 

 

Attachments

1.

Committee Work Schedule

 

    


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator