Attachments of Community Plan Committee

Attachment 1

Draft Part 5 - Rates Remission Policy Rates Remission & Grants for Economic Development - Jan 2017

Rates Remission & Grants for Economic Development

Revision Jan 2017

Objectives of the Policy

To promote employment and economic development within the city of Lower Hutt by offering rates remission and economic development grants to:

§ Encourage new businesses to become established in or relocate to the city; or

§ Encourage existing businesses in the city to expand and grow.

This policy is one of a number of initiatives for businesses that Council has in place to assist in achieving the outcomes in its Economic Development Plan 2015-2020.

Rates Remission for economic development

Conditions and Criteria

This part of the policy applies to commercial and/or industrial developments that involve the construction, erection or alteration of any building or buildings, or other works intended to be used for industrial, commercial or administrative purposes. Residential developments will not qualify for remission under this part of the Policy.

In order for an application for rates remission for economic development to be considered, applicants must meet all the criteria in either Part A (1) or Part A (2).

Each application made under Part 5 of the Rates Remission Policy – Economic Development will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Satisfaction of the criteria outlined in this Policy does not guarantee a remission of rates. The final decision to grant a remission of rates will be at Council’s sole discretion.

Part A

1. General Criteria

§ The development must be of strategic importance for the future economic development of the city. This may be demonstrated by the scale, type or nature of the development.

§ The development will create new employment opportunities. Generally a development targeted at a new business to the city would be expected to immediately create at least 50 new full-time-equivalent jobs to Lower Hutt. Developments that target an existing business would be expected to immediately increase its full-time equivalent staff numbers by:

ú Over 50% of existing full-time equivalent jobs; or

ú At least 50 new full-time equivalent jobs, whichever is the lesser.

§ The development is unlikely to be in competition with existing businesses. Generally the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the development will create little or no competition with existing businesses, or that there is unfulfilled demand in the market for the type of business that will be targeted.

§ The development will bring a significant amount of new capital investment into the city. The amount of new investment should be not less than $2,500,000 unless the business falls within the category identified in 2 below. Consideration will be given to the extent that the new development would increase the rating base.

2. Criteria regarding innovative or rare types of business for Lower Hutt using advanced science and/or advanced technology

Developments that attract new or grow existing innovative or rare types of business for Lower Hutt using advanced science and/or advanced technology are likely to be more favourably considered for remission. Where this type of business does not initially meet the criteria for employment creation or new capital investment as outlined above:

§ The development must be of strategic importance for the future economic development of the city. This will be demonstrated by the advanced science and/or advanced technology nature of the development.

§ The applicant must demonstrate -Through recognized research and development programmes; and/or through ownership or access to recognized intellectual property rights, that it has a realistic future potential to meet the criteria for employment creation and new capital investment as outlined above, within 3 years.

To further assist in considering applications for remission under this part of the policy Council will also have regard to the extent applications meet all or some of the additional guidelines outlined in Part B.

Part B – Additional Guidelines

These additional guidelines have been developed to assist in assessing the suitability of an application for rates remission and in determining at what level, if any, rates remission should be set. Only when an application has been shown to meet the mandatory criteria outlined in Part A (1) or Part A (2) will the additional guidelines in Part B be applied (as applicable).

§ The development attracts businesses that demonstrate a long-term commitment to remain and operate in the city. Property ownership or a long-term lease of property may be accepted as a proof of commitment.

§ The development protects or retains cultural aspects of the city, e.g. maintains and protects a heritage building.

§ The development adds new and/or visually attractive infrastructure/ buildings to the city.

§ The development has minimal impact on the environment in terms of air, water or soil.

§ It is likely that any remission granted would provide encouragement or impetus to proceed with the development.

grants for economic development

Conditions and Criteria

This part of the policy applies to the establishment or relocation of commercial and/or industrial businesses new to Lower Hutt and the expansion of existing commercial and/or industrial businesses in Lower Hutt that does not involve the construction, erection or major alteration of any building or buildings intended to be used for industrial, commercial or administrative purposes.

Residential activity will not qualify for grants under this part of the Policy.

In order for an application for economic development grants to be considered, applicants must meet all the criteria in Part A (3).

Each application will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Satisfaction of the criteria outlined in Part A (3) of this Policy does not guarantee an economic development grant. The final decision to approve an economic development grant will be at Council’s sole discretion.

Part A

3. General Criteria

§ The business must be of strategic importance for the future economic development of the city. This may be demonstrated by the scale, type or nature of the business.

§ The business will create new employment opportunities. Generally a new business to the city would be expected to immediately create at least 50 new full-time-equivalent jobs in Lower Hutt. Existing business would be expected to immediately increase its full-time equivalent staff numbers by at least 50 new full-time equivalent jobs,

§ The business is unlikely to be in direct competition with existing businesses. Generally the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the business will create little or no competition with existing businesses.

§ The business demonstrates a long-term commitment to remain and operate in the city. Property ownership or a long-term lease of property (minimum of 6 years) may be accepted as a proof of commitment.

To further assist in considering applications for economic development grants under this part of the policy Council will also have regard to the extent applications meet all or some of the additional guidelines outlined in Part B.

Part B – Additional Guidelines

These additional guidelines have been developed to assist in assessing the suitability of an application for an economic development grant and in determining at what level, if any, an economic development grant should be set. Only when an application has been shown to meet the mandatory criteria outlined in Part A (3) will the additional guidelines in Part B be applied (as applicable).

§ The extent that the new or expanded business would increase economic activity in the city

§ The business has minimal impact on the environment in terms of air, water or soil.

§ It is likely that any grant provided would encourage the business to proceed with the establishment, relocation or expansion in the city.

Application Process

Applications must be made in writing and received allowing sufficient time to be considered prior to the commencement of construction or relocation or expansion of the business. Commencement of construction will be deemed to have occurred when the activity for which a building consent has been issued is substantially underway and progressing. Establishment, relocation or expansion of the business will be deemed to have occurred once occupancy of the business personnel has occurred.

For the purposes of this policy a development is any project or group of projects requiring one or more building consents that, as a body of work, occurs within a similar timeframe, and that stands alone as a complete activity in and of itself.

This policy does not exclude the potential for more than one development to occur on the same site.

Applications must be supported by:

§ A description of the development or business

§ A plan of the development or business premises (where possible)

§ An estimate of costs of the development (for rates remission applications only)

§ An indication of the businesses that will be attracted by the development

§ An estimate of the likely number and type of jobs created by the development or business.

§ Evidence that the jobs (positions) created are new to Lower Hutt.

§ An environmental impact report (if applicable)

§ Evidence of ownership or access to intellectual property rights (if applicable)

§ Evidence of future commercial potential of use of that intellectual property (if applicable).

Where the applicant is not the owner or the ratepayer of the property, the applicant must provide written proof of support from the property owner. If the applicant is a lessee then the lease expiry date should be stated, as well as any rights of renewal etc.

In considering applications Council may seek independent verification of any information provided on an application.

Each application will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Satisfaction of the criteria outlined in Part A (1), Part A (2) or Part A (3) does not guarantee a remission of rates or economic development grant. The final decision to approve a remission of rates or an economic development grant will be at Council’s sole discretion.

Remissions of rates approved will generally be not less than 50%, and may be up to a maximum of 100% of the rates levied by Hutt City Council on the capital value of the new investment only, and for up to a maximum remission period of three years. Rates to be paid to Greater Wellington Regional Council cannot be remitted under this policy.

Economic development grants approved will generally be not less than 50%, and may be up to a maximum of 100% of the equivalent value of the rates levied by Hutt City Council on the capital value of the premises occupied by the business and for up to a maximum remission period of three years.

In approving rates remissions or economic development grants under this policy Council may in its discretion specify certain conditions before the rates remission or economic development grant will be granted having regard to the criteria and the application process in this policy. Applicants will be required to agree in writing to these conditions and to pay any remitted rates or economic development grants provided if the conditions are violated.

Delegations

Applications for remission of rates and economic development grants for economic development will be decided by the Mayor, Chair of the City Development Committee and Chief Executive, including specifying any conditions.

Appeal

Applicants may appeal against:

§ a decision to decline a remission of rates or not approve a full remission of rates; or not approve an economic development grant;

§ conditions imposed when a remission of rates or economic development grant has been approved.

Appeals will be heard by the Finance and Performance Committee of Council.

Exclusions

This policy shall not apply to Council developments.

Attachment 1

WMMP written submissions

JOINT WELLINGTON REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN
Name	Organisation	DMS Number	Submitter Comments
Jono Wierenga	B	DAP17/8	Question Comments: (80) -What a waste of time.
Ben Salt	A	DAP17/32	Question Comments: (80) -Here's something to think about. Every council has this problem. You're also trying to foster innovation in the Hutt? Establish a fund to encourage private sector to look at and solve these problems using technology. Focus on the outcomes you want, such as how do you 'sort' rubbish at the landfill to ensure all recycling has been removed? Those things that can be recycled but currently are not, figure out how to effectively recycle those. Look at bio fuel generators as a way to utilise gases produced by rubbish decomposition. The list is endless. In a nutshell, make it so easy for residents to recycle that it would cost them money not to recycle.
Hilary Keenan		DAP17/29	Question Comments: (80) -Not technically qualified or knowledgeable to make appropriate comment.
Helen Visser		DAP17/35	Question Comments: (80) -Don't know enough to comment on the following questions.
Warwick Stoupe		DAP17/51	Question Comments: (80) -Some of these actions could be covered by central government.
Michael Harbrow		DAP17/77	Question Comments: (80) -Terrible question!...better to spell the actions out for people so they don't have to dig through another document to find the details. There isn't sufficient information about what action No 2 is for me to comment. No 3 is unlikely to be effective without specific targeted strategies to change people's behaviour. I support all the other actions and would especially like to see a 2 or 3 bin domestic waste system similar to those that operate in other cities of similar or even smaller size than Lower Hutt - Lower Hutt is pretty backward compared even to places like Timaru and Invercargill. I would happily pay more in rates to have better kerbside rubbish and recycling.
B Kay		DAP17/72	Question Comments: (80) -Don't understand Proposed Regional Action No. 6.
Steven Winyard		DAP17/73	Question Comments: (80) -We need to investigate measures to stop recyclables and demolition waste going into the landfill. Human waste should not be used as fertiliser in our food chain because it is a health hazard. I think the councils need to look at spending more money on recycling rather than spending money on having more gardens in the reserves and parks etc.
Joshua Thurston		DAP17/121	Question Comments: (80) -Reducing waste by one third over 10 years is not a very large target.
Adrian Wood		DAP17/182	Question Comments: (80) -Q10 has to be the most badly worded question I have ever seen. Lots of fluffing sounding answers, general public would have no idea how to respond. We need new recycling bins maybe collected every two-three weeks.
Andy Newman		DAP17/185	Question Comments: (80) -I would hate to see Hutt's recycling methods being subsumed into the methods and principles used by Wellington City Council. Barely a week goes by that I fail to see recycled packaging floating down the Terrace in Wellington because some poor sap put out the wrong recycling that week. I am all for improved methods, but the region doesn't necessarily have them, and Hutt's methods are already superior to some.
Graham Cliff		DAP17/115	Question Comments: (80) -No.1-3: are too vague to allow meaningful comment. No.4: is, in theory, desitrable: the devil is in the detail No.5:is to be strongly endorsed. No.8: as for No.1-3 Local action plan: too sweeping for a 'agree/disagree' answer.
Chris Barker		DAP17/117	Question Comments: (80) -Strongly agree with number 7.
Julia White		DAP17/148	Question Comments: (80) -This is not clearly written, I don't understand it and therefore can't comment.
Ed Oosterbaan		DAP17/578	Question Comments: (80) -Having just moved to the Hutt from town, it seems recycling rates are much lower in the Hutt. Is this beacuse the small green bins are cumbersome? The rubbish bags are rejected when they are too heavy (in 15 years, I have never seen this in town before). So a wheelie bin becomes a better option. It is too easy to throw something in the wheelie bin, than squashing folding and stacking in a tiny open green recycle bin.
Tina Ratana		DAP17/595	Question Comments: (80) -kerbisde collections is shocking, just look at Auckland most days. Material flying everywhere, old furniture etc.
Anonymous Submitter		DAP17/161	Question Comments: (80) -Illegal dumping: educe the landfill charges
M & M Reed		DAP17/165	Question Comments: (80) -Plain English would help. Most of this you should be doing now.
Lynette Jowett		DAP17/167	Question Comments: (80) -At the moment kerbside systems are wasteful- In Eastbourne several different trucks in one small street each Monday. Collecting different bins can be efficient! Waste management in general- (household) it should be free to drop off compost such as vegetables and fruit etc -not everyone can compost in their backyard but would like to do the right thing- how can this be arranged? If a list was made of composting material I'm sure it would be used.
Sarah Peters		DAP17/313	Question Comments: (80) -Proposed Regional Action No. 1 - This is a very weak statement. you either investigate ways to make it feasible or not, otherwise people will continue to dump rubbish by the river and other places.
Noelene Diamond		DAP17/176	Question Comments: (80) -Re Rubbish (domestic): living alone and composting I use a bag in approximately 6 weeks witht eh wonderful help of the small recycle containers. I realise some people do just not concern themselves with the costs to the environment. Regardless of any education of this I don't believe they will change. wheelie bins to everyone on a weekly would be an expensive agenda on the ratepayer. We could have a "free" green area at the landfill like Rotorua.
Stuart Reid		DAP17/210	Question Comments: (80) -Waste management: Seem to be setting up committees to gather data, collaborate, educate. We know what to do: less packaging, -less plastic packaging, -biodegradability, We just need to be told via regulation to get on with it.
Francine Harland		DAP17/331	Question Comments: (80) -Check out https://energycultures.org/ to see what sort of actions do and do not work for changing business culture for issues such as sustainable choices, fuel consumption etc. A good starting point is their publication: https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/7104. These things should be considered before implementing plans of how to implement changes for households and businesses.
Christopher Houston		DAP17/337	Question Comments: (80) -The costs and benefits of these have not been presented so how is it even possible to provide an informed opinion here?
Guy Smith		DAP17/349	Question Comments: (80) -I could not understand what Actions #2 and #3 meant. Try plain English next time.
Richard Jackson		DAP17/351	Question Comments: (80) -I agree with some of the things HCC are looking at doing. However, we know from prior consultation that the city doesn't support the move to wheelie bins for recycling. Hazmobile collections are useful. I perceive Lower Hutt to already do a good job around recycling compared to other cities in the region. Wellington has problems with the wheelie bin system as reported in media (cross contamination), and Upper Hutt doesn't have facilities for recycling.
Andrew Ollivier		DAP17/355	Question Comments: (80) -Currently not nearly enough is being done in terms of waste recycling - a cohesive strategy that helps people recycle cheaply (read 'free') and offers easy places for streams of rubbish to go is great. e.g. hard plastics, bottles, paper in one bin. Soft plastics, e-waste, organics and building materials easy to dispose of and finally - genuine waste becoming more expensive to cover ...
Christina Howard		DAP17/387	Question Comments: (80) -Would far rather spend money/focus on this than on expanding landfill.
Tony Irvine		DAP17/398	Question Comments: (80) -These are all laudable aims. However they are so generic that I can't give any meaningful feedback.
Claire Stewart		DAP17/242	Question Comments: (80) -My word- there are a lot of big words saying so little.
Jo Clendon		DAP17/477	Question Comments: (80) -The reduction target should be higher, especially given that Wellington region is not at a great starting point and there is so much opportunity for improvement. I am especially supportive of a move to wheelie bins for kerbside recycling. I would also recommend moving away from the existing model of each household selecting it's own rubbish removal service, and back to a service administered by the council and charged via rates. Such a program should aim to incentivise use of green-waste and recycling collection and provide a disincentive for creating too much other waste (non recyclable non green waste). Proactive programs to encourage waste reduction and create behaviour change are important, such as boomerang bag programs, waste-free lunchbox support for schools (as the existing programs are a joke - the parents need education), swap days and encouraging donation of unwanted household items versus sending them to landfill. Community/neighbourhood composting and recycling programs should be encouraged. Recycling bins / waste free event plans should be incorporated into all council run or funded events. There should also be waste levies or other disincentives charged to food retailers using non-recyclable packaging, as well as 'waste disposal' levies to clean up for all the KFC, McDonalds, Burger King etc rubbish that blows around our streets.
Gareth Hodkinson		DAP17/480	Question Comments: (80) -This section of the consultation document is poorly written and difficult for the general public to understand and respond too. I have a masters degree in Environmental Analysis and work in central government but I feel I am unable to offer educated answers to a lot of question 10. I very much doubt conclusive results will be gained from this question.
Mike Henderson		DAP17/481	Question Comments: (80) -Because of the windy weather, there needs to be a better way of collecting / putting out the recycling. I agree that there needs to be better e-waste / hazardous recycling and collection - to stop people putting it out in the normal waste or dumping it. Happy for my rates money to go into this.
Troy Dougherty		DAP17/604	Question Comments: (80) -*the plans proposed are weak and are 'plans to make plans'. The goal is good, but why not just enact plans that have already been implemented successfully by municipalities around the world? Ban plastic carrier bags, set up more free recycling and transfer stations. Enact by-laws that ensure the by-law will be achieved rather than plan to form a committee to discuss it!
John Butt		DAP17/605	Question Comments: (80) -dont care
Christopher Inman-Bamber		DAP17/706	Question Comments: (80) -I think all these regional actions are easy and are probably being done already. I don't think Hutt City should fund regional resources as that is GWRCs job and. I think Council should cooperate regionally to develop more quantitative data on what is being disposed of at the tip sites and make that information available to support waste minimisation. I would also suggests considering more motivation or incentives for low socio economic areas of Hutt City to recycle more. The issue for the poor people in our society is money and time. Is it possible for people to earn waste credits at recycle centres that could be transferred to a discount on refuse bag. Ideas like this will probably stop them filling up the litter bins with their refuse as they cant afford kerb-side refuse bags.
Merran Bakker		DAP17/724	Question Comments: (80) -The general ideas in this plan read well enough but they need to be followed up by stronger actions. I'd like to see Hutt City adopt a wheelie bin system like Christchurch where everyone gets the chance to separate green waste and recycling out of general rubbish thus reducing landfill. We also need recycling available in the CBD - the Council should be leading the way in this in its own buildings. Finally, it would be great to see Lower Hutt become a city that bans single use plastic bags. We need leadership and incentives to reduce our waste.
Bruce Spedding	Windsurfing NZ, Wellington Windsurfing Assn.	DAP17/768	Question Comments: (80) -To encourage development, both economic and residential, we should be focusing on sustainability, reduce, reuse, recycle. As a science hub we should be well placed to explore and demonstrate options.
Cheryl Davies	Tu Kotahi Maori Asthma Trust	DAP17/885	Question Comments: (80) -I think it is important to work closely with key community organisations when considering implementing sustainable options to help reduce the amount of waste produced. Developing consistent messaging and education by the appropriate messengers are key to ensuring the longevity of this plan. Working with the schools and existing community programmes and groups is also important to ensure input and validity of these strategies. I would also like to see the Council actively support the local marae to become eco-friendly - if we can encourage the marae to adopt an eco friendly stance, they can send out positive messages to the Maori and local communities through their actions.
Carolyn Taylor		DAP17/904	Question Comments: (80) -Some of these a bit too vague, but generally worth Council spending resources/money on. Especially keen on collaboration with other councils and GWRC.
David McQueen		DAP17/916	Question Comments: (80) -I don't think wheelie bins are a good choice and overall costs need to be kept down.
AARON TE ONE		DAP17/926	Question Comments: (80) -This is well overdue. Council should have been doing far more in this area a long time ago. No point having a vibrant community strategy and entertainment/dining region that continues to heap single-use plastic bags and trash from food containers into the landfill. This needs to be fast-tracked.
Josh & Eileen Fyfe		DAP17/1006	Question Comments: (80) -We agree with the approach of educating people and potentially influencing their behaviour. We also agree with providing people with alternative options making it easier to change their behaviour. And while it may be implied in these actions, we believe that an important part of achieving the regional target is to incentivise people to change their behaviour and use alternative options that are put in place - be it through increased landfill and collection rates, greater enforcement/fines of illegal behaviour, etc. We recommend that economic incentives/disincentives are included in the local action plan.
Timothy Crawley		DAP17/1110	Question Comments: (80) -There is only an agree or disagree option for each of these, but if there was an option 'I don't know' or 'I need more information on the implications of this in order to decide' I would have selected it for many of these as the description was obviously written by someone who knew all about what they meant but was hopeless at conveying it to those of us who had no idea. I am happy that time and money is spent to investigate options to reduce waste and improve recycling and investigate options to better work together with other councils to make this happen, but it was not clear whether some of these points for example implied the merging of services between councils and thus losing autonomy (which is something I do not support) or spending lots of money to meet this target. OPTION 1 - reduce waste by a third, sure I agree if it can be done cheaply, but NOT at any cost which perhaps me agreeing to this here could be taken to condone! All the rest of the feedback form was clear, but this section is not. Are these options supported by Hutt City Council, or are they being bullied into it?
Dawn Muir		DAP17/1114	Question Comments: (80) -this would be a great move forward
Tom Bennion		DAP17/1127	Question Comments: (80) -These policies are worthy, but totally miss the statutory priority of the Waste Minimisation Act of 'reduction, reuse, recycling, or recovery' ie that a first focus is on not creating waste in the first place. That is why 'product stewardship' is Part 2 of the Act. The primary target of 'reduce the total quantity of waste sent to landfills by a third over the next 10 years' is not specific enough about the initial priority of reducing the amount produced in the first place. Product steward ship only turns up in the very weak policy 10: '10. Work together to lobby for product stewardship for possible priority products such as, but not limited to, e-waste, tyres and plastic bags.' All of the other proposals focus on managing waste after it is created - and in some cases seek to do by punitive measures such as bylaws - but on the primary issue of product stewardship we have the extraordinarily weak and uncertain 'Work together to lobby for product stewardship for possible priority products.' It is very unclear what that means. To give a practical example, there are no need for polystyrene in local supermarket packaging, some even provide alternatives for meat trays and the like. Similarly, food outlets dont need to use polystyrene. Why not a campaign encouraging the public to ask for substitutes and at the same time assisting and rewarding with good publicity businesses who move to the alternatives that are available.
Esther Venning		DAP17/1129	Question Comments: (80) -Wheelie bins for recycling please, so much gets blown around then goes into the ocean through the wastewater system or wind. Work with local retailers and supermarkets to encourage no plastic bags or reducing their use.
Johanna Moeller		DAP17/1170	Question Comments: (80) -Live simply, reduce, reuse, recycle and upcycle. Greater sustainability; are key areas that all in New Zealand need to consider. Seeing reuseable timber being tossed into dumps, items that could be recyled thrown is not using a resource to its fullest extent. Greater education and programmes designed to educate the community are required. the Sustainability Trust and local council have had some great initiatives - keep up the great work (eg green spaces, food forests, worm farms) and extend further. TV programmes are promoting upcycling, recycling ... follow that momentum and move forwards to reducing unnecessary waste.
Robert Hoischen		DAP17/1173	Question Comments: (80) -On the surface of it this sounds mostly solid from the one page summary, I did not have the time to go through the relevant parts of the 113 page document though, so please disregard any selected points above in Q10 as I do not feel qualified to answer. In general, I welcome cost efficient efforts for easy to implement reforms that reduce waste and increase rates of recycling.
Vanessa Mackay		DAP17/1174	Question Comments: (80) -prioritise actions using less resources
Don Eluidee		DAP17/535	Question Comments: (80) -I feel Council will act in best interests of ratepayers so am happy to go along with consensus of Council
Marie Fitchett		DAP17/425	Question Comments: (80) -- No 2 Government
H.C Steele		DAP17/428	Question Comments: (80) -Proposed Primary Regional Target - Target period should be recuded to 5 years.
Heather Rosser		DAP17/438	Question Comments: (80) -No 7 - Unsure about "shared governance". Don't want Hutt to be swallowed up by Wellington No 8 - Bit worried about cost of this - could run away with more funds than intended. Watch carefully. No 9 - As for No 8 No 10 - Concerned how much this will cost
Morris Te Whiti Love	Wellington Tenths Trust	DAP17/633	Question Comments: (80) -The Trust supports the reduction of waste going to landfill by various strategies including re-use or re-purposing things, recycling where this can be done efficiently and any resource recovery work. The use of bio-solids such as through com posting will help reduce green waste ending up in rivers and stream or even going to landfill. Education is a key strategy and today it is much more common at public events that full recycling of wastes are managed on site for instance.
P Quinn		DAP17/785	Question Comments: (80) -Who is paying for all of this? It should have been part of Council business for decades! Is mostly just maintenance. Rome wasn't built in a day why does Lower Hutt have to be rebuilt overnight.
Pam Hanna	Petone Community Board	DAP17/741	Question Comments: (80) -While we can accept the increase of space at the Silverstream landfill we are interested in how much recycling actually goes on there. We feel that the public in general needs to have a lot more knowledge and understanding about what is and can be recycled at the landfill and generally. We agree with the regional targets as they seem logical and needed and the HCC Local Action Plan for as far as it goes. However, a clearer and firmer HCC and regional strategy is also needed that is about the 3 Rs - Reduce, Re-use, Recycle - and has a focus on the Reduce aspect. Reduce is the most critical aspect and requires transparency and reports around the process of waste/recycling; education of young people, residents, and retailers on e.g. what can be recycled; and a lot of education of retailers about what reduce might mean in practice. For plastic bags- the example of levies in Ireland could e.g. be used
Dana Carter	Enviroschools Te Upoko o Te Ika a Maui	DAP17/946	Question Comments: (80) - Work with the joint councils of the Wellington region to adopt a more ambitious overall target for reduction in waste to landfill that takes a step change in waste management that will enhance Wellington's reputation and show leadership nationally. Note that the Enviroschools programme in the Lower Hutt can play an important role in meeting the goals in the Draft Waste Minimisation and Management Plan. Retain goal E2 on page 37 of the Draft Waste Minimisation and Management Plan, and add 'and early childhood centres' after schools. See full submission for more details.
Sigurd Magnusson		DAP17/1008	Question Comments: (80) -Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan needs to anticipate the coming rise of electric car lithium ion batteries. In coming years most cars will have such batteries, which are very large, and there is no mechanism in NZ for these to be reused at scale to extend their useful life (eg used for storage of solar energy in homes gives the batteries a 10 year extension of life) nor recycling into constituent parts (should only occur when the reuse phase has been exhausted). These batteries should not be sent to landfill or overseas as we can use them productively locally, but investigative and potentially procurement work needs to be done to deliver that.
Karen Wilton		DAP17/858	Question Comments: (80) -Don't know
Chris Laidlaw	Greater Wellington Regional Council	DAP17/940	Question Comments: (80) - GWRC strongly supports the draft WMMP’s goal of reducing waste to landfill in the region by a third over the next decade, and the commitment of the region’s territorial authorities to work together to achieve this objective.
Tamsin & Anthony Falconer & Davies		DAP17/1043	Question Comments: (80) -More needs to be done on waste management. Are climate change issues being addressed?
Gary Austin		DAP17/1024	Question Comments: (80) -Will it make any difference? Have you already made up your minds on what you are going to do?
Mary Innes		DAP17/1067	Question Comments: (80) -Could HCC pressure bus companies to have all electric buses?
Louise Ferrari		DAP17/1069	Question Comments: (80) -Continue with recycling and get Upper Hutt to di it also. Need a recycling facility at Silverstream Landfill
Bill McElwee		DAP17/1080	Question Comments: (80) -The waste management plan should be cost neutral. Doesn't support business groups using Council initiatives to lever profit for themselves. Recycling and composting need to be made more convenient.
G Brackenbury		DAP17/1103	Question Comments: (80) -Need more serviced rubbish bins around the whole city and need signs up to encourage people not to litter and to pick up dog droppings.
Jane Wotton		DAP17/1148	Question Comments: (80) -Too many options and not enough explanation
Jude Wilson		DPA17/1207	Question Comments: (80) -Doesn't agree with proposal to investigate wheelie bins or kerbside recycling of plastic as he has no room to store them.
D Obrien		DAP17/1187	Question Comments: (80) -No expenditure on enforcement. Most of this is gobbledegook for spending money the city does not have. Council should stick to their so called "knitting" not getting involved with most of the above.

Attachment 2

WMMP and Local Action Plan