2                                                                       

 

 

 

 

HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_BLACK_AGENDA_COVER

 

 

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

 

 

25 August 2020

 

 

 

Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the

Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt,

on:

 

 

 

Friday 28 August 2020 commencing at 12.00pm and
Monday 31 August 2020 commencing at 10.30am

 

 

 

Membership

 

 

Mayor C Barry (Chair)

Deputy Mayor T Lewis

Cr D Bassett

Cr J Briggs

Cr K Brown

Cr B Dyer

Cr S Edwards

Cr D Hislop

Cr C Milne

Cr A Mitchell

Cr S Rasheed

Cr N Shaw

Cr L Sutton

 

 

 

For the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz

 

 

 


HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_SCREEN_MEDRES

 

PURPOSE

To carry out all necessary considerations and hearings, precedent to the Council’s final adoption of Long Term Plans (LTP) and Annual Plans (AP) which give effect to the strategic direction and outcomes set by the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee through setting levels of service, funding priorities, the performance framework and budgets.

 

Determine:

       Development of a framework and timetable for the LTP and AP processes.

       The nature and scope of engagement and public consultation required.

       Statements to the media.

       Such other matters as the Subcommittee considers appropriate and which fall within its Terms of Reference.

       Informal engagement with the community, and the hearing of any formal public submissions.

       Consideration of submissions on Hutt City Council’s Assessment of Water and Sanitary Services.

 

Consider and make recommendations to Council:

      Levels of service, funding priorities, performance framework, budgets, rating levels and policies required as part of the LTP or AP, excluding any policies recommended to Council by the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee.

      Consultation Documents.

      Council’s proposed and final LTP.

      Council’s proposed and final AP.

      Final content and wording, and adoption of the final Hutt City Council Assessment of Water and Sanitary Services.

 

 

Note:

Extract from the Controller and Auditor General’s October 2010 Good Practice Guide: Guidance for members of local authorities about the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968

 

Appointment as the local authority’s representative on another organisation

5.47         You may have been appointed as the authority’s representative on the governing body of a council-controlled organisation or another body (for example, a community-based trust).

5.48         That role will not usually prevent you from participating in authority matters concerning the other organisation – especially if the role gives you specialised knowledge that it would be valuable to contribute.

5.49         However, you could create legal risks to the decision if your participation in that decision raises a conflict between your duty as a member of the local authority and any duty to act in the interests of the other organisation. These situations are not clear cut and will often require careful consideration and specific legal advice.

5.50         Similarly, if your involvement with the other organisation raises a risk of predetermination, the legal risks to the decision of the authority as a result of your participation may be higher, for example, if the other organisation has made a formal submission to the authority as part of a public submissions process.

 

    


HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

 

Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

 Friday 28 August 2020 commencing at 12.00pm.

 

ORDER PAPER

 

Public Business

 

1.       APOLOGIES 

 

2.       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

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

 

3.       Engagement and Submissions Analysis - Rubbish and Recycling (20/900)

Report No. LTPAP2020/5/185 by the Head of Strategy and Planning              5

 

4.       Schedule of Submitters (20/948)

Report No. LTPAP2020/5/93 by the Programme Lead - Planning and Reporting               36

 

 

 

Kate Glanville
SENIOR DEMOCRACY ADVISOR

 

              


                                                                                      11                                                       28 August 2020

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

13 August 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/900)

 

 

 

 

Report no: LTPAP2020/5/185

 

Engagement and Submissions Analysis - Rubbish and Recycling

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to provide Council with analysis of the submissions received and the results of engagement activity undertaken during the Recycling and Rubbish engagement and consultation.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee:

(i)    notes the overall results of the engagement and consultation on proposed changes to the city’s recycling and rubbish system;

(ii)   notes the details of activity prior to and during the Recycling and Rubbish engagement and consultation 15 July to 16 August 2020;

(iii)  notes that a submission was received from Kāinga Ora after the closing date for submissions;

(iv) agrees to accept the submission from Kāinga Ora; and

(v)  notes the summary analysis of feedback received.

For the reasons outlined in the report.

 

Background

2.   Council was due to consult with the community on changes to the city’s approach to rubbish and recycling as part of a draft LTP 2018-28 amendment process. Due to Covid-19 we needed to change our plans. The focus shifted to working with our community to get through the lockdown in the best shape possible given the uncertainty affecting all aspects of life in Lower Hutt. We made a decision to defer consultation on rubbish and recycling and develop an emergency budget for the 2020/21 Annual Plan - Getting us Through – Kia tae ki tua.

 

3.   Immediately following approval of the 2020/21 Annual Plan, Council turned its attention again to the city’s rubbish and recycling system.  The key drivers for the proposed changes are:

a.   Getting better job at protecting our environment by keeping recycling and rubbish out of our stormwater system, our harbour and our river;

b.   Preventing/reducing illegal dumping of rubbish directly contaminating the environment and/or recycling stations around the city resulting in all materials having to go straight to landfill.  Cleaning this up costs ratepayers many thousands of dollars every year.

c.   Improving and making a positive contribution to protecting our environment for future generations;

d.   Having a system for rubbish and recycling that works for everyone is needed, including those whose choices are limited by affordability;

e.   Cutting carbon emissions, reducing the amount of waste going to landfill and achieving a circular economy approach to waste management.

4.   Our community has voiced its growing concern about the environmental impact of our recycling and rubbish collection system.  Many submitters to Getting us Through – Kia tae ki tua urged Council to continue with the review of our recycling and rubbish system aligning the system with our wider waste minimisation and sustainability objectives.

5.   The current recycling and rubbish collection services’ contracts expire on 30 June 2021 and new contracts must be in place by that date. Decisions made now will shape how the city’s recycling and rubbish system is managed and delivered.

Discussion

Communication and engagement

6.     Sustained effort was put into the communication and engagement prior to and during engagement on the proposed options for changes to the city’s rubbish and recycling systems.  This included:

a.      Online, print, face to face, radio, video – included two-page advertorial in Hutt News, full page advertisements Hutt News following weeks, other suburban print media, billboards, Neighbourly, media releases, articles, consultation document in libraries and hubs, Video - over 2000 views, Virtual Town Hall sessions 138 registered, 70 attended

b.      Bang the Table digital engagement site – 13.6k total visits, 10.5k aware – one single visit to the site or project, 6.7k informed -  taken the next step and downloaded a document or visited FAQs, contributed to share an idea etc, 3.8k engaged – completed forms, contributed to surveys, asked a question etc

c.      Facebook – Over 51k people saw a FB post, Ads reached over 97k people, Live sessions - 2 question and answer Mayor and Chief Executive Facebook live sessions held on HCC’s Facebook and there were 4100 and 3100 views respectively.

d.      Bins Tour 30 July to 7 August, bins representing the sizes outlined in the options for change were on display at council facilities across the city and Queensgate

Submissions

7.     A total of 6,345 unique submissions were received - 3,991 responses were received via the online feedback form, have your say email, post and phone with an additional 2,354 received from an email set up by Kiwi Consortium.

8.     Around 268 individuals who submitted an email via Kiwi Consortium also entered one via the Council’s online feedback form. Of those 268 emails, 150 submitters had altered the original text provided by the Consortium.  In some cases the text still aligns with the points made by the Kiwi Consortium - in some cases it does not.  It was not possible to include these submissions in the overall quantitative analysis as they did not directly address the proposed options.

9.     There are approximately 3,500 to 3,800 responses to the questions asked in the Council form[1]. The margin of error based on this level of response indicates that Councillors can be confident that the results are 95% likely to reflect the overall views of all residents within +/- 2 percent.

10.   Council received a submission from Kāinga Ora after the submissions closing date. Members must decide whether to accept this submission or not. Officers recommend that the submission is accepted. 

11.   The high number of submissions reflects both the communities’ interest in recycling and rubbish in the city and the work that went in to ensuring people can make informed decisions. 

12.   There was a good response across wards. The figure below shows the proportion of respondents compared to proportion of total population by ward

Ward

Consultation respondents

Total Population

 

No.

%

No.

%

Central

634

17%

17265

17%

Eastern

730

20%

17670

17%

Harbour

643

17%

18654

18%

Northern

462

12%

16032

15%

Wainuiomata

474

13%

18561

18%

Western

762

20%

16353

16%

Other

18

0%

 

 

13.   Nearly all respondents (99%) stated they lived in Lower Hutt. Of the 18 who stated they did not live in Lower Hutt, four owned a house/townhouse in Lower Hutt.   Based on proportion of the population, there was good representation from all areas although Western Ward residents were slightly over represented and Wainuiomata slightly under.

14.   A very small number of those[2] aged under 20 years made an individual submission. Those aged under 30 were under represented with all other age groups except those aged 80 or over being over represented compared to their proportion of the population.   The majority of submissions came from people under 50 years (50%), with 6% of these under 30 years old.

Age

Consultation

Population (aged 15+)

Under 20

0%

8%

20-29

6%

17%

30-39

24%

18%

40-49

23%

17%

50-59

18%

16%

60-69

14%

12%

70-79

11%

7%

80 +

2%

4%

Not stated

1%

 

Submissions analysis

Recycling

1.   

Agree with proposed replacement option

Yes

76%

No

24%

 

15.  Support for the proposed recycling collection was significantly higher among larger households with 81 to 85% of households with 3 or more people supporting the proposal.

 

16.  73% of two person households supported the proposal and 64% of single person households. Comments indicate that bin size is the key reason some smaller households did not support the proposal.

 

Rubbish

 

17.  There were four options to consider:

a.       Council provides a fortnightly rubbish bin collection service;

b.       Council provides a pay-as-you-throw rubbish collection service;

c.       Council provides a weekly rubbish bin collection service; and

d.      Council no longer offers a rubbish collection service.

18.   Residents were also asked to indicate their support for Council providing an opt-in green waste collection service where Council could provide households with a 240-litre green waste wheelie bin collected every four weeks. Households would only pay for this service if they opted-in by 31 March each year.

Options

19.  Overall 71% supported a council provided system with either option 1 or 3 as their first preference. 13% supported a Council provided pay as you throw system as their first preference and 14% supported council no longer providing a rubbish collection service as their preference.  The results for each option are:

Option 1

Council provides a fortnightly rubbish bin collection service

Option 2

Council provides a pay-as-you-throw rubbish collection service

Option 3

Council provides a weekly rubbish bin collection service

Option 4

Council no longer offers a rubbish collection service.

Rank 1

37%

13%

34%

15%

Rank 2

34%

24%

34%

9%

Rank 3

15%

50%

25%

11%

Rank 4

14%

12%

7%

68%

 

20.  The results are shown by ward in the graph below.

Household size

 

21.  Nearly half of one person households ranked option 1 as first choice. Their second preference is pay as you throw. Many of the comments from respondents who live alone are that they don’t have enough rubbish to warrant more frequent collection.

22.  Around half of larger households (5 or more people) selected option 3 as their number one choice. Preference for option 1, 2 and 3 is directly driven by household size. Preference for option 4 is not correlated to household size.

Household size

Option 1

Council provides a fortnightly rubbish bin collection service

Option 2

Council provides a pay-as-you-throw rubbish collection service

Option 3

Council provides a weekly rubbish bin collection service

Option 4

Council no longer offers a rubbish collection service.

1

45%

23%

20%

13%

2

40%

17%

28%

15%

3

35%

11%

41%

13%

4

33%

10%

42%

16%

5

30%

10%

47%

14%

6

31%

5%

52%

12%

 

23.  Submitters were also asked several other questions which identified specific service issues that could be factored in to any decisions about what and how services might be provided in certain circumstances.

 

24.  All household sizes were represented. Those living alone (1 person households) and those in larger 6 or more person households are slightly under represented; those living in 2 and 4 person households slightly over represented.

Household size

Consultation

Total population

1 person

13%

23%

2 people

36%

31%

3 people

18%

18%

4 people

21%

16%

5 people

8%

7%

6 or more people

3%

5%

 

25.   Most respondents (94%) lived in a standalone house or townhouse. A small number of multi-unit, apartment and retirement home residents also provided feedback.

26.   Most respondents (89%) owned their own home.

Green waste

 

27.  76% of submitters supported Council providing an opt-in green waste collection service.

Question

Response

Support an opt-in green waste service

Yes

76%

No

24%

Use a green waste service

Yes

46%

No

54%

Support free recycling services at these education providers

Yes

81%

No

19%

 

28.  While there is strong support for having an opt-in service slightly less than 50% of submitters said they were likely to use this service.

 

29.  81% of submitters supported free recycling services for education providers.

 

Financial considerations

 

30.  There are financial considerations related to the option chosen.  These will be addressed when this decision is made.

Iwi

31. Mana whenua as kaitiaki support a review of Council’s focus on core infrastructure, the prioritisation of spending on three waters and protecting environment (LTPAP2020/4/112).

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

32.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

33.  Environmentally, recycling and rubbish collection is one of our biggest issues. More efficient collection systems and minimising what is sent to our landfill will contribute to reducing the impact of our waste on the environment. Effective change needs a system-wide approach that aligns with our wider waste minimisation objectives which include reducing litter, reducing waste going to landfill and less contamination in our recycling.

Consultation

34.  See earlier discussion on communications and engagement.

Legal Considerations

35.  There are no legal considerations.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Final Results - Rubbish and Recycling Consultation (2)

12

 

Author: Wendy Moore, Head of Strategy and Planning

 

Author: Caryn Ellis, Senior Advisor to the Chief Executive

 

Author: Catherine Taylor, Senior Research and Evaluation Advisor

 

Approved By: Anna Welanyk, Director Transformation and Resources

 


Attachment 1

Final Results - Rubbish and Recycling Consultation (2)

 

Responses

A total of 6,346 unique submissions were received for the Rubbish and Recycling consultation; 3,991 responses were received via the online feedback form, have your say email, post and phone. An additional 2,355 were received from an email set up by Modern Waste.

Interim calculations indicate that around 268 individuals who submitted an email via Modern Waste also entered one via the Council’s online feedback form. A further 150 of these had altered the original text provided by the Modern Waste. In some cases the text still aligns with the points made by the Modern Waste - in some cases it does not. Further analysis of the emails with altered text is being undertaken.

Analysis of the Modern Waste email submissions is included at the end of the document. It was not possible to include these submissions in the overall quantitative analysis as they did not directly address the options proposed. There are about 3,500 to 3,800 responses to the questions asked in the Council form[3]. The margin of error based on this level of response indicates that Councillors can be confident that the results are 95% likely to reflect the overall views of all residents within +/- 2 percent.

Demographics of respondents

Nearly all respondents (99%) stated they lived in Lower Hutt. Of the 18 who stated they did not live in Lower Hutt, four owned a house/townhouse in Lower Hutt.

Based on proportion of the population, there was good representation from all areas although Western Ward residents were slightly over represented and Wainuiomata slightly under.

Figure 1: Proportion of respondents compared to proportion of total population by ward

Ward

Consultation respondents

Total Population

 

No.

%

No.

%

Central

634

17%

17265

17%

Eastern

730

20%

17670

17%

Harbour

643

17%

18654

18%

Northern

462

12%

16032

15%

Wainuiomata

474

13%

18561

18%

Western

762

20%

16353

16%

Other

18

0%

 

 


 

Figure 2: Proportion of respondents compared to proportion of total population by ward

Household size

All household sizes were represented. Those living alone (1 person households) and those in larger 6 or more person households are slightly under represented; those living in 2 and 4 person households slightly over represented.

Figure 3: Proportion of respondents and total population by household size

Household size

Consultation

Total population

1 person

13%

23%

2 people

36%

31%

3 people

18%

18%

4 people

21%

16%

5 people

8%

7%

6 or more people

3%

5%

 

Figure 4: Proportion of respondents and total population by household size

Age

A very small number of those aged under 20 years made an individual submission. Those aged under 30 were under represented with all other age groups except those aged 80 or over were over represented compared to their proportion of the population.

Figure 5: Proportion of respondents and total population by age group

Age

Consultation

Population (aged 15+)

Under 20

0%

8%

20-29

6%

17%

30-39

24%

18%

40-49

23%

17%

50-59

18%

16%

60-69

14%

12%

70-79

11%

7%

80 +

2%

4%

Not stated

1%

 

Figure 6: Proportion of respondents and total population by age group


 

Dwelling type

Most respondents (94%) lived in a standalone house or townhouse. A small number of multi-unit, apartment and retirement home residents also provided feedback.

Figure 7: Proportion of respondents and population by dwelling type

Dwelling type

Consultation

Population

Standalone house or townhouse

94%

Separate house

82%

Multi-unit block

4%

Medium density

18%

Apartment building

1%

High density

1%

Retirement home

0%

Other

0%

Other

2%

 

 

 

Home ownership

Just below 90 percent of respondents owned their own home; this is considerably higher than the proportion of the population who own in Lower Hutt.

Figure 8: Proportion of residents and population who own the home they live in

Tenure

Consultation

Population

Own

89%

61%

Rent

10%

31%

Other

1%

7%

 

Figure 9: Proportion of residents and population who own the home they live in

 

Only 10% of respondents owned a property within Lower Hutt that they did not live in.


Results

Recycling proposal

A total of 3,900 respondents indicated whether they supported the recycling proposal or not.

Figure 10: Proportion of respondents who supported, or not, the recycling proposal

Agree with proposed replacement option

Yes

76%

No

24%

 

Figure 11: Proportion of respondents who supported, or not, the recycling proposal

           

Recycling proposal by household size and ward

Support for the proposed recycling collection was significantly higher among larger households. Between 81 and 85 percent of households with 3 or more people supported the proposal however, just under three quarters (73%) of two person and less than two thirds (64%) of single person households were in support.  The comments indicate that the size of the proposed bin was the key reason smaller households did not support the proposal.


 

 

Figure 12: Support for recycling proposal by household size

The level of support was not influenced by where people lived.

Figure 13: Support for the recycling proposal by ward

Why/Why not

Supported recycling proposal

Over half (56%) of the 2,972 respondents who supported the recycling proposal left a comment about why they supported it. The key themes of those comments were: wind and weather issues; the size of the bin; collection frequency

 

Wind

Key themes

·    The amount of recycling currently blown around as the current crates are not fit for purpose

·    Concerns that the new 240 litre recycling bins may get knocked over in the wind

“The current crate option does not keep the recycling in the crate on windy days.”

 “Heavy winds often interrupt my recycling efforts and have caused my bin to go missing (blown up the street and lost down a bank).”

“The current crates are hopeless in the wind. We are constantly picking up recycling that has blown out of the crates and crates that have blown onto the road.”

“Stop cardboard and plastic flying around on recycling day.”

“I'm sick of seeing recycling flying up the roads because people decide to use cardboard boxes and not place something heavy on top to keep it from flying away. Recycled bins work a treat in other provinces so why not!”

“Present collection not working to contain recycling from blowing away on windy days.”

“I think a lot of paper and cans fly out of the crates on a windy day. I've had three nets over my bins over the years, but they get broken during rubbish collection. The lightweight paper and cans in the wheelie bin is a good idea, but I'm still concerned they could fly out of bins on a particularly windy day. Is there a catch on the wheelie bin lids to keep them shut? Korokoro is a high wind zone area and I have seen wheelie bin lids lift up in the high winds.”

“The wheelie bin will be better to contain mixed recycling - however, we do have wheelie bins also blown over in severe weather so the lids need to be substantial and well fitting.”

“Would like to see the wheelie bins fitted with clips on their lid to maintain closure. I have seen many such bins blown over in high winds. Otherwise I think this is a good move to keep the rubbish firmly in place and the wheelie aspect is easier for people with limited mobility.”

Costs

Key themes

·    That the new system was cheaper and offered better value for money

·    Several stated they agreed along as it was included in their rates

·    Some comments indicate a level of misunderstanding – stating that they don’t currently pay anything

 

“Practical and cheapest option”

“Cheaper option and more convenient to wheel a bin than lift it, because I have a bad back.”

“Keeps payments simple being together with rates. I’m happy with a new larger recycling bin option. Current bins don’t hold enough and I don’t like how they have no lids causing items to litter the streets. I feel the pricing is really reasonable.”

“Value for money and efficient from household perspective”

“It’s the cheapest option and fortnightly collections for recyclables is better.”

“Seems logical and affordable”

“As long as the cost is part of our rates. Not an extra cost to rate payers. I currently recycle and use green crate and never have paid a cost for that service.”

“Seems logical and affordable”

Size

Key themes

·    Respondents liked the increased capacity for recycling that the new option would give them

·    Many mentioned the crates did not offer sufficient capacity

·    Several were worried about the size of the bin and would like to have a smaller option

·    Increased ability to recycle due to the increased size of the bin

 

“Current crate is inadequate and I put some recycling into my rubbish currently.”

“It would encourage us to recycle more. As a large family the crates just aren’t large enough for all we could recycle.”

“I like the idea of a wheelie bin to keep all recycling contained inside and a bigger option than we currently have.”

“We need much larger size containers for recycling and ones with lids”

“The current recycling bin is insufficient for the amount of our recycling”

A wheelie bin is way bigger than the current option, allowing for way more recycling to be done without having to store it and be constantly storing extra bags around the house.”

Different size / prices of recycling bins should be considered as different sizes of households is relevant and quantity of recycling also relevant.”

I agree with the proposal to have wheelie binds and fortnightly collection. There needs to be an option of bin sizes to acknowledge that households can be sized differently. Our household has 5 adults and 3 children - we will produce more recycling than a 4 person household or a 2 person household. Give us size options!”

 

Collection Frequency (support proposal)

Key themes

·    Many supported the fortnightly frequency

·    Some wanted a more or less frequent collection

“I think it’s good for people to be aware of how much plastic they are using and by doing it fortnightly might be a good step in awareness for some people. The downside would be if you forget/away, you have to wait another couple of weeks to recycle and hard to remember what week it is for what”

“Fortnightly collection makes more sense would also hopefully make residents more aware of recyclable items when shopping.”

“The only thing I would change would be collection every week rather than every fortnight but I acknowledge this would impact the cost of the bin and might not be justified at this stage due to the current low rate of recycling”

“A larger bin is more efficient and doesn’t need a weekly collection”

“I think that if a wheelie bin provided fortnightly is adequate.”

Did not support recycling proposal

Of the 928 respondents who did not support the recycling proposal 883 (95%) gave a reason for not supporting. The key themes these reasons were: cost; collection frequency; size of the bin; storage and accessibility issues, and a preference for the current system.

A large number of these comments directly and explicitly related only to the rubbish options proposed.  While changes were made on BTT to make it clearer that this question related to recycling and not rubbish this did not have a significant impact on the type of comments received.

 

Costs

Approximately a third of comments mentioned cost.  These comments were:

·    Rates are already high and don’t want a further increase

·    Against increase in cost when items that can be recycled has decreased

·    Cost of recycling should be reduced to encourage more people to recycle

·    A level of confusion about how things are currently paid for

“A big increase in cost for no extra value”

“I believe the idea is great but the people shouldn’t have to pay we already pay enough in our rates”

“Too expensive for the small amount that some households put out normally.”

“Too expensive considering there is a lot we can't recycle now.”

“As a couple, a 240-litre wheelie bin for mixed recycling is quite harsh for $105 since that we now only recycle plastics numbered 1 and 2, compared to 1-5 previously.”

“I don't agree to an increase in price.  We have reduced all our waste, and want to enjoy the benefits of this.  We would only fill an 80 litre bin in a month, and yet we would be charged for fortnightly 120l bin.  It hardly seems fair, nor does it encourage people to reduce their waste both recyclable and general waste.  Not that there is far less recyclable waste being collected now too, so that has had an impact on our quantity of recycling.”

“These costs should be covered by our current rates. People should be encouraged to recycle, not penalised. Landfill waste should be the focus of increased costs for residents.”

“It’s an ok idea, but I think if we want to reduce waste a flat rate cost would not really encourage that; recycling should be free.”

“Paying for it will discourage it”

 “If charges are introduced this will be a dis-incentive to recycle, it will simply go in the general rubbish, so as not to incur additional charges.”

“Currently recycling is free, adding a cost to households for recycling will discourage a lot of lower income households to recycle.”

“Put it in my rates and I'll say yes”

“Firstly what is the cost per annum? Second how will we pay for this? Will our rates go up or is it part of our rates now and will we pay for it separately?”

“It’s a cost I can't afford.  It’s currently free”

“All 3 bins should be a free service like Christchurch and Nelson”

“Are you going to remove the charges on my Rates for the weekly recycling on my rates which is $40, I think its sucks that you have the cheek to ask ratepayers to pay for something we already pay for which really is not good enough, are the council going to remove this fee first or hide amongst all the other charges?”

 

Collection frequency

There were two opposing themes that emerged from respondents:

·    Those who wanted their recycling picked up more frequently, and;

·    Those who felt a 240l bin was large enough that it would only need to be collected monthly

There were also several comments that:

·    Mention a concern over the confusion that might come from fortnightly collection

·    Appear to be related to rubbish collection rather than recycling

“Rubbish and recycling needs to be collected weekly. Evidence of this was when we couldn't put out recycling the city was full of dumped stuff.”

“I agree with the wheelie bins. I actually think crates need to be abolished and all replaced with wheelie bins but collection needs to be weekly. If you are going to encourage sustainable living people will easily fill a wheelie bins up in a week therefore collection would need to be weekly to avoid spill over of rubbish polluting the community.”

“I like the proposal but it should be weekly not fortnightly.”

“Because we try and recycle as much as we can so would fill a recycling bin by the end of a week. Would prefer weekly recycling collection so we don't have leftover recycling we have to store.”

“While I am fine with a wheelie bin to collect recycling, I do not agree for this to be fortnightly. At our house, we try to recycle as much as possible, and our recycle waste volume is greater than our rubbish. Fortnightly collection frequency is too low, it needs to continue to be weekly.”

“Collecting this once a fortnight is too often for me. I only put out my recycling bin once a month or every 5 or 6 weeks.”

“I do not generate enough recycling to warrant such a regular collection. An option to reduce cost with a reduced collection schedule would help.”

“Including something that is suitable for households that produce a low level of recycling or a less frequent pick up would work better for me.”

“I do not have enough recycling to justify fortnightly collection.   Monthly would suit me better.”

“Fortnightly collection will confuse people putting out recycling, particularly renters moving to different suburbs or from other cities. A lot of people would just start dropping recycling in the rubbish.”

“The fortnightly nature would cause bins to smell and we'd likely forget to put them out on occasion.”

“I'm happy with the current weekly system. It's more hygienic than a fortnightly system.”

“Fortnightly collection is ridiculous. I prefer to use a private operator, this way I can choose what is best for me.”

“If you miss a collection then the smell after one month could be significant.”

 

Size

The size of the bin included in the recycling proposal was mentioned by respondents and was often included in comments about cost and collection frequency. Many respondents were keen to see options made available in terms of the size of bin available.

“Different size / prices of recycling bins should be considered as different sizes of households is relevant and quantity of recycling also relevant.”

“I agree with the proposal to have wheelie binds and fortnightly collection. There needs to be an option of bin sizes to acknowledge that households can be sized differently. Our household has 5 adults and 3 children - we will produce more recycling than a 4 person household or a 2 person household. Give us size options!”

“I don’t need that much space for recycling. Smaller options should be available.”

“Would like to have the option for a smaller 120L wheelie bin at a cheaper cost.”

“I would prefer smaller bins or less frequent collections have a lower cost. We currently fill our 45L bin about once a fortnight, so paying for 240L a fortnight seems a bit ridiculous. I understand larger households may need the option of larger bins, and it is important to recycle what we don't reuse.”

“I am happy with the bin for recycling that can’t blow around and the crate for heavier glass, but people who need the half-sized wheelie bin are penalized financially.  Yes it will still incur the collection cost, but there will be less recyclables to be processed with the smaller bin.  So the smaller bin will be cheaper for council. I currently put my green recycling bin out about every three weeks, so definitely won't need the large wheelie bin.”

“We do not need a 240 litre bin for recycling. Add some other bin size options. Most of our recycling is glass.”

Storage and Accessibility Issues

Key themes

·    Nowhere to store bins

·    Difficulty moving the bins

·    Access issues due to steep driveways or steps

“I only have space for one wheelie bin. I live on a steep hill and some of my neighbours use bags due to steps and nowhere to store a wheelie bin.”

“Live on a property with a steep drive, large wheelie bins are an inconvenience both to wheel in and out and also causes a storage issue - especially if there is a second wheelie bin for rubbish”.

“Manoeuvring a wheelie bin is difficult for me. And I don't need that much space.”

“I do not have space on my property for an additional Wheelie bin other than the existing rubbish bin. Can cope with a crate due to size and ability to store in garage”

“I don't mind the proposal being put forward however a crate for the glass seems a bit crazy when it can be the heaviest thing so a good option would be to have the glass in a wheelie bin types solution. Another point to raise is a single person living on their own with limited mobility, how are they expected to put out to bins. Have you considered for those who live in apartment type buildings with very little space for rubbish bins, how are they expected to house the bins.”

“Not possible to use wheelie bins at our house due to steps access”

“Don’t have space for additional bin. Not interested in separating recycling.”

“I don't have room to store three wheelie bins (1x rubbish + 2x recycling). The carport is not big enough for wheelie bins and my car. The only other place is by the front door - I'll be very annoyed if I'm forced to walk past the rubbish bin every time I enter/exit my house. Also, I'm in a wheelchair and live alone. So I cannot move the wheelie bins, wash them out when they smell, etc.”

 

Prefer current system

Key themes

·    wanted the current system to remain, felt that it was working well

·    some of these comments may relate to rubbish collection rather than recycling or are mis-informed

“We have very little recycling. We do not want a large recycling wheelie bin. The current recycling green crate works well for us.”

 “The green crate being used now is more than sufficient for my household.”

“Existing system is fine. We have a big council-provided bin with a stretchy cover over it. Works fine. Replace all the smaller crates with bigger ones like ours.”

“As I am happy with how things are now and find your way more expensive.”

“The system is working as is. Changes would put people out of work unless Council intends offering the collection to the existing companies.”

“Present weekly arrangements works well. I want to support local NZ business and not offshore firms.”

 

Rubbish Options

A total of 3,820 submitters ranked at least their most preferred option. Nearly 90 percent of submitters gave each option a rank.

Option 1

Council Fortnightly

Option 2

Council Pay as you throw

Option 3

Council Weekly

Option 4

Private services only

Rank 1

37%

13%

34%

15%

Rank 2

34%

24%

34%

9%

Rank 3

15%

50%

25%

11%

Rank 4

14%

12%

7%

68%

 

                                       

Rubbish option by household size

Nearly half of one person households have ranked option 1 as their number 1 choice. Their second preference is pay as you throw. Many of the comments from respondents who live alone are that they don’t have enough rubbish to warrant more frequent collection.

Around half of larger households (5 or more people) selected option 3 as their number one choice. Preference for option 1, 2 and 3 is directly driven by household size. Preference for option 4 is not correlated to household size at all.

Figure 17: The proportion of first preference ranks received by each option by household size

HH Size

Option 1

Council Fortnightly

Option 2

Council Pay as you throw

Option 3

Council Weekly

Option 4

Private services only

1

45%

23%

20%

12%

2

40%

17%

28%

15%

3

35%

11%

41%

13%

4

33%

10%

42%

16%

5

30%

10%

47%

14%

6

31%

5%

52%

12%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 18: The proportion of first preference ranks received by each option by household size

 

Rubbish option by ward

Where people lived had little influence on their preferred option. Respondents who live in the Harbour ward were the most likely to prefer option 1, and those in the Wainuiomata ward option 3. However, this is correlated to where those living in small and larger households came from. Therefore the driver of difference remains household size.

Figure 19: The proportion of first preference ranks received by each option by ward

Ward

Option 1

Council Fortnightly

Option 2

Council Pay as you throw

Option 3

Council Weekly

Option 4

Private services only

Harbour

43%

14%

33%

10%

Northern

38%

13%

30%

20%

Eastern

36%

15%

32%

17%

Central

33%

10%

38%

20%

Wainuiomata

36%

10%

41%

14%

Western

37%

19%

35%

9%

 


 

Figure 20: The proportion of first preference ranks received by each option by household size

Comments on Rubbish Options

Respondents were asked why they had ranked the four options the way they had. Some respondents gave an explanation for their complete choice 1 to 4, while others gave a short comment relating to their preferred options. Therefore these comments have been analysed by the option the respondent ranked number one; their preferred choice.

Option 1 = Rank #1

Costs
Key themes:

·    Support of Option 1 was related to people wanting the cheapest option for themselves

·    People noted that a Council-run service was cheaper than private companies


“A fortnightly collection is what we currently use but your option is cheaper than the commercial one we currently use.”
“If people have to pay for rubbish removal, you will find domestic rubbish dumping in parks, streets, public places”
“I want to pay as less as possible. I suspect rent increase is looming because of the rates increase. Cheaper the service, less it spills into my rent.”
“Cost of rubbish collection is best placed on those with higher income who can afford multiple homes.”

Collection Frequency

Key themes:

·    Fortnightly was the most suitable for people’s lifestyle

·    Many said that they only produced enough rubbish to fill the bin fortnightly

·    Some wanted a fortnightly collection as they thought it would encourage people to produce less rubbish

·    It was noted that there was a certain stability in a regularly scheduled collection

“Pay as you throw might be cheapest for me but I prefer a 'set and forget' option of regular scheduled service.”
“Regular is best as don't want extra work to order pick-ups.”
“I also don't want to have to think about keeping track of the pay as you throw system. That just sounds like more complication.”

Size and design of bin

Key themes:

·    A wheelie bin was more suitable than plastic bags for its durability

·    A bin with a lid sheltered the rubbish from the rain and other weather conditions

·    Some hoped that choosing the size of the bin would help people to think about the volume of rubbish they produced

“Maybe a 120l bin would be better as default size as 240l may encourage reckless rubbish creation”
“The reason I've paid for a private collection is because I didn't like buying plastic bin bags and leaving them in the street for animals to rip open and display my rubbish to the neighbourhood.” 
“Also the bags are a pain to have to remember to buy.”
“Need to be careful of the size of the bin to encourage less waste. Big bins people will just fill them.”

More Council involvement

Key themes:

·    Concern that a service impacting the environment/health would be better in the hands of the Council rather than businesses

“Privatisation of essential public services such as waste collection inevitably leads to poor outcomes. Poorer households would struggle with exorbitant bills, the company would sacrifice environmental or health and safety standards to cut costs”
“Fewer trucks on the road with less competition”

“It makes it easy for me and I am happy to also take Councils preference as what would work best”

Concern for environment

Key themes:

·    Many wanted others to consider their environmental impact more carefully with the change

·    People commented that there needed to be a shift in focus from business and profits  towards reducing negative impacts on the environment

“Halving the rubbish truck trips is a great way to cut greenhouse emissions while trucks are not electric. It might also make households think more carefully about what they buy and thus what they put in their bins.”
“I would prefer option 2 as our household is trying to reduce waste and we only throw a rubbish bag per month. But if the overall environmental impact of the service is lower with option 1 as I understand from the comparison options and the FAQ, then my preference goes to the option that, overall, has a larger positive impact on the environment.”
“It makes sense to organise this around fortnightly collections, which makes me think even more carefully about waste.”
“The private sector do not care about the environment they only care about profit. “

General agreement
Key themes:

·    Some commented that Option 1 was there preference as it was simplest to remember and for ease of use

·    People noted that the system was due for a change to be more like other places where Option 1 was used successfully

·    Several stated that Option 1 was the most logical option

“Option 1 works well in Christchurch where we used to live. Fortnightly rubbish is about right and prefer bin to bags”
“Option 1 fits in with our consumption and lifestyle”
“Option 2: would be financially the best option for us and I like the idea that people pay more for disposing of more rubbish, as it could act as a deterrent to consume. But in reality I believe it will result in more waste being put into recycling bins or dumped.”

“Pay as you go sounds more complicated to administer”

Option 2 = Rank #1

Cost and waste reduction were the main themes, but these were often seen as interlinked when people considered their own waste load and finances.

“I want a rubbish collection system that rewards my waste minimization and only charges me for the waste my household generates.”

Cost

Key themes:

·    People see Option 2 as the most cost effective option for them personally

·    Some preferred this option over others as they noted that they did not want to be paying disproportionately as they produced much less rubbish than others

“We definitely favour the $4.50 per pickup solution as many people only put their rubbish out intermittently.”

“I only use one bag per month and am damned if I can see why I should subsidise people who produce huge amounts of waste.”

 

Waste reduction

Key themes:

·    Several thought that the PAYT option would cause people to try and reduce their waste

·    It was noted that Option 2 could factor into a better awareness of recyclable material if people were taking notice of their rubbish load

·    Many comments said people felt this was the most suitable option for them as they produced very little waste themselves

·    A few thought that large commercial producers of waste should take more responsibility

·    Some noted that the other options were too frequent in their collection time to align to their lifestyle

A pay as you throw encourages people to recycle more and throw less out.”

"A weekly/fortnightly rubbish bin collection doesn't reward people to decrease their rubbish.”

“A pay as you throw service should greater incentivise correct use of recycling and careful purchasing of products to produce less unrecyclable and un-compostable waste “

“As a family we aim to reduce our waste in general, so for us it's very expensive to pay for something we don't use much.”

“I think if people had to pay for it more, they may be more conscious of how much they throw out, which would be better for the environment”

“I would also really like to see all the supermarkets take responsibility more.” 

“I only currently put out a rubbish bag every 5 or 6 weeks.  Weekly collection doesn't work for me.”

 

General comments

Key themes:

·    Option 2 was favoured by some as they were impressed with working examples overseas

·    Many chose this option as they did not like the idea of having a bin for rubbish, and wished to remain with bags

·    Flexibility for only using the service when required

“In The Netherlands they introduced rubbish bin collection where wheelie bins where weighed. The more you put in, the more you would pay. A bit more modern than ""pay as you throw""."

“A wheelie bin is not viable because I've got a lot of steps.”

Option 3 = Rank #1

Most of the comments related to the reasons why weekly rather than fortnightly collection of rubbish was important; thus making a comparison with option 1 rather and outlining the perceived drawbacks of this option.

Confusion

There was concern that a fortnightly collection frequency would confuse people and that if this confusion led to missing the collection day it would result in rubbish not be collected from  a household for a month.

“Thinking of other households I worry that there would be confusion as to which week was collection week. Each week you would need to think about whether it was the week or not. I anticipate people forgetting, bins overfilling, rubbish being dumped.”

“Either weekly or fortnightly are ok but if you mix up fortnight or are away you could have 1 month old rubbish so prefer weekly.”

“Have had fortnightly big bins before. Is a pain to remember which week they go out. End up with smelly rubbish piling up in the bin. Smaller bin every week much more effective.”

“I like my bin emptied every week. If you miss putting your bin out you only have to wait 1 week. But if it’s fortnightly it’s too long for the next empty.”

“Weekly collection makes it easier to manage, especially if a collection is missed.”

Hygiene/smells

The key negative outcome of a fortnightly rubbish collection mentioned by respondents centred on hygiene and health concerns. The key points mentioned were:

·    The smell of two week old rubbish, in particular food scraps and packaging.

·    Hygiene and health issues of having two week old food in the bin and the follow on issue of needing to have the bins cleaned

·    The possibility that smelly and rotting food could attract rodents and other animals

“Inevitably increased un-emptied bins that linger longer, becoming smelly and unhygienic.  With a two week cycle, a missed collection could see refuse remaining on a property for a month:  not a healthy situation in summer!”

“Even when wrapped, rotting kitchen waste (especially meat, poultry and fish) begins to smell in a few days. Having it by the back door for two weeks is an unpleasant, unattractive and unhealthy prospect - so Option 3 is preferable to Option1.”

“Personally I would prefer my general rubbish to be collected weekly .In the summer bins can become quite smelly if they are not washed out regularly. We wash our bin out on a regular basis but I know that many don’t.”

“We have children in nappies and do not want refuse & faecal matter festering on property for a fortnight,; god forbid you miss the collection day and it's there for an entire month.”

“Weekly rather than fortnightly collection is preferred to ensure the neighbourhood remains clean especially in the current environment where the emphasis/focus is cleanliness and keeping excellent hygiene. Weekly collection will maintain this. Risk of that fortnightly collection could create unhygienic practices, diseases spreading in the neighbourhood from extra storage time in the household/back yards.”

“Don't want the rubbish sitting round for a week, smell, rodents etc.”

“Rubbish left for 2 weeks will attract rodents and insects”

Cost

The cost of option 1 was mentioned positively by respondents in terms of:

·    The comparison with current contracts held with private providers

·    The cost of weekly vs fortnightly option being better value for money when looking at cost per pick up

“Making it private makes it difficult and expensive for the elderly or those who don't know how to readily check price comparisons etc.”

“Councils are primarily service providers for ratepayers. Out -sourcing to a profit-making private company would inevitably mean perpetually increasing costs and, probably, an unreliable service.”

“We currently have a small 120L bin through enviro waste with weekly pick up.  This is a mixed rubbish bin (we are also allowed to put green waste in it which is great).  WE are paying $240 per year for this service (has been steadily increasing over the years) and we feel an equivalent Council service at $144 per year is much more affordable.”

“I considered option 3 to have a fairer price structure. Option 1 almost encourages people to throw out more rubbish to get their money’s worth in the default bin size.”

“I see rubbish collection as part of the council's core role and the council shouldn't be cutting corners. The economies of scale from the council contract should make it cheaper for everyone.”

Illegal Dumping

The illegal dumping of rubbish was mentioned by respondents as:

·    A consequence of not having a weekly rubbish collection

·    A consequence of having a service not operated by Council

“You need to think about the cost of having to clean up dumped waste when you consider the cost savings of fortnightly collections.”

“I believe a consistent collection is important and if it is not done by council it will lead to more dumping”

“I think not offering a service will result in even more dumping of rubbish, from those than cannot afford to sign up for a service. Needs to be an overall approach if it is to be successful (collectively cover both rubbish and recycling)”

“I would cope fine with fortnightly collection of rubbish but I fear that some families would resort to dumping rubbish on random street corners or around public bins.”

“If people have to organise and pay for rubbish collection independently there is likely to be dumping and piling of rubbish in undesirable locations.”

 

Size of bin

Many respondents commented on the size of the bin and their current usage which frequently saw them filling their current bin weekly.

“As a family of four with a large section we fill a bin almost every week”

“I am supportive of a council run rubbish collection system. I also don’t mind if it’s collected fortnightly or weekly. However bin size is crucial. We currently fill a 240L bin every week. We would need to have a 240L bin collected weekly, or have the ability to have 2 x 240L bins collected fortnightly.”

“My bin gets filled well before the week is up. We need weekly rubbish collection. I’m happy to use other providers so my rubbish would be collected more frequently.”

“Smaller rubbish bin would hopefully promote more recycling into the larger recycling bin.”

“We currently use a 240l bin which is full and is collected weekly. If we chose option 1 we would have nowhere to put the extra rubbish if it was collected fortnightly or would need to order two bins (therefore having 5 bins to put out each week with the new proposed recycling changes) which is not easy to do with a toddler in tow!”

“My first preference is for a weekly rubbish collection service, as the amount of rubbish my household produces can vary substantially. Some weeks we do not fill a bag, while others we may put two bags out.”

Option 4 = Rank #1

 

Preference for private providers

Key themes:

·    Some felt there was more flexibility with private providers

·    Private providers allowed the mix of different types of waste in their bins

·    Some were already with a private contractor and did not wish to change

“I want to shop around and have choice as to which service I use.”

 “I like that I can put green waste into the same bin alongside my usual rubbish.” 

“Don't want anything to change, works the way it's going currently.”

Uneasiness with full-Council control

Key themes:

·    It was a common fear that other options would put private providers out of business and cause people to lose their jobs

·    Some mistrusted Council’s motives

“Just let the private contractors do their job and save money and they know how to run a business. HCC get my hard earned cash for their enjoyment”

“Because I prefer to be able to choose who my provider is. I do not think it should be for the council to make that decision for me”

“Cost and lack of confidence in the council to deliver”

“Don't want local companies to lose out, I support them and don't like the idea of a monopolised system at all.”

Green Waste and Schools

Three quarters of respondents supported Council offering an opt-in green waste service and of these nearly half said they would use the service. There were several comments about this service with three groups emerging:

·    Those who supported the service but would not use it due to concerns about the monthly collection not being frequent enough especially in summer

·    Those who supported the service but would not use it because they composted

·    Those who supported but would not use, and those who did not support, because they used their current rubbish wheelie bin to dispose of green waste

Almost all the comments about providing free recycling services to the education providers outlined fell into three groups:

·    Those who felt this was not something Council should do, and that this was something the Ministry of Education was responsible for

·    Those who supported the concept but were keen to see it accompanied by education and awareness

·    Those who supported the concept but only in state funded and not for profit education providers, not private or profit making entities

 

Figure 21: Support for green waste, use of green waste and support for recycling in education providers

Question

Response

Support an opt-in green waste service

Yes

76%

No

24%

Use a green waste service

Yes

46%

No

54%

Support free recycling services at these education providers

Yes

81%

No

19%

 

  

 


 

Kiwi Consortium Submissions

A collection of waste collection operators – Al’s Litta Binz, Low Cost Bins, Econowaste, Daily Karts and Earthcare Environmental – established a form that enabled respondents to fill in their name and address and submit an email to Council. The default text included in the email is included in the box.

Dear Councillors

This is a submission on the councils proposed changes to rubbish collections.

• I support a modern waste system in which I can choose the collection frequency, price and bin size to suit my family. I support having my choice of waste provider, allowing me to select a bin size and service frequency that suits my household's needs.

• I do not support a rubbish system that increases my rates.  I only want to be charged for the waste my household generates on a user pays basis.

• I want a rubbish system that supports local business and the community. I do not support a system which existing local operators will no longer be able to provide a service. I #supportlocal

• I do not support options 1 and 3- a council-run rubbish monopoly and fortnightly rubbish collections, unless there is an ‘opt-out provision’ where I get my money back. I want a choice of provider and a solution that suits my household.

• I support options 2 and 4 - pay as you throw or existing private collection, where I can choose my collection provider and collection frequency.

As a ratepayer – I want a modern waste system which gives me choice and flexibility – and #supportslocal.

A total of 2,581 submissions were received. This number reduced to 2,354 once duplicates were removed. Nearly all (93%) of these were from Lower Hutt residents; 6% were from Upper Hutt and 1% did not provide an address.

Within the email the text could be altered. 120 respondents chose to alter their submission from the original text provided by Kiwi Consortium. Most chose to remove one or more of the bullet points provided. Some completely altered the text.

“On the proposed changes, I would support where I could choose the collection frequency, price and bin size to suit our family of two.”

“I like option 3 because of the frequency of service offered, but don't like the 120l bin size offered. You should be able to offer 240l as an option. I like option 1 for the bin size but the frequency needs to be weekly. I also encourage the council to investigate a composting service. I have used such a service in Australia and it significantly reduced the volume of material entering the general waste bin.”

“I sent a submission through modernwaste.co.nz earlier today but hadn’t done enough research. Since reading more I would like to remove that email I sent. I now believe that the council Option 1 is a good fit for our family.  Apologies for the confusion”

“Please disregard all submissions on a form like this. They are all being led astray by some faceless geek who doesn't even live in Lower Hutt and who wants to see people who can't afford to pay for their own waste to be collected having to just dump it somewhere like the river bank or the beach. Keep Lower Hutt Clean; please don’t go for Option 4”

“I do not support the waste management system becoming a monopoly service with no competition to control market pricing and service quality.   Option 1 directly challenges my consumer right to choose and risks increased future rates burden being imposed on rate paying residents.”

“The Council is not a good business operator and should leave the current efficient system as it is. It appears to me that the Council has come up with a solution before they have identified a problem that needs solving. Council staff should be more productively employed than dreaming up stuff like this.”

“None of your options addresses my household needs. I currently have a weekly private collection service for a 240l bin. I pay more than double your proposed price for fortnightly collection of this bin size. It would make sense to leverage the council’s procurement scale to offer rate payers a better deal on waste collection, where I can choose the bin size and frequency of collection that suits my family. Then we can individually negotiate with private providers.”

These submissions, in general, could not be included in the quantitative analysis as no feedback on the recycling, green waste or education in schools was provided in the submission. And, although an indication is given for their preference for the rubbish option question no clear, objective rank is offered.

In the few cases where the text has been altered a clear indication of preference indicated these responses were included in the analysis.

 

 

 


                                                                                      36                                                       28 August 2020

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

19 August 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/948)

 

 

 

 

Report no: LTPAP2020/5/93

 

Schedule of Submitters

 

 

 

1.    The purpose of this report is to present the schedule of submitters speaking at the Rubbish and Recycling hearing of submissions on Friday 28 August 2020 and continuing on Monday 31 August 2020.

 

2.    The schedule of speakers for Friday 28 August is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

3.    The schedule of speakers for Monday 31 August is attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

4.    The submissions of speakers can be viewed at the following links:

Submissions - Friday 28 August:

Submissions - Friday 28 August

Submissions - Monday 31 August:

       Submissions - Monday 31 August

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Schedule of speakers Friday 28 August

37

2

Schedule of speakers 31 August 2020

39

 

Author: Judy Randall, Programme Lead - Planning and Reporting

 

Approved By: Wendy Moore, Head of Strategy and Planning

 


Attachment 1

Schedule of speakers Friday 28 August

 


 


Attachment 2

Schedule of speakers 31 August 2020

 

 



[1] The margin of error is +/- 1.56%

[2] 0% indicates that there were responses but the % was less than 0.5% so rounds to 0%. If no one in a group responds then a ‘—‘ is used.

[3] The margin of error is +/- 1.56%