WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN … · notification letter. Only members of the hearing panel can ask questions about submissions or evidence. ... The panel will then make

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as a

decision of Council. Should panel members require further information relating to any reports, please contact the hearings advisor.

I hereby give notice that the hearing of submissions for a Special Consultative Procedure will be held on:

Date: 30 April, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 11 May 2018 Time: Various (see inside cover) Meeting Room: Various (see inside cover)

HEARING AGENDA

WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN

PANEL MEMBERS Chairperson Councillor Penny Hulse Councillor Linda Cooper Councillor Daniel Newman Councillor Wayne Walker Glenn Wilcox – Independent Maori Statutory Board Member

Julie McKee HEARINGS TEAM LEADER

Telephone: 09 977 6993 or 0274 909 902 Email: [email protected] Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

WHAT HAPPENS AT A SPECIAL CONSULTATIVE PROCEDURE HEARING At the start of the meeting, the Chairperson will introduce the panel members and council staff and will briefly outline the procedure. The Chairperson may then call upon the parties present to introduce themselves to the panel. The Chairperson is addressed as Mr Chairman or Madam Chair. Any party intending to give written or spoken evidence in Māori or speak in sign language should advise the hearings advisor at least five working days before the hearing so that a qualified interpreter can be provided. Catering is not provided at the hearing. Please note that the hearing may be audio recorded. Scheduling submitters to be heard A timetable will be prepared approximately one week before the hearing for all submitters who have returned their hearing attendance form. Please note that during the course of the hearing changing circumstances may mean the proposed timetable is delayed or brought forward. Submitters wishing to be heard are requested to ensure they are available to attend the hearing and present their evidence when required. The hearings advisor will advise submitters of any changes to the timetable at the earliest possible opportunity. The Meeting Procedure The usual procedure for the meeting is as follows:

The reporting officer may be asked by the Chairperson to give a brief introduction of the Special Consultative Procedure before them.

Submitters (for and against the application) are then called upon to speak. Submitters may also be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses on their behalf. The hearing panel may then question each speaker. The council officer’s report will identify any submissions received outside of the submission period. At the hearing, late submitters may be asked to address the panel on why their submission should be accepted. Late submitters can speak only if the hearing panel accepts the late submission.

Should you wish to present written information (evidence) in support of your submission, please ensure you provide the number of copies indicated in the notification letter.

Only members of the hearing panel can ask questions about submissions or evidence. Attendees may suggest questions for the panel to ask but it does not have to ask them. No cross-examination - either by the applicant or by those who have lodged submissions – is permitted at the hearing.

After the submitters have presented their cases, the chairperson may call upon council officers to comment on any matters of fact or clarification.

Following the presentation of all the evidence, the panel will deliberate in public. The public do not have any speaking rights during the deliberation process, but may attend to observe. The panel will then make a recommendation to the Environment and Community Committee and all submitters will be sent a copy of the decision.

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

START DATE: 30 April 2018

Page 3

SPECIAL CONSULTATIVE PROCEDURE - WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN

HEARING DATES AND VENUES

Date Time Venue

Monday, 30 April 2018 2.00pm – 5.00pm Council Chamber

Wednesday, 2 May 2018 1.30pm – 5.00pm Reception Lounge

Thursday, 3 May 2018 9.30am – 1.00pm Reception Lounge

Friday, 4 May 2018 9.30am – 5.00pm Council Chamber

Monday, 7 May 2018 1.30pm – 5.00pm Reception Lounge

Friday, 11 May 2018

Public Deliberations

2.30pm – 5.00pm Council Chamber

Council Chamber, Ground Floor, Auckland Town Hall, 301 Queen Street, Auckland CBD Reception Lounge, Level 2, Auckland Town Hall, 301 Queen Street, Auckland CBD

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

Reporting officer’s report 5-16

Attachment A Waste Management and Minimisation Plan – Consultation

Document

17-34

Attachment B Summary of Submissions report 35-90

Attachment C List of submitters 91-128

Attachment D Submissions

The submissions have not been re-produced in this agenda, but can be viewed on the council website here

129-130

Attachment E Local Board resolutions and feedback from September

2017 – November 2017 workshops

131-158

Reporting Officer, Parul Sood, Waste Planning Manager

Reporting on submissions to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/hearings/find-hearing/Pages/find-special-consultative-procedure-hearing.aspx

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

START DATE: 30 April 2018

Page 4

Submissions on the Draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

File No:

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To consider written submissions and informal feedback received on the draft AucklandWaste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 has been reviewed to meetthe requirements of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. The draft Auckland WasteManagement and Minimisation Plan 2018 was developed through engagement with localboards, industry, community groups, mana whenua, maatawaka and other stakeholders.

3. The draft plan continues the implementation of the Auckland Waste Management andMinimisation Plan 2012 but extends the focus to address the 80 per cent of waste that iscommercially generated and managed.

4. On 28 February 2018 the draft plan was released for public consultation along with aconsultation summary. At the close of the submission period on 28 March 2018, 6,758submissions had been received both online and in hard copy form. Of these, 4,605 were proforma online submissions from the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance. Ninety-six submissionswere provided by video and drawings. One local board, Upper Harbour, provided writtenfeedback.

5. Comments relating to waste were also received through the Have Your Say events as partof the Long-term Plan consultation process. These have been summarized in Attachment Band are similar to the feedback received through the formal submissions.

6. Key themes emerging from the draft Waste Auckland Management and Minimisation Planconsultation process are:

i. When council makes decisions about waste the most important outcomes for submittersare:

Reducing waste to landfill and carbon emissions (26 per cent)

Reducing environmental and marine pollution (26 per cent)

Delivering value for money for ratepayers and Aucklanders (14 per cent)

Tidy public places (13 per cent)

ii. Strong support for council to expand its efforts to address business and commercialwaste (84 per cent of submitters agree or strongly agree)

iii. Strong support for council to address commercial construction and demolition waste,plastic and organic waste (87 per cent of submitters agree or strongly agree)

iv. Strong support for council to continue establishing community recycling centres (86 percent of submitters agree or strongly agree)

v. Strong support for council to advocate to central government to introduce productstewardship schemes, including a container deposit scheme (84 per cent of submittersagree or strongly agree)

5

2

vi. Support for the approach of the Tikapa-Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Draft Waste Plan (51 per cent of submitters agree or strongly agree, 28 per cent of submitters ‘don’t know’)

vii. Common issues raised by submitters under ‘Any other comments’ and in long form and pro forma submissions (excluding Auckland Ratepayer Alliance pro forma submissions) are:

a. General support for increasing the waste levy

b. Qualified support for the domestic food scraps collection with some comments over the inability to opt out, the proposed funding mechanism and the centralised processing model.

c. The need for more education and communication around waste minimisation

7. Auckland Ratepayer Alliance pro forma submissions addressed only two issues; opposing an increase in the waste levy and a move to fortnightly domestic waste collections

8. This report provides a summary of the submissions received through the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan consultation process to assist the Hearing Panel with the Hearing and Deliberation process.

9. The attachments to this report provide more detailed information about the submissions.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations That the Hearing Panel: a) Consider the 6,758 written and 96 informal submissions received on the draft

Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan b) Consider the written feedback received from the Upper Harbour Local Board

c) Hear the submitters and local board members that wish to provide oral feedback

Horopaki / Context

10. The Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 must be reviewed and updated by 20 June 2018 under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

11. The draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 sets out a range of proposed actions and initiatives that will be implemented over the next six years (the life of the plan) along with a proposed vision and targets. A full copy of the draft plan is available online at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/topics-you-can-have-your-say-on/waste-minimisation-management-plan/Pages/consultation-documents.aspx#panelLinks

12. The draft plan was developed in collaboration with mana whenua and maatawaka to ensure it reflects Te Ao Māori. Input was also sought from local boards and key stakeholders including the waste and recycling industry, the community sector, business and youth.

13. The draft plan proposes to continue implementation of changes to household waste and recycling services as outlined in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012. The draft plan also proposes to expand the focus beyond the waste that council manages to include the 80 per cent of waste that is commercially generated and managed.

14. The priority actions proposed in the draft plan are:

i. Advocate to central government to increase the waste levy and review the waste levy structure

6

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/topics-you-can-have-your-say-on/waste-minimisation-management-plan/Pages/consultation-documents.aspx#panelLinks

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/topics-you-can-have-your-say-on/waste-minimisation-management-plan/Pages/consultation-documents.aspx#panelLinks

3

ii. Advocate to central government for product stewardship, including a mandatory nationwide container deposit scheme for beverage containers and other products such as e-waste, tyres and batteries

iii. Address the three priority commercial waste streams: construction and demolition waste, organic waste and plastic waste, by leading by example and partnering with industry to identify alternatives to landfill

iv. Continue to establish the resource recovery network; twelve community recycling centres and the Waitakere resource recovery park.

v. Continue transitioning to consistent kerbside waste and recycling services including:

Pay-as-you-throw refuse collection (weekly, potentially fortnightly)

Recycling collection (fortnightly)

Food scraps collection in urban areas (weekly)

Inorganic collection (annual)

vi. Deliver the domestic kerbside food scraps collection, starting in Papakura.

vii. Address waste from council’s own operations, increasing the target for office-type wastes and setting targets for operational wastes

viii. Partnering with others to achieve a zero waste Auckland by continuing a range of community-supported programmes and working with the business sector to reduce and divert commercial waste streams.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Public notification for submissions

15. On 28 February 2018 the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan was released for public consultation, closing on 28 March 2018.

16. Consultation was undertaken alongside the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 for which 40 local board Have Your Say events were held around the city, along with two Māori hui and two Radio Waatea interviews. Although waste was not one of the main discussion topics, around 450 comments were recorded on issues related to the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. These have been summarized in Attachment A and are similar to the feedback received through the formal submissions.

17. As part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 consultation, 2044 formal submissions commented on waste. The feedback received on specific themes like the food scraps service and enforcement is similar to feedback received through the waste plan. A more detail analysis on this will be presented to councillors and local board members for their consideration as part of the Long-term Plan process.

Hearings and Deliberations

18. From 30 April 2018 to the end of May 2018 the Hearing Panel will:

Receive all submissions

Hear from submitters who wish to speak in support of their submission

Consider the views of submitters

Hold public deliberations on matters raised in written and oral submissions

7

4

Make recommendations to the Environment and Community Committee

Overview of submissions and informal feedback

19. By the close of the submission period 6,758 submissions were received online and in hard copy form. Of these, 4,605 were pro forma on-line submissions from the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance. Ninety-six informal submissions were provided including five videos and 91 drawings from school children.

Attachment A is the consultation summary released alongside the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

Attachment B provides an analysis of submissions

Attachment C provides a list of the submitters

Attachment D provides copies of the submission

Attachment E provides copies of resolutions and feedback from local boards from workshops held from September 2017 to November 2017

20. The number and type of submissions received are shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. Of the 6,758 submissions received, 68 per cent were Auckland Ratepayers Alliance pro forma submissions. Without these the total number of submissions is 2,153.

Table 1 – Types of formal submissions

Formal submission type Number of submissions

Percentage of submissions

Council’s submission feedback form (online and hard copy) 1,834 27%

Long form submissions 80 1%

Pro forma - Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance 4,605 68%

Pro forma submissions (non-Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance) 239 4%

Total 6,758 100%

Table 2 – Types of informal submissions

Informal submission type* Number of comments

Videos and drawings 96

Other informal submissions 1,478

Have your say event feed back 449

Total 2,023

*Informal submissions record comments and views that are not always attributable to individuals. They are not included in data analysis but included in the summary of submissions report narrative

8

5

21. The breakdown of the submissions, by submitter group, is show in the following table. The percentage of submissions excluding Auckland Ratepayers Alliance pro forma submissions is provided for comparison.

Table 3 – Breakdown by submitter group

Submitter Group Number of

submissions

Percentage of

submissions

Percentage of

submissions

excluding

Auckland

Ratepayers’

Alliance pro

forma

submissions

Business (general) 28 0.4% 1%

Community sector 40 1% 2%

Individual 1,766 26% 85%

Local government/government 1 0.01% 0%

Māori 214 3% 10%

Māori/iwi organisations/marae 5 0.1% 0.2%

Professional associations 13 0.2% 1%

Pro forma - Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance 4,605 68% -

Waste and resource recovery industry 22 0.3% 1%

Total 6,758*

* 2,153 submissions if Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance pro forma submissions are excluded. *** The percentage of Maori in Table 6 is 12% as the submitters were able to tick more than one ethnicity.

9

6

22. The following table provides a breakdown of the local board areas from which submissions were received.

Table 4 – Breakdown by local board

Local board Number of

submitters

Percentage of

submitters

Albert-Eden Local Board 172 8%

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board 97 5%

Franklin Local Board 57 3%

Great Barrier Local Board 7 0%

Henderson-Massey Local Board 99 5%

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 114 5%

Howick Local Board 173 8%

Kaipātiki Local Board 97 5%

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board 51 2%

Manurewa Local Board 112 5%

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 100 5%

Ōrākei Local Board 85 4%

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board 50 2%

Papakura Local Board 68 3%

Puketāpapa Local Board 35 2%

Rodney Local Board 190 9%

Upper Harbour Local Board 57 3%

Waiheke Local Board 75 3%

Waitākere Ranges Local Board 96 4%

Waitematā Local Board 130 6%

Whau Local Board 88 4%

Regional 1 0%

Not Supplied (non ARA) 174 8%

Outside Auckland 25 1%

*Not Supplied ARA 4605

10

7

23. The ages of submitters were well distributed, with no single group predominating. The following table provides an overview of the age of submitters. Auckland Ratepayers Alliance pro forma submissions are not included as they did not include age information

Table 5 – Breakdown by age

Age of submitters Number of

submissions

Percentage of

submissions

14 or younger 40 2%

15-24 164 9%

25-34 272 15%

35-44 357 20%

45-54 322 18%

55-64 282 16%

65-74 271 15%

75 or older 101 6%

24. Table 6 provides an overview of the ethnicity of submitters, as recorded on submission forms. Auckland Ratepayers Alliance pro forma submissions are not included as they did not include ethnicity information.

Table 6 – Breakdown by ethnicity

Ethnicity of submitters Number of

submissions

Percentage of

submissions

European 1,205 68%

Māori 214 12%

Pacific 132 7%

Asian 371 21%

Other 53 3%

25. The submission feedback form included six questions based on the main themes and issues covered in the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. A summary of the key statistics is below:

Table 7: Questions 1 to 6 in submission feedback form

Question 1: Importance of

waste outcomes.

Response Number of

submissions

Percentage of

submissions

Delivering value for money for ratepayers and Aucklanders

777 14%

Reliability of collection 485 9%

11

8

services Reducing waste to landfill and carbon emissions

1395 26%

Reducing environmental and marine pollution

1394 26%

Tidy public places 696 13% Creating jobs in resource recovery and processing industries

496 9%

Other 137 3% Question 2: Expand efforts to include business and commercial activities.

Strongly Disagree 129 7% Disagree 43 2% Neutral 102 5% Agree 509 27% Strongly Agree 1104 57% Don’t know 36 2%

Question 3: Reduce commercial construction and demolition, plastic and organic waste


Question 4: Community Recycling Centres


Question 5: Product stewardship

. Strongly Disagree 147 8% Disagree 47 2% Neutral 84 4% Agree 442 23% Strongly Agree 1172 61% Don’t know 31 2%

Question 6: Hauraki Gulf Islands


26. The feedback shows strong support for council to:

expand its focus to address commercially generated and managed waste

work with business to address construction and demolition waste, plastic and organic waste

12

9

continue establishing community recycling centres

advocate to central government for product stewardship, including a container deposit scheme

27. A lower level of support is shown for the Tikapa-Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Draft Waste Plan, however a large percentage of submitters either ‘didn’t know’ or were neutral on this issue.

28. A seventh question enabled submitters to provide and additional comments. The most common issues raised by this question and by long form and pro forma submissions (excluding Auckland Ratepayer Alliance pro forma submissions which opposed two key issues; increasing the waste levy and moving to fortnightly domestic waste collections) were:

o General support for increasing the waste levy

o Qualified support for the domestic food scraps collection but with some concerns over the inability to opt out, the proposed funding mechanism and the centralised processing model.

o The need for more education and communication around waste minimisation

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views

29. Local boards were previously asked to give feedback on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 through workshops and reports to business meetings from September 2017-November 2017.

30. In general boards supported the draft plan. Local board resolutions and feedback from the workshops and business meetings are included in Attachment D. This feedback was taken into account before the draft plan was released for consultation in February 2018.

31. Informal feedback was also received during the consultation period from Upper Harbour Local Board who made a notice of motion in their March 2018 meeting (File ref CP2018/03106)

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

support the development of Community Recycling Centres as part of a Resource Recovery Network; as proposed in the Draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

advocate for the development of a Community Recycling Centre in Albany to meet the demands of the growing communities in Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays.

propose the investigation for a Community Recycling Centre at a suitable site in the Upper Harbour Local Board area, including 62 Greville Road (closed Rosedale Landfill site), opposite 117 Rosedale Road (present Waste Management Transfer Station) once the site required is deemed safe for use

32. Twelve local boards have also requested to give informal feedback to the Hearing Panel. These are: Albert-Eden, Franklin, Great Barrier, Hibiscus and Bays, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waiheke and Waitematā local boards.

13

10

33. Local boards have now been provided with a summary of feedback by their communities on the targeted rates for waste management included in the draft Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

34. After considering this feedback local boards will have the opportunity to make further recommendations on the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan from 1 to 10 May 2018. Because of the overlapping timeframes for reporting, it was not possible for these local board recommendations to be attached to this Hearing report. However, all local board recommendations approved by 9 May will be provided to the Hearing Panel before their deliberations on 11 May 2018.

35. Any local board recommendations made on 10 May 2018 or later will be provided to Environment and Community Committee before they approve the final plan in June 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

36. An overview of Te Ao Māori is included in the draft plan along with Māori priorities which were identified by mana whenua and mataawaka through the engagement process. Specific actions outlining how Council will work with Māori are also included

37. Targeted engagement with Māori was undertaken over the consultation period to encourage feedback on the draft plan. Para Kore ki Tāmaki Team promoted the consultation process with Para Kore marae and Māori organisations, two live stream interviews were aired on Radio Waatea and Waste Solutions staff attended the two Māori hui that were organised as part of the Have Your Say events.

38. As a result of this targeted approach 214 submissions were received from Māori, which represent 10 per cent of the total submissions received (when Auckland Ratepayer Alliance pro forma submissions are excluded). The majority of these submissions were from Māori residents. Five video submissions were received from rangatahi at Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi Marae in te reo.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

39. The financial implications of decision making on the draft plan will be highlighted to the panel throughout their deliberations. These will also be outlined to Environment and Community Committee in June 2018 when they adopt the final plan.

40. The draft budgets in the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 have been developed based on the assumption that the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be adopted in its current state. Any significant changes required to budgets will be identified in 2018/2019 and presented for approval as part of the Annual Plan 2019/2020 process.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

41. There is no significant risk involved in the Hearing Panel considering the submissions outlined in this report or in hearing oral submissions. Risks that arise from decision making on the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 will be highlighted to the panel throughout their deliberations. These will also be outlined to Environment and Community Committee in June 2018 when they adopt the final plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

42. The Hearing Panel will hear verbal submissions over April and May 2018. One hundred and twenty seven submitters have indicated that they wish to be heard,

14

11

43. Twelve local boards will provide informal feedback to the panel on 3 May 2018.

44. Once all submissions have been heard the Hearing Panel will deliberate on the issues raised, including a public deliberations day on 11 May 2018.

45. A report will then be prepared by the Hearing Panel which will report back to the Environment and Community Committee on 12 June 2018 with recommendations for final adoption of the draft plan

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments A. WMMP – Consultation Document B. Summary of Submissions Report C. List of submitters D. Copies of all submissions E. Local board resolutions and feedback from September 2017-November 2017 workshops

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors Parul Sood, Waste Planning Manager, Waste Solutions Authorisers Barry Potter, Director Infrastructure & Environmental Services

15

16

ATTACHMENT A

WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN – CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

17

18

Have your say on Auckland’s future by 8pm on the 28 March 2018.

akhaveyoursay.nz

Draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

CONSULTATION SUMMARY

18-PRO-2113

19

Neat Streets project in Ōtara.

DRAFT AUCKLAND WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN 2018

2 20

Waste is everyone’s business: we all have a part to play

Every year, we send more than 1.6 million tonnes of waste to landfill in Auckland – that’s over one tonne per person. Every tonne of waste that is landfilled comes at a cost. Most of this waste could be diverted to other, productive uses. Instead of being a cost, it could be seen as a valuable resource that can be an opportunity to create jobs, boost our economy, strengthen our communities, and take better care of the environment.

1tonne

MihiKo Kaupapa-rua te tikanga,

Ko mahia hōutia te whai,

Ko hangarua te whakamataara,

Ko para kore te taumata whakaaro nui.

Mā wai rā a Papatūānuku e tiaki

mei kore māku,

mei kore māu?

Re-purpose is the plan,

Re-use is the driver,

Recycle, the catch-cry

Zero Waste – the bold goal.

Who else will care for Mother Earth

if it isn’t me,

and it isn’t you?

This guide is also available in Te Reo, Samoan, Tongan, Simplified Chinese, Korean, EasyRead and New Zealand Sign Language. Visit aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say to download your copy.

This document has been issued for discussion purposes only. Auckland Council disclaims any liability whatsoever in connection with any action taken in reliance of this document or for any error, deficiency, flaw or omission contained in it.

321

Auckland: we know we can do better

We began working on waste minimisation in 2012 and so far we have:

• reduced household waste by 10 per cent – from 160kg/person in 2012 to 144kg/person in 2017

• reduced council office waste by 30 per cent by 2014

• begun standardising domestic waste and recycling services to create an efficient kerbside collection service

• introduced new region-wide services such as the onsite inorganic collection

• conducted a food scraps trial with over 2000 households to fine-tune how we introduce the collection across all of urban Auckland

• started building a network of Community Recycling Centres, diverting useful materials from landfills, creating jobs, offering training, and connecting people with their communities

• worked alongside communities to mobilise thousands of Aucklanders to start minimising their own waste at home, at work, and in their neighbourhoods.

This has worked well, but we still face some very big challenges:

• household kerbside refuse is only 14 per cent of total waste, but business and commercial waste is growing

• total waste to landfill grew by 40 per cent between 2010 and 2016, largely due to an increase in construction and demolition waste driven by new housing needs and Auckland’s population growing

• the amounts of plastic and organic waste going to landfills has increased

• there are significant barriers to overcome, ranging from lack of financial incentives for waste minimisation to our rapid population growth.

This is your opportunity to have your say about our proposed action plan for managing waste. We will consider all feedback and issue a final plan in June 2018.


4 22

Our visionAuckland aspires to be Zero Waste by 2040, taking care of people and the environment, and turning waste into resources.

Zero Waste is about making the most of the resources we have, using them for their highest and best value, and sending nothing to landfill or to incinerators. What is currently considered waste is redefined as a valuable resource that can be used again.

In practice, this means:

• waste minimisation is integrated into design, manufacturing, retailing, and consumer choices

• materials are used in ways that preserve value, minimise environmental impacts and conserve natural resources

• products are designed and used according to the waste hierarchy, staying as high up the hierarchy as possible

• resources can be used and reused, through better systems for repurposing and remanufacturing materials into other goods.

In Auckland, Zero Waste is also about embracing Te Ao Māori – aligning with Te Ao Māori and the tradition of kaitiakitanga.

Zero Waste is a long-term goal, but there’s a lot we can do right now.

REDUCE

REUSE

RECYCLE

RECOVER

DISPOSE

TREAT

WA

STE

DIS

POSA

LW

AST

E D

IVER

SIO

N

MA

XIM

UM

CO

NSE

RVAT

ION

OF

RESO

URC

ES

Rubbish bins on a suburban street.

523

Our new planAs part of preparing this plan, we looked at three options:

1. keep going as we are, with a strong focus on the 20 per cent of waste the council can most easily influence

2. keep going as we are and expand our focus to include the 80 per cent of waste that is commercially managed

3. invest in technology such as large-scale incinerators to deal with residual waste.

We are recommending option two because:

• option one would not meet our legislated responsibility to minimise waste, especially given Auckland’s growth

• option three requires capital investment beyond our budgets and doesn’t support our Zero Waste vision.

We will work towards three targets, to reduce*:

by 2024 and new targets

for operational waste by 2021

Council office waste

60%

by 2021

Domestic waste

30%

by 2027

All waste

30%

*compared to 2012.

Houses being built at Flat Bush.

6


24

Children learning about zero waste at the Waitākere Learning Centre.

725

What this means for you

We will continue working on the 20 per cent of waste we’re directly responsible for, and increase our efforts to help reduce the 80 per cent of waste that is commercially managed.

Council servicesWe will continue core functions such as household kerbside collections, with some changes to help reduce waste to landfill.

Our current and proposed services include*:

What How often WhenRecycling collection Fortnightly Already in place

Inorganic collection Annually Already in place

Pay-as-you-throw kerbside refuse

collection

Weekly, eventually shifting to fortnightly

Being extended to all of the region

by 2020

Introducing wheelie bins for refuse

collection across urban areas, and a mix of

bags and bins in rural areas and the Hauraki

Gulf islands

Weekly, eventually shifting to fortnightly

Being extended to all of the region

by 2020

Introducing a kerbside collection of food

scraps for urban areas

Weekly Being introduced from 2018 up

to 2021

Why pay-as-you-throw?Currently, around half of Aucklanders pay for household refuse through a targeted rate. The other half use pay-as-you-throw systems with paid bags or bin tags.

We plan to move everyone to pay-as-you-throw systems. This way, there’s a clear link between how much you throw away and how much you pay. Households using the pay-as-you-throw system generally send less waste to landfill. They also put their bin or bag out less often – waiting until it is full instead of automatically putting it out every week.

Food waste is an opportunity Nearly half the weight of an average household rubbish bin is food.

It generates unwanted greenhouse gases in landfills and we think there’s a better way to manage it – by introducing a kerbside collection for food scraps across urban Auckland. We can process food waste for useful purposes, such as making compost or generating energy. We’ll also keep supporting initiatives to help you reduce the amount of food waste you produce, and to compost at home.

Over time, as weekly collections of food scraps remove the largest (and often smelliest) volume of waste from bins, we expect to be able to reduce refuse collection to a fortnightly service.

A second life for used goodsFive Community Recycling Centres are up and running across Auckland. Here, you can drop off unwanted goods, and find a bargain. We’re working to set up more centres, with plans for a total of 12 centres by 2024. The centres are already achieving beyond expectations, diverting around 70 per cent of all material that they receive from landfill, and generating local employment opportunities.

The Hauraki Gulf IslandsWe provide waste services to Waiheke, Aotea Great Barrier, Rakino and Kawau Islands. Isolation and the expense of shipping materials off-island for disposal or recycling make waste services much more expensive than on the mainland. This cost is currently subsidised from region-wide rates funding, with the intent to reduce the subsidy over time.

Together with island communities, we have developed the Tikapa Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Draft Waste Plan to respond to their unique needs and develop on-island solutions.

*With some variation to account for local conditions.

8


26

Key: Community Recycling

Centre (CRC)

Helensville CRCWhangaparaoa CRC

Devonport CRC

Waiuku CRC

Waitākere CRC

Photo: Doug Cole

927

Commercial waste

Tackling and reducing the 80 per cent of waste that is commercially generatedMost of Auckland’s waste is generated by businesses and collected and disposed of by private waste companies.

We want to prioritise waste minimisation across three commercial waste streams:

• construction and demolition waste

• organic waste

• plastic waste.

Our goal is to work collaboratively with businesses and central government to divert more of these materials from landfill and into useful purposes, as part of seeing waste as a resource.

Our booming construction industryConstruction and demolition waste (C&D) to landfill is the single largest waste stream. Better planning and on-site management can help the building industry to divert materials such as metal, plasterboard and timber from landfill, and save money.

We have piloted the deconstruction approach in several of our own building projects, and we’re looking to work with large developers to support wider uptake. There is also a role for us to help facilitate the reuse of materials, with the development of specifications and markets for recovered materials, and a waste brokering service for construction and demolition waste.

Every year, we send more than one tonne of waste to landfill for every Aucklander. 144kg per person is collected through domestic kerbside collections. The remainder of the waste is commercially generated and managed.

20%domestic waste

80%commercial waste

10


28

Organic wasteOrganic waste is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions of all waste materials sent to landfill. Alongside the domestic kerbside collection of food scraps, there is an opportunity to work with large food waste producers and processers to find alternatives to landfilling their organic wastes. We also want to work with supermarkets, restaurants and cafes, and the garden waste industry to help divert more organic waste from landfill.

PlasticsAround 12 per cent of the materials going to landfill (by weight) are plastic. While some plastics are recyclable, others can’t currently be remanufactured. We need more information on the different types of plastics going to disposal, to either limit their use in products, or find recycling solutions.

Rubble – 26%

Organics – 23%

Plastics – 15%

Timber – 12%

Paper – 10%

Textiles – 5%

Metals – 4%

Nappies and sanitary – 2%

Rubber – 2%

Glass – 1%

What’s going into our landfills (2016)?*

* Excludes ‘special wastes’, for which there is limited data available.

1129

We need better policy toolsIf we are going to turn the tide on waste, we know that more needs to be done than we, as the council, currently have the ability to do. We need new national policy to drive change.

As part of this proposed plan, we will be asking central government to unlock some of the tools that are available under the Waste Minimisation Act.

We’re focusing on:

1. The waste levy

A levy of $10 applies to every tonne of waste that is landfilled. The levy funds are invested in waste minimisation activities. But, this rate was set in 2008, and needs to be reviewed as we think it’s too low to encourage waste minimisation. We will work with the waste and recycling industry and other councils to advocate strongly to central government to increase the levy and review how it is applied.

2. Product stewardship schemes

We support introducing mandatory, nationwide product stewardship schemes for items like tyres, e-waste and plastic bags. Under these schemes, producers and consumers share responsibility for the end of life of their products and packaging, ensuring greater reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery of materials.

We would like to see a container deposit scheme for beverage containers. Building a refundable deposit into the purchase price of drinks could greatly increase their recycling rate, reduce litter, and lessen costs for ratepayers. Product stewardship requires legislation, so again we must advocate to central government, along with other councils who support the proposal.

Independent analysis suggests that the benefits of a container deposit scheme would be three to six times greater than the costs:

• 83% of Kiwis support the establishment of a container deposit scheme

• nationally councils could expect to save up to $20.9M per annum on recycling collection costs

• over a 10 year period society would be better off by up to $645M

• beverage container recycling rates could increase from as low as 45% up to 82%.

WasteMinz, December 2017. Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Container Deposit Scheme: Summary Report and FAQs.


12 30

Working together

We have built good relationships across Auckland, using partnership and creative processes to design solutions with our communities. Community-led waste minimisation efforts deliver world-leading results.

We need to do the same with the 80 per cent of waste that is commercially generated and managed. Partnerships with these sectors will become increasingly important.

We need to strengthen our relationships with waste-producing businesses, the waste and recycling industries, mana whenua, mataawaka, schools, community and other organisations. This will help us put our proposed action plan into practice.

“Zero waste is a bug and once you catch it, it influences everything you do – what you buy, what you eat, your everyday choices.”

– Community waste champion

Our Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund seed-funds ideas to minimise waste. Funding is available for businesses, community groups, schools and Māori/iwi organisations.

Global recognitionAuckland is the proud winner of the prestigious C40 Cities4ZeroWaste Award. The C40 awards highlight the world’s top-ten urban sustainability projects that represent the most ambitious and innovative efforts by cities to address climate change. Auckland Council was the clear winner in the Zero Waste category, with strong evidence of transitioning our city away from landfill, working with communities to achieve our Zero Waste goal.

Councillor Alf Filipaina collecting the C40 Cities4ZeroWaste Award on behalf of Auckland at the C40 awards 2017.

Tour of inorganic collection warehouse.

1331

Funding

We currently spend around $113 million per year on domestic waste services, including refuse, recycling, inorganic collections, litter, and illegal dumping. We spend another $5-8 million each year looking after old landfills.

The amount budgeted for council-provided waste services will remain around the same for the next decade. As new arrangements for domestic collection services become business as usual, new activities will become possible within the budget. We can expand our focus on minimising commercial waste streams.

We propose to fund the kerbside collection of food scraps through a new targeted rate for households in urban areas. This will be part of the 10-year Budget consultation, happening alongside this waste consultation.

Changes to urban household waste costs

Future services 2020/21Average

household

$264

Refuse collection (Pay as you throw)

Food waste (Targeted rate*)

Base service incl. recycling & inorganics collection

$89

$67

$108

Efficient household

$225


Food waste (Targeted rate*)


$50

$67$108

Current services 2017/18Papakura, North

Shore and Waitākere

$237

$135$102



Auckland and Manukau

$219

$102 $117

Refuse collection (Rates funded)


*This targeted rate will only apply in areas where the service is available, starting in Papakura in 2018.

14


32

The result we want to see by 2024

• We’re on track to Zero Waste by 2040, and to meet our 2027 target - a 30 per cent reduction in waste to landfill compared to 2012.

• Households are making full use of services to minimise their waste and reduce their disposal costs.

• Stronger financial incentives – like the waste levy – make resource recovery preferred ahead of landfilling.

• Product stewardship schemes are in place for products like beverage containers, tyres and e-waste.

• Communities, businesses, mana whenua and mataawaka are engaged in finding solutions to reduce Auckland’s waste.

• A network of twelve thriving community recycling centres is in place across Auckland, supporting waste minimisation.

• The council leads by example, with better knowledge of waste generated across our operations, and plans in place to significantly reduce waste to landfill.

Children sorting recycling at Waitākere Learning Centre.

Image: H

ayley Moller

1533

Auckland Council (2018). Consultation summary – Draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.ISBN 978-1-98-855524-9 (Print)ISBN 978-1-98-855525-6 (PDF)

34

ATTACHMENT B

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS REPORT

35

36

Attachment B

1

Summary of Submissions on Draft Auckland Waste

Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

Introduction

On 5 December 2017, the Environment and Community Committee of Auckland Council approved

the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) for public consultation.

The draft WMMP is a revision of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012. The draft

WMMP includes input from the Auckland Council Waste Assessment 2017, pre-statutory

engagement with Councillors, Local Boards, Mana Whenua and Maatawaka, community waste-wise

partners, youth, the Community Recycling Centre operators, and stakeholders from the recycling

and waste industry.

The Committee passed the following resolutions (ENV/2017/185) :

Adopt the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero

Waste, as the statement of proposal, pursuant to section 44 of the Waste Minimisation Act

2008 and sections 83 and 87 of the Local Government Act 2002, for the purpose of

undertaking formal consultation in accordance with the special consultative procedure.

Approve that the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for

Zero Waste be made publicly available for consultation on 28 February 2018 with the

consultation period ending on 28 March 2018 (the “Consultation Period”).

Approve that the Auckland Council Waste Assessment be made publicly available with the

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste, for public

consultation pursuant to section 50 (3)(a) and 44(e) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

Note that public consultation will occur concurrently with the special consultative procedure

for the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Recommend that the Governing Body delegate authority for spoken interaction at public

engagement events during the consultation period in line with any such delegation made in

respect of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and/or Auckland Plan refresh.

Feedback from the consultation process is intended to assist council determine the most appropriate

combination of council’s legislative obligations and community expectations. This report

summarises the submissions received as a result of the public consultation.

Public notification of the draft WMMP was included in the extensive publicity around the 10-year

Budget (Long-term Plan) 2018-2028 consultation process. Submissions were also encouraged

through the community waste-wise partners and networks (including youth), the five Community

Recycling Centre operators, council’s Sustainable Schools Team, and the Para Kore Ki Tāmaki project

to marae and marae whanau. An email was sent to the waste and resource recovery sector,

businesses, and industry bodies, informing them of the draft WMMP consultation process.

37

Attachment B

2

The draft WMMP, summary of the draft WMMP, and submission feedback forms were made

available online as part of akhaveyoursay consultation process. Hard copies were also made

available at libraries and Have Your Say events. The draft WMMP summary document and feedback

form were translated into Chinese, Korean, and New Zealand sign language and made available in an

'easy read' format.

A total of 6,758 submissions were received as a result of the consultation process. Of these, 4,605

were in the form of pro forma online submissions from Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance (ARA). Three

online submission forms were made available on the ARA website combining topics relating to both

the draft WMMP and the 10-year Budget (Long-term Plan) 2018-2028. To provide a clearer picture

of submissions on the draft WMMP, ARA submissions are identified and reported on separately

where applicable.

A small number of submissions that were late, were not processed in time for inclusion in this

summary report.

In addition to the formal submissions, there were a number of informal submissions including

pictures drawn by primary school children, videos from rangatahi from Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o

Hoani Waititi Marae, and verbal feedback received through the 40 Have Your Say Events that were

attended by Waste Solutions staff.

The numbers and types of submissions received are shown in the two tables below.

Table 1 – Types of formal submissions

Formal submission type # subs % subs

Council’s submission feedback form

(online and hard copy) 1,834 27%

Long form submissions 80 1%

Pro forma - Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance 4,605 68%

Pro forma submissions (non-ARA) 239 4%

Total 6,758* 100%

* 2,153 submissions received if ARA pro formas are not counted.

Table 2 – Types of informal submissions

Informal submission type* # comments

Videos and drawings 96

Other informal submissions 1478

Have Your Say event feedback 449

38

Attachment B

3

Informal submission type* # comments

Total 2023

*Informal submissions record comments and views that are not always attributable to individuals.

They are not included in the data analysis but are included in the narrative of this report.

Over two-thirds of submissions were Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance pro formas.

A breakdown of the submissions, based on the type of submitter group, is presented in the table on

the following page. The percentage of submissions both including and excluding ARA pro formas is

shown.

The number of submissions received during consultation for the Waste Management and

Minimisation Plan 2012 has been included for comparison.

Table 3 – Breakdown by submitter group

Submitter Group # subs % subs

% subs

excluding

ARA pro

formas

# of subs

2011

Business (general) 28 0.4% 1% 23

Community sector 40 1% 2% 53

Individual 1,830 27% 85% 1868

Local government/government 1 0.01% 0% 3

Māori 214 3% 10%*** 6*

Māori/iwi organisations/marae 5 0.1% 0.2%

Professional associations 13 0.2% 1% 10

Pro forma - Auckland Ratepayers’

Alliance 4,605 68% - -

Waste and resource recovery industry 22 0.3% 1% 60

Total 6,758** 2,035

*Māori submissions were classified differently in 2011 and 2018.

** 2,153 submissions if ARA pro formas are not counted.

39

Attachment B

4

*** The percentage of Māori in table 6 is 12% as the submitters were able to tick more than one

ethnicity

If the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance pro forma submissions are included, 95% of the submissions

received were from individual submitters, with the remainder being put forward by the community

sector, the waste and resource recovery industry, and other organisations. The 3% of submissions

classified as Māori (12% if ARA pro formas are excluded) included both individuals and organisations.

Submissions were received from all areas of the Auckland region, with a small number being

received from outside of the region. A breakdown of the local board areas from which submissions

were received, and for which address information is available, is provided in the table below. ARA

pro forma submissions are not included as they did not include address information.

Table 4 – Breakdown by local board

Local board # subs % subs

Albert-Eden Local Board 172 8%

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board 97 5%

Franklin Local Board 57 3%

Great Barrier Local Board 7 0%

Henderson-Massey Local Board 99 5%

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 114 5%

Howick Local Board 173 8%

Kaipātiki Local Board 97 5%

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board 51 2%

Manurewa Local Board 112 5%

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 100 5%

Ōrākei Local Board 85 4%

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board 50 2%

Papakura Local Board 68 3%

Puketāpapa Local Board 35 2%

Rodney Local Board 190 9%

Upper Harbour Local Board 57 3%

40

Attachment B

5

Local board # subs % subs

Waiheke Local Board 75 3%

Waitākere Ranges Local Board 96 4%

Waitematā Local Board 130 6%

Whau Local Board 88 4%

Regional 1 0%

Not Supplied (non ARA) 174 8%

Outside Auckland 25 1%

*Not Supplied ARA 4605

The gender of submitters was predominantly female (67%), with 32% of submission from males, and

1% from individuals who identified as gender diverse. Submissions were provided by residents from

all age groups. The following table provides an overview of the age of submitters. ARA pro forma

submissions are not included as they did not include age information.

Table 5 – Breakdown by age

Age of submitters # subs % subs

14 or younger 40 2%

15-24 164 9%

25-34 272 15%

35-44 357 20%

45-54 322 18%

55-64 282 16%

65-74 271 15%

75 or older 101 6%

The ages of submitters, where the submitters provided the information (1809) were well-

distributed, with no single group predominating.

The following table provides an overview of the ethnicity of submitters, as recorded on the

submission forms. ARA pro forma submissions are not included as they did not include ethnicity

information.

41

Attachment B

6

Table 6 – Breakdown by ethnicity

Ethnicity of submitters # subs % subs

European 1205 68%

Māori 214 12%

Pacific 132 7%

Asian 371 21%

Other 53 3%

Note: some submitters ticked more than one ethnicity

In the following sections of this summary report, each of the seven questions in the submission

feedback form is presented separately. Each section includes a synopsis of the themes that emerged

from the consultation. The summary, ordered by feedback form questions, is followed by an

analysis of responses from a range of submitter groups and an analysis of pro forma and informal

submissions.

Throughout this summary report, verbatim responses from submitters are presented in italics.

Further verbatim comments are included in Appendices 7 to 11.

Errors and omissions

Every effort has been made to ensure the data that has been presented is as accurate a reflection of

the results of the submissions process as is possible. Any errors that are detected will be corrected.

Errors in form completion

The submission feedback form enabled the public to submit their views on the draft WMMP. The

feedback form requested submitters to tick a box to show their level of support for six of seven

questions included on the form. Five of these six questions ask for submitters to tick a box to show

whether they: ‘Strongly disagree’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘Agree’, ‘Strongly agree’, or ‘Don’t know’.

The layout of these boxes, with ‘Strongly disagree’ at the top of the list, may have confused some

submitters as some of the comments provided by submitters that ticked ‘Strongly disagree’ were

clearly in agreement with the question. In the time available to prepare this summary report, it has

not been possible to do a separate quantification or analysis of this issue.

42

Attachment B

7

Q1 - Most important outcomes

Auckland Council is responsible for managing and minimising waste across the region. When we

make decisions about waste, which outcomes are most important to you? (Please select up to 3

options)

1.1 Level of support for proposed outcomes

Submitters were asked to select up to three options from the outcomes listed or to provide other

possible outcomes that they value. The importance of the different outcomes to submitters are

given in the table below. Only those submissions that answered the question have been included in

the analysis. As submitters were asked to identify their three priority outcomes, the numbers total

more than the number of submitters.

A breakdown of levels of support by Local Board is given in Appendix 1. A range of comments is

provided in Appendix 7.

Table 7– Waste outcomes – Q.1

Question 1) Importance of waste

outcomes Response # Subs % Subs

Delivering value for money for

ratepayers and Aucklanders 777 14%

Reliability of collection services 485 9%

Reducing waste to landfill and

carbon emissions 1395 26%

Reducing environmental and marine

pollution 1394 26%

Tidy public places 696 13%

Creating jobs in resource recovery

and processing industries 496 9%

Other 137 3%

Of the six outcomes provided in the feedback form, the most popular outcomes were “Reducing

waste to landfill and carbon emissions” (26%) and “Reducing environmental and marine pollution”

(26%).

“Delivering value for money for ratepayers and Aucklanders” was the next most important outcome

(14%), followed closely by “Tidy public places” (13%).

There were relatively few comments regarding the proposed outcomes. Ease of use and

convenience of systems were mentioned by a number of submitters, as was the importance of

43

Attachment B

8

education with regards to schools, businesses and the public. Waste reduction at source was

mentioned by some submitters (“reducing consumption and production of unnecessary waste at

source”), and there were several comments about the importance of community ownership of waste

solutions and a small number regarding the reduction of the use of plastics. A small number

mentioned the need to keep costs and/or rates down.

44

Attachment B

9

Q2 - Focus on business and commercial activities

In the last plan, we focused mostly on our services to households, which handle around 20 per cent of

the waste that goes to landfill. Now we want to expand our waste minimisation efforts to include the

80 per cent of waste that comes from businesses and commercial activities. What do you think of this

approach and why?

2.1 Level of support for proposal

An analysis of the overall level of submitters’ agreement with the question is given in the table

below. Only those submissions that answered the question have been included in the analysis. A

breakdown of levels of support by Local Board is given in Appendix 2. A range of comments is


Table 8 – Level of support – Q.2

Question 2) Expand efforts to include business and

commercial activities Response # Subs % Subs

Strongly disagree 129 7%

Disagree 43 2%

Neutral 102 5%

Agree 509 27%

Strongly agree 1104 57%

Don’t know 36 2%

The level of support for council to expand waste minimisation efforts to include the 80% of waste

that comes from business and commercial activities was very high. Overall 84% of submitters

‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’ with this approach. Nine per cent of submitters ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly

disagree’. Seven per cent of submitters were either neutral of didn’t know.

2.2 Themes emerging

2.2.1 Submissions agreeing with proposal

Submitters who agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal (84%) generally felt that it was logical

for council to include the 80 per cent of waste from business and commercial activities due to the

large proportion of the waste stream it comprises. “Because the commercial sector is responsible for

80%, and because you can't have a double-standard of doing well at home, but not at work - the one

influences the other, so a double-pronged approach is best.” A similar proportion of submissions

stated that businesses need to do their fair share to reduce waste.

45

Attachment B

10

Many submissions made broad reference to the amount of waste generated by construction and

demolition work and noted that they would like to see specific focus in this space.

Many submissions, while agreeing with the proposal, assumed that it would be council providing

additional services to the commercial sector although this is not specified in the draft WMMP.

There was support for education on diversion and minimisation being provided by council, but many

believed this would need to be accompanied by regulation or incentives as “Businesses won't make

changes unless they are forced to. The environment should not be collateral damage for their

commercial choices”.

A number of submissions raised concerns about environmental degradation. Specific issues referred

to were pollution of waterways, emissions associated with global climate change, microplastic

pollution, and the leaching of toxic chemicals into the soil from landfill.

There was significant support for the reduction of, or banning, of single use packaging – both

supporting council implementing this or seeing businesses being responsible for reducing waste by

influencing the amount of packaging being produced.

2.2.2 Submissions disagreeing with proposal

The submissions that disagree or strongly disagree with the proposal (9%) mostly mention cost as

the reason as it is not seen as ratepayers’ responsibility to pay for business waste minimisation

efforts. Some submitters disagreed with council expanding its focus to commercial waste

management on the basis that they believe council is not yet adequately managing residential waste

and should improve residential waste minimisation first.

A small number of submissions state that central government should be more proactive.

“The regulation of private industry is not best done by local governance, rather better by central

government. In my opinion councils do not tend to have a good understanding of how businesses

work and can create complex regulations which suck up time and money from organisations trying to

meet the regulations. I would rather council supported the development of accreditation schemes or

solutions created and managed by private industry, who may be more effective at driving positive

behaviour change.”

While most of the waste and resource recovery industry submissions agreed with council expanding

its efforts to include business and commercial activities, Waste Management NZ Ltd strongly

disagreed. Waste Management NZ Ltd has “serious concerns about Auckland Council taking a more

active role in the commercial waste sector in Auckland than it already does, and underplaying the

important role that private operators play”. The submission repeatedly raises the issue of

competition law - “...the Council, as a waste operator itself, will potentially be in breach of

competition law where it attempts to assert greater control over commercial competitors through

regulation.”

Packaging Council of New Zealand Inc. questions “what is the justification for directing rate

payer resources into the private commercial sector?...We suggest that ‘plastic waste’ is such a

general term as to be worthless in the context of this draft plan.”

46

Attachment B

11

Q3 - Reduce commercial C&D, plastic, and organic waste

The three largest categories of commercial waste going to landfill are construction and demolition

waste, plastics, and organic waste (food, green and other types of organic waste). We want to work

with businesses to try new approaches to reduce this waste. What do you think of this approach and

why?







Question 3) Reduce commercial C&D, plastic, and

organic waste Response # Subs % Subs


Disagree 14 1%

Neutral 77 4%

Agree 510 27%


Don’t know 28 1%

A strong majority of submitters (87%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ with council’s proposal to try new

approaches to reduce commercial construction and demolition waste, plastics, and organic waste

from landfill. Sixty per cent of submitters ‘Strongly agree’ and a further 27% ‘Agree’.

Seven per cent of submitters ‘Strongly disagree’ and 1% ‘Disagree’ with this proposal.

3.2 Themes emerging


Most submissions agreed or strongly agreed (87%) with the proposal and many stated that

businesses need to do their fair share to reduce waste and agree that the three priority waste

streams should be reduced or recycled. There was strong support for businesses taking more

responsibility for the waste they produce.

47

Attachment B

12

While many submissions suggested that council should play a role in both educating and supporting

businesses to achieve effective diversion, a number of submitters believed the proposal needed to

be supported with regulation, bylaws, and/or financial incentives.

There was a general feeling amongst submitters that businesses need to take more responsibility for

the waste they are producing but many considered that businesses would not make the necessary

changes without incentives, either in the form of mandatory waste management plans, product

stewardship schemes, or through other financial incentives. There was strong agreement that

council should reinforce such initiatives with education and support for businesses.

A high proportion of submissions in favour of reducing food waste suggested a food redistribution

system as the first step in reducing waste, with excess food from businesses being given to those in

need. In general, there was support for better systems to collect and process all types of organics.

Fewer submissions commented on construction and demolition waste than on organics. Many of the

submissions acknowledged that construction and demolition waste contributes significantly to waste

to landfill and expressed concern at the potential for this to increase with the future development in

Auckland. These submitters agreed it should be a focus for council. Many submissions observed

that only a single bin was used at construction sites and nothing was recycled.

Many of the submissions that agreed mentioned concerns about pollution and environmental

protection. Plastic packaging was mentioned frequently in the context of plastic waste.

Product stewardship and the broader idea that businesses and producers need to be responsible for

the end-of-life of their products was frequently referred to, with a particular focus on reducing

plastic packaging.

The majority of submissions from the waste and resource recovery industries expressed support for

council working with businesses to reduce the three priority waste streams.


Most of the submissions that disagree or strongly disagree with council working with businesses to

reduce the three specified waste streams (8%) state that, as rates are paid for household services

and not for businesses, council should stay focussed on household waste.

Northland Waste considers that a cost/benefit analysis should be undertaken before council

embarks on commercial waste minimisation. “What, for example will be the impact on the cost of

new homes, and will the environmental benefits be sufficient to outweigh the impacts?”

Waste Management NZ Ltd “agrees that new approaches to reducing commercial waste should

continue to be explored, but strongly disagrees that the Council should drive this”.

48

Attachment B

13

Q4 - Community Recycling Centres

We want to make it easy for people to make better choices locally about how they dispose of

unwanted items, so those items can be reused or recycled. Five Community Recycling Centres are up

and running and we have plans to provide seven more by 2024.




breakdown of levels of support by local board is given in Appendix 4. A range of comments is


Table 10– Level of support – Q.4

Question 4) Community Recycling Centres Response # Subs % Subs


Disagree 23 1%

Neutral 91 5%

Agree 526 27%


Don’t know 18 1%

Overall, there was a high level of support from submitters for council’s approach to Community

Recycling Centres (CRCs). Eighty-six per cent of submitters ‘Strongly agree’ (59%) or ‘Agree’ (27%)

with this approach. Eight per cent of submitters ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’.

4.2 Themes emerging


The general opinion from submitters that agreed or strongly agreed (86%) with council’s plan to

provide seven more CRCs by 2024 was that, if CRCs make it easier for people to reuse and recycle,

then they should be supported.

Many submissions mentioned the need for education. This included the need for council to do a

better job to raise awareness about the existence of the centres themselves: “This is a good

approach however I wasn’t aware of these Community Recycling Centres so the communication of

this initiative needs improving.” Submitters also mentioned the need for better waste minimisation

education overall: “I hate not knowing what to do with unwanted stuff! Better education and

49

Attachment B

14

support please! I absolutely believe so much more could be diverted from landfill.” There were also

suggestions that the CRCs could be hubs for waste minimisation education.

There were suggestions around CRCs providing an opportunity for the repurposing of items: “I'm a

fan of any dump shop. Recycling is not the solution though, it would be great if each centre also had

a Repair café…the council has a role in encouraging a change in mindset from buy cheap and replace

- to buy well and repair. I feel a little cynical that all the onus is being put on individuals to make

change - which is why I'm so pleased to hear you plan to work with commercial businesses. “

Many submitters suggested that there should be more CRCs, preferably one in every suburb to

ensure it is convenient for the community and to ensure that maximum recycling and waste

diversion occurs: “The more there are, the easier they are to access; the easier they are to access, the

easier it is to recycle. It's THAT simple.”

Some submitters felt that CRCs would remove some of the barriers that lead to illegal dumping,

although several expressed the feeling that 12 CRCs would not be enough to have a genuine impact:

“At the moment it’s pretty much either your standard rubbish/recycling or the dump which is too

expensive so people leave items on the side of the road.”

Submissions were received with specific requests that CRCs be established in the following areas to

stem illegal dumping: Clevedon, Papakura, Ardmore, New Lynn, Titirangi Beach, Torbay, Waitakere

Ranges, Manurewa and south Auckland.

There were several comments that mentioned the multiple benefits of CRCs (social, economic and

environmental), particularly job creation. Comments also discussed the opportunity for people to

have more local visibility and ownership of their unwanted goods by seeing them being processed at

the CRCs: “From what I have seen of the Community Recycling Centres, when communities are

allowed to be involved there is a huge mind shift to helping and taking ownership.”

About half of the submissions from the waste and resource recovery industry were in support. Junk

Run states that “This is an excellent concept and needs to be expanded to include licensed

commercial operators. The concept needs to be expanded to include items from commercial

businesses and demolition and building sites.”


Fewer than 20 submissions stated that they would prefer to have the old inorganic collection

reinstated: “The inorganic collection that was operating in the past took care of this problem and

minimizes fly tipping”. “Waste of council money. Op shops do this already. The scheme will deprive

charities of income… Bring back inorganic collections so individuals can scavenge to provide income,

recycle, minimise waste - all those things you are trying to encourage, you have stopped by stopping

inorganic collections.”

Northland Waste opposes CRCs, asserting that “… community groups incur greater expense and

achieve lower levels of waste diversion than efficient private operators.” Waste Management NZ Ltd

considers that “…Auckland is already appropriately serviced by private resource recovery and

recycling centres.”

50

Attachment B

15

Q5 - Product stewardship

We want to encourage central government to introduce product stewardship schemes. This includes

a container deposit scheme where drink containers such as plastic, glass bottles and cans include a

refundable deposit when returned for recycling. This would encourage more recycling and help to

shift the costs of recovery from council and ratepayers to the producers and consumers of beverages.

What do you think of this approach and why?







Question 5) Product stewardship Response # Subs % Subs


Disagree 47 2%

Neutral 84 4%

Agree 442 23%


Don’t know 31 2%

Eighty-four per cent of submitters ‘Agree’ (23%) or ‘Strongly agree’ (61%) with the proposal and

state that council should encourage central government to introduce product stewardship schemes.

Ten per cent of submitters ‘Disagree’ (2%) or ‘Strongly disagree’ (8%).

5.2 Themes emerging


Of the submitters who made comments on product stewardship, the comments were

overwhelmingly in support of a scheme being introduced (84% agreed or strongly agreed). “Really

great way to get more people to recycle. I think this is one of the best ideas the council has had in a

long time!!”

Most people commented on the specifics of a container deposit scheme (CDS) rather than Product

Stewardship. Reasons for supporting CDS included the increase in recycling and reduction in littering

this would be expected to cause. “All the research we've seen shows that this is the best way to

51

Attachment B

16

increase recycling and reduce littering. We have a big problem with littering in our area and with

plastic containers getting into the waterways. We think that the public would really get behind this

as a way of earning pocket-money and fundraising. We hope it would also pave the way for other

products to be included in product stewardship schemes.”

Many comments referred to the success of such schemes overseas. “Let's do this already! It is

extremely tiring that we are still dragging our feet on this one when case studies all over the world

prove that this actually works.”

Some criticism of central government came through in the comments, such as “Overseas experience

has strongly supported this approach. The "hands off" approach by previous governments is

deplorable in the face of this evidence.”

A number of submissions stated a clear understanding of and support for Extended Producer

Responsibility, discussing the need for incentives for both consumers and producers to not purchase

or manufacture wasteful goods. “I think this is a great way to incentivize consumers and also make

manufacturers/companies think twice about the materials they’re using.”

“Large polluters like McDonalds and CocaCola, who's products are a notable feature of rubbish

littered across the city, should have a levy added on to the price of products, paid for by the

consumers purchasing them (and irresponsibly disposing of them), to help contribute to the cost of

cleaning up their products which are littered all over the city.”

“When companies have to take responsibility for their packaging waste they make more socially

responsible decisions. Local government and ratepayers should not have to absorb the cost of this

disposal while producers privatize the profits gained from irresponsible business practices.”

“Litter from drink bottles is a problem in the community where I live. They end up in drains and in the

local streams. Having a bottle deposit would tidy up our streets and provide a little pocket money for

locals. This would also send a message to the manufacturers. It is time for NZ to live up to its clean

and green image and catch up environmentally with the rest of the developed world.”

There was widespread support for product stewardship from the waste and resource recovery

industry. Tyres, e-waste, and batteries were specifically mentioned as requiring the support that

product stewardship schemes would provide.

Waste Management NZ states that product stewardship schemes “shift the cost of recycling waste to

the consumers of products, and away from commercial waste industry operators (which in turn

assists these operators to provide other low-cost waste services to ratepayers).”


Of those who were against product stewardship schemes (10% disagreed or strongly disagreed), the

majority of comments stated that a scheme would cost too much or wouldn’t make a difference.

“They don't work. And the huge cost of a vast bureaucracy to manage them will just mean more

expense for the ratepayer.”

A wide range of reasons were stated as to why people felt CDS wouldn’t work, from the volatility of

plastic markets, to a lack of faith that people would use the scheme when they can already recycle

52

Attachment B

17

through the kerbside system. Some comments assumed that council would run the scheme and

they were not confident that this was appropriate “You can’t be trusted to get this right”, “This is just

another business that council will not run efficiently. End up with a large number of managers being

paid more in an ever expanding bureaucracy.”

There were also a number of submitters that disagreed with CDS as they preferred to see a

reduction in the use of plastics “Better to reduce use of plastic at source”, “So thing needs to be done

but a ban on single use plastic drinking bottles would be better. Leave fossil fuels in the ground. Stop

global warming!”

Overseas examples of CDS were not seen as successful by all submitters. “I think there are serious

issues with container deposit schemes (CDS) as implemented. Recently NSW introduced CDS, and

awarded the entire (lucrative) contract to a single (monopoly) provider who promptly installed their

(quite old) technology across the state, leading to lengthy queues of homeless people putting other

people off using the scheme. I don't believe we want recycling to be the domain of desperate people

and a form of welfare - we want everyone participating because it is the right thing to do.”

The Packaging Forum operates two voluntary product stewardship schemes and does not agree with

the draft WMMP supporting a mandatory container deposit scheme based on the perception that

drink containers are being recycled at a low rate and causing a major litter problem. The Forum

“suggested to Auckland Council officials that we identify the true beverage container recycling rate in

Auckland”.

The Packaging Council of New Zealand disagrees with the draft WMMP using the terms ‘product

stewardship’ and ‘extended producer responsibility’ interchangeably. “Of particular concern is the

freedom using the term ‘stewardship’ interchangeably with ‘extended producer responsibility’ gives

to Council and consumers to ‘opt out’ of their share of responsibility for waste prevention and

management.”

53

Attachment B

18

Q6 - Hauraki Gulf Islands

The Hauraki Gulf Islands have unique waste management and minimisation requirements. The

Tikapa-Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Draft Waste Plan sets a vision and outlines a practical approach

to waste management and minimisation for the communities of Waiheke, Aotea Great Barrier,

Rakino and Kawau Islands. What do you think about the approach outlined in this plan and why?



below. A breakdown of levels of support by Local Board is given in Appendix 6. A range of comments

is provided in Appendix 12.

Table12 – Level of support – Q.6

Question 6) Hauraki Gulf Islands Response # Subs % Subs


Disagree 15 1%

Neutral 282 16%

Agree 438 24%


Don’t know 516 28%

A large number of submitters didn’t express an opinion about the proposed Tikapa-Moana Hauraki

Gulf Islands Draft Waste Plan, with 28% of submitters stating that they ‘Don’t know’ what they think

of the plan and a further 16% remaining ‘Neutral’. Just over half of respondents (51%) either ‘Agree’

(24%) or ‘Strongly agree’ (27%) with the plan, while 5% ‘Strongly disagree’ or ‘Disagree’.

A number of submitters stated in their comments that they did not have enough information to

comment on the draft WMMP.

6.2 Themes emerging


Many submitters agreed that the Hauraki Gulf Islands are unique and require a unique plan. There

were numerous comments about the ecological significance of the gulf and the islands, and the need

to keep them pristine for generations to come. The importance of protecting the marine

environment was also mentioned in many submissions.

There were a number of comments about the different needs of the Hauraki Gulf Islands, and the challenges due to the cost of transporting waste and recyclables to the mainland.

54

Attachment B

19

A number of pro-forma submissions were received with the following comment - “Yes, it is unique

and it is important to get it right on Waiheke island or else our marine environment becomes even

more polluted. 1 - Our situation as an island is unique because we have always dealt with the entire

waste stream. 2 - We face natural tariff barriers in freight, which limits our options. We have to be

smarter with on island solutions. 3 - Our community has proved time and time again that it really

cares about this issue and wants a satisfactory answer, the thousands of submissions to the Royal

Commissions on the governance of Auckland demanding local control of our waste stream is

evidence of this.”

The need for local solutions was referred to in a number of submissions, especially with reference to

Waiheke.

Some requested stronger goals from council: “The idea to address the island/gulf-specific waste

management needs is great! It's also impressive to see it framed from a community & iwi

engagement focus. That said, the plan can be stronger by setting quantifiable goals for waste to

landfill minimisation (e.g. "divert 80% of organic waste from landfill by 2022" instead of "divert

'more' organic waste...").”

A minority of submissions from the waste and resource recovery industry supported council’s

approach in the draft HGI draft Plan.


Ten submitters provided comments disagreeing with the draft WMMP. The comments were varied,

from not wanting user-pays to requesting that Waiheke waste collection not become fortnightly.

A small number of submitters disagreed that the Hauraki Gulf Islands required a separate plan or

should be treated differently.

Low Impact, the manufacturer of a vermicomposting system, disagrees with the kerbside services

included in the HGI draft Plan, specifically organic waste collection. “If a proper evaluation had been

done at the time, the answers to some very basic and common sense questions regarding the

proposed kerbside pick up of organic waste would be in the public realm. They are not, and I believe

it is because the Council has not answered them before committing to the kerbside pick up.”

Waste Management NZ Ltd stated “Waiheke Island has a significant seasonal population fluctuation

and should remain as part of the Auckland waste system”. Waste Management also submits that it

“has developed a transfer station and resource recovery facility on Waiheke Island for the Council. ….

This is a model that could be used on other Hauraki Gulf Islands”.

6.2.3. Island-specific submissions

A small number of submissions are specific to individual islands. These are summarised below:

Waiheke

A number of submitters from Waiheke noted how much their community cares about waste,

the island’s strong waste minimisation culture, the effectiveness of how the community

used to be responsible for the entire waste stream and finding innovative uses for ‘waste’

55

Attachment B

20

material, and the need for local control of the waste stream. “Let Waiheke make their own

decisions”.

Three submitters noted the success of dealing with food scraps through local composting

initiatives and how this could be up-scaled.

One submitter opposed the move to fortnightly rubbish collections and the impact this

would have on weekend residents and holiday makers.

A local community recycler strongly advocated for a community-run resource recovery park

that manages and controls all waste on Waiheke. They state that this could see a reduction

in at least 30% of waste taken off the island and remove any need for a ratepayer "subsidy".

They also believe that it’s unsustainable to continue free green waste disposal on Waiheke,

when it’s charged for everywhere else, and that any solution for Waiheke needs to ensure

maximum waste is diverted on the island and not shipped off.

Kawau Island

One submitter noted the overflowing bins at Sandspit while another noted the problems

with inorganic waste and the cost and difficulty of removing it from the island.

One submitter noted the need for more recycling facilities to be available at the boat club

and for a free recycling pick up because too many glass bottles are going to landfill. One

submitter supported the recycle bins at Sandspit.

One submitter stated that Kawau residents should pay for their own rubbish and not just

dump it at Sandspit wharf.

Great Barrier

One submitter stated they should have source-separated recycling on Great Barrier because

comingled recycling leads to the loss of integrity of the recyclable material.

“I don't see an advantage in having to pay for green waste to be disposed of at the tip as this

is an asset to be made into compost that can be sold. I would like to see the building material

made from scrap go ahead as it would use up a lot of landfill materials. I would like to see

people able to go ahead and drop off recycling for free at the tip. I would like to see the

inorganic waste collection and reuse and rebuild shop develop as planned. Though the

current location of this shop is not widely known. I agree more effort needs to be to educate

people about what can be recycled and I think co-mingling process makes this harder for

people to get it right. I still fret that recyclables are wasted due to contamination. We had a

great system here in the past where we employed people at the tip to sort recyclables and

people would also sort them at their gates. I am not sure how you are going to get the

tourists and boaties waste managed. But good on you for having the ambition.”

56

Attachment B

21

Q7 - Other feedback

Do you have any other comments about the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan?

Question 7 offered an opportunity for submitters to provide comment on any other aspects of the

draft WMMP that were not covered in the previous six questions.

A wide range of topics were mentioned in the comments provided under Question 7. All comments

that did not refer to the six specific questions in the council submission feedback form are included

in the analysis under Question 7. A range of comments is provided in Appendix 13.

The two largest pro forma submissions (EcoMatters and Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance) include

comments that are captured in this section.

7.1 Waste levy

The Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance submitted 4,605 pro forma submissions that opposed council

advocating for an increase in the national waste levy. “I submit that you do not use ratepayers’

money to lobby government for an increase to the National Waste Levy. An increase will just increase

costs for ratepayers on top of your proposed regional fuel tax, and increased rates”.

Apart from the ARA pro forma submissions, 249 submitters included a comment about the waste

levy. A majority of these expressed strong support for an increase in the levy. “Strong government

lobbying is required to ensure the waste levy is increased to something approaching average

international levels. Only with a financial disincentive will companies start looking at other options.”

While most businesses and waste industry players who commented on the waste levy were in

support of an increase, it was also suggested that any increase needs to be well-signalled, with

staged increase or at a lower maximum level.

The 195 EcoMatters pro forma (see section 9.1) stated that “I want to see a gradual increase in the

landfill waste levy from $10/tonne to $140/tonne”.

Both EnviroWaste Services Ltd and Waste Management NZ Ltd support the expansion of the waste

levy to include all types of disposal sites.

Northland Waste questions the research used by council to support increasing the waste levy. “We

invite councillors to question the motive behind this initiative very clearly, and examine without

prejudice, the cost implications on this initiative to the average Aucklander.”

Green Gorilla “disagree with the extent of the suggested landfill levy proposals and support a shift to

say $50 tonne over 5 years. Higher rates will produce some perverse avoidance outcomes and risk

being a financial burden without actually increasing diversion”.

Oji Fibre Solutions do not consider “any increase in Auckland's waste disposal cost as a result of an

increase in the waste levy helpful or justified as a solution to solid waste”. Their view is that

57

Attachment B

22

"Recycling of commodities unavoidably generates some waste” and that ”the waste levy needs to be

seen as an unavoidable cost, a reduction in long term profitability".

7.2 Fortnightly waste collections

The Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance submitted 4,605 pro forma submissions opposed to a “reduction

in collection services at an increased cost”, presumably relating to the move to fortnightly waste

collections.

“I oppose the draft plan that would see my collection service reduced, but at an increased cost.” “In

addition, any increase to Council’s provision of waste services should only be done if it leads to better

service at a lower cost to ratepayers – not for ideological reasons.”

There were a small number of other submissions that opposed a move to fortnightly waste

collections. “I oppose the move to fortnightly rubbish collection. We moved to small rubbish bins and

now we have rubbish bags being dumped everywhere. This will only get worse with fortnightly

collection. It is absolutely ridiculous that this is being suggested. In south Auckland households are

much larger and so have more rubbish and they can least afford paying for more rubbish bins. So

people will just dump stuff in parks.”

A few submissions supported the move to fortnightly waste collections. “I strongly agree with

moving to a fortnightly, user-pays system across the region. It is my view that ensuring residents face

the true cost of waste is the most effective way of encouraging behavioural change.”

7.3 Organics

There were approximately 1,100 comments made on organic waste, principally around the food

scraps collection and composting.

Many comments were made about food scrap collections with the majority of submissions giving

qualified support for the service. Most people strongly support the concept of diverting food away

from landfill, though some question the universal charge for it, mentioning how they already

compost, worm-farm or bokashi at home. A number want to be able to opt out of the service and

not be charged for it. “We are concerned about the new service coming to households, as there is an

increase to come in our rates to pay for this service, when we already compost our food waste. So,

we should be able to opt out of some of the service.”

EcoMatters Trust pro forma submissions support a short-term targeted rate to set up the service

but for it to be a user-pays service in the future. They also support decentralised processing and

community composting. “I support a food waste collection in Auckland. I support a short-term

targeted rate to pay for the initial coordination of food waste management, but would like a pay-as-

you-throw food waste collection within five years. I support investment into decentralised community

composting hubs as the primary way to manage food waste in Auckland, with community garden

facilitators funded to support composting.” A small number of submissions supported providing

households with vermicomposting bins or in-sink waste disposal units rather than introducing a

council food waste collection.

“The food scraps service has been one I have utilised over the last two years, as my area has been

lucky enough to have the trial run. This is a great service, and a straight forward way for local

58

Attachment B

23

residents to make a difference. It has reduced our general waste noticeably. With the food scraps and

recycling services in place, residents are really able to reduce the amount of household waste going

to landfill. Such a positive change!”

Some submitters see the service as a way to address climate change. “Think it’s important to have a

food scraps collection to help address climate change….. Please bring food waste bins and have a

facility to process it and turn into compost in Auckland!!”

Other submitters are impatient to receive the service. “Personally I just want to know how this will

affect me. We currently pay Econowaste for our rubbish collection service as the council doesn't

provide this service to our area. Will the foodscraps initiative be heading our way. The sooner the

better as a HUGE amount of our waste is food scraps. I find the council incredibly slow to implement

these changes.” Māori submitters strongly support the food scraps collection, particularly submitters

from the south. “We need food bins in South Auckland to educate Whanau in food/leai waste/para.”

Waste Management NZ Ltd strongly opposes the proposal for a kerbside food scraps collection. In

their view “…the Council’s methodology of measuring foodwaste tonnes to landfill is flawed and

misleading and is likely to result in the unnecessary development of highly inefficient alternative

technologies” and also “... disagrees that organic waste contributes to the level of carbon dioxide

emissions described in the Draft WMMP”.

The Bioenergy Association notes that “The use of food waste to produce energy is used internationally as a means of reducing waste disposal to landfill” and that “Extending the household food waste collections to small businesses (cafes etc) should also be considered to achieve economies of scale and collection efficiencies”.

7.4 Education

Over 330 submitters commented specifically about waste education or communication. A common

theme was support for more waste education and communication, or investment in education on

waste reduction, often suggested via schools. A few submitters took this point further to suggest

council should provide more information to residents on product life cycles.

Some submitters thought education should be undertaken through community groups that can

connect schools with what is happening locally.

Respondents also commented that council should provide more information on what/where/how to

recycle, and what happens to the recycling collected.

There is little comment from the waste and resource recovery industry regarding education. Waste

Management NZ Ltd states that “Waste Management is of the view that the Council should focus on

minimising the amount of waste that is generated at source, as this is an area where it is able to add

value through education”.

7.5 Zero Waste

Many submissions (mostly pro formas) mention ‘zero waste’ specifically (“I want Auckland to be Zero

Waste by 2040”), and the concept/vision was implicit in many comments recorded. There was a

59

Attachment B

24

handful of comments that New Zealand’s clean green image is either a fallacy, or is under threat

from our bad waste habits, and therefore we need to move towards zero waste.

7.6 Community Recycling Centres (CRCs)

There was a significant level of support for Community Recycling Centres. Over 260 submitters

included additional comments about CRCs. The idea of funding local or community solutions rather

than creating a centralised collection was supported by many submitters. “I feel that there should be

more emphasis on a community empowerment model - fund the community to identify local

solutions where possible.”

There was a moderate number of comments (mostly from pro forma submissions) regarding

Community Recycling Centres requesting that the network be completed. Some pro forma

submissions also requested that CRCs be used as composting hubs.

There were a number of submitters that stated that they did not know that there was a CRC network

in Auckland.

The re-establishment of a community-run CRC on Waiheke was requested by a number of

submitters.

7.7 Product Stewardship

Over 240 submitters included additional comments about product stewardship. There was a

significant level of support for a container deposit scheme, with many people talking about their

positive experience of this while overseas, or when they were a child.

Support shown was predominantly for a community based or non-profit CDS - many comments in

support were from pro forma submissions “I want to see a non-commercial bottle deposit scheme for

beverage containers, where proceeds go into recycling education.”

There was much support, mostly from pro forma submissions, for mandatory product stewardship

schemes for e-waste, batteries, tyres and packaging.

Banning single-use plastic bags and packaging was mentioned in a large number of submissions, with

a smaller number suggesting a levy should be used to reduce their use.

7.8 Public Place Recycling

More public place recycling was requested by approximately 45 submitters, particularly at events

and in public places, including parks.

7.8 Hazardous materials

Several submitters requested that council provide better systems or facilities for the handling of

domestic hazardous wastes such as e-waste and batteries.

Interwaste and Upcycle Battery Recycling focused their submissions on possible improvements to

the draft WMMP’s handling of hazardous wastes.

60

Attachment B

25

8 - Analysis of submissions by group

8.1 Views of Māori

Overall, there was strong support for the draft WMMP from Māori submissions, in particular for the

Māori priorities and actions that were identified through the pre-engagement process.

There were 214 submissions received from Māori (12% of submissions when ARA pro formas are

excluded) – three from Para Kore Marae and the others predominantly from Māori residents. Five

were video submissions received – four from rangatahi at Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi

Marae and one from Matariki Marae. No submissions were received from mana whenua.

Key areas of support were for an increase of the waste levy, resources and support for Māori

initiatives, the food scraps kerbside collection (particularly from south Auckland respondents),

Community Recycling Centres and local jobs, advocating for product stewardship (particularly a

container deposit scheme), and a focus on construction and demolition waste. A number of

submissions also commented on illegal dumping, advocating for reducing the use of plastic, and

banning single-use plastic bags.

Videos from Hoani Waititi Kura Kaupapa emphasised care for Papatuanuku and the environment,

Māori health and wellbeing, eliminating landfills, food waste collections, and the importance of

product stewardship.

“We are impressed with the Māori perspective and content. Pai ano. Prioritise Māori Action Plan.”

“The earth is precious and I want to do anything to protect it.”

“I've read the following proposal & wholeheartedly agree with it. As a consumer & small business

owner I would happily recycle my waste & love the idea of that also benefiting my local community.

The more people who speak up, the better. “

“Need to tackle how much we produce not just how we dispose of it.”

“I would love to see more education and implementing if schemes with our schools a must have! More community groups tackling local issues and funding available for these groups. More support systems in place for families who do not understand recycling and zero waste. Ability to plant fruit trees everywhere to feed our communities.”

“For the sake of the planet, we must take action wherever we can. If it's do-able, it should absolutely

be done.”

“I believe there needs to be a community recycling centre for every local board area. Each local board area has enough people to sustain its own centre, and by dealing with waste locally, we are able to see what we're creating and be connected with its end-life. This would create local employment opportunities and ensure that the community benefits from having such a centre.”

“We need; ongoing support and education for communities on how to reduce waste, including increased funding for schools to implement waste minimisation programmes and educate our children.”

61

Attachment B

26

8.2 Views of business

There were 28 submissions received from businesses not directly involved with the waste and

resource recovery sectors. Business submissions generally agreed that businesses need to focus on

reducing waste. They commented that regulatory tools and cost incentives such as the waste levy

and product stewardship could help with motivating businesses to reduce waste. This corresponded

with comments suggesting businesses may not separate rubbish from recycling as it is easier or

cheaper to put rubbish and recycling in the skip bin to landfill.

“This is the perfect way to go. With the waste itself being a huge issue for businesses, council support

will help encourage them to reduce their waste.”

There were several comments about the need for education for businesses and the public, including

simple key messages on how to reduce and recycle. “We struggle with public literacy being so low.

We have events with recycling centres and the public that are so appalling that everything has to go

into a container for landfill because it is so mixed….”

Several business submitters showed support for product stewardship and responsibility for end-of-

life solutions during product design and development. Many submitters mentioned product

stewardship schemes working overseas and those countries having higher recycling rates and lower

litter issues. There were also comments stating the best option is reduce or eliminate products at

source that cannot be recycled.

There was a comment about the need for regulation to stem the import of sub-quality products

designed for a short life span as they are non-repairable.

There was some support for an increase of the waste levy. “We also support Council asking central

government for an increase in the Waste Levy beyond $10 per tonne provided the revenue is ‘ring

fenced’ to provide the necessary infrastructure to ensure waste is diverted from landfills and that any

increase is phased in over a well signalled time period.”

One business voiced concern over the economic implications of a waste levy on cleanfill and

managed fill. The business stated that the beneficial re-use of inert materials should not attract a

financial penalty, and that any increase in the levy should be restricted to landfills.

Construction and demolition (C&D) waste was mentioned by several submitters, and the need for

developers to be responsible for the waste they produce and import.

“Business owners, developers and construction companies must be accountable for the landfill waste

they produce. The developer should be considering how much waste is being produced by cutting

cost and importing building products that are over packaged. The developer should be taking notes

on how many tonnes of landfill the building is producing.”

Support was voiced for the need for the plastic recycling industry to grow in New Zealand.

Several submitters requested a service to collect and process compostable packaging, potentially in

the proposed food scraps collection. “On average we pay three to four times more than our

competitors to offer a compostable packaging option - we do this as we believe it is important to

offer viable alternatives to soft plastics and mixed grade plastic/foil that would otherwise go to

62

Attachment B

27

landfill. We believe a collaborative approach between council and business is key in changing habits

and creating new consumer habits that encourage composting at home or via council collections.”

Submitters commented on the benefits of Community Recycling Centres (CRC) that engage people

around waste issues, and are convenient and accessible. Other comments supported the centres

taking a wide range of items.

A small number of submitters raised concerns over CRCs dealing with hazardous waste.

A small number of business submitters disagreed with more Community Recycling Centres as the

private industry and charitable organisations already recycle some items.

One business raised concerns that reducing the frequency of collections will increase illegal dumping

in parks, shopping centre rubbish bins and private property.

Long form submissions were received from Progressive Enterprises and Housing NZ Corporation.

Progressive Enterprises was generally supportive of the draft WMMP. Key points that they

submitted include a recommendation that “When advocating for an increased waste levy that the

Auckland Council should consider advocating for incremental levy increases over a period of years to

allow opportunity for alternate diversion and end of life options and infrastructure to be developed

and implemented.” They also advocate for an outright ban on single use plastic carrier bags.

Housing NZ Corporation generally support the strategic direction of the draft WMMP. However,

they are opposed to a change from weekly to fortnightly refuse collection, due to the potential for

H&S issues with tenants with special needs and requirements which rely heavily on the service.

They also request that they be consulted early about introduction of proposed initiatives that affect

their assets and tenants.

8.3 Views of community organisations

Forty submissions were received from community organisations. These were mostly themed around

supporting initiatives that result in outcomes that enable community groups to own, operate and be

involved in designing and delivering waste solutions.

Overwhelmingly responses agreed the real gains in waste minimisation sit with the commercial

sector and stated it was fair that business must be made to do their share to reduce waste. Most

supported business being given more actual legislated responsibility for waste minimisation and

reduction in consumption of resources. Groups felt local government was not best placed to make

the necessary level of change and indicated central government must play a stronger role, and the

private sector itself was well-placed to create and manage solutions.

Most community organisation submitters felt that commercial organic waste and, to some degree,

C&D waste were lower-hanging fruit than the overuse of plastics, which continues to be

problematic. Raising the landfill levy and giving industry the same waste minimisation

responsibilities as local authorities under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 was supported by

approximately half of the community submissions.

63

Attachment B

28

Several community organisations commented on the food scraps service, with a diverse range of

views. Transition Towns Point Chevalier supported a network of local composting facilities instead

of a large industrial plant because of the opportunities for local enterprise to get involved in building

sustainable, connected communities. Grey Lynn 2030 and Mahurangi Waste Busters recognised that

the service needs to meet the needs of the wider public. There was generally support for a gradual

shift to user-pays for all waste streams to enable those who do home compost to benefit.

All community organisations supported Community Recycling Centres. Most mentioned the positive

outcomes as a result of bringing community together and providing education, training, and job

opportunities. Most comments also mentioned that there needs to be more than 12 CRCs, to

ensure they are conveniently located and people actually use them.

There was strong support for a container deposit scheme in the community organisation

submissions, however some submitters felt a different strategy was needed to deal with problematic

plastic waste that has a limited recycling lifespan. Many submitters wanted the scheme to be led at

a local/community level.

Only three groups, Transition Towns Point Chevalier, Sustainable North Trust and Mahurangi

Wastebusters Trust, discussed the features of product stewardship more broadly and advocated for

the management of other consumer goods such as electronics, batteries, tyres, treated wood,

whiteware and nappies using a Product Stewardship approach.

Onetangi Beach Ratepayers Association was the only community group to disagree with a container

deposit scheme saying they “just don’t think it would work”.

Many community organisations were not familiar enough with the Hauraki Gulf Islands Plan to

comment. Those who did comment supported local solutions that respond to the unique features of

the Gulf Islands such as addressing the freight and transport barriers and developing on-island

solutions.

A not-for-profit catering organisation submitted: “We need food safety rules that not only allow but

encourage us to place food into people's washed containers. I know this is a massive hygiene and

insurance issue but we need industrial and legal solutions now! We are having a permanent wash

against waste station at our food truck but the cost and time has to be covered by our sales which

puts strain upon us. We need cheaper access to the food control plan and an even more simplified

plan.”

A number of community organisations commented about the Zero Waste Vision, strongly supporting

the targets set by the WMMP, and calling for more work to be done higher up the waste hierarchy to

avoid and reuse waste rather than recycle it.

Increased waste minimisation education was called for, including more highly visible awareness

programs that are multi-lingual and delivered through multiple media channels.

64

Attachment B

29

8.4 Views of waste and resource recovery sector

As shown in Table 2, there were 22 submissions classified as being from the waste and resource

recovery sector. This compares to 60 in the 2011 draft WMMP consultation process.

The submissions contained a range of views, with only product stewardship receiving widespread

support. Waste Management NZ Ltd, one of the largest waste company that owns waste

infrastructure and provides services, strongly disagreed with all of the proposals in the draft WMMP,

other than product stewardship. EnviroWaste Services Ltd, another large waste company that owns

waste infrastructure and provides services, did not disagree with any of the proposals and indicated

support for product stewardship and reducing the three priority commercial waste streams.

Many of the small to medium size waste companies focused their submissions on their own specific

business interests. Other than Northland Waste Ltd, which disagreed with most of the initiatives

proposed in the draft WMMP, the smaller waste and resource recovery organisations generally

supported or were neutral about all of the proposals. Several of the organisations expressed

interest in working with council on achieving the objectives of the draft WMMP.

Waste Management NZ Ltd and Northland Waste Ltd expressed opposition to many aspects of the

draft WMMP. Waste Management stated concerns over council taking a more active role in the

commercial waste sector, and questioned whether this breached New Zealand competition law.

Waste Management NZ Ltd was concerned that a number of assumptions in the draft WMMP are

based on incorrect information, or are not supported by any cost/benefit analysis. They accept that

this is due, in part, to the fact that not all of the private waste industry is willing to share

commercially sensitive data with council due to the potential that council could use this information

to achieve a competitive advantage.

Waste Management acknowledge Community Recycling Centres have been useful in repurposing

waste items from inorganic collections. However, “In our view Auckland is already appropriately

serviced by private resource recovery and recycling centres.”

Waste Management support the application of the waste levy to all disposal sites in a two-stage

process by first implementing it universally across the sector and then progressively increasing it

over time to allow industry to invest and adjust.

With regards to council proposing to enter the Rodney kerbside market, Northland Waste states

“This is an incredibly alarming reality for any business faced with the knowledge that not only will

council enter a market that is working currently to compete with the private sector under the veil of

‘standardisation’, but to also be told that it will do this by subsidised rates funding if it is not market

competitive”.

They made several mentions of Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 in their submission,

questioning many of the proposed activities in the draft WMMP on the basis of their alignment (or

lack thereof) with Section 17A. Section 17A requires local authorities to “review the cost-

effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within its district”.

65

Attachment B

30

Northland Waste is also opposed to a food waste collection that does not have an opt-out option for

residents. Northland Waste strongly disagrees with the expansion of the Resource Recovery

Network, due to what they consider unfair and possibly illegal procurement processes to secure

operators for the resource recovery sites, which they believe could be operated more efficiently and

effectively by the private sector.

EnviroWaste was supportive of council addressing priority commercial waste streams and continuing

a transition to consistent kerbside waste and recycling systems. EnviroWaste also expressed their

support for an extension of the waste levy to all classes of landfills and the introduction of product

stewardship, particularly for tyres and lithium ion batteries.

Green Gorilla are supportive of council regulation and education and support an increase in the

landfill levy to $50/tonne over five years to encourage the commercial sector to embrace landfill

diversion. They also strongly agree with the three priority waste streams.

OJI Fibre Solutions request a greater focus be given to the cost/benefit analysis of council’s past and

proposed waste minimisation activities. They believe council expenditure should be restricted to

activities where there is a clear public good and no commercial interest in the supply of services.

They do not support an increase in the waste levy, unless bona fide recycling operations be exempt

or rebated levies on solid waste generated from the reprocessing of materials on a commercial basis.

OJI request that council focus on maintaining or improving the value of collected recyclable

materials, to eliminate or minimise the risk of cross-contamination. They recommend this be

achieved by phasing out MRF-based recycling and encouraging commercial source-separated

collections.

The Scrap Metal Recycling Association of New Zealand were generally supportive of the draft

WMMP. They expressed concerns that an increase in the waste levy would make the recycling of

some materials uneconomical and recommended that “materials generated through a recycling

process, such as shredder floc and granulator waste, should be exempted from any increases to the

levy”.

They are supportive of product stewardship, including for rubber tyres and aluminium cans, however

concern was expressed over the potential cost of product stewardship for certain products such as

household alkaline batteries, and it was recommended that the economic implications of the Basel

Convention be thoroughly explored. They oppose any product stewardship initiative that competes

with privately owned businesses. They offered their assistance in creating effective schemes to

collect data on metal exports.

EcoStock Supplies Limited and the Bioenergy Association support council expanding its waste

minimisation efforts to include commercial and business waste, and believe a regulatory approach is

required, particularly with regards to organics. They suggest council create and enforce bylaws to

require source separation of food waste, support organic recovery infrastructure and eventually ban

organics from landfills. EcoStock also request clear signals from council on procurement and

investment to give investors and private operators confidence.

66

Attachment B

31

The Bioenergy Association believe the draft WMMP misses the waste-to-energy opportunities

offered by anaerobic digesters. The Association suggests that anaerobic digestion is the best

method for treating organic waste residues and offer their assistance to investigate anaerobic

digestion as a tool to achieve zero waste to landfill.

Low Impact strongly agree with the draft WMMP, but believe council should re-examine kerbside

food scrap collections due to recent changes in the political and economic landscape. They request

support from council to increase use of their household vermicomposting system, Hungry Bins, in

Auckland, and believe the green waste industry has been protected in designing the food waste

collection, but that Low Impact hasn’t.

Croxley Recycling are supportive of product stewardship. “Product Stewardships are an accepted

part of business in many other countries. Without their implementation NZ will continue to drift

along and lurch from one missed opportunity to the next. Product Stewardship needs to be driven by

both Local & Central Government. Along with Product Stewardship there needs to be licencing of

recyclers and auditing against appropriate AS/NZS standards.”

Kiwi Cleaning Rag Limited are concerned that an increase in the waste levy will cripple their recycling

industry. They also disagree with the expansion of the CRC network “…in our industry of clothing

recycling there are over 500 jobs (private company) that the current WMMP puts at risk. Hundreds of

tons are exported. How are we expected to compete with recycling centres that pay token rents, are

subsidized and do not pay commercial landfill rates…”

Kiwi Cleaning Rag strongly disagreed with plans for food scrap collections, stating that home

composting is more environmentally friendly, and that home composters should not bear the cost of

a collection service they do not require.

Interwaste Ltd is a nationwide provider of waste collection, treatment, and disposal services to the

quarantine and medical waste sectors. Interwaste identifies a number of specific waste

management trends with significant health and safety impacts that are not addressed by the draft

WMMP and recommends that the household hazardous waste strategy, which is an action of the

draft WMMP, specifically addresses household medical waste, sharps and syringes, pharmaceuticals,

mercury from fluorescent tubes, and sanitary waste.

8.4.1 Views of Community Recycling Centres

Submissions were received from several organisations currently, or previously, associated with

Community Recycling Centres. These organisations include: Waiuku Zero Waste, Global Action Plan

Oceania, MPHS Community Trust, Island Waste Collective, Waiheke Resource Trust, Zero Waste

Network , Sustainable North Trust, and Helensville Community Recycling Centre.

The organisations that answered the questions in the online submission form either agreed or

strongly agreed with all of them (one submitter appeared to incorrectly enter “Strongly disagree”

when the comments clearly agreed with the proposal). All of the organisations prioritised “Creating

jobs in resource recovery and processing industries” as an important outcome of the draft WMMP.

Two of the organisations focused their responses on Waiheke Island issues.

67

Attachment B

32

The Island Waste Collective considers that: “Waiheke needs to have a fully community operated

waste facility operating from the existing transfer station as a resource recovery park. IF all waste on

island is managed by a local community group (like island waste collective) then waste minimisation

is incentivised and waste stays on island as a resource and savings can be made to ensure ratepayers

and council don’t carry full burden of cost for businesses and 30,000 visitors a year.”

With regards to the draft WMMP assertion that council only has direct influence over 20 per cent of

the waste stream, Waiheke Resources Trust stated that “On Waiheke, council has control over 100%

of the waste stream as it manages the only waste facility on the island we need to be clear on this as

this statement is not a true reflection of Waiheke (or Great Barrier).”

Replying on the same assertion, Global Action Plan Oceania commented that focusing on business

and commercial waste “is key to success, without tackling business waste a target of zero waste by

2040 is not achievable. … key to success is understanding businesses and their waste and how to gain

support within a business for transformational change. A specific scheme designed by professionals

and the industry together will work best”.

With regards to construction and business waste, Global Action Plan Oceania stated “C&D waste can

be solved with early engagement, focus on regulatory solutions like unitary plan and RMA. when

waste is created it’s too late”.

Sustainable North Trust “strongly agrees with the directive to tackle the 80% of waste that comes

from businesses and commercial activities. Commercial waste is not only the largest percentage of

materials going to landfill but it is increasing. SNT strongly believes addressing commercial waste is

important because all sectors of NZ need to take responsibility for their waste. SNT believe the

legislation needs to change to spread the responsibility from local government to importers,

manufacturers, business, industry and the waste industry itself”.

Zero Waste Network took a broad view of some of the issues: “The focus of the 2012 plan limits the

Council's ability to achieve zero waste. Effective waste reduction requires a whole system approach

that needs to be backed with practical action and clear audit trails.”

Zero Waste Network also commented on some specific issues: “We are very supportive of a renewed

focus on developing a strategy for household hazardous items. We receive a high volume of calls

from residents wanting information and better disposal options for things they know are hazardous -

particularly batteries, chemical/ paint containers and lightbulbs.”

8.5 Views of industry associations

Submissions were received from a range of industry associations, including business associations and

sector-specific associations. Industry associations directly related to the waste and resource

recovery sector are included in section 8.4.

The Panmure Business Association commented that many smaller businesses do not understand

how to dispose of their waste and do not understand the concept of separating out their recycling.

AKBID (Business Improvement Districts of Auckland) stated the business improvement district model

is an excellent way for council to partner with the commercial sector to find ways to reduce and

68

Attachment B

33

divert waste from landfills, and asked that council use the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund

to partner with BIDs and business sectors to maintain and enhance these waste minimisation

initiatives.

Heart of the City stated “We also support council asking central government to introduce a container

deposit scheme for plastic/glass bottles and cans, and product stewardship schemes for hard to

dispose products like tyres and e-waste.”

The Sustainable Business Network (SBN) supports an increase in the waste levy and states that this

has wide support from their membership. They strongly support partnering with industry to identify

alternatives to landfill, and support promoting best practice and celebrating business success.

With regards to construction and demolition (C&D) waste, the SBN recommends working with the

construction and demolition sector to determine what research and support is required and looking

at innovation and technology to support the industry, including a waste brokering service. They also

suggest waste minimisation plans be required for new developments. Other issues mentioned

include the importance of council procurement in promoting waste minimisation, and the

importance of providing funding through the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund for projects

that accelerate NZ towards becoming a circular economy.

The Packaging Forum was supportive of the draft WMMP with the exception of the container

deposit scheme. Having commissioned a national litter survey, they assert that beverage containers

are not a significant litter problem in New Zealand.

The Motor Trade Association (MTA) supports the draft WMMP, and strongly supports a focus on

organic waste, the elimination or responsible recycling of single use plastics, and product

stewardship.

The Packaging Council of NZ is critical of the draft WMMP and believes council has missed the

opportunity to advance its thinking on circular economy concepts. Their submission also criticizes

the lack of reference to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

They question whether cost/benefit analyses have been undertaken to support council focusing on

waste minimisation in the commercial sector and are concerned this will increase costs for

Auckland’s ratepayers.

The Packaging Council of NZ agree that improvements could be made to the waste levy. They

suggest that mandatory product stewardship schemes should be considered, and are supportive of

the development of a Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan but suggest that this should be part of a

national strategic plan.

The Employers and Manufacturers Association don’t support an increase in the waste levy and are

concerned about the lack of a “quantified analysis of the full costs” of the draft WMMP.

69

Attachment B

34

9 - Pro forma and informal submissions

9.1 Pro forma submissions

There were 4,840 pro forma submissions received. The pro formas were initiated by the following

organisations:

Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance - 4,605 submissions

EcoMatters Trust - 195 submissions

Kaitiaki of Newton Reserve (Waiheke) - 31 submissions

Devonport Community Recycling Centre and Reuse Shop - 9 submissions.

The feedback from all pro formas has been included in the general analysis in this report. While not

all pro forma submissions provide feedback on all six key questions asked in the council feedback

form, where appropriate they have been coded to provide feedback on the questions to which they

do refer.

The following table provides the support received for each question from non-ARA pro forma

submissions.

Table 2 – Level of support from pro formas (excluding ARA pro formas)

Question 1) Importance of waste outcomes – based on non-ARA pro forma submissions

Pro forma Value for

money Reliability

Reducing

waste &

carbon

Reducing

pollution

Tidy public

places

Creating

jobs Other

# of subs 3 2 49 44 6 8 33

% of subs 2% 1% 34% 30% 4% 6% 23%

Question 2) Expand efforts to include business and commercial activities – based on non-ARA pro forma

submissions

Pro forma Strongly

disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

agree Don’t know

# of subs 3 0 1 2 45 0

% of subs 6% 0% 2% 4% 88% 0%

Question 3) Reduce commercial C&D, plastic, and organic waste – based on non-ARA pro forma

submissions

Pro forma Strongly


Strongly

agree Don’t know

# of subs 2 0 0 335 14 0

% of subs 4% 0% 0% 69% 27% 0%

70

Attachment B

35

Question 4) Community Recycling Centres – based on non-ARA pro forma submissions

Pro forma Strongly


Strongly

agree Don’t know

# of subs 2 0 1 3 45 0

% of subs 4% 0% 2% 6% 88% 0%

Question 5) Product stewardship – based on non-ARA pro forma submissions

Pro forma Strongly


Strongly

agree Don’t know

# of subs 3 0 0 3 45 0

% of subs 6% 0% 0% 6% 88% 0%

Question 6) Expand efforts to include business and commercial activities – based on non-ARA pro forma

submissions

Pro forma Strongly


Strongly

agree Don’t know

# of subs 0 0 2 36 10 2

% of subs 0% 0% 4% 72% 20% 4%

Key comments and requests received on pro forma submissions include the following:

EcoMatters Trust support:

o A food waste collection in Auckland, a short-term targeted rate to pay for the initial

coordination of food waste management, but would like a pay-as-you-throw food waste

collection within five years.

o Investment into decentralised community composting hubs as the primary way to

manage food waste in Auckland, with community garden facilitators funded to support

composting.

o Auckland to be Zero Waste by 2040.

o Mandatory product stewardship schemes for e-waste, batteries, tyres and packaging.

o A non-commercial bottle deposit scheme for beverage containers, where proceeds go

into recycling education.

o A gradual increase in the landfill waste levy from $10/tonne to $140/tonne.

o Completion of the Resource Recovery Network so that Community Recycling Centres

across Auckland can divert useful inorganic resources from landfill. I would like to see

them become community composting hubs too.

Kaitiaki of Newton Reserve

o The Hauraki Gulf is unique and it is important to get it right on Waiheke Island or else

marine environment becomes even more polluted.

o Our situation as island is unique because we have always dealt with the entire waste

stream.

o We face a natural tariff barrier in freight, which really limits our options. We just have to

be smarter with on island solutions.

71

Attachment B

36

o Our community has proven time and time again that it really cares about this issue and

wants a satisfactory answer, the thousands of submissions to the Royal Commission on

the governance of Auckland demanding local control of our waste stream is evidence of

this”

The Devonport Community Recycling Centre:

o Request “Continued support and development of the Devonport Community Recycling

Centre and its facilities to the local community”

Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance pro forma

o The Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance website provided three submissions relating to

council’s 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and the draft WMMP. One submission was to

“submit on the Council’s failure to tackle wasteful spending and the plan to break pre-

election promises on rates”. The second submission was to “submit against the proposed

regional fuel tax” and the third to “submit on the proposed Auckland-wide waste

management system which will see refuse collection halved for most Aucklanders”.

o The three pro formas were received from 4,605 unique individuals, with most individuals

submitting more than one of the submissions. The pro formas and the issues addressed

are shown below, with issues relating to the draft WMMP being underlined.

o 2,293 ARA pro formas were submitted that address:

Wasteful spending and limiting rates to no more than 2%

Oppose regional fuel tax

Oppose introduction of water quality targeted rate

Oppose introduction of environmental levy

Focus on core services, deliver value for money)

Oppose Council advocating for increase in the national waste levy

o 3,442 ARA pro formas were submitted that address:

Focus on core services, deliver value for money

Oppose reduced collection services at an increased cost

Oppose Council advocating for increase in the national waste levy

o 1,908 ARA pro formas submitted that address:

Oppose regional fuel tax

Focus on core services, deliver value for money

72

Attachment B

37

9.2 Informal submissions

9.2.1 Submissions with no contact details supplied

There were 98 informal submissions that were submitted on the standard form, but for which no

contact details were supplied. The submissions are analysed, by question, below.

Q1 – Waste Outcomes

All 98 submissions responded to this question. The greatest areas of support were: delivering value

for Auckland ratepayers (23), creating tidy public places (22), reducing waste to landfill (18) and

reducing environmental and marine pollution (20).

Q2 – Business and commercial waste

The majority of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with trying to tackle the 80 per cent of

business and commercial waste that is contributing to high volumes to landfill. Specific comments

were made around businesses having the financial resources to manage their waste better, and so

should take more responsibility.

Q3 – Focusing on commercial organics, plastic and construction and demolition

The majority of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with focusing on the three significant waste

streams, and specific comments were made about working with architects to design out waste

during the building design phase, identifying opportunities for construction and demolition waste to

be reused, making industry responsible for the waste they produce, and banning polystyrene from

packaging. One submitter said council should first continue to work on getting domestic waste

systems right.

Q4 – Community Recycling Centres

The majority (31) of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with the creation of Community Recycling

Centres while four disagreed or strongly disagreed. Some of the submitters who commented called

for council to be more visible in publicising the CRCs, and mentioned the opportunities to provide

repair stations, educate people, enhance recycling, and provide bargains for people in the

community. A few comments called for the old inorganics service to be reinstated.

Q5 – Product Stewardship

There was strong support for product stewardship, although all comments referred specifically to a

container deposit scheme. Most who commented referenced an awareness of the success of the

program in South Australia. Three submissions disagreed or strongly disagreed with a container

deposit scheme.

Q6 – Hauraki Gulf Islands

Half of the submitters (20) who answered the HGI question said they either didn’t know enough

about the topic to comment, or were neutral on the approach outlined in the HGI Plan. Five agreed

and six disagreed. Comments included that council should take care of the Gulf Islands because they

are unique and their requirements are different from the rest of Auckland.

73

Attachment B

38

Q7 – Other comments

The 14 further comments all generally concurred with the wider submissions.

9.2.2 Have Your Say and Drop-in events

Informal feedback received on the waste plan at akhaveyoursay and Drop-in events were generally

similar to formal submissions. Of the 449 comments recorded the following broad themes emerged:

Some did not want to pay for the food scraps collection, as they compost at home. There

was also a preference for a decentralized community-composting solution.

There were a number of comments regarding waste on Waiheke Island, with a strong

preference for a local on-island solution. Some concern was expressed regarding how

council should manage waste from boat users.

Others commented on the need for more waste education, especially in schools.

Plastics and plastic packaging was cited as a real issue. Feedback centred around the need

for businesses to do more to reduce packaging, or council to regulate plastics and plastic

packaging.

Illegal dumping and litter issues were common concerns, often specific to a particular

location, e.g. a local park. There were also a number of comments about for the need for

better enforcement and larger fines for dumpers.

9.2.3 Videos

The five video submission received are described in section 8.1.

9.2.4 Drawings

Ninety-one drawings were submitted by school children. The topics covered by the drawings are

described below.

Bins

The drawings received stated they wanted more compost bins and more worm bins. Some drawings talked about reusing the refuse bins.

Plastics

Many drawings stated that all new plastic production should be stopped. Many of the drawings talked about taking reusable bags shopping. Using biodegradable bags and compostable packaging (made of potato or cardboard) was also mentioned. Two drawings said that if you do use plastic bags, to wash and reuse them and/or plastics could be donated to schools to make art. A few drawings stated there should be a charge on bags or a ban to stop using them altogether.

Organics

Some drawings mentioned that the food scraps collection was coming and that people should use it.

74

Attachment B

39

Litter

Some drawings said it is important not to litter and to pick up litter on the beach. It was mentioned that signs about 'putting litter in the bin' could be used. It was suggested that people doing community service should pick up litter or people should be paid to pick up rubbish of the roads

Other

Some drawings stated that old toys, blankets and clothes should be donated or given to the homeless.

“Auckland is full of waste. Just remember that the time has come to put on our waste free thinking hats. Reuse plastic bags at the shop or supermarket, take your shopping home in a reusable bag or basket. Recycle aluminium cans and all the metal tins, apple cores and banana peels go in the compost bins. Put cardboard and paper in the recycling bin or box. In the clothing bin goes the old t-shirts and socks.”

“Zero waste story: Hello people of NZ. Plastic is killing animals and when we go fishing and we catch fish with plastic in them, we're going to end up eating plastic. It is making me lose my mind. So you can see I want to stop it and I don't know if this is already invented? But instead of metal detector we could make a plastic detector so we can catch lots of plastic and sort it into the right bins. The end.”

“We have to make sure recycling factories are not putting bad smoke into the air.”

“Hey world, stop using plastic. Why? Soft plastic is drilled from the earth and soon there will be no more oil left! And remember to clean your recycling before you put it in the bin. My idea of ideal home is anyone who does not care about cleaning and putting rubbish in the correct bin we install a little alarm on the bins. And if the item that goes in the recycling bin that has not been cleaned the alarm will go off and will not stop until it has been cleaned, the alarm will go off if wrong thing goes in the wrong bin.”

75

Attachment B

40

Appendix 1 - Question 1 - Analysis by Local Board

Question 1) Importance of waste outcomes - based on 5197 responses - submitters

were requested to choose 3 priorities

Local Board # of

Subs

Value for

money Reliability

Reducing

waste &

carbon

Reducing

pollution

Tidy

public

places

Creating

jobs Other

Albert-Eden 432 13% 9% 28% 29% 10% 9% 2%

Devonport-

Takapuna

225 9% 7% 29% 30% 13% 11% 1%

Franklin 161 13% 12% 27% 24% 12% 9% 2%

Great Barrier 20 15% 10% 35% 20% 15% 5% 0%

Henderson-

Massey

235 17% 9% 23% 25% 14% 11% 1%

Hibiscus and

Bays

310 17% 9% 26% 29% 11% 7% 1%

Howick 448 20% 10% 21% 23% 15% 9% 2%

Kaipātiki 244 18% 9% 25% 27% 11% 7% 2%

Māngere-

Ōtāhuhu

144 6% 6% 28% 28% 13% 17% 1%

Manurewa 279 12% 14% 24% 18% 20% 10% 2%

Maungakiekie-

Tāmaki

280 15% 10% 23% 25% 14% 11% 3%

Not Supplied 286 16% 11% 26% 23% 16% 6% 1%

Ōrākei 236 16% 8% 28% 28% 14% 5% 1%

Ōtara-

Papatoetoe

112 28% 15% 14% 14% 16% 11% 2%

Outside

Auckland

59 10% 5% 32% 25% 8% 17% 2%

Papakura 185 17% 9% 24% 23% 17% 9% 1%

Puketāpapa 105 16% 9% 25% 21% 17% 10% 3%

Rodney 511 12% 8% 27% 27% 13% 11% 2%

Upper Harbour 149 21% 9% 25% 25% 15% 5% 0%

Waiheke 211 7% 2% 31% 30% 5% 7% 18%

Waitākere

Ranges

234 12% 9% 26% 28% 11% 9% 4%

Waitematā 302 11% 9% 29% 29% 10% 9% 3%

Whau 214 13% 9% 26% 29% 11% 10% 2%

76

Attachment B

41


Question 2) Expand efforts to include business and commercial activities – based on

1865 form submissions

Local Board # Subs Strongly


Strongly

agree

Don’t

know

Albert-Eden 152 11% 2% 4% 26% 55% 1%

Devonport-Takapuna 80 9% 1% 4% 23% 61% 3%

Franklin 56 4% 2% 9% 18% 68% 0%

Great Barrier 7 0% 0% 0% 29% 71% 0%

Henderson-Massey 85 11% 2% 5% 32% 47% 4%

Hibiscus and Bays 110 5% 0% 3% 27% 65% 1%

Howick 167 4% 4% 7% 41% 43% 1%

Kaipātiki 86 9% 0% 0% 28% 63% 0%

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 51 12% 4% 4% 8% 67% 6%

Manurewa 105 6% 3% 7% 33% 47% 5%

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 93 5% 3% 5% 20% 66% 0%

Not Supplied 117 12% 2% 12% 36% 32% 6%

Ōrākei 81 6% 2% 1% 33% 56% 1%

Ōtara-Papatoetoe 49 4% 8% 14% 35% 33% 6%

Outside Auckland 21 14% 5% 5% 10% 62% 5%

Papakura 66 8% 2% 8% 18% 64% 2%

Puketāpapa 33 3% 3% 0% 33% 58% 3%

Rodney 176 2% 2% 5% 23% 67% 2%

Upper Harbour 54 11% 2% 6% 30% 50% 2%

Waiheke 70 4% 1% 4% 16% 74% 0%

Waitākere Ranges 80 9% 3% 5% 15% 68% 1%

Waitematā 107 6% 3% 2% 21% 68% 0%

Whau 77 1% 0% 9% 23% 66% 0%

77

Attachment B

42


Question 3) Reduce commercial C&D, plastic, and organic waste – based on 1855 form

submissions



Strongly

agree

Don’t

know

Albert-Eden 153 11% 1% 2% 19% 66% 1%


Franklin 56 0% 0% 7% 23% 68% 2%

Great Barrier 7 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%



Howick 166 5% 2% 10% 33% 46% 3%

Kaipātiki 84 8% 0% 1% 24% 67% 0%

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 51 8% 2% 4% 8% 75% 4%

Manurewa 106 6% 1% 8% 31% 53% 2%


Not Supplied 116 9% 1% 2% 46% 41% 2%

Ōrākei 82 6% 0% 1% 30% 62% 0%



Papakura 67 4% 0% 6% 19% 69% 1%

Puketāpapa 33 3% 0% 3% 27% 64% 3%

Rodney 175 6% 1% 0% 24% 67% 2%

Upper Harbour 54 13% 2% 2% 28% 54% 2%

Waiheke 70 7% 0% 1% 56% 36% 0%


Waitematā 107 8% 1% 1% 21% 69% 0%

Whau 77 0% 0% 5% 23% 71% 0%

78

Attachment B

43


Question 4) Community Recycling Centres – based on 1860 form submissions



Strongly

agree

Don’t

know

Albert-Eden 148 11% 0% 3% 22% 64% 1%


Franklin 56 5% 0% 4% 21% 70% 0%

Great Barrier 7 0% 0% 0% 29% 71% 0%



Howick 170 7% 1% 6% 41% 44% 1%

Kaipātiki 84 10% 1% 5% 27% 57% 0%

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 51 14% 4% 6% 10% 65% 2%

Manurewa 107 7% 2% 6% 29% 55% 2%


Not Supplied 116 9% 1% 4% 42% 43% 0%

Ōrākei 82 7% 1% 5% 34% 50% 2%



Papakura 67 7% 1% 10% 21% 58% 1%

Puketāpapa 32 3% 3% 6% 25% 63% 0%

Rodney 176 3% 1% 2% 21% 71% 1%

Upper Harbour 52 12% 2% 8% 31% 46% 2%

Waiheke 71 4% 1% 3% 11% 80% 0%


Waitematā 107 4% 2% 8% 21% 64% 1%

Whau 77 3% 1% 8% 19% 69% 0%

79

Attachment B

44


Question 5) Product stewardship – based on 1861 form submissions



Strongly

agree

Don’t

know

Albert-Eden 153 12% 1% 4% 22% 61% 1%


Franklin 56 4% 0% 5% 21% 70% 0%

Great Barrier 7 0% 0% 0% 29% 71% 0%



Howick 171 7% 2% 5% 32% 54% 1%

Kaipātiki 86 9% 5% 3% 27% 56% 0%

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 49 12% 2% 12% 14% 59% 0%

Manurewa 107 5% 2% 5% 26% 58% 5%


Not Supplied 117 7% 3% 9% 35% 39% 7%

Ōrākei 80 9% 6% 4% 31% 49% 1%



Papakura 66 8% 3% 3% 12% 70% 5%

Puketāpapa 33 3% 6% 3% 27% 61% 0%

Rodney 176 4% 3% 3% 22% 67% 1%

Upper Harbour 53 19% 2% 4% 21% 55% 0%

Waiheke 71 7% 4% 3% 11% 75% 0%


Waitematā 107 6% 2% 4% 18% 71% 0%

Whau 77 1% 4% 4% 17% 74% 0%

80

Attachment B

45


Question 6) Hauraki Gulf Islands – based on 1759 form submissions



Strongly

agree

Don’t

know

Albert-Eden 146 10% 0% 14% 17% 23% 36%


Franklin 52 0% 0% 15% 27% 29% 29%

Great Barrier 7 0% 0% 14% 43% 43% 0%



Howick 161 2% 2% 22% 28% 20% 26%

Kaipātiki 72 6% 0% 14% 29% 28% 24%

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 47 11% 2% 15% 13% 43% 17%

Manurewa 103 3% 1% 14% 26% 25% 31%


Not Supplied 110 1% 2% 20% 28% 21% 28%

Ōrākei 77 3% 1% 19% 21% 29% 27%



Papakura 66 2% 2% 23% 14% 23% 38%

Puketāpapa 30 3% 0% 13% 30% 30% 23%

Rodney 168 2% 0% 8% 26% 38% 27%

Upper Harbour 51 2% 0% 18% 18% 22% 41%

Waiheke 70 6% 0% 7% 59% 24% 4%


Waitematā 101 5% 0% 21% 19% 29% 27%

Whau 74 0% 0% 11% 20% 43% 26%

81

Attachment B

46

Appendix 7 - Question 1 - Submitters’ comments

All of the comments in this section have been chosen at random. The range of comments is not

intended to represent any particular viewpoints or be statistically representative of all comments.

“Cost and ease of waste disposal for all Auckland”

“No more one use plastics or packaging going to landfill such as nappies, sanitary products, chip

bags, containers, polystyrene and plastic wrap.”

“Affordable prices for rubbish bags in Papakura”

“Look after and the empty the bins in public places more frequently”

“Return to kerbside recycle separation!!! Glass/plastics/tin/paper/card.”

“Prioritising waste minimisation over waste management”

“Rubbish collection needs to come out of rates paid”

“Based on Māori traditions and values e.g.. caring for Papatuanuku”

“Consulting with the public on what suits them i.e. size of bins appropriate to household size”

“community owned, managed and operated full waste solution”

“Wheelie bins for everyone!”

“NOT CREATING SERVICES WE DO NOT NEED!!!”

“Resource recovering in every local board”

“Conservation of material resources”

“No more taxes for waste collection”

“Full lifecycle waste management, packaging, sale, recycling, education and processing locally -

people take responsibility for their own behaviours and environment”

“The economics of all proposals”

“Adherence to waste hierarchy, and link it to spending, ie spend most on avoidance and not

disposal.”

“Give waste operation back to our community - it worked well before you messed with it.”

“Removal of single use plastic”

“Treating ALL SUBURBS EXACTLY the SAME. NOT as at present where some suburbs eg Manurewa

have free collection & all of North Shore & north of bridge PAY & have limiting restrictions on it. The

first is PARAMOUNT. The rest secondary”

“Avoid buying fruit, vegetables and other products from supermarkets and other outlets that are

packaged in plastic.”

“Interaction with the elderly. A place to feel useful & needed”

82

Attachment B

47




“While individuals have a role to play on both the creation and solutions to waste issues; the role of

corporations and industry for both of these is far greater. I strongly support a greater focus on

business and commercial activities.”

“Builders waste fills skips!!! Food retailers could compost and put fresh food in methane system.”

“Malls, commercial businesses and all food outlets have a lot of waste.”

“Everyone - businesses and individuals - need to do all possible to reduce waste (NZ is not clean).”

“80% generated by companies, they should be responsible i.e. product stewardship.”

“This is essential. It will drive behavior towards less packaging, and compostable packaging.”

“80% speaks for itself.”

“Construction waste needs a plan for resource recovery. Businesses need waste audits to help reduce

waste to landfill and given options for dealing with organic waste through commercial composting.”

“This is the bulk of the waste that goes to landfill. Not sure why the focus has been on Residential

waste rather than the 80% commercial waste?”

“When compostable waste goes in to landfill it creates a myriad of issues for now and the future. I

think nz needs to get super savvy on recycling and composting and massively reducing plastic and

textile landfill!”

“They have more access to be able to access more people. Sharing knowledge.”

“If it is good enough for us, then it should be good enough for them. Small and industrial businesses

have more wastage.”

“I see so much soft plastic waste at my work as well as other businesses going into landfill, at home I

recycle a lot but at work I can’t take that much soft plastics to the recycling bin at the supermarket as

it’s a waste of company time, if businesses had the option of more recycling options which were

easily accessible then they would recycle more.”

“Because businesses need to up their game. The level of waste generated by businesses is shameful”

“Take up less space with the rubbish so compaction also reduce amount of package materials”

“Worry on worse local neighbourhood hygiene Rate is planned to increase year after year, yet plan

appears to reduce service frequency and didn’t talk about saving cost from rate payer perspective

Does changing to Pay as you throw mean separating out garbage collection cost from council rates?

The plan Leave rate payers to become stressful in worrying about cost - pay as your throw.

Inconvenient and not worry-free system. Worry that people will abuse system eg putting rubbish in

others bin, not sorting rubbish properly, leaving rubbish inside their property for too long creating

hygiene problems for neighbourhood Current recycling bins are successful because it’s simple and

idiot proof. The proposal is going backward.”

83

Attachment B

48




“Green waste needs to be separated out from the other stuff that can be recycled. Again, this needs

to be a priority otherwise we all lose. We waste too much.”

“There is huge room for improvement on this front. Increase the landfill waste levy to business.”

“It seems the managers of construction sites are often concerned with cost, and tell their builders to

leave the rubbish as they don't want to pay them to tidy up each day. A builder at the end of our

street told me this when I asked why so much styrofoam was blowing down the street onto our

properties. We are getting stringer winds more frequently, so these materials are travelling further if

left lying around a site.”

“We need to reduce waste and the biggest parts of such a big creator of waste need to be

addressed.”

“Some waste needs to be reduced at the producer end of the chain, and this is not happening

enough. In other instances alternatives need to be found for the house wrap plastic; hay bale plastic;

food waste from the food industry and supermarkets; less use of polystyrene for packaging, etc.”

“They need to be aware and held accountable of how their processes and products are packaged,

used and disposed of. I feel a lot of waste is generated because of obsolete processes that could be

changed.”

“Consultation always good as part of the process.”

“Providing it does not impose additional costs on businesses or rate payers.”

“You should be working with the community (not big business) to compost food and organic waste in

the community in order to feed the city on scraps, which used to be the Councils goal and for

inexplicable reason appears to have been abandoned. Diverting it from landfill is secondary. Further

it is apparent that the decision has already been made to AD is outside the city after a very narrow

exchange with 2 businesses only”

“YES! Definitely agree with working with businesses to reduce waste. Definitely needed.”

“Diversion needs to be made easier and create further benefits for those who participate (financial,

reputational, etc) and avoid a financial barrier.”

“Council must emphasise ‘resource-minimisation’ also, and work actively with waste processors and

users to increase the conversion and take up of recycled waste to marketable products. (For

example, NZTA must start substituting crushed materials for aggregates in roading as is done

overseas.)”

“Council must lobby government to amend the Waste Minimisation Act to give industry the same

responsibility as local authorities ‘to promote effective and efficient waste management’. This must

include minimising the use of plastic packaging by NZ-based goods producers and also considering

imported goods.”

“Enforce waste sorting and make people convert their waste.”

84

Attachment B

49




“We need every home and business to make a conscious informed effort to educate the family on

how to do this better’

“But bring back kerb side inorganic collection”

“Depends where they are located. Not near our green spaces or homes. Prevent smells”

“People need to have a place nearby to get rid of recyclable items.”

“Need much more than 12. At least 1 per Local Board area minimum. Optimistically 4 per Local Board

area so more accessible.”

“As a community we need to think about out consumption.’

“Run and operated by locals/job ops.”

“Yes - keeps the employment and approach local and known.”

“It needs to be easy for people or they won't be bothered. Encourage use of social media for people

to pass on unwanted goods locally as well, I see it on our local Facebook page. Maybe communal

collection of unwanted goods to go to a depot as well, not everyone has transport or the right sort of

vehicle to drop thins off. Maybe an initiative for socially minded groups such as Lions”

“Reusing and recycling items no longer needed creates less waste.”

“North Shore had a recycling plant as part of the transfer station 20 plus years ago. This was very

successful but knee jerk clap trap about Health & Safety closed it down. North Shore urgently need a

free drop of centre”

“For a city the size of Auckland it is a drop in the bucket. Also, I live here and have never heard of

their existence, despite googling at various times for ways to get good of good quality 'stuff'”

“We need to have at least 21 Recycling centres (1 per local board) and more where geography and

local support call for them. Council must work with local community organisations to support the

ongoing operation of the centres - 20 years ago there was a good locally supported recycling centre

on Waiheke which Council closed! Follow other cities.”

“Cost of recycling goods which are not suitable for the recycling bin is prohibitive. The inorganic

waste months were great. It is much more environmentally friendly to reuse than recycle!”

“Re-using is win-win but recycling should not be seen as an excuse to keep producing one use

packaging in glass or plastic.”

“This is great and will perhaps reduce people dumping waste.”

“We need more so people stop dumping there unwanted household goods down country roads, it's

so bad in Clevedon and Ardmore.”

85

Attachment B

50




“Other countries are already doing this and i can't see why we shouldn't. It is not difficult to manage

and can encourage reduced waste.”

“This idea will definitely encourage people to dispose of item responsibly so it doesn’t end up in our

waterways, but will it encourage them to reuse rather than keep buying? It might encourage more

spending on plastic items rather than encourage people to change their lifestyle.”

“This makes the producers of product to be more responsible for what they produce, sell and profit

from and purchasers think twice.”

“Would help with public space cleanliness.”

“This scheme is a no-brainer, having been successful in other countries for decades. This is another

area where collaboration with commercial sector will be vital to get buy-in from producers. “

“Bottled water is a curse”

“This is SUCH a good idea. It's been proven to reduce waste and litter in cities all over the world. Let's

do this already!”

“Look at Sweden Denmark they have machines that encourage people to recycle. Even in Hong Kong

their are people that collect cans so that they can earn money for recycle.”

“Great, in Holland you take these items back to the supermarket and post clean reusable containers

or recyclable ones into a hole at back, a receipt is printed out so you can use it at the checkout to

receive a discount, this works extremely well.”

“Good idea also to tax non- biodegradable packaging to stop the problem before it starts. This is next

best idea.”

“It might encourage producers to come up with greener packaging choices in the first place.”

“Though not sure of the impact on current recycling of drink containers through recycling bins - i.e.

will there be unintended consequences such as people going through recycling bins where residents

choose to use their bin rather than collecting the refundable deposits themselves?”

“I've seen how well this works in various parts of the United States. It does, sometimes, encourage

dumpster divers who are looking to make a bit of pocket money, but it keeps this type of waste out of

landfills and off the streets/beaches”

“Government should set an example”

“I'd prefer the focus to firstly be on stopping businesses from using unsustainable packaging (i.e. I've

heard plastic can only be recycled a finite number of times, so isn't really ideal even if it can be

recycled), but I guess encouraging people to dispose of the packaging responsibly is the next best

thing.”

86

Attachment B

51




“Haven't looked at it but I am sure its ok. I would support more community run and owned waste

strategies as I know Waiheke used to run a good system some time in the past but was not supported

by council. I think the local board is usually pretty good at reflecting their community needs.”

“Don't know enough about it”

“The rubbish that is going into the oceans and [cannot read] up the world is staggering. Minimizing

pollution in this area can START and continue with MOTIVATION & EDUCATION”

“These are fragile and generally unspoilt environments, lets keep them that way.”

“'Tikapa-Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Draft Waste Plan' : it's a very long name for a plan, and my life

experience proves me that more long the name is for a plan, less effective it is...!”

“The area needs a specialized plan due to its unique environment.”

“Waste management should be fitted to the community it is taking place in. This includes areas of

poverty where people cannot take to the dump!”

“This is a solid plan. Many parts could be used in Rodney, Auckland”

“Smaller islands need solutions that work for locals.”

“Yes it is unique and it is important to get it right on Waiheke Island or else marine environment

becomes even more polluted. 1 - Our situation as island is unique because we have always dealt with

the entire waste stream. 2 - we face a natural tariff barrier in freight, which really limits our options.

We just have to be smarter with on island solutions. 3 - our community has proven time and time

again that it really cares about this issues and wants a satisfactory answer, the thousands of

submissions to the Royal Commission on the governance of Auckland demanding local control of our

waste stream is evidence of this”

“We have not read this plan.”

“Keep Oirkai, keep Tangaroa free of plastic and waste.”

“This should be led and implemented by the respective islanders”

“As long as community is part of the solution and not seen as a small part player. Waiheke needs to

lead by example again as it has done in the past. Island waste collective are capable of running all

waste operations on Waiheke and maximising diversion from landfill.”

“Not sure. Waiheke island is an island but in the suburban Auckland areas people don't take so much

pride in most areas.”

“These plans are essential to these islands as they are safe havens for many species of plant and

animal and are also pest free. A long term plan is important in order to maintain a beautiful natural

habitat for our animals and plants as well as ourselves and our environment.”

87

Attachment B

52




“We use a hungry bin for the vast majority of our food waste. We do not agree that all householders

should pay for a separate service when so many (up to 30%) already use compost/worm farms to

deal with their food waste.”

“I already compost my food waste so don't want to pay extra for a new food waste service that I

don't need.”

“Increased public place recycling. Public place recycling in Belmart please”

“There needs to be food/green bin: grass etc., illegal dumping of grass is constant.”

“Prioritize Māori Action Plan”

“Carry on taking bags from kerbside, not just bins. Tonnage of waste going to landfill should cost

hundreds of dollars. 2027 target should be 75% diversion. Let's be bold. Incentives for those recycling

all their organic/kitchen waste.”

“New plastic bins for households perhaps too big. We may look at sharing a bin with neighbours (one

small full bin each week).

“Future proofing for the good of New Zealand and hopefully becoming a world leader and example of

economical and effective waste reduction.”

“I want to see a non-commercial bottle deposit scheme for beverage containers, where proceeds go

into recycling education.”

“Yes. I object to charging every household $67 for food waste when many households already handle

this themselves (and have done so for many years). So many households have worm farms, compost

bins, bokashi buckets or even animals that dispose of the waste and also generate fertiliser etc. for

their own gardens. If introducing this kind of fee, then it needs to be a pay as you go service/opt in.

Otherwise you're basically encouraging people to stop doing what they are currently doing and

manage this themselves. Plus you won't get a clean 'food only' collection, there will be wrappers,

stickers, sticks etc. all dumped in which will make the disposal of it problematic and uneconomical. At

least people who process food waste themselves take care of what goes in their Worm farm etc.”

“The waste management policy is seriously flawed. Rather than try to force everyone to a zero waste

policy, council needs to make it free and easy. Educate and encourage people to reduce waste and

recycle, indeed yes. Why? Look at the dumping of rubbish wherever people think they can do it -

overseas studies show that this approach does not work, costs thousands to clean up the mess, and is

bad for the environment. In fact in cases I have read, where the policy making waste collection

expensive was reversed and even "free", the city was cleaned up in no time.”

“I support a short-term targeted rate to pay for the initial coordination of food waste management,

but would like a pay-as-you-throw food waste collection within five years.”

“I oppose the move to fortnightly rubbish collection. We moved to small rubbish bins and now we

have rubbish bags being dumped everywhere. This will only get worse with fortnightly collection. It is

88

Attachment B

53

absolutely ridiculous that this is being suggested. In South Auckland households are much larger and

so have more rubbish and they can least afford paying for more rubbish bins. So people will just

dump stuff in parks.”

“Greenwaste and food waste needs to be composted. It should never end up in the landfill. It is

unacceptable that it is so difficult to recycle other products that cannot be recycled. Can we look at

options such as bermside composting? Communal compost bins. Food waste is only waste if it ends

up in landfill and people need to know this. We should not pay to have food waste and green waste

put in a landfill as it does not belong there. We need to recycle soft plastic packaging as taking it to

the warehouse once a week is excessive. My rubbish bin only goes out once every 3 weeks since we

have been recycling soft plastic voluntarily. There are 5 people using the same bin. We only use 3

compost bins which also covers all of our green waste. It never smells and we never look after it.

Business should be required to compost and expecting them to do so voluntarily is ridiculous.”

“Plastic bags. I would love to see here what they do in the UK where people are charged 5p for every

single use plastic bag they buy, not just from the big supermarket chains but the gift shop and the

dairy too. Let's be the first city in NZ to put on this "tax" on EVERY single use plastic bag to stop them

being used so much.”

“I don't agree with the move to pay-as-you-throw and the targeted rate for kerbside collection of

household food scraps.”

“Require businesses to be more environmentally responsible & provide service for ratepayers”

“EVERYTHING that is not organic and biodegradable should be being recycled. We need to use

resources more wisely. Governing bodies should have a legally enforceable obligation of

responsibility toward the environment and therefore the future citizens of the world.”

“There should be support for low income earners.”

“Will this help create jobs as well?”

“Increase Waste Levy to at least $100.00”

“More education of community”

“We need to recycle soft plastics NOW. Since my household discovered that some supermarkets and

the warehouse have taken an incentive to recycle these, our house of 5 people can hardly fill the bin

once a month (obviously composting makes a big difference, too). Why on earth are we sending

these to landfill? Also we need more community compost areas, if no one is going to collect food

waste its the very least that needs to be done. Thanks!”

“I don’t feel I should have to pay more for the collection of organic/food waste as I already compost

and have a worm farm, as do many households in Auckland. I already pay per bag to have my

rubbish collected, despite urban areas having wheelie bins and they don’t have to pay extra. I recycle

far more than I dispose. Make it fair for all ratepayers please!”

“I want Auckland to be Zero Waste by 2040. It’s a smart goal in the context of climate change and

the challenges of growing landfill. I think it needs to go further to include discouraging shops using

packaging. We all need to be sustainable and work together towards a sustainable future if

humanity is going to survive the challenges of the ecological crisis we are now in.”

89

90

ATTACHMENT C

LIST OF SUBMITTERS

91

92

WMMP

2018

Sub No. Name TBH Local Board

1 Sarah Elizabeth Natan No Waiheke Local Board2 Sean Parkinson No Papakura Local Board3 Michael Passmore No Howick Local Board4 Robert Dawson No Waitemata Local Board5 Donna Railey No Rodney Local Board6 Cameron Smith No Franklin Local Board7 Jenny Chilcott No Kaipatiki Local Board8 Talking Rubbish, ME Family Services No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board9 Les Marriage Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board

10 Project Litefoot Trust No Waitemata Local Board11 Briar Wyatt No Waitemata Local Board12 Michael Maahs No Waiheke Local Board13 Paul Long No Whau Local Board14 Tandi Lazarus No Orakei Local Board15 Stefanie Heinzel No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board16 Ken Hughes No Howick Local Board17 Kelly Roczniak No Howick Local Board18 Thomas Hobbs No Albert-Eden Local Board19 Karen Clifford Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board20 Phil Briggs No Whau Local Board21 Howard Sutton Yes Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board22 Darron Leslie No Henderson-Massey Local Board23 David Clark No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board24 Karen Warne No Upper Harbour Local Board25 Kirsty Simpson No Waitemata Local Board26 Amrita Kaur No Puketapapa Local Board27 Joslyn Squire No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board28 Theresa Bearsley No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board29 Joel Gibson Yes Henderson-Massey Local Board30 Ralph Martin No Rodney Local Board31 Dee Stephens No Henderson-Massey Local Board32 Katie Philson No Howick Local Board33 Mike Hablous No Upper Harbour Local Board34 Clare Cunningham No Albert-Eden Local Board35 Maureen Campbell-White No Upper Harbour Local Board36 John Houltham No Kaipatiki Local Board37 John Laing Yes Papakura Local Board38 David Rutherfurd No Whau Local Board39 Dave Turner No Kaipatiki Local Board40 Andrew Marshall No Waitemata Local Board41 Doug Hunt No Kaipatiki Local Board42 Emma Williams No Waiheke Local Board43 Johann Nordberg No Henderson-Massey Local Board44 Vered Zamirly No Outside Auckland45 Craig Prescott No Franklin Local Board46 Chris Dixon No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board47 Rachel Fraser No Orakei Local Board48 Ruby Gregory No Albert-Eden Local Board49 Jonathon Barry No Upper Harbour Local Board50 Gina Stradwick No Albert-Eden Local Board51 Michael Rowe No Papakura Local Board52 Rosanna Tozer No Albert-Eden Local Board53 Lucia Paul Yes Orakei Local Board54 Kirsty Myron No Manurewa Local Board55 Judy Roberts No Puketapapa Local Board56 Amy Graham No Orakei Local Board57 Bevan Chuang No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board58 Trish Allen Yes Rodney Local Board59 Andre Koekemoer No Orakei Local Board60 Sajeed Patel No Waitemata Local Board61 Daniel Stoneman No Waitemata Local Board

93

62 Ian Billings No Howick Local Board63 liisa lueylum No Albert-Eden Local Board64 Dave Diwakar No Puketapapa Local Board65 Sara Allan No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board66 Simon Shirer No Kaipatiki Local Board67 Bridget Whale No Rodney Local Board68 Louise Shaw No Upper Harbour Local Board69 Dean Yee No Whau Local Board70 Maureen Isbell No Whau Local Board71 Helen Whiteley No Rodney Local Board72 Philippa Hunt No Upper Harbour Local Board73 Rochelle Hocking No Kaipatiki Local Board74 tom hull No Manurewa Local Board75 Cathy Cathy No Puketapapa Local Board76 Robert Jessopp No Henderson-Massey Local Board77 Lucy Kitching No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board78 Straw Free Waiheke Yes Waiheke Local Board79 Lucy Harris No Rodney Local Board80 Jon Davison No Waiheke Local Board81 john lennon No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board82 Alan Breadbent No Rodney Local Board83 Kezia Delowe No Kaipatiki Local Board84 Maxine Laurenson Yes Rodney Local Board85 Wade Alexander No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board86 Corrinne Chapman No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board87 William Ferguson No Outside Auckland88 Trina Sellers No Waitakere Ranges Local Board89 Danyel Simich No Albert-Eden Local Board90 Nicola Guttin No Kaipatiki Local Board91 Dale Granich No Papakura Local Board92 Janet Fredric No Rodney Local Board93 Sophie Chambers No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board94 Sheree Parker No Orakei Local Board95 A.R.M.S No Puketapapa Local Board96 Benjamin Grant No Albert-Eden Local Board97 Anna Johnstone No Albert-Eden Local Board98 Roger Wark Yes Franklin Local Board99 MHW Yes Rodney Local Board

100 Marjan Keirk No Upper Harbour Local Board101 Allyson Coulter No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board102 Truman Birtwistle No Albert-Eden Local Board103 Prashanti Lovegrove Yes Waiheke Local Board104 Janelle Brunton-Rennie No Orakei Local Board105 David Holmes No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board106 Rebecca Paddon No Outside Auckland107 Hannah Bewg Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board108 Kate Gile No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board109 Meridy Boyd-Clark No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board110 Dione Kimpton No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board111 Isaac Broome No Franklin Local Board112 James Snowsill No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board113 Lisa Kennedy No Franklin Local Board114 Paula Unger No Papakura Local Board115 Ella Meisel Not specified Whau Local Board116 Susanne Bradley No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board117 Hana Dignan No Waitakere Ranges Local Board118 Katie Du Fall No Franklin Local Board119 Andrew Sharpe No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board120 Claudia Billinge No Albert-Eden Local Board121 Jade Atkinson No Rodney Local Board122 Courtney Mills No Franklin Local Board123 Lara Thomas No Albert-Eden Local Board124 Sam Baxter No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board125 David Munro No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board

94

126 Liz Sharek No Rodney Local Board127 Benjamin Reilly No Kaipatiki Local Board128 Lisa Tocker No Outside Auckland129 Julie Dickinson No Rodney Local Board130 Karen Matata No Manurewa Local Board131 Lachlan Palmer-Hubbard No Albert-Eden Local Board132 Andrew Westaway No Kaipatiki Local Board133 Yvonne Wagner No Franklin Local Board134 Haeata Ruru No Albert-Eden Local Board135 Jay Tham No Howick Local Board136 Alison Gurney No Manurewa Local Board137 Maria Mariotti Yes Hibiscus and Bays Local Board138 Lucy Stallworthy No Franklin Local Board139 Victoria Watson No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board140 Samantha Soh No Waitemata Local Board141 Sarah Jackson No Waitemata Local Board142 Samantha Elliot No Waitakere Ranges Local Board143 Brent Neal Not specified Franklin Local Board144 Julia Thorne No Kaipatiki Local Board

145 Dunedin City Council Waste and Environmental Solutions No Outside Auckland146 Celia Wells Yes Waitemata Local Board147 Carol Abley No Rodney Local Board148 Alison Hosey No Waitemata Local Board149 John Andrews No Orakei Local Board150 Jennifer Francis No Rodney Local Board151 Danielle Dunn No Upper Harbour Local Board152 Kirsten Fraser No Whau Local Board153 Crom-Dawg Masina No Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board154 Susi Lay No Waitakere Ranges Local Board155 Karen Trevor No Henderson-Massey Local Board156 Phil Margetts No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board157 Christina Mulholland No Manurewa Local Board158 Ella Cunningham No Upper Harbour Local Board159 Calmac Engineering Ltd No Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board160 Laura Sarsfield No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board161 Lisa Kent No Kaipatiki Local Board162 Shawn Gardner Not specified Waitemata Local Board163 Anny Ma No Waitemata Local Board164 Yasir D No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board165 Patrick O' Reilly No Albert-Eden Local Board166 Rebecca Roberts No Waitakere Ranges Local Board167 Teresa Van Der Vorst No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board168 Mari Gordon No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board169 Kirstin Graves No Papakura Local Board170 Anna Clements No Waitakere Ranges Local Board171 christine sharma No Albert-Eden Local Board172 John Broadbent No Puketapapa Local Board173 Claire Keeling No Albert-Eden Local Board174 Micaela Brown No Howick Local Board175 Anna Hawdon No Howick Local Board176 Francheska Hughes No Henderson-Massey Local Board177 Amandine Paniagua Yes Waitemata Local Board178 Warkworth War on Weeds Yes Rodney Local Board179 Indigo Paul No Albert-Eden Local Board180 Bianca Howlett No Rodney Local Board181 Carla Mardell No Whau Local Board182 Marique Kruger No Upper Harbour Local Board183 Brooklyn Chitty Not specified Whau Local Board184 Tai-Hsiang Yang Not specified Howick Local Board185 Louisa Viall Not specified Papakura Local Board186 Catharina Brenner No Rodney Local Board187 Pamela Ippel No Papakura Local Board188 Debra Dowd No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

95

189 Sally Marden No Rodney Local Board190 Rachael Pates No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board191 Mel Mullaney No Kaipatiki Local Board192 Kevin Golding No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board193 Chris Edwards No Henderson-Massey Local Board194 Joan Garth No Kaipatiki Local Board195 Sepali Naus No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board196 Pennie O’Connor No Manurewa Local Board197 Steven Branca No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board198 Linda Brown No Waiheke Local Board199 Amanda Nell No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board200 Leilani Tamu No Albert-Eden Local Board201 Sally Groenhart No Rodney Local Board202 James Fraser No Waitemata Local Board203 Patricia Compter No Waitakere Ranges Local Board204 Ellie Reynolds No Franklin Local Board205 Esme Sutton No Waitakere Ranges Local Board206 Aman Pillay Not specified Papakura Local Board207 Rachael Godkin Not specified Franklin Local Board208 Deepika Gosai Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board209 Deborah Robinson Not specified Manurewa Local Board210 Nick de Witte Not specified Rodney Local Board211 Christine Buist Not specified Puketapapa Local Board212 Karen McConchie Not specified Papakura Local Board213 Alexander Yule Not specified Manurewa Local Board214 Kirsty Harris Not specified Papakura Local Board215 Linda Aitchison No Papakura Local Board216 Arti Bakshi No Manurewa Local Board217 Joanne Te'o No Papakura Local Board218 Julie Green No Manurewa Local Board219 Rochelle Dixon No Papakura Local Board220 Brian O'Neill No Kaipatiki Local Board221 Jon Morgan Yes Henderson-Massey Local Board222 Sean Stanning No Papakura Local Board223 Nicola Taylor No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board224 Stephen Maire No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board225 Thomas Greve Not specified Waitemata Local Board226 Kathy Ooyles Not specified Waitemata Local Board227 Jane Walters Not specified Waiheke Local Board228 Zixi Xiong No Kaipatiki Local Board229 Charlotte Ludwig No Orakei Local Board230 Carol Hodgson No Papakura Local Board231 John Gibbs No Waitemata Local Board232 Sophia Moon No Whau Local Board233 Katherine Russell No Waitakere Ranges Local Board234 Erika Whittome No Orakei Local Board235 Linda Lawson No Papakura Local Board236 Trish Richardson No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board237 Rebecca Morine No Kaipatiki Local Board238 Greg Munford Yes Orakei Local Board239 Tara Moala No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board240 Desna Mackay No Manurewa Local Board241 Tricia Joe No Franklin Local Board242 Teara Gillman No Orakei Local Board243 Elizabeth Huntley No Kaipatiki Local Board244 Emona Russell Numanga No Albert-Eden Local Board245 Prue Scott No Waitemata Local Board246 Gillian Luke No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board247 Stephanie Gregory No Upper Harbour Local Board248 Tony Goodwin No Albert-Eden Local Board249 Merrill Lewis Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board250 Philippa Kaisser No Papakura Local Board251 Lianne Graham No Henderson-Massey Local Board252 Charlene Fitisemanu No Albert-Eden Local Board

96

253 Anarul Bickford Not specified Rodney Local Board254 Brooke Jenner No Franklin Local Board255 Stephanie Field No Waitemata Local Board256 Howard Jury Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board257 Nadia Gillbanks No Papakura Local Board258 Ranjit Keshvara Yes Franklin Local Board259 Hungry for Raw Yes Rodney Local Board260 David Flynn No Rodney Local Board261 Deborah Flynn No Upper Harbour Local Board262 Margaret Hutson No Papakura Local Board263 Jo Rowe No Whau Local Board264 Ivy Lorimer No Papakura Local Board265 Edith Moore No Papakura Local Board266 Vanessa Hindley No Outside Auckland267 Kelsey McSkimming No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board268 Rebecca Long No Howick Local Board269 Laura Chirnside No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board270 Waverley Jones No Papakura Local Board271 Jonathon Clarke No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board272 Sue Mihakis No Waitemata Local Board273 Grant Hughes No Outside Auckland274 Shelley Fenton No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board275 Martin Evans Yes Albert-Eden Local Board276 Laurie Chilcott No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board277 Sarah Garrod No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board278 Liz Kirschberg No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board279 Siobhan Lenehan No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board280 Zero Waste Network Yes Outside Auckland281 Kenneth Harrop No Waitakere Ranges Local Board282 A D (Tony) Cook No Rodney Local Board283 Frances Hancock No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board284 Sean Toland No Waitemata Local Board285 Naomi Gray No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board286 Anko Hanse No Waitakere Ranges Local Board287 Patricia Sampaio No Albert-Eden Local Board288 Rosemary Nash No Papakura Local Board289 Cassandra Keefe No Papakura Local Board290 Terry Butler No Papakura Local Board291 Tina Rawlings No Kaipatiki Local Board292 Charlotte Liddicoat Yes Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board293 Fiona White No Henderson-Massey Local Board294 Wendy Allison No Waiheke Local Board295 Arunachalam Chelliah No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board296 Second Nature Gardens Limited No Henderson-Massey Local Board297 Tobias Egli No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board298 Beachlands Community Trust No Franklin Local Board299 Lara Vegas Yes Waitemata Local Board300 Gretchen Greaves No Upper Harbour Local Board301 Daryl Fincham No Albert-Eden Local Board302 Colin Coghill No Albert-Eden Local Board303 Marion O'Kane No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board304 Dionne Taylor Not specified Whau Local Board305 Michelle Diamond No Not Supplied306 JiaJia Chen Not specified Whau Local Board307 Radha Etrendge Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board308 Teresa Graham Not specified Rodney Local Board309 Carly Tawhiao No Waitemata Local Board310 Andy Young No Kaipatiki Local Board311 J Ian Hacking No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board312 Lara Wyatt No Manurewa Local Board313 Shane Ralph No Howick Local Board314 One Bag at a Time No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board315 Deidre Smith No Outside Auckland316 Anna Didsbury No Rodney Local Board

97

317 Julia Clavel Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board318 Herst Janet No Papakura Local Board319 Ron Maxwell No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board320 Sarah Buzink No Franklin Local Board321 Jeremy B Collins No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board322 Meredith Fountain Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board323 Alister McKinnon No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board324 Panmure Business Association No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board325 Kim Murphy No Papakura Local Board326 Waveney Warth No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board327 Laura Torre No Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board328 Jane James No Rodney Local Board329 Danielle Norman No Manurewa Local Board330 Jaime Ginnever No Kaipatiki Local Board331 Jana Walshe No Albert-Eden Local Board332 Talia Irvine No Papakura Local Board333 Tanya Parsons No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board334 Ross Inglis No Waitemata Local Board335 Fiona Powell No Franklin Local Board336 Baillie Nielsen No Waitakere Ranges Local Board337 Brigitte Dunbar No Henderson-Massey Local Board338 Amy Wiltshire No Albert-Eden Local Board339 Jennifer Goldsack No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board340 Kelly Wright No Papakura Local Board341 Tanya Syme No Rodney Local Board342 Karen Atkinson No Rodney Local Board343 Pia Crawford No Albert-Eden Local Board344 Jo Clements No Howick Local Board345 Michelle Yurak No Waitemata Local Board346 Bradley Moorfield No Puketapapa Local Board347 Jordan Schache No Papakura Local Board348 Jean-Ann Holt Not specified Rodney Local Board349 Nick Bishop No Albert-Eden Local Board350 Penny Sefuiva Not specified Waitemata Local Board351 Julie Carr No Albert-Eden Local Board352 Raewyn Stone No Orakei Local Board353 Patricia Boston No Kaipatiki Local Board354 Jane Lobb No Rodney Local Board355 Erin Hyde No Rodney Local Board356 Helen Dare No Whau Local Board357 Carol Hayward No Kaipatiki Local Board358 Alastair MacCormick No Orakei Local Board359 Ray Maulder No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board360 Dani Maylam Yes Hibiscus and Bays Local Board361 Justin Marshall No Waitakere Ranges Local Board362 Junk Run Limited Yes Waitemata Local Board363 Elena Irving No Franklin Local Board364 Toto Vu-Duc No Waitemata Local Board365 Alex Ross No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board366 Henry Frear No Waitemata Local Board367 William Van Ausdal Yes Albert-Eden Local Board368 Carol Treavish No Kaipatiki Local Board369 Splore Dynamics Ltd Yes Albert-Eden Local Board370 Sarah Goedhart No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board371 Helen Grant No Howick Local Board372 Bruce Usher No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board373 Rachel Haydon No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board374 Janet Coup No Howick Local Board375 Nina Bregman No Howick Local Board376 Mana G Yes Outside Auckland377 Persees Antia No Franklin Local Board378 Low Impact Limited Yes Albert-Eden Local Board379 Burkhard F Holzke Not specified Franklin Local Board380 Ben Bell Yes Albert-Eden Local Board

98

381 Hilde Hoven No Great Barrier Local Board382 Ian Burrows No Waiheke Local Board383 Christopher Simmons No Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board384 Catherine Byrne No Waitemata Local Board385 Gigi Michael No Papakura Local Board386 Ally Langenkamp No Albert-Eden Local Board387 Susan Fredericksen Not specified Orakei Local Board388 Kaitiaki of Newton Reserve Not specified Waiheke Local Board389 Ryan Russell Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board390 Prue Cruickshank Not specified Whau Local Board391 Bob Bray Not specified Orakei Local Board392 Eilene Lamb Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board393 Malcolm Runole Not specified Puketapapa Local Board394 Nassai Herren Not specified Waiheke Local Board395 Rex Willoughby Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board396 David Noon Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board397 Heather Forsman Not specified Not Supplied398 Fiona McGeough Not specified Rodney Local Board399 Casa Canna Properties Not specified Rodney Local Board400 The Island Gelato Company Not specified Waiheke Local Board401 Ian Schutz Not specified Not Supplied402 Emily Vandy Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board403 Kashimir Postel Not specified Waiheke Local Board404 Janice Morrow Not specified Franklin Local Board405 Julie Croft Not specified Rodney Local Board406 Charlotte Parker Not specified Waiheke Local Board407 Jiali Qiu Not specified Puketapapa Local Board408 Artie/Nassai Herren Not specified Waiheke Local Board409 Zhongjing Fang Not specified Puketapapa Local Board410 Leonie Stratton Not specified Rodney Local Board411 Antony Scott Harrison Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board412 Hugh Dickinson Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board413 Maryrose Morgan-Coakle Not specified Not Supplied414 Ina Sufia Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board415 Kulata Alapaki Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board416 Ping Sim Not specified Howick Local Board417 Richard Oddy Not specified Orakei Local Board418 Tania Webb Not specified Manurewa Local Board419 Moe Richardson Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board420 Rowena Nelio Not specified Manurewa Local Board421 Tania-Jade Ranika-Farbrother Not specified Manurewa Local Board422 Debbie Lewis Not specified Manurewa Local Board424 Tania Rorster Not specified Not Supplied425 Charlotte Winstone Not specified Orakei Local Board426 Melanie Rae Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board427 Makere Popata Not specified Manurewa Local Board428 Scott Douglas Not specified Manurewa Local Board429 Matthew Keesing Not specified Manurewa Local Board430 Roxanne Webb Not specified Manurewa Local Board431 Tiara Ngaire Paraha Not specified Manurewa Local Board432 Donna Leve Not specified Manurewa Local Board433 Lee Anne Webb Not specified Manurewa Local Board434 Atlas Christie Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board435 Matthew Evans Not specified Not Supplied436 Navarda Sio Not specified Manurewa Local Board437 PAUA Early Childhood Home Based Care Service Not specified Manurewa Local Board438 Rosie Peihopa Not specified Manurewa Local Board439 Glenda Aiken Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board440 Briar Whitefield Not specified Manurewa Local Board441 Jason Tahere Not specified Not Supplied442 Harrington Paoo Not specified Manurewa Local Board443 Te One Matthews Not specified Papakura Local Board444 Tina Thompson Not specified Manurewa Local Board445 Tania Nathan Not specified Manurewa Local Board

99

446 Eliza Oseterika Not specified Franklin Local Board447 Sharon Martin Not specified Not Supplied448 Brian Webb Not specified Manurewa Local Board449 Natasha Te Whiu Not specified Manurewa Local Board450 Dave Aiken Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board451 Dallas Pickesing Not specified Not Supplied452 Brendon Ward Not specified Manurewa Local Board453 Dawn Webb Not specified Not Supplied454 Natasha Tousoon Not specified Not Supplied455 Pippa Clegg Not specified Orakei Local Board456 Cassidy Vates Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board457 Lillie Cripps Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board458 Graham Malaghan Yes Orakei Local Board459 Ptolemy Mortimer-Webster No Albert-Eden Local Board460 Amie Helwes No Waitakere Ranges Local Board461 Rochelle Payne No Franklin Local Board462 Catherine Young No Howick Local Board463 Greg Endres No Upper Harbour Local Board464 Anna Harrison No Upper Harbour Local Board465 Rachel Demler No Rodney Local Board466 G Sinclair No Rodney Local Board467 Greenify Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board468 Lidya Ke No Orakei Local Board469 Jeromy Paterson No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board470 Peter Featherstone No Kaipatiki Local Board471 Chantelle J No Waitakere Ranges Local Board472 Monique Wearn No Henderson-Massey Local Board473 Ric Stacey No Albert-Eden Local Board474 Daniel Brice No Kaipatiki Local Board476 Colinda Rowe No Waitemata Local Board477 Xuduo Shao Not specified Whau Local Board479 Shijun Liu Not specified Waitemata Local Board480 Yuntian Qiang Not specified Howick Local Board481 Graeme Knox No Whau Local Board482 Forrest Denize No Albert-Eden Local Board483 Sandra Murray No Whau Local Board484 Wang Liang Hoang Not specified Howick Local Board485 Ting Hung Yang Not specified Howick Local Board486 Tianqin Liu Not specified Howick Local Board487 Xiuhong Xu Not specified Howick Local Board488 Lan Leng Lam Ma Not specified Howick Local Board489 Zhu Ze Wang Not specified Howick Local Board491 Xiaoming Liu Not specified Howick Local Board493 Zhengxiu Xie Not specified Howick Local Board494 Conghuang Tiang Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board497 Chiying Yao Not specified Whau Local Board498 Zengxu Zhang Not specified Whau Local Board499 Cheryl Taylor No Albert-Eden Local Board500 Bao Huang Not specified Whau Local Board501 Katy Yang Not specified Not Supplied502 Morgan Deng Not specified Not Supplied503 Kaipatiki community Facilities Trust No Kaipatiki Local Board504 Selina Chen Not specified Not Supplied505 Tony Xing Not specified Not Supplied506 Jingjing Gong Not specified Howick Local Board507 J L Demler No Orakei Local Board508 Liping Luo Not specified Howick Local Board509 Weixin Wu Not specified Howick Local Board510 Paul Terry No Papakura Local Board511 Tracy Jeffery No Kaipatiki Local Board512 Jason Pan Not specified Not Supplied513 Xieying Zhu Not specified Not Supplied514 Donnalena McCarthy No Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board515 Mauen Xu Not specified Not Supplied

100

516 Ivy Tan Not specified Not Supplied517 Xinyu Hu Not specified Puketapapa Local Board518 Min Zheng Not specified Not Supplied519 Glen Eden Transition Town (GETT) No Waitakere Ranges Local Board520 Lillian Chen Not specified Howick Local Board521 Jane Chen Not specified Not Supplied522 Ying Chi Not specified Not Supplied523 Qiong Huang Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board524 Nick Baker Yes Manurewa Local Board525 Grace Harimate Not specified Not Supplied526 Ella Walmsley Yes Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board527 Susan Carlow No Kaipatiki Local Board528 Susan Bodmer Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board529 John Radford Yes Waitemata Local Board530 Renee Akr Not specified Rodney Local Board531 Leanne Chamberlin No Franklin Local Board532 Gary Rutter Not specified Waiheke Local Board533 Guy Tichborne No Henderson-Massey Local Board534 Stephanie de Frere No Orakei Local Board535 Daniel Nathan No Waitakere Ranges Local Board536 Adam Parkinson No Waitemata Local Board537 Nundi Brouard No Howick Local Board538 Trina Royaolz Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board539 Kristie Elphick No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board540 Elisabeth Sullivan No Waitemata Local Board541 Sandra Anton No Henderson-Massey Local Board542 Monique Olivier No Waitakere Ranges Local Board543 Shelley Miti Not specified Not Supplied544 Ivy Hall No Rodney Local Board545 Rebecca Hanley No Henderson-Massey Local Board546 Zulin NZ Ltd No Albert-Eden Local Board547 Katherine McKellar No Albert-Eden Local Board548 John McIntyre Not specified Orakei Local Board549 Melissa Lapa No Papakura Local Board550 Stephen Smythe No Rodney Local Board551 Marin Construction No Albert-Eden Local Board552 Sandra Free No Rodney Local Board553 Adele Jeffries No Rodney Local Board554 Silke Hartung No Waitemata Local Board555 Te Wānanga o Aotearoa No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board556 Linda Gray Brett No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board557 Amy Moynihan No Outside Auckland558 Megumi Seow No Albert-Eden Local Board559 Christine Ingram No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board560 Stephanie Keeling No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board561 Hannah Scheigis No Upper Harbour Local Board562 Marco Creemers No Waitemata Local Board563 Karen O'Donohue No Waitemata Local Board564 Tatiana Zimina No Henderson-Massey Local Board565 Stacey Donn No Papakura Local Board566 Jules Longdin-Prisk No Henderson-Massey Local Board567 Margaret Timms No Howick Local Board568 Rosalie Hammond No Howick Local Board569 John Cathcart No Henderson-Massey Local Board570 Olivia Bennett No Orakei Local Board571 Heather Richards No Waitakere Ranges Local Board572 Michelle Deery No Waitemata Local Board573 Judith Chappell No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board574 Grant Whitehouse No Kaipatiki Local Board575 Angie Strachan No Waitemata Local Board576 Emma Johnson Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board577 Helen Robertson Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board578 Louise Goodwin No Kaipatiki Local Board579 Luella Whalan No Waitakere Ranges Local Board

101

580 Jane Chiu Yes Albert-Eden Local Board581 Luisa Longone No Albert-Eden Local Board582 Eleanor Mayer No Whau Local Board583 Shabnam Gulshan No Not Supplied584 Emma Sommerville No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board585 Jason Danner No Waitakere Ranges Local Board586 Christian Wehrle No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board587 Rebekah Clements Yes Waitemata Local Board588 Amand Weaver No Whau Local Board589 Sophia Vahry No Orakei Local Board590 Spenser Haag No Henderson-Massey Local Board591 K M Findlay Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board592 Elise McEvoy No Waitemata Local Board593 Sarah Alden No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board594 Amy Kristensen No Waitemata Local Board595 Stephanie Liebert No Albert-Eden Local Board596 Kieran O'Malley No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board597 Olga Mills No Henderson-Massey Local Board598 Sally McLean No Albert-Eden Local Board599 Haley Williams No Whau Local Board600 Sarah Wallis No Albert-Eden Local Board601 Eva Cadario No Waitemata Local Board602 Warren Jordaan No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board603 Jillian Denney Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board604 Natalie Hanna No Orakei Local Board605 Ali Jackson No Howick Local Board606 Kristin Kirchner No Henderson-Massey Local Board607 Rosario Benoit No Albert-Eden Local Board608 Liz Oldfield No Rodney Local Board609 Katrina Coveney No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board610 Jenny Gibson No Waitakere Ranges Local Board611 Ka Yee Leung No Howick Local Board612 Corina Worthington No Papakura Local Board613 Angela Gibbons Yes Rodney Local Board614 Alysia Sims No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board615 Kaiyuen Wong No Albert-Eden Local Board616 Angelina Newman No Henderson-Massey Local Board617 Dianne Wyatt No Rodney Local Board618 Scott Judson No Albert-Eden Local Board619 Michele Comeau No Rodney Local Board620 Peter Haarhaus No Orakei Local Board621 Silvana Vulinovich No Albert-Eden Local Board622 Heather Gates No Rodney Local Board623 Pamela Lelean No Rodney Local Board624 Martyna Reynolds No Howick Local Board625 Anna Blackmore No Albert-Eden Local Board626 Kaye Richards No Howick Local Board627 Chris Lange No Henderson-Massey Local Board628 Evie Quinton No Albert-Eden Local Board629 Kate Hambrook No Waiheke Local Board630 Melanie Bennett No Waitakere Ranges Local Board631 James Heyward No Waitemata Local Board632 Faaloloi Tiumalu Yes Manurewa Local Board633 Melissa Koh No Waitemata Local Board634 Gail Baillie No Albert-Eden Local Board635 Ian Plater Yes Hibiscus and Bays Local Board636 Janneke Visser Not specified Waiheke Local Board637 Lisa Zidich No Henderson-Massey Local Board638 Angela Blackhall No Orakei Local Board639 Debbie Fielder No Manurewa Local Board640 Grey Lynn Residents Association No Waitemata Local Board641 Katharine Murdoch No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board642 Mark Smith No Franklin Local Board643 Noeleen Rawiri No Papakura Local Board

102

644 Leanne Newall Yes Whau Local Board645 Allison Oosterman No Henderson-Massey Local Board646 Roz Palethorpe Yes Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board647 Susan Taylor No Albert-Eden Local Board648 Angela Cooper No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board649 Charlotte Fisher Not specified Waitemata Local Board650 Penelope Allen No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board651 Dominika Salagierska No Rodney Local Board652 Penny Macdonald No Papakura Local Board653 Mahajabeen Padamsee No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board654 Sacha Baillie No Albert-Eden Local Board655 Pei Zhu Wu No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board656 David Kettle No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board657 Jeremy Gibbons No Rodney Local Board658 Liesl D'souza No Puketapapa Local Board659 Ming Chu Fung No Kaipatiki Local Board660 Veronica Collins No Henderson-Massey Local Board661 Litia Brighouse-Fuavao No Howick Local Board662 Trish Honey No Waitakere Ranges Local Board

663 Kokako Coffee, Ceres Organics, Convex & We Compost Yes Albert-Eden Local Board664 Tracey Musson No Franklin Local Board665 Wayne Thompson No Waitemata Local Board666 Tanayaz Patil No Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board667 Kerry O’Connor Not specified Waitemata Local Board668 H Carpentier No Papakura Local Board669 Nicola Gray No Kaipatiki Local Board670 Maree Witten No Waiheke Local Board671 Isabel Dance No Waitemata Local Board672 Tatyana Dickson No Albert-Eden Local Board673 Jonathan Spencer No Orakei Local Board674 Steff Werman No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board675 Miriam Hall No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board676 Alan Matteucci No Albert-Eden Local Board677 Julia Griffiths No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board678 Denise Ganley No Upper Harbour Local Board679 Averil Lewis-Roberts No Orakei Local Board680 Megan Beard No Waitakere Ranges Local Board681 Helen Palmer No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board682 Rebecca Smith No Rodney Local Board683 Janet Pribble No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board684 Julie Morris No Upper Harbour Local Board685 Steph Kendall No Howick Local Board686 Rosie Shelton No Orakei Local Board687 Suzanne Keir No Howick Local Board688 Windsor Doors Ltd Not specified Not Supplied689 Diana Ward No Albert-Eden Local Board690 Maureen Martin No Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board691 Louise Broadbent No Rodney Local Board692 Mike Earle Not specified Rodney Local Board693 Tracy Mace No Waitakere Ranges Local Board694 Bridget Angell No Whau Local Board695 Meike Funk No Orakei Local Board696 Megan Walter No Howick Local Board697 Katja Velling No Albert-Eden Local Board698 Ashleigh Payne No Howick Local Board699 Lucy Best No Waiheke Local Board700 Albertine Lello No Albert-Eden Local Board701 Axford Susan No Waitemata Local Board702 Brodie Hoare No Albert-Eden Local Board703 Kaarina Tuula Dixon No Henderson-Massey Local Board704 Jarette Wickham No Waitemata Local Board705 Keith Ayton No Albert-Eden Local Board706 All Heart NZ Charitable Trust Yes Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

103

707 Carole Poingdestre No Upper Harbour Local Board708 Stephanie Robb Yes Howick Local Board709 Shane Heaslip No Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board710 Daniel Gibbons No Rodney Local Board711 Gay Walker No Kaipatiki Local Board712 Ant Self No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board713 Alice Rich No Albert-Eden Local Board714 Paul Qualtrough Yes Waitemata Local Board715 Richard Chambers No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board716 Maree Oxley No Waitakere Ranges Local Board717 Elizabeth Hedgley No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board718 Amanda Hynes No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board719 Barbara Sommerville No Waitemata Local Board720 James Watson No Albert-Eden Local Board721 Jordan Tini No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board722 Ethne Thomas No Orakei Local Board723 Kate Alcock No Whau Local Board724 Deborah Teh Not specified Whau Local Board725 Mark Benton Not specified Howick Local Board726 Vivienne Murray No Howick Local Board727 Sarah Jane Murray Not specified Rodney Local Board728 Michelle Joiner No Waitemata Local Board729 Christine Didsbury Not specified Rodney Local Board730 Samuel Otter Not specified Whau Local Board731 Alexa Stubbingtom No Waitakere Ranges Local Board732 Overseas Chinese Woman Association Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board733 Jan Graham Not specified Outside Auckland734 Gavin Peebles Not specified Waitemata Local Board735 Damon Birchfield Not specified Papakura Local Board736 Fiona Arthur No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board737 Amanda Wright Not specified Not Supplied738 Helga Sonier Not specified Franklin Local Board739 Abigail Judson No Franklin Local Board740 Wallis Walker Not specified Franklin Local Board741 Kathy Marchant Not specified Orakei Local Board742 Michelle Burstall No Whau Local Board743 Norma Bush Not specified Waitemata Local Board744 Alan Stokes No Orakei Local Board745 Z Crook No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board746 Tingting Zhang Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board747 Guoauan Xu Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board748 Nuamata Aererua Not specified Manurewa Local Board749 Paul Clements No Orakei Local Board750 Jen Oelofse Not specified Manurewa Local Board751 Ashley Ward Not specified Manurewa Local Board752 Greg Gray Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board753 Brendon Murton No Manurewa Local Board754 Abigail Muliaga Not specified Not Supplied755 Kristin Henare Not specified Manurewa Local Board756 Camila Araos Elevancini Yes Waitemata Local Board757 Renee Rapana Not specified Manurewa Local Board758 Amelia Gao Yes Howick Local Board759 Zane Raphael No Upper Harbour Local Board760 Rebecca Murphy No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board761 Susan Keam No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board762 Hannah Shelton Agar Yes Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board763 Kevin Kilsby No Whau Local Board764 Tina Broadbent No Rodney Local Board765 Clint Gauld No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board766 Cathrine Russ No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board767 Katherine Wescott No Franklin Local Board768 Isabel McFarlane No Waitakere Ranges Local Board769 Joy Brady No Kaipatiki Local Board770 Jamie Ryan No Albert-Eden Local Board

104

771 Katherine Snell No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board772 Sarah Kerr No Henderson-Massey Local Board773 Rebecca Barnhill No Albert-Eden Local Board774 Doris de Pont No Waitemata Local Board775 Jan Lewis No Waiheke Local Board776 Richard Kern No Upper Harbour Local Board777 Viola Trnski No Albert-Eden Local Board778 David Butcher No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board779 Alice Thomson No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board780 Sarah Powell No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board781 Danielle Kennedy No Howick Local Board782 David Bousfield No Howick Local Board783 Samantha Van Ryn No Franklin Local Board784 Mt Albert Primary School Yes Albert-Eden Local Board785 Fay Cobbett No Rodney Local Board786 Simon Holden Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board787 Waysand Farm Not specified Rodney Local Board788 Paul Miller Not specified Rodney Local Board789 Diana Clarke No Albert-Eden Local Board790 Cora Zuidgeist Not specified Rodney Local Board791 Deborah McKerr Not specified Rodney Local Board792 Jillian & Taylor Lucinda & Goldschmitz Not specified Rodney Local Board793 Tara Davidson Not specified Not Supplied794 Prue & Warwick Peacock Not specified Waiheke Local Board795 Jessica de Heij Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board796 Juliet Hughes Not specified Rodney Local Board797 Nicola Pallesen Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board798 Cathy Xiong Not specified Not Supplied799 Paul Wilkinson No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board800 Wednesday Davis Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board801 Miranda Hawthorn Not specified Waiheke Local Board802 Liv Thomson Not specified Waitemata Local Board803 Louise Jiang Jiang Yes Orakei Local Board804 Anne-Marie Keenan Yes Waitakere Ranges Local Board805 Melanie Douglas Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board806 Christine Mardell No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board807 Ben Mansfield Not specified Waitemata Local Board808 Lynette Wilson No Papakura Local Board809 Ping Lee-Wragge Not specified Not Supplied810 Kate Waterworth Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board811 Marilyn Aislabie No Waiheke Local Board812 Mark Edkins No Howick Local Board813 Ruby Haldane No Kaipatiki Local Board814 Gordon Myer Not specified Manurewa Local Board815 Amanda Chapman No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board816 Agnes Granada Yes Henderson-Massey Local Board817 Diana Chambers Not specified Rodney Local Board818 Earth Action Trust No Puketapapa Local Board819 Willow Hakaraia No Henderson-Massey Local Board820 Jen Shaw No Albert-Eden Local Board821 Susan Mary Fitchett No Waiheke Local Board822 Mariette Sprenger Yes Franklin Local Board823 Janet Vaughan No Waitakere Ranges Local Board824 Steven Eichler No Albert-Eden Local Board825 Juliet Hay No Waiheke Local Board826 Erin Bo No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board827 Lauren Maser Not specified Waiheke Local Board828 Hayley Jones No Waitemata Local Board829 Caitlin Borgfeldt No Kaipatiki Local Board830 Nancey Du No Papakura Local Board831 Christine Major No Waitemata Local Board832 David Francis No Rodney Local Board833 Nick Goldwater No Waitemata Local Board834 Sara McMillan No Orakei Local Board

105

835 Philip Jones No Kaipatiki Local Board836 Bruce Middleton No Waitemata Local Board837 Gayle Gibbons No Henderson-Massey Local Board838 Graeme North No Rodney Local Board839 Erica Brash No Upper Harbour Local Board

840 The Sustainable North Trust, Transition Town Hibiscus Coast Yes Hibiscus and Bays Local Board841 Michelle Boulle No Howick Local Board842 Tsering Pheasant No Kaipatiki Local Board843 Julie Buswell Yes Rodney Local Board844 UNITEC Institute of Technology No Albert-Eden Local Board845 Amanda Weaver No Howick Local Board846 Brent Jackson No Papakura Local Board847 Wayne Golding No Albert-Eden Local Board848 Judy Andrews No Kaipatiki Local Board849 Gwenyth Tilton No Waitakere Ranges Local Board850 David Hopkins No Manurewa Local Board851 Val Rippey No Howick Local Board852 Ed Nathan No Waitakere Ranges Local Board853 Nicola Johansen No Henderson-Massey Local Board854 Shoba Tegginmath No Henderson-Massey Local Board855 Sam Stewart No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board856 Sue Wallis No Franklin Local Board857 Kieran Horler No Upper Harbour Local Board858 Olivier Lawer No Waitakere Ranges Local Board859 Betsy Tipping No Rodney Local Board860 Viv Jones No Henderson-Massey Local Board861 Victoria Christie No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board862 Laura Akyilmaz No Albert-Eden Local Board863 Julia Sekula No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board864 Sarah Ellis No Waitakere Ranges Local Board865 Dwayne Carroll No Orakei Local Board866 Matt Murphy No Orakei Local Board867 Catherine Bell No Waitemata Local Board868 Edward Fletcher Yes Papakura Local Board869 Karen Coleman No Rodney Local Board870 Logan O'Callahan No Albert-Eden Local Board871 Rachael Randal Yes Hibiscus and Bays Local Board872 Michael Randal No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board873 Amanda Debenham No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board874 Justin Kary No Henderson-Massey Local Board875 Gayle Lafaiali’i No Howick Local Board876 Anna Kary No Henderson-Massey Local Board877 Liz Corin No Whau Local Board878 Jayshari Oxley No Whau Local Board879 Fiona Banks No Henderson-Massey Local Board880 Ellice Protheroe No Puketapapa Local Board881 Steven Forward No Howick Local Board882 Ruth Wilkie No Albert-Eden Local Board883 Dinoy Chirayath No Papakura Local Board884 Tina James No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board885 Daniel Doland No Kaipatiki Local Board886 Judith Cheyne No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board887 Mary Sewell No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board888 Linda Sergeant No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board889 Jacqui Nuttall No Papakura Local Board890 Susan Takerei No Manurewa Local Board891 Pam Baillie No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board892 Gordon Ikin Not specified Waitemata Local Board893 Carol Brown No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board894 Simon Young No Albert-Eden Local Board895 Miranda Bennett No Whau Local Board896 Alexia Sandano Yes Waitemata Local Board897 E Frances Nelson No Kaipatiki Local Board

106

898 Carl Weaver Not specified Not Supplied899 Andy Irwin No Kaipatiki Local Board900 Carmel Claridge No Orakei Local Board901 Robyn Sievwright No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board902 Irina Little No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board903 Katie Fyfe No Orakei Local Board904 Naomi Harrison No Henderson-Massey Local Board905 John Turney No Rodney Local Board906 Malcolm Harrison No Henderson-Massey Local Board907 Hayley Barker No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board908 Janis Grummitt No Rodney Local Board909 Bobbie Carroll Yes Waitakere Ranges Local Board910 Baars Marian No Howick Local Board911 Sarah Cruickshank No Franklin Local Board912 Wendy Campbell No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board913 Llyween Watts No Kaipatiki Local Board914 Darell Anderson No Upper Harbour Local Board915 Melanie McCorquindale No Waitakere Ranges Local Board916 Margie Hunt No Orakei Local Board917 Katrina Wolff No Waitakere Ranges Local Board918 Andrea Ralph No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board919 Mere Broughton Yes Henderson-Massey Local Board920 Alison Stilwell Not specified Waitemata Local Board921 Christina Webb No Waitakere Ranges Local Board922 Claire Warin No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board923 Rachel Melhop No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board924 Rochelle McCallum No Waitakere Ranges Local Board925 Patricia Griminton Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board926 Carmi Grobler No Outside Auckland927 Shaylah Bowmast No Rodney Local Board928 Ben Read No Rodney Local Board929 Bianca Millar No Rodney Local Board930 Chaise Bensley No Rodney Local Board931 Kaitlyn Monti Ellery No Outside Auckland932 Gracie Pickett No Not Supplied933 Holly Bell No Rodney Local Board934 Russell Stirling No Rodney Local Board935 Joanne O'Reilly No Great Barrier Local Board936 Randa Kassem No Henderson-Massey Local Board937 Selina Trail Not specified Not Supplied938 Ivy Wong No Howick Local Board939 Khushbir Singh No Papakura Local Board940 Diego Alarcon Santos Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board941 Kipi Wallbridge-Paea No Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board942 Lukas Bayer No Rodney Local Board943 Annie Welvaert Not specified Waitemata Local Board944 Andrew Faulkner No Waiheke Local Board945 Trinh Wright Not specified Not Supplied946 Frazer Walters No Kaipatiki Local Board947 Karen Kennedy Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board948 Wayne Siu No Albert-Eden Local Board949 Kaipara Care (Kaipara College Sustainability Group) No Rodney Local Board950 Cheryl Krull Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board951 Balian Adams No Rodney Local Board952 Lynsey Ellis Not specified Not Supplied953 Wendy Clark No Franklin Local Board954 Lauren Batley No Rodney Local Board955 Vanessa Combier Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board956 Ceri Horwill Not specified Not Supplied957 Marie Menzies No Whau Local Board958 Christine Whitmore Not specified Whau Local Board959 Marnie Rosser No Howick Local Board960 Melanie Vautier Not specified Not Supplied961 Alonso Licks Not specified Waitemata Local Board

107

962 Mathew Godfrey Edward John Chandran No Howick Local Board963 Dennis Mroczkowski Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board964 Courtney Simpson Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board965 Joy Florence Not specified Whau Local Board966 Holly Dixon Not specified Not Supplied967 Julia Khademnia No Albert-Eden Local Board968 Catherine Boles Not specified Not Supplied969 Tracey Little No Henderson-Massey Local Board970 Gabi Balaskó Not specified Waitemata Local Board971 Carmen Szeto Not specified Not Supplied972 Myrthe Braam Not specified Not Supplied973 Tam White No Manurewa Local Board974 Qing Chen No Puketapapa Local Board975 Doris Neubauer Not specified Not Supplied976 Kaz D Not specified Not Supplied977 Louisa Vaissiere No Outside Auckland978 Erl Chesterman No Waiheke Local Board979 Leah Jones No Upper Harbour Local Board980 Clark Putnam No Rodney Local Board981 Phoebe McCracken No Rodney Local Board982 Derek Priscott No Howick Local Board983 Glynn Lorrigan No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board984 Charlotta Jones No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board985 Caroline Walmsley No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board986 Pascal Gillies No Albert-Eden Local Board987 Sandra Chesterman No Waiheke Local Board988 John Ringer No Waitakere Ranges Local Board989 Katie Buller No Henderson-Massey Local Board990 Sue Engels No Waiheke Local Board991 Lilian Ramljak No Howick Local Board992 David Glover No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board993 Rosamund Edwards No Waiheke Local Board994 Yanina Silva Yes Orakei Local Board995 Jacki Dawson No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board996 Jan Barnes No Waitakere Ranges Local Board997 Tsana Plessius No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board998 Nicola Strawbridge No Albert-Eden Local Board999 Lee Manaia No Manurewa Local Board

1000 Kate Ramsden No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1001 Madina Knight No Albert-Eden Local Board1002 Jim Catney No Albert-Eden Local Board1003 Cara Blomfield No Henderson-Massey Local Board1004 Warwick Massey Yes Rodney Local Board1005 Valera Koltsov No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1006 John Roy Yes Howick Local Board1007 Sunshine Yates No Waitemata Local Board1008 Sarah Santler Not specified Orakei Local Board1009 Helen Bucksey No Albert-Eden Local Board1010 Evelyn Wright Not specified Rodney Local Board1011 Christopher Dempsey No Waitemata Local Board1012 Bebe Dixon Not specified Not Supplied1013 Claire Boggiss Not specified Waitemata Local Board1014 Colleen Brown Not specified Rodney Local Board1015 Dara Walsh Not specified Not Supplied1016 John Brown Not specified Rodney Local Board1017 Maadi Underwood Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1018 Jocelyn Brown Not specified Rodney Local Board1019 Tracie Rose Not specified Rodney Local Board1020 Tracey Hodder No Rodney Local Board1021 Richard Barclay Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1022 Jennifer Hojem Yes Rodney Local Board1023 Ian Roberts Not specified Rodney Local Board1024 Stephanie Hoogenboom Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1025 Rebecca Plummer Yes Waitemata Local Board

108

1026 Lucy Pierpoint Not specified Not Supplied1027 Leonie Lander No Kaipatiki Local Board1028 Sarah Exeter Not specified Not Supplied1029 Monaleen Cabaron Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1030 Clara Gyllensten Not specified Not Supplied1031 Maree Brown Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1032 John Lyon Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1033 Candace Weir Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1034 Lillian Baker Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1035 Andrew Wheeler No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1036 Erin Griffin Not specified Rodney Local Board1037 Cecily Wheeler Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1038 Brian Wheeler Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1039 Homer Xu No Upper Harbour Local Board1040 Selina Oshea Not specified Not Supplied1041 Diana Clement Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1042 Amber-Rose Henshall Not specified Waitemata Local Board1043 Gary Richards Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1044 Envision New Zealand No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1045 Melanie McVeigh Not specified Not Supplied1046 Monique McKeown Yes Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1047 Katharine Montgomery Not specified Not Supplied1048 Tracy Dyson Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1049 Island Waste collective Yes Waiheke Local Board1050 Gail Selby-Brown No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1051 Lynne Walker Not specified Waitemata Local Board1052 Lana McCormick Not specified Waitemata Local Board1053 Grafton Residents Association Yes Waitemata Local Board1054 Mary Hay No Albert-Eden Local Board1055 Tasha Wehrle Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1056 Laura Wood Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1057 Catherine Priscott No Howick Local Board1058 Beyond the Bin No Outside Auckland1059 Jasmine Wong Not specified Not Supplied1060 Transition Towns Point Chevalier Yes Albert-Eden Local Board1061 Felicity Penman No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1062 Josh Borthwick Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1063 Jessica Brown No Orakei Local Board1064 Brent Mags Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1065 Dorothy Gaunt No Howick Local Board1066 Greer Lees Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1067 Kerry Lukies Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1068 Joyce Kennedy Not specified Rodney Local Board1069 Croxley Recycling No Whau Local Board1070 Natalie Donald Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1071 Aline Frey Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1072 Fran Hooper Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1073 Sarah Withers Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1074 Heather Ashcroft Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1075 Laingholm and District Citizens Association Yes Waitakere Ranges Local Board1076 Amanda Mills Not specified Not Supplied1077 Northland Waste Limited Yes Rodney Local Board1078 Ruth Bookman Yes Rodney Local Board1079 Thelma van der Werff Not specified Not Supplied1080 Carmel Draper Not specified Rodney Local Board1081 Keep Auckland Beautiful Trust Yes Outside Auckland1082 Shelley Langton-Myers Not specified Whau Local Board1083 Erana Watkins Not specified Rodney Local Board

1084The Packaging Forum - Public Place Recycling Scheme and Soft Plastics Recycling Scheme Yes Rodney Local Board

1085 Glen Eden Business Association No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1086 Nicola Campbell Not specified Waitemata Local Board1087 Tapuaiva Piakura Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1088 Gina Yukich Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board

109

1089 Samantha Walker Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1090 Sulakshana Viswanathan Not specified Whau Local Board1091 Celia Afaese Not specified Not Supplied1092 Rika Ota Not specified Not Supplied1093 Alexander Andrew Selter Not specified Whau Local Board1094 Claire Tagaloa Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1095 Kate Parkinson Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1096 Stacey Lupton Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1097 Nan Strickland Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1098 Heart of the City Incorporated Yes Waitemata Local Board1099 Robert Wilson Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1100 Sharron Frances Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1101 Flora Neemia Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1102 Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) Yes Albert-Eden Local Board1103 Katherine Park Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1104 Angela Lane Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1105 Matthew Lane Not specified Not Supplied1106 Jesse Sapsford Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1107 EnviroWaste Services Limited Yes Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1108 Buffie Mawhinney Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1109 Helen Newall Not specified Waitemata Local Board1110 Leah Wilson Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1111 Para Kore ki Tamaki Yes Whau Local Board1112 Colin Shield Not specified Not Supplied1113 Anela Ioane Not specified Not Supplied1114 Mahurangi Wastebusters Trust Yes Rodney Local Board1115 Solomon Ioane Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1116 Colin Burgess Not specified Manurewa Local Board1117 Tamaki WRAP No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1118 Barbara Woods Not specified Waiheke Local Board1119 Spencer's Store Yes Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1120 Zero Waste Network Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1121 Ellen Grace Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1122 Eco Stock Supplies Ltd Yes Manurewa Local Board1123 Keep New Zealand Beautiful Yes Howick Local Board1124 Sue Lever Not specified Rodney Local Board1125 Waiuku Zero Waste Ltd No Franklin Local Board1126 Friends of the Farm Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1127 Sophie Ferris No Waitemata Local Board1128 Onetangi Beach Ratepayers Association No Waiheke Local Board1129 Janine Nillesen Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1130 Ellen Schindler No Albert-Eden Local Board1131 Cathie Powell Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1132 Violet W. K. Pere Not specified Not Supplied

1133Global Action Plan Oceania (Devonport Community Recycling Centre) Yes Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

1134 Susan Jordan No Manurewa Local Board1135 Apollo Taito No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1136 Sophien Brockbank No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1137 Viv Heslop No Albert-Eden Local Board1138 Alison Moffat No Orakei Local Board1139 Angelique Meyer No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1140 Sue Campbell No Franklin Local Board1141 Jingmo Zhu No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1142 Joyce Chen No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1143 Paul Mason No Waiheke Local Board1144 Susan Warwick No Great Barrier Local Board1145 Fran Ricketts No Orakei Local Board1146 Kelmarna Community Gardens Yes Waitemata Local Board1147 Seira Lepua No Albert-Eden Local Board1148 Carole George Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1149 Kerin Gedge No Howick Local Board1150 Jason Monson No Howick Local Board1151 Olivia Tukuogo Not specified Waitemata Local Board

110

1152 Heidi O'Callahan Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1153 Caitlin Perkins No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1154 Janet Cole Yes Waitakere Ranges Local Board1155 Luitgard Schwendenmann Not specified Not Supplied1156 Martine Joubert No Albert-Eden Local Board1157 Jane Ferguson Not specified Waitemata Local Board1158 Bridget Addy Yes Whau Local Board1159 Nicky Davis Not specified Not Supplied1160 Y H Not specified Not Supplied1161 Rita Rosenberg-Smith No Henderson-Massey Local Board1162 Jennifer van Beynen Not specified Not Supplied1163 Anna Pashby No Waiheke Local Board1164 Ruth Middleton No Waiheke Local Board1165 Gabrielle Connor Not specified Rodney Local Board1166 Tom Porter No Orakei Local Board1167 Clare Hoare No Howick Local Board1168 Joanna Walden Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1169 Wendy King No Rodney Local Board1170 Felice Karuna Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1171 Derek Craig No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1172 Claudia Schenz Not specified Rodney Local Board1173 Charles Dolbel Yes Albert-Eden Local Board1174 The Sustainable Business Network Yes Waitemata Local Board1175 Brenda Hinton Not specified Not Supplied1176 Eva Desmond Not specified Orakei Local Board1177 Piotr Gawor Not specified Waitemata Local Board1178 Caroline Bentley Not specified Not Supplied1179 Robert Finley Yes Howick Local Board1180 Nicola Kiernander No Waitemata Local Board1181 Joanne Simpkins No Albert-Eden Local Board1182 The New Zealand Ecolabelling Trust Yes Albert-Eden Local Board1183 Justine Skilling No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1184 Janice McFarlane No Manurewa Local Board1185 Toby Poole Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1186 Rebecca Walker No Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1187 Kylie Brown No Albert-Eden Local Board1188 Janne Pender No Orakei Local Board1189 Rachel Thorpe Not specified Whau Local Board1190 MPHS Community Trust Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1191 Peter Mansell Not specified Not Supplied1192 Lovise Guy Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1193 Pania Hall Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1195 Sharie Sheffield Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1196 Michael Waitai Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1197 Celia Chan Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1198 Xtreme Zero Waste No Outside Auckland1199 Lucy Krasnaya No Howick Local Board1200 Ian Stupple No Franklin Local Board1201 Jeanette Miller No Orakei Local Board1202 Elainel Pepperell No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1203 Brenda Massey No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1204 Leeann Corvette No Orakei Local Board1205 Janice Lesley Hinson No Howick Local Board1206 Sarah Woodfield No Whau Local Board1207 Laura Richardson No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1208 Martin Ball No Manurewa Local Board1209 Felipe Panteli No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1210 Michelle Van Zoggel No Waitemata Local Board1211 Dave Curgenven No Upper Harbour Local Board1212 Margaret Quiding Not specified Howick Local Board1213 Kiwi Cleaning Rags Ltd Yes Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1214 Emily May No Franklin Local Board1215 Christina Bettany No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1216 Sue Andrew Not specified Rodney Local Board

111

1217 Robert Richards No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1218 Bonnie Chatfield Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1219 Patricia Ordona No Manurewa Local Board1220 Simon Casford No Albert-Eden Local Board1221 Michael Grant No Waiheke Local Board1222 Suzanna Mihakis No Waitemata Local Board1223 Sonny Whitney No Outside Auckland1224 Claire Schoeller No Waitemata Local Board1225 Graeme Doull Not specified Howick Local Board1226 Teresa Harman No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1227 Karen Gadomski No Franklin Local Board1228 William Thorpe No Kaipatiki Local Board1229 Margaret King No Orakei Local Board1230 Daryl Hutton No Whau Local Board1231 Sharlene Ferguson Yes Whau Local Board1232 Robert Puren No Kaipatiki Local Board1233 Anna Lane No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1234 Michael Fogarty No Howick Local Board1235 Lisa Hack No Albert-Eden Local Board1236 Roseline Klein No Albert-Eden Local Board1237 Jo Hewertson No Rodney Local Board1238 Jeremy Warden No Great Barrier Local Board1239 Rina Tagore No Franklin Local Board1240 Alexander Kozlov No Howick Local Board1241 Jana Beer No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1242 Paula Luijken No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1243 Jeff Seadon Yes Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1244 Amanda Jackson No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1245 Lisette Templeton No Upper Harbour Local Board1246 Kathryn McPhillips No Albert-Eden Local Board1247 Tara Satyanand No Kaipatiki Local Board1248 Kelly Hayhurst No Albert-Eden Local Board1249 Tania Snowden No Waiheke Local Board1250 Elizabeth Ireland No Albert-Eden Local Board1251 Sian Buley No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1252 Gayleen Mackereth No Waiheke Local Board1253 Anthony White No Waitemata Local Board1254 Emily Harvey No Kaipatiki Local Board1255 Yossi Ore No Waiheke Local Board1256 Cornelia Bockl No Howick Local Board1257 Phil Myhre Not specified Orakei Local Board1258 Nina Patel No Whau Local Board1259 Ann Langis Yes Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1260 Paul Scantlebury No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1261 Karen Simpson No Rodney Local Board1262 Nigel Wilson No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1263 Richard Lane Yes Albert-Eden Local Board1264 Debbie Yallop No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1265 Andy Johnson No Great Barrier Local Board1266 Tom Martin No Great Barrier Local Board1267 Olivia Tuck Yes Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1268 Alan Mincher No Howick Local Board1269 Annalily van den Broeke No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1270 Mary Wilkinson No Waitemata Local Board1271 Matthew Brajkovich No Howick Local Board1272 Janette Diprose No Upper Harbour Local Board1273 David Edge Not specified Rodney Local Board1274 Esther Rootham No Waitemata Local Board1275 Bridget Glasgow No Albert-Eden Local Board1276 Amelia Jones No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1277 Dashiell Poh Yes Howick Local Board1278 Ka Lok Leung No Howick Local Board1279 Yip Chan Li No Howick Local Board1280 Christopher Hunter No Rodney Local Board

112

1281 Diane Lindsay Not specified Rodney Local Board1282 Maryka Kamp Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1283 Sally Meller Not specified Rodney Local Board1284 Gilbert O'Sughrue Not specified Rodney Local Board1285 Brendon Parris Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1286 Paul Pickering Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1287 Darren Smith Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1288 James Stannett Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1289 Vaughn Summerton Not specified Rodney Local Board1290 Dorothy Cherry Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1291 Bruce Conquer Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1292 John Davies Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1293 Diane Hendrickson Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1294 Frankies Gelato Deli Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1295 Liana Giles Not specified Rodney Local Board1296 Janice Gill Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1298 Jon Winder Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1299 Joe Single No Kaipatiki Local Board1300 Kathy Voyles Yes Waiheke Local Board1301 Riane Ross Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1302 Fleur White No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1303 Shannon Hunter Not specified Waitemata Local Board1304 Giselle Keenleyside Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1305 Shiori Sleegers Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1306 Marc Elliott No Orakei Local Board1307 Sarah Wilson Not specified Not Supplied1308 Jack Sutcliffe Yes Franklin Local Board1309 Yolanda van den Bemd Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1310 Martina Backhaus Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1311 Eleanor Parkes No Waiheke Local Board1312 Michelle Donaldson Not specified Not Supplied1313 John Maxwell Not specified Outside Auckland1314 Tina White No Rodney Local Board1315 Hamish Stewart Not specified Rodney Local Board1316 Olivia Campbell No Albert-Eden Local Board1317 Thomas Donaldson Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1318 Rachel Barker No Howick Local Board1319 Kelly Hermans Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1320 Susan Trinh Not specified Not Supplied1321 Jessica Chesney Yes Not Supplied1322 Rachel Foye Not specified Whau Local Board1323 Floyd Ormsby Yes Henderson-Massey Local Board1324 Nerissa Henry Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1325 Jami Kerrigan Not specified Whau Local Board1326 Mark Roberts No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1327 Gopalakrishnan Sadasivam No Puketapapa Local Board1328 Joan Gill No Howick Local Board1329 Mark Laurent No Waitemata Local Board1330 Natasha Turnbull No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1331 Scott Levens No Waiheke Local Board1332 Steve Tollestrup No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1333 Mike Dyson Yes Albert-Eden Local Board1334 Nathan Stuart No Rodney Local Board1335 Bonnie Cohen No Rodney Local Board1336 Georgia Key No Outside Auckland1337 Jack Anderson No Rodney Local Board1338 Monica Xu No Whau Local Board1339 Renee Perris No Rodney Local Board1340 Brandon Lewis No Rodney Local Board1341 Michaela Pow No Rodney Local Board1342 Hazel Durkin No Waitemata Local Board1343 Janelle Taege Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1344 Leah Kostelijk No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1345 Rakesh Contractor No Albert-Eden Local Board

113

1346 Kate Ellingham No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1347 Evie Mahoney No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1348 Margie Luby No Whau Local Board1349 Simon Griffiths Yes Rodney Local Board1350 Carolyn Lawrence No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1351 Dee Morgan No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1352 Deborah Balmer No Orakei Local Board1353 Nitish Walia No Papakura Local Board1354 Stephanie Low No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1355 Warren Snow Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1356 Lynne Ashman No Howick Local Board1357 Anna Fomison No Henderson-Massey Local Board1358 Deborah Crowe No Waitemata Local Board1359 Stephanie Borrelle No Albert-Eden Local Board1360 Matt Robertson No Howick Local Board1361 Paula Beverstock No Waitemata Local Board1362 Yvonne Pivac No Whau Local Board1363 Phil Shimmin No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1364 Margaret Stanley No Orakei Local Board1365 Richard Leckinger Yes Waitemata Local Board1366 Christina McCabe No Henderson-Massey Local Board1367 Antoinette Bunt Yes Franklin Local Board1368 Sian Small No Albert-Eden Local Board1369 Melissa Tombs No Albert-Eden Local Board1370 Nicole O'Sullivan No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1371 April Glenday No Albert-Eden Local Board1372 Debbie McGrath No Upper Harbour Local Board1373 Jessica Wallace No Albert-Eden Local Board1374 Daniel Yallop No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1375 Annie Hogan No Waitemata Local Board1376 Duncan Munro No Waitemata Local Board1377 Jim Donald No Howick Local Board1378 Elizabeth Robertson No Orakei Local Board1379 Amy Cameron Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1380 Nicky Elmore No Orakei Local Board1381 Hoani Waititi Marae Yes Waitakere Ranges Local Board1382 Zena R No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1383 Helen McCabe No Henderson-Massey Local Board1384 Green Gorilla No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1385 David Ward Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1386 Richard Butler No Albert-Eden Local Board1387 K Gillon No Kaipatiki Local Board1388 Colleen Pilcher No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1389 Sawmilll Brewery Not specified Rodney Local Board1390 Richard Tong Yes Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1391 Warwick Hojem No Rodney Local Board1392 Patricia Smith No Henderson-Massey Local Board1393 Chris Jamieson Not specified Rodney Local Board1394 Emily Ping Not specified Howick Local Board1395 Mark Johnson No Albert-Eden Local Board1396 Poutoa Papalii Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1397 Peter Moule No Orakei Local Board1398 Richard Lee No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1399 Judith Madarasz No Waiheke Local Board1400 Neville Newcomb Ltd Not specified Not Supplied1401 Troy Brockbank Yes Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1402 Mike Rogers Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1403 David Kirk No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1404 Ken Rodgers Not specified Howick Local Board1405 Susanne Vincent Yes Waitakere Ranges Local Board1406 Jane Boothby Not specified Papakura Local Board1407 Chris Wadham Not specified Waitemata Local Board1408 Stefanie O'Brien No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1409 Clide Graves Not specified Rodney Local Board

114

1410 Sei Brown No Manurewa Local Board1411 Verena Jonker No Albert-Eden Local Board1412 Yuri Hosokawa No Whau Local Board1413 Denise Holl Not specified Rodney Local Board1414 Judith Clarke No Franklin Local Board1415 Suresh Nair Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1416 Gwilym van Hoffen No Upper Harbour Local Board1417 Bao Zu Ding Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1418 Anne Maria Mutu Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1419 Akemi Izawa No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1420 Chun Ying Liu Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1421 Chen Zhi Ying Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1422 Esther Jimmy Not specified Howick Local Board1423 Will Grigg No Franklin Local Board1424 Chnye Yun Hu Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1425 Fu Kui Wang Not specified Whau Local Board1426 St Lukes Community Association Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1427 Janine Fuller No Rodney Local Board1428 Meilin Zhuang Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1429 Ruohong Lu Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1430 Robert Muller No Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1431 Kathy Cumming Not specified Great Barrier Local Board1432 Chris Grove Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1433 Debbie Wilson No Franklin Local Board1434 Brian Qiao Not specified Papakura Local Board1435 Austin Terrance Fitzthin Not specified Rodney Local Board1436 Tianyun Wu Not specified Howick Local Board1437 Bill Guan Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1438 Peter A. McPhillips Not specified Howick Local Board1439 Xue Hua Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1440 Kristine Joy Choi Not specified Not Supplied1441 Gang Li Not specified Howick Local Board1442 Katrina Daragon Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1443 Julia Chen Not specified Whau Local Board1444 Zaston Scott Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1445 Hao Xu Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1446 Xiu Li Tang Not specified Not Supplied1447 Siobhan O'Rourke Not specified Not Supplied1448 Qizhong Biau Not specified Not Supplied1449 Thomas Tang Not specified Not Supplied1450 Heather Ryan Not specified Not Supplied1451 Zhang Hua Tong Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1452 Xue Zhou Not specified Whau Local Board1453 Baode Zhao Not specified Not Supplied1454 Yutang Ron Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1455 Sunny Huang Not specified Not Supplied1456 Kaien Shen Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1457 Cecilia Song Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1458 Alexander Zhao Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1459 Qin Zeng Not specified Not Supplied1460 Yanan Song Not specified Not Supplied1461 Joey Coi Not specified Not Supplied1462 Haihong Li Not specified Not Supplied1463 Hong Liu Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1464 Alex Huang Not specified Not Supplied1465 Xiaoming Guo Not specified Not Supplied1466 Fengyn Su Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1467 Yin-Chi Lee Not specified Not Supplied1468 Feifei Huang Not specified Not Supplied1469 Jing Chen Not specified Not Supplied1470 Mel Hutton Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1471 Norman Rogers Not specified Rodney Local Board1472 Dinghuan Tong Not specified Howick Local Board1473 Tongpoi Huang Not specified Howick Local Board

115

1474 Lina Sun Not specified Not Supplied1475 Louise Guy Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1476 Bangliang Han Not specified Franklin Local Board1477 John White Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1478 Shijin Li Not specified Orakei Local Board1479 Ilona Warren Not specified Rodney Local Board1480 Helen Jameson Not specified Rodney Local Board1481 Xi Gang Zhang Not specified Whau Local Board1482 Johannes Wilkat Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1483 Xiaoping Lei Not specified Not Supplied1484 Baoxian Liang Not specified Howick Local Board1485 Man Ching Chi Not specified Not Supplied1486 Yongcai He Not specified Orakei Local Board1487 Xiugeneg Zhu Not specified Howick Local Board1488 Xiuhong Ye Not specified Howick Local Board1489 Julie Courtenay Not specified Rodney Local Board1490 Xiutu Zhang Not specified Howick Local Board1491 Sihui Liu Not specified Orakei Local Board1492 Guiying Qin Not specified Howick Local Board1493 Robyn Evans Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1494 Qingtu Li Not specified Howick Local Board1495 Yiwen Feng Not specified Not Supplied1496 Marilyn Main No Kaipatiki Local Board1497 Yemg Kynn Jung Not specified Not Supplied1498 Hyolee Kim Not specified Not Supplied1499 Sehee Oh Not specified Not Supplied1500 Heun Mi Han Not specified Not Supplied1501 Donghoon Lee Not specified Not Supplied1502 Sung Won Bang Not specified Not Supplied1503 Jaekwang Kim Not specified Not Supplied1504 Weon Chung Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1505 Hyunsuk Kwouon Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1506 Hyang Mi Park Not specified Not Supplied1507 Hynn Woo Jung Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1508 Byung Hak Lim Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1509 Seabang Yoo Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1510 Sok Ryu Not specified Not Supplied1511 Hee Kun Kim Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1512 Yun Hee Kim Not specified Not Supplied1513 Betty Bae Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1514 Taehyung Kim Not specified Not Supplied1515 Young Sun Song Not specified Not Supplied1516 Joseph Kim Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1517 Julia Kim Not specified Not Supplied1518 Kyung Ai Choi Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1519 Hong Joon Chang Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1520 Ellie Son Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1521 Min-Woo Jung Not specified Not Supplied1522 Jung Jin Chang Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1523 Sun Mi Youn Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1524 Mary Jaekal Not specified Not Supplied1525 Lee Young Choi Not specified Howick Local Board1526 Hai Song Lim Not specified Not Supplied1527 Young Jeong Seo Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1528 Jin Yi Jang Not specified Not Supplied1529 Mi Ja Lee Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1530 Susan Jaekal Not specified Not Supplied1531 Hyeon Joo Ryu Not specified Not Supplied1532 Dong Jun Kim Not specified Not Supplied1533 Jennifer Soo Lim Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1534 Jin Sagong Not specified Not Supplied1535 Man Sook Lee Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1536 Ick Hwan Kim Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1537 Jung Mi Kim Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board

116

1538 Heather Goodey Not specified Not Supplied1539 Karen Steen Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1540 Jong Park Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1541 Sally Freeman Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1542 Jae Young Lee Not specified Not Supplied1543 Lynette Atkinson Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1544 Rosalie Bradnam Not specified Rodney Local Board1545 Young Sook Lee Not specified Howick Local Board1546 Susan Robertson Not specified Rodney Local Board1547 Brian Lee Not specified Not Supplied1548 Linda Afford Not specified Rodney Local Board1549 Myeong-Hee Sin Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1550 Shinja Oh Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1551 Jung Ah Kim Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1552 Barbara J. Tonson Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1553 Chang Hyun An Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1554 Agnes Lim Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1555 O. G. Kwon Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1556 Charles Montgomery No Rodney Local Board1557 Haihyun Kim Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1558 Kate Otter-Lowe No Whau Local Board1559 Maria Molloy No Waitemata Local Board1560 Nigel Edwards No Waitemata Local Board1561 Eun Joo Kim Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1562 Rachel Harvey-Lees-Green No Albert-Eden Local Board1563 AKBID Yes Waitemata Local Board1564 Maj De Poorter No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1565 Leonie Farr Yes Waitemata Local Board1566 Philippa Clark No Waitemata Local Board1567 Renali Narayan Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1568 Grace Davies Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1569 Jo Newsham Not specified Manurewa Local Board1570 Alex Bonham Not specified Not Supplied1571 Alex Johnston Not specified Waitemata Local Board1572 Clive Sharpe Yes Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1573 Kaaren Rosser No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1574 Tegan Martin Not specified Not Supplied1575 Tessa Laven Not specified Not Supplied1576 Naomi Smith Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1577 John McIntosh No Whau Local Board1578 Andrea Munroe No Upper Harbour Local Board1579 Business North Harbour Incorporated Yes Upper Harbour Local Board1580 Belinda Groot Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1581 Richard Green No Orakei Local Board1582 Regan Flanigan Not specified Howick Local Board1583 Gary Shingles No Albert-Eden Local Board1584 Erin Fowlie Not specified Not Supplied1585 Averil Read No Howick Local Board1586 Tayhana Imaz Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1587 Marek Lipert Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1588 Topher Agar Not specified Not Supplied1589 Elaine Read No Howick Local Board1590 Ane Sin Not specified Manurewa Local Board1591 Kaitlyn Wislang Not specified Not Supplied1592 Belinda Lance No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1593 Geoff Andrews Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1594 Lynne Brannagan Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1595 David Hayes No Kaipatiki Local Board1596 Ruth Greenaway Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1597 Iain Valentine No Orakei Local Board1598 Claire West Not specified Rodney Local Board1599 Cliff Mason Yes Kaipatiki Local Board1600 Clare Brown Not specified Not Supplied1601 Ann Way No Manurewa Local Board

117

1602 Sophie Moskowitz Not specified Waitemata Local Board1603 Manish Tanna No Rodney Local Board1604 Thomas Bauer Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1605 Vivienne Crawshaw Not specified Waitemata Local Board1606 Joanne Peace No Albert-Eden Local Board1607 Kirsty Sutherland Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1608 Allison Moncrieff No Rodney Local Board1609 Gina Mitchell Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1610 Brittany Little Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1611 Liz Godsmark No Waitakere Ranges Local Board1612 Noel Yeldos Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1613 David Baskeyfield No Rodney Local Board1614 Brigitte Sistig Not specified Waitemata Local Board1615 Ardeth Lobet No Waitemata Local Board1616 Simon Tate Not specified Waitemata Local Board1617 Tarn Gillman Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1618 Mitchell Baber Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1619 Lesley Munro Yes Rodney Local Board1620 Shawn Tierney Not specified Not Supplied1621 Mark Craig Not specified Not Supplied1622 Barbara Folkard Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1623 Kim Ward Not specified Manurewa Local Board1624 Kelly Larnach Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1625 Keren Spong Not specified Whau Local Board1626 Anita Smith No Whau Local Board1627 Christina Robertson No Albert-Eden Local Board1628 Taini Drummond No Howick Local Board1629 Iain Robertson No Albert-Eden Local Board1630 N Gonzales No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1631 Joanne Duncan No Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1632 Maria Hernandez No Whau Local Board1633 Phillippa Wilkie No Waitemata Local Board1634 Andrew Nelson No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1635 Margo Athy No Albert-Eden Local Board1636 Elizabeth Paton-Simpson No Albert-Eden Local Board1637 Alan Stamp Yes Waiheke Local Board1638 Colin Read No Howick Local Board1639 Adrian Kinsler No Papakura Local Board1640 Sarah Follas No Kaipatiki Local Board1641 Mary Stewart No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1642 Jin Lee No Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1643 Bernadette Collins Not specified Rodney Local Board1644 Henry Powell Not specified Rodney Local Board1645 Virginia Hulston Not specified Rodney Local Board1646 Alex Atlehilo Not specified Rodney Local Board1647 Bianca Johanson Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1648 Kristen Calder Not specified Rodney Local Board1649 Olene Jorgensen Not specified Rodney Local Board1650 Sam Farquhan Not specified Rodney Local Board1651 Laurel North Not specified Rodney Local Board1652 Katriona Main Not specified Rodney Local Board1653 Rose Pullin Not specified Rodney Local Board1654 Roy Ayers Not specified Rodney Local Board1655 Sarah Bultema Not specified Rodney Local Board1656 Sarah Lewis Not specified Rodney Local Board1657 Pam Blok Not specified Rodney Local Board1658 Rebekah Rodewyk Not specified Rodney Local Board1659 Treena Gowthorpe Not specified Rodney Local Board1660 Robyn Dunning Not specified Rodney Local Board1661 Tim Schliebs Not specified Rodney Local Board1662 Angel Dair Morales Vera Not specified Not Supplied1663 Harry Bultema Not specified Rodney Local Board1664 Susi Bultema Not specified Rodney Local Board1665 Luiz Prado Not specified Rodney Local Board

118

1666 Tania Stech Not specified Rodney Local Board1667 Andrew Cauder Not specified Rodney Local Board1668 Te Ha Oranga Not specified Rodney Local Board1669 Kim Kretschmar Not specified Rodney Local Board1670 Helensville Community Recycling Centre Not specified Rodney Local Board1671 Pam Green Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1672 Jennifer Livingstone Not specified Rodney Local Board1673 Warren Whyte Not specified Orakei Local Board1674 Allan Wood Not specified Waiheke Local Board1675 Portia Kenny Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1676 Kiri Abraham Not specified Not Supplied1677 Ataria Orbell-Mackie Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1678 Paul Conlogue Not specified Rodney Local Board1679 Nigel Wells Not specified Rodney Local Board1680 Bruce Harvey Not specified Whau Local Board1681 Robyn Martin Not specified Papakura Local Board1682 Patrick Tupou Not specified Not Supplied1683 Heather Alford Not specified Whau Local Board1684 Bronwyn Conlogue Not specified Rodney Local Board1685 Evie Queenin Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1686 Louise Rule Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1687 Kristin Absolum Not specified Rodney Local Board1688 Stephen Leslie Not specified Rodney Local Board1689 Tyle Harris-lo Fuele Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1690 Hao Chen Not specified Not Supplied1691 Maggie Munford Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1692 Pete Sinton Not specified Rodney Local Board1693 Margaret Kiely Not specified Papakura Local Board1694 Keis Beatty Not specified Howick Local Board1695 Annalee Sio Not specified Papakura Local Board1696 Mose Sio Not specified Papakura Local Board1697 Maumea Autagavaia Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1698 Agnes Meredith-Leiataua Not specified Manurewa Local Board1699 London Naea Not specified Manurewa Local Board1700 Miraneta Lemalu Not specified Manurewa Local Board1701 Olivia Casthes Browne Not specified Manurewa Local Board1702 Jonan Iulia Autagavara Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1703 Xavier Breed Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1704 Cael Beatty Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1705 Jayden Key Not specified Papakura Local Board1706 Jason Castles Not specified Manurewa Local Board1707 Jordan Leaupepe Not specified Manurewa Local Board1708 Moya Nixon Not specified Howick Local Board1709 Mercedes Jade Not specified Manurewa Local Board1710 Rayden Beatty Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1711 Hugh Lusk No Orakei Local Board1712 Dayna Leaf Not specified Manurewa Local Board1713 Rick Evitt No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1714 Pala Fisher No Waiheke Local Board1715 Keis Beatty Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1716 Josh Beddell Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1717 Gabrielle Message No Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1718 Easter Poutra Papalii Not specified Papakura Local Board1719 Kelston International Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1720 Philippa Payne No Howick Local Board1721 Simone Lee Not specified Manurewa Local Board1722 Naomi Roberts Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1723 Emma Page No Waitemata Local Board1724 Beverly Gay Lawson Not specified Franklin Local Board1725 Andrew Grey No Howick Local Board1726 Shannie Lee Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1727 Shahriar A No Albert-Eden Local Board1728 Shatna Roberts Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1729 Sean Greenshields No Rodney Local Board

119

1730 Donna Mac Rae No Howick Local Board1731 Dianne Lawson Not specified Franklin Local Board1732 Jan Burbery No Waitemata Local Board1733 Keith Sharp No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1734 Jackson Vogt Not specified Waitemata Local Board1735 Bret Dragt No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1736 Judy Bischoff No Franklin Local Board1737 Haley Warman Yes Upper Harbour Local Board1738 Franco Apera Not specified Manurewa Local Board1739 Richard Wallis Yes Albert-Eden Local Board1740 Dorothy Wilson No Whau Local Board1741 Christine Shue No Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1742 Federated Farmers of New Zealand Yes Not Supplied1743 Anne Walsh No Albert-Eden Local Board1744 Xnena Jaensch Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1745 Danni Trainor-Butler Not specified Rodney Local Board1746 Malia Stowers Not specified Not Supplied1747 Winnie Lenihan Not specified Waitemata Local Board1748 Keith Woollerton Not specified Howick Local Board1749 Colin Thomson Not specified Whau Local Board1750 Jennifer Kerr Not specified Franklin Local Board1751 Adrienne Grace Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1752 Karen Williamson Not specified Rodney Local Board1753 Karen Swainson Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1754 Melanie Choat Not specified Not Supplied1755 Rebekah Phillips Not specified Whau Local Board1756 Titirangi Residents & Ratepayers Association Yes Whau Local Board1757 Dan Ducker Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1758 Julie Crocker Not specified Not Supplied1759 Jason Dodunski Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1760 Blair Mclaughlin Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1761 Jessica Bell Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1762 Cathy Tyler Not specified Whau Local Board1763 Miriam Ludbrook Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1764 Sally Birdsall Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1765 Vjeko Jukic Not specified Not Supplied1766 Marjorie DePuy Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1767 Fred Braxton Not specified Whau Local Board1768 Robert Uhe Not specified Rodney Local Board1769 Sharon Rochford Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1770 Mike Punga Not specified Manurewa Local Board1771 Mike Claydon Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1772 Amber Lee Muller Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1773 Natalie Muller Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1774 Robin Achmad Not specified Whau Local Board1775 Malama Young Not specified Howick Local Board1776 Mata Tupu Not specified Whau Local Board1777 Garth Reu Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1778 Caroline Herman Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1779 Fenka Vasega Not specified Whau Local Board1780 Taz Yau Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1781 Vamquo Nathan Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1782 Helen Van Der Linden Not specified Orakei Local Board1783 Paurukitahi Mane-Wheola Not specified Orakei Local Board1784 Tata Akari Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1785 Vanessa Sheehan Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1786 Carole White Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1787 Matt Vave Not specified Papakura Local Board1788 Bernadette Cornille Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1789 Chanelle Tahana Not specified Manurewa Local Board1790 Peng Guo Not specified Waitemata Local Board1791 Diane De Saint Quentin Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1792 Tameia Haimona Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1793 Ataliyah Tauranga Not specified Manurewa Local Board

120

1794 Rua Peters Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1795 Laetz Punga Not specified Manurewa Local Board1796 Tiffany Pomare Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1797 Adele Muller Not specified Papakura Local Board1798 Azalea Stepanicic Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1799 Lena Davies Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1800 Lingappa Kalburgi Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1801 Jacob Samuela Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1802 Jens Meder Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1803 Hakki Kocabas Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1804 James David Whitehead Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1805 Edith Whitehead Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1806 Jan Hughes Not specified Waitemata Local Board1807 Menzies Tauranga Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1808 Russell Hughes Not specified Waitemata Local Board1809 Gail Hotene Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1810 Valerie Teraitua Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1811 Jacquelyne Taylor Not specified Waiheke Local Board1812 Helen Campbell Not specified Howick Local Board1813 Yvonne Clarke Not specified Orakei Local Board1814 William Puiri Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1815 Simeti Tipelu Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1816 Leanne Hita Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1817 Geoucinni Aputu Not specified Manurewa Local Board1818 Noora Teraitua Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1819 Rosie Smith Not specified Franklin Local Board1820 Junior Teraitua Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1821 Shaiam Maue Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1822 Margaret Rhoades Not specified Orakei Local Board1823 Charles Teraitua Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1824 Leonard Smith-flavelle Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1825 Taliya August Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1826 Ness Campbell Not specified Howick Local Board1827 James Teraitua Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1828 Ehnaseth Teraitne Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1829 Therese Maujos Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1830 Rosemary Grace Not specified Franklin Local Board1831 John Adam Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1832 Barbara Graham Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1833 Murray Grace Not specified Franklin Local Board1834 Jennifer Opperman Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1835 Olivia Bender Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1836 Christine Glasgow Not specified Rodney Local Board1837 Marchand Le Roux Not specified Howick Local Board1838 Yvonne Lin Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1839 Leo Palmer Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1840 C. D. Williams Not specified Orakei Local Board1841 Robyn Tuanau Not specified Howick Local Board1842 Kelly Kahui M'Connau Not specified Whau Local Board1843 Jyoti Dua Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1844 Sarah Ding Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1845 Haimona Rameka Not specified Whau Local Board1846 Kona Nahui-N'Connel Not specified Whau Local Board1847 Howard Mace Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board1848 Troy Johnston Not specified Howick Local Board1849 Satish Sikri Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1850 Charles Robb Not specified Howick Local Board1851 Anne Robb Not specified Howick Local Board1852 Lynda Marce Not specified Rodney Local Board1853 Deija Mavee-Page Not specified Not Supplied1854 Nina Tamatoa Not specified Not Supplied1855 Jam M'Connau Not specified Whau Local Board1856 April Te Awa Not specified Manurewa Local Board1857 Nina Kahui-Stowers Not specified Whau Local Board

121

1858 Lafoai Luaitalo Not specified Manurewa Local Board1859 Riria Raueka Not specified Whau Local Board1860 Scott Mance Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1861 Marcel Williams Not specified Whau Local Board1862 Anika Stovers Not specified Outside Auckland1863 Jason Kane Browne Not specified Manurewa Local Board1864 Shu Ien Cui Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board1865 Sean Mence Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1866 Sherryl Mance Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1867 Moe Lefele Not specified Not Supplied1868 Michelle Muller Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1869 Peter Haverland Not specified Manurewa Local Board1870 Rebecca George Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1871 Casey Ainsley Not specified Not Supplied1872 Zinny Harrison Not specified Rodney Local Board1873 Tobi Higginson Not specified Not Supplied1874 Keith Bryan Not specified Manurewa Local Board1875 Jean King-Rua Not specified Manurewa Local Board1876 Fletcher Shaw Not specified Rodney Local Board1877 Dylan Mich Not specified Not Supplied1878 Alison Coates Not specified Rodney Local Board1879 Bruce Scoggins Not specified Rodney Local Board1880 Susan Roaf-Karim Not specified Papakura Local Board1881 Edwina Hamilton Not specified Manurewa Local Board1882 Ataahua Rameka Not specified Whau Local Board1883 Marcial Keesing Not specified Manurewa Local Board1884 Josh Horne Not specified Whau Local Board1885 Tumatuenga Rameka Hubbard Not specified Whau Local Board1886 Turama Tahura Not specified Manurewa Local Board1887 Waiata Rameka Tupe Not specified Whau Local Board1888 Annice Hoverland Not specified Manurewa Local Board1889 Pianina Kahui-McConnell Not specified Whau Local Board1890 Sean Robb Not specified Howick Local Board1891 Rita Lee Letele Not specified Not Supplied1892 Jorja Batts Not specified Howick Local Board1893 Ben Poki Not specified Not Supplied1894 Dane Batts Not specified Howick Local Board1895 Hera Tuhura Not specified Manurewa Local Board1896 Lisa Robb Not specified Howick Local Board1897 Tanahah Letele Not specified Not Supplied1898 Brooklyn Stewart Not specified Howick Local Board1899 Khyrin Stewart Not specified Howick Local Board1900 Zara Rotohike Not specified Manurewa Local Board1901 Anthony Robb Not specified Howick Local Board1902 Lisa Faamauski Not specified Manurewa Local Board1903 Strategic Environments Not specified Franklin Local Board1904 Billie Mataia Not specified Manurewa Local Board1905 Greg Mance Not specified Rodney Local Board1906 Kataraina Tims Not specified Manurewa Local Board1907 Tonisha Rohe Not specified Manurewa Local Board1908 Stephanie Dixon Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1909 Sierra Tariai Not specified Manurewa Local Board1910 Renee Rapana Not specified Manurewa Local Board1911 Gikisiwi Lea'aeuawu Not specified Manurewa Local Board1912 Charlie Rohe Not specified Manurewa Local Board1913 Vicki Rohe Not specified Manurewa Local Board1914 Julie Silcock Not specified Manurewa Local Board1915 Monique Lee Not specified Manurewa Local Board1916 Naomi Tulaga Not specified Not Supplied1917 Marael Brown Not specified Manurewa Local Board1918 Koia Tenaker Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1919 Ria Gounder Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1920 Kayla Aritcliff Not specified Manurewa Local Board1921 Christine Roni Not specified Manurewa Local Board

122

1922 Elizabeth Walker Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1923 Robin Long Not specified Waiheke Local Board1924 May Butcher Not specified Howick Local Board1925 Mousami Nair Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1926 Campbell Butcher Not specified Howick Local Board1927 Paihere Tims Not specified Not Supplied1928 Splice Auckland City Centre Neighbourhood Not specified Waitemata Local Board1929 Micitelle Bos Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board1930 May Ajero Not specified Not Supplied1931 Gary Roy Marshall Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1932 Ruth Fairbank Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board1933 Watwier Muisky Not specified Not Supplied1934 Ngawai Rewha Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1935 Justine Newhlan Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1936 Olive Hei Hei Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1937 Massey Ngakoti-Whyte, Papatuanuku KoKiRi Marae Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1938 Renee Solomon-Tauhinu Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board1939 Menidez Hora Not specified Not Supplied1940 Mohi Solomon-Tauhiwu Not specified Papakura Local Board1941 Te Ao Marama Ropati, Papatuanuku KoKiRi Marae Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1942 Teneya Te Whata, Papatuanuku KoKiRi Marae Not specified Not Supplied1943 Valence Tauhinu Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1944 Marcelle Pio Not specified Not Supplied1945 Shira Posimani, Papatuanuku KoKiRi Marae Not specified Not Supplied1946 Karl Norton, Papatuanuku KoKiRi Marae Not specified Puketapapa Local Board1947 Aubrey Ropati Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1948 Hineamaru, Papatuanuku KoKiRi Marae Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1949 Jenny Christianson Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board1950 Daniel Cork Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board1951 Teuder Ngaha Not specified Not Supplied1952 Karnail Singh Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1953 Krishan Malik Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1954 Indeont Sn Not Supplied Not specified Howick Local Board1955 Gloria Jenkins Not specified Waitemata Local Board1956 Surinder Singh Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1957 Hope (last name not supplied) Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board1958 Kanwal Kumar Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1959 Darshan Singli Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1960 Surentel Kane Panesan Not specified Whau Local Board1961 Surinder Kaur Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1962 Gurdeep Kaur Not specified Manurewa Local Board1963 Ripi Kaur Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board1964 Ramesh Cliaula Kumar Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1965 Vindoo Dass Not specified Howick Local Board1966 Rajinder Kaur Bhatia Not specified Papakura Local Board1967 Gurcharron Singh Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1968 Vijay Attri Not specified Papakura Local Board1969 Neena Singh Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1970 Jagjil Singh Not specified Manurewa Local Board1971 Paranjeer Kaur Not specified Howick Local Board1972 Tajinder Singh Not specified Orakei Local Board1973 Veena Bhalla Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1974 Gurjit Singh Batra Not specified Howick Local Board1975 Jaidka Darshana Not specified Howick Local Board1976 Balsinder Kaur Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1977 Kulwant Kaur Not specified Howick Local Board1978 Raujodh Kau Gill Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1979 Kulwinder Kaus Not specified Howick Local Board1980 Ranjit Kauv Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1981 Amajit Kaur Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1982 Kuldeep Kaur Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1983 Raddit Kave Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1984 Baljit Dheil Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1985 Jarvir Kaur Not specified Howick Local Board

123

1986 Destiny Church (25 Druces Road, Wiri) Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1987 Rajinder Kaur Not specified Howick Local Board1988 Talginder Kaur-Khaugura Not specified Howick Local Board1989 Balbir Kaur Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1990 Havjit Dleil Not specified Howick Local Board1991 Kaushlva Davi Not specified Manurewa Local Board1992 Baljit Singh Not specified Manurewa Local Board1993 Rashpal Kaur Not specified Manurewa Local Board1994 Maninder Pal Kauv Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board1995 M Kaur Not specified Howick Local Board1996 Hanjit Singh Shergill Not specified Papakura Local Board1997 Mangit Kalk Not specified Manurewa Local Board1998 Singh Mewa Not specified Howick Local Board1999 Gurmeet Kaur Not specified Howick Local Board2000 Marbinder I Kaur Not specified Papakura Local Board2001 Giucharam Kaur Matharu Not specified Howick Local Board2002 Lakhbei Kaur Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board2003 Geoff Barlow Not specified Orakei Local Board2004 Rajindu Pa Sh Bajwa Not specified Howick Local Board2005 Linda Narayan Not specified Whau Local Board2006 Balkar Singh Not specified Manurewa Local Board2007 Mohan Singh Not specified Papakura Local Board2008 Victoria George Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board2009 Amarsingh Dhaliwal Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board2010 Pierre Fernandes Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board2011 Paramjit Singh Manchanda Not specified Howick Local Board2012 Katrina D'Aragaon Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2013 Haro Sing Dhaliwal Not specified Not Supplied2014 Bhupinder Siapih Singh Not specified Papakura Local Board2015 Sandra Jatule Kolloman Hagarto Mailisi Brennan Not specified Puketapapa Local Board2016 Janet Salas Not specified Waiheke Local Board2017 Willie Smart Not specified Waiheke Local Board2018 Bex Sullivan Not specified Waiheke Local Board2019 Claire Mummery Not specified Waiheke Local Board2020 Rata Gordon Not specified Waiheke Local Board2021 Marietta Walker Not specified Waiheke Local Board2022 Mason Vucic Not specified Waiheke Local Board2023 Alice Ray Not specified Waiheke Local Board2024 Steph Anie Not specified Waiheke Local Board2025 Laura Dubols Not specified Waiheke Local Board2026 Leo Howard Not specified Waiheke Local Board2027 Marice Sinclair Not specified Waiheke Local Board2028 Rochelle Castasegnce Not specified Waiheke Local Board2029 Lolowa Cuelnews Not specified Waiheke Local Board2030 D.I. Toulmin Not specified Waiheke Local Board2031 Allessandro Fortunato Not specified Waiheke Local Board2032 Melanie Hoinle Not specified Waiheke Local Board2033 Ronald Struyk Not specified Waiheke Local Board2034 Dirk Klein Not specified Waiheke Local Board2035 Les Baxter Not specified Waiheke Local Board2036 Ivan Kitson Not specified Waiheke Local Board2037 Karen Clarke Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board2038 Bruce Conner Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board2039 Chris Packsedge Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2040 George Gustafsson Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2041 Abby Jones Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board2042 The Vic Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2043 Annemarie Carr Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2044 Pauline Colma Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2045 Lucy Colmar Jones Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2046 John Isaacs Not specified Not Supplied2047 Civic Trust Auckland Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board2048 Mary Schnackenberg Not specified Orakei Local Board2049 GBCWinstone Not specified Not Supplied

124

2050 ewaste.org.nz Not specified Not Supplied2051 Brian / Val Jarvis Not specified Not Supplied2052 Joanna Crawford Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board2053 Mark Inglo Not specified Waiheke Local Board2054 Auckland North Community and Development Inc Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2055 Waste Management Not specified Waitemata Local Board2056 Bioenergy Association Not specified Outside Auckland

2057Waste Away Focus Group of Grey Lynn 2030 Transition Community Not specified Not Supplied

2058 Employers and Manufacturers Association Not specified Waitemata Local Board2059 Devonport Peninsula Trust Yes Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2060 Upcycle Limited Not specified Not Supplied2061 ANCAD & Takapuna Methodist Church Partnership Yes Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2062 SCRAP METAL RECYCLING ASSOCIATION OF NZ Not specified Outside Auckland2063 Keith Hay Group Not specified Puketapapa Local Board2064 Waiheke Resources Trust Yes Waiheke Local Board2065 Progressive Enterprises Ltd (Countdown) Not specified Not Supplied2066 Packaging Council of New Zealand Not specified Howick Local Board2067 Oji Fibre Solutions Yes Not Supplied2068 Motor Trade Association Not specified Outside Auckland2069 Stephen McLuckie Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2070 Noeline Craig Not specified Not Supplied2071 Pipa Delaware Not specified Not Supplied2072 Joanna Jensen Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board2073 Hyunsoon Park Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2074 Jaeyong Lee Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2075 St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Inc Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board2076 Baekchoon Sung Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2077 Kaipatiki Project Environment Centre Yes Kaipatiki Local Board2078 Cheong Hong Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2079 Sungdai Hong Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2080 Jooyeon Cho Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board2081 Miri Lee Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2082 Suji Jung Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board2083 Sookyong Kim Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board2085 Hyunkyung Song Not specified Not Supplied2086 Hyesun Lee Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board2087 Mark Beale Not specified Manurewa Local Board2088 Miyoung Choi Not specified Not Supplied2089 Changsoon Lee Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board2090 Sungjong Lee Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board2091 Sooyoung (last name not supplied) Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board2092 Okbae Kim Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board2093 Sooyeon Jung Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board2094 Hyeyoung Cho No Orakei Local Board2095 Sungjin Park Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2096 Youngwon Lee Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board2097 Sungjip Hong Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board2098 Feleimga Lataimaumi, Multi Educational Trust Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2099 Leilani Longolongofolai, Multi Educational Trust Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2100 Sekona Longolongofolan, Multi Educational Trust Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2101 Mele U. Lataimaumi, Multi Educational Trust Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2102 Maile Uluave, Multi Educational Trust Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2103 Meleofa Finan, Multi Educational Trust Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2104 Jasper Elia, Multi Educational Trust Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2105 Tupon Motuliki, Multi Educational Trust Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2106 Caroline Perry Not specified Orakei Local Board2107 Tevita Moli, Multi Educational Trust Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2108 International Waste Limited (Interwaste) Yes Manurewa Local Board2109 Laurel Taufauata Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2110 Sharon Smith Not specified Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board2111 Ronald Auciters Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2112 Aimee Humphries Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board2113 Ellie Humphries Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board

125

2114 Kiri Le Heron Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board2115 Margaret Gane Not specified Papakura Local Board2116 Kara Goddart Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2117 Alison Field Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board2118 Sinlolo Anon Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2119 A. M. A. Bader Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2120 Robin Houlker Not specified Orakei Local Board2121 Xueyuan Pan Not specified Whau Local Board2122 Concepcion Bidwell Not specified Whau Local Board2123 Adam Nock Not specified Waitakere Ranges Local Board2124 Mohammed Faruk Not specified Whau Local Board2125 Colin Watson Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2126 Ema Teutau Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2127 Teimi Talalima Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2128 Finau Folola Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2129 Sally Thomas Not specified Upper Harbour Local Board2130 Asena Talalima Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2131 Alison Field Not specified Hibiscus and Bays Local Board2132 Paleiamanu Vainikolo Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2133 Finan Naytonya Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2134 Tipiloma Ulnave Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2135 Finau Hingano Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2136 Marly Gortez Not specified Papakura Local Board2137 Uhiua Lataimaumi Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2138 Sela Moli Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2139 O'Love Ulnave Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2140 K & N Laffers Not specified Howick Local Board2141 Katherine Faire Not specified Not Supplied2142 Resource Rescue Ltd Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2143 Joan Fogarty Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2144 NZ African Welfare Service Trust Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2145 Cassendra Ng Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2146 Jesus Revival Church Not specified Not Supplied2147 Auckland Audio Exchange Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2148 International Waste Limited Not specified Manurewa Local Board2149 Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance Not specified Regional2150 Lucy Lu Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board2151 Qing Li Not specified Orakei Local Board2152 James Xu Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board2153 Yu Huang Not specified Howick Local Board2154 Hing Yi Ng Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board2155 Koutian Zhang Not specified Orakei Local Board2156 Ailene Ma Not specified Howick Local Board2157 Belinda Bi Not specified Puketapapa Local Board2158 Yong Pang Not specified Howick Local Board2159 Peiguo Pan Not specified Orakei Local Board2160 De Yi Li Not specified Orakei Local Board2161 Jin An Wang Not specified Howick Local Board2162 Chengmin Qiu Not specified Howick Local Board2163 Xin Wang Not specified Not Supplied2164 Rong Wan Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board2165 Xie Yin Not specified Not Supplied2166 Su Chen Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board2167 James Wang Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board2168 Linghua Yang Not specified Not Supplied2169 Shengnan Gu Not specified Not Supplied2170 Zhihui Zou Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2171 Huizhi Guo Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2172 Auckland Environmental Protection Association (AEPA) Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2173 Jinping Chen Not specified Franklin Local Board2174 Kaijun Zhuang Not specified Howick Local Board2175 Hong Lv Not specified Howick Local Board2176 Zuyou Pan Not specified Howick Local Board2177 Shuzhen Yu Not specified Howick Local Board

126

2178 Xiuying Zhang Not specified Howick Local Board2179 Ruixue Chen Not specified Howick Local Board2180 Qiuxia Zhan Not specified Henderson-Massey Local Board2181 Cai jun Zhao Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board2182 Hanying Chen Not specified Kaipatiki Local Board2183 Xinzhen Liang Not specified Howick Local Board2184 Lingzhen Mai Not specified Howick Local Board2185 Zhengming Wang Not specified Howick Local Board2186 Yamin Yang Not specified Orakei Local Board2187 Gonghua Wang Not specified Howick Local Board2188 Yizhen Wu Not specified Howick Local Board2189 Hongxia Zhou Not specified Howick Local Board2190 Zhang Yin Not specified Howick Local Board2191 Tianhong Ding Not specified Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board2192 Qinmin Zheng Not specified Not Supplied2193 Haier Zhang Not specified Howick Local Board2194 Lianying Li Not specified Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board2195 Liu Dan Not specified Howick Local Board2196 Xinning Wen Not specified Howick Local Board2197 Huiyue Yu Not specified Albert-Eden Local Board2198 Xuemei Mao Not specified Devonport-Takapuna Local Board2199 Dandan Bi Not specified Howick Local Board2200 Emma Li Not specified Manurewa Local Board2201 Yue Liu Not specified Manurewa Local Board2202 Jianxin Hou Not specified Howick Local Board2203 Jiaxun Sheng Not specified Howick Local Board2204 Xiaolin Han Not specified Orakei Local Board2205 Xue Yun Zhong Not specified Howick Local Board2206 Aqiu Cheng Not specified Howick Local Board2207 Jiakun Feng Not specified Not Supplied

Kura Kaupapa Maori o Hoani Waititi Marae YesKura Kaupapa Maori o Hoani Waititi Marae YesGo Well ConsultingFor the Love of Bees

127

128

ATTACHMENT D

SUBMISSIONS

The submissions have not been re-produced in this agenda, but can be viewed on the council website here

129

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/hearings/find-hearing/Pages/find-special-consultative-procedure-hearing.aspx

130

ATTACHMENT E LOCAL BOARD RESOLUTIONS AND FEEDBACK FROM SEPTEMBER 2017 – NOVEMBER 2017 WORKSHOPS

131

132

Att

ach

me

nt

E

Loca

l Bo

ard

Res

olu

tio

ns

and

Fe

edb

ack

on

th

e d

raft

Was

te M

anag

em

en

t an

d M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n 2

018

Sep

tem

be

r 2

017

-No

vem

ber

20

17

Follo

win

g w

ork

sho

ps

wit

h lo

cal b

oar

ds,

th

e fe

edb

ack

bel

ow

was

re

ceiv

ed.

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

Alb

ert

- Ed

en

25

Oct

ob

er 2

017

Th

at t

he

Alb

ert-

Eden

Lo

cal B

oar

d:

a)Su

pp

ort

s th

e p

rop

ose

d a

pp

roac

h t

ake

n in

th

e d

raft

Was

te M

anag

emen

t an

dM

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n.

b)

Sup

po

rts

con

tin

uin

g to

fo

llow

th

e d

irec

tio

n s

et

in t

he

Was

te M

anag

emen

t an

dM

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n 2

012

, bu

t w

ith

re

view

ed t

arge

ts f

or

red

uct

ion

in d

om

esti

c ke

rbsi

de

was

te a

nd

co

un

cil w

aste

.

c)Su

pp

ort

s th

e fo

cus

on

ad

voca

tin

g to

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t fo

r:

i.

a h

igh

er w

aste

levy

ii.

pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

.

iii.

oth

er m

easu

res

to a

dd

ress

co

mm

erci

al w

aste

no

tin

g th

at it

co

nst

itu

tes

up

to

80

per

cen

t o

f w

aste

.

d)

Sup

po

rts

the

focu

s o

n a

dd

ress

ing

thre

e p

rio

rity

co

mm

erci

al w

aste

str

eam

s:

i.co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d d

emo

litio

n w

aste

ii. o

rgan

ic w

aste

iii.

pla

stic

was

te.

e)

Sup

po

rts

add

ress

ing

was

te g

ener

ated

fro

m c

ou

nci

l an

d c

ou

nci

l-co

ntr

olle

do

rgan

isat

ion

’s o

per

atio

nal

act

ivit

ies,

par

ticu

larl

y co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d d

emo

litio

n w

aste

.

f)R

equ

ests

Infr

astr

uct

ure

an

d E

nvi

ron

men

tal S

ervi

ces

staf

f to

pro

vid

e in

form

atio

n o

n t

he

red

uct

ion

in r

ates

fo

r A

lber

t-Ed

en L

oca

l Bo

ard

re

sid

ents

res

ult

ing

fro

m t

he

133

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f th

e ‘p

ay-p

er-t

hro

w’ a

pp

roac

h t

o h

ou

seh

old

ru

bb

ish

co

llect

ion

.

g)

Req

ues

ts In

fras

tru

ctu

re a

nd

En

viro

nm

enta

l Ser

vice

s st

aff

wo

rksh

op

a p

roje

ct w

ith

th

e b

oar

d a

rou

nd

wo

rkin

g w

ith

bu

sin

ess

asso

ciat

ion

s an

d o

ther

loca

l gro

up

s to

min

imis

e w

aste

in t

he

loca

l bo

ard

are

a.

Dev

on

po

rt –

Tak

apu

na

1

9 O

cto

ber

201

7

That

th

e D

evo

np

ort

-Tak

apu

na

Loca

l Bo

ard

:

a)

sup

po

rts

the

pro

po

sed

ap

pro

ach

an

d o

utc

om

es a

sso

ciat

ed w

ith

th

e d

raft

Was

te

Man

agem

ent

and

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

.

b)

pro

vid

es t

he

follo

win

g fe

ed

bac

k o

n t

he

dra

ft p

lan

.

i. su

pp

ort

s th

e ta

rget

to

red

uce

co

un

cil’s

ow

n in

-ho

use

off

ice

was

te b

y 6

0 p

erce

nt

by

202

4:

ii.

sup

po

rts

mea

sure

s to

ad

voca

te t

o c

entr

al g

ove

rnm

ent

for

a h

igh

er w

aste

le

vy a

nd

fo

r m

easu

re t

o im

ple

men

t p

rod

uct

ste

war

dsh

ip.

iii.

sup

po

rts

the

tran

siti

on

to

co

nsi

sten

t ke

rbsi

de

serv

ices

fo

r re

fuse

co

llect

ion

an

d t

he

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f w

eek

ly k

erb

sid

e fo

od

was

te c

olle

ctio

n.

iv.

sup

po

rts

the

goal

of

hav

ing

12

com

mu

nit

y re

cycl

ing

cen

tres

by

20

24.

v.

sup

po

rts

the

red

uct

ion

fo

r co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d d

emo

litio

n w

aste

init

iati

ves,

ac

ross

th

e re

gio

n s

ervi

ces

and

wo

rkin

g w

ith

larg

e d

evel

op

ers

be

pri

ori

tise

d

ove

r th

e d

evel

op

men

t o

f re

sou

rce

reco

very

pla

ns.

vi.

reco

gnis

e th

e ab

ility

of

co

mm

un

ity-

led

pro

gram

mes

to

ed

uca

te a

nd

in

crea

se a

war

enes

s o

f th

e b

enef

its

of

foo

d a

nd

gre

en w

aste

div

ers

ion

an

d

sep

arat

ing

pla

stic

was

te.

vii.

reco

gnis

es t

he

com

mu

nit

y h

as a

n im

po

rtan

t ro

le t

o s

up

po

rt t

he

pla

n’s

im

ple

men

tati

on

, an

d r

eq

ues

ts a

dvi

ce f

rom

sta

ff o

n p

ote

nti

al c

om

mu

nit

y-le

d

init

iati

ves

to d

eliv

er t

he

pla

n’s

ou

tco

mes

.

134

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

Fran

klin

2

4 N

ove

mb

er 2

017

Th

at t

he

Fran

klin

Lo

cal B

oar

d p

rovi

de

the

follo

win

g fe

edb

ack

on

th

e d

raft

Was

te M

anag

emen

t an

d M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n (

the

Pla

n):

a)

Agr

ee t

hat

th

e co

un

cil s

ho

uld

be

advo

cati

ng

to c

entr

al g

ove

rnm

ent

for

a h

igh

er w

aste

le

vy a

nd

pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

, to

su

pp

ort

inn

ova

tio

n a

nd

bes

t p

ract

ice;

b

) A

gree

th

at t

he

Pla

n s

ho

uld

ad

dre

ss t

he

thre

e p

rio

rity

co

mm

erci

al w

aste

str

eam

s o

f co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d d

emo

litio

n w

aste

, org

anic

was

te a

nd

pla

stic

was

te;

c)

Agr

ee t

hat

th

e P

lan

sh

ou

ld a

dd

ress

was

te g

ener

ated

fro

m c

ou

nci

l an

d c

ou

nci

l-co

ntr

olle

d o

rgan

isat

ion

s’ o

per

atio

nal

act

ivit

ies,

par

ticu

larl

y co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d

dem

olit

ion

was

te

d)

Pro

po

se t

hat

an

y h

igh

er in

cen

tive

s b

e co

mp

lem

ente

d b

y th

e in

tro

du

ctio

n o

f st

rict

er

pen

alti

es f

or

fly

tip

pin

g an

d li

tte

rin

g;

e)

Wh

ilst

reco

gnis

ing

that

off

icer

s su

pp

ort

Op

tio

n t

wo

(ex

pan

ded

fo

cus)

fo

r gu

idin

g th

e d

irec

tio

n o

f th

e P

lan

, th

e lo

cal b

oar

d b

elie

ve t

hat

Op

tio

n t

hre

e (s

ign

ific

ant

inve

stm

ent

in r

esi

du

al w

aste

tre

atm

ent

tech

no

logi

es)

sho

uld

be

pu

rsu

ed f

urt

her

in o

rder

to

en

cou

rage

mo

re in

no

vati

on

fro

m t

he

pri

vate

sec

tor

and

del

ive

r gr

eate

r lo

cal

eco

no

mic

ben

efit

s f)

Th

e co

un

cil’s

ap

pro

ach

, th

rou

gh t

he

Pla

n, s

ho

uld

be

to e

nab

le lo

cal v

olu

nte

er

gro

up

s to

un

der

take

was

te c

lean

-up

act

ivit

ies

wit

ho

ut

un

du

e re

gula

tio

n a

nd

to

po

siti

vely

p

rom

ote

th

e ro

le o

f lo

cal c

om

mu

nit

y am

bas

sad

ors

fo

r w

aste

min

imis

atio

n.

Gre

at B

arri

er

Th

at t

he

Gre

at B

arri

er L

oca

l Bo

ard

;

a)

End

ors

e th

e p

rop

ose

d d

irec

tio

n o

f th

e d

raft

Was

te M

anag

emen

t an

d M

inim

isat

ion

P

lan

Hen

der

son

- M

asse

y 1

7 O

cto

ber

201

7

That

th

e H

end

erso

n-M

asse

y Lo

cal B

oar

d:

a)

sup

po

rts

the

pro

po

sed

ap

pro

ach

tak

en in

th

e d

raft

Was

te M

anag

emen

t an

d

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

b)

pro

vid

es t

he

follo

win

g fe

ed

bac

k o

n t

he

focu

s ar

eas:

i)

Ad

voca

tin

g to

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t fo

r a

hig

her

was

te le

vy t

o in

cen

tivi

se w

aste

d

ive

rsio

n a

nd

inve

stm

ent

in r

eso

urc

e re

cove

ry.

Su

pp

ort

s a

larg

er in

crea

se in

th

e w

aste

levy

ove

r ti

me

to a

llow

fo

r af

fect

ed

135

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

par

ties

to

pla

n f

or

the

chan

ge.

· N

ote

s th

ere

is a

ris

k o

f p

riva

te c

on

trac

tors

un

der

-cu

ttin

g h

igh

er c

ou

nci

l lev

ies.

·

Sup

po

rts

mo

re f

ocu

s o

n r

ecyc

ling.

ii)

Ad

voca

tin

g fo

r p

rod

uct

ste

war

dsh

ip, a

dd

ress

ing

thre

e p

rio

rity

co

mm

erci

al w

aste

st

ream

s o

f co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d d

emo

litio

n w

aste

, org

anic

was

te a

nd

pla

stic

was

te.

Sup

po

rts

add

ress

ing

the

thre

e p

rio

rity

co

mm

erci

al w

aste

str

eam

s.

N

ote

s th

at b

ever

age

con

tain

ers,

tyr

es, e

-was

te a

nd

bat

teri

es a

re a

lso

an

are

a o

f co

nce

rn.

Sup

po

rts

intr

od

uci

ng

pla

stic

bag

re

du

ctio

n in

itia

tive

s.

No

tes

that

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t h

as a

pri

mar

y ro

le in

legi

slat

ion

co

ntr

olli

ng

pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

No

tes

that

th

e fo

cus

nee

ds

to b

e m

uch

str

on

ger

on

th

e p

rod

uce

r o

f th

e w

aste

p

rod

uct

rat

her

th

an t

he

con

sum

er

e.g.

ret

urn

ing

pla

stic

to

th

e p

rod

uce

r/p

acka

ger

as o

pp

ose

d t

o c

ust

om

ers

pay

ing

for

sup

erm

arke

t b

ags.

Sup

po

rts

mo

re p

ub

lic p

lace

re

cycl

ing

bin

s (p

arti

cula

rly

in t

ow

n c

entr

es),

re

cogn

isin

g th

at it

is c

ost

ly t

o im

ple

me

nt

and

mai

nta

in.

iii)

Ad

dre

ssin

g w

aste

gen

erat

ed f

rom

co

un

cil a

nd

co

un

cil-

con

tro

lled

org

anis

atio

ns

op

erat

ion

al a

ctiv

itie

s, p

arti

cula

rly

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te.

S

up

po

rts

add

ress

ing

was

te g

ener

ated

fro

m c

ou

nci

l’s o

per

atio

nal

act

ivit

ies.

c)

n

ote

s th

at w

aste

man

agem

ent

and

min

imis

atio

n p

rin

cip

les

sho

uld

be

emb

edd

ed w

ith

in a

ll co

un

cil a

nd

co

un

cil-

con

tro

lled

org

anis

atio

n r

efu

rbis

hm

ent

and

re

loca

tio

n p

roje

cts.

Th

is

incl

ud

es m

ajo

r in

fras

tru

ctu

re p

roje

cts

such

as

city

cen

tre

dev

elo

pm

ent

and

sto

rmw

ate

r p

roje

cts

Hib

iscu

s an

d B

ays

26

Oct

ob

er 2

017

Th

at t

he

Hib

iscu

s an

d B

ays

Loca

l Bo

ard

:

a)

pro

vid

es t

he

follo

win

g fe

ed

bac

k o

n t

he

pro

po

sed

dir

ecti

on

of

the

dra

ft W

aste

M

anag

emen

t an

d M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n:

i. su

pp

ort

s ad

voca

tin

g to

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t fo

r a

hig

her

was

te le

vy p

rovi

din

g it

is

intr

od

uce

d g

rad

ual

ly a

nd

fo

r p

rod

uct

ste

war

dsh

ip

136

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

ii.

sup

po

rts

add

ress

ing

thre

e p

rio

rity

co

mm

erci

al w

aste

str

eam

s o

f co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d

dem

olit

ion

was

te, o

rgan

ic w

aste

an

d p

last

ic w

aste

iii.

sup

po

rts

add

ress

ing

was

te g

ener

ated

fro

m c

ou

nci

l an

d c

ou

nci

l-co

ntr

olle

d

org

anis

atio

n’s

op

erat

ion

al a

ctiv

itie

s, p

arti

cula

rly

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te

iv.

In a

dd

itio

n t

he

follo

win

g fe

edb

ack

is p

rovi

ded

:

a) t

he

was

te le

vy n

eed

s to

be

mo

re c

ost

eff

ecti

ve

b)

the

fun

d c

olle

cted

sh

ou

ld b

e d

istr

ibu

ted

to

loca

l au

tho

riti

es f

or

furt

her

dev

elo

pm

ent

of

bes

t p

ract

ice

was

te m

inim

isat

ion

wo

rk

c)

the

was

te le

vy n

eed

s to

be

kep

t at

a r

easo

nab

le a

mo

un

t o

r it

will

en

cou

rage

du

mp

ing

of

rub

bis

h a

nd

sh

ou

ld b

e in

tro

du

ced

gra

du

ally

d)

the

was

te le

vy c

ou

ld h

elp

fu

nd

pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

sch

emes

fo

r o

rgan

isat

ion

s su

ch a

s ty

re d

istr

ibu

tors

are

kee

n t

o s

ee o

ld t

yres

rec

ycle

d f

or

a le

giti

mat

e u

se

e)

the

dra

ft W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

nee

ds

to b

e re

alis

tic

abo

ut

wh

at

can

be

ach

ieve

d

f)

inci

ner

ato

rs, a

lth

ou

gh r

eq

uir

ing

sign

ific

ant

inve

stm

ent,

may

be

req

uir

ed t

o a

chie

ve

targ

ets

g)

a d

epo

sit

sch

eme

off

erin

g 1

0c

eac

h f

or

retu

rned

can

s an

d b

ott

les

is li

kely

to

hav

e go

od

ta

ke u

p a

nd

red

uce

bo

th li

tte

rin

g an

d in

dis

crim

inat

e d

isp

osa

l

h)

incr

ease

d a

nd

on

goin

g ed

uca

tio

n o

f th

e p

ub

lic is

req

uir

ed

i)

enco

ura

ge in

vest

igat

ion

fo

r d

evel

op

men

t o

f m

ore

pri

vate

rec

yclin

g ce

ntr

es f

or

a jo

int

recy

clin

g ce

ntr

e se

rvin

g U

pp

er H

arb

ou

r, R

od

ney

an

d H

ibis

cus

and

Bay

s Lo

cal B

oar

d

area

s.

Ho

wic

k 2

3 N

ove

mb

er 2

017

Th

at t

he

Ho

wic

k Lo

cal B

oar

d:

a)

Sup

po

rt t

he

pro

po

sed

dir

ecti

on

of

the

dra

ft W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n

137

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

b)

Sup

po

rt t

he

mo

ve t

ow

ard

s m

anag

ing

ind

ust

ry w

aste

an

d r

ecyc

ling

cen

tres

fo

r p

last

ic

Man

ure

wa

12

Oct

ob

er 2

017

Fe

edb

ack:

The

Man

ure

wa

Loca

l Bo

ard

;

sup

po

rts

op

tio

n t

wo

to

exp

and

th

e fo

cus

of

cou

nci

l act

ivit

y to

incl

ud

e th

e 80

per

cen

t o

f w

aste

to

lan

dfi

ll th

at it

do

es n

ot

dir

ectl

y co

ntr

ol w

hic

h it

has

th

e p

ote

nti

al t

o

sign

ific

antl

y re

du

ce t

ota

l was

te t

o la

nd

fill,

an

d c

an b

e u

nd

erta

ken

wit

hin

th

e cu

rren

t fu

nd

ing

en

velo

pe

sup

po

rts

a fo

cus

on

ad

dre

ssin

g th

e 80

per

cen

t o

f w

aste

th

at c

ou

nci

l do

es n

ot

dir

ectl

y in

flu

ence

sup

po

rts

advo

cati

ng

to c

entr

al g

ove

rnm

ent

for

a h

igh

er w

aste

levy

(to

ince

nti

vise

d

ive

rsio

n)

sup

po

rts

advo

cati

ng

to c

entr

al g

ove

rnm

ent

for

pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

(fo

r in

stan

ce f

or

bev

erag

e co

nta

iner

s, t

yres

an

d e

lect

ron

ic w

aste

)

sup

po

rts

add

ress

ing

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te (

for

inst

ance

th

rou

gh W

aste

A

void

ance

an

d R

eso

urc

e R

eco

very

Pla

ns,

a w

aste

bro

keri

ng

serv

ice

and

wo

rkin

g w

ith

la

rge

dev

elo

per

s su

ch a

s H

ou

sin

g N

ew Z

eal

and

) ad

dre

ssin

g co

mm

erci

al o

rgan

ic w

aste

(f

oo

d w

aste

an

d g

ree

n w

aste

)

sup

po

rts

add

ress

ing

pla

stic

s th

at a

re b

ein

g se

nt

to la

nd

fill

sup

po

rts

the

pro

po

sed

dra

ft W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

to

pre

sen

t a

stro

nge

r m

ana

wh

enu

a an

d m

ātāw

aka

per

spec

tive

, rec

ogn

isin

g th

e cl

ose

alig

nm

ent

bet

wee

n t

e ao

Māo

ri a

nd

zer

o w

aste

sup

po

rts

refu

se b

ein

g p

aid

fo

r th

rou

gh r

ates

bec

ause

it is

an

eff

icie

nt

way

of

char

gin

g fo

r th

e s

ervi

ce

sup

po

rts

recy

clin

g se

rvic

es b

ein

g p

aid

fo

r th

rou

gh r

ates

bec

ause

it is

an

eff

icie

nt

way

o

f ch

argi

ng

for

the

serv

ice.

Kai

pāt

iki

15

No

vem

ber

201

7

That

th

e K

aip

ātik

i Lo

cal B

oar

d:

a)

sup

po

rt o

pti

on

2 a

s ar

ticu

late

d in

th

e ag

end

a re

po

rt (

full

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f th

e W

aste

an

d M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n 2

012

an

d a

fo

cus

on

th

e th

ree

com

mer

cial

was

te s

trea

ms

138

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

iden

tifi

ed in

th

e W

aste

Ass

essm

ent)

.

b)

sup

po

rt in

crea

sed

ad

voca

cy f

or

pu

blic

an

d p

riva

te f

un

din

g to

su

pp

ort

th

e d

evel

op

men

t o

f re

sid

ual

was

te t

reat

men

t fa

cilit

ies

as a

rtic

ula

ted

in o

pti

on

3.

Mān

gere

-Ōtā

hu

hu

1

7 N

ove

mb

er 2

017

Th

at t

he

Mān

gere

-Ōtā

hu

hu

Lo

cal B

oar

d:

a) a

re in

fu

ll su

pp

ort

of

the

pro

po

sed

dir

ecti

on

of

the

dra

ft W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n a

nd

pro

vid

e th

e fo

llow

ing

com

men

ts:

1. T

he

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s o

pti

on

tw

o t

o c

on

tin

ue

full

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f th

e 20

12 p

lan

an

d f

ocu

s o

n

pri

ori

ty w

aste

str

eam

s th

at c

ou

nci

l do

es n

ot

dir

ectl

y in

flu

ence

.

No

tes

that

th

is c

an b

e d

eliv

ered

wit

hin

th

e cu

rren

t fu

nd

ing

en

velo

pe,

pri

ori

tisi

ng

reso

urc

es.

Req

ues

t o

ffic

ers

to in

clu

de

the

loca

l bo

ard

s to

pro

vid

e lo

cal p

ersp

ecti

ve t

o f

urt

her

p

rogr

ess

this

pla

n.

2. T

hat

pla

nn

ing

and

re

gio

nal

fu

nd

ing

be

allo

cate

d f

or

the

sou

ther

n r

ecyc

ling

cen

tres

wit

h a

p

rio

rity

fo

r d

eliv

ery.

Th

e im

pac

t o

f th

e w

aste

man

agem

ent

and

min

imis

atio

n p

lan

on

fam

ilies

w

ith

low

inco

me,

low

er

leve

ls o

f em

plo

ymen

t, h

om

eles

snes

s an

d la

rger

fam

ilies

lead

s is

far

m

ore

ch

alle

ngi

ng

com

par

ed t

o o

ther

s.

3. T

hat

th

ere

is r

egu

lar

mo

nit

ori

ng,

sp

ot

chec

ks o

f p

ract

ice

s in

was

te s

egre

gati

on

to

gau

ge

resu

lts.

4

. Lo

cal c

om

mu

nit

ies

in M

ānge

re-Ō

tāh

uh

u a

re s

till

very

new

to

red

-bin

ro

ll o

ut

and

ch

ange

s in

w

aste

man

agem

ent

and

min

imis

atio

n m

ust

be

carr

ied

ou

t in

a s

tage

d, s

tep

by

step

ap

pro

ach

an

d n

ot

rush

ed in

to b

y se

ttin

g u

nre

aso

nab

le t

arge

ts.

5. T

hat

th

e p

refe

rred

ap

pro

ach

is t

o b

uild

co

mp

eten

cy in

co

mm

un

itie

s th

rou

gh e

du

cati

on

an

d

un

der

stan

din

g as

it c

an le

ad t

o a

last

ing

imp

act

and

avo

id r

esis

tan

ce f

rom

co

mm

un

itie

s.

6. T

hat

th

e p

lan

nee

ds

to t

ake

into

acc

ou

nt

cult

ura

l an

d e

thn

ic d

iver

sity

in t

he

loca

l bo

ard

ar

ea.

Mar

aes,

fai

th b

ased

org

anis

atio

ns

and

gro

up

s an

d p

lace

s o

f w

ors

hip

, e.g

. Ch

urc

hes

/ m

osq

ues

/ te

mp

les

are

loca

tio

ns

wh

ere

ther

e ar

e la

rge

gath

erin

gs a

nd

pro

acti

ve c

olla

bo

rati

on

wit

h s

uch

in

stit

uti

on

s m

ust

be

pla

nn

ed f

rom

th

e st

art.

7

. Th

e b

oar

d s

up

po

rts

the

idea

of

a co

llab

ora

tive

ap

pro

ach

wit

h a

ll p

arts

of

the

com

mu

nit

y –

139

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

ind

ust

ries

, bu

sin

ess

asso

ciat

ion

s, o

rgan

isat

ion

s an

d c

om

mu

nit

y gr

ou

ps

pla

yin

g th

eir

par

t an

d

taki

ng

resp

on

sib

ility

to

ad

dre

ss a

ll si

des

of

was

te m

inim

isat

ion

. B

usi

nes

s Im

pro

vem

ent

Dis

tric

ts m

ust

pla

y th

eir

par

t in

infl

uen

cin

g b

ehav

iou

rs o

f re

taile

rs t

o

min

imis

e an

d m

anag

e w

aste

. 8

. Th

e b

oar

d is

in s

tro

ng

sup

po

rt f

or

idea

s ar

ou

nd

co

mm

un

ity

bro

keri

ng

and

ask

s th

at r

egi

on

al

reso

urc

es b

e d

evo

lved

to

loca

l bo

ard

to

imp

lem

ent

and

su

pp

ort

inn

ova

tive

loca

l id

eas.

9

. Th

at t

he

Mān

gere

-Ōtā

hu

hu

Lo

cal B

oar

d r

eco

mm

end

s th

at “

zero

to

lera

nce

to

pla

stic

” b

e

ado

pte

d a

s a

goal

in t

he

lon

g ru

n.

10

. Th

at in

th

e n

ext

ph

ase

of

the

pla

n A

uck

lan

d C

ou

nci

l dia

logu

e an

d e

nga

ge w

ith

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t o

n p

olic

y is

sues

on

ho

w t

o m

eet

loca

l tar

gets

an

d t

o a

dvo

cate

fo

r h

igh

er w

aste

le

vies

at

sou

rce

(in

du

stry

, co

mm

erci

al e

nte

rpri

se, c

on

stru

ctio

n, e

tc).

Mau

nga

kiek

ie-T

āmak

i 2

4 O

cto

ber

201

7

At

the

Mau

nga

kiek

ie-T

āmak

i Lo

cal B

oar

d B

usi

nes

s M

eeti

ng

hel

d o

n 2

4 O

cto

ber

201

7 t

he

bo

ard

agr

eed

th

e fo

llow

ing

del

egat

ed

dec

isio

n u

nd

er r

eso

luti

on

MT/

20

17/1

93 t

o:

a)

del

ega

te t

o M

emb

ers

B D

iver

an

d C

Ma

koa

re t

o p

rovi

de

the

bo

ard

’s f

eed

ba

ck o

n t

he

Dra

ft

Wa

ste

Ma

na

gem

ent

an

d M

inim

isa

tio

n P

lan

. Th

e M

aun

gaki

ekie

-Tam

aki L

oca

l Bo

ard

pro

vid

es t

he

follo

win

g fe

edb

ack

to t

he

dra

ft W

aste

M

anag

emen

t an

d M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n:

Ad

voca

tin

g to

ce

ntr

al g

ove

rnm

en

t fo

r a

hig

he

r w

aste

levy

an

d f

or

pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

a)

Th

e b

oar

d d

oes

no

t su

pp

ort

ad

voca

tin

g to

cen

tral

go

vern

me

nt

for

an in

crea

sed

was

te

levy

, as

this

will

just

be

pas

sed

on

to

th

e ra

te p

aye

r an

d a

n a

ttem

pt

to p

un

ish

b

usi

nes

ses

for

wo

rkin

g in

th

e in

du

stry

. b

) P

refe

r a

focu

s o

n in

cen

tive

s. T

he

Au

ckla

nd

Was

te m

arke

t (l

and

fills

) ar

e a

du

op

oly

an

d

ther

efo

re in

cen

tive

s n

eed

to

be

use

d a

nd

no

t p

un

ish

men

ts.

c)

Co

nce

rned

ab

ou

t in

crea

sed

was

te le

vy r

esu

ltin

g in

incr

ease

d il

lega

l du

mp

ing

(as

it c

an

mak

e la

nd

fills

no

t a

viab

le o

pti

on

fo

r lo

w in

com

e in

div

idu

als/

fam

ilies

).

Pri

ori

ty c

om

mer

cial

was

te s

tre

ams

d

) Th

e b

oar

d d

oes

no

t su

pp

ort

so

lely

fo

cusi

ng

on

Dev

elo

per

s an

d b

usi

nes

ses

to c

han

ge

thei

r p

ract

ices

. e

) C

ou

nci

l sh

ou

ld lo

ok

at le

vers

it c

an u

se e

.g p

lan

nin

g ru

les

bu

t b

ein

g ca

refu

l no

t to

im

po

se r

equ

irem

ents

th

at w

ill in

crea

se t

he

cost

of

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

th

eref

ore

140

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

incr

ease

th

e co

st o

f h

ou

sin

g.

f)

Sup

po

rt t

he

use

of

tech

no

logy

, bu

t n

ot

to t

he

ext

en

d t

hat

th

e C

ou

nci

l bec

om

es

ideo

logi

cally

dri

ven

to

bla

ck-l

ist

lan

dfi

lls. L

and

fill

is n

ot

alw

ays

bad

W

aste

ge

ner

ate

d f

rom

co

un

cil a

nd

CC

O’s

op

era

tio

nal

act

ivit

ie

g)

The

cou

nci

l sh

ou

ld t

ake

the

lead

in t

hei

r p

ract

ices

. h

) In

clu

de

tran

sfo

rmat

ion

/reg

ener

atio

n p

roje

cts,

no

t ju

st c

ou

nci

l op

erat

ion

s

Ge

ne

ral v

iew

s

i)

Sup

po

rt t

he

use

of

tech

no

logy

, bu

t n

ot

to t

he

ext

en

t th

at t

he

Co

un

cil b

eco

mes

id

eolo

gica

lly d

rive

n t

o b

lack

-lis

t la

nd

fills

. Lan

dfi

ll is

no

t al

way

s b

ad. T

her

e ar

e te

chn

olo

gica

l ad

van

ces

no

w in

lan

dfi

ll m

anag

emen

t eg

tec

hn

olo

gy t

hat

b

urn

s/co

nve

rts

was

te t

o e

ner

gy. T

hes

e te

chn

olo

gy a

nd

bu

sin

esse

s ar

e p

art

of

the

solu

tio

n s

o t

he

pro

po

sed

ap

pro

ach

sh

ou

ld s

up

po

rt a

nd

ince

nti

vise

tec

hn

olo

gy

j)

Co

mm

un

ity

ed

uca

tio

n n

eed

s to

be

par

t o

f C

ou

nci

l’s p

lan

– w

e ca

n’t

ch

ange

th

e b

ehav

iou

r if

yo

u d

on

’t c

han

ge t

he

atti

tud

e o

f u

sers

. Mo

re s

up

po

rt t

o lo

cal b

oar

ds

for

com

mu

nit

y in

itia

tive

s th

at c

om

ple

men

t th

e re

gio

nal

go

als.

k)

N

eed

loca

l in

fras

tru

ctu

re –

res

ou

rce

reco

very

/rec

yclin

g ce

ntr

es –

fo

r al

l typ

es o

f w

aste

so

th

at it

do

esn

’t b

eco

me

on

ero

us

for

an in

div

idu

al/f

amily

try

ing

to u

se t

he

syst

em t

o g

et r

id o

f d

iffe

ren

t ty

pes

of

was

te e

ffic

ien

tly.

Ōta

ra-P

apat

oet

oe

8 N

ove

mb

er 2

017

Th

at t

he

Ōta

ra-P

apat

oet

oe

Loca

l Bo

ard

del

egat

e to

th

e C

hai

r, a

fte

r w

ork

sho

p d

iscu

ssio

n, t

o

app

rove

an

d s

en

d t

he

bo

ard

’s f

eed

bac

k to

th

e En

viro

nm

ent

and

Co

mm

un

ity

Co

mm

itte

e.

Fee

db

ack:

Th

e Ō

tara

- P

apat

oet

oe

Loca

l Bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s o

pti

on

tw

o in

th

e o

pti

on

s an

alys

is s

ecti

on

of

the

rep

ort

to

be

take

n in

th

e d

raft

Was

te M

anag

emen

t an

d M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n, w

ith

p

arti

cula

r fo

cus

on

:

a)

advo

cati

ng

to c

entr

al g

ove

rnm

ent

for

a h

igh

er w

aste

levy

an

d f

or

pro

du

ct

ste

war

dsh

ip

b)

add

ress

ing

was

te g

ener

ated

fro

m c

ou

nci

l an

d c

ou

nci

l-co

ntr

olle

d o

rgan

isat

ion

’s

141

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

op

erat

ion

al a

ctiv

itie

s, p

arti

cula

rly

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te.

c)

add

ress

ing

thre

e p

rio

rity

co

mm

erci

al w

aste

str

eam

s:

i co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d d

emo

litio

n w

aste

Ii o

rgan

ic w

aste

, an

d

Iii p

last

ic w

aste

Ōrā

kei

19

Oct

ob

er 2

017

Th

at t

he

Ōrā

kei L

oca

l Bo

ard

:

a)

su

pp

ort

s ad

voca

cy t

o c

entr

al g

ove

rnm

ent

for

the

intr

od

uct

ion

of

init

iati

ves

and

in

cen

tive

s to

red

uce

was

te a

t so

urc

e su

ch a

s u

nn

eces

sary

pla

stic

pac

kagi

ng

fro

m

imp

ort

ed

an

d N

ew Z

eala

nd

mad

e p

rod

uct

s.

b)

ackn

ow

led

ges

that

th

e cu

rren

t w

aste

levy

of

$1

0 p

er t

on

ne

is in

adeq

uat

e t

o c

ove

r th

e en

viro

nm

enta

l co

sts

of

was

te m

anag

emen

t.

c)

sup

po

rts

advo

cati

ng

for

an in

crea

sed

levy

in o

rder

to

ach

ieve

th

e d

esir

ed o

utc

om

e o

f b

ehav

iou

r ch

ange

fo

r th

e d

emo

litio

n a

nd

co

nst

ruct

ion

ind

ust

ry w

her

e th

ey r

emo

ve

mat

eria

ls f

rom

th

eir

was

te s

trea

ms

that

can

be

re-u

sed

an

d r

ecyc

led

(th

e B

oar

d

bel

ieve

s th

e se

par

atio

n w

ill h

ave

a la

rge

imp

act

on

re

du

cin

g w

aste

to

lan

dfi

lls).

d)

req

ues

ts a

ll st

eps

are

take

n t

o e

nsu

re a

ny

incr

ease

d c

ost

s o

n t

he

con

stru

ctio

n in

du

stry

d

oes

no

t h

ave

a to

o o

ner

ou

s an

imp

act

on

th

e co

sts

of

con

stru

ctio

n f

or

ho

usi

ng

and

in

fras

tru

ctu

re.

e)

sup

po

rts

incr

ease

d p

rod

uct

ste

war

dsh

ip s

chem

es t

o e

nco

ura

ge li

fecy

cle

thin

kin

g an

d

shar

ed r

esp

on

sib

ility

of

bo

th p

rod

uce

r an

d c

on

sum

er t

hro

ugh

th

e p

rod

uct

ion

an

d

con

sum

pti

on

pro

cess

.

f)

sup

po

rts

the

pro

po

sed

th

ree

pri

ori

ty w

aste

str

eam

s fo

r th

e W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n t

o b

e co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d d

emo

litio

n w

aste

, org

anic

was

te a

nd

pla

stic

w

aste

.

g)

sup

po

rts

shif

tin

g to

a m

ore

‘pay

as

you

th

row

’ ap

pro

ach

in p

rin

cip

le a

s lo

ng

as t

her

e is

a

corr

esp

on

din

g an

d d

irec

tly

pro

po

rtio

nat

e d

ecre

ase

in g

ener

al r

ates

.

142

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

h)

sup

po

rts

mo

re c

om

mu

nit

y re

cycl

ing

cen

tres

bei

ng

pro

vid

ed f

or

the

Au

ckla

nd

Reg

ion

to

as

sist

div

erti

ng

was

te f

rom

lan

dfi

lls.

i)

exp

ects

th

e A

uck

lan

d C

ou

nci

l fam

ily t

o le

ad b

y ex

amp

le a

nd

su

bst

anti

ally

min

imis

e w

aste

.

Pap

aku

ra

25

Oct

ob

er 2

017

R

eso

luti

on

: t

o d

eleg

ate

au

tho

rity

to

th

e In

fras

tru

ctu

re a

nd

En

viro

nm

enta

l Ser

vice

s w

ork

stre

am le

ad a

nd

mem

ber

s to

dev

elo

p t

he

Pap

aku

ra L

oca

l Bo

ard

fee

db

ack

on

th

e A

uck

lan

d C

ou

nci

l Was

te M

anag

emen

t an

d M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n r

evie

w.

Qu

esti

on

B

oar

d f

eed

bac

k

Op

tio

n 2

– c

on

tin

ue

full

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f th

e 2

012

pla

n a

nd

fo

cus

on

pri

ori

ty w

aste

str

eam

s th

at c

ou

nci

l do

es n

ot

dir

ectl

y in

flu

ence

.

The

Pap

aku

ra L

oca

l Bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s th

e p

rop

ose

d o

pti

on

2.

Pro

po

sed

tar

gets

1.

Tota

l reg

ion

al w

aste

: Red

uce

to

tal w

aste

(co

un

cil a

nd

pri

vate

se

cto

r in

flu

ence

d)

to

lan

dfi

ll b

y 30

% b

y 2

02

7 (b

asel

ine

0.8

ton

nes

per

cap

ita)

. N

o c

han

ge.

2.

Do

me

stic

was

te:

Red

uce

do

mes

tic

kerb

sid

e re

fuse

by

30

% (

fro

m 1

60kg

to

110

kg

per

cap

ita)

by

2020

/202

1, t

hen

revi

ew a

nd

up

dat

e. E

xten

sio

n t

o d

ate.

New

tar

get

set

on

ce a

chie

ved

.

3.

Co

un

cil w

aste

:

a)

Red

uce

co

un

cil’s

ow

n in

-ho

use

off

ice

was

te b

y 6

0%

by

202

4

The

bo

ard

agr

ees

wit

h t

he

pro

po

sed

ta

rget

s an

d w

as p

leas

ed

to

be

advi

sed

th

at t

he

gro

wth

an

d p

op

ula

tio

n

pro

ject

ion

s h

ad b

een

incl

ud

ed in

th

e an

alys

is.

The

bo

ard

wan

ts t

o e

nsu

re s

taff

liai

sed

w

ith

th

e re

taile

rs t

o e

nsu

re t

hat

th

e co

llect

ion

of

pla

stic

was

te r

emai

ned

in

pla

ce.

143

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

(201

2 b

asel

ine

leve

ls).

Tar

get

do

ub

led

.

b)

Wo

rk a

cro

ss c

ou

nci

l to

se

t a

bas

elin

e fo

r o

per

atio

nal

an

d, b

y

201

9, p

ut

thes

e in

pla

ce. N

ew

targ

et.

Pri

ori

ty a

ctio

ns

to r

edu

ce D

om

est

ic W

aste

(co

un

cil m

anag

ed)

1.

Co

nti

nu

e t

ran

siti

on

to

co

nsi

ste

nt

kerb

sid

e s

ervi

ces

• In

clu

din

g p

ay a

s yo

u t

hro

w w

eek

ly

kerb

sid

e re

fuse

co

llect

ion

(b

y 2

020

)

The

bo

ard

is s

up

po

rtiv

e o

f th

e im

ple

men

tati

on

of

a p

ay a

s yo

u t

hro

w

we

ekly

ke

rbsi

de

colle

ctio

n.

H

ow

ever

, bel

ieve

s th

e fo

od

was

te

colle

ctio

n s

ervi

ce s

ho

uld

be

fun

ded

fro

m

rate

s an

d n

ot

a p

ay a

s th

row

ser

vice

.

2.

Pro

gres

sive

ly in

tro

du

ce w

eek

ly k

erb

sid

e

foo

d w

aste

co

llect

ion

• St

arti

ng

20

18

The

bo

ard

is s

up

po

rtiv

e o

f p

rogr

essi

vely

in

tro

du

cin

g ke

rbsi

de

foo

d w

aste

co

llect

ion

s an

d is

loo

kin

g fo

rwar

d t

o t

he

roll

ou

t in

th

e P

apak

ura

are

a in

Ap

ril

201

8.

Ho

wev

er, t

he

bo

ard

is c

on

cern

ed a

bo

ut

mu

lti-

un

it d

evel

op

men

ts, w

ith

th

e in

tro

du

ctio

n o

f th

ree

bin

s p

er u

nit

an

d

ho

w t

his

wo

uld

wo

rk o

n t

he

stre

et

fro

nta

ges.

Co

un

cil n

eed

s to

en

sure

th

ere

is a

deq

uat

e

144

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

lead

in f

or

tran

siti

on

as

som

e p

eop

le b

y b

ags

in b

ulk

.

3.

Co

nti

nu

e e

stab

lish

ing

the

Re

sou

rce

Re

cove

ry N

etw

ork

12

co

mm

un

ity

recy

clin

g ce

ntr

es b

y 2

024

The

bo

ard

bel

ieve

s th

e d

evel

op

men

t o

f a

reso

urc

e re

cove

ry n

etw

ork

sh

ou

ld b

e gi

ven

pri

ori

ty.

Ther

e ar

e p

ote

nti

al s

oci

al e

nte

rpri

se

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

in e

stab

lish

ing

the

reso

urc

e re

cove

ry c

entr

es.

Loca

l re

sou

rce

reco

very

cen

tres

are

n

eed

ed n

ow

- m

ake

it e

asy

for

peo

ple

to

ta

ke u

nw

ante

d f

urn

itu

re, e

qu

ipm

ent,

b

uild

ing

mat

eri

als

etc

to a

nea

rby

loca

tio

n

for

re-u

se o

r re

pu

rpo

sin

g.

Pap

aku

ra L

oca

l Bo

ard

Pla

n h

as a

key

in

itia

tive

reg

ard

ing

reso

urc

e re

cove

ry a

nd

w

ou

ld li

ke t

o b

e co

nsi

der

ed a

s a

loca

tio

n

for

on

e o

f th

e ea

rlie

r 1

2 c

om

mu

nit

y re

cycl

ing

cen

tres

.

Do

es

the

loca

l bo

ard

su

pp

ort

th

e fo

llow

ing

pri

ori

ty a

ctio

ns?

1.

Ad

voca

te f

or

a h

igh

er

was

te le

vy

- To

ince

nti

vise

was

te d

iver

sio

n a

nd

inve

stm

ent

in r

eso

urc

e re

cove

ry

The

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s in

cen

tivi

sin

g w

aste

d

ive

rsio

n a

nd

inve

stm

ent

in r

eso

urc

e re

cove

ry w

ith

a h

igh

er w

aste

levy

al

tho

ugh

is m

ind

ful o

f im

pac

tin

g o

n t

ho

se

wit

h li

mit

ed in

com

es.

2.

Ad

voca

te f

or

pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

- Fo

r b

ever

age

con

tain

ers,

tyr

es,

The

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s ad

voca

cy f

or

pro

du

ct

ste

war

dsh

ip a

nd

bel

ieve

s co

un

cil s

ho

uld

b

e lo

bb

yin

g ce

ntr

al g

ove

rnm

ent

to

145

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

e-w

aste

, bat

teri

es e

tc

legi

slat

e in

rel

atio

n t

o p

rod

uct

st

ew

ard

ship

, par

ticu

larl

y in

rel

atio

n t

o

en

viro

nm

enta

lly f

rien

dly

or

recy

clab

le

pac

kagi

ng.

3.

Ad

dre

ss t

hre

e p

rio

rity

co

mm

erc

ial w

aste

stre

ams:

Co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d d

emo

litio

n w

aste

- W

aste

Avo

idan

ce a

nd

Re

sou

rce

Rec

ove

ry P

lan

s

- W

aste

bro

keri

ng

serv

ice

- W

ork

wit

h la

rge

dev

elo

per

s (e

.g.

Ho

usi

ng

New

Zea

lan

d)

Org

anic

was

te

- Fo

od

an

d g

ree

n w

aste

div

ersi

on

Pla

stic

s

-

Res

ear

ch c

om

po

siti

on

in la

nd

fill

The

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s th

e th

ree

pri

ori

ty

com

mer

cial

was

te s

team

s:

Co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d d

emo

litio

n w

aste

Org

anic

was

te

Pla

stic

s

Edu

cati

on

an

d in

cen

tive

s w

ill b

e re

qu

ired

as

co

nta

cto

rs o

nly

car

e ab

ou

t ge

ttin

g th

e jo

b d

on

e as

qu

ickl

y as

po

ssib

le a

nd

no

t n

ece

ssar

ily a

bo

ut

sep

arat

ing

ou

t th

e d

iffe

ren

t w

aste

str

eam

s.

This

will

nee

d t

o b

e w

ork

ed t

hro

ugh

wit

h

the

con

trac

tin

g, b

usi

nes

s se

cto

r an

d

tho

se m

ost

aff

ecte

d b

ecau

se it

po

ten

tial

ly

cou

ld im

pac

t o

n b

uild

ing

cost

s.

The

Pap

aku

ra L

oca

l Bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s th

e su

per

mar

kets

’ in

itia

tive

s w

ith

do

ing

away

w

ith

pla

stic

s b

ags

and

wan

t to

see

th

e p

last

ic p

acka

gin

g an

d p

oly

styr

ene

sub

stan

tial

ly r

edu

ced

.

Do

es

the

loca

l bo

ard

su

pp

ort

th

e f

ollo

win

g p

rio

rity

act

ion

s fo

r co

un

cil?

• A

dd

ress

was

te g

ener

ated

fro

m c

ou

nci

l’s

op

erat

ion

al a

ctiv

itie

s, p

arti

cula

rly

The

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s th

is p

rio

rity

act

ion

.

146

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te

•

Targ

et m

ajo

r in

fras

tru

ctu

re p

roje

cts

led

by

cou

nci

l an

d c

ou

nci

l-co

ntr

olle

d

org

anis

atio

ns

such

as

city

cen

tre

dev

elo

pm

ent

and

sto

rmw

ate

r p

roje

cts

The

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s th

is p

rio

rity

act

ion

.

Pu

ketā

pap

a 1

6 N

ove

mb

er 2

017

Th

at t

he

Pu

ketā

pap

a Lo

cal B

oar

d:

a)

no

te t

he

dra

ft f

eed

bac

k an

d d

eleg

ate

to M

emb

ers

Ho

lm a

nd

Co

ury

to

mak

e am

end

men

ts o

n t

he

pro

po

sed

dir

ecti

on

of

the

dra

ft W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n.

The

Pu

ketā

pap

a Lo

cal B

oar

d s

up

po

rts

op

tio

n 2

: exp

and

ed f

ocu

s, s

ub

ject

to

th

e fo

llow

ing

com

men

ts.

A

. G

en

era

l co

mm

en

ts

The

Bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s fu

ll im

ple

men

tati

on

of

the

Was

te M

anag

emen

t an

d M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n

201

2 a

nd

a f

ocu

s o

n a

dd

ress

ing

the

thre

e p

rio

rity

co

mm

erci

al w

aste

str

eam

s id

enti

fied

in t

he

Was

te A

sses

smen

t:

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te

org

anic

was

te

pla

stic

was

te

The

Bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s ad

voca

tin

g to

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t fo

r a

hig

her

was

te le

vy a

nd

fo

r p

rod

uct

st

ew

ard

ship

, par

ticu

larl

y to

ach

ieve

maj

or

red

uct

ion

s in

th

e u

se o

f p

last

ic s

ho

pp

ing

bag

s.

The

Bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s ad

dre

ssin

g w

aste

gen

erat

ed

fro

m c

ou

nci

l an

d c

ou

nci

l co

ntr

olle

d

org

anis

atio

n's

op

erat

ion

al a

ctiv

itie

s, p

arti

cula

rly

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te.

B. S

pe

cifi

c co

mm

en

ts

1)

The

Bo

ard

no

tes

a n

eed

fo

r m

ore

acc

ess

ible

loca

tio

ns

for

the

dis

po

sal o

f th

e fo

llow

ing

item

s a.

Tyre

s

147

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

b.

e-w

aste

c.

b

atte

ries

d

. M

attr

esse

s e

. Fl

uo

resc

ent

ligh

tbu

lbs

Ho

use

ho

lds

nee

d r

egu

lar

rem

ind

ers

of

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

for

recy

clin

g. (

Alo

ng

the

lines

of

Wat

erc

are'

s Ta

pp

ed In

new

slet

ter

on

wat

er u

se)

2)

Sho

uld

a h

igh

er w

aste

levy

be

intr

od

uce

d, t

he

Bo

ard

rec

om

men

ds

that

Au

ckla

nd

C

ou

nci

l id

enti

fy h

ow

a s

har

e o

f th

is c

an u

sed

to

en

han

ce t

he

ed

uca

tio

n a

nd

en

forc

emen

t n

eed

ed t

o m

eet

the

targ

et o

f ze

ro w

aste

by

20

40

. Par

ticu

lar

emp

has

is

sho

uld

be

on

ed

uca

tio

n a

nd

en

forc

emen

t in

th

e co

nst

ruct

ion

ind

ust

ry.

3)

The

Bo

ard

re

qu

ests

gre

ate

r p

ub

licit

y o

f in

org

anic

co

llect

ion

pro

gram

mes

, in

clu

din

g w

hen

an

d w

her

e th

ey a

re a

vaila

ble

.

4)

The

Bo

ard

see

s a

nee

d f

or

sign

ific

ant

incr

ease

in t

he

avai

lab

ility

of

pu

blic

rec

yclin

g b

ins

alo

ngs

ide

lan

dfi

ll o

nes

, sim

ilar

to t

ho

se in

Wh

itia

nga

. 5

) A

lte

rnat

ive

bin

s al

so n

eed

to

be

pro

mo

ted

at

pri

vate

ly f

un

ded

eve

nts

. (A

SB

sho

wgr

ou

nd

s is

a v

enu

e in

nee

d o

f su

ch b

ins)

Ro

dn

ey

19

Oct

ob

er 2

017

Th

at t

he

Ro

dn

ey L

oca

l Bo

ard

:

a)

pro

vid

e th

e fo

llow

ing

feed

bac

k o

n t

he

pro

po

sed

dir

ecti

on

of

the

dra

ft W

aste

M

anag

emen

t an

d M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n:

i.

sup

po

rt t

he

pro

po

sed

ap

pro

ach

tak

en

in t

he

dra

ft W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n, a

nd

in p

arti

cula

r th

e fo

cus

on

: a)

ad

voca

tin

g to

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t fo

r a

hig

her

was

te le

vy, n

oti

ng

that

an

alys

is o

f th

e ec

on

om

ic im

pac

t o

f th

e in

crea

sed

levy

in t

erm

s o

f an

nu

al c

ost

s to

bu

sin

ess

and

h

ou

seh

old

s w

ill b

e re

qu

ired

. b

) ad

voca

tin

g to

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t fo

r p

rod

uct

ste

war

dsh

ip in

pri

nci

ple

. c)

ad

dre

ssin

g th

ree

pri

ori

ty c

om

mer

cial

was

te s

trea

ms,

incl

ud

ing

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

d

emo

litio

n w

aste

, org

anic

was

te a

nd

pla

stic

was

te.

d)

add

ress

ing

was

te g

ener

ated

fro

m c

ou

nci

l an

d c

ou

nci

l-co

ntr

olle

d o

rgan

isat

ion

’s

148

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

op

erat

ion

al a

ctiv

itie

s, p

arti

cula

rly

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te a

nd

as

a p

art

of

this

su

pp

ort

s th

e d

evel

op

men

t o

f a

stra

tegy

fo

r m

anag

ing

clea

n a

nd

man

aged

fi

lls, i

ncl

ud

ing

thei

r lo

cati

on

, op

erat

ion

an

d w

aste

man

agem

ent

pra

ctic

es

ii.

b

road

ly s

up

po

rts

the

aim

s an

d o

bje

ctiv

es o

f th

e W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

Min

imis

atio

n

Pla

n a

nd

, in

par

ticu

lar,

th

e p

rop

ose

d f

ocu

s o

n t

he

80

per

cen

t o

f w

aste

to

lan

dfi

ll th

at

Au

ckla

nd

Co

un

cil d

oes

no

t d

irec

tly

con

tro

l

iii.

sup

po

rts

the

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f a

levy

bei

ng

imp

ose

d o

n c

lean

an

d m

anag

ed f

ill

op

erat

ors

in o

rder

to

ince

nti

vise

th

e re

du

ctio

n o

f w

aste

, no

tin

g th

at it

will

hav

e th

e ad

dit

ion

al b

enef

it o

f re

cou

pin

g th

e ra

pid

ly g

row

ing

cost

s to

rep

air

the

dam

age

cau

sed

to

th

e e

nvi

ron

men

t (e

g st

ream

s an

d w

ate

rway

s) a

nd

to

ou

r in

fras

tru

ctu

re (

eg

road

ing)

b

y th

e o

per

atio

n o

f th

ese

site

s

iv.

sugg

ests

th

at c

ou

nci

l’s w

aste

man

agem

ent

team

wo

rk w

ith

th

e D

evel

op

men

t P

rogr

amm

e O

ffic

e to

co

mb

ine

the

pla

nn

ing

and

was

te m

anag

emen

t el

emen

ts o

f a

clea

n a

nd

man

aged

fill

str

ate

gy in

to o

ne

pie

ce o

f w

ork

v

req

ues

ts t

hat

a f

ocu

s b

e cr

eate

d in

th

e W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

on

m

anag

ing

the

con

tam

inat

ion

cau

sed

by

was

te (

incl

ud

ing

con

tam

inat

ed

fill

) an

d t

hat

co

un

cil s

up

po

rt g

reat

er

en

forc

emen

t o

f co

mp

lian

ce c

on

dit

ion

s as

par

t o

f m

anag

ing

was

te

v

i re

qu

ests

th

at a

fo

rmal

def

init

ion

of

the

term

“ru

ral”

be

incl

ud

ed in

th

e W

aste

M

anag

emen

t an

d M

inim

isat

ion

Pla

n, n

oti

ng

that

th

ere

is n

o c

urr

ent

def

init

ion

an

d t

hat

m

any

of

Ro

dn

ey’s

maj

or

tow

nsh

ips

(in

clu

din

g W

arkw

ort

h, W

ells

ford

, Hel

ensv

ille,

R

iver

hea

d a

nd

Ku

meu

-Hu

apai

) ar

e m

ore

urb

an t

han

ru

ral a

nd

are

exc

lud

ed f

rom

“u

rban

” w

aste

man

agem

ent

init

iati

ves

v

ii.

sup

po

rts

the

con

tin

ued

pra

ctic

e o

f al

low

ing

resi

den

ts a

ch

oic

e b

etw

een

usi

ng

rub

bis

h b

ags

or

bin

s in

ru

ral a

reas

fo

r th

eir

was

te c

olle

ctio

n w

ith

a m

ove

to

war

ds

any

bag

s u

sed

to

be

bio

-deg

rad

able

149

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

v

iii.

sup

po

rts

the

exp

lora

tio

n o

f e

xpan

din

g th

e ke

rbsi

de

foo

d w

aste

co

llect

ion

to

m

ajo

r ru

ral t

ow

nsh

ips

in t

he

Ro

dn

ey L

oca

l Bo

ard

are

a so

th

at r

esid

ents

can

o

pt

in t

o t

his

se

rvic

e if

th

ey w

ant

to

ix

. s

up

po

rts

an a

dd

itio

nal

fo

cus

in t

he

Was

te M

anag

emen

t an

d M

inim

isat

ion

P

lan

bei

ng

crea

ted

on

ad

dre

ssin

g th

e w

aste

man

agem

ent

nee

ds

of

rura

l are

as

and

, in

par

ticu

lar,

issu

es a

sso

ciat

ed w

ith

ille

gal d

um

pin

g an

d t

he

effe

cts

of

po

or

was

te m

anag

emen

t p

ract

ices

on

ou

r en

viro

nm

ent.

Up

per

Har

bo

ur

16

No

vem

ber

201

7

That

th

e U

pp

er H

arb

ou

r Lo

cal B

oar

d:

a)

su

pp

ort

Op

tio

n 2

, as

this

can

be

un

der

take

n w

ith

in t

he

curr

ent

fun

din

g e

nve

lop

e an

d

mee

ts t

he

cou

nci

l’s r

esp

on

sib

iliti

es u

nd

er t

he

Was

te M

inim

isat

ion

Act

200

8, s

ub

ject

to

fu

rth

er in

form

atio

n r

egar

din

g th

e o

utc

om

e o

f th

e o

rgan

ic w

aste

tri

al.

Wai

hek

e 2

7 N

ove

mb

er 2

017

Th

at t

he

Wai

hek

e L

oca

l Bo

ard

:

a)

p

rovi

de

the

follo

win

g fe

ed

bac

k o

n t

he

dra

ft W

aste

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

(w

ith

min

or

chan

ges

del

egat

ed t

o t

he

chai

r):

Sup

po

rt t

he

gen

eral

dir

ecti

on

of

the

dra

ft W

aste

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

. Th

e H

GI S

ecti

on

w

as d

evel

op

ed in

co

nju

nct

ion

wit

h c

om

mu

nit

y st

ake

ho

lder

s w

hic

h t

he

bo

ard

su

pp

lem

ente

d

wit

h a

n a

dd

itio

n a

rou

nd

init

iati

ves

on

cle

an f

ill, m

anag

ed f

ill a

nd

co

nst

ruct

ion

was

te. I

n

par

ticu

lar:

•

T

he

goal

of

Zero

Was

te b

y 2

040

.

•

A

hig

her

was

te le

vy –

th

e cu

rren

t le

vy o

f $

10

per

to

nn

e is

to

o lo

w. A

hig

her

levy

wo

uld

ac

t as

a f

inan

cial

dis

ince

nti

ve t

o s

end

ing

was

te t

o la

nd

fill.

Th

is is

par

ticu

larl

y re

leva

nt

to

Wai

hek

e gi

ven

th

at t

her

e ar

e cu

rren

tly

limit

ed d

isin

cen

tive

s to

rem

ova

l of

solid

was

te o

ff-

isla

nd

.

•

G

reat

er

cen

tral

an

d lo

cal g

ove

rnm

ent

ince

nti

ves

sup

po

rtin

g p

rod

uct

ste

war

dsh

ip –

150

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

ther

e n

eed

to

be

mu

ch t

igh

ter

con

tro

ls o

n t

he

ove

ruse

an

d la

ck o

f re

turn

-to

-pro

du

cer

ince

nti

ves

for

pro

du

ct a

nd

pac

kagi

ng

(in

par

ticu

lar

larg

e ap

plia

nce

car

ton

s) a

nd

ref

un

d

sch

emes

fo

r b

ott

les

and

oth

er h

igh

val

ue

pro

du

ct c

on

tain

ers.

•

T

he

pla

n’s

Op

tio

n 2

fo

cus

on

th

e th

ree

pri

ori

ty c

om

mer

cial

was

te s

trea

ms:

dem

olit

ion

an

d c

on

stru

ctio

n w

aste

, org

anic

was

te a

nd

pla

stic

was

te. W

aih

eke

is lo

oki

ng

at o

pti

on

s fo

r co

nst

ruct

ion

was

te w

hic

h c

on

trib

ute

s si

gnif

ican

tly

to t

he

was

te-s

trea

m t

ran

spo

rted

off

-isl

and

, p

arti

cula

rly

in r

elat

ion

to

alt

ern

ate

use

s. It

als

o a

pp

reci

ates

th

e n

eed

to

dea

l eff

ecti

vely

wit

h

foo

d w

aste

as

Wai

hek

e n

eed

s a

serv

ice

to r

emo

ve c

om

mer

cial

fo

od

was

te a

nd

pro

cess

it

sust

ain

ably

. Th

ere

is a

new

ser

vice

pro

po

sed

to

co

mm

ence

wit

h m

ain

ret

ail a

rea

and

vi

ney

ard

s in

clu

din

g w

edd

ing

ven

ues

, wh

ich

pla

ns

to g

row

to

oth

er a

reas

as

it d

evel

op

s. T

he

Bo

ard

is c

on

cern

ed t

hat

th

e u

rban

are

a o

f W

aih

eke

has

bee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

he

foo

d w

aste

co

llect

ion

sch

eme

to b

e es

tab

lish

ed in

oth

er A

uck

lan

d u

rban

are

as. I

t is

no

ted

th

at a

ny

sch

eme

dev

ote

d t

o c

om

po

stin

g o

f o

rgan

ic w

aste

sh

ou

ld n

ot

act

as a

dis

ince

nti

ve t

o h

om

e co

mp

ost

ing.

•

T

he

nee

d f

or

a n

atio

nal

po

licy

on

pla

stic

bag

s an

d in

par

ticu

lar

en

suri

ng

that

su

per

mar

kets

an

d r

eta

ilers

use

co

mp

ost

able

bag

s, u

sin

g th

e ex

amp

le s

et o

ut

the

Wai

hek

e C

ou

ntd

ow

n s

up

erm

arke

t.

•

T

he

nee

d f

or

the

isla

nd

to

hav

e a

com

pre

hen

sive

co

mm

un

ity

recy

clin

g ce

ntr

e an

d

sup

po

rts

this

bei

ng

dev

elo

ped

alo

ng

wit

h t

he

firs

t tr

anch

e ra

ther

th

an w

aiti

ng

un

til 2

02

4.

Wai

tāke

re R

ange

s 2

6 O

cto

ber

201

7

That

th

e W

aitā

kere

Ran

ges

Loca

l Bo

ard

:

a)

Sup

po

rt p

rogr

essi

on

of

Op

tio

n 2

: E

xpan

ded

Fo

cus.

b)

Pro

vid

es t

he

follo

win

g fe

edb

ack

on

th

e fo

cus

area

s:

Ad

voca

tin

g to

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t fo

r a

hig

her

was

te l

evy

to i

nce

nti

vise

was

te d

ive

rsio

n

and

inve

stm

ent

in r

eso

urc

e re

cove

ry.

Sup

po

rt a

lar

ger

incr

ease

in

th

e w

aste

lev

y (t

o i

nce

nti

vise

div

ers

ion

) w

ith

a p

has

ed

imp

lem

enta

tio

n t

o a

llow

fo

r af

fect

ed p

arti

es t

o p

lan

fo

r th

e ch

ange

.

151

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

No

tes

ther

e is

a r

isk

of

pri

vate

co

ntr

acto

rs u

nd

er-c

utt

ing

hig

her

co

un

cil l

evie

s.

Sup

po

rt m

ore

fo

cus

on

re

cycl

ing.

· St

ron

gly

advo

cati

ng

for

pro

du

ct

stew

ard

ship

, ad

dre

ssin

g th

ree

pri

ori

ty

com

mer

cial

was

te s

tre

ams

of

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te,

org

anic

w

aste

an

d p

last

ic w

aste

.

Sup

po

rt a

dd

ress

ing

the

thre

e p

rio

rity

co

mm

erci

al w

aste

str

eam

s, w

hile

no

tin

g th

at

bev

erag

e co

nta

iner

s, t

yres

, e-w

aste

an

d b

atte

ries

are

als

o a

n a

rea

of

con

cern

.

Sup

po

rt in

tro

du

cin

g an

d s

up

po

rtin

g p

last

ic r

edu

ctio

n a

nd

rep

lace

men

t in

itia

tive

s.

No

te t

hat

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t h

as a

pri

mar

y ro

le i

n l

egis

lati

on

co

ntr

olli

ng

pro

du

ct

ste

war

dsh

ip.

Sup

po

rts

a fo

cus

on

co

mm

erci

al w

aste

, n

oti

ng

that

th

e fo

cus

nee

ds

to b

e m

uch

st

ron

ger

on

pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

an

d t

he

pro

du

cer

of

the

was

te p

rod

uct

rat

her

th

an

the

con

sum

er, e

.g. r

etu

rn o

f b

ever

age

con

tain

ers

and

tyr

es.

Sup

po

rt m

ore

pu

blic

pla

ce r

ecyc

ling

bin

s (p

arti

cula

rly

in t

ow

n c

entr

es),

rec

ogn

isin

g th

at it

is c

ost

ly t

o im

ple

men

t an

d m

ain

tain

. ·

Ad

dre

ssin

g w

aste

ge

ner

ate

d

fro

m

cou

nci

l an

d

cou

nci

l-co

ntr

olle

d

org

anis

atio

ns

op

erat

ion

al a

ctiv

itie

s, p

arti

cula

rly

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

w

aste

.

No

tes

that

Co

un

cil

alre

ady

has

a z

ero

was

te t

arge

t an

d t

hat

it

nee

ds

to p

rovi

de

lead

ersh

ip in

its

app

roac

h s

o a

s to

mo

del

beh

avio

urs

fo

r in

du

stry

, an

d t

o u

se c

on

trac

ts

and

oth

er m

ean

s to

infl

uen

ce w

aste

man

agem

ent

wh

ere

po

ssib

le.

Sup

po

rt i

n-h

ou

se f

ocu

s o

n a

dd

ress

ing

was

te g

ener

ated

fro

m c

ou

nci

l’s o

per

atio

nal

ac

tivi

ties

.

Ensu

re

was

te m

anag

emen

t an

d m

inim

isat

ion

pri

nci

ple

s ar

e em

bed

ded

wit

hin

all

cou

nci

l an

d c

ou

nci

l-co

ntr

olle

d o

rgan

isat

ion

ref

urb

ish

men

t an

d r

elo

cati

on

pro

ject

s.

This

in

clu

des

m

ajo

r in

fras

tru

ctu

re

pro

ject

s su

ch a

s ci

ty c

entr

e d

evel

op

men

t an

d

sto

rm-w

ate

r p

roje

cts.

Req

uir

e ze

ro w

aste

or

was

te m

inim

isat

ion

pla

ns

for

all

Co

un

cil

and

Co

un

cil

fun

ded

ev

ents

.

152

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

Wai

tem

atā

21

No

vem

ber

201

7

Bac

kgro

un

d

Au

ckla

nd

C

ou

nci

l is

cu

rren

tly

un

der

taki

ng

a re

view

o

f it

s W

aste

M

anag

emen

t an

d

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

.

The

revi

ew

was

in

itia

lly d

iscu

ssed

wit

h t

he

Wai

tem

atā

Loca

l B

oar

d a

t th

e 7

No

vem

ber

w

ork

sho

p.

Sub

seq

uen

tly

the

bo

ard

res

olv

ed a

t it

s 2

1 N

ove

mb

er b

usi

nes

s m

eeti

ng

to d

eleg

ate

to t

he

Nat

ura

l En

viro

nm

ent

po

rtfo

lio h

old

ers,

Ro

b T

ho

mas

an

d P

ipp

a C

oo

m,

resp

on

sib

ility

to

fi

nal

ise

the

bo

ard

’s f

eed

bac

k.

The

pro

po

sed

dra

ft W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

will

be

pre

sen

ted

to

th

e En

viro

nm

ent

and

Co

mm

un

ity

Co

mm

itte

e i

n D

ecem

ber

20

17

, se

eki

ng

app

rova

l to

pu

blic

ly

no

tify

th

e d

raft

pla

n.

The

Wai

tem

atā

Loca

l B

oar

d i

s a

stro

ng

advo

cate

fo

r th

e im

ple

men

tati

on

an

d d

irec

tio

n o

f th

e W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

20

12

an

d is

co

mm

itte

d t

o t

he

targ

et o

f ze

ro w

aste

A

uck

lan

d b

y 2

040

.

In o

ur

Loca

l B

oar

d P

lan

201

7 w

e h

ave

con

firm

ed o

ur

com

mit

men

t to

su

pp

ort

bu

sin

esse

s an

d

ho

use

ho

lds

to m

inim

ise

thei

r ca

rbo

n f

oo

tpri

nt

by

div

ert

ing

foo

d w

aste

fro

m l

and

fill

and

ad

voca

te t

o t

he

Go

vern

ing

Bo

dy

to im

ple

men

t a

foo

d w

aste

co

llect

ion

ser

vice

.

We

als

o a

im f

or

ou

r ev

ents

to

be

zero

was

te; P

arn

ell F

esti

val o

f R

ose

s an

d M

yers

Par

k M

edle

y,

bo

ard

-fu

nd

ed e

ven

ts,

are

hig

hly

co

mp

lian

t w

ith

zer

o w

aste

. W

e h

ave

also

wo

rke

d w

ith

th

e

Even

ts T

eam

to

in

clu

de

zero

was

te r

equ

irem

ents

in

to o

ur

thre

e ye

ar F

un

din

g A

gree

men

ts

wit

h lo

cal e

ven

ts o

rgan

iser

s.

The

Wai

tem

atā

Loca

l Bo

ard

pro

vid

es t

he

follo

win

g fo

rmal

fee

db

ack

on

th

e p

rop

ose

d d

irec

tio

n

of

the

dra

ft W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

(th

e P

lan

):

Op

tio

ns

anal

ysis

The

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s O

pti

on

2

as

per

o

ffic

ers’

re

com

men

dat

ion

, w

hic

h

add

s to

a

full

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f th

e W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

Min

imis

atio

n P

lan

20

12

a f

ocu

s o

n:

153

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

advo

cati

ng

for

a h

igh

er w

aste

levy

an

d f

or

pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

add

ress

ing

thre

e p

rio

rity

co

mm

erci

al w

aste

str

eam

s id

enti

fied

in

th

e W

aste

Ass

essm

ent:

co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d d

emo

litio

n w

aste

, org

anic

was

te a

nd

pla

stic

was

te

add

ress

ing

was

te g

ener

ated

fro

m c

ou

nci

l an

d c

ou

nci

l-co

ntr

olle

d o

rgan

isat

ion

s (C

CO

s)

As

a ge

ner

al p

rin

cip

le t

he

bo

ard

bel

ieve

s th

at t

he

mo

st s

ust

ain

able

was

te o

pti

on

sh

ou

ld b

e th

e m

ost

aff

ord

able

fo

r in

div

idu

als,

co

mm

un

ity

gro

up

s, b

usi

nes

ses,

co

un

cil a

nd

CC

Os.

Was

te le

vy a

nd

pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

The

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s:

Stro

ng

advo

cacy

to

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t fo

r a

sub

stan

tial

ly h

igh

er w

aste

lev

y. T

he

bo

ard

re

com

men

ds

that

th

e w

aste

levy

is s

et s

ub

stan

tial

ly h

igh

er in

ord

er t

o b

e a

gen

uin

e in

cen

tive

to

beh

avio

ura

l ch

ange

Pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

; p

arti

cula

rly

for

bev

erag

e co

nta

iner

s, p

acka

gin

g, t

yres

, b

atte

ries

an

d e

-w

aste

..

Thre

e c

om

me

rcia

l was

te s

tre

ams

1. C

on

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te

The

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s:

add

ress

ing

the

imp

act

of

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te w

her

eby

the

was

te l

evy

is s

et a

t th

e ri

ght

leve

l (n

atio

nal

ly)

to r

emed

y th

e cu

rren

t st

ate

of

affa

irs

in w

hic

h t

he

ind

ust

ry i

s d

isin

cen

tivi

sed

fro

m r

ecyc

ling

as it

is c

hea

per

to

se

nd

was

te t

o la

nd

fill.

2. O

rgan

ic w

aste

:

The

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s:

a ra

tes

fun

ded

we

ekly

org

anic

co

llect

ion

sys

tem

, h

ow

eve

r th

e b

oar

d i

s co

nce

rned

ab

ou

t a

po

ten

tial

fo

r a

per

ceiv

ed in

equ

ity

crea

ted

by

no

t gi

vin

g an

‘op

t o

ut’

ch

oic

e (a

nd

co

rres

po

nd

ing

rate

s re

du

ctio

n)

to p

eop

le w

ho

are

alr

ead

y co

mp

ost

ing.

Th

e b

oar

d w

ou

ld l

ike

see

eff

ecti

ve

com

mu

nic

atio

ns

that

hig

hlig

ht

the

valu

e o

f an

org

anic

co

llect

ion

al

low

ing

for

the

dis

po

sal o

f

154

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

org

anic

was

te t

hat

is

no

t u

sual

ly p

ut

in h

om

e co

mp

ost

sys

tem

s su

ch a

s an

imal

fo

od

, ci

tru

s,

mea

t, f

ish

, PLA

(co

rnst

arch

) p

rod

uct

s an

d c

om

po

stab

le c

up

s.

loca

lised

so

luti

on

to

o

rgan

ic

was

te

colle

ctio

n

(rat

her

th

an

a ce

ntr

aliz

ed

mas

s-in

du

stri

al

solu

tio

n t

o o

rgan

ic w

aste

) as

in

tern

atio

nal

bes

t p

ract

ice

. A

net

wo

rkin

g ap

pro

ach

to

org

anic

w

aste

co

llect

ion

will

en

able

gre

ater

co

mm

un

ity

ou

tco

mes

incl

ud

ing:

Gre

ate

r p

rod

uct

ivit

y an

d c

ost

s sa

vin

gs;

a n

etw

ork

ap

pro

ach

will

sav

e ti

me/

effo

rt/r

eso

urc

ing

than

sh

ipp

ing

foo

d w

aste

to

a s

ingl

e si

te o

r o

ut

of

Au

ckla

nd

. C

on

trac

tin

g se

rvic

es t

o e

xist

ing

loca

l bo

ard

sit

es w

ill r

edu

ce c

ost

s an

d c

reat

e ef

fici

enci

es a

cro

ss t

he

enti

re a

rea.

Red

uct

ion

in

car

bo

n;

inve

stm

ent

in l

oca

lized

in

fras

tru

ctu

re w

ill r

edu

ce c

arb

on

mile

s fo

r th

e m

ove

men

t o

f w

aste

acr

oss

th

e re

gio

n.

Inve

stm

ent

in lo

caliz

ed a

nae

rob

ic a

nd

met

han

e p

ow

er

gen

erat

ion

will

allo

w f

or

carb

on

red

uct

ion

ou

tco

mes

an

d g

reat

er

com

mu

nit

y re

silie

nce

in

n

atu

ral d

isas

ter

even

ts.

Red

uce

tra

ffic

co

nge

stio

n:

loca

lised

net

wo

rks

will

cre

ate

grea

ter

effi

cien

cies

an

d r

edu

ce

con

gest

ion

. Th

ou

san

ds

of

tru

ck m

ove

men

ts p

er m

on

th t

o a

sin

gle

site

will

cau

se m

ajo

r co

nge

stio

n a

nd

ad

d t

o e

xist

ing

con

gest

ion

on

th

e m

oto

rway

net

wo

rk.

Loca

lised

em

plo

ymen

t: e

stab

lish

ing

net

wo

rk s

ite

s in

th

e lo

cal

Bo

ard

are

a w

ill c

reat

e gr

eate

r ec

on

om

ic r

etu

rn t

o o

ur

com

mu

nit

y an

d lo

ng-

term

em

plo

ymen

t.

Gre

ate

r co

mm

un

ity

enga

gem

ent

and

ed

uca

tio

n:

hav

ing

mu

ltip

le o

rgan

ic w

aste

sit

es w

ith

in

Au

ckla

nd

will

en

able

gre

ater

co

mm

un

ity

ou

trea

ch a

nd

en

gage

men

t o

pp

ort

un

itie

s. T

his

can

as

sist

wit

h e

nga

gin

g w

ith

lo

cal

ho

use

ho

lds,

bu

sin

ess

dis

tric

ts a

nd

sch

oo

ls.

The

enga

gem

ent

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

wo

uld

lea

d t

o a

ran

ge o

f n

ew i

nit

iati

ves

yet

to b

e re

aliz

ed s

uch

as

loca

l fo

od

p

rod

uct

ion

, pes

t m

anag

emen

t.

The

feas

ibili

ty o

f ac

hie

vin

g a

net

wo

rk o

rgan

ic w

aste

ap

pro

ach

in A

uck

lan

d is

ver

y h

igh

. Wit

hin

th

e W

aite

mat

a Lo

cal

Bo

ard

are

a w

e a

re c

urr

entl

y w

ork

ing

wit

h t

he

Alb

ert

Eden

Lo

cal

Bo

ard

an

d P

uke

tap

apa

Loca

l B

oar

d t

o d

evel

op

ou

r fi

rst

Res

ou

rce

Rec

ove

ry C

entr

e in

We

ste

rn

Spri

ngs

. Th

ere

is a

lso

th

e p

oss

ibili

ty o

f en

gagi

ng

wit

h t

he

Ke

lmar

na

Gar

den

s, t

he

Sym

on

ds

Stre

et G

ard

en a

nd

a n

ew s

ite

in P

arn

ell t

o c

reat

e si

gnif

ican

t lo

ng-

term

loca

lised

ou

tco

me

s.

The

bo

ard

wo

uld

als

o l

ike

to

no

te t

he

imp

ort

ance

of

a b

usi

nes

s fo

od

was

te s

ervi

ce.

Sin

ce t

he

155

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

ado

pti

on

of

its

Low

Car

bo

n A

ctio

n P

lan

, th

e b

oar

d h

as f

un

ded

sev

eral

lo

w c

arb

on

pro

ject

s.

On

e o

f th

em i

s fo

cuse

d o

n r

edu

cin

g b

usi

nes

s fo

od

was

te t

hro

ugh

an

aw

aren

ess

rais

ing

pro

gram

me.

Th

rou

gh t

he

dev

elo

pm

ent

of

this

wo

rk i

t w

as e

vid

ent

that

dat

a o

n b

usi

nes

s w

aste

is

very

lim

ited

an

d b

ased

on

hig

h l

evel

in

form

atio

n p

rovi

ded

by

the

Au

ckla

nd

Co

un

cil’s

W

aste

Ass

essm

ent.

Bu

sin

ess

foo

d w

aste

is

a p

arti

cula

r co

nce

rn f

or

Wai

tem

atā

give

n i

ts h

igh

d

ensi

ty o

f ca

fes,

res

tau

ran

ts

and

tak

eaw

ay s

ervi

ces.

Th

e b

oar

d’s

vie

w

is t

hat

ad

equ

ate

lead

ersh

ip a

nd

su

pp

ort

is

nee

ded

in

ord

er t

o i

mp

lem

ent

an e

ffec

tive

bu

sin

ess

foo

d w

aste

se

rvic

e.

3. P

last

ic w

aste

The

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s th

e P

lan

fo

cusi

ng

on

e-w

aste

, b

atte

ries

an

d p

last

ic b

ags.

Th

e b

oar

d a

lso

su

pp

ort

s th

e im

ple

men

tati

on

of

a b

an o

n s

ingl

e u

se p

last

ic b

ags

Co

un

cil a

nd

CC

Os

The

bo

ard

su

pp

ort

s ze

ro w

aste

bei

ng

an e

asy,

in

exp

ensi

ve a

nd

‘b

usi

nes

s as

usu

al’

op

tio

n f

or

even

t o

rgan

iser

s to

imp

lem

ent

and

fo

r al

l Co

un

cil a

nd

CC

O f

un

ded

eve

nts

to

be

Zero

Was

te.

The

bo

ard

re

com

men

ds

that

C

ou

nci

l en

cou

rage

s ex

amp

les

of

goo

d

pra

ctic

es

in

the

com

mu

nit

y, f

or

exam

ple

, gr

ant

app

licat

ion

s to

tra

nsp

ort

co

mp

ost

by

bic

ycle

to

Kel

mar

na

Gar

den

s.

Oth

er c

om

me

nts

Co

ntr

ol o

ver

lan

dfi

ll

As

per

its

Res

olu

tio

n [

WTM

/201

7/1

], t

he

bo

ard

req

ues

ts c

ou

nci

l to

inve

stig

ate

hav

ing

grea

ter

con

tro

l o

ver

lan

dfi

lls

in

ord

er

to

hav

e gr

eate

r co

ntr

ol

ove

r p

rici

ng,

th

us

ince

nti

visi

ng

stak

eho

lder

s ad

op

tin

g su

stai

nab

le w

aste

so

luti

on

s.

Med

ical

Was

te

Au

ckla

nd

med

ical

fac

iliti

es n

eed

s to

be

enco

ura

ged

to

co

nsi

der

on

-sit

e lo

caliz

ed s

olu

tio

ns

uti

lisin

g n

ew

tech

no

logy

fo

r m

edic

al

was

te.

Cit

ies

aro

un

d

the

wo

rld

h

ave

star

ted

im

ple

men

tin

g n

ew

tech

no

logy

th

rou

gh

the

use

o

f o

zon

e to

st

erili

ze

was

te

wit

h

no

at

mo

sph

eric

imp

act.

156

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

Wh

au

25

Oct

ob

er 2

017

Th

at t

he

Wh

au L

oca

l Bo

ard

:

a)

sup

po

rt t

he

pro

po

sed

ap

pro

ach

tak

en

in t

he

dra

ft W

aste

Man

agem

ent

and

Min

imis

atio

n

Pla

n.

b)

pro

vid

e th

e fo

llow

ing

feed

bac

k o

n t

he

focu

s ar

eas:

i. ad

voca

tin

g to

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t fo

r a

hig

her

was

te le

vy t

o in

cen

tivi

se w

aste

div

ersi

on

an

d in

vest

me

nt

in r

eso

urc

e re

cove

ry.

• su

pp

ort

a la

rger

incr

ease

in t

he

was

te le

vy w

ith

a p

has

ed im

ple

men

tati

on

to

allo

w f

or

affe

cte

d p

arti

es t

o p

lan

fo

r th

e ch

ange

. •

no

te t

her

e is

a r

isk

of

pri

vate

co

ntr

acto

rs u

nd

er-c

utt

ing

hig

her

co

un

cil

lev

ies.

•

sup

po

rt m

ore

fo

cus

on

rec

yclin

g.

ii.

advo

cati

ng

for

pro

du

ct s

tew

ard

ship

, ad

dre

ssin

g th

ree

pri

ori

ty c

om

mer

cial

was

te s

tre

ams

of

con

stru

ctio

n a

nd

dem

olit

ion

was

te, o

rgan

ic w

aste

an

d p

last

ic w

aste

.

• su

pp

ort

ad

dre

ssin

g th

e th

ree

pri

ori

ty c

om

mer

cial

was

te s

trea

ms.

•

no

te t

hat

bev

erag

e co

nta

iner

s, t

yres

, e-w

aste

an

d b

atte

ries

are

als

o a

n a

rea

of

con

cern

. •

sup

po

rt in

tro

du

cin

g p

last

ic b

ag r

ed

uct

ion

init

iati

ves.

•

no

te t

hat

cen

tral

go

vern

men

t h

as a

pri

mar

y ro

le in

legi

slat

ion

co

ntr

olli

ng

pro

du

ct

ste

war

dsh

ip

• n

ote

th

at t

he

focu

s n

eed

s to

be

mu

ch s

tro

nge

r o

n t

he

pro

du

cer

of

the

was

te p

rod

uct

ra

ther

th

an t

he

con

sum

er e

.g. r

etu

rnin

g p

last

ic t

o t

he

pro

du

cer/

pac

kage

r as

op

po

sed

to

cu

sto

mer

s p

ayin

g fo

r su

per

mar

ket

bag

s.

• su

pp

ort

mo

re p

ub

lic p

lace

rec

yclin

g b

ins

(par

ticu

larl

y in

to

wn

ce

ntr

es),

rec

ogn

isin

g th

at it

is c

ost

ly t

o im

ple

men

t an

d m

ain

tain

.

iii.

add

ress

ing

was

te g

ener

ated

fro

m c

ou

nci

l an

d c

ou

nci

l-co

ntr

olle

d o

rgan

isat

ion

s o

per

atio

nal

act

ivit

ies,

par

ticu

larl

y co

nst

ruct

ion

an

d d

emo

litio

n w

aste

.

157

Loca

l Bo

ard

D

ate

R

eso

luti

on

• su

pp

ort

ad

dre

ssin

g w

aste

gen

erat

ed f

rom

co

un

cil’s

op

erat

ion

al a

ctiv

itie

s.

• en

sure

was

te m

anag

emen

t an

d m

inim

isat

ion

pri

nci

ple

s ar

e em

bed

ded

wit

hin

all

cou

nci

l an

d c

ou

nci

l-co

ntr

olle

d o

rgan

isat

ion

ref

urb

ish

men

t an

d r

elo

cati

on

pro

ject

s.

This

incl

ud

es m

ajo

r in

fras

tru

ctu

re p

roje

cts

such

as

tow

n c

entr

e d

evel

op

men

t, f

acili

ty,

par

k an

d s

torm

wat

er p

roje

cts.

158

Documents

WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN … · notification letter. Only members of the hearing panel can ask questions about submissions or evidence. ... The panel will then make