City Services Committee Cont'd

14. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY - LICHFIELD STREET CAR PARKING BUILDING RR 6935

Officer responsible	Author
Parking Operations Manager	Property Services Officer, Lewis Burn (4/16)
Corporate Plan Output: Off Street Parking (8.5.6 Vol 2)

The purpose of this report is to put before the Council a request by Bellsouth to install a telecommunications facility at the Lichfield Street car parking building.

BACKGROUND

Bellsouth have been looking for a cell site in the south western corner of the central business district to provide signal to the area bounded by the city mall, Durham Street South, St Asaph Street and Colombo Street. It is understood the need for a new site is because the levels of mobile phone traffic in this locality is approaching the maximum limit on their existing sites at the Levine building; Moorhouse Avenue, Price Waterhouse; Armagh Street and Commercial Union; corner Liverpool and Cashel Streets. Bellsouth believe the parking building is highly suitable for locating the cell site for the following reasons:

1. It is centrally located to the required coverage area.
2. Surrounding building will not block signals from reaching the required coverage area.
3. The antennas can be mounted without any significant visual impact.
4. It is located in a commercial area.
5. Transient nature of the building users.

Bellsouth have looked at alternative sites and have concluded that the parking building provides the most suitable location and, if consent is granted, will probably obviate the need to build at least two other sites to achieve the same signal coverage. The primary objective of Bellsouth is to provide good signals to the Cashel Street mall/cafe users. At present excess cellular traffic in this locality is blocking calls. Alternative buildings were considered but discounted by Bellsouth for the following reasons;.

1. The Harley Davidson building on the corner of Lichfield Street and Oxford Terrace. This location has been ruled out because of the close proximity to St Michael's School and the antennas would be considerably lower than the car parking building.
2. Avis Rental Car Building Lichfield Street
3. Kirk Motors Lichfield Street

Both these buildings are considered too far a distance from Cashel Street.

(3) Budget Rental Car Building - probably too close a proximity to the St Michael's Primary School.

APPLICATION

The proposal is to install a three sectored antenna system with up to two small microwave dishes approximately 300-600 millimetres in circumference with an associated equipment shelter measuring 3.2 x 4.2 x 2.8m. The preferred location for the equipment shed is the shelter on top of the foyer area adjacent to the lift well at the northern end of the building which serves access to Plymouth Lane. Site testing by Bellsouth's technicians is being carried out with the Parking Manager's permission and until the results of this test is known the precise location of the antenna will not be determined. The proposal does however envisage a total of six antenna, two on each wall with the exception of the west wall, below the roof line. Where necessary Bellsouth have indicated that the antenna can be painted to blend in with the existing colour of the building panels to minimise the visual impact of the facility. The equipment shelter can also be painted in a blending colour.

RESOURCE CONSENT

In terms of the Council's transitional and proposed City Plans, the application constitutes a discretionary activity and a resource consent will be required. The Resource Management Act consent process will address any environmental effects/concerns over the siting of a cellular base station at this location. The Lichfield car parking building is not within 300 metres of a living zone and is not in close proximity to childcare facilities or housing. St Michael's Primary School would be in excess of 200 metres from the parking building.

PARKING OPERATIONS MANAGER

The Parking Operations Manager does not oppose the application but, if granted, would stipulate the following requirements:

1. A written guarantee that the site will not interfere with the operation of the building's equipment, eg - parking control system, security system AM and FM radio communication.
   
   
2. That no parking spaces are lost when the site is installed.
   
   
3. That all construction work is carried out outside of the car park operating hours.
   
   
4. That, if for any reason, customers refuse to use space(s) because of fears about the cell site the Parking Unit is compensated by Bellsouth for any loss incurred.

LEASE

The Council holds the Lichfield parking building as a fee simple title. The Council is authorised to lease this building (or part of) for telecommunication purposes under the commercial leasing provisions of the Local Government Act 1974 (ie Section 572 (3)). Bellsouth seek a term of up to 20 years less one day comprising an initial term of five years with three rights of renewal of five years, the last renewal less one day. It is considered two rights of renewal to give a maximum term of 15 years would be long enough. A market rental would be negotiated and subject to three yearly review.

CONCLUSION

Provided the technical site testing proves favourable, a resource consent is granted and Bellsouth can satisfy the Parking Operations Manager's requirements, there would seem to be no substantive reasons for a telecommunications facility not to be sited on the Lichfield car parking building. It is expected that plans detailing the precise location of the proposed antenna/dishes and equipment shelter can be tabled at the Committee's meeting.

Recommendation:	That the Council, as landowner, grant its permission for the Property Manager in consultation with the Parking Operations Manager to negotiate a lease up to a maximum term of 15 years with Bellsouth for the purpose of installing and establishing cellular transmission equipment on the Lichfield parking building as outlined in this report, subject to:
	Bellsouth wishing to proceed following the results of their site test. A resource consent being obtained to the discretionary activity. The installations being located to the satisfaction of the Parking Operations Manager and his Unit's requirements to safeguard any adverse affects to the operation of the parking building being satisfied. All costs associated with the application and lease documentation being met by Bellsouth.
Chairman's Recommendation:	That the above recommendation be adopted.

 

15. TRANSFER STATION OPENING TIMES RR 6791

Officer responsible	Author
Waste Manager	Mike Stockwell, Waste Manager
Corporate Plan Output: Solid Waste, Transfer Stations

The purpose of this report is to advise Councillors about the cost of increasing the opening times for the transfer stations following occasional requests for this from commercial refuse collectors. It also addresses currently closed days.

BACKGROUND

Currently the Council's three transfer stations are open from 7.30am to 4.00pm every day of the year except 25 and 26 December, 1 and 2 January, ANZAC Day and Good Friday. There are two issues that arise from these opening times. They are:

1. From time to time requests arise from some commercial refuse collectors for the transfer stations to remain open later than 4.00pm. This would enable them to work a longer day and still be able to dispose of their load at the transfer stations on the same day.
   
   
2. At certain times of the year long queues form at the transfer stations. Typically this occurs on the first open day after the Christmas/New Year break ie 3 January. A solution to this could be to open the transfer stations on 2 January (one of the six closed days).

It is difficult to gauge how useful or popular it would be to open the transfer stations on the other five closed days but the most probable order of public/commercial priority would be ANZAC Day, Good Friday, New Years Day, Boxing Day, Christmas Day (least popular last).

COSTS

Opening the transfer stations for longer hours or extra days results in increased costs for labour and plant operation. When transfer stations are operating the landfill also needs to be open to receive the compacted refuse and this also results in extra costs. Operating costs are typically:

	$/hr
Parkhouse Road	360
Metro Place	220
Styx Mill Road	150
Landfill	215
	945

 

Cost per year to open one extra hour	=	945 x 359 x 1.0
from 4.00pm to 5.00pm	=	339,255
say	=		$340,000/year
Cost to open each of six current closed days	=	945 x 9.5
	=	8,978
	say	=	$9,000/day

DISCUSSION

Operating Hours

The cost of extending the transfer stations (and landfill) operating times by one hour per day (4.00pm to 5.00pm) for the whole year is around $340,000. This is a significant extra cost which is not likely to be offset by extra revenue.

Another possibility would be to extend the hours of operation only in the busiest times of spring (September, October and November) and autumn (April and May) rather than for a full year. This would cost around $142,000 extra per year.

A further possibility is the use of smart cards. In 1997 one of the bigger waste collection companies suggested that an after hours smart card entry system be installed at the transfer stations. Further information was requested from the company and no further response was received. However, this system does offer possibilities. A licensing system would be necessary to ensure only responsible operators had after hours entry. Various problem areas would also have to be overcome for example:

Risk of fire after company had left
Dumping of toxic waste
Overloading station
Noise problems with neighbours
Styx Mill cannot have uncontained refuse in the pit overnight

It is recommended that in view of the significant extra costs of opening longer hours, that in the meantime the opening times remain as is. However, the Waste Management Unit will conduct a user survey in late January/early February to ascertain the level of public demand for longer opening times. This will be reported back to the City Services Committee in March in time for inclusion of extra money in the 1998/99 budget if desired.

Opening Days

The cost of opening the transfer stations (and landfill) on each of the six closed days is around $9,000/day. The main problem to this closing seems to be queues after Christmas/New Year. At this stage it is recommended that an extra $9,000 is budgeted in the 1998/99 year to open up on 2 January. This should help reduce queue lengths on 3 January. The survey referred to above will also address the level of public demand for opening on currently closed days.

Recommendation:	That transfer station and landfill operating hours remain as is in the meantime. That transfer stations and the landfill open up on 2 January starting 1 July 1998 and that the extra associated operating cost is budgeted for in the 1998/99 year ($9,000). That a user survey is conducted at the transfer stations in late January/early February to gauge customer satisfaction with opening hours and days. The results will be reported back to the City Services Committee in March 1998.
Chairman's Recommendation:	That the above recommendation be adopted.

 

16. FEES FOR GREENWASTE AT TRANSFER STATIONS RR 6792

Officer responsible	Author
Waste Manager	Mike Stockwell
Corporate Plan Output: Solid Waste, Compost

The purpose of this report is to address Strategy and Resources Committees request for a report about fees for greenwaste at the transfer stations following a view expressed by a number of Councillors that fees should be progressively phased out with compensating adjustments to other transfer station charges.

BACKGROUND

Fees and charges for refuse (including greenwaste) are based on the Council's Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan (SHWMP). The plan itself is based on the five R principle, that of encouraging a hierarchy of reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery and safe residue disposal. This plan is required by Local Government Amendment Act No. 4 and reinforced by this Council's own Environmental Policy (November 1997) which endorses the polluter pays principle ie the organisation or individual responsible for an environmental threat should bear the cost of cleaning up or prevention. The Council's SHWMP is currently being revised and should be adopted in new version by September 1998 (refer attached programme). Councillors will recall that the broad principles of the plan were presented and endorsed at a joint City Services/Environmental Seminar in November 1997.

In relation to fees and charges key elements of the SHWMP are:

• The costs incurred in the implementation of this plan will be allocated in ways that establish economic incentives and disincentives in order to promote any or all of the objectives of the plan.
  
  
• Charges will be transparent and applied to the real costs of implementing the plan.

FEES AND CHARGES GENERALLY

The system of fees and charges (refer attachment) is too complex to discuss in depth in this report. However, in very broad terms a charge is set per tonne for waste into the transfer station. This charge covers the cost of kerbside collection (domestic and commercial) transfer, landfill disposal and aftercare together with waste minimisation initiatives (composting, kerbside recycling, recycling drop-off centres, commercial waste minimisation, Recovered Materials Foundation). This tipping charge is collected in the following way:

• Through rates from property owners (for the kerbside collection and disposal)
• Transfer station charges to the public and commercial sector
• At landfill gate to certain commercial operators

Councillors will recall that the tipping fee will be raised by $3/tonne over five successive years to cover the cost of waste minimisation initiatives (ie from $40/tonne in 1996/97 to $55/tonne in 2001/02 excluding GST). The way these charges are reflected in transfer station fees each year is shown on the purple pages of the corporate plan.

GREENWASTE FEES

In order to encourage people to recycle their greenwaste into compost, transfer station fees have been set much lower for clean greenwaste than for refuse. In addition these fees have not been increased since first inception in spite of other fees increasing. Solid refuse fees are shown on the attachment (those for 1998/99 are draft for consideration during the Council's budget setting process).

In summary fees are:

	1997/98 $ incl GST	1998/99 $ incl GST	Revenue 1998/99 $ excl GST
Refuse tonne car trailer single trailer double	43.38 4.50 14.00 20.00	46.75 5.75 16.00 23.00	9,945,000
Green tonne car trailer single trailer double	16.00 2.00 5.00 7.00	16.00 (34%*) 2.00 (35%*) 5.00 (31%*) 7.00 (30%*)	742,000

* % = green fee as percentage of refuse fee.

COMMENT

The Compost Facility Business Plan has two principle objectives. These are:

1. Reduce greenwaste going into the landfill by recycling it into saleable compost products.
2. Maximise financial return on capital investment in the Compost Facility.

From time to time it is commented that objective (a) would be enhanced by having zero charge for greenwaste. The result of this would be that the revenue would reduce and financial results would deteriorate on a cashflow basis ie objective (b) would be undermined to the tune of around $0.75m per year.

Taking all factors into account it is the considered opinion of the Waste Management Unit that the current and proposed fees for greenwaste are appropriate at their current level. The reasons are:

• In spite of the occasional contrary comment there is general public acceptance that these fees are reasonable (and certainly they compare favourably with say Northshore at $6/car and $18/single axle trailer versus $2 and $5 for Christchurch).
  
  
• They are already set very significantly below waste fees (around 30% to 35% refer table above) and the difference will increase with the increasing tipping fee.
  
  
• It is not at all certain that reducing the fees to zero would attract significantly more refuse.
  
  
• Reduction to zero would result in a cash loss of around $0.75m excl GST per year to the Council.
  
  
• To recoup the cash loss by compensating increases would be likely to result in severe adverse publicity. For example for 88,000 cars and 108,000 single axle trailers/year, recouping the loss on a 25/75 basis would increase those charges by $2.40 and $5.86 extra (ie for 1998/99, $8.15/car and $21.86 trailer incl GST versus $5.75 and $16.00).

SUMMARY

Greenwaste fees are set at around 30% of refuse fees. They generate a significant sum of revenue ($0.75m excl GST) for the Council each year.

Apart from the occasional adverse comment the public accept the level of greenwaste fees as being reasonable. It is far from certain that reducing fees to zero would attract much more greenwaste whilst this action would undermine the Compost Plant financial results. Increasing fees on other vehicles to compensate is likely to result in strong adverse public reaction. For these reasons it is recommended that the fees for greenwaste remain as is.

Recommendation:	That the fees for greenwaste remain as is.
Chairman's Recommendation:	That the above recommendation be adopted.

 

17. CLEANER PRODUCTION STUDY TOUR RR 6789

Officer responsible	Author
Waste Manager	Christine Byrch

sThe purpose of this report is to provide the key learning points from the attendance of the Commercial Waste Minimisation Officer at the European Roundtable on Cleaner Production in Oslo, 1 to 3 November; visits to local authorities in the UK and Denmark; and visits with other organisations promoting cleaner production to business and industry.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study tour was to benefit from the experience of recognised world leaders with respect to implementing cleaner production and improving environmental performance within local government organisations, and promoting and implementing cleaner production for businesses in general. The study tour was funded by a grant from the Bertelsmann Study Award, with additional funds from the Waste Management Unit and the Environmental Policy and Planning Unit.

The four major objectives of the study tour were:

1. To investigate how other Councils are implementing cleaner production and improving environmental performance within their own organisations.
   
   
2. To investigate how other local government organisations promote cleaner production to businesses including how programmes are structured and run to benefit a variety of sector groups.
   
   
3. To promote Christchurch City Council initiatives both with implementing cleaner production/environmental management in house and promoting and assisting businesses to implement cleaner production.
   
   
4. To study national/central government initiatives for promoting cleaner production.

REPORT ON OBJECTIVES

1. To Investigate How Other Councils are Implementing Cleaner Production and Improving Environmental Performance Within Their Own Organisations.

There is a commitment amongst local authorities in the United Kingdom to improve their own environmental performance as they require business and industry to do. The main reasons cited for this are to get their own house in order as an example to other organisations, and that this is the most valuable contribution that they can make to sustainable development and to implement the Agenda 21 principles. (Agenda 21 is the plan of action agreed to at the Earth Summit in Rio, 1992, to address global issues. It is a blue print on how to make development socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.) Councils are aware of a need to integrate environmental issues/sustainability into all of their operations and to be able to demonstrate that this is the case.

Environmental Management Systems

Environmental management systems are the main means by which local authorities are improving their environmental performance. The Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) specification is preferred over the International Standards Organisation specification (ISO14000) because it provides public transparency through an environmental statement and requires corporate commitment.

So far three local authorities (London Borough of Sutton, Hereford City Council, and Stratford on Avon District Council) have achieved registration under EMAS and two councils (Nottingham City Council and Leeds City Council) have operational units certified to ISO 14001. Of all local authorities, 7% (472 in total) have formally committed themselves to achieving recognition under one of these standards. A further 72 councils have formally committed resources to and are currently implementing an environmental management system but are yet to make a decision on whether they will seek verification or certification.

The Local Government Management Board (LGMB) has a key role in this. The role of this board is to help local authorities and other publicly funded organisations to serve communities better, focussing particularly on issues to do with personnel, management and governance. In April 1995 a European Union regulation allowed local authorities to be accredited under the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme.

LGMB set up a Help-Desk to promote EMAS to local authorities and has since published a series of guides (updated based on experience) and case studies and runs seminars to assist local authorities to implement this scheme. At this stage accreditation is voluntary.

EMAS paperwork comprises:

• An environmental policy
• A register of significant environmental effects (eg specific effects related to waste including disposal of batteries used in portable equipment; purchasing including purchase of computer equipment and its impact on energy use and paper consumption)
• An environmental work programme (eg activities, targets, indicators, responsibility and resources to achieve objectives such as "Increase awareness of dog fouling as a public health nuisance and an offence")
• Written procedures (eg procedure for "Monitoring and reporting on energy and water consumption in Council offices and public conveniences")
• Environmental Statement - a public document reporting annually on environmental performance.

Timing

It takes around 8 months from start to finish to prepare one Unit for certification. Some Councils certified one Unit at a time while others did all units at once. London Borough of Sutton, (170,000 residents and 2,000 staff excluding schools) started in 1995 and plan to have all units registered by 2000. Smaller councils (eg Stratford on Avon with around 350 staff) took 2 to 2^[Omega] years to get all units certified.

Environmental Responsibilities

Councils with a certified Eco Management and Audit Scheme generally have one officer responsible for co-ordination within the Council. At Sutton, this is a full time position, whereas at Stratford on Avon this is a half time position. There is also an EMAS team within each Unit.

Environmental initiatives are co-ordinated by a staff team of representatives from all Units. Where there is no EMAS co-ordinator things seem to happen a little slower, but sustainability and environmental considerations are still included in every day work.

An inter Unit approach to environmental management is very important. A lack of co-operation between units was seen as a barrier by Councils. EMAS was beneficial in changing this.

Most Councils had at least one staff group responsible for environmental initiatives and awareness raising, and an elected members group.

Staff Awareness

Raising staff awareness and involvement is a key to the success of all environmental programmes. Staff training and newsletters are tools for doing this.

Staff training at Worcester City Council is an example of a successful programme. All elected members and staff attended a 1[Omega] hour training programme to raise awareness of environmental issues and how their day to day activities affect the environment.

Similarly, all staff at Stratford on Avon District Council attend a one hour training session given by the Environmental Co-ordinator every two years to review their environmental responsibilities. There is also more in depth training for 30 to 40 key staff provided by a consultant.

Another example is the County of Sorstrom where enforcement officers attended the equivalent of a University diploma course in environmental management so as to be able to work pro actively in a consultative capacity with the industries they regulate.

Environmental Audit

Lancashire County Council has carried out two audits as part of a program to improve the County's environment through sustainable development. This is an ongoing program. An environmental audit was carried out in 1991 and this is repeated 3 yearly to determine progress. The audits are published and also the findings of the second audit are summarised in a video. The video is very good.

Purchasing policy

Most Councils in the United Kingdom have or are working on an environmental purchasing policy. These cover such things as cleaning chemicals, contracts, energy saving, timber, vehicles and plant etc. They are more an information booklet of things to consider when purchasing. London Borough of Sutton has stated that after a certain date, goods and services will only be purchased from suppliers with a verified environmental management system.

Key Learning Points and Actions

The value of a formal environmental management system is that it commits Local Authorities to improving environmental performance; co-ordinates initiatives across the organisation; and provides a framework against which to report environmental performance/management initiatives.

The following appear to be essential elements for successful environmental management within a Local Authority :

1. A clear vision of what is to be achieved.
2. A work plan (objectives, targets, actions, indicators) for putting policy into practice.
3. A co-ordinated approach to environmental management through a staff group that works across Units and breaks down inter Unit barriers.
4. In depth training for key staff regarding environmental management system, how it works and the benefits.
5. Training for all staff to raise awareness of environmental issues, sustainability and Local Agenda 21 and the impact of our day to day work on environmental aspects.
6. A purchasing policy that promotes sustainability.
7. Training that focuses on ways in which staff can incorporate pollution prevention into their policy, permitting, compliance and enforcement activities and encourages staff to take ownership for their actions.

Putting this into practice

The Waste Management Unit has initiated the following to put these elements into practice:

1. Developing a cleaner production/environmental management system program as a model and then expanding this to all other Council Units. A consultant is to be employed to assist with this in 1998 The Council will benefit from the consultants experience with other such programmes for large organisations.
2. Continue working with Inventory Unit to develop a process for purchasing that promotes sustainability eg policy, guidelines
   
   and recommends the following:
   
   
3. Discuss with the Environmental Liaison Group whether this group would fulfil the staff group role (see point 3 above) this is to be discussed at the next Group meeting. (The Environmental Liaison Group is an inter unit staff group that meets every 6 to 8 weeks to discuss environmental issues).
   
   
4. Training for all staff and elected members regarding environmental issues and the proposed cleaner production/environmental management system and the anticipated outcomes from this. Training would be developed as part of this proposed overall program by the Waste Management Unit, the consultant and the Environmental Liaison Group.
   
   
5. Following the training, focus on ways in which staff can incorporate pollution prevention into policy, permitting, compliance and enforcement activities and a consultative approach to regulation.

Waste Management Unit has copies of:

• Environmental policies from Hereford City Council, Taunton Deane Borough Council, Surrey County Council, London Borough of Sutton, Stratford on Avon District Council
• LGMB guidance and case study documentation
• Environmental statements from London Borough of Sutton and Stratford on Avon District Council
• Training outlines from Worcester City Council and County of Sorstrom
• Environmental purchasing policies from Stratford on Avon District Council and Lancashire County Council

2. To Investigate How Other Local Government Organisations Promote Cleaner Production to Businesses Including How Programmes are Structured and Run to Benefit a Variety of Sector Groups.

Cleaner Production in Europe

There are many organisations promoting cleaner production in Europe including local government, central government, research institutes, Universities, network groups etc. Considerable funding is provided by the European Union. There is also a programme whereby donor countries (West Europe) give money to start but not sustain cleaner production programmes in Eastern European countries. In Europe there is considerable legislation and many regulations relating to waste and recycling.

In the United Kingdom, many cleaner production projects are run by consultants and funded from landfill taxes. Most demonstration projects are funded from a variety of sources.

How to sustain cleaner production initiatives and how to move from supply driven (eg programmes initiated by local government) to demand driven (ie programmes demanded by industry) cleaner production appears to be a world wide problem. The United Nations Environment Programme is presently studying what makes a programme sustainable, the Council has contributed to this study.

Learning points (proposed action in italics):

1. In England, the Department of the Environment, Trade and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry promotes cleaner production through a very successful programme, Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme. A key to success is targeting industries that:
   
   * have major environmental issues to be solved
   * have potential for significant benefit
   * have well established industry organisations.
   
   The Council can learn from this experience. In future, these factors will be taken into account when planning industry seminars and demonstration projects.
   
   
2. Is The Council the right organisation to be promoting cleaner production? There is some evidence that in Europe Councils are not trusted by industry and that it is better for the Council to promote cleaner production through other organisations or to set up a cleaner production unit at arms length.
   
   Market research is to be commissioned by the Waste Management Unit to investigate this in the local context.
   
   
3. The Council's regulatory framework and pricing schedules must be such that they support and sustain cleaner production.
   
   The Waste Management Unit is funding students from the Resource Management course, Lincoln University, to investigate this as a group research project during the first half of 1998 Results will be presented in July 1998.
   
   
4. There needs to be co-operation between regulatory bodies (environmental, health and safety etc) to integrate as much information as possible for small to medium sized enterprises so that collectively there are fewer demands on their time. Future project.
   
   
5. Make a shift from supply driven to demand driven cleaner production thereby ensuring the sustainability of these programmes and making them an integral part of economic development at enterprise and all government levels.
   
   Publishing success stories from the Target Zero project will be the basis for doing this.
   
   
6. Ensure that all Council officers are singing the same tune so far as sustainable practices and cleaner production are concerned. This will require more co-operation between units and staff training or awareness raising.
   
   This will be investigated by no.s 1 & 2 above and developed through internal environmental awareness staff training.
   
   
7. In Denmark, enforcement officers are in constant dialogue with the companies they regulate and are moving towards a more consultative role. All company information (eg consents held, consent conditions) is held on a single GIS database.
   
   
8. Christchurch organisations eg Canterbury Development Corporation, Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority, Department of Health, should work together more closely. This will would ensure that each organisation is aware of the others initiatives in Christchurch. Training could be provided so that all organisations have an overview of the other's work and can give direction as to where to source assistance. A combined folder of information could be developed and given out to businesses to facilitate this.
   
   This has been initiated through the Target Zero project by meeting with environmental, University and industry representatives to discuss how best to work together. A second meeting is planned during February.

3. To promote Christchurch City Council initiatives both with implementing cleaner production/environmental management in house and promoting and assisting businesses to implement cleaner production.

The Commercial Waste Minimisation Officer was one of three New Zealand delegates at the European Roundtable on Cleaner Production, distinguished as being furthermost from home. All three are involved with the Target Zero cleaner production project. Lesley Stone, University of Auckland, presented a paper regarding her work with training Target Zero participants.

Contacts made during the study tour were interested in Christchurch City Council initiatives in particular Target Zero, Garden City Composting and the Waste Exchange Service.

4. To study national/central government initiatives for promoting cleaner production.

European Union:

• There are many European Union directives relating to waste minimisation and landfills eg the landfill directive which will limit biodegradable waste to landfill with a target of 75% reduction.

In Norway:

• There are two main pieces of environmental legislation, the Pollution Control Act which bans pollution and the product Control Act which protects the environment and public health from product handling.
• Pollution prevention is a major focus of legislation and regulations.
• A recent Parliamentary paper has suggested that the Ministry of the Environment should have less to do with implementing pollution control and that this should be taken up by other ministries.
• Economic incentives for pollution prevention include taxes on mineral oils, beverage containers etc.

In Denmark:

• Companies applying for resource consents under the Environmental Protection Act must show that their technology is "state of the art" regarding cleaner production, although this can not be enforced where costs are prohibitive.
• New legislation requires 1000 of the potentially most polluting companies to prepare an annual "green account" available to the public (the County of Sorstrom proposes to put these reports together as a green account for the County).
• Around 5% of all tax ie for water, energy, waste water, is a green tax.

In the United Kingdom:

• The Department of the Environment, Trade and the Regions sets directions for waste management and targets for waste minimisation including a 40% reduction in uncontrolled waste by 2005.
• Central government does not fund local authority waste minimisation initiatives.
• Most local authorities focus on recycling rather than waste reduction or reuse because they can claim a rebate per tonne of materials recycled.
• There appears to be plenty of funding for cleaner production projects both from the landfill taxes and from the European Union. For example, the Environmental Best Practice Technology Programme has a budget of £32 million over 8 years.
• Waste disposal costs around £17 per tonne for general waste and £1 to £2 per tonne for inert waste, plus a levy of £7 per tonne. Water supply and waste water disposal charges are linked so that in total the cost is around £1.80 per m³.

Chairman's Recommendation: That this information be received.

 

18. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR PARKHOUSE ROAD REFUSE STATION RR 6952

Officer responsible	Author
Waste Manager	Christine Byrch, Commercial Waste Minimisation Officer
Corporate Plan Output: Solid Waste

The purpose of this report is to present the Waste Management Unit's approach to developing an environmental management system at the Parkhouse Road Refuse Station site.

WHAT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM?

An environmental management system provides a structured process for continually improving environmental performance by:

identifying environmental impacts;
identifying legal responsibilities;
establishing goals, objectives and targets; and then
developing a system for achieving these goals, objectives and targets.

It also provides objectives against which an organisation can report its environmental performance. Basing the environmental management system on an internationally recognised standard, such as ISO 14,000, adds credibility to claims of responsible management.

APPROACH TO DEVELOPING AN EMS

The Waste Management Unit has committed to developing an environmental management system at the Parkhouse Road Refuse Station. This is a development of and will be included under the Waste Management Unit's initiative to implement cleaner production within Council Units. (The cleaner production program and progress for this was reported to the November 1997 City Services Committee meeting.)

A consultant has been appointed to provide assistance with the overall cleaner production/environmental management system initiative. One of the first tasks for the consultant will be to work with the Waste Minimisation Officer and the Waste Investigation Officer to define the scope and expectations for this overall project, and to develop a detailed program of actions, responsibilities and timetable for developing the environmental management system. This plan will be finalised mid February.

The environmental management system for the refuse station will be developed within the next calendar year to the ISO 14000 standard. It will be a pilot project, and depending on its success, may be used as a model for other operations within the Waste Management Unit, such as the biosolids disposal trial.

Most work towards developing the environmental management system will be carried out by Waste Management Unit and Parkhouse Road on site staff. This is essential if the system is to be effective. However, it is anticipated that the planning process will highlight other discrete parcels of work suitable for a student research project. The Recovered Materials Foundation has shown it's commitment to this project by funding this student project and funding work relating to its own operations.

It is likely that the environmental management system will be used as a case study in a national project to develop guidance for local authorities implementing environmental management systems. This project is partially funded by the Ministry for the Environment and managed by Pattle Delamore Partners from their Auckland office.

Developing the Environmental Management System will be a valuable experience for staff of both the Waste Management Unit and the Recovered Materials Foundation. These staff will then be able to pass on this information and experience to the companies they work with.

Chairman's Recommendation: That the information be received.

 

19. IMPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF THE BURWOOD LANDFILL RR 6968

Officer responsible	Author
Waste Manager	Eric Park, Solid Waste Engineer
Corporate Plan Output: Burwood Landfill

The purpose of this report is to gain this Committee's approval to construct a liner under the final Stage, 2C, of the Burwood Landfill and to investigate options to further improve the environmental performance of the whole landfill, as currently budgeted.

CURRENT SITUATION

Layout

Landfilling is due to commence on a new area of ground, Stage 2C, of the existing Burwood Landfill, see attached site plan, around April or May 1998. Stage 2C is the last of four areas to be used for landfilling at Burwood and could be considered a "greenfield" area since no refuse has yet been placed in this area.

Current Environmental Effects

There are currently no significant environmental effects from leachate at the Burwood Landfill. Ammoniacal nitrogen, the only constituent of leachate of any environmental significance for which a plume has been identified, is being generated by Stage 1 of the landfill and has migrated towards the coast, into the Stage 3 area, as shown on Figure 3-20, attached. The concentration of this and other constituents of leachate will be reduced significantly by existing natural treatment systems, such as oxidation by rainfall in the Stage 3 area, before they reach the coast.

Future Environmental Effects/Acceptability

The likelihood of leachate from the Burwood landfill to cause significant environmental effects in the future is dependant on:

• Any increase in environmental standards, for example society in the future is likely to require much lower concentrations of "leachate" in groundwater than we presently consider acceptable;
• The continued presence of favourable natural systems such as the upward groundwater gradient;
• The continued ability of the natural treatment zone (abandoned Stage 3) to treat leachate from a wider landfill;

While it is likely that the natural systems will continue to perform their existing treatment role it is also most likely that environmental standards will increase over coming years. The Burwood Landfill is likely to continue to produce leachate for in excess of 100 years. The concentration of leachate produced will however continue to reduce over time. Further there is no absolute guarantee that these natural attenuation systems will remain stable in the long term.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY UNDERTAKEN

Significant improvements to reduce the amount of leachate which is generated have been implemented since opening of the Burwood Landfill in 1984. These include:

• Placing refuse only above the groundwater table;
• Increased compaction of refuse;
• Increased thickness of final cover to reduce the amount of rainfall which can become leachate.

REASONS NOT TO IMPROVE FURTHER

Reasons for not improving the Burwood landfill to currently accepted minimum standards include:

• Increased development and operational costs;
•  
• Achieving only a small improvement over existing environmental effects of landfill.

REASONS TO IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

Current Best Practice

Any new landfill today would have be constructed to significantly higher environmental standards than the Burwood Landfill and would most likely require an engineered liner which could comprise a composite clay and HDPE (plastic) liner.

Generator Pays Principal

While current environmental effects of leachate from the Burwood Landfill are not significant, based on current environmental standards, current generators of waste should pay for appropriate standards of disposal rather than forcing future generations to accept the risk of any possible environmental clean-up in the future. Any increase in waste disposal charges to cover the increased cost could be applied only to organic waste, which generates both leachate and landfill gas. This would provide a cost incentive for waste generators to separate out inert waste which could then either be recycled or landfilled separately at a lower cost. (Note: There are currently funds allocated in the Draft 1998/99 Corporate Plan to finance initiatives to ban greenwaste from transfer stations and the landfill).

Reducing Maximum Leachate Concentration

While any improvement in environmental effects by lining only a small section of the whole landfill will be small, reducing the total volume of leachate discharged into the environment will increase the ability of natural treatment systems to continue to treat existing discharges to acceptable levels. This will be most important at the Stage 2C/Stage 2B area which is widest section of the landfill (perpendicular to groundwater flow) and has the narrowest natural treatment zone between it and the coast. Lining Stage 2C will reduce the peak concentration of leachate from the Burwood landfill discharged at the coast by almost 20%.

FURTHER IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS

The Whole Landfill

Leachate concentration levels at which action will need to be taken to remediate (clean-up) leachate before it causes any significant environmental effect are currently being determined. Options for leachate extraction include:

• An abstraction trench to collect leachate from the coast side boundary of the landfill;
• Drilling of suction wells to extract leachate before it migrates outside the landfill boundary.

Initial investigations indicate that an abstraction trench is unlikely to be very effective since leachate becomes diluted and therefore more difficult to treat when it enters groundwater. Extraction wells, which remove the leachate before it enters the groundwater, are therefore the likely best alternative. Such wells would be a more expensive option than the abstraction trench. This will be the subject of a further report on completion of appropriate investigations.

Stage 2C - The Next Area To Be Filled

Stage 2C of the landfill will provide almost three years of landfill life and will represent approximately 12% of the final refuse volume. Given that Stage 2C is a "greenfield" area, we currently have the opportunity to significantly reduce its potential to discharge leachate by constructing a liner and leachate collection system for this portion of the landfill. Advantages of this include:

• Reduction in leachate discharge, from the Stage 2C area only, from approximately 20 cubic metres per day without a liner to 2 cubic metres per day with a clay liner (90% reduction). Note construction of a clay and HDPE (plastic) liner would further reduce this to 0.2 cubic metres per day (99% reduction), see Item 2 in the table below, but this is not considered to be cost effective;
• Conformance with higher (future) environmental standards;
• Ability to control and treat leachate without reliance on natural ground conditions;
• Current generators of waste will pay for appropriate disposal practices rather than forcing future generations to accept the risk of possible environmental clean-up in the future;
• New technologies, such as re-circulation of leachate, could be undertaken with some confidence that this would not increase environmental effects.

COSTS

Preliminary cost estimates for the above options are outlined below. This funding was reported the City Services Capital Smoothing committee on 30 October 1997. While Options 1 and 3 have been allowed for in the 1998/99 Draft Corporate Plan they could be cost neutral by increasing gate charges for organic waste, which generates leachate:

 

	OPTION	TOTAL COST	COST PER TONNE	LEACHATE DISCHARGE (Stage 2C only)
1	Construct basic liner for Stage 2C, using a 600mm CLAY LINER and leachate extraction system but without an HDPE (plastic) liner	$2,200,000 over five years ($440,000/year from 1997/98 onwards)	$2.00/tonne, incl GST, (5% increase)	2m3/day (90% reduction, down from 20m3/day with no liner)
2	ALTERNATIVE, not currently budgeted. Construct a 600mm CLAY AND HDPE (PLASTIC) liner and leachate extraction system	$3,600,000 over five years ($720,000/year)	$3.35 tonne, inc. GST, (8% increase)	0.2m3/day (99% reduction, down from 20m3/day with no liner)
3	Investigate options for remediation of leachate from whole landfill and, if appropriate, construct abstraction system to collect leachate and pump to the Bromley sewage treatment plant	$410,000 For 1998/99, Note: Additional money is likely to be required from 1999/00 onwards. This is not in the Draft Corporate Plan because the amount required cannot be precisely estimated until investigations in 1998/99 are completed.

Clearly Option 1, the basic clay liner which reduces leachate discharge from Stage 2C by 90%, is more cost effective than Option 2 which reduces leachate discharge by a further 9% but costs 60% more than Option 1.

CAPPING AND LANDFILL GAS GENERATION

Improving the quality of the final capping layer over the Burwood Landfill would reduce rainfall infiltration and therefore reduce the potential for leachate to be generated. On the other hand, letting rainfall in could make the landfill digest itself more rapidly and therefore reduce the number of years over which significant quantities of leachate are being generated and therefore groundwater monitoring is required. The technical feasibility, environmental benefit and cost effectiveness of constructing an improved capping layer is currently being investigated.

Improving the quality of the final capping layer could also reduce the discharge of landfill gas. The rate of landfill gas generation at the Burwood Landfill and the potential for it to cause any significant environmental effects is also being investigated and will be the subject of a further report.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

While there are currently no significant environmental effects from leachate generated by the Burwood Landfill this situation is dependant on natural systems (e.g. upward groundwater flow, oxidation over Stage 3 area etc) and cannot be guaranteed with any real certainty to continue in the future.

There is no real justification, other than cost, for not employing current minimum international landfill construction practices at the Burwood landfill to protect the environment . Lining the final Stage, 2C, of the Burwood landfill and increasing gate charges accordingly would have the following advantages. It would:

• Reduce the risk of environmental clean-up being required in the future;
• Provide a financial incentive for current waste generators to reduce organic waste which generates both leachate and landfill gas;
• Ensure that current waste generators pay the full cost for disposal of their wastes rather than transferring a potential liability to future generations. Assessment of appropriate disposal charges will be the subject of a further study in 1998 before precise final details are resolved.

Recommendation:	That a detailed study be completed to confirm, or otherwise, that lining Stage 2C is more environmentally beneficial and cost effective than constructing an enhanced capping layer. This is expected to be the case. That, subject to final confirmation the outcome of the above study, Stage 2C of the Burwood Landfill be lined with a 600mm layer of clay and a leachate collection system be installed prior to placement of refuse in this area. That gate charges for all organic wastes be increased, in 1999/2000, to cover increased costs associated with the above liner and leachate collection system.
Chairman's Recommendation:	That the above recommendation be adopted.

 

20. BURWOOD LANDFILL RESOURCE CONSENT/APPEAL BY WASTE MANAGEMENT LIMITED RR 6950

Officer responsible	Author
Waste Manager and Legal Services Manager	Mike Stockwell
Corporate Plan Output: Solid Waste

The purpose of this report is to provide an update about progress on negotiations to resolve Waste Management Ltd's appeal against the Canterbury Regional Council's decision to grant a Resource Consent for Burwood Landfill to operate for eight years from mid 1994.

Councillors will recall that negotiations are about to start between the Canterbury Waste Joint Standing Committee, Waste Management Ltd and Envirowaste Services Ltd to establish a consortium for the establishment of a new Canterbury Regional Landfill.

As a result of recent discussion with Waste Management Ltd they have agreed to withdraw their appeal to the Environmental Court. The City Council's cross appeal will be withdrawn also. This is a very satisfactory conclusion to the matter. The gesture of goodwill by both parties is a very good start to the negotiations.

Chairman's Recommendation: That the information be received.

 

21. WATER METERING AND USE RR 6948

Officer responsible	Author
Water Services Manager	Allan Watson
Corporate Plan Output: Water Services

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Councillors on a number of water use issues.

1. DOMESTIC METER READING

Introduction

City-wide installation of meters was completed in 1997 and it has always been an objective of the Council to use the meter readings proactively as a water conservation tool. Two procedures are being used, though not very effectively at the moment for reasons set out below.

The first requires the meter reader to place a card in the letterbox when annual consumption is found to be more than twice the average annual household consumption. This card alerts the householder to the possibility of leaks and advises on how to detect them. The layout of the card is shown below.

 

 

 

At the present time this card is being placed in all letterboxes but with the consumption information box* left blank since we do not yet have reliable annual consumption figures.

The second uses the second instalment of the rate demand to advise all domestic ratepayers of their consumption and compares it with the household average. The current wording reflects the fact that we do not yet have reliable annual consumption figures.

Water consumption figures are shown for information purposes only. No value is shown if there is no meter installed, there is no water supply to the property or the meter has yet to be read. Because of the rescheduling of meter readings the consumption could be for a period greater or less than 12 months. Future readings are proposed to be at 12 month intervals.

Currently residential ratepayers pay for water consumed as part of their rates. A charging policy which would base payment for water on the amount consumed has been considered but the Council has resolved not to introduce such a policy during this term of Council. The average residential consumption is about 286m³ per annum.

Obviously these procedures are not working properly yet and Councillors have questioned the reasons for this.

History

Between 1992 and 1997 metered properties increased from around 40,000 to 105,000. The number of meter readers was increased from four to five and a software package (ITRON) purchased to allow meter reading to become a computer-based activity.

A start was made on reading the new meters in 1995 but we have experienced a series of difficulties in arriving at an electronically-based meter reading programme that consistently delivers reliable results. We are there now but the difficulties have meant that we have not been able to supply to the householder a true annual consumption (which requires two reliable readings spaced a year apart).

At the outset the meter reading procedure depended on three software systems:

(a) ITRON

The ITRON package is designed specifically for meter reading. It is accessed by Water Services staff using networked PCs and is used to download the particular reading round information onto a hand-held data logger that the meter reader takes into the field. For each property, in sequence, the hand-held provides notes to the meter reader about location, allows entry of the new reading and indicates if the new reading implies very high or very low or negative consumption.

(b) AS400

At the other end of the procedure the Funds Accounting Unit operates a database that allows it to charge for water (commercial) or maintain consumption figures (domestic). This is located on its AS400 computer and comprises a record of the meter, address and reading history linked to the Rates database. This allows invoicing for water consumption (commercial). Clearly it is necessary to daily update the AS400 record by downloading information from the hand-helds containing the day's readings.

(c) VAX

Initially the Water Services Unit was advised to achieve this by interposing a third software package located on the VAX computer cluster. The idea was that the VAX would act as a go-between for the AS400 and ITRON systems receiving, sorting, and down-loading information from both.

This operation proved error-ridden and after trying for many months to make it work we abandoned the VAX intermediary and established direct connection between ITRON and the AS400. The change has proved successful but has required an intense effort by Funds Accounting computer consultant Moira Howell to bring the two systems together. From June 1997 we were receiving reliable second round readings for domestic consumers. However previous difficulties meant these were not spaced 12 months apart. Through 1998 we will progress to a situation where reliable second-round readings spaced close to 12 months will allow provision of good consumption advice.

Proposal

It is intended to continue to use both the above methods to advise consumers on their consumption and during the coming year this advice will become significantly more effective as the reliability and spacing of readings settles into the required pattern.

2. SUMMER CONSUMPTION

Weekly distribution to the media of consumption figures has been successful in keeping in water usage behaviour to the fore. Media response has been excellent with frequent requests for information and interviews directed at both staff and Councillors.

After a rapid increase in consumption during the December hot spell the city has been fortunate to have a series of south-west changes that have cooled the atmosphere and occasionally provided rain. Consumption for January at the time of writing has been high on occasions but has been reasonably close to the five-year average.

	5-year Average	January 1998 to 25th
Average	569	605
Consumption (litres per head per day)

The City Council's reticulation system has not been unduly stressed by the consumption and I have not believed it necessary to use delegated powers to impose restrictions. The message has been that we still have a long way to go this summer and the option of restrictions must be held open. When considering whether or not restrictions are warranted I have borne in mind three reasons why the Council would wish to move to restrict consumption and they are:

1. Its own reticulation is being stressed by the consumption leading to pressure reduction and water quality problems,
   
   
2. Consumption is significantly above long-term averages for a sustained period. (A suggested criteria is 20% above the five-year average for a 10 day period.) or
   
   
3. The Regional Council is advising that aquifer levels are causing concern and that a control on consumption is advisable.

None of these has been occurring so far this summer. Up-to-date consumption figures will be reported to the meeting and Councillors will have an opportunity to consider the question of restrictions.

3. WATER STRATEGY

Background

Councillors will be aware that for a number of years the city has been looking to the Regional Council to complete the management plans that will provide a long term view of Christchurch-West Melton groundwater management and provide the context within which the city can do its own long term asset planning. This work seemed to be moving to fruition in 1991 with the preparation of the draft Christchurch-West Melton Groundwater Management Plan but the work has since been moved into the Water Chapter of the Natural Resources Regional Plan and seems destined to await a prolonged plan preparation and approval process before it will provide the context and rules that the city seeks.

The problem for the Council is not just one of planning. Public co-operation in conserving water and being prepared to invest in water re-use strategies depends on being able to provide residents with an understandable long term picture of what is required to ensure a sustainable supply into the foreseeable future. The public will respond if they can see and have confidence that their actions support that future. They also expect that the Council will be playing its part in water conservation through active leak detection and efficient use. At the moment that strategic context is lacking. Water becomes an issue as we enter a dry spell and the Council exhorts people to conserve it, but its pleas lack strategic context. Frequently asked questions undermine Council credibility because understandable answers are not given to questions like:

• If we save water this year is it available next year?
• What is the level of city consumption that can be sustained in the long term?
• What is going to happen if falling aquifer levels begin to affect our wells?
• As we reduce city consumption now is the Regional Council simply re-allocating those savings to other users (agriculture eg)?
• Does consumption significantly affect aquifer levels or is climate more influential?
• What restrictions will the city face if the aquifers can't deliver?
• What warning will the city get?
• Why don't we move to water-saving measures now?
• Why should we? When should we? And which are preferred/most effective?
• How can we manage the groundwater system to ensure our spring-fed river flows remain healthy?
• Why am I being asked to conserve water when the Regional Council is advising the aquifers are healthy?
• How do we guard against localised groundwater pressure reversals that can allow saltwater intrusion into the aquifers?
• Surely we can do more to recharge the aquifers artificially?

Answers to some of these questions require complex technical investigations only some of which have been completed. Others imply options that need to be considered through a public consultation process. But the work needs to be prioritised and co-ordinated and involve staff from both councils since each has a significant though different interest in the issues.

Proposal

Rather than wait for the production of Regional Council plans the Water Services Unit has initiated a proposal that would see the two councils co-operating in the preparation of a water strategy document for the Christchurch area. The intention is to prepare a scoping report that will be presented to the joint CRC/CCC Councillor meeting recommending the joint work. Given that Committee's approval in principle the matter would then be referred to the separate councils for consideration. The water strategy work would proceed in parallel with Regional Council plan preparation but without duplication of effort. It would inform plan preparation and contain guidelines that would eventually find their place in Regional and City Plan policies and rules. This procedure has already been successfully used in the preparation of flood plain management plans for the Heathcote, Avon and Styx Rivers. At the time of writing the Unit has written to the Regional Council seeking support for this process.

4. WATER CONSERVATION DEMONSTRATION HOME

Approaches have been made by a private interest keen to see established in Christchurch a demonstration home that would feature the full range of water saving and water re-use facilities and devices (retention of stormwater, re-use of grey water, minimum use devices, drought-resistant planting and water-efficient garden practice etc). It is possible that the home could also include on-property treatment of sewerage allowing garden irrigation of treated effluent. Under the current suggestion the City Council would not be required to provide capital towards house construction but would be involved in supporting the project, on-going monitoring of water consumption and promotion of the concept to the public. At this stage the Water Services Unit is seeking approval in principal from the Committee to further this proposal with details including initial or on-going expenditure commitments to be brought back for approval at a later date.

Recommendation:	That the information be received. That approval in principle be given to supporting the establishment of a demonstration home containing water-saving and water re-use facilities and practices.
Chairman's Recommendation:	That the above recommendation be adopted.

 

22. RICHMOND HILL ROAD STREET TREE MAINTENANCE AND FELLING RR 6932

Officer responsible	Author
Parks Manager	Walter Fielding-Cotterell, Parks Arboriculturist Team Leader Professional and Technical Support
Corporate Plan Output: Street Tree Maintenance & Felling

The purpose of this report is to gain approval for the removal and replacement of plane street trees in Richmond Hill Road.

The Parks Unit has received a number of complaints from residents over the years, concerning the plane trees in the footpath at the eastern end of Richmond Hill Road. The complaints referred to properties being shaded by the trees and the damage the trees are causing to footpaths, kerb channels and drainage systems.

In response to complaints, the trees have been pruned over the years to clear power lines and to alleviate the shade problem. However, as the trees are situated in a narrow fully sealed footpath, right against the kerbline, there is nothing that can be done to prevent increasing damage being caused to the footpath seal, kerb channel and drainage systems. The trees have the potential to grow to much greater size than they are at present and require far greater growing space than the footpath provides.

A survey of the residents living in the vicinity of the trees found that nine residents wanted the trees removed and suitable replacements planted, while three wanted to retain the planes.

As the planes will continue to cause increasing damage to the footpaths, and the majority of residents are in favour of removal and replacement with smaller growing trees, the Parks Unit proposes to implement this work in preparation for 1998 planting season.

Recommendation:	That all 11 of the existing plane trees be removed and replaced with a suitable smaller growing species.
Chairman's Recommendation:	Not seen by the Chairman.

 

City Services Supplementary Clauses:

23. DELEGATIONS: PROSECUTION OF WATER SUPPLY RELATED OFFENCES RR 7041

24. SYMES ROAD - NO RIGHT TURN RR 7049