Our revised Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw

What was proposed in the draft bylaw?

We proposed some improvements to our licensing system, such as including rules around the types of containers that commercial waste companies may use, and the days and time they may collect waste. 

What did submitters say?

Half of the 20 submissions we received were in support, with six opposed and the remaining unsure. In their comments, most submitters agreed that licensing could help to keep waste collectors accountable, while providing a measure to set consistent days/times for collection.  

There were also a few very detailed submissions that provided suggestions for improvements or extension to the proposal. These included:

• Ensuring that the data collected from operators is consistent with national standards.
• Imposing penalties for kerbside recycling bin contamination.
• Limiting the regulation of kerbside bin sizes to residential households. Regulating commercial bin sizes could have unintended operational impacts given the wider range of bin types and sizes used in different situations.
• Adopting a tiered licensing fee structure for licensing based on diversion rates, tonnage or volume collected to reduce the burden on smaller operators.
• Requiring licensed collectors to verify that materials collected are sent to credible end markets to prevent stockpiling.
• Considering a simplified or templated approach for smaller operators to minimise administrative burden.

Some submitters were concerned that collectors would pass on the costs of licensing to their customers, raising the cost of waste disposal, and argued that it should be as easy as possible to get rid of waste. They were worried that the proposal to limit the size of waste collection containers would make it harder or more expensive. Some submitters said that there are already enough rules and regulations for waste, and that Council didn’t need to add any more or make things more complicated.

One submitter in favour of licensing suggested a different approach – they proposed licensing a collector to collect only in a designated part of the city. This approach would limit the number of additional vehicles servicing the same area by licensing a single collector for each area. The submitter’s suggestion outlines how this approach might work, with each sector of the city being proportional in terms of the number of customers and establishing an interchange system where a collector’s customer lives outside of their designated collection area.

What did Council decide?

Council agreed with some of these points and agreed to to make a change to clause 10(a) in part 5 of the administration manual to make it clear that restrictions on collection container weight, size and capacity in the proposed new licensing system apply only to residential collection services. The issue this addresses – a disproportionately higher volume of divertible material in larger waste bins – applies particularly to residential waste bins, rather than commercial or industrial waste collection services.

There were other points made by submitters that the Council agreed with, but which do not require a change to the draft bylaw:

• When developing our new licensing system, we will engage with the waste industry and the Ministry for the Environment to ensure that our terms and descriptors for the data reports are based on nationally-consistent standards.
• When the new licensing system is developed in 2027, we will take into consideration the benefits of a tiered licensing structure that recognises the size of waste collectors, and also consider the potential for applying discounts to collectors who are meeting the Council’s waste diversion targets.
• We will also consider developing templates and a standardised approach to make it simpler for smaller operators to apply for a licence.

Suggested changes not made by Council

There were several suggestions which the Council did not include in the adopted bylaw. 

• We do not have the authority to create a financial penalty for contamination of kerbside recycling bins. This is why we have developed the “three-strikes” approach set out in the administration manual.  
• The alternative waste collection approach that was suggested by a submitter – licensing collectors to operate only in designated sectors of the city – was not recommended.

Developing a system along the lines suggested by the submitter would involve a very high level of complexity and involvement of Council staff in the detailed operations of private businesses. For instance, we would need to ensure that each sector provided for proportionate numbers of customers; but this would only be possible by reviewing the number of existing customers of each business and matching that information to current population data.

There are further complications, such as how to manage the mismatch when a company’s customers did not all live within the sector they were licensed to operate in. While a formal cost-benefit analysis was not undertaken, it appears that there would be substantial additional costs and administrative burdens for a very marginal benefit (limiting the number of collection trucks operating on any given street).

With the Council already undertaking a piece of work to review the way kerbside collection services are delivered, the approach suggested by the submitter was not recommended by staff.

What was proposed in the draft bylaw?

We proposed a new provision that enabled the Council to pass a resolution to require building work that requires consent over a specified value to also submit a site waste management and minimisation plan, to reduce the amount of construction and demolition waste going to landfill. This plan would show how the consent holder would manage and minimise the amount of waste generated by the activity under consent.

The provision in the bylaw would be subject to further work before being enacted.  

What did submitters say?

While 75% of submitters supported this proposal and recognised the value in keeping waste material from building sites out of landfill, they also identified some concerns about how it would work in practice. For instance, there was concern about the process being complicated and unnecessarily bureaucratic, making it hard for people to comply. Others favoured a templated plan to make it easier. Some submitters noted that demolition-only projects wouldn’t require building consent and would therefore not be included in the bylaw’s proposal.

We also discovered that we do not have the ability to require a site waste management and minimisation plan to be submitted as part of a building consent application. This significantly limited the practicality of our proposal. Taken together with the other concerns raised by submitters, we considered alternatives to our original proposal.

What did Council decide?

The Council decided to not proceed with the original proposal for site waste management and minimisation plans, and removed the proposed new part 5 “Construction and Demolition Waste” section and clause 13 “Construction and Demolition Waste Management and Minimisation Plans” from the bylaw.  

Instead, we will work with material suppliers, the construction and demolition sectors and construction and demolition waste facility providers to develop information, guidance and initiatives to support increased diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfill.

An initiative is already underway, modelled on a successful pilot project in Hastings where builders are able to purchase a collection bag for plasterboard offcuts for recycling. This has shown to be successful in reducing the amount of construction and demolition waste sent to landfill.

A similar initiative for the Manawatū/Whanganui region is being developed, and Council staff will be supporting this pilot project.

What was proposed in the draft bylaw?

We proposed to include stronger language in our bylaw and administration manual around the requirements for events waste management by event managers. The current provisions were working well in most cases, but there were some opportunities to clarify things by using clearer or stronger language around the expectations for events waste management and minimisation.

What did submitters say?

The vast majority of the 20 submissions we received were supportive, with just one submitter opposed and three unsure.

Submitters who were supportive believed it was reasonable for event organisers to sort and record the amounts of waste being collected at events.  Submitters suggested there should be simple systems to make it easy for event organisers to comply, along with clear guidance and even financial support for smaller, resource-limited events.  

Some submitters expressed concern that changes to waste management and minimisation requirements for events could discourage future events, or add costs and delays that make events more difficult to provide.

There were additional suggestions from submitters, including:

• Requiring Council venues to meet the same requirements for events waste management.
• Holding vendors at events accountable for using only certified compostable or approved recyclable packaging, with penalties for non-compliance.
• Requiring event waste managers to provide data on the rate of contamination.

What did Council decide?

The Council agreed that standards for events waste management should also apply to Council’s own venues. Our major venues such as the Arena and the Conference and Function Centre are already meeting most of these requirements. Clause 16.1 of the bylaw, and part 6 of the administration manual will be amended to include references to “Council’s major event venues".  

The Council also agreed that event organisers should supply data on the rate of contamination, as this would be an effective way to help us understand whether recycling at events is effective. Condition 4(b) of part 6 of the administration manual will also be amended to include reference to “the rate of contamination”.

What was proposed in the draft bylaw?

We proposed to change the length of time for which the number of “strikes” (for contaminated recycling bins) would be considered for a suspension of service, from three months to six months.

What did submitters say?

Some of the concerns raised by submitters included a potential for increased fly tipping, and that bins could be contaminated by another person putting rubbish in the recycling bin. Some submitters argued that the Council should charge a fine for people who contaminate a recycling bin, or be required to spend time working on the sorting line at the resource recovery centre.

What did Council decide?

The Council decided to continue with the change proposed in the draft bylaw – a strike for a contaminated recycling bin will be active for six months.  

While we share the frustration about recycling bin contamination, we are legally unable to charge a fine for contaminating a recycling bin.  Requiring people to work on the sorting line at the resource recovery centre is not a practical solution and would likely be in breach of employment and health and safety laws.

There are other actions already in effect which will help reduce the rate of contamination that do not require a change to the bylaw. We are developing new education campaigns to educate people about what belongs in recycling bins. We are also reviewing our service delivery, which includes consideration of the kerbside waste collection service.  Alongside the proposed changes to the three strikes system, we think this will be effective in reducing contamination rates.

What did submitters say?

One submitter urged the Council to use whatever communication techniques they have to alert the public to the personal impacts of waste, and that we should communicate in other languages to make it easier for those who do not speak English as a first language.

What did Council decide?

We have recognised the value of education in our Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, and we continue to develop our education programmes.  No change is required in the Bylaw for education programmes to be developed or delivered.

What did submitters say?

One submitter stated they were not in favour of introducing garden waste bins for residents.  Some already have compost bins, while others pay for a collection; one size doesn’t fit all.

What did Council decide?

We note the point, however this is out of scope for the current bylaw review. The decision to introduce a kerbside food scraps and green waste collection services was made during the 2024/34 Long-Term Plan and included in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024.

What did submitters say?

Many commenters on social media observed that the cost of Council rubbish bags was too expensive, and that the cost of waste disposal in general was excessive, and that this was driving poor behaviour in terms of contamination of recycling bins or fly tipping.

What did Council decide?

No change to the bylaw is required, as the bylaw does not determine the cost of Council rubbish bags.

Council’s kerbside waste collection service is a full user-pays service, and the cost of Council rubbish bags are set to reflect the cost of delivering the kerbside waste collection service. Residents are not obliged to use the Council’s kerbside waste collection service and are able to select a different provider to collect their waste.  

While we understand that some commenters expect that the cost of disposing waste should be low, it is set by a variety of factors including the government’s strategic goal of discouraging waste being sent to landfill where it could be diverted to other purposes such as reuse or recycling.  This is primarily achieved by setting a levy on waste sent to landfill.

The owner of the landfill (MidWest Disposal owns the Bonny Glen landfill in Marton, our nearest open class 1 landfill) includes the cost of the waste levy when setting the price for disposing waste to its landfill. The Council has no ability to influence this price, and it is included in the cost of its own waste collection service, which is funded 100% by the revenue from selling official Palmerston North City Council rubbish bags. 

What did submitters say?

One commenter on social media suggested that a deposit return scheme, similar to those used in parts of Australia, would help to keep cans and drink bottles out of rubbish bins.

What did Council decide?

No change to the bylaw is required.

Container or deposit return schemes can be effective in diverting waste from landfill. However, the Council does not have the ability to create deposit return schemes. The Ministry for the Environment has the ability to declare “priority products” and establish stewardship schemes to create “extended producer responsibility” programmes.

Priority product stewardship | Ministry for the Environment

What did submitters say?

One submitter commented that fines were a better deterrent for recycling contamination or littering, and that the Council should put up signs that advise of the fines, along with surveillance cameras.

What did Council decide?

No change to the bylaw is required.

While fines can be a useful tool for enforcement, they are not the only (or always the most effective) means of achieving compliance. However, Council does not have a general power to create infringement offences and impose fines within its bylaws; we can only do that where it is stipulated in existing legislation.  

The Council can impose fines for littering but these often have limited effectiveness. The current rules of evidence make it difficult to prove liability, though the government is proposing changes that will permit the Council to issue a litter infringement notice with lower levels of proof. These rules are not yet in effect.

What did submitters say?

One submitter suggested that the Council should develop a separate bylaw solely to deal with commercial waste. 

What did Council decide?

No change to the bylaw is required. There is no clear benefit to addressing different types of waste via separate bylaws. This is also outside the scope of the current review.

What did submitters say?

Submitters suggested a number of minor changes and corrections to improve the readability of the bylaw or to clarify wording. These are mostly designed to make the meaning of existing sections clear, and do not affect existing obligations or responsibilities under the bylaw.  For instance, the phrase “diverted material” is changed to “divertible material” to make clear that this relates to material which is able to be diverted from landfill but which may not yet be diverted.

In the administration manual, some of the conditions for the kerbside waste collection have been rewritten to align more closely to the equivalent conditions for kerbside recycling collection. These changes do not substantially alter the obligations or responsibilities set under the bylaw and administration manual, but instead make clearer what those obligations and responsibilities are. 

What did Council decide?

We have made various minor changes and corrections to the bylaw and administration manual, where these provide clarity but do not substantially alter the obligations and responsibilities set under the bylaw and administration manual.