LGOIMA Requests
Refine Search
Search results: 703
| Received | Subject | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/12/2019 | Protected trees under District Plan | Complete | Details |
| 28/11/2019 | Council spending on election promotion and voter engagement | Complete | Details |
| 20/11/2019 | Flights and individual trips 2018/19 financial year | Complete | Details |
| 12/11/2019 | Recycling and refuse | Complete | Details |
| 06/11/2019 | List of Maori candidates who won their campaign | Complete | Details |
| 22/10/2019 | External catering spend 2017 - 2019 | Complete | Details |
| 18/10/2019 | Resource Consent for Halcombe Recycling Centre | Complete | Details |
| 16/10/2019 | Elected Member Inforrmation | Complete | Details |
| 14/10/2019 | Staff Remuneration | Complete | Details |
| 12/10/2019 | Shooting Ranges | Complete | Details |
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1890
Date received: 02/12/2019
Requested information: Protected trees under District Plan
Status: Complete
Date responded: 14/01/2020
Response:
1) Does your Council protect trees in its District Plan using Section 76 of the Resource Management Act? Yes
2) What term does Council use to describe trees protected within the District Plan? Councils use terms such Notable, Heritage and Significant. Manawatu District Plan refers to trees protected within the District Plan as “Trees with Heritage Value”
3) What evaluation process or method does Council use to determine whether trees are of sufficient importance to be protected within the District Plan? Manawatu District Council has not undertaken any Plan Changes related to Trees since 2002 when the Manawatu District Plan was made operative. However, a survey and assessment of Trees with Heritage value in the Manawatu District was undertaken by John Wakeling in 2018, this assessment used STEM to assess trees. STEM will be utilised by Council going forward.
4) If your Council uses the Standard Tree Evaluation Methodology (STEM), does it differ at all from the original 1996 mode and if so how? The 2018 report by John Wakeling uses the 1996 STEM mode.
5) If your Council uses STEM what is the threshold STEM score used to determine whether a tree should be protected in the District Plan? If your Council has no record of the STEM threshold last used, please supply the lowest STEM score for a District Plan protected tree. The 2018 report by John Wakeling uses the STEM threshold of 150 points or more.
6) If your Council uses another method or process to protect trees what is the threshold score for inclusion and/or any other requirement?
7) Is a landowner's consent required to protect a trees under any circumstances? If yes, please explain? District Plan provisions relating to trees have not been reviewed since the original plan was made operative in 2002, Council is unsure if any landowners consent was required to list the trees within the operative District Plan.
8) Under which provisions of the District Plan are trees protected, Heritage, General, or something else? Chapter 4 Heritage
9) Are District Plan protected trees categorised within a list, if so what terms are used and how? The District Plan protected trees are listed with Appendix 1D of the Manawatu District Plan as Trees with Heritage Values.
10) What year did the protected trees provisions of your District Plan become operative? 2002
13) Please supply the position title, name and contact details for the person who deals with protected tree issues at Council? Kirk Lightbody – Policy Planner – kirk.lightbody@mdc.govt.nz
2) What term does Council use to describe trees protected within the District Plan? Councils use terms such Notable, Heritage and Significant. Manawatu District Plan refers to trees protected within the District Plan as “Trees with Heritage Value”
3) What evaluation process or method does Council use to determine whether trees are of sufficient importance to be protected within the District Plan? Manawatu District Council has not undertaken any Plan Changes related to Trees since 2002 when the Manawatu District Plan was made operative. However, a survey and assessment of Trees with Heritage value in the Manawatu District was undertaken by John Wakeling in 2018, this assessment used STEM to assess trees. STEM will be utilised by Council going forward.
4) If your Council uses the Standard Tree Evaluation Methodology (STEM), does it differ at all from the original 1996 mode and if so how? The 2018 report by John Wakeling uses the 1996 STEM mode.
5) If your Council uses STEM what is the threshold STEM score used to determine whether a tree should be protected in the District Plan? If your Council has no record of the STEM threshold last used, please supply the lowest STEM score for a District Plan protected tree. The 2018 report by John Wakeling uses the STEM threshold of 150 points or more.
6) If your Council uses another method or process to protect trees what is the threshold score for inclusion and/or any other requirement?
7) Is a landowner's consent required to protect a trees under any circumstances? If yes, please explain? District Plan provisions relating to trees have not been reviewed since the original plan was made operative in 2002, Council is unsure if any landowners consent was required to list the trees within the operative District Plan.
8) Under which provisions of the District Plan are trees protected, Heritage, General, or something else? Chapter 4 Heritage
9) Are District Plan protected trees categorised within a list, if so what terms are used and how? The District Plan protected trees are listed with Appendix 1D of the Manawatu District Plan as Trees with Heritage Values.
10) What year did the protected trees provisions of your District Plan become operative? 2002
13) Please supply the position title, name and contact details for the person who deals with protected tree issues at Council? Kirk Lightbody – Policy Planner – kirk.lightbody@mdc.govt.nz
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1889
Date received: 28/11/2019
Requested information: Council spending on election promotion and voter engagement
Status: Complete
Date responded: 06/12/2019
Response:
Dear Harry,
The responses to your questions relating to promoting the 2019 election are provided below. We have not provided any information pre-dating 2016 as it would require a significant manual search and collation exercise. Additionally, the costs are not broken down into the areas you have suggested for the reasons listed in our responses. Your questions and the responses:
• The total amount spent by the Council that went into promoting the election, and increasing voter turnout - for every council election since 2000.
Response: Not all of our election related promotional activities incurred an identifiable fiscal amount. This includes items created for our social media and our fortnightly community paper page. The identified total costs are:
2016 2019
Campaign related Not known $3,327
Routine election promotional costs
(for LGNZ, joint advertising, rate inserts etc) $8,455 $9,839
Note: for 2016 elections there was considerable community interest in the candidates that resulted in a turnout that exceeded the national average. Consequently majority of the promotion was done within existing channels and did not incur identifiable campaign costs.
• A breakdown of the spending that went into promoting the election and increasing voter turnout (e.g. through comms, publicity campaign, education campaign) - for every council election since 2000 (if the information exists. If it is too time-expensive, then can I request the information just for the 2016 & 2019 election).
Response: The costs have been attributed to the communication general budget and not split into campaigns. Note the figures are not available for 2016 without conducting a manual search.
• An outline of the strategy that was used by the Council to promote voting in this election.
Response: The strategy was to leverage off the information and campaign being run by LGNZ, to which we contribute as part of the routine costs. This was augmented by local advertising on our regular channels to encourage voting, and promote citizen hosted events.
• A list of new initiatives thought up by the Council this year that would promote voter turnout and voter engagement.
Response: Given the saturation advertising on TV, radio and print media about the need to vote and key dates we focussed on promoting citizen meet-the-candidate events in the two wards, and co-hosting a combined (councillor and mayoral candidates) meet-the-candidate event that we live-streamed on Facebook and MDC website. Additionally at the same event we used an internet based (mobile and web) question collation platform to enable those watching, and unable to attend, to ask the candidates questions through the event MC .
We also created a large ‘ballot box’ that was left in public places with relevant dates and allowed for questions or observations to be left – the weather did not allow this to be fully deployed as planned.
• Evidence of efforts made by the Council to encourage and increase voter engagement e.g. a "meet the candidates" event, a Mayoral debate, working with local news outlets to increase election coverage.
Response: see points made above. Additionally the local media was proactive in sourcing interviews with newsworthy candidates that lifted community awareness of voting.
The responses to your questions relating to promoting the 2019 election are provided below. We have not provided any information pre-dating 2016 as it would require a significant manual search and collation exercise. Additionally, the costs are not broken down into the areas you have suggested for the reasons listed in our responses. Your questions and the responses:
• The total amount spent by the Council that went into promoting the election, and increasing voter turnout - for every council election since 2000.
Response: Not all of our election related promotional activities incurred an identifiable fiscal amount. This includes items created for our social media and our fortnightly community paper page. The identified total costs are:
2016 2019
Campaign related Not known $3,327
Routine election promotional costs
(for LGNZ, joint advertising, rate inserts etc) $8,455 $9,839
Note: for 2016 elections there was considerable community interest in the candidates that resulted in a turnout that exceeded the national average. Consequently majority of the promotion was done within existing channels and did not incur identifiable campaign costs.
• A breakdown of the spending that went into promoting the election and increasing voter turnout (e.g. through comms, publicity campaign, education campaign) - for every council election since 2000 (if the information exists. If it is too time-expensive, then can I request the information just for the 2016 & 2019 election).
Response: The costs have been attributed to the communication general budget and not split into campaigns. Note the figures are not available for 2016 without conducting a manual search.
• An outline of the strategy that was used by the Council to promote voting in this election.
Response: The strategy was to leverage off the information and campaign being run by LGNZ, to which we contribute as part of the routine costs. This was augmented by local advertising on our regular channels to encourage voting, and promote citizen hosted events.
• A list of new initiatives thought up by the Council this year that would promote voter turnout and voter engagement.
Response: Given the saturation advertising on TV, radio and print media about the need to vote and key dates we focussed on promoting citizen meet-the-candidate events in the two wards, and co-hosting a combined (councillor and mayoral candidates) meet-the-candidate event that we live-streamed on Facebook and MDC website. Additionally at the same event we used an internet based (mobile and web) question collation platform to enable those watching, and unable to attend, to ask the candidates questions through the event MC .
We also created a large ‘ballot box’ that was left in public places with relevant dates and allowed for questions or observations to be left – the weather did not allow this to be fully deployed as planned.
• Evidence of efforts made by the Council to encourage and increase voter engagement e.g. a "meet the candidates" event, a Mayoral debate, working with local news outlets to increase election coverage.
Response: see points made above. Additionally the local media was proactive in sourcing interviews with newsworthy candidates that lifted community awareness of voting.
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1888
Date received: 20/11/2019
Requested information: Flights and individual trips 2018/19 financial year
Status: Complete
Date responded: 29/11/2019
Response:
LGOIMA REQUEST NO. 1888
<i> Domestic travel Response
1. the total spend on all domestic flights by your Council in the 2018/2019 financial year. 17,640.87
2. the total number of domestic flights flown in the same period. 100
<i>International travel
3. the total spend on all international flights in the 2018/2019 financial year; $-
4. a list of each international itinerary flown in the same period, including the: -
1. destination (s); -
2. reason for travel; -
3. travel class flown; -
5. costs for each international itinerary, please also provide details of all associated: -
1. entertainment expenses; $-
2. food; $-
3. accommodation; $-
4. conference costs; $-
5. transport and transfers; $-
6. (including any expense reimbursement); $-
6. For each international itinerary, please tell us if a domestic partner also travelled with the official. -
<i> Domestic travel Response
1. the total spend on all domestic flights by your Council in the 2018/2019 financial year. 17,640.87
2. the total number of domestic flights flown in the same period. 100
<i>International travel
3. the total spend on all international flights in the 2018/2019 financial year; $-
4. a list of each international itinerary flown in the same period, including the: -
1. destination (s); -
2. reason for travel; -
3. travel class flown; -
5. costs for each international itinerary, please also provide details of all associated: -
1. entertainment expenses; $-
2. food; $-
3. accommodation; $-
4. conference costs; $-
5. transport and transfers; $-
6. (including any expense reimbursement); $-
6. For each international itinerary, please tell us if a domestic partner also travelled with the official. -
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1886
Date received: 12/11/2019
Requested information: Recycling and refuse
Status: Complete
Date responded: 21/11/2019
Response:
Please find information as requested below.
1. Diversion rate of 21% (Based on incomplete data. Note: No allowance made for tonnes of farm waste dumped on farms)
2. Volume of waste per capita to landfill = 643kgs per Feilding population
Note: Not all Manawatu waste is moved through Manawatu Transfer Station. Per capita rate is therefore unreliable.
3. Recycling rate per capita 77 kgs per capita. Note: Recycling in rural areas is via drop off recycling centres
4. Where is your closest landfill- Bonny Glen near Marton. (42kms distance from Feilding)
5. Destinations –
Plastic: Budget Plastics, Malaysia
Metal: Scrap metal dealer in Palmerston North
Paper: Oji Fibre
Glass - OI Auckland
6. Level of service
Rubbish -Kerbside Recycling kerbside
Urban Y Y
Rural Y - Part N
7. Drinking glasses or pyrex: Not accepted
8. Plastic plant pots (Accepted only if have 1-5 recycle number)
9. Soft plastics: Not accepted
10. Tetra Paks carton: Not accepted
11. Plastic milk bottle lids : Not accepted
12. Food waste and greenwaste – Not provided by Council (Note: Private urban collection for greenwaste)
1. Diversion rate of 21% (Based on incomplete data. Note: No allowance made for tonnes of farm waste dumped on farms)
2. Volume of waste per capita to landfill = 643kgs per Feilding population
Note: Not all Manawatu waste is moved through Manawatu Transfer Station. Per capita rate is therefore unreliable.
3. Recycling rate per capita 77 kgs per capita. Note: Recycling in rural areas is via drop off recycling centres
4. Where is your closest landfill- Bonny Glen near Marton. (42kms distance from Feilding)
5. Destinations –
Plastic: Budget Plastics, Malaysia
Metal: Scrap metal dealer in Palmerston North
Paper: Oji Fibre
Glass - OI Auckland
6. Level of service
Rubbish -Kerbside Recycling kerbside
Urban Y Y
Rural Y - Part N
7. Drinking glasses or pyrex: Not accepted
8. Plastic plant pots (Accepted only if have 1-5 recycle number)
9. Soft plastics: Not accepted
10. Tetra Paks carton: Not accepted
11. Plastic milk bottle lids : Not accepted
12. Food waste and greenwaste – Not provided by Council (Note: Private urban collection for greenwaste)
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1885
Date received: 06/11/2019
Requested information: List of Maori candidates who won their campaign
Status: Complete
Date responded: 20/11/2019
Response:
Tēnā koe
I am responding to your email seeking a list of all our Māori candidates that won their campaign during this year’s local body elections.
I emailed all of our elected members to ask whether any of our members identify as having Māori descent, as members’ ethnicity is not information that is collected during the electoral nomination process.
I have not had any members confirm that they are of Māori descent.
Nāku noa
Allie
I am responding to your email seeking a list of all our Māori candidates that won their campaign during this year’s local body elections.
I emailed all of our elected members to ask whether any of our members identify as having Māori descent, as members’ ethnicity is not information that is collected during the electoral nomination process.
I have not had any members confirm that they are of Māori descent.
Nāku noa
Allie
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1884
Date received: 22/10/2019
Requested information: External catering spend 2017 - 2019
Status: Complete
Date responded: 05/11/2019
Response:
Our external catering costs, excluding GST, as requested are:
2017 $34,996.44
2018 $43,008.95
2019
To 21 Oct. $25,585.53
2017 $34,996.44
2018 $43,008.95
2019
To 21 Oct. $25,585.53
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1883
Date received: 18/10/2019
Requested information: Resource Consent for Halcombe Recycling Centre
Status: Complete
Date responded: 18/11/2019
Response:
Hi Caroline,
In response to your request for information, please be advised as follows:
We can confirm that no resource consent was granted for or applied for with respect to the community facility mobile recycling centre. The request for a mobile recycling facility came from the Halcombe Community Committee in August 2017. Several sites were discussed and it was agreed that the Halcombe Rugby Club Carpark would be the most practicable site. The Rugby Club agreed and the new mobile recycling facility was then located in around October 2017. The underlying site is zoned Village. It has an approved commercial kitchen activity and an active liquor license associated with the site.
The mobile recycling facility comes under the definition, Network Utility Category (o) Solid Waste Facility and Network Utilities Policy 3A.2 States: “…The following resource management issues have been identified in relation to network utilities, (5): The need to manage the disposal of solid waste material by reusing and recycling where possible, while avoiding the use of contaminated soils….” It was Councils view that the nature of the activity met the relevant District Plan Policy and the Standards for Permitted activities – Network Facilities within the Village zone, and as such no resource consent was applied for.
At the time the community facility was located there, we were not aware of any residential activity established on the adjoining site, please see attached aerial photo (Jan 2019).
I hope the above assists you in how Council came about to place the mobile recycling facility on the land adjoining your property. As previously discussed with you Council have now removed the glass recycling facility and are looking at alternative sites within the Halcombe Village to provide this service for the community.
In response to your request for information, please be advised as follows:
We can confirm that no resource consent was granted for or applied for with respect to the community facility mobile recycling centre. The request for a mobile recycling facility came from the Halcombe Community Committee in August 2017. Several sites were discussed and it was agreed that the Halcombe Rugby Club Carpark would be the most practicable site. The Rugby Club agreed and the new mobile recycling facility was then located in around October 2017. The underlying site is zoned Village. It has an approved commercial kitchen activity and an active liquor license associated with the site.
The mobile recycling facility comes under the definition, Network Utility Category (o) Solid Waste Facility and Network Utilities Policy 3A.2 States: “…The following resource management issues have been identified in relation to network utilities, (5): The need to manage the disposal of solid waste material by reusing and recycling where possible, while avoiding the use of contaminated soils….” It was Councils view that the nature of the activity met the relevant District Plan Policy and the Standards for Permitted activities – Network Facilities within the Village zone, and as such no resource consent was applied for.
At the time the community facility was located there, we were not aware of any residential activity established on the adjoining site, please see attached aerial photo (Jan 2019).
I hope the above assists you in how Council came about to place the mobile recycling facility on the land adjoining your property. As previously discussed with you Council have now removed the glass recycling facility and are looking at alternative sites within the Halcombe Village to provide this service for the community.
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1882
Date received: 16/10/2019
Requested information: Elected Member Inforrmation
Status: Complete
Date responded: 17/10/2019
Response:
Hope you are well! Here is the information from 1989-2001 about the elected members, their tenure, and gender. Members’ ethnicity is not information we have collected, so not able to provide that for you. Our Council uses FPP as its method of voting.
Name Role Gender Term start Term finish
CLAUSEN, Caryll Lydia Mary (MBE 1995) Mayor Female 1/11/1989 18/10/1995
ABBISS, William Arthur Cecil (Bill) (MNZM 2003) Councillor Male 1/11/1989 14/10/1992
BURNE, Richard Bruce (Bruce) Councillor Male 1/11/1989 18/10/1995
COFFEY, Mervyn Gordon Councillor Male 1/11/1989 14/10/1998
CRAW, Mervyn Josiah (MNZM 2010) Councillor Male 1/11/1989 17/10/2007
CULLING, John Clement Councillor Male 1/11/1989 18/10/1995
DALLAS, Shirley Jean Councillor Female 1/11/1989 27/06/1990
EVANS, David Leslie (Les) Councillor Male 1/11/1989 14/10/1992
OSTEN, Colin Alfred Councillor Male 1/11/1989 18/10/1995
ROWE, Richard Bernard Councillor Male 1/11/1989 16/10/2001
RUSH, Terence Parker (Terry) Councillor Male 1/11/1989 2/07/1990
SEVERINSEN, Audrey Councillor Female 1/11/1989 14/10/1998
THORLEY, Douglas (Doug) Councillor Male 1/11/1989 14/10/1998
WILLIAMSON, Betty Patricia Joyce Councillor Female 1/11/1989 14/10/1992
ELLERY, Kelvin George Councillor Male 3/11/1990 14/10/1998
MASON, Alan Livesey (MNZM 2003) Councillor Male 3/11/1990 18/10/1995
BEARD, Donald Trevor (Don) Councillor Male 15/10/1992 16/10/2001
WATERSON, Mark Bernard Nicholas Councillor Male 15/10/1992 18/10/1995
DARRAGH, Jillian Carole (Jill) Councillor Female 9/4/1993 18/10/1995
MOODIE, Robert Alexander (Rob) Mayor Male 19/10/1995 14/10/1998
BARNETT, Ross William Councillor Male 19/10/1995 16/10/2001
BARNETT, Ross William Councillor Male 14/10/2004 17/10/2007
BILLETT, Arthur George (George) Councillor Male 19/10/1995 14/10/1998
BRAMWELL, Barbara Dora Councillor Female 19/10/1995 13/10/2004
CAMPBELL, Robert John Councillor Male 19/10/1995 16/10/2001
SMITH, Graeme Newton Councillor Male 19/10/1995 8/10/2004
SMITHERS, Ross Herbert Councillor Male 19/10/1995 23/03/2000
SEVERINSEN, Audrey (ONZM 2003) Mayor Female 15/10/1998 29/08/2002
CAMERON, Barbara Michelle Councillor Female 15/10/1998 16/10/2001
GIBB, Adele Lona (Del) (QSM 2004) Councillor Female 15/10/1998 17/10/2007
GREGORY, John Councillor Male 15/10/1998 13/10/2010
LINKLATER, Eric Joseph Councillor Male 15/10/1998 13/10/2004
McBETH, Erica Prudence Sugden (Prue) Councillor Female 15/10/1998 13/10/2010
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1887
Date received: 14/10/2019
Requested information: Staff Remuneration
Status: Complete
Date responded: 18/11/2019
Response:
We have one staff member, our Chief Executive, in this category. At 30 September 2019 the total remuneration package was $315,000.
LGOIMA Request Details: LG1881
Date received: 12/10/2019
Requested information: Shooting Ranges
Status: Complete
Date responded: 18/10/2019
Response:
1. how many times Council has approached Police with safety concerns regarding existing shooting ranges; The Manawatu District Council has not received any complaints or forwarded any concerns regarding shooting ranges to the NZ Police over the requested time frame. This also includes Noise related complaints
2. the nature of those complaints; N/A, Refer to the response for Question 1
3. whether the complaints were found to be valid (if known); N/A Refer to the response for Question 1
4. if those complaints originally arose from the public, the dates and times of those complaints (if this information is available); and N/A Refer to the response for Question 1
5. if those complaints originally arose from the public, the actual number of separate complainants (for example if there were 10 complaints and they all came from the same business or household). N/A Refer to the response for Question 1
2. the nature of those complaints; N/A, Refer to the response for Question 1
3. whether the complaints were found to be valid (if known); N/A Refer to the response for Question 1
4. if those complaints originally arose from the public, the dates and times of those complaints (if this information is available); and N/A Refer to the response for Question 1
5. if those complaints originally arose from the public, the actual number of separate complainants (for example if there were 10 complaints and they all came from the same business or household). N/A Refer to the response for Question 1