REASONS FOR DECISION. No written reasons for the decision shall be provided beyond that which the Arbitrator deems appropriate to convey a decision. Expedited arbitration decisions shall be of no precedential value and shall not thereafter be referred to by the parties in respect to any other matter.
REASONS FOR DECISION. In reaching my decision on a request for an increase in allowable annual cut to Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx X00000, I have considered all of the factors presented to me, and I have reasoned as follows. An increase in allowable annual cut is based upon the increment in short-term harvest flow attributable to the innovative forestry practices and activities. These innovative forestry practices and activities are identified in the Forestry Plan, that I have previously approved, and have been or are being carried out by the IFPA holder in accordance with the Forestry Plan. The original 25 June 2001 application for an AAC increase implied that the improved site index information was the sole innovative practice considered for the AAC increase application. However, upon review of the application and associated timber supply analysis I consider the new deer winter range and VRI phase 2 sampling to be identified innovative practices and activities under the Forestry Plan. I have discussed previously my reasons for including the effects of these innovative activities in my AAC increase determination.
REASONS FOR DECISION. 4.1 Recycling and how Xxxxxxx manages waste has come a long way since 2002 when just 2% of our household waste was recycled. Over the past 10 years Xxxxxxx has implemented one of the most comprehensive recycling services in London. Our household recycling, food waste recycling, recycling on-the-go and garden waste services to date have resulted in approximately 24% of our household waste being is recycled or composted. However, this level of performance falls short of the national target of 50% recycling by 2020 and a significant step change is required. Also, the cost of managing and disposing of waste generated within Hackney is due to rise significantly in the coming years. The NLWA household levy will be £4.8m in 2012/13. This figure is significantly assisted by the use of a budget surplus this year. Officers expect an increase in 2013/14 of over 52%. In addition to this, further increases are expected as the NLWA adopts menu pricing as part of the payment mechanism going forward so that Boroughs pay for the treatment of waste and recyclables by waste-stream.
4.2 Xxxxxxx adopted the North London Joint Waste Strategy (NLJWS) in July 2008. This is our statutory waste strategy, and we have worked together with the NLWA to procure a long term waste treatment contract. As part of this and the wider strategy we now need to confirm our borough waste collection methodology and estimated tonnages. It is right to review our position at this stage as the NLWA procurement reaches a critical and final part of the process and boroughs come together on the IAA. Decisions are required that will have long term operational and financial implications. Delay or uncertainty at this stage will lead to additional costs and Xxxxxxx falling short of necessary recycling performance.
4.3 Under Cabinet approved delegated authority, officers have provided the NLWA with a schedule stating Xxxxxxx’x collection current methodology including the provision of a source separated service to street based households. The schedule also allows for two stream recycling on estates.
4.4 This report recommends an alternative approach to the way in which dry recyclables are collected in Hackney and as a consequence, the submission of a Part B schedule to the NLWA. The change is considered necessary to maximise recycling performance and provide a sustainable, efficient and cost effective service. The evidence for this proposed change has been gathered over a considerable period, firstly through a ...
REASONS FOR DECISION. 3.1 The Council has a statutory duty to support young people leaving care through the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. As a result, the Council has a duty to provide a range of semi-independent living services for Looked After young people aged 16 – 18 and Care Leavers aged 18 – 24. The purpose of these services is to work with young people to build a range of life skills within a supportive environment which enables them to make a successful transition from being looked after to becoming a care leaver and then on to living independently.
3.2 In order to ensure improved service quality for care leavers as this is an unregulated market but a key focus of inspections undertaken by Ofsted. The delegations will also enable identified service efficiencies as detailed in the Councils 2015/16 Medium Term Financial Strategy, commissioners are seeking delegations in order to ensure that the Framework is live for 1st July 2015.
REASONS FOR DECISION. The Licensee consented in writing to the Authority that the Licence should be revoked in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 2 of the Licence by letter dated 22 March 2010.
REASONS FOR DECISION. To secure the transfer of LEP functions from the external company structure of SEMLEP into local authority management in accordance with government guidance issued in August and December 2023
REASONS FOR DECISION. Westcoast or any Stakeholder may make any toll design proposals for consideration by the TTTF or make toll design applications to the Board for changes in the toll design to become effective during the term of this Agreement. service in Zone 3 or Zone 4 during the term of this Agreement if such proposals are discussed and voted on by the TTTF and for which the vote result is unanimous or unopposed. Westcoast or any of the Stakeholders may apply to the Board for Westcoast to offer short term firm service for which the TTTF vote result is not unanimous or unopposed, and Westcoast or any of the Stakeholders may oppose or support such applications to the Board. For each of 2018 and 2019, all revenue collected by Westcoast from IT, AOS and short term firm service in Zone 3 will be for the account of shippers in Zone 3. For each of 2018 and 2019, all revenue collected by Westcoast from IT, AOS and short term firm service in Zone 4 will be for the account of shippers in Zone 4.
REASONS FOR DECISION. Introduction [1] These four appeals relate to the proposed Whakatane District Plan. The four appeals relate to provisions for areas of land on Xxxxxx Road, which is at the south eastem end of the foredune complex mnning between Matata and Whakatane. The former Orini River ran parallel with this foredune between Whakatane River and the Rangitaiki River. The appeals [2] The Court convened this hearing and conference to consider:
(a) a Memorandum seeking endorsement of a draft consent order for Xxxxxx Development and Forest & Xxxx appeals;
(b) an Application to Strike Out pmis of the Tmstees' appeal;
(c) directions in respect of all appeals to the extent they remain outstanding. [3] At the hearing on 8 May the Respondent produced a further memorandum and draft consent order in relation to the Whakatane Marina appeal and asked the Court to make orders. This was opposed by the Tmstees, who then sought to become a party under s274 and requested a waiver for late notice. [4] Xx Xxxxx sought to distinguish the issues as relating to 60 and 00 Xxxxxx Xxxx. Xx Xxxxxxxx acknowledges that the Forest and Bird appeal relates to both 00 xxx 00 Xxxxxx Xxxx, but that their main interest was in the river margins (within the environs of 00 Xxxxxx Xxxx). We were told the Whakatane Marina appeal related only to 60 Xxxxxx Road; while that for Xxxxxx Developments Limited related only to 00 Xxxxxx Xxxx, an area identified in documents put before us as the Opihi Stmcture Plan Area. [5] The appeal for the Tmstees of Opihi Whanaungakore and Mr Xxxxxx is not framed in terms of the addresses of the two sites, but rather in relation to the area covered by the Opihi Stmcture Plan in the first instance, and then in terms of the Piripai Block. One ground of appeal uses the words Opihi/Piripai Block (00 Xxxxxx Xxxx) to Ngati Awa and the outcome sought is the rejection of the Determination Repmi in relation to the Opihi/Piripai Block (00 Xxxxxx Xxxx). [6] In order to try and understand the inter-relationship of these two sites, it has been necessary for me to refer to the appeals of each party and their submissions to the Council. The correlation between the various sites is pmiicularly unclear, and we have not been given the benefit of any reference to actual planning documents. [7] Neve1iheless, the Whakatane Marina Limited notices of appeal attaches their submission on the plan and includes a plan purporting to be the 00 Xxxxxx Xxxx Structure Plan, but seeking the addition of land betwee...
REASONS FOR DECISION. 4.1 Cabinet approved a report in October 2014 delegating authority to the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources to negotiate terms for a formal Collaboration Agreement with the LLDC. Draft Heads of Terms have now been drawn up by Council and LLDC officers and these are appended to this report with supporting schedules. The following paragraphs briefly summarise the main terms. This Cabinet Report recommends Cabinet delegate to the Corporate Directors for Finance and Resources and Legal, HR and Regulatory Services to negotiate the final terms for Cabinet’s consideration and approval.
4.2 Project Objectives – are set out in the draft Heads of Terms [paragraph 2.4] and focus on securing outline planning permission for the comprehensive regeneration of the Masterplan Area, working with stakeholders to maximise benefit for businesses and residents and securing best value for the public sector.
REASONS FOR DECISION. This clearing permit application was made in accordance with section 51E of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) and was received by the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) on 3 November 2021. DMIRS advertised the application for public comment for a period of 21 days, and no submissions were received. In making this decision, the Delegated Officer had regard for the site characteristics (Appendix B), relevant datasets (Appendix E), supporting information provided by the applicant (Appendix A) including the results of a flora and vegetation survey, the clearing principles set out in Schedule 5 of the EP Act, proposed avoidance and minimisation measures (Section 3.1), relevant planning instruments and any other matters considered relevant to the assessment (Section 3.3). The Delegated Officer also took into consideration the purpose of the clearing to facilitate the replacement of significant power infrastructure. The assessment identified that the proposed clearing may result in: • the potential introduction and spread of weeds into adjacent vegetation, which could impact on the quality of the adjacent vegetation and its habitat values; • impacts to conservation significant flora; • the loss of native vegetation that is suitable habitat for conservation signficant fauna; • Impacts to riparian vegetation. After consideration of the available information, as well as the applicant’s minimisation and mitigation measures (see Section 3.1), the Delegated Officer determined the proposed clearing poses some risks to flora and fauna however, these risks can be adequately managed with conditions to ensure the proposal is environmentally acceptable. The Delegated Officer decided to grant a clearing permit subject to conditions to: • avoid, minimise to reduce the impacts and extent of clearing; • take hygiene steps to minimise the risk of the introduction and spread of weeds; • retain cleared vegetation and topsoil and respread this on cleared areas after the completion of construction activities; • Avoiding clearing of riparian vegetation, and maintaining existing surface water flows.
