Refuse alternatives ‘hypothetical’

Press, 28 November 1979, Page 6

Refuse alternatives ‘hypothetical’

Proposals by the Redwood Action Committee that would avoid the need for three big rubbish transfer stations have been described as unreal and hypothetical The terms were used by a consultant town planner, Mr M. Douglass, who last evening presented a critique of the committee’s proposals to a hearing on the Redwood transfer station. The hearing has continued for eight days before a tribunal appointed by the Waimairi County Council. Several alternatives to the metropolitan refuse disposal scheme had been suggested by the action committee earlier in the hearing. One of them mooted the establishment of up to eight “ministations” instead of the three larger ones planned. Mr Douglass said that the development of a "ministation” proposal merely postponed the day when a

permanent site for a northern transfer station would have to be found. Such stations would not permit ready expansion or give the opportunity for flexibility of use. Unless they were all placed within a circle five or six kilometres from Cathedral Square, each would get varying use. In some cases this would generate traffic equivalent to a big transfer station. “Thus, while increasing the convenience for some householders the problems of congestion and conflict would be greater. “Whichever approach is taken it is obvious that the mini-stations are seen merely as an interim position and as a means, temporarily, of avoiding on the struction for buildings in the three metropolitan transfer station sites.” The mini-station proposal had different aims, a different life and a different involvement of the community,! the councils, and firms in refuse disposal. |

“In fact the mini-station proposals could have been introduced within existing local authority collections,” said Mr Douglass. This deliberately had not been done because the three transfer stations and one landfill site had been considered the best solution for all the local authorities involved. Mr Douglass said the Metropolitan committee’s philosophy was to achieve in one Step a scheme having a long life at a permanent address. The action committee’s scheme could be seen at best as an interim step, postponing these decisions. Mr Douglass said the action committee had not attempted to develop models for industrial and commercial refuse. Such refuse tended to come from relatively concentrated areas he said, particularly along the Blenheim Road i corridor, the central city, and [from the WoOlston-Bromley area. | “The disposal of this re-

fuse alone justifies the development of the western and eastern transfer stations.” The inference of the action commitee’s proposals were that industrial and commercial waste would be taken straight to the landfill, said Mr Douglass. This was ot an anpropriate assumption and he doubted whether more than a third of this type of refuse could economfcallv be taken direct to the landfill. Some of Mr Douglass’s arguments were countered in supplementary evidence presented on behalf of the action committee by Dr G. A. Britton. Dr Britton presented a number of arguments contesting the grounds used by Mr Douglass in his submissions. Several were technical. relating to statistics and methods of gleaning data. “My analyses indicate that; the available data regarding! amount and distribution of refuse is insufficient to deter-.

mine optimal locations for transfer stations,” Dr Britton said. He also took issue with Mr Douglass’s assertion that the “mini-station” proposal was a hypothetical alternative. Dr Britton said the Waimairi county engineer (Mr A. J. W. Lamb) had “on several occasions admitted that nowwhere else in the world are there transfer stations like the ones proposed by the Metropolitan Refuse Committee.” Transfer stations of this! type had never been tested; in real life, but the action! committee’s proposal was "grounded on reality.” “Mini-, stations” were being used; both in New Zealand and; overseas. Large transfer stations preempted future options for disposal of refuse, Dr Britton; said. Their high cost would; prevent the metropolitan: committee from using better disposal methods until the stations had “paid their way.”*