Bexley residents 'very wild' about council’s tip plan

Press, 10 April 1980, Page 6

Bexley residents 'very wild' about council’s tip plan

Bexley residents were ‘very wild” about the Christchurch City Council s ' plans to dump rubbish again ' at the tip’s north end, the council’s works and traffic committee was told yesterday. Residents had been alerted that something could happen , when earth-moving equipment started building high; mounds along Pages Road; and at the back of St Hellers Crescent, to screen fut-j ure'tipping there from pub--lie view. The committee decided — belatedly, according to some councillors — to consult the neighbourhood about the way tipping should be done, and what should be done with the land after the tip isj closed in 1986. But even councillors who: want the tip closed earlier than 1986 said there was no, alternative to the Bexley site | in the meantime. The chairman of the Bex-|. ]fey Residents’ Association (Mr W. A. Brickie) said a compromise was probably the only sensible solution. A public meeting could be held soon to get suggestions on the future of the tip. Three petitions against using; the northern land for: more.tipping have been received by the council. One reason is that rubbish would, be dumped close to houses. . : Problems of rodents, ; noise;; dust, smells, and sea- : gulls '• would simply be I brought too near residents! who-had already had enough' problems from the tip, Mr Brickie said. Mr B. G. Shutt said: "The people are very wild, and I don't blame them. The way the;, tip has been filled and the way- it has been controlled, are absolutely scandalous. Neighbours have had it rough, and they have had 1 it rough too long.” Some residents had talked of an injunction against the council if dumping went ahead near Pages Road. It would be the third time in 17 years that dump-: ing -had been done in that: area; Mr Shutt said. The- New Brighton Busi-: ness Association also, opposed the tipping. If private enterprise decided to do it, the-City Council would be the "first to “jump, up and ’down violently,” said Mr B. N. De Vere, a spokesman for the Association. The land south of Pages Road-,should have been landscaped years ago, he said. IMourids built beside the road will<be grassed and mown regrjjarly. Cr Noala Massey, a Pages

Road resident, said she didf not like the mound, “and Ip do not like the thought ofji what is going on behind it.” |l One Bexley resident said;there should be a drawing of what could be done with the land after tipping was com- ■ pleted because it was easier ; to put up with something if you could see an end result. Cr Vicki Buck said the 'council had been wrong to build the mounds before telling residents what was happening. She said consultations recommended now were “six weeks too late.” Proposed tipping near Pages Road was “unacceptably close” to houses, said Cr D. C. Close. Even with good management, a tip was a nuisance to its neighbours. ; An adequate buffer and drainage zone between houses and rubbish might be at least 250 m. he said. The City Engineer (Mr P. 10. Scoula’r) said there had (been no change in longjstanding council policy about using the tip until-it was closed. If it was used until 1986, there were lots of ways they could do it, he said. Hills could be built or rubbish could be spread 'evenly. Much depended on what land use residents wanted when tipping ended. The final layer of rubbish would .be contoured to suit that; (use. Mr Scoular had told; 'residents in a letter circu-i Mated early this month. I I “At the moment, it is I I quite impossible to develop! 'it for anything,” Mr Scoular! (said. The land was mostly; flat, and partly unstable. • Depending on demand, the; area now being filled at the Dyers Road end of the tip could be used for up to an- ■ other two. years. After tipping at the northern end, the mounds would be taken I down and used for cover material again. I: '] Capital costs ;! The metropolitan rubbish 1; disposal schemers 1978 capital cost of $7.35 million is J now being 'revised to account for inflation. Cr Buck said the cost could exceed $lO million by i the time the scheme, which , includes three rubbish trans- : fer stations is started in 1 1987. Because of those high . costs, alternatives such as • recycling could be more at- ' tractive by that time. , j’ The committee’s chairman •j(Cr Newton Dodge) said thej .: metropolitan scheme was! liopen-ended enough to bei'flexible, and other methods.! of rubbish disposal could be; ;'considered. .

. The system’s real cost had; to be seen in perspective. It: could be spread over the 401 to 50 years the system j would be used. : “The capital cost is to set it up,” Cr Dodge said. “It will then be used for many years.” The Associate City Engineer (Mr B. D. Forbes) said shredding to produce fuel from some rubbish would not be economic with the amount of rubbish generated in the Christchurch area. Even the Auckland Regional Authority, with four times the rubbish, was not going ahead with shredding. A pulveriser was being used by a local firm, said; the Mayor of Christchurch! (Mr Hamish Hay) and it might ask the council to provide some rubbish for an experiment. I Contractors Commercial rubbish contractors objecting to new charges at the Bexley tip should compare their costs with charges elsewhere, Cr Dodge said. “I know these charges are very fair, and very reasonable,” he said. The new charge, since April 1, was $l6 for a five-tonne skip. In Auckland, the same amount j would cost the contractor I $B5. i Some local bodies had iheld back their new charges i until the contractors put | their case to the metropolitan refuse disposal comjmittee. The new City Coun;cil charges would be retainied in the meantime.

Cr D. J. Rowlands said it was better gradually to increase charges until new transfer ’ stations were used, instead of having a sudden rise in 1986.' Until now, ' commercial operators had been subsidised by ratepayers because they were not paying enough to cover actual tipping costs. The new charges just covered those costs.