Objection to sewage plant

Press, 7 May 1980, Page 6

Objection to sewage plant

The Christchurch Drainage Board was not obliged to build a northern sewage treatment plant, a Waimairi County Council planning hearing was told yesterday. The board should meet its responsibility to control effluent discharge into the Waimakariri River by exercising stricter control over the industries producing the effluent, said Mr H. Keerie, an objector to the siting of the proposed treatment plant on 38ha of land adjacent to Spencerville Road, Chaneys. He was speaking at a reconvened hearing on a requirement by the board for the site to be designated for the plant. Submissions on the requirement were heard last week and the hearing was extended to give nine objectors time to study details of the proposal. The hearing was before Crs I. Calvert (chairman), F. Chisholm, M. E. Murray, and H. M. Tait. Mr Keerie, of 157 Spencerville Road, said that industries in the 'Belfast area could be told to treat their

effluent more before it was discharged. Among evidence in support of the board was the point that the proposed plant would be needed initially to cater for wastes from three big industries with no requirement for the plant to take domestic sewage probably until the late 19905. Mr Keerie also said that the site was unsuitable for the proposed plant because of its distance from the industries and residential areas. Another objector, Mr S. T. Taylor, of 66 Farrells Road, said another site had been suggested as a possible alternative because its obvious unsuitability would enhance the selection of the land which was the subject of the requirement. There was no reason not to consider seriously, alternative sites for the proposed plant, the Chaney’s plantation being one possibility. A valuer had told him that property values near the proposed plant would be affected detrimentally until the pros-

pect of the plant causing “noxiousness or nuisance” to residents had either disappeared or had been proved invalid. Mr ' B. A. Stead, of 760 Marshland Road, said that if planning permission was given the plant should be situated at the northern end of the 38ha block so that it would be “as isolated from residents as possible.” The need to extend the proposed plant for domestic sewage was 15 to 20 years away, by which time new technology and a “greater awareness of the environment” would have developed. Mr N. V. Taylor, for the board, said the proposed

plant “might or might not” have an effect on the objectors with regard to smell and. insects. The objectors had approached the proposal with a subjective interpretation of the possible effects. The county planner had ■ agreed that the plant was necessary to achieve the objects of the board and that the site was suitable. The board had done every-: i thing it could to make a complete and detailed case for the designation and residents in the area now knew exactly what the proposal entailed and what protection measures it included. The criteria set out in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, for the consideration of such designations had . been “fully canvassed” and he urged the council to approve the designation. A decision was reserved.