Burnham abattoir planned

Press, 9 February 1982, Page 6

Burnham abattoir planned

. A new $2-million abattoir at Burnham would process about 1000 stock daily, the Malvern County Council's town planning committee was told yesterday. R. and A. Glassey want to put the abattoir, accessory buildings, and a house on the north side of Two Chain Road, about I.skm from Telegraph Road. If approved, it will replace an existing rural slaughterhouse at Springfield, which cannot be economically upgraded. Four objections were received to the plans. These complained mainly of possible noise, smell, increased traffic, disruption to the rural environment, and that the abattoir could set a precedent for more industry in the area. The committee reserved its decision. Messrs Ron and Allan Glassey said in their application that they wanted to supply inspected meat to the Malvern County, as well as killing stock for use by butchers from other areas. A normal working day would be 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., although this could vary dur-

ing the winter. There was sufficient yard space to hold IMs days supply of stock, plus holding paddocks. This would allow transport firms to deliver stock during normal trading hours. Most staff, livestock, and carcass traffic would use the Main South Road, and Tramway Road, said the application. The few vehicles involved would not affect existing traffic on these roads. All waste from the stockyards would be processed before being spray-irrigated on to pasture on the abattoir property and adjoining farms. All manure waste would be spread over nearby property as fertiliser by a special machine. By-products such as skins, hides, feet, blood, and soft offal would be taken away daily to by-products works, in Christchurch and Timaru, which would process them. They would be taken in dripproof containers to prevent pollution, said the application. The applicants envisaged 30 vehicle movements a day at the plant. Screen planting

was planned, and more work would be done around the buildings to improve the appearance. Mr P. L. Mortlock, for the applicants, said they had been forced to put up alternative slaughtering facilities in the most economic way. In a report the county’s town planning consultants suggested that the abattoir should be sited further to the west of the planned site, subject to various conditions. If the council did not agree, the building could be approved on the proposed site, subject to conditions. These could cover such things as landscaping, building materials, disposal of byproducts, direction signs, water rights, and traffic movement. In reply, Mr Allan Glassey said that moving the site would not make any difference to traffic movements, or possible smell. Wind direction would depend partly on shelter belts. He did not agree with the report's suggestion that his company should contribute to the upgrading of Two

Chain Road from the Telegraph Road intersection to the abattoir site. The abattoir would cost more than $2 million, and rates were likely to be $10,500 a year. An objection from lan Chamberlain and Company, Ltd. which owns land to the east of the proposed site, was put by Mr J. R. Woodward. He said the plans for a larger development to cater for stock from beyond the county was contrary to public interest because it would cause more traffic on a local road. “Inevitably, pressure will be placed on the council to upgrade it at the expense of the ratepayers." he said. “For this project to be economically viable it has to get patronage from outside the county, or else it must be shown that the Malvern County farmers have no abattoir facilities now, and that there is a demand to justify an abattoir to handle 1000 stock units a day." The new abattoir would affect amenities in the surrounding rural area, not just the immediate vicinity, Mr Woodward said. As there was

no labour nearby to staff the J abattoir it could mean pres- » sure to create an urban zone • for worker housing with an- ’ ciliary services. ; “The time to deal with the - situation is now, by nipping x ’ it in the bud." he said. , I Another objector. Mr R j * Smaill. told the committee 4 that he was concerned about ’ possible noise and smell and : the disposal of wastes. , “If planning approval is ‘ given, how effectively can * any conditions be imposed?’’ * he asked. ' j Two written objections J were received. In one, from t the Waitaki N.Z. Refrigerat- ? ing Company, Ltd, objectors • ‘ asserted that the proposal I was not necessary, and that ’ the possible disruption to the ! rural environment was unde- ’ sirable. *•. In the other objection. Mrs : S. J. Clyde complained of * possible air and noise pollu- • tion and increased traffic. I She was concerned that traf- * fic would take short cuts, t and that a precedent could * be created for more industry ’■ to develop locally. J