THE PRESS TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1982. Refuse scheme’s progress

Press, 9 March 1982, Page 20

THE PRESS TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1982. Refuse scheme’s progress

Progress in getting Christchurch’s muchneeded rubbish disposal scheme into full running order has been disappointingly slow. Even allowing that the availability of funds imposes its own pace on the development of the scheme, progress has been slow. Three and a half years have passed since the metropolitan refuse committee was constituted from among the city’s various local All the committee has to show for its three and a half years of work is the western transfer station. This is not a small achievement in itself, but the committee has been more notable for bickering and indecision in the face of complaints from the public than for getting things done in what is really a refuse emergency.

The great danger is that such division and indecision Will, encourage public scepticism about the scheme and about the value of continuing co-operation among the different local bodies to solve a common problem. The scheme needs public support if the local opposition to particular aspects of it is to be overcome. Any squabbles and politicking on ;the committee could too easily dissipate this very necessary support.

Fortunately, the decision has been taken to proceed promptly with the construction of another transfer station in the east of the city. With luck, this could be working before the end of 1983. The western station is working satisfactorily and its users have come to appreciate the benefits and advantages of the station and of the scheme. The decision to proceed with the eastern station and so maintain an impression that the scheme is going ahead was a sensible one. A site for the station has already been agreed on and there is no great risk of local opposition or planning delays. Sensible as the decision was, it was not made without further disagreement, mainly from those who want to build the proposed northern station first. The exact site and nature of the northern station warrant further discussion. Inviting the risk of another round of argument without anything further being seen to be done would have been most unwise.

A cloud is looming that is worse than the likely disagreements about where the northern transfer station should go and . about what its precise role in the whole scheme should be. Uncertainty still surrounds the location of the landfill site, which is an integral part of the scheme. If the Planning Tribunal upholds the objections of opponents of the site favoured by a majority on the refuse committee, the scheme as a whole could suffer a severe setback. The confusing and complicating town planning net in which the decision about the landfill site has been caught has added to the uncertainty. This uncertainty is making some people wonder whether the whole scheme should be abandoned. Eventually an unpopular decision will have to be made about the landfill site. At present, all that can be hoped for by those who want to see the scheme working by the time it is needed is that the Planning Tribunal will produce a clear-cut decision without room for further local bickering. Most residents and ratepayers of the metropolitan area must surely be anxious to see the local authorities on the refuse committee pulling together. The silliest aspect of the whole situation is that arguments have often been about superficial details of the scheme; less obvious to the public is the fact there is a common agreement that something must be done to replace the present refuse system. The existing local body tips simply cannot contain the flow of rubbish from Christchurch for very much longer. Even if most- of the city’s households can be persuaded to sort their rubbish at home and support the recycling experiment, the scheme’s transfer stations and landfill will still be needed. Individual local authority attempts to solve the problems of rubbish disposal in each area of the city would be economically and environmentally foolhardy. The progress of the scheme over the hurdles erected by the inability of Christchurch’s local bodies to get on together may be slow; that some progress at ■ least is being made is welcome, indeed, and the committee deserves public support for every advance it makes towards its goal.