Landfill site fears 'invalid’

Press, 19 May 1982, Page 6

Landfill site fears 'invalid’

Further details on alternatives to the Waimairi landfill: sites released recently appeared to be “a very recent response to the need to justify the site,” a consulting engineer told the Planning Tribunal yesterday.

Mr D. E. Hollands said the Metropolitan Refuse Committee’s report on alternative sites did not seem to be a .valid exercise in considering the suitability of the proposed site with respect to the alternatives.

Adequate consideration had not been given to alternative sites, he said.

Ground water pollution was given as the • main reason for rejecting alternative sites, but this had not been properly applied and was generally invalid, he said. ' ■

Studies of alternative sites for the landfill appeared to have been cursory and done on the basis that the decision to use the coastal site was a foregone conclusion.

Mr Hollands said he rejected the assertion that the Waimairi Beach site was the safest in Christchurch as far as ground water pollution was concerned. Some leachate was . likely to be produced and would be difficult to control.

Pollution problems would be reduced if the landfill was moved further inland from the coastel dunes and screened by trees. Another option was to use two smaller landfill sites, rather than to rely on one.

The hearing, before. Judge Skelton and Messrs J. W. Ensor, R. A. McLennan and

R. S. Martin, will continue for its eighth day today. It is considering an appeal by seven objectors against the decision of five local bodies to have the Waimairi Beach site designated for landfill. The Waimairi District Council’s assistant planner, Mr H. R. Versteeg, told the tribunal that the proposed site would significantly change the natural character of the- cbasjal environment.

■'The Waimairi council had found the site unacceptable because adequate consideration had not been given to alternative sites, he said.

• Landscaping proposals for the site were not good enough. In particular, the council had found that the proposed refuse mounds were “artificial, contrived and much too high," he said. Access to fh'e site was not >

acceptable because of its environmental effects on residents fronting on to Bower Avenue. The proposed 120-metre buffer zone was insufficient both from a recreational and environmental viewpoint. As a planner, Mr Versteeg said he supported the council's reasoning and conclusions and believed the present requirement should be revoked.

Other possible sites had been rejected because of the danger of leachate penetrating underground aquifers, he .said. But the risk of pollution could have been avoided by choosing a different disposal method, sealing the base of the landfill or treating the refuse. These options had been rejected because of cost. :