Landfill access not acceptable

Press, 14 July 1982, Page 6

Landfill access not acceptable

The Waimairi Beach fill site would not be allowed unless an acceptable access was found, the Planning Tribunal has said. In an interim decision released yesterday, the tribunal found that the site was unsuitable with direct access from Bower Avenue, south of Rothesay Rd. or direct access from residential streets such as Bower Ave. Direct access was of vital importance to the case, the tribunal said. The respondents, which are the. Christchurch City Council. Paparua County Council, Heathcote County Council, Riccarton Borough Council, and Kaiapoi Borough Council, might want to reconsider their, requirements in light of this finding.

If the respondents wanted their requirements for the site confirmed, they would have to put an acceptable access proposal to the tribunal.

If the respondents were unable or unwilling to do that, the tribunal intended to allow all valid appeals and revoke the requirements, said the finding, contained in a 56-page report. The tribunal emphasised that in formulating necessary management controls, particular attention ; would have to be given to ways- of ensuring that fill was kept above the groundwater level. Appeals against the Metropolitan Refuse Disposal Committee’s decision to proceed

with the landfill site-by R. V. Allen and Mrs J. H. Lockyer were not allowed because of lack of status.'

Appeals by the Waimairi District Council: Bower Egg Farm. Ltd. and four others; the Queenspark Community Association, and 39 others; B. .Ryan; and Smith Developments, Ltd. stood adjourned sine die. said the tribunal.

Leave was given for any of the parties to- have these appeals brought bn for hearing on 21 days notice. The proposal, said the tribunal, was to excavate where necessarj- to within one metre of the existing water-table, and to put refuse in layers to a maximurrigheight. in places, of 25 metres above existing ground levels. ■;* Mounds would be formed, with the lower slopes of these planted in trees, and the tops grassed. The whole appeal site would become a passive recreation area. The landfill scheme was expected to last from 15 to 20 years, said the tribunal.

Some witnesses were worried about stabilisation of the refuse mounds, and planting on them. Some suggested it would be impracticable to ensure that refuse always stayed above the groundwater level. After considering these matters, the tribunal found that on balance the proposed work,, including restoration; was practicable on this site,

said the report. Many concerns could be overcome with appropriate management techniques.

The tribunal further found that the proposed landfill work would not jeopardise protection of the coastline and foredune area, and might well enhance it.

Drainage works would probably be necessary for the site, said the report. The possibility that leachate could be formed as a. result of the plan could not be excluded. Indeed, said the tribunal, it could not be excluded irrespective of where the work was done.

It was important that underground water supplies were not affected by such things as infiltration of leachate, from landfill. The tribunal accepted it was important that the landfill works be kept above groundwater.

It also accepted that continuous monitoring of the landfill site should be maintained.

On visual effects, the tribunal found that unless people were within the site’s confines or on foredunes overlooking it. they were unlikely to see the proposed work.

Restoration of the land would not be unpleasant, and would not be entirely out of character with its surroundings. said the tribunal. Those opposed to the plan had not given enough weight to that fact that it included

restoration designed to leave the site fit for passive recreation. That state would not be the same as at present, but in the tribunal's judgment. , the character would be natural. Many emotive statements were made about possible noise, smell, dust, or vermin from the landfill work, said the report. Yet the nearest existing house was 1000 metres awav.

Residential development was planned within 600 metres of the site, but the tribunal was satisfied with evidence that all fears expressed were quite unfounded. Management techniques could avoid any adverse results.

Access, said the tribunal, was the one issue which the respondents had failed to answer adequately. It was proposed to form the legal extension of Bower Avenue and use. that street as the only direct access to the appeal site. Notwithstanding certain evidence, the tribunal was of the clear and firm view that the use of Bower Avenue for direct access must not be permitted. North of Beach Road, all traffic to and from the site would use Bower Avenue. On an average this was likely to involve at least 75 heavy vehicle movements during a working day. seven days a week. Bower Avenue, south of

Rothesay Road, had never been intended to carry heavy vehicles as proposed, and such a use would be quite out of character with the amenities in the area. Residents were entitled to be protected against this. The hearing before Judge Skelton (chairman), and Messrs R. A. McLennan, G. W. Ensor, and R. S. Martin, lasted about two weeks.

It was the second time that the issue had been brought before a hearing. Objections to the scheme were heard last year by a sub-committee 'of the Waimairi District Council, which recommended that the site proposal be rejected.

The recommendation was later approved by the' full council. However, the refuse disposal committee opted to proceed with the landfill and over-rode the council's decision. The refuse disposal committee contains representatives of the Waimairi, Christchurch City, Riccarton. Kaiapoi, Heathcote, and Paparua councils. All except Waimairi were respondents in defence of the scheme at the hearing. The Metropolitan Refuse Disposal Committee’s chairman. Cr H. A. Clark, said last evening that he was “90 per cent sure” his committee would go ahead with the site, and try to meet the tribunal’s request. . Another access to the site

had been considered, but this had been costly.' said Cr Clark. The committee would have to consider additional access to the site, the cost, and whether ' constituent bodies would meet the cost. Cr Clark said he was not surprised by the tribunal's finding, and under the circumstances considered it the correct and right decision. The tolerance of people to rubbish trucks along their streets had almost disappeared, he said. He felt residents could see the inevitability of landfill in that area, and their concern was about possible nuisance. Cr Clark said he believed residents would not be entirely happy, but would be satisfied that they had done their duty to the community. It was patently clear that if the committee wanted the project to go ahead, there was a particuular thing that it must take notice of. The chairman of Waimairi District Council’s town-plan-ning committee, Cr I. Cal- . vert, said he was pleased the decision of Waimairi’s subcommittee had been vindicated, and that the work of councillors had not gone for nothing. • “The council always tries to make an objective decision on'these things,”, said Cr Calvert. "There is a lot ofemotion with that type of hearing and we have always tried, in the two refuse hearings. to be quite objective.” '