Dump closing queried

Press, 25 August 1983, Page 8

Dump closing queried

“Explanations” were called for by the chairman of the Planning Tribunal yesterday when it was reported that an agreement to close the Waimairi rubbish dump had been reached. The tribunal had earlier been told that the dump could not close until the Waimairi Beach landfill opened. The landfill’s opening is dependent on tribunal approval of an access route for rubbish trucks through Marshland.

The chairman, Judge Skelton, said that if, as reported in “The Press” yesterday, the Waimairi District Council and the Christchurch City Council had agreed to close the tip, the tribunal deserved “some explanation.” To maintain public confidence in its rulings the tribunal was entitled to know what, if anything, the councils had decided.

“I am getting a bit tired of having to say this sort of thing,” he said. “Unequivocal evidence had been given saying that the dump could not close

until the landfill was given permission to open. Judge Skelton asked counsel for the Waimairi District Council, Mr D. M. Palmer, if his client had made a decision on the landfill. If a decision had been reached, the urgency sought by the council in approving the access route would seem no longer to apply, Judge Skelton said. Both the Waimairi District Engineer, Mr A. J. W. Lamb, and Mr Palmer had told the tribunal on Tuesday that urgency was required. Mr Lamb sought approval for rubbish trucks to travel along Marshland Road and Prestons Road and cross Burwood Road to the entrance of the Bottle Lake Forest Park. They would then travel through the park to the landfill. He also said the Prestons Road deviation, planned to by-pass houses at the corner of Prestons Road and Burwood Road, might not be completed by the planned landfill opening, in mid--1984.

Mr Palmer said discus-

sions between Waimairi and City Council representatives had been held. The representatives had come to an agreement on closing the Sawyers Arms Road dump but their recommendations would need confirmation by each council. Urgency was still sought. “Misreporting by omission” had given a false impression of the discussions, said Mr Palmer. No binding agreement had been reached.

The discussion took place presuming a certain set of circumstances — the early approval .of the access route. The recommendations would apply in the event of the tribunal’s favourable decision.

If the access route was not approved, the recommendations would not

apply. That was not the impression the public got, Judge Skelton said. Mr Lamb said he had considered mentioning the discussions in his evidence but had not done so because they were not confirmed council decisions.