 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
BURWOOD LANDFILL CHRISTCHURCH
RUN BY THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL
Latest Burwood photos taken 16th May 2003 notice
amount of rubbish uncovered!
These photos taken after 6pm 2nd May 2003 notice amount of rubbish uncovered!
LATEST NEWS : A PROPOSAL FOR TESTING THE CONTAMINANTS OF LANDFILL GAS HAS BEEN MADE AND TESTING WILL COMMENCE IN JUNE
QUICK INDEX OF LINKS FOR PICTURE HUNTERS
BIRDS AT BURWOOD (WARNING SOME IMAGES MAY DISTURB)
The Queens Park Residents Association evidence shows that over a period of 18 months C.C.C. has not followed their management plan with regards to capping device
(covering of the landfill.) See what they are meant to be
doing here in
there management plan under their resource consent. Therefore landfill gas from the landfill is able to be escape into the air. The landfill gas has migrated to the neighbouring burwood residents and several complaints
(see complaints made to Ecan here) have been made to Environment canterbury and C.C.C.
What is being done you may ask to address this landfill gas?
Well nothing has been done to address landfill gas since the landfill's opening in
1984, until members of the Queens Park Residents Association put in an appeal in
May 2002 (see the appeal here in word
format) to the Environment Court from the commissioners decision at the Burwood
Landfill Extension Hearing in February 2002.
Q.R.A. also filmed video evidence in september 2002 showing the horrible state of the Burwood landfill (see photos here). The video was shown to the two Burwood councillors Carol Evans and Gail sheriff (see Carol Evans response to the video here and eastern mail article pdf). We had a meeting with the Mayor on October the 1st and we had an assurance by the Mayor that the landfill gas contaminants would be tested, as landfill gas is a possible health risk:
CONSIDERING THERE IS NO GAS EXTRACTION SYSTEM IN PLACE,
THE LANDFILL HAS NEVER HAD PROPER COVERING OF RUBBISH AND ALL SORTS OF SPECIAL
WASTES AND HAZARDOUS WASTES HAVE BEEN DUMPED IN THE BURWOOD LANDFILL SINCE ITS EXISTENCE!
Simon collin the solid waste manager was at the meeting also and said the tests may take a month to organise.
Seven months later we are still waiting on a proposal for testing the landfill gas contaminants and the results from the testing.
See a letter Simon Collin sent to the Queens Park Residents Association after recording video on September 13th 2002
read especially the bottom paragraph.
A member of Q.R.A.'s reply to this is "If simon collin did what he was
employed to do we wouldnt have to go and take video evidence that shows he isnt
doing his job. It
is my view that Burwood landfill is totally out of control and has never been
monitored by anyone and the Council Staff that operate Burwood landfill have the
attitude of hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. The
photographic evidence speaks for itself."
Currently Simon Collin has out of good faith put in a $800,000 gas extraction system
(see the written proposal here) proposal in the
C.C.C. 2003/2004 Draft plan. But there is no guarantee this will be accepted into the draft plan in july 2003 when its finalised.
According to Simon Collin legally there is no requirement for C.C.C. to deal with Landfill gas for years to come. However Q.R.A disagrees and affirms an discharge to air consent is required in the new resource consent for Burwood landfill. This is being investigated currently. Considering other landfills in Auckland, Greenmount and Whitford which were operating before October 1991 and after October 1991 an air discharge consent was required under the R.M.A. if waste was being deposited into landfill.
P.B.B.U.A view is that 'sticking a band aid over a wound thats been infected for weeks isnt going to solve the problem'. Therefore the proposed gas extraction system will be inaffective in dealing with landfill gas which has been inundating burwood residents for a number of years.
Section 5 Of the Resource Management Act states 5. Purpose
(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
(2) In this Act, "sustainable management" means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well being and for their health and safety while-
(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) Safeguarding the life supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.
It is obvious to P.B.B.U.A that Section 5 of the R.M.A. has not been carried out or enforced at Burwood Landfill! You may wonder how could this happen? Well since WasteManagement N.Z. put an appeal in (as affected party 2000km away in Auckland! in 1995) to the resource consent to continue at Burwood. Canterbury Regional Councillor, Sir Kerry Burke said "The City Council had applied four years ago for resource consent to continue using Burwood. When Waste Management Ltd lodged an objection, the Council did a deal with it, requiring withdrawal of the consent application, forgoing competitive tendering, and setting up a `hybrid' company of Canterbury local authorities and private firms, Waste Management Ltd and Envirowaste Services Ltd" (Press, 11/10/99)
Therefore the City Council was able to avoid the R.M.A. and didnt have to spend money on operating Burwood under the R.M.A. hence the state of Burwood now.
City Councillor Denis O'Rourke replied "The implication that we did a deal (with Waste Management) because of their appeal against the consent is absolute rubbish. The implication of blackmail is absolutely wrong. If they had not come out on top, they would not have been chosen" (Press, 11/10/99). Furthermore, O'Rourke said that Burke's claims were "`totally wrong' and were further evidence that the Regional Council should be abolished" (ibid). Burke was unfazed and reiterated all his claims, including that the City Council had been "heavied" by Waste Management. A city councillor calling for the abolition of the Regional Council because one of its members opposes the city councillor's pet project has major constitutional implications, and also tells us rather a lot about the city councillor.
Denis O'Rourke saying that Waste Management "heavied" the Christchurch City Council in 1995 by legally objecting to the extension of the Burwood landfill and subsequently securing an agreement that it would be part of a joint venture to run the new landfill. Four years ago, leading City Councillors very emphatically rejected this clumsy approach. Cr David Close said then it was "inappropriate for a private investor to be `making the running' over the city's future landfill needs" (Press, 16/3/95). The now Mayor, Cr Garry Moore said: "I believe that we are being subjected to the threat of litigation to get a commercial advantage. Anyone who threatens a city council with that should be told to go to hell" (Christchurch Star, 22/3/95). What happened to change their minds?
