Waimate

SIRRL’s second resource consent application was returned due to “insufficient information”, in particular, a lack of a Cultural Impact assessment (CIA). SIRRL lodged an appeal, which an independently appointed commissioner heard. Barrister Rob Enright, “by a narrow margin”, found in favour of SIRRL and directed the two councils to accept the resource consent application as complete. This means that the application will proceed and be subject to last century’s Resource Management Act (RMA) regulations that will not be subject to new legislation considering greenhouse gas emissions, potentially impacting the project significantly. READ MORE

After having their resource consent application returned for a second time due to a lack of information including a site specific CIA, company director Paul Taylor spits the dummy and labels ECan and Waimate DC’s actions as “unlawful” and an “abuse of power.” In a letter to both councils dated 23 December, SIRRL director Paul Taylor said the Resource Management Act (RMA) had “no requirements for a Cultural Impact Assessment to be provided as a prerequisite to making a legally competent application.” Company provides historic CIA gleaned from unrelated resource consent application. The company had its September 2021 resource consent application returned due to a lack of information, including a cultural impact assessment report (CIA). The company relodged its application just days before RMA changes came into effect, changes that would mean its application would take GHG emissions into account.  The company’s second application included a CIA from Oceania Dairy Company to discharge wastewater into the ocean. In his letter to ECan, Taylor stated that the CIA ‘meticulously identifies possible cultural value issues and explains why none has material effect or relevance ‘. He further stated that ‘it follows that the Council’s rejection of the application on this basis is perverse and unreasonable in law.’ This letter implies that Mr Taylor believes it is appropriate for him to decide if SIRRL’s application has a material effect or relevance to cultural values. If it were up to proponents of these types of developments to determine cultural effects, then there would be no need for cultural impacts to be taken into account when determining the effects of these types of applications, therefore bypassing Mana whenua from the process. READ MORE

ECan spokesperson Hayleigh Brereton said the council believed a site-specific cultural impact assessment with or by Te Runuanga O Waihao was required. “This is a very large proposal and the first of its kind in New Zealand, and it would have some wide-reaching potential effects, including many unknown effects on Mana whenua,” Brereton said. SIRRL director Paul Taylor said the company was considering legal advice on whether this decision was a breach of legal process and whether processing of the other reports that made up the Project Kea application should proceed in the meantime. Read More

SIRRL lodged a resource consent application with Waimate District Council and Environment Canterbury in September 2022.  The application was rejected due to a lack of information, including a cultural impact assessment report (CIA).SIRRL has now relodged their resource consent application again without a site-specific CIA. The second application comes just days before new RMA requirements come into force, ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions are taken into account when processing applications made after the December 2nd cutoff.

Environment Canterbury (ECan) confirmed it had returned South Island Resource Recovery Limited’s (SIRRL) resource consent application due to “insufficient information” being supplied regarding the proposed activities of the plant and their effect on the environment. ECan consents planning manager Aurora Grant explained the “key concern” held by the council was a “lack of information regarding the scale and potential effects of the proposed activity.” “This is a very large proposal. It’s the first of its kind and scale in New Zealand and one that includes many activities that could impact the environment,” Grant said. Read ECan’s S88 respone in full below. S88 response

“Dioxins(a group of three main families including dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls or PCB’s) are considered to include the most toxic synthetic chemicals known, and they are always produced in burning municipal and hospital waste. They cause cancer, birth defects and immune damage.” – Doctor Crispin Langston, Waimate GP. Langston’s immediate concern, should the plant be constructed, is for the town of Glenavy and its school just 2.5 kilometres south of the site. “The northeaster is the prevailing wind in the area, and that will take all the toxins and pollution from the plant straight over Glenavy. “The long term concern are the dioxins produced by the plant, which are very resistant and do not break down easily, and they accumulate.” Langston said dioxins (a group of 3 main families including dioxin, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs) are considered to include the most toxic synthetic chemicals known, and they are always produced in burning of municipal and hospital waste. “They cause cancer, birth defects and immune damage.” Read Article Read More on Doctors Concerns Dr Crispin Langston is the spokeperson for the group of five Waimate GP’s who oppose the ‘Project Kea’ waste to energy plant. “Having considered various claims about the proposal for a waste burning plant,” the local doctors said that “the issues of risk to health have not been fully recognised.  On current information then, this project would be best described as a waste to poisons plant.” Read Full Doctor’s letter

“We’re not sure we want our children to face health risks in order to give everyone else in the South Island the convenience of burning their rubbish.” Glenavy has 126 pupils, 2.5km downwind of the proposed incinerator. “Overseas evidence shows that the construction of such facilities does not encourage recycling, reusing, or reducing rubbish, which we believe are more sustainable, future-oriented alternatives to incineration.” “We believe that only initiatives to encourage individuals to take personal responsibility for their waste can solve New Zealand’s increasing waste problem.” Read More

“We’re not sure we want our children to face health risks in order to give everyone else in the South Island the convenience of burning their rubbish.” Glenavy has 126 pupils, 2.5km downwind of the proposed incinerator. “Overseas evidence shows that the construction of such facilities does not encourage recycling, reusing, or reducing rubbish, which we believe are more sustainable, future-oriented alternatives to incineration.” “We believe that only initiatives to encourage individuals to take personal responsibility for their waste can solve New Zealand’s increasing waste problem.” Read More

The company behind a proposed waste incinerator near Waimate has been making misleading claims to the community. They have been assuring us that they will recover aggregate from the residue ash and recycle it for use as roading and construction material. However, the company’s resource consent application reveals its true plan for the 100,000 tonnes of toxic ash produced yearly—LANDFILL IT! The company have lodged a resource consent application with Waimate District Council and Environment Canterbury (ECan). The application states that the company intends to landfill 100,000 tonnes of ash annually for 35 years. The company has also said that they plan to recover aggregate from the ash and use it as a roading or construction material in the future; however, current regulations in NZ don’t allow this, so landfilling is the only option available to them. This significant fact was omitted from the company’s promotional material for 18 months before lodging resource consent.   “New Zealand is in the middle of a landfill waste crisis. Many of the South Island’s landfills are older, overpacked and failing. The breakdown of these landfills is happening now – we cannot leave this problem for the next generation to deal with.”— Paul Taylor, South Island Resource Recovery Limited (SIRRL) Board Director. The above text was taken from SIRRL’s Project Kea website. SIRRL don’t seem to have a problem with burying toxic ash and leaving that for the next generation to deal with.