Decision report- Carey's Gully Sludge Dewatering Facility - Greater ...

7.2.5 Issues raised by submissions in opposition
PAGE 12 OF 57
A clear majority of submitters were opposed to the application. Of those in
opposition, the predominant concern of the submitters was the sporadic and
sometimes intense bursts of odour that the submitters attributed to the
operations at Carey’s Gully. The associated effects of the odour that could be
experienced by the submitters (and by extension the catchment in general) then
also had follow-on effects associated with the devaluation of property values,
health concerns around the breathing-in of such objectionable odours, and the
lowering of the overall amenity value and standard of living experienced by the
submitters.
Many submitters stated that they were forced indoors at times due to the odour,
and that there were potentially long-term, unknown health effects. A number of
submitters also highlighted that the applied-for duration of consent was too
long.
Some submitters specifically opposed the dumping of sludge to landfill, as this
is contrary to waste minimisation practices.
The Brooklyn Resident’s Association provided a representation of many of the
issues that have been raised by submitters. The association stated that:
The odours from Carey’s Gully Landfill have been a cause of concern for a
number of years. Residents in Brooklyn and other parts of the city are
periodically affected by offensive odours from the landfill. These odours cause
stress and create feelings of frustration and anger for those affected.
It is difficult to reconcile the odours from the landfill with the Regional
Council’s publically stated commitment to Healthy Community and Healthy
Environment community outcomes.
When we have raised concerns at meetings attended by regional councillors,
such as Draft Annual Plan meetings, we have been told that ‘it’s not a
problem’ and that ‘it’s improving’. Such comments suggest a lack of
understanding of the scale and impact of the problem.
Current attempts to ‘mitigate’ the problem are widely regarded within the
community as derisory. A typical response on the weekly incident reports is
‘incident logged (no action required).’ It is not surprising that residents
repeatedly report that they feel there is no point in reporting an incident.
Similarly it is fondly hoped in response from GWRC that the planting of trees
will have some long-term effect in reducing the effect of odours. It may, but
this does not affect the immediate problem.
We have repeatedly submitted that the GWRC should invest in addressing the
cause of the odours. This could be achieved through analysis of incoming
waste. We are not satisfied with the response received on this point, and regard
a recent report on odours from the landfill, commissioned by Wellington City
Council, as partial and inadequate.