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

10.4.1 Greater Wellington Regional Council
• Raymond Chang – Resource Advisor
• Ron Pilgrim –Independent peer reviewer
Mr Chang’s report recommends that all the consents required from GW be
granted subject to the suggested conditions. Mr Chang recommended a
duration which would bring the application together with the Southern Landfill
consents which are required from GW expiring 14 June 2026. This
recommendation did not change upon hearing the presentation from the
applicant and the evidence of the submitters.
10.4.2 Wellington City Council
• Hannah McCashin – Planner
Ms McCashin recommended in her Section 42A report that the proposal should
be granted subject to recommended condition of consent, and until the year
2100 to link with the designation. Ms McCashin stated that she had no issues
with the applicant’s altered wording of the WCC recommended conditions of
consent and noted that there was little contention with these conditions. She did
confirm that the Long Term Reuse condition (condition 10 currently included
in the GW suite of conditions) would be more appropriate to remain with the
GW conditions rather than be included within the WCC conditions.
In regards to duration of consent Ms McCashin confirmed that the applicant
had applied for a duration of 25 years, and that the effects of the proposal
would be the same should a 91 year or 25 year consent be granted.
Ms McCashin also clarified that she recognised that odour issues were very
important it is not a matter which is generally dealt with under the District
Plan. Finally Ms McCashin stated that Plan Change 69 – Contaminated Sites
had been assessed throughout her report but does not substantially affect the
assessment of the activity.
10.5 Applicant’s right of reply
Ms Anderson presented the right of reply on behalf of the applicant. Ms
Anderson noted that since co-composting had ceased in September 2008 there
had been a decline in odour complaints, and that the conditions proposed
would adequately mitigate any odour. Ms Anderson also highlighted that there
are positive effects associated with the activity, significant investment in the
facility and associated infrastructure, and that it was consistent with the
relevant policy statements and plans and Part 2 of the Act.
The applicant clarified the matters of the timing of complaints and when the
skips were removed as well as how the mixing ratio will be maintained in the
future. Ms Anderson also discussed the surrendering of the co-composting
consent, the duration, the value of the investment and the proposed conditions.
Of particular significance was the discussion about the revised draft Odour
PAGE 15 OF 57