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

The discharge of sludge to land is the preferred method of disposal. The
applicant has tried alternative disposal methods, namely the co-composting.
However, it was found that the co-composting facility was found to involve
odour effects that were not able to be mitigated in terms of the surrounding
residential environment. The disposal of sludge to landfill is seen as an
alternative method to address the odours. The applicant has stated that the
disposal to landfill method is a medium term solution, and long-term potential
regional strategies are being investigated, and this has been imposed as a
condition of consent.
The applicant did not advise of any other alternative methods of discharging
contaminants to air, as they feel alternative methods are neither necessary or
practicable. The hearing panel accepts that there are no reasonable alternatives
for the discharges to air and notes that the mitigation measures to be employed
will minimise the discharges and the associated effects.
The hearing panel acknowledges the need to maintain good air quality and that
the evidence before them is that the discharges are unlikely to cause a breach of
the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards Relating to
Certain Air Pollutants, Dioxins, and Other Toxics) Regulations 2004.
The hearing panel consider that the conditions of consent will minimise the
discharge of contaminants to air and land. Therefore they conclude that given
the adaptive management approach adopted, with ongoing monitoring and the
opportunity to implement conditions and review the conditions of consent
should desired outcomes not be met, the proposed discharge of contaminants to
the air and land will not have significant adverse effects on those receiving
environments and significant adverse effects.
14.3 Section 108 of the Act
The hearing panel believe that the conditions of consent suggested by both the
applicant and the officers represent practicable and robust measures that will
avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects on the environment as a result of
the proposal. The consent conditions imposed are within the scope of
conditions allowed by Section 108 and are included in Schedules 1 and 2 to
this decision.
14.3.1 Conditions agreed to at the hearing
Ms Allan, on behalf of the applicant, outlined a number of conditions
recommended by the council officers that they did not agree with or wished to
amend. Ms Allan considered that a number of conditions were onerous,
expensive and had time-consuming requirements and did not reflect the very
low level of adverse effects that are associated with the activities for which
consents are sought. Given this disagreement, following the adjournment of the
hearing after day 1, the Chair, Cr Laidlaw gave directions for the applicant and
council officers to consult further on the proposed conditions and the two
proposed management plans prior to the hearing resuming two days later. Cr
Laidlaw noted that any conditions agreed would be subject to any further
changes following hearing of the submissions.
PAGE 29 OF 57