My Account
The appeal hearing against Waste Management NZ’s (WM) plans to construct a giant landfill near the Dome Valley resumed in the Environment Court on October 25 after a break of more than two months.
The unscheduled break in proceedings was at the request of WM to allow it time for site assessment with a “specific cultural lens”, meaning the case will continue well into next year before it can be decided.
Since the case reopened, witnesses appearing for WM have been grilled on a range of specific aspects concerning the proposed tip and its construction, including how and why the Wayby site was selected, the intricacies of sediment load calculation and forecasting, and whether proposed activities to mitigate, offset and/or compensate for damage to ecological habitat or species are sufficient.
There were also repeated challenges from lawyers representing Ngati Whatua, Ngati Whatua Orakei and the Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust (Ngati Manuhiri) on when, and even if, Maori values had been assessed or taken into account during the site selection process and various ecological assessments since.
Conversely, WM counsel have been cross-examining expert ecologist witnesses for the other parties appealing against Auckland Council’s decision to grant resource consent for the new landfill – DoC, Forest & Bird and Fight the Tip.
Simone Eldridge, who was responsible for overseeing research and reports into site selection for the new landfill at consultant engineers Tonkin & Taylor, was quizzed over the precise order that different potential sites were considered by WM, and at what stage ecological and cultural assessments had been carried out at the chosen Wayby site.
The court heard that until early 2017, sites at Woodhill Forest and south of State Highway 1 near Awawere Stream were favoured by WM; Wayby was down the list at fourth. However, when the preferred route for the Warkworth-Wellsford motorway was announced, which also went south of SH1, Awawere was dropped, as was Woodhill after discussions on its future use.
Judge Jeff Smith was concerned that there was a lack of documentation recording the exact details of when and why key sites were dropped or reconsidered.
“In April 2016, a decision was made to only advance the Awawere Stream site in that footprint. WM made that decision to continue with that one. That was a critical decision, there are some consequences of that, but I can’t find a record of it anywhere,” he said.
“There are no documents supporting Woodhill no longer being appropriate, or for Wayby being better.”
Eldridge conceded that there weren’t, but said there had been regular meeting updates and it was quite common for sites to go in and out of favour as new information became available.
Smith then put it to her that there hadn’t been proper examination of the ecological and cultural values of Wayby until after the purchase of Springhill in May, 2017.
Eldridge said it was often difficult to get access for such assessments prior to owning a property.
“It’s been very robust, I don’t think it’s been inadequate,” she said, though added that with the benefit of hindsight, more integration of the Maori world view would have been valuable.
Andrew Braggins, for Fight the Tip, questioned WM general manager Ian Kennedy on why former WM managing director Tom Nickels had said in a TV interview in 2018 that “you won’t see the landfill, you won’t smell the landfill, you won’t hear the landfill” and that the local community wouldn’t even notice it was there.
“That was a comment Tom Nickel has made, I haven’t made that claim to anyone and personally, I probably wouldn’t,” Kennedy said.
“You will hear it, but it won’t be offensive; you might see trucks going in, and I believe you will be able to see landfill from Wellsford in the final stages, as it reaches its peak.
“With respect, this hearing is based on evidence of experts, not on comments to the press.”
Braggins said he was simply trying to get his head around what the WM board thought when it was making its decisions and why Nickels would have said what he said.
The court also spent several days hearing detailed questioning on precisely how much sediment may or may not be produced, not only from construction of the landfill itself, but the harvesting of surrounding pine forest, and whether the package of environmental mitigation, including a lengthy pest-free fence and species relocation, met the requirements laid down for landfill construction, or could compensate for the loss of around 12km of streams.
Concerns were also raised by the panel of judges and commissioners over how long the case was taking and when it might be heard next year.
“The parties are a long way apart on the matter of conditions. We might need a (separate) hearing if consent were granted,” Judge Smith warned.
The case continues.
