Rachael Kelly/Stuff
Planting of native vegetation has been undertaken by volunteer groups at Gore’s disused landfill since it closed in 2005. The Gore District Council has now been issued an abatement notice to stop capping the site. (File photo)
Two Southland councils are locked in a legal dispute after one issued the other with an abatement notice over the capping of a disused landfill site.
Since the landfill closed in 2005, the Gore District Council has been rehabilitating the site with cleanfill material and green waste, and planting native vegetation.
Environment Southland issued the Gore council with an abatement notice in August this year after approaching it about its practice of placing large volumes of cleanfill material and green waste at the site.
A regional council resource management team leader, Ciaran Thayer, said an inspection of the closed landfill at Toronto St was undertaken earlier this year.
Resource management officers found cleanfill and green waste were being disposed of at the site, in breach of a resource consent and the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan.
The abatement notice said the large amounts of cleanfill clearly exceeded the volume that could be discharged in accordance with rule 42 of the proposed plan.
Based on water-quality monitoring data held by Environment Southland, analytical data indicated that there had been an increase in ammoniacal nitrogen levels, among other contaminants, in groundwater from 2004 onwards, the notice said.
In addition, the groundwater quality downstream of the closed landfill had deteriorated significantly in comparison to groundwater quality upstream of the site, and the capping layer may not be thick enough, it said.
The Gore council appealed the abatement notice to the Environment Court, Thayer said.
Kavinda Herath/Stuff
Gore District Council interim chief executive Stephen Parry says the abatement notice came as quite a surprise. (File photo)
A report from the Gore council’s interim chief executive, Stephen Parry, was tabled at a council meeting on Tuesday. It said that, in general terms, the concerns related to whether the material being used was appropriate for such use, the control of storm water from the site, and the possible production of leachate.
Given that the rehabilitation of the former landfill had been in progress since 2005, the concerns of Environment Southland came as quite a surprise, Parry’s report said.
At the meeting, Parry said the two councils had a difference of opinion about whether Gore was currently compliant.
He said the council undertook tests and provided them to Environment Southland to “provide comfort” that it was not doing any harm to the environment.
A report from the consultancy firm WSP showed there was no immediate environmental effect being created that needed remediation or urgent attention, he said.
Gore resident Peter Woods submitted a petition with 140 signatures to the Gore District Council to change its decision to replant trees on the township’s Main St.
The abatement notice required the Gore council to stop discharging cleanfill and redirect it to an approved facility.
Parry’s report said the abatement notice was improperly issued because the Gore council operated the landfill in accordance with a discharge permit that was issued by Environment Southland and would expire in April 2033.
The council had asked to be heard by Environment Southland about the abatement notice.
Instead, an amended abatement notice that also covered the discharge of green waste at the Gore Transfer Station and closed landfill was issued.
The council then lodged an appeal to the Environment Court and submitted an application to stay the abatement notice, pending the appeal.
Environment Southland did not submit a response on the application for the stay.
Parry said mediation was planned between the two councils on December 12 that he hoped would ultimately resolve the issue.
