CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CANTERBURY WASTE SUBCOMMITTEE

Held on Monday 11 March 2002 in the No 3 Committee Room, Civic Offices at 10am

PRESENT: Councillor Dennis O’Rourke (Christchurch City Council (Chairman) Councillor Bryon Porteous (Banks Peninsula District Council), Councillor Sally Buck (Christchurch City Council), Mayor Tony Arps (Hurunui District Council), Mayor Jim Gerard ( Council), Councillor Beverley Tasker (Ashburton District Council), Councillor Bill Woods (Selwyn District Council) and Councillor Ron Wright (Christchurch City Council).

APOLOGY: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Councillors Lee Burdon (Timaru District Council), Len Shaw, (Waimate District Council), Bronwen Murray (Mackenzie District Council) and Brian Seddon (Kaikoura District Council).

IN ATTENDANCE: Mike Stockwell and Zefanja Potgieter (Christchurch City Council), Chris Hopman (Banks Peninsula District Council, Dave Hock (Selwyn District Council), Robert Rouse and Brian Lester (Ashburton District Council), David Patterson (Environment Canterbury) and John Orr (Secretary, Transwaste Canterbury).

1. MINUTES FROM MEETING OF 4 FEBRUARY 2002

It was resolved that the minutes be confirmed as a true and correct record.

2. MINUTES ARISING

Nil.

3. TRANSWASTE CANTERBURY LIMITED – INTERIM REPORT TO 31 DECEMBER 2001

The Subcommittee considered the interim report to 31 December 2001 of Transwaste Canterbury Limited, which had been separately circulated prior to the meeting. Mr John Orr, Secretary, Transwaste Canterbury Limited, attended to assist in responding to any queries that members might have in respect to this. -2-

Mr Orr indicated that the key pages of the report in respect to financial performance were those from page 14 onwards and the opportunity was then taken for members to ask questions which related to the following topics:

• Mr Fox enquired regarding the operation of the farm and where the financials for this were recorded. The Chairman advised that the farm was currently owned and operated by a subsidiary company of Canterbury Waste Services Limited, Tiromoana Station Limited. Mr Orr explained that the operational income and expenses lay within the books of that company and Canterbury Waste Services Limited, but that the Transwaste Canterbury Limited board received regular quarterly reports on its operation, with Mr Gerry Clements being involved in management aspects. It was an objective of Transwaste Canterbury Limited to maximise the value of the asset and to run an efficient farm.

• Mayor Jim Gerard queried whether the gains and losses involved in the farm operation would come back to Transwaste Canterbury Limited when the farm was transferred. The Chairman explained that the decision to formally transfer the land would probably be taken once the consents had been obtained. It was likely that the land required for the landfill only would be formally transferred to Transwaste Canterbury Limited. The Chairman offered to provide information to members on the operation of the farm for the next meeting of the Subcommittee. It was noted that Transwaste Canterbury Limited had advanced Canterbury Waste Services Limited funding to purchase the land, which was secured by a second mortgage over the property.

Mr Orr referred members to note eight on page 20 of the report regarding advances, and indicated that interest had been accrued for the period, but not yet paid.

• The Chairman commented that the capital risks associated with a sale would accrue back to Transwaste Canterbury Limited when the property was sold. In response to a question from Brian Lester regarding why the transfer to Transwaste Canterbury Limited could not take place now, Mr Orr explained that this had not been done before as there were implications under the Commerce and Companies Acts. In addition, the company had not wished to be seen to be pre judging the consenting process. The Chairman confirmed also that in addition to the mortgage held over the land, at his request Canterbury Waste Services Limited had passed a formal resolution that they held the land in trust for Transwaste Canterbury Limited and this would serve as a declaration of trust.

• Mayor Jim Gerard indicated that it was the view of the Waimakariri District Council that Transwaste Canterbury Limited should only hold the specific area required for the landfill site and all other land should be sold.

• It was agreed that the policy decisions taken by the Transwaste Canterbury Limited board on the ownership of the land be supplied to members of the Subcommittee, on the basis that they would be considered with the public excluded portion of the relevant meeting under the provisions relating to commercial activities. In addition, Mr Orr confirmed the opinion previously expressed that a decision on transfer could not be made at present and would need to wait until after the landfill consents had been obtained. -3-

• In response to a question from Councillor Wright concerning the “Other Expenses” on page 14 of the report, it was indicated that these included legal costs in respect to White Stone Limited, plus other write-off and publicity costs.

In response to a suggestion from Mr Stockwell regarding the provision of a monthly report from the Chairman, Councillor O’Rourke indicated that he would discuss this further with Mr Orr and perhaps a report could be provided on a two monthly basis.

The Subcommittee resolved to receive the information, and as previously noted, it was agreed that a report on the issues of farm operation, ownership and decisions of the Transwaste Canterbury Limited board be provided for the next meeting.

4. UPDATED TIMETABLE FOR KATE VALLEY UPDATED CONSENTS

The Subcommittee considered a report from Zefanja Potgieter, Resource Planner, Solid Waste, Christchurch City Council, updating the Subcommittee on the proposed timeline for resource consent applications for the Kate Valley site.

Members noted the need for this matter to be referred to shareholder Councils for formal consideration and it was requested that each Council should arrange for this item to be placed on an agenda for consideration.

Mike Stockwell, City Water and Waste Manager, Christchurch City Council, explained that the current consent for the Burwood Landfill expired in May 2002, but an extension had been applied for, and while the site could be used until 2006 it was not desirable that use should continue past 2004.

The Subcommittee resolved:

1. That the information be received.

2. The members noted that it was advisable that no member of the Subcommittee or member Council offer public comment during the run up to and the actual consenting process.

5. SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF TRANSWASTE CANTERBURY LIMITED’S RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATIONS

The Subcommittee considered a report seeking the agreement of the Subcommittee to the lodging of submissions in support of the applications for resource consent for the Kate Valley regional landfill by Transwaste Canterbury Limited.

The Chairman explained that it was, in his opinion, preferable if the Subcommittee, rather than individual Councils, made submissions in support, which would reduce the costs involved and be more efficient. In response to questions from members, it was agreed draft submissions would be circulated to all six shareholding Councils prior to lodgement for their comments. Councillor Woods mentioned the stance that had previously been taken by the Selwyn District Council in respect to the Trig site when his Council had resolved that it would be neutral and take no position in respect to a resource consent. He queried what the view of the Hurunui District Council was in respect to this matter. -4-

The Chairman indicated that the Canterbury Waste Subcommittee was a separate entity from individual Councils and had delegated authority to act. However, he could appreciate the position that the Hurunui District Council might be in on this matter. Mayor Tony Arps commented that he did not feel that the Hurunui District Council would wish to disassociate itself with the lodging of submissions by the Subcommittee and noted that his Council in fact had the same problem as with all others in terms of wanting to establish a safe and economical landfill.

Mayor Jim Gerard questioned whether Transwaste Canterbury Limited could fund this and the Chairman indicated that the supporting submission was not from that company but would be from the Canterbury Waste Subcommittee.

It was agreed that a report regarding the selection of a consultant be brought to the next meeting of the Subcommittee on the basis that they would work within a prescribed budget and the suggestions regarding funding arrangements detailed in the report were left to the officers of individual Councils to action.

The Subcommittee resolved:

1. That the Canterbury Waste Subcommittee prepare a submission in support of the applications by Transwaste Canterbury Limited for consents for the Kate Valley Regional Landfill, and that an appropriate consultant be engaged to assist the Subcommittee in this.

2. That a draft copy of the submissions be tabled before the six shareholder local authorities to allow an opportunity for comment prior to adoption by the Subcommittee and lodging with the consenting authorities.

3. That staff seek proposals from an appropriate consultant(s) and report to the next meeting of the Subcommittee for final confirmation of appointment.

6. KATE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK

The Chairman spoke further on the agenda item relating to this topic and indicated that he felt that the whole of the Kate Valley catchment area should be retained for strategic reasons as it was not desirable that the position arise where downstream land users might be able to complain about the landfill operations. This was a strategic matter and one of the advantages of the site had been that the company had been able to own the whole of the catchment area for the Kate Valley stream.

The Chairman also indicated that he did not think the possible establishment of a regional park should be used in anyway to mitigate the establishment of the landfill in relation to the resource consents being sought and that they were completely separate issues.

Mayor Jim Gerard indicated that he thought that the presence of the designated ‘SNAs’ in the Hurunui District Council District scheme downstream from the landfill site provided sufficient protection for natural features and he did not think that Transwaste Canterbury Limited needed to own this area. The Chairman advised that the Transwaste Canterbury Limited Board were strongly of the opinion that the site should be held and the purpose of the discussion was to try to determine the degree of support from the Subcommittee for the provision of a regional park. -5-

Details of the likely area and use of this by the public in terms of providing for car parking and walking track access to the coast were explained on a map and the Chairman commented that the capital costs involved in his opinion would not be excessive, relating chiefly to signage, the establishment of car parking, toilets and water supply.

The majority of members present indicated their support for the further investigation of the park in principal, however, Mayor Jim Gerard indicated that he thought that the Waimakariri District Council would, in his opinion, be opposed and it was their view that Transwaste Canterbury Limited should hold only the site required for the actual landfill.

The Subcommittee resolved to support further investigation of the possible regional park concept in lower Kate Valley should resource consents be approved for the regional landfill.

The meeting concluded at 11.30am.