Support wanes for composter’s petition

Support for the renewal of resource consents for a controversial composting site and worm farm in North Taranaki is now being reviewed by several major companies that used the site.

It is understood four companies which previously supported site owner Remediation NZ’s resource consent application to continue to process organic waste products at the Uruti site were now having second thoughts.

Remediation NZ applied to the Taranaki Regional Council to renew resource consents to discharge waste material, treated stormwater and leachate, and to discharge emissions into air from composting operations at the Uruti composting and vermiculture facility.

The consent application was the subject of an independent hearing last month.

New Plymouth District Council was the first to publicly announce it had withdrawn its support, citing serious environmental concerns at the site which had not been resolved in the two years between the council making its submission and the hearing.

It has now been revealed that environmental waste contractors Waste Management, EnviroNZ, dairy giant Fonterra Kapuni, and Taranaki-based earthmovers Brough Earthworks, which were listed on the Taranaki Regional Council website as supporting the consent, have withdrawn or were reviewing that support.

The companies were among 13 submissions presented online as being in support at the hearing, while 10 submitters opposed the application.

Many of the submissions in support were from two years ago.

In a statement, Taranaki Regional Council (TRC) resource management director Fred McLay said it had been an oversight the council had not updated its website before the hearing to show some submitters had withdrawn.

‘‘Five parties have withdrawn their submissions, at various times, in relation to Remediation NZ’s applications to renew its consents,’’ he said.

‘‘Those parties are New Plymouth District Council (NPDC), Brough Earthworks, Waste Management NZ Ltd, Fonterra Kapuni and EnviroWaste NZ Ltd.

‘‘The hearing committee will address this, to the extent appropriate, in its written decision on the applications.

‘‘The TRC website has been updated to reflect this.’’

NPDC infrastructure manager David Langford said ‘‘it was clear expected standards were not being met’’ at the composting site.

The council had initially supported the operation because it wanted to ship the district’s household food waste there to be composted.

But the support had been conditional on it being able to meet best practice standards, and that environmental impacts were properly managed and minimised.

The council was never satisfied those conditions had been met and had been shipping food waste from New Plymouth to Hampton Downs for two years, and would continue to do so until it built its own facility, he said.

An EnviroNZ spokeswoman said in a statement on Thursday the company had not yet withdrawn its submission, but was reviewing its position.

‘‘We are aware that some other companies and organisations have recently withdrawn their submissions in support of Remediation’s consent application,’’ she said.

‘‘EnviroNZ has not yet withdrawn our submission, but we are currently reviewing our position,’’ she said.

A Brough Earthworks spokeswoman said the company had no comment to make.

Before withdrawing their submissions, Brough Earthworks, and Fonterra Kapuni submitted several years ago that they supported Remediation NZ’s application because the company provided a service unavailable elsewhere in Taranaki, and which would otherwise go to a landfill.

Waste Management NZ had also submitted its historical support for the consent renewal because the Uruti site offered a local place to dispose of compostable material.

If consent was refused there would be no other disposal sites in Taranaki which would ‘‘significantly’’ increase costs to customers, the submission said.

Remediation NZ managing director Kerry O’Neill said the company did not want to comment.

Previously he said the withdrawal of NPDC support was disappointing, and the company had been subject to an ‘‘orchestrated campaign of misinformation’’.

The company, which recycles organic waste at the site, including oil-contaminated drilling waste, has been the subject of a number of complaints since 2016.

It has also amassed a 20,000-tonne pile of contaminated waste at the site.

The hearing commissioners will make a decision on the application in late April.