For the second time in as many weeks councillors listened to opposition to the proposed $285,000 redevelopment of the Chelmer St recovery park on the day the council was to vote on funding the project — and Cr Hugh Perkins said he questioned whether issues raised by the adjacent Oamaru Top 10 Holiday Park were being taken seriously "six months ago".
At the time, the response he received from the council’s assets manager, Neil Jorgensen, was dismissive, Cr Perkins said.
Yet on Wednesday, councillors directed officers to present options to the council that would avoid, remedy, or mitigate neighbours’ concerns about the negative effect the sound of breaking glass had on their residential amenity value before bringing the proposed redevelopment plans back to council.
Further, the cost of the proposed redevelopment has changed from "a maximum budget sum", to "an initial budget sum" of $285,000.
An enclosed area for the glass recycling operation has been suggested as a possible solution.
This week, Bruce Comfort, who lives 400m from the glass recycling operation at the Waitaki Resource Recovery Trust’s resource recovery park, said he believed the steep bank north of the park amplified the noise of breaking glass on site, which "spoils my residential amenity".
Like Shayne Kirk, who owns the Oamaru holiday park across from the recycling centre — and who presented his concerns to the council’s assets committee on August 31 — Mr Comfort questioned whether the recovery park was appropriate for the residential area.
Mr Comfort said he believed the scale of the operation had grown "well beyond" what was "probably envisioned" when resource consents were obtained.
"It was clearly a grouse place to put a recovery operation ... when it was a ‘ma and pa jam jar operation’ — which it is not now," Mr Comfort said.
Last month Mr Jorgensen said composting would end at the recovery park, because the consent did not allow for that activity.
He also said at the time the council had done noise testing at the site and, although it was "piercing" and "annoying", the noise from the glass recycling operation complied with district plan rules.
However, at this week’s council meeting, under questioning from Cr Jim Hopkins, he conceded the noise levels might break the rules for the site.
Noise from the park was not to exceed 55 decibels from Monday to Saturday, but on Sundays and public holidays the noise limit was a lower 40 decibels.
The council’s noise testing had indicated that the noise levels could be in breach on Sundays, but the testing was not complete, Mr Jorgensen said.
The glass recycling was a major part of the park’s operations.
About 500tonnes of glass moves through the recovery park each year.
"The glass issue — we can ask [the trust] to stop that right now," Mr Jorgensen said.
He said mitigating the unwelcome effects of the glass recycling operation was "a slightly separate issue" from the redevelopment, which was intended to allay the trust’s concerns over health and safety.
"This is not a large-scale rebuild of the site," Mr Jorgensen said.
If required, a different approach to the glass recycling could be accommodated after the redevelopment if things were "jiggled around".
Mr Jorgensen declined to comment on Cr Perkins’ remarks.
