Finance and Performance Committee

Supplementary Agenda



Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Finance & Performance Committee will be held on:


Date:                                    Thursday 28 April 2022

Time:                                   9.30am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street, Christchurch





Deputy Chairperson


Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton



26 April 2022



Principal Advisor

Leah Scales

General Manager - Resources / CFO

Tel: 941 8999

Principal Advisor

Dawn Baxendale

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 6996



David Corlett

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 5421

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:


Finance and Performance Committee

28 April 2022



Finance and Performance Committee

28 April 2022


Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation





C          26.      Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports............................................... 4

C          22.      Organics Processing Options....................................................................... 5

C          23.      Resolution to Exclude the Public.............................................................. 268

Finance and Performance Committee

28 April 2022



26. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

1.       Background

1.1          Approval is sought to submit the following report to the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on 28 April 2022:

22.   Organics Processing Options

1.2          The reason, in terms of section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, why the report was not included on the main agenda is that it was not available at the time the agenda was prepared.

1.3          It is appropriate that the Finance and Performance Committee receive the report at the current meeting.

2.       Recommendation

2.1          That the report be received and considered at the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on 28 April 2022.

22.   Organics Processing Options


Finance and Performance Committee

28 April 2022



22.   Organics Processing Options

Reference Te Tohutoro:


Report of Te Pou Matua:

Ross Trotter – Resource Recovery Manager

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis – General Manager for Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services



1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       This report responds to two resolutions.

1.2          The first was by Council on 9 September 2021, (CNCL/2021/00001), that:

           i.                      Request staff investigate building a new organics processing facility. The investigation should include:

a.   A detailed assessment of processing technology options;

b.  A detailed assessment of potential locations for a new facility and planning, consenting and cost requirements;

c.   An assessment of the impacts of each option on greenhouse gas emissions; and

d.  A review of partnership models, including the options of:

(i)     a jointly funded and co-designed facility in collaboration with the Council’s partners in the Greater Christchurch Partnership;

(ii)   procurement of the new building under a design-build-operate or build-operate contract with a contractor; and

(iii)  investment from the private sector to provide organic waste processing services to the Council.

1.3       The second resolution was by the Finance & Performance Committee Resolution on 24 March 2022 (FPCO/2022/00017), that thanks Dr McLellan for the petition presentation and refers the petition to staff; and requests that staff respond to the matters raised in the petition, in the report that is scheduled to come to the Committee in April 2022. 

1.4       The third purpose is to inform about a recent letter from Environment Canterbury in which they said that they are investigating whether the Council’s current management of the Metro Place site is causing a chronic odour which is offensive and objectionable. 

1.5       This report provides Council with the findings of an assessment of the options for processing organics including: technology; potential locations for a new facility; statutory planning considerations and costs; an assessment of the impacts of each option on greenhouse gas emissions; and a review of partnership models.

1.6       As a result, staff advise that:

a.  there are feasible and viable alternatives to the current location that warrant further investigation and a further approach to the market; and

b.  given the sensitivity of the current location, relocating the plant to an alternative site is preferred, subject to the outcome of a procurement process.

c.   following that process staff will bring a further report to the Committee on the options, seeking a resolution to either continue with the redevelopment of the current site or to pursue a specific alternative; and

d.  Redevelopment of the current site should remain on hold while options are more fully investigated; and

e.   The Council should continue to operate Metro Place with the current process controls until either redevelopment or relocation is complete.

1.7       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by:

1.7.1   Noting that the decision to upgrade the Organics Processing Plant has already been made by the Council on 9 December 2020. This was included in the Long Term Plan 2021-2031; 

1.7.2   The recommended resolution is that staff further investigate options for a new organics processing facility. Budget decisions will be made following this investigation.

1.7.3   In terms of gauging the views and preferences of interested and affected persons, the Council regularly engages with residents that live near the Organics Processing Plant through quarterly community meetings and regular newsletters. After Council have considered this report an update will be provided about this report and the decision being considered by the elected Council.


2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee resolves to:

1.         Agree in principle the relocation of the Organics Processing Facility to an alternative site

2.         Request staff to:

(a)    approach the market for options for location, partnerships, joint ventures, commercial opportunities, and

(b)    report to Council on short listed relocation options with a comparison to redevelopment of the current site by end February 2023.

3.         Support the continued operation at the Metro Place site with the current process controls to manage and mitigate odour until an alternative facility, or redevelopment of the current site, is operational.

4.         Agree that, should it be necessary to meet the interim capex needs of the existing facility, staff are able to utilise part of the current capital budget for the new facility.  Any capital expenditure will be confined to meeting compliance requirements and any decision to use the capex will be made by GM Infrastructure Planning & Regulatory Services in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Finance & Performance Committee.

5.         Agree that the redacted information can be released when the Chief Executive is satisfied that there are no longer grounds under LGOMIA for withholding the information.


3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       Council commissioned the attached report by Jacobs for the purpose of investigating the feasibility of relocation having regard to each of the factors specified in Council resolution CNCL/2021/00001 and other relevant factors.

3.2       We here summarise that report’s findings, together with our analysis of those findings.

3.3       The Jacobs report is a high level assessment due to the limited potential sites available for assessment – based mainly at this stage in Council-owned land, and two other options. Staff consider that there may be many other options in the market and the Council should continue to investigate that possibility.

A detailed assessment of processing technology options

3.4       Staff agree with the Jacobs report recommendation that there are two technology options for a relocated plant: Aerated Static Pile (ASP) and In-tunnel composting.  The inclusion of Anaerobic Digestion is also noted for consideration, based on the potential benefits associated with this complimentary process.

3.5       Part of the reason for that is that there is going to be much more organic waste (“feedstock”) for processing.  Central Government has signalled that direction in both the draft Emersions Reduction Plan and recent “Transforming Recycling” document, which includes the potential for mandates in relation to the diversion of organics.

3.6       This will create additional demand for organics processing capacity.  It might also increase the potential for odour because of increased putrescible materials (that currently go to landfill).

3.7       As a city, Christchurch is likely to require a facility that can accept Commercial and Household organic waste streams (or multiple facilities).

3.8       The generation and release of odour from a composting facility is one of the principal risks to be mitigated to ensure reliable long-term operations.  The composting technology must be capable of processing the future feedstocks identified and achieving compost compliance with NZ and Australian standards.  ASP and In-tunnel composting technologies both have the capability to achieve this.

3.9       ASP technology has lower energy consumption and lower GHG emissions compared with In-tunnel composting but has constant low-level odour discharge that requires more separation than in-tunnel composting from sensitive receivers to mitigate against chronic sensitivity or offensive and objectionable effects.

3.10    In-tunnel, fully enclosed composting is the most effective process for controlling odour at source and managing odour risks resulting from process upset or highly putrescible feedstocks, it is therefore able to be sited at closer proximity to population centres and sources of waste. However, this technology also has higher energy consumption and therefore greater GHG emissions compared with Aerated Static Pile. Energy consumption and GHG emissions can be reduced by attaching Anaerobic Digestion to an in-tunnel process, with the two technologies complementing each other including the potential for the site to be a net generator of electricity or piped renewable natural gas.

3.11    The suggested site area required for In-tunnel composting is 9 Ha and 12 Ha for ASP (excluding separation distance), to provide for future growth.

3.12    ASP is less well suited to processing putrescible organic waste streams such as pre consumer food waste and feedstock selection may need to be carefully considered if selected as the preferred technology.

Potential locations for a new facility

3.13    Identifying a specific site is not practical at this stage for this feasibility study as not all feasible options have been considered and other decisions e.g. the service – incoming stock and outgoing product, methodology, technology, to move and/or build a new facility on a different site need to be considered and made. Those decisions will identify in detail attributes such as transportation, zoning, services, location, environmental factors, reverse sensitivity issues etc. to support a thorough and detailed site analysis and investigation.

3.14    With those decisions made a more defined and tighter brief could be developed, thereby opening up the option of buying land, albeit likely that option would inevitably prove to be more difficult to achieve, take longer and be more expensive hence making it less feasible. Without those strategic decisions it is not tenable to establish where a relocated/new facility would be best located.

3.15    The Jacobs report short-listed these options against minimum criteria including land area, vulnerability to sea level rise and avoidance of open space land zoning.  This resulted in 6 possible relocation options plus the existing Bromley location in potential consideration. Some of these sites are reserve land. The appropriateness of seeking a change to that status has not yet been assessed.

3.16    Evaluation of the remaining 6 site locations against a multi assessment criteria identified that none of the sites were clearly preferable, with all sites having actual or potential constraints.  More detailed assessment of suitability is needed.  In addition to the reserve status of some of the options, the primary matter requiring assessment is the number and location of sensitive receptors relative to each of the sites based upon the potential future layout and technology of the facility, hence as stated earlier these decisions need to be made before a site is chosen.

Planning and consenting context

3.17    The Jacobs report has identified no insurmountable barriers to consenting at alternative sites if odour and other effects are managed appropriately. Air discharge consent from Environment Canterbury is needed for all alternatives, just as it is for the current site. For land use approvals, the RMA process of designation for a public work is preferable to reliance on seeking land use consents.


Request for Information

3.18    In November 2021 a Request for Information (RFI) was offered to the market to inform the Jacobs assessment of options (feasibility study). 

3.19    The intent was that information received from the market, be considered and referenced in the Feasibility Study to inform the Council staff report back to Council on options for:

1.      Building a new organics processing facility, or

2.      Upgrading the existing Organics Processing Plant.

3.20    The remaining responses either provide a partial solution, are unproven at the required scale or are emerging technologies untried in New Zealand, so have not considered as options at this time.

3.21    More information is required to evaluate the feasibility, cost, consenting risk and commercial arrangements for these and any other alternative site.

Partnership models

3.22    If Council chooses to investigate options for organics processing at an alternative site, it is recommended that Council approach the market for a solution, based on a functional brief which does not limit technology options.


3.23    The capital and life-cycle cost assessment performed by Jacobs provides comparison between the options on a Total Cost basis (the sum of initial capital construction costs, capital replacement/renewals and annual operating expenditure). Broad outcomes from the cost assessment include:

·   Total Cost is considered the best metric to demonstrate the most cost-effective location / technology combination over a 25-year horizon.

·   Aerated Static Pile as a technology has lower capital, operating, NPV and total costs than In-tunnel.

·   Upgrading the In-tunnel technology at Bromley has a cheaper Capital Cost than implementing In-tunnel composting at a new site, due to the existing residual facility value, no land purchase costs and limited bulk infrastructure costs however the Total Cost over 25-years is similar due to the increased cost of transportation of compost to market from the Bromley location relative to others.

·   Anaerobic Digestion yields modest income benefits however has relatively high initial capital and capital renewals costs.


3.24    Staff estimate that once a preferred site is identified, investigating, consenting, procuring and constructing a new facility would take a minimum of three years.  This timeframe is uncertain with many variables falling outside of the Council’s control.  The timeframe could realistically extend to four or five years.

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The attached consultant report assesses some options for location, technology and regulatory planning pathways.  The pros and cons along with limitations are discussed in depth in this report.

4.2       The options are to either continue with fuller investigation of relocation options, or to cease those investigations and redevelop the current site.  Staff consider that the feasibility study shows that there may be feasible options and that the Council should more fully investigate those options before making a final decision on whether to continue with redevelopment of the current site. 

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       To address ongoing concerns relating to operation of the Council owned Organics Processing Plant (OPP), a number of operational changes have been made while options for upgrading (or developing a new facility) are investigated.  Key changes implemented prior to the abatement notice deadline have included shifting from an effective mixed model for organics processing (in-tunnel composting and outdoor windrowing) to an all enclosed process.  These significant changes have resulted in reduced odour from the facility.

5.2       Staff and its contractor, Living Earth, have developed and implemented a transitional plan for the maintaining operation at the Organics Processing Plant, including the continued processing of Council’s kerbside green bin service.

5.3       The operating plan, developed with Living Earth in June 2021, outlines interim measures to reduce potential sources of offensive odour and include:

·    Stop receiving pre-consumer food organics.

·    Minimising onsite storage of finished compost by prioritising screening and removal of finished product from the site.

·    Maintain effective treatment of processing air, including maintenance of the bio filter.

·    Investigate additional buffering, including boundary plantings, along the southern site boundary.

·    Maximise stability of compost onsite.

5.4       Since the implementation of the plan, key changes include;

·    Removed all maturing compost, previously stored on-site in windrows, from the site.

·    Completed on the biofilter to improve backpressure and sustain airflow rates, in order to maintain effective treatment of processing air.

·    Monitored temperature and back pressure on the biofilter.

·    Installed a new roof cover on the screening shed.

·    Included the addition of a probiotic to the compost to accelerate the composting process.

·    Additional buffering through boundary planting along the southern site boundary could be considered.

5.5       These changes have resulted in reduction of odour.  This improvement has been reflected in the drop in complaints received by CCC about objectionable odour from the Organics Processing Plant and was acknowledged by Dr Tracey McLellan in the deputation to F&P on 24 March 2022.

5.6       Data extracted from the CCC customer services team shows a dramatic decline in the number of odour complaints received since the implementation of the transitional plan.  Of the fifty complaints recorded in the period 2020 – 2022, there were thirty six in 2020, thirteen in 2021 and one in 2022.


5.7       Independent air quality experts have carried out a site assessment and concluded that a number of potential odour sources from the site have been eliminated, therefore reducing the likelihood of offensive or objectionable odour beyond the boundary.

5.8       Dr Tracey McLellan - MP for Banks Peninsula presented a petition of 316 signatures from the Bromley community at the Finance & Performance meeting on 24 March 2022;

Petition request:  The Bromley community calls on the Christchurch City Council to move the Living Earth compost plant.


Reason:  The plant has been emitting offensive odours for a long time, significantly and negatively impacting the lives of nearby residents.  The local community has expressed concern that proposals to redevelop the facility would not succeed in eliminating the odours.  Relocating the plant to a non-residential area is the only solution that would ensure the odour problem is resolved for long suffering Bromley residents.


5.9       If the Council is to consider the view of local residents, who wish to see the existing Organics Processing Plant relocated away from the Metro place site, then the Council would resolve to continue to investigate alternatives.

5.10    The location of the Organics Processing Plant at Metro place positions it in the heavy industrial zone. The Organics Processing Plant is not the only source of odour in this area and there is a real risk that even if the Organics Processing Plant is relocated to a new site that an odour issue may remain.

5.11    A condition in the resource consent for discharge to air from the facility states “The discharges to air shall not cause odour or dust which is offensive or objectionable beyond the boundary of the site on which this consent is exercised”.  Environment Canterbury issued an Abatement Notice to the Council that requires the cessation of offensive and objectionable odour travelling beyond the boundary of the facility by 31 January 2022.

5.12    Despite the operational changes made by the Council and Living Earth, and the assessment by the Council’s air quality consultant that there is not offensive and objectionable odour beyond the boundary of the site, a recent letter from Environment Canterbury to the Council states that Environment Canterbury are investigating whether ongoing “chronic” odour from the site amounts to an offensive and objectionable odour.

5.13    If the existing plant is forced to cease operation in the absence of an alternative, the organics waste would be directed to landfill.  This would have a direct impact on rates with a cost in the order of $8M.  This action would be contrary to Council’s own Climate Change and Waste Minimisation policies.

5.14    Council can undertake further engagement with the community before reporting back seeking a resolution on a preferred option.

5.15    The decision affects the entire district, as changes to the organics processing process will have an impact on rates.

5.16    The Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote ward is closest in proximity to the existing organics processing site and would be directly impacted by this decision.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The decision to upgrade or explore building a new organics processing facility aligns with the Council’s strategic priority to ‘meet the challenge of climate through every means available’. Sending organic waste to landfill emits the potent greenhouse gas methane.  Our regional landfill, Kate Valley, has a process to capture methane and utilise this to generate energy. However, no landfill gas capture system is fully effective and the most sustainable solution is to process organic waste through a bespoke system, such as composting or anaerobic digestion.

6.2       This decision to upgrade or advance a new organics process also promotes the community outcome we strive to achieve, ‘sustainable use of resources and minimising waste’.

This report supports the Councils Long Term Plan (2021 – 2031):

Activity: Solid Waste and Resource Recovery

Level of Service: 8.2.7 Organic materials collected by Kerbside Collection and received for processing at the Organics Processing Plant (OPP) - 130kg +40%/-10% organic materials / person / year collected by Kerbside Collection

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The recommended decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, including the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020.

6.4       The decision to upgrade or explore the establishment of a new organics processing pathway is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  The decision aligns with Council’s target of being net carbon neutral for its operations by 2030 and our commitments under the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2020.

6.5       Once Council has resolved to provide direction on Council's preferred option(s) for organics processing, the preferred option(s) will be procured in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy and Framework.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6       The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.7       Should the Council decide to redevelop the current site, operations at the existing facility will not be amended significantly.  The primary change is bringing more elements of the process into an enclosed environment.

6.8       If the Council agrees to advance investigations of a new organics processing site, the impacts on Mana Whenua will need to be considered in detail.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9       The Council is committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2030.  Programme 9 of the Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy commits the Council to work towards zero waste and includes as a focus area work to maximise the diversion of organic material.

6.10    Processing organic waste from the kerbside green bins rather than sending this material to landfill reduces greenhouse gas emissions.  This is achieved by the reduction in methane produced and emitted into the atmosphere from the landfilling of organic waste as well as through the carbon sequestration properties of compost when applied to land.

6.11    Sustainability was a consideration when assessing the preliminary options for a new Organics Processing Plant and in relation to upgrading the existing facility.

6.12    Building a new facility at a different location may impact greenhouse gas emissions due to changes in transportation requirements.  This will be investigated further for specific sites should the Council choose to proceed with this option.

6.13    Assessments by the Asset Management Team have calculated the current site of the Organics Processing Plant as having a low level of exposure to climate change, this increases slightly to low-medium by 2050.  The vulnerability of the site is low, rising to medium in 2050. It was noted that the Organics Processing Plant is close to the coast but set relatively high.  Rising groundwater might be an issue but due to most processing happening indoors, exposure is low.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.14    We want to ensure our infrastructure is accessible both to staff and visitors of the sites.  Noting the waste facilities welcome educational school groups on a regular basis through the Learning Through Action programme.

6.15    The current Metro Place organics processing facility is not particularly accessible and the main office and educational areas have no wheelchair access.  This is something that should be addressed by the project if the Council elects to upgrade the existing facility.

6.16    Should the decision be made to establish a new facility, staff investigations will include consideration of how the site and all educational areas are fully accessible.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Jacobs have advised the key drivers of this increase include updated cost assumptions in design, consenting, council costs, construction management/administration, escalation and contingency.

7.2       However, operationally (in terms of both operational costs and ongoing asset replacements and renewals) the projections of the various options suggest savings are likely to be realised by Council. This is driven by efficiencies such as reduced loader movements.

7.3       Jacobs have emphasised in their report the high-level nature of their projections (in light of significant variables that will only be refined as detail is developed for Council’s preferred option). Consequently, staff recommend deferring revising Council budgets etc. until options are progressed further.

7.4       For the interim period (between now and the completion of a new facility) it is projected that operating costs can be met through the existing Council budgets noted above, if the current operation can continue. Should it be necessary to meet the interim compliance requirements of the existing facility through capex, staff request approval from Council to be able to draw down on the capital budget for the new facility.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       The Council has the statutory power to either continue with the redevelopment of the existing site or investigate a new site.

8.2       The Council has the legal ability to enter into contracts for the procurement of services, however to do so it needs to act in accordance with Section 14 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) 2002.  The LGA 2002 (Section 14) details the principles relating to local authorities.  The principles most relevant to the Council's procurement activity are:

                            ii.                        In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:

1.                                 a local authority should-

·      conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner; and;

·      give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner and;

·      undertake any commercial transactions in accordance with sound business practices and;

·      ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region, including by planning effectively for the future management of its assets; and

·      in taking a sustainable development approach, a local authority should take into account-

the social, economic, and cultural interests of people and communities; and

the need to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment; and

the reasonably foreseeable needs of future development.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3       The Council must also comply with its Procurement Policy, which aligns with the Local Government Act 2002 and the Controller and Auditor-General - Procurement Guidance for Public Entities.

8.4       None of the options presented under this paper has undergone a procurement in accordance with Councils Procurement Policy that would allow Council to enter into direct negotiations or award of contract.

8.5       There will be a need to ascertain the views and preferences of the community when staff report back following further investigation of options. That may involve engagement with the community.

8.6       The key legal considerations have been described in this report and the attached Jacobs report and are summarised here.

8.7       First, the operation of the current site is subject to a resource consent condition that the discharges to air shall not cause odour or dust which is offensive or objectionable beyond the boundary of the site on which this consent is exercised.  Environment Canterbury has served an abatement notice on the Council stating that the Council is in breach of that condition and requiring compliance with the condition by 31 January 2022.  Environment Canterbury issued the abatement notice with that compliance date after the 9 December 2020 Three Waters and Waste Infrastructure and EnvironmentCommittee resolution TWIA/2020/00033 supporting the upgrade of the composting technology at the facility and the construction of a new building so that all processing and screening of material is enclosed.  .Recent correspondence from Environment Canterbury states that they are investigating whether ongoing chronic odour amounts to a breach of the resource consent condition that there shall not be offensive and objectionable odour beyond the boundary.  This does not change the officer recommendations made in this report.

8.8       The Council intends to comply with the operational requirements of current resource consents when undertaking interim odour mitigation measures for current activity at the Bromley site.

8.9       If Council decides to redevelop the current site there might be delays and costs arising from variations to existing resource consents.

8.10    The principal consenting issue for alternative sites is likely to focus on management of odour and proximity of residential neighbours. The Jacobs assessment has not identified any insurmountable barriers. For land use approvals, designation for a public work will probably be a more efficient process than seeking a resource consent.

8.11    Assessment of alternative relocation options is likely to include community engagement.

8.12    The current central government programme for reform of the RMA intends to have new legislation in place before the end of 2023.  It will be difficult to provide estimates of consenting timeframes for alternative sites until we know the provisions of the new legislation.  We expect that there will be streamlined consenting options available for important infrastructure. It is also possible that there will be regulatory or legislative change arising from central government’s “Transforming Recycling” programme.

8.13    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       Options to establish a new organics processing site for Christchurch involve a significant degree of uncertainty and therefore risk.  Given the likely changes signalled in the current Central Governmentt consultation document ‘Te panoni to haungarua - Transforming Recycling’.

9.2       Further financial modelling based on the outcomes of the current Central government work program on waste, including the current consultation document ‘Te panoni to haungarua - Transforming Recycling’ will provide more information about the potential market for (Food) organics processing.  This information should be considered as part of any due diligence process before advancing contractual arrangements prior to the confirmation of future mandates and the completion of the government work stream.

9.3       The Council needs to consider a number of risks when considering this report. Of particular note are: financial, legal and reputational.

Financial risks include:

·    Current cost projections of either upgrading the current facility, or pursuing an alternative processing option, being exceeded.  This would lead to a negative impact on rates;

·    Ongoing operational costs of maintaining interim measures to meet the Abatement Notice compliance date (unfunded);

·    Increases in the upgrade proposal costs with inflation; and

·    The income Council receives in the form of a waste levy from the Ministry for the Environment could be impacted if organics diversion targets are not met because organics are directed to landfill.

Legal risks include:

·   Potential non-compliance with the air discharge consent condition and abatement notice at the existing facility whilst interim measures are in place;

·   Potential difficulty extending the current or being granted a new consent for the existing site following its expiry in 2033; or

·   Potential difficulty in obtaining approvals for organics processing at an alternative site

Reputational risks include:

·   Ongoing concern from Bromley community about delayed decision making and odour concerns. This can be mitigated through regular communications and engagement throughout the process; and

·   Concern from the wider Christchurch community regarding costs of building a new facility and potential locations; and

·   Concern from the adjacent property owners and residents about the use of CCC land for a new industrial process.

Property Risks includes:

·   Moving to a new/different site could shift the issues and problems at Bromley to another area and group of residents/citizens. Unfortunately any site within the city boundaries is likely to have neighbours even in the rural fringes e.g. lifestyle blocks.

·   Purchasing private property can extremely difficult if there are not willing vendors and compulsory acquisition under the Public Works Act can be extremely costly and time consuming.

·   Aggregation of privately owned sites may not be practically possible and costly.

·   Using some council owned sites may require processes that require consultation, hearings panels and rights of appeal/challenge, therefore achievability may not be entirely within the council’s control.


Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga





IA237000 - Future of Organics - FINAL - 13APR22 (Redacted)



IA237000 - Future of Organics - FINAL - 13APR22 (Public Excluded) (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential



20220411_Memo OPP Property Options (Public Excluded) (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential



PDP Memo_C04012800L003_Final



ORGANICS PROCESSING OPTIONS : PX Redactions from the Officer Report to Council 28 April 2022 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential




Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Te panoni to haungarua -Transforming Recycling




Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.




Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu


Ross Trotter - Manager Resource Recovery

Lynne Armitage - Project Manager

Kent Summerfield - Senior Project Manager

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

Jo van den Heever - Head of Procurement & Contracts

Rowan Latham - Contract & Project Lead

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services


Finance and Performance Committee

28 April 2022


Finance and Performance Committee

28 April 2022




Finance and Performance Committee

28 April 2022



23.   Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.


I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.


Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)




Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:


“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):


             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”


This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:

Finance and Performance Committee

28 April 2022











Organics Processing Options






Attachment b - IA237000 - Future of Organics - FINAL - 13APR22 (Public Excluded)

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(i), s7(2)(j)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations, Prevention of Improper Advantage

Public release could potentially prejudice future commercial negotiations in relation to the existing composting operation and /or the purchase of a new site or negotiation of a new commercial service

Upon the completion of the procurement activity and when the CEO determines there is no longer reason to withhold the information.


Attachment c - 20220411_Memo OPP Property Options (Public Excluded)

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(i), s7(2)(j)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations, Prevention of Improper Advantage

Reason: Public release could potentially prejudice future commercial negotiations in relation to the existing composting operation and /or the purchase of a new site or negotiation of a new commercial service
Review Event: Upon the completion of the procurement activity and when the CEO determines there is no longer reason to withhold the information.

Upon the completion of the procurement activity and when the CEO determines there is no longer reason to withhold the information.


Attachment e - ORGANICS PROCESSING OPTIONS : PX Redactions from the Officer Report to Council 28 April 2022

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(i), s7(2)(j)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations, Prevention of Improper Advantage

Reason: Public release could potentially prejudice future commercial negotiations in relation to the existing composting operation and /or the purchase of a new site or negotiation of a new commercial service
Review Event: Upon the completion of the procurement activity and when the CEO determines there is no longer reason to withhold the information.

Upon the completion of the procurement activity and when the CEO determines there is no longer reason to withhold the information.