Zero Waste Aotearoa is more worried than ever about the waste-to-energy incinerator proposed for Te Awamutu. That’s because so many concerns have emerged about the track record of the company behind the proposal: scrap metal dealer Global Metal Solutions (GMS).

The Board of Inquiry decision on resource consent for the proposal is due next week.

“It has flouted environmental laws at all of its three sites, operated without consent and used lawyers to push back against local councils and the Court – at high cost to ratepayers. It would be exceedingly risky to allow such people to own or operate a highly complex, novel-to-New Zealand technology next to residential areas and five schools representing all ages of children. Waste-to-energy incinerators can create and release some of the world’s worst contaminants, and skilled and careful operation is vital,” said Sue Coutts, spokesperson for Zero Waste Aotearoa.

Auckland: Illegal operations, council and landlord want it gone

The company has operated at its Auckland site for five years without resource consent to release contaminants to air and water, which it routinely does as part of its operations. It dug up a large area of contaminated land without consent. Auckland Council let it operate under an abatement notice for the past three years, but told it to cease operations after a major fire at the site in March this year. In response, GMS’s lawyers wrote to the Council, blaming the Council for not providing the right advice about resource consents and hinting strongly that it could be liable for GMS’s financial losses if operations must cease. GMS’s landlord in Auckland has long sought to end its lease.

New Plymouth: Holds no resource consents

GMS also has a scrap metal site in New Plymouth, where it’s operated since 2018 – again without resource consent. Scrap metal yards are known to produce contaminated wastewater, and air pollution if they process/shred vehicles, and therefore require consents. Other scrap metal yards that previously operated in the vicinity held consents to discharge contaminants to land and water. GMS’s site is directly next to the Waitaha Stream, which Taranaki Regional Council is investigating for the source of high metal levels.

Zero Waste Aotearoa is awaiting further information from Taranaki Regional Council via a July 18th official information request on the resource consents GMS should have and on the stream’s water quality.

Hamilton: Indifferent to its Environment Court obligations

GMS’s third site is in Hamilton. It was taken to the Environment Court by Hamilton City Council for repeatedly breaking noise limit rules. The Court issued it with an enforcement order in 2020. In 2021, it was finally forced to move the noisy equipment, and the Judge wrote that: “We conclude the company is indifferent to its obligations under the Court order and the directions and seeks to continue its activity in breach of the plan for the pursuit of profit” (emphasis added). It had to pay costs of $134,900 and the Judge wrote that ‘We find that a higher-than-normal award of costs is appropriate …. GMS's arguments were advanced without substance.’

The Environment Court’s written decisions and GMS’s lawyer’s letter to Auckland Council reveal similarities: GMS claiming to misunderstand what rules applied, its attempts to fix the problems being exceedingly drawn-out, saying employee’s jobs are threatened, and blaming the Council.

It is not GMS that has applied for consent to build and operate a waste-to-energy incinerator at Te Awamutu, but Global Contracting Solutions, which is owned by the same people as GMS. Its plan is to incinerate 400 tonnes of waste or more each day, including plastic and tyres, and non-metal vehicle parts such as dashboards and upholstery shredded at the unconsented Auckland site.

“It is not simply that these people own an unrelated business that is not operating with appropriate consents. Rather, it is that this scrap metal business is intimately connected with the incinerator. It was the reason the owner wanted to build it in the first place, to get rid of the waste left over from the scrapping process.”

A decision on whether the incinerator will be granted resource consent is being considered by a Board of Inquiry following a hearing that concluded in July. The Zero Waste Network - recently rebranded as Zero Waste Aotearoa - teamed up with the Environmental Defense Society to oppose the incinerator at the hearing. The evidence and submissions at the hearing included information on the Hamilton and Auckland failings but not the absence of consents at the New Plymouth site.

Notes

[1] Confirmed by Taranaki Regional Council to the Zero Waste Network in July 2025 following a request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

[2] Taranaki Regional Council’s Waitaha Catchment Monitoring Programme Annual Report 2023/24 page 55.

[3] ‘Dissolved metals analysis was added to the 2023/24 monitoring to investigate the source of high metal levels observed in the Waitaha Stream during the 2022/23 monitoring period.’ Taranaki Regional Council’s Waitaha Catchment Monitoring Programme Annual Report 2023/24 page 6.

[4] ‘We conclude the company is indifferent to its obligations under the Court order and the directions and seeks to continue its activity in breach of the plan for the pursuit of profit.’ (para 38 of 2021 Environment Court decision)

[5] Para 26–28 of 2022 Environment Court decision.

[6] ‘While we can accept that GMS has been proactive in trying to explore options for relocation, we are not convinced that, until these proceedings were issued, those steps have been as proactive as they ought to have been. There are underlying themes in this case that have led us to this conclusion, including: ( a) the tendency to blame the Council for the situation, either for its zoning decision or blaming staff for not assisting it enough; (b) not being prepared to offer any other mitigation to residents, who continue to experience exceedances of the noise limits in the District Plan until it relocates; (c) relying on the size of its workforce and nature of its business to justify its continued operation exceeding the noise limit until it relocates.’ (parag 166 of 2020 Environment Court Decision.)

© Scoop Media