Predetermined and Non-Negotiable? - How Hamilton City Council Decided on the Southern Wastewater Plant

Predetermined and Non-Negotiable? - How Hamilton City Council Decided on the Southern Wastewater Plant
By (Dianne Mulhern)

‍

Hamilton City Council has effectively made the most important decision about its proposed Southern Wastewater Treatment Plant before residents have had any meaningful say on the location.

Emails between senior council figures, obtained by this publication, confirm that the site at 131 Raynes Road has been locked in and that no other sites will be considered. This revelation has triggered anger among residents, who say the so-called “consultation” process is little more than a public relations exercise.

‍

Decision First, Consultation Later

On 9 August, a senior Executive at the council wrote to Councillor Andrew Bydder, confirming words to the effect that the 131 Raynes Rd [is] the preferred site and that they will not be exploring any other potential sites.

In the same email, they outlined that while some technical and operational details are not yet available, the project team is “proactively engaging” with affected residents and will continue to do so throughout the design phase. He pointed to an “extensive and rigorous” site selection process that, according to the Council, considered a wide range of technical factors before landing on Raynes Road. This site is surrounded by residential homes on all four sides of the site. There are approximately 174 effected properties.

But for residents, that process is opaque. The reports that underpin it are only now being made public, and crucially, they come after the decision to exclude all other locations from consideration.

‍

A Community Shut Out

Councillor Bydder, who represents the area, recently met with around 100 locals. He reported “a lot of mistrust of council” and warned that without extreme transparency, negativity and misinformation would grow.

“The locals recognise the need for the plant, but would prefer it to be elsewhere,” Bydder wrote to the a senior council executive to ask. “If there is no elsewhere, then they will be more accepting of it.”

He called for immediate release of studies into alternative locations so residents could understand why their area was chosen. Without that evidence upfront, residents are left to suspect the process was a foregone conclusion.

‍

Odour Concerns and Technical Secrecy

Another sticking point is the lack of detailed technological information. Wastewater treatment plants have historically been associated with unpleasant odours, and residents are sceptical of assurances that modern facilities will be different.

“Technological information must be provided,” Bydder stressed. “I would not expect them to simply accept the claims of staff that there will be no odour.”

Without technical documentation, residents have no way to independently verify these claims, fuelling further mistrust.

‍

Governance and Accountability Questions

Complicating matters is the issue of ownership. While Hamilton City Council currently holds funding for the project’s design, planning, and consenting stages, the senior executive confirmed that from 1 July 2026, ownership will shift to IAWAI — the regional water services entity established under national reforms.

For residents, this raises a critical question: who will they hold accountable for the plant’s impacts? The situation is further complicated by the possibility that parts of the surrounding area could shift from Waipā District Council jurisdiction to Hamilton City Council in future.

Blyder has urged the Council to explain the roles of all parties, the project timeline, the engagement process, and — importantly — the potential impact on rates bills if jurisdiction changes occur.

‍

Transparency — On the Council’s Terms

The Council insists its site selection process was thorough and fair. But without public access to the full decision-making trail before the location was locked in, the claim is impossible for residents to test. A lack of transparency and what appears to be site predetermination, has led many in the community to believe the Council staff have not done a deep dive into the globally proven technology options, analysed the potential failures of their current approach, or qualified the budgetary requirements relative to alternatives.

The fact that the Council is only releasing site selection reports after declaring no other sites will be explored sends a clear message: transparency is being offered only when it cannot change the outcome.

‍

Engagement or Window Dressing?

By promising to “engage” residents after the most consequential decision has been made, the Council risks being seen as using consultation as a communications tool rather than a democratic process. This kind of after-the-fact engagement can erode public trust — not only in this project, but in the Council’s handling of future major infrastructure decisions.

For a facility that could significantly affect property values, local amenity, and the environment, residents say they deserve more than information sessions about how the plant will be built on a site they had no real chance to oppose.

‍

The Bigger Picture

The Southern Wastewater Treatment Plant is a major piece of infrastructure, and few dispute its necessity. But its siting has long-term implications — environmental, financial, and social — that go beyond engineering considerations. The huge price tag for this development represents a huge risk for already heavily indebted ratepayers.

Best practice in public consultation dictates that affected communities are brought into the process early, when options are still on the table. In this case, the decision to remove all alternatives before meaningful engagement means the process has, in effect, been consultation in name only.

Until the Council can show, with full transparency, how and why Raynes Road was chosen over other sites — and do so in a way that invites genuine public scrutiny — it will continue to face accusations of predetermined decision-making.

For the residents of Raynes Road, the question is no longer just where the wastewater plant should go. It is whether the Council can be trusted to make decisions that affect them in good faith.

‍

References: Email from Councillor Bydder To Hamilton City Council Senior Executive (name removed for confidentiality purposes – the person will be emailed request their name be shared and if approved the article will be updated with their details) 9 August 2025

Response email from Hamilton City Council Senior Executive to Councillor Bydder 12  August 2025

Image – Free upsplash website

‍