Judds said it had addressed odour issues through infrastructure and operational changes. It said it was committed to complying with its obligations and its staff would take appropriate action where odour was caused by its site.
Tanya Hohepa, whose 6ha orchard neighbours the site, said the smell was “soul-destroying” and had worsened after a new resource consent was granted in 2023: “To the point where we’ve got workers that just refuse to work here.”
“One of our workers, she’s prone to eczema … she says she ends up scratching and her skin’s irritable.”
Hohepa said a new dedicated aeration building had not contained the smell and alleged this breached consent conditions.
“It’s highlighted in the consent that there should be no odour emitted at all. Objectionable, offensive or otherwise, it’s supposed to be contained.”
When lodging complaints with the district council, staff could take up to 20 minutes to get to the site, by which time the wind direction or smell intensity may have changed, she said.
A neighbour of the Judds site, who did not want to be named for privacy reasons, said the smell “made it hard to live your life” and was inescapable, getting trapped in her shed, car and house.
“Everywhere stinks … and you can’t open your windows and your doors because you let more smell in, and you want to sit outside on a beautiful sunny day – you can’t because it stinks.
“If you could see odour, it would look like a cloud around my entire house. It doesn’t move.”
The smell was worst on Tuesdays when biosolids from the council’s wastewater treatment plants were delivered and during easterly winds, she said.
Judds’ response
Judds said it recognised concerns caused by odour and other impacts from its composting facility.
The site had a history of community concerns when Judds acquired it in 2021, and staff were “mindful of the effect that past and more recent issues have had”.
Its current owners had worked to reduce odour, operate responsibly and comply with consenting frameworks, including rejecting “high-risk” material while its purpose-built enclosed composting system was designed.
Since commissioning, no performance issues had been identified with the system’s controlled aeration and biofiltration.
The delivery service was reviewed after complaints about odour. As a result, Judds sought consent to build a receiving shelter – designed to contain odour – and completed it in May this year.
“Like the in-vessel composting system, it is operated under negative pressure with extracted air treated through a biofilter before discharge.”
Following the review and construction, only one complaint had been received by Judds after a truck driver left the shelter door open for 20 minutes.
“Judds believes the matters that have given rise to the odour concerns have now been addressed through these infrastructure and operational changes. It remains committed to complying with its obligations, working constructively with Gisborne District Council and being a good neighbour.”
Staff would continue to identify the source of odour, as there were other agricultural and horticultural activities in the area, and take appropriate action where odour was caused by its site, the company said.
What the resource consent conditions say
Judds was granted resource consent in 2023 to compost 60,000 tonnes of raw materials annually, including grape waste and animal manure.
Up to 30,000 tonnes of “high-risk material” could be composted in engineered compost systems like what Judds has, including wastewater biosolids from the council’s wastewater treatment plant and animal offal.
The consent required “offensive” smelling material to be handled at times in conditions least likely to cause widespread odour.
In the Tairāwhiti Resource Management Plan, offensive material is described as anything “disgusting, foul-smelling, nauseous or repulsive”.
Weekly visual and smell tests from the site boundary are required, including records of frequency, duration, offensiveness and location.
Complaints and responses also have to be recorded.
Residents meet with council staff
After months of frustration with the smell and requesting council smell tests, about 20 residents first met with the council in April 2025.
Residents began reporting incidents through council apps instead of to Judds.
Three meetings, including a Judds site visit, were held with residents to address the complaints.
Emails obtained by Local Democracy Reporting show residents were told to keep smell diaries about complaints, which staff said would support infringement orders, abatement notices and fines, and could reach the threshold for prosecution.
However, at a fourth meeting this month, residents say they were told the council was pursuing an enforcement order.
An enforcement order is an order by the Environment Court requiring a person to take or stop certain actions within a set time, where the court believes the activity breaches, or is likely to breach, the Resource Management Act.
Enforcement was never mentioned in discussions before that point, Hohepa said.
Neighbours were frustrated and felt the decision did not address previous alleged offences. They said the biosolids contract caused a conflict of interest and may have affected the change in legal direction.
The group was preparing to lodge a complaint about the council’s management of the situation and compile evidence for a complaint to the Ombudsman, she said.
Neighbours believed the consent had numerous issues and compliance had not been managed properly.
The group was concerned alleged non-compliance would be costly for ratepayers because of the legal fees and staff assigned to the issue.
As engagement with the council continued, neighbours wanted the smell and alleged wastewater discharge to stop and for the company to be held accountable for the alleged resource consent breaches.
Council response
The council said commercial contract and compliance decisions were made by separate teams.
“The contract is managed through [the] council’s operational functions. Compliance and enforcement matters are dealt with separately through [the] council’s regulatory functions and in accordance with [the] council’s statutory responsibilities.
“The contract does not constrain or determine what regulatory action council may take.”
It has held monthly meetings with Judds to discuss matters relating to the contract.
“The contract itself provides for monthly meetings dealing with matters including consent compliance and contract performance.”
Judds had advised the council of odour complaints during these meetings and “discussed measures it was taking in response, including work relating to sealed shelters”.
The council acknowledged residents’ concerns but said it could not disclose details of discussions about regulation, investigation, enforcement or future action.
“This is to protect the integrity of the process and the rights and interests of all parties involved.”
Local Democracy Reporting asked if an enforcement order had been issued.
The council said the matter was being considered in accordance with its statutory responsibilities.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.