6 Reasons: tick the ones that matter to youTick any point that matters to you. It does not have to affect your own property: dust, trucks, noise and the loss of wildlife affect the whole valley, its roads and everyone who uses them. Each point comes from the application documents, Council records, the 2005 Environment Court decision or residents’ own records, with the source in brackets so Council can find it. Please keep the wording and figures as they are.
Tick all Clear all
Trucks and roads
The existing consent limits truck movements to and from the quarry to an average of 156 and a maximum of 310 per day. The application proposes that these limits be removed and replaced with an annual cap of 1 million tonnes of sales. There would be no daily limit on truck movements.existing consent LUC60000950-E condition 3; Integrated Transport Assessment page 25; proposed conditions 3 to 8 The applicant’s traffic report expects peak loaded truck departures of between 386 and 418 a day, and states that two way movements will be twice that. That is up to 836 truck movements on a peak day, against the existing maximum of 310, or on average one truck through the quarry gate about every 65 seconds between 6am and 9pm. These figures are for this quarry’s trucks only. They do not include trucks from the Wharehine quarry, which uses the same roads, or any other traffic, including school buses, farm vehicles and residents’ own cars.Integrated Transport Assessment section 6.2; 65 seconds is 15 hours divided by 836 Trucks north of the quarry are currently limited to 6am to 6.30pm, Monday to Saturday. Proposed condition 4(a) allows trucks north of the quarry from 6.00am to 9:00pm, Monday to Saturday inclusive. Proposed condition 9(b) limits retail sales and distribution to 6am to 6pm on Saturday, so the application is inconsistent on Saturday hours. My submission is based on condition 4(a), which allows the greater effect, and I ask Council to assess the application on that basis unless the applicant corrects its conditions.existing consent condition 2(a); proposed conditions 4(a) and 9(b) The applicant acknowledges the MA6, MA6.2 and WF5 school bus routes on these roads, and concludes that the increase in trucks does “not warrant any further or specific mitigation related to the school bus operations”. I do not accept that conclusion.section 92 transport memorandum, response to item 8 Both truck routes, north to State Highway 1 and south through Matakana village, are school bus routes on narrow and winding roads, and each has a one lane bridge. The Environment Court described Matakana Valley Road as “a narrow and winding piece of road”.local knowledge; Environment Court decision A145/2005 paragraph [66] The existing consent limits truck movements south of the quarry, through Matakana village, to a maximum of 20 truck movements per day. Proposed condition 6 counts only “loaded truck movements”. Empty trucks would not be counted, so each of 20 loaded trips could be matched by an empty one: up to 40 truck movements a day, twice the present limit. In 2005 the Environment Court set the limit on the basis of “20 trucks (10 return trips) per day”. I ask Council to confirm how proposed condition 6 is to be counted, and to keep the existing limit of 20 truck movements of any kind.existing consent condition 4; proposed condition 6; Environment Court decision A145/2005 paragraph [66] Matakana Valley Road over Matakana Hill has several corners that turn through almost 180 degrees. A truck and trailer unit can be up to 20 metres long, and residents regularly see these units cross the centre line on the corners. Since 2010 heavier High Productivity Motor Vehicles have been allowed on permit, and the permits for this route allow vehicles of 50, 54 and 58 tonnes. About 29 per cent of the quarry’s trucks are already of this type. No swept path analysis has been done for any corner on the southern route. In 2005 the applicant told the Environment Court that only local deliveries would use the hill and offered to stop other trucks using it, but no condition requires this. Since 2005 the village has grown, and the route now passes Matakana Primary School, three preschools, the weekly market and a new pedestrian crossing. On 19 August 2026 a truck and trailer travelling to the quarry blocked the road over the hill in both directions, and the school bus could not get through. I ask that truck and trailer units be prohibited from using Matakana Valley Road south of the quarry.Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Dimensions and Mass 2016 and NZ Transport Agency factsheet 13; Integrated Transport Assessment sections 4.2 and 6.1; Environment Court decision A145/2005 paragraphs [60] and [66]; residents’ accounts Proposed condition 4 controls only truck movements “involving the transportation of aggregate from the quarry”. It does not control empty trucks arriving at the quarry, which residents report on the road from about 5.10am, or trucks carrying fuel, plant or other materials.proposed condition 4 Existing condition 2(b) provides that no truck movements “involving the transportation of aggregate from the quarry” shall be undertaken south of the quarry outside “8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive”, and proposed condition 4(b) repeats it. Residents have recorded trucks leaving the quarry and heading south towards Matakana before 8am on a number of occasions. The condition is not being complied with now, and nothing in the proposed conditions would make it easier to enforce. I ask that no truck of any kind, loaded or empty, travel to or from the quarry on the southern route outside 8.00am to 6.00pm, and that every movement be recorded with its time and direction at the gate.existing consent condition 2(b), Appendix 6; proposed condition 4(b), Appendix 19; residents’ records The applicant’s traffic report records that crashes on these roads are “dominated by loss of control and run off road events on bends”, and that “Inappropriate speed for conditions, loss of control on bends, and lane positioning errors were the most frequently noted contributing factors”. Up to 836 truck movements a day would add to that risk.Integrated Transport Assessment section 4.3 Trucks arrive before the quarry opens and queue on Matakana Valley Road, in the dark for much of the year, on a road with a 100 km/h speed limit. The applicant describes the existing gate as “variably up to 15m from the Matakana Valley Road edge”, which cannot hold a truck and trailer up to 20 metres long. Nothing in the existing or proposed conditions controls trucks queuing on the road before the site opens.Integrated Transport Assessment section 7.3.2; Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Dimensions and Mass 2016; residents’ observations Proposed condition 8, where the traffic mitigation and roading works conditions should be, is an empty placeholder. Submitters cannot comment on conditions that have not been written.proposed condition 8, Appendix 19 The application states that the Wharehine quarry “utilises the same roading network”, but the traffic assessment does not mention Wharehine at all, so the combined trucks of both quarries on our roads have not been assessed.Assessment of Environmental Effects; Integrated Transport Assessment, Appendix 9 About 166 privately owned properties lie along the truck route north of the quarry, and an estimated 452 properties, including the village shops and businesses, lie on the route south to Matakana village and the roads that join it. Every one of these people will live with the trucks.LINZ title data via Grip, 3 October 2026; Auckland Council rating roll; the southern figure is an estimate Hours and noise
The existing consent provides that “No quarry activities shall be undertaken between the hours of 6.30pm and 6.00am or on Sundays or public holidays”. The application proposes quarry operating hours of 6am to 10pm Monday to Friday, and that “Light maintenance and servicing can also be undertaken Monday to Sunday 24 hours”.existing consent condition 18; proposed condition 9 The existing daytime noise limit is 47 dBA Leq. The application proposes 55 dB LAeq, Monday to Friday 7am to 9pm and Saturday 7am to 4pm.existing consent condition 9; proposed condition 10 In 2005 the Environment Court refused a limit of 52 dB as “an unreasonable burden, by way of adverse effects, on this environment and upon others who share it”. The application now seeks 55 dB. The applicant’s own noise report describes an increase of 5 to 8 dB as an “Appreciable to clearly noticeable change”. The application does not refer to the 2005 decision.Environment Court decision A145/2005 paragraph [73]; Appendix 10 Table 5 The noise assessment covers trucks only while they are inside the quarry. The noise of up to 836 truck movements a day along about 19 km of Matakana Valley Road, Whangaripo Valley Road and Wayby Valley Road, past every home on the route, is not assessed anywhere in the application.Appendix 10 Noise Assessment; Integrated Transport Assessment Noise is checked once a year. The applicant’s measurements were four 15 minute samples on the morning of 5 November 2025, with none in the evening and none in summer: about one hour of measurement for a quarry that may operate some 3,900 hours a year under its existing hours. The existing consent requires the results to be “reported to the Council within three weeks of completion”. Proposed condition 11 requires only that they be “kept on site and made available to Auckland Council on request”, and the applicant’s acoustic engineer now proposes monitoring at two places instead of four.existing condition 19; proposed condition 11; Appendix 10 section 4.1; section 92 acoustic memorandum, response to item 65 The noise report states that “The night-time period is not relevant”, yet its own Table C2 predicts night-time noise at every house it assessed, and proposed condition 9(d) allows “Light maintenance and servicing” at any hour, seven days a week.Appendix 10 sections 3.4 and 6.2 and Table C2; proposed condition 9(d) The noise report states that “operational vibration has not been assessed”, and it predicts no blast noise or vibration level at any house. It also records that the proposed blast noise limit “will result in a 5 dB increase over what the existing consent allows”.Appendix 10 sections 3.4 and 7.0 Landscape and lighting
The quarry extraction footprint would grow from approximately 17.6 hectares to approximately 26 hectares, and the expansion would remove part of a spur which reaches 148 metres above sea level.Assessment of Environmental Effects; Landscape and Visual Assessment, Appendix 14 The applicant’s landscape architect states that “vehicle headlights and flashing safety beacons may be visible during early morning and evening periods, particularly in winter”, and that no additional landscape mitigation is considered necessary.section 92 landscape memorandum of 7 August 2026, response to item 45 Part of the site extends into the Outstanding Natural Landscape on the north western flanks of Tamahunga. The applicant assesses effects on its values as very low. I do not accept that assessment.Landscape and Visual Assessment, Appendix 14 The landscape assessment records that the Te Araroa Trail crosses “Matakana Valley Road along the upper reaches of Kotekote Stream”, but does not treat people walking the trail as viewers or assess any effect on them.Appendix 14 Landscape and Visual Assessment The existing consent limits light spill to 5 lux at any window of an adjacent household unit. The proposed conditions contain no equivalent limit.existing consent condition 24(a); proposed conditions, Appendix 19 The lighting assessment does not mention bats, kiwi or any wildlife, although the quarry lights would be on into the evening all year beside mapped Significant Ecological Areas. The proposed lighting conditions set no limit on existing lights; they only require a plan before “additional exterior lighting” is installed.Lighting Compliance Assessment, 5 August 2026; proposed conditions 19 and 20 The land use consent is sought in perpetuity, with extraction staged over a period of up to 35 years.Assessment of Environmental Effects section 7.16 The applicant’s economic assessment states that “15 years is when the current consent’s volumes will be exhausted”, and the application states the expansion “will extend the life of the quarry for an additional 10-15 years”. A bigger and busier quarry would therefore operate for up to about 30 more years.Appendix 16 page 26; Assessment of Environmental Effects section 10.2 In 2005 the Environment Court found that people living here “have a legitimate expectation that the maintenance and enhancement of the amenity values which make the area attractive to them will be given due weight”. Since then many more homes have been built along these roads, each consented by Council, and part of the quarry site is now mapped as Outstanding Natural Landscape, which the Court recorded it was not in 2005.Environment Court decision A145/2005 paragraphs [68] and [71]; Auckland Council rating roll; Auckland Council GeoMaps Dust and water
Council asked the applicant for an off site air quality monitoring programme. The applicant replied that “there are no plans to conduct quantitative monitoring of ambient dust on or beyond the site boundary”, and that it has relied on “qualitative visual monitoring and operational judgement”.section 92 air quality response, questions 55 and 89 The dust conditions do not stop dust leaving the site. They prohibit dust beyond the boundary only where, “in the opinion of an enforcement officer”, it causes “a noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable effect”. The existing land use consent also requires that “All necessary actions shall be taken to prevent a dust nuisance to neighbouring properties and public roads”, including “Suspension of all operations if necessitated by the prevailing conditions”. Residents have photographs of dust leaving the site, including on 29 November 2021, when the applicant’s own record states that “dust suppression at fixed plant was not correctly operating”, and on 28 May 2025. The applicant’s compliance history records dust complaints in 2021, 2023, 2025 and 2026, including from Govan Wilson Road. Dust is not confined to the nearest neighbours. Residents report dust from the quarry, and dust blown up from material left on the road by trucks, affecting everyone who drives past. A condition that relies on an officer being present while the dust is blowing does not protect residents. I ask for measured dust limits at the boundary and continuous monitoring at the nearest dwellings.proposed air discharge conditions 4 and 5, Appendix 19; existing land use consent condition 23, Appendix 6; Appendix 5; residents’ photographs dated by camera data; residents’ observations The quarry rock is greywacke, which contains crystalline silica. The applicant’s air quality assessment accepts that “greywacke contains silica”, and states that “no ambient off-site RCS monitoring has been undertaken for the site” so that “a location specific ambient silica assessment is unable to be undertaken”. Respirable crystalline silica, the fine dust that can be breathed deep into the lungs, is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as carcinogenic to humans. The application would almost double production without any measurement of silica beyond the site.Appendix 17 Air Quality Assessment section 6.4; International Agency for Research on Cancer, Monographs volumes 68 and 100C Many homes in the valley drink rainwater collected from their roofs. Council asked about quarry dust in drinking water. The applicant’s answer estimates only the depth of dust settling in water tanks, does not mention silica, and says that if roof water systems follow the guidance “there should be negligible effects”.section 92 air quality response, item 60; local knowledge Council asked about the combined dust from this quarry and the Wharehine quarry. The applicant’s answer assesses two other quarries and does not mention Wharehine.section 92 air quality response, item 62 Until February 2026 the air discharge permit required “That the processing plant be enclosed and the enclosure maintained in good order if dust causes non-compliance” with the dust conditions. That condition was not carried into the air discharge consent granted in February 2026, and the proposed conditions contain no enclosure requirement. The applicant’s Dust Management Plan now says that “particularly dusty parts of the plant shall be enclosed” if dust cannot be contained within the boundary, but a management plan is written and reviewed by the applicant and is not a condition of consent. This is a rural residential valley, with homes close to the processing plant and along Govan Wilson Road, where residents have complained of dust. With production to almost double, I ask that the processing plant be fully enclosed at all times, as a condition of consent.superseded air discharge permit DIS60263749 condition 9; air discharge consent DIS60429187 conditions 66 to 85; proposed conditions, Appendix 19; Dust Management Plan section 7.3; Appendix 5 The applicant records groundwater drawdown of approximately 12.5 metres at a bore about 250 metres from the quarry sump, and states that its model predicts a drawdown at that location of more than 90 metres.section 92 hydrogeology response The applicant calculates that the present pit affects groundwater up to “about 1,025 m” from the sump, yet every groundwater monitoring bore is on the quarry’s own land, and the bores that record the drawdown are inside the expansion area and would be moved. Residents near the quarry have seen a lasting fall in the flow of the Kotekote Stream. I ask for groundwater and stream flow monitoring on neighbouring land.Appendix 11 Hydrogeological Assessment; residents’ observations The applicant states the site is “mapped as being very highly susceptible to both shallow and large scale landslides”, yet “a separate assessment in accordance with Chapter M, Appendix 24 of the AUP has not been undertaken”.applicant’s natural hazards rule analysis; section 92 geotechnical memorandum section 10.2 The applicant’s geotechnical report records two slope failures in the pit in the past year. When stability was analysed at Council’s request, the report found that the final slopes on two of the three sections analysed “did not meet the minimum FoS requirements”. There is no instrument monitoring, no trigger level and no emergency plan for slope movement, and the recommended annual review of pit wall stability has been changed to “at least once every two years”.Appendix 8 Geotechnical Assessment section 4.2; section 92 geotechnical report section 6.4 and recommended condition 2 Streams, wetlands, bush and wildlife
The expansion involves the permanent loss of approximately 0.17 hectares of inland natural wetland and the removal of approximately 0.35 hectares of indigenous vegetation.Assessment of Environmental Effects Council asked the applicant to comment on “potential dust effects on nearby Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) and surrounding vegetation, including dust deposition impacts and sensitivity of ecological receptors”. The applicant’s air quality consultant replied that the SEAs are “adjacent to the southeast boundary of the site”, gave no dust deposition figure and named no plant or animal. Auckland Council’s own maps show Significant Ecological Area overlays on the quarry site itself. Dust settling on native bush, mosses, ferns and lichens can harm the plants and the wildlife that depend on them, and no ecologist has assessed it.section 92 air quality response, item 61; Auckland Council GeoMaps property summary for the site The baseflow of the northern tributary of the Kotekote Stream is predicted to be reduced from approximately 66.5 to 56.5 cubic metres a day. The At Risk longfin eel and kākahi (freshwater mussel) were recorded by eDNA where that tributary joins the Kotekote Stream.Appendix 11 Hydrogeological Assessment; Appendix 4 Ecological Assessment, Table 6 The applicant’s ecologist identified trees with bat roost features on and near the site, but no bat detector survey was carried out. The value for bats is assessed as “Very Low” from database records only. Long-tailed bats are classified by the Department of Conservation as Threatened, Nationally Critical.Appendix 4 Ecological Assessment section 4.3.3 The applicant lists the Australasian bittern, Threatened, Nationally Critical, among native birds with potential habitat within or adjacent to the site. The ecology assessment does not mention kiwi.Appendix 4 Ecological Assessment, Table 5 A survey funded by Auckland Council in the 2025/26 season “confirmed the presence of pekapeka-tou-roa (long-tailed bats) within the Tamahunga landscape”, with bats detected at 20 of 70 sites and an activity hotspot averaging 98.7 bat passes a night on the eastern edge of the Tamahunga Ecological Area. The applicant carried out no bat detector survey.Rodney Pekapeka Project summary report 2025/26, The Forest Bridge Trust; Appendix 4 section 4.3.3 Forty kiwi have been released on Mount Tamahunga since March 2023 and “The birds have been breeding well”. In late July 2026 the quarry’s own site staff reported a kiwi at the quarry gate to The Forest Bridge Trust and asked what should be done. A month later the applicant answered Council’s question on the “sensitivity of ecological receptors” without naming any species. The application does not mention kiwi.Local Matters, 13 October 2025; email from quarry site staff to The Forest Bridge Trust, July 2026; section 92 air quality response, item 61; Appendix 4 The 2004 Commissioners’ decision on this quarry recorded that Hochstetter’s frog “has been found on the site”. The applicant’s ecology assessment leaves out records more than 20 years old and gives the nearest record as 4.9 km away.2004 Commissioners’ Determination; Appendix 4 Ecological Assessment No lizard survey was carried out for this application; the assessment relied on a desktop review. The proposed survey would take place only “prior to the implementation of Stage 2”, after Stage 1 has been cleared, and the draft condition still contains a blank (“identified on {XX}”).Appendix 4 Ecological Assessment section 4.3.1 and recommended conditions Heritage
The archaeological assessment states that “subsurface testing was not conducted in the proposed pit expansion area”, so the land that would be dug out was inspected only from the surface, on one visit. The same report states that “It is probable that these lower flats were also cultivated by Māori”.Appendix 20 Archaeological Assessment sections 7 and 7.2 Alternatives
The application concludes that there is no practicable alternative, but does not assess as alternative sources of aggregate either the Wharehine Whangaripo Quarry, about 1.3 km away in the same geological block, or the Atlas quarry on State Highway 1 at the Brynderwyns.Assessment of Environmental Effects sections 4.6, 10.2, 10.4.3 and 15.0; Appendix 16 Monitoring and enforcement of conditions
Conditions are only as good as their enforcement. They are imposed to mitigate the quarry’s effects, but on this site many are monitored by the quarry itself, and the rest depend on residents complaining. A complaint means phoning Council, waiting on hold, and waiting again for an officer to travel from Auckland city, more than 60 km away, by which time the truck has gone, the dust has settled or the noise has stopped. Residents have recorded repeated breaches that never appear in the compliance record. If consent is granted, every condition must be measured independently, reported to Council automatically, and enforced without residents having to complain first, at the consent holder’s cost.residents’ experience and records; Appendix 5 The applicant’s compliance history records Council compliance checks on only two dates, 2 September 2020 and 27 November 2025. The first was given an overall rating of 3, “evidence of moderate effect(s) or potential for moderate effects(s)”, and recorded an uncontrolled discharge into the stream. The second required the Quarry Management Plan to be updated, and the applicant’s response is that “The QMP will be updated to include this information once consents have been granted.”Appendix 5, Summary of Complaints and Compliance History Auckland Council is responsible for monitoring the consents it grants and for acting when conditions are not met. The applicant’s compliance history records only two Council compliance checks, and a Council officer told a resident in writing, “As I don’t have the appropriate equipment to measure noise”. If consent is granted, I ask Council to commit to a stated programme of monitoring and enforcement, paid for by the consent holder, so that residents are not left to prove breaches themselves.Appendix 5; email from Auckland Council officer, 7 September 2026 The applicant’s compliance history has no entry at all for 2022 or 2024, and leaves out eleven of the twelve noise matters recorded in its own Community Liaison Group minutes and quarry reports between 2014 and 2024.Appendix 5; Community Liaison Group minutes and quarry reports, 2014 to 2024 The application relies on the Community Liaison Group as consultation. The Group is set up by a consent condition, its members attend in their own right, and it does not speak for the community. In 2017 a change to this consent was decided without notification partly because “no substantive concerns have been raised at the meetings”, although the minutes record concerns. Later changes that removed the annual extraction limits and raised the truck limits were not put to the Group at all.Assessment of Environmental Effects section 8.0; existing condition 51; notification determination for FVC60000950-B, 7 September 2017; Community Liaison Group minutes Conditions only protect the community if they are monitored and enforced. The existing conditions require a register of truck movements, but it only has to be open for inspection and made available to the Community Liaison Group. The proposed conditions repeat that approach and do not require the register to be reported to Council.existing condition 3; proposed condition 5 Proposed review condition 40 allows a review two years after the consent starts and then no more often than every five years, and ties the review of nuisance conditions to complaints “received and validated by an enforcement officer”. Residents cannot control whether an enforcement officer attends or validates a complaint.proposed condition 40 Several proposed management plans are “deemed” to be accepted or certified if Council does not respond in time. Council told the applicant in its section 92 request that such conditions “will not be accepted by Council”.proposed Quarry Management Plan and Wetland Monitoring Plan conditions; Council section 92 request, advice note My own experience of how the existing conditions have been monitored and enforced is set out in section 5.