The drama is being played out near Ballantyne Rd, along the banks of the Cardrona River, which is deemed an outstanding natural feature despite the industrial appearance of the gravel extractors.
The council's position has frustrated Riverbank Rd resident Jo Dippie, who has asked QLDC chief executive Duncan Field and Lakes Environmental principal enforcement officer Tim Francis to ensure the companies are comply-ing with the new consents.
Ms Dippie is contemplating complaining to the ombudsman if compliance is not obtained.
Wanaka Landfill Ltd (WLL) and Upper Clutha Transport Ltd were recently granted five year consents to extract and process gravel at their sites next to the Cardrona River and Ballantyne Rd.
The companies had sought terms of 15 and 10 years, respectively.
The consents also exclude the ability to import gravel from other extraction sites to the processing sites.
In their decision in December for Wanaka Landfill, the commissioners said the justification for allowing a processing site did not support allowing the importing of other material for processing or storage.
The processing consent was limited to the gravel extracted under the consent, they said.
In their decision in January for Upper Clutha Transport, the commissioners said they could not consent to the use of the site "for stockpiling and processing of gravel other than that . . . referred to in the public notification".
Wanaka Landfill Ltd has since appealed its consent to the Environment Court on that issue and others.
Upper Clutha Transport manager John Reid said he was not going to appeal and has declined to comment further.
Ms Dippie said she had observed the two companies bringing in and processing gravel from other sites.
Mr Field said, when contacted, there had been a "long-standing misunderstanding about the law" by the council and gravel extraction operators throughout the district, including Wanaka Landfill, Fulton Hogan, Steve Rout and Faulks.
Everyone thought they were covered by separate Otago Regional Council gravel extraction permits, but this was not the case.
The council had been working with operators and had succeeded in getting compliance at the Shotover Delta, near Queenstown, where operators and neighbours were now satisfied, Mr Field said.
"During this process, the Environment Court has accepted the way that we have gone about it by allowing operations to continue while consents are processed, including the hearing of appeals," Mr Field said.
One reason for continuing as normal was to minimise increased costs to the council and individuals with building projects, if imported gravel ash had to be imported from elsewhere, he said.
In many cases, gravel activities had been established long before residential activity arrived, Mr Field said.
The council had indicated Wanaka Landfill could continue operating while its appeal was in process as long as it complied with key terms of consent.
They included restrictions on noise, dust and hours of work, he said.
Mr Field said doubt had been cast on the legality of the provision that gravel not be imported.
"It was not made a condition of the consent and the applicant did not volunteer it. That is being investigated," Mr Field said.
He has asked Lakes Environmental to continue monitoring the Wanaka Landfill site for compliance with the relevant conditions.
Ms Dippie said Wanaka Landfill should comply with its consent.
"No matter whether WLL is satisfied with the consent or not, until it is overturned they have no option but to comply with the conditions as they are now, not how they wish them to be.
"I trust council will make the correct decision," Ms Dippie said. "If not, I shall refer the matter to the ombudsman."
