Riverbank Rd resident Jo Dippie told a Queenstown Lakes District Council hearings panel yesterday she believed the company's application had nothing to do with the increasing local demand for gravel, which was outlined by company director Robert Duncan in evidence on Monday.
Mr Duncan denied on Monday the application was mainly about cleanfill operations.
That was a secondary issue to the extraction of gravel, he said.
But Ms Dippie and other submitters believe the application is purely about digging holes to bury increasing piles of waste material from construction sites.
The landfill has been growing at such a rate it would meet its boundary limits within months, Ms Dippie said.
"It is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt at extending the operating life of a money-making landfill. It has no place in today's ecosociety, it has no place in Wanaka and it has no place in my back yard," Ms Dippie said.
Wanaka was now a major tourist town and the rural residential neighbourhood and Wanaka town boundary was expanding.
The company should do as its competitor Fulton Hogan had done and find an alternative quarry site with no neighbours, she said.
Ms Dippie gave verbal and photographic evidence suggesting not only did Wanaka Landfill not wait for consent before beginning to excavate, but had been allowing illegal materials to be dumped for some time.
She said the company had covered over the offending material after she complained, so it could not be seen, and then claimed through its lawyer, Jan Caunter, it was cured asphalt.
But Ms Dippie said it was fresh asphalt and presented commissioner Trevor Shiels and Lou Alfeld with samples she had collected on August 24.
Ms Dippie operates a luxury bed and breakfast next door to the landfill and outlined the negative impact of the landfill operation on her business and her health.
Gravel extraction in the Cardrona River was not acceptable just because it was a historic activity, she said.
She could accept some gravel extraction for flood-control purposes, with conditions, but processing and stockpiling, along with associated truck movements, dust and noise, were no longer appropriate for a major tourist town and growing residential area.
"Wanaka Landfill claims the gravel extraction predated the neighbourhood. I reply that my house predates Wanaka Landfill. It is at least 30 years old. Now let's cease with irrelevant dates and look to the future.
"Fulton Hogan is a realist. They saw there was no future for them in Wanaka environs and, being proactive, they decamped to a section of river with unlimited resources and no neighbours.
I believe it is time for Wanaka Landfill to accept reality too," Ms Dippie said.
Also giving evidence yesterday was Angus Gordon, who had collected photographic evidence to support his concerns about Wanaka Landfill's activities, and Lucy Sellick, who spoke about the impact of dust, noise, visibility and truck movements on her family life.
Mr Duncan has previously given evidence that illegal dumping had stopped and argued that guidelines about what could go in the landfill had been confusing and inconsistent.
He is seeking clear directions from the commissioners as to what is permitted in the landfill, should consent be granted.
Upper Clutha Transport is also applying for consent to extract gravel from the Cardrona River and faces opposition at its hearing scheduled for next week.
