The million-dollar dirt mound: who should pay to clean it up?
Thursday, 25 December 2025
It took nearly $1 million to flatten a massive man-made mountain in East Auckland. Now, the blame for who should pay is piling up in court.
The landlord of the site says his tenant - a topsoil recycling company - is responsible for 75% of the mound and should therefore cover 75% of the clean-up costs.
But the tenant’s sole director says much of the pile was already there - and that the sums being claimed are physically impossible.
He also says his company is now in liquidation and has no money to pay the roughly $650,000 being sought.
The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running saga over a controversial pile of soil, at least 15m high, on Smales Rd in East Tamaki.
The mound grew so large it threatened neighbouring businesses, including a Mobil service station. The owner of a nearby second-hand car yard said they were forced to relocate at their own expense.
Auckland Council ultimately stepped in, seeking enforcement orders through the Environment Court against both the landlord, New Zealand New Oak Property Ltd, and the tenant, Eco Earth. In a November 2024 ruling, Judge Melinda Dickey described the pile as unstable and steep, and said it had caused significant overspill.
Most of the soil is now gone. What remains is a high-stakes argument over cubic metres, truck movements and nearly $650,000 in costs.
Competing claims over the size of the pile
At a December Environment Court hearing, New Oak sought an amendment to the council’s enforcement orders, saying it spent $929,813 remediating the site and wants Eco Earth to cover 75% of that cost.
New Oak’s position is that there were already 11,000m³ to 12,000m³ of unlawful fill on the site when Eco Earth began its lease. That figure, it says, matches an estimate from Tobin Construction to remediate the site before Eco Earth moved in.
By the end of the tenancy, New Oak says 3D modelling showed the mound had grown to 44,000m³. Google Maps imagery was also used to show the site before and after Eco Earth took possession.
“There were no other parties involved in earthworks or clean filling activity on site during the Eco Earth tenancy,” New Oak’s lawyer Bal Matheson told the court. “That means Eco Earth, and therefore Mr Williams, is responsible for that difference.”
Eco Earth’s sole director, Gareth Williams, strongly disputes those figures.
His position is that the pile was already far larger - 39,800m³ - when the lease began. His submissions describe an existing stockpile about 6m high, towering over nearby buildings. He says he also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars clearing the site.
Williams told the court that the volumes New Oak alleges he brought in would have been logistically impossible.
“There would have to be 375 trucks every month,” he said. “But at none of the random times council inspectors were on site did they see trucks arriving and dumping material.”
Private investigator evidence challenged
Matheson told the court New Oak hired a private investigator, stationed at the site gate over two days in June and July 2024, after the pile drew council attention.
He put the investigator’s notes to Williams.
One log read: “A tip truck arrived and deposited the load of soil at the front entrance to the main gate.”
Williams replied: “It could be soil. It could be metal.”
Another entry stated: “After the truck departed, the hoe then moved the soil from the gate entrance back up and onto the pile.”
Williams responded: “I’m not operating on site at this time, so I couldn’t comment.”
Matheson put several similar entries to Williams, each time receiving the same response - that Williams was not present and could not comment.
What exactly was being dumped is also disputed.
New Oak says trucks were arriving with soil. Williams told the court they were delivering metal drainage chip to fix the entranceway.
“No dirt had been dumped that I’ve witnessed,” he said.
Dispute over income and remediation costs
Matheson also referred Williams to a screenshot of Eco Earth’s website, which claimed: “We believe our rates are the lowest in Auckland.”
Williams said the website did not accurately reflect the company’s operations.
“It was advertising because our main goal, once the site was level, was to trade a business out of it. We never got to that,” he said.
Matheson pushed back, asking whether Eco Earth received any income from people disposing of fill at the site between May 2023 and September 2024.
Williams said the company had topsoil brought in to help remediate silt discharge, then sold the cleaned soil.
“People paid to take the topsoil at a rate of $300 per 10 tonnes,” he said, estimating he sold close to 400 loads.
Williams also challenged the remediation work itself, saying New Oak paid premium rates typically charged for contaminated soil, despite the soil not being classified as such.
He told the court he reviewed trucking logs and found some number plates were registered to Suzuki SUVs, not trucks, and questioned time stamps showing vehicles arriving and leaving within minutes.
Williams also disputed the 44,000m³ end figure, saying no measurement was taken at the start of the tenancy.
“There was nothing to compare it to,” he said.
“I’ve not said no fill was brought onto site - I’ve said topsoil was brought in. What I am disputing is that I brought 33,000m³ on in the period you’re claiming, which is impossible.”
Judge Melinda Dickey reserved her decision. A ruling is not expected until next year.