Ann: SML Announcement - Supreme Court Update, page-458

If, as counsel for synlait states, synlait has no concerns "about dust, particulates, noise or whatever else might result" from Mr Ye's quarry ambitions, then it is probably fair to say that neither do Yashilli or Winstone. So bringing them into the argument does not assist Synlait. Those two parties appear unlikely to have those as valid Resource Consent concerns.

Counsel for Synlait also says the neighborhood has substantially changed. From a "rural idyll" to a "commercial hub.". This is incorrect. The land was originally owned by Winstone aggregates for the purposes of quarrying - so this "rural idyll" is a fantasy the supreme court will soon see through.

Macdonald Road also have restrictive covenants on it. So quite clearly it was envisaged that there would be a buffer between the quarry and developments above MacDonald road.

The land next to the proposed Yashilli extension (also above Macdoanld road) also has current restrictive covenants on it. We may get to hear these facts in the hearing.