Key Takeaways:
- A commissioner found that the scale and placement of terraces and statues at a Buddhist site in Little Munro Bay created significant adverse landscape and visual effects.
- The proposal was refused, but an agreement was reached after mediation to reduce the number of statues, remove upper terraces, and repaint the structures in a uniform, low-reflective color.
- The revised proposal was accepted by the Environment Court, with conditions to review the site after 12 months for any unforeseen effects.
- Local residents, including a long-time opponent of the site, remain unhappy with the outcome and feel that the council has not done its job in regulating the development.
Introduction to the Dispute
The controversy surrounding the Buddhist site in Little Munro Bay has been ongoing for several years, with local residents expressing concerns about the scale and placement of the terraces and statues. After multiple complaints to the local council, a commissioner was appointed to investigate the matter. In 2024, the commissioner found that the development created more than minor adverse landscape and visual effects, citing the vegetation clearance and color choice of the structures as contributing factors. Despite acknowledging the cultural beliefs of the site’s owner, Wang, the commissioner concluded that the proposal failed to meet the necessary standards and refused consent.
The Mediation Process
The decision was appealed to the Environment Court, and the two parties entered into mediation. After negotiations, an agreement was reached to reduce the number of statues from 147 to 128 and remove the upper terraces within three months. The upper slope would then be vegetated with native plants, and no artificial lighting or sound effects would be allowed. Additionally, all terraces, roofs, and statue supports would be repainted in a uniform, low-reflective blue color. This revised proposal was deemed to meet the necessary standards, and planners and landscape architects for both Wang and the council confirmed that it aligned with the District Plan’s outstanding natural landscape (ONL) and Outstanding Natural Coastal Area (ONCA) provisions.
The Environment Court’s Decision
In December, Environment Court Judge Jeff Smith accepted the agreement and issued a consent order under the Resource Management Act. While emphasizing that the court was not making a merits determination, Judge Smith noted that the revised proposal "appears appropriate" and that expert input had shaped the conditions. The consent includes a 12-month clause, allowing the council to review the conditions if unforeseen landscape or visual effects arise. This provision provides a mechanism for addressing any potential issues that may arise after the development is completed.
Community Reaction
The decision has not been well received by all members of the community, with some residents expressing frustration and disappointment. Greg Grant, who lives across the road from the site, has been an active opponent of the development and feels that the council has not done its job in regulating the site. Grant, a builder with 40 years of experience along the coast, has been pulled up by the council for minor infractions in the past and feels that the treatment of the Buddhist site has been inconsistent. He believes that the new blue color still stands out among the native reserves and that the statues will still be visible, even after being moved. Grant also questions the purpose of the site, noting that it is empty most of the time and appears to be a "shrine in the middle of nowhere."
Conclusion and Next Steps
The outcome of the mediation and the Environment Court’s decision bring a measure of closure to the dispute, but it is clear that not all parties are satisfied with the result. The 12-month review clause provides an opportunity for the council to assess the development’s impact and make any necessary adjustments. As the site moves forward, it will be important for the council to ensure that the conditions of the consent are met and that any concerns from the community are addressed. The case highlights the challenges of balancing cultural and environmental considerations in development projects and the importance of community engagement and participation in the planning process.
