Speaker 1: Kiyota.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald.
Speaker 3: Not in my backyard.
Speaker 2: For decades, that's been the battle cry for suburbanites and
Speaker 2: homeowners unimpressed by changes happening in their neighborhood. But how
Speaker 2: often are those complaints valid or are they just people
Speaker 2: unhappy with change? With both a sixteen point five meter
Speaker 2: tall Buddhist statue in Why We're the Valley and a
Speaker 2: helipad in Westmere getting people talking today on the Front Page,
Speaker 2: we're looking into the resource management process and why some
Speaker 2: things get approved and others don't. Later we'll talk with
Speaker 2: Associate Professor Caroline Miller from Massi University's Resource and Environmental
Speaker 2: Planning program. But first, for details on that giant Buddhist statue,
Speaker 2: we're talking to Nsitt Harold Senior reporter David Fisher. Some
Speaker 2: basic questions first, David, where is this statue being built?
Speaker 3: Who's building it and why are they doing so?
Speaker 4: Let me start if I can by painting a picture
Speaker 4: of sorts Wyverta Valley is north of Auckland, south of Poohoy,
Speaker 4: and it is this beautiful rural valley. It is rolling
Speaker 4: hills and quite steep ridges, regenerating native bush and the
Speaker 4: rolling hills as you come down from the steep hills,
Speaker 4: a green pastures and it's quite harsy, lovely paddics. It's
Speaker 4: a real rural paradise and people have gone there and
Speaker 4: they've got lifestyle blocks and lovely houses that are built
Speaker 4: around the rim of this valley, sort of looking towards
Speaker 4: the center where there is a sixty meter hill. Now
Speaker 4: that's sixty meter hill. Buildings started on it a couple
Speaker 4: of months ago. The neighbors couldn't really work out what
Speaker 4: was going going on. They started doing a little bit
Speaker 4: of detective work and found out that what was going
Speaker 4: on was that someone they didn't know who was building
Speaker 4: a sixteen and a half meter tall Buddhist statue and
Speaker 4: plinth five meter tall plinth with an eleven and a
Speaker 4: half but of statue on top of it that's going
Speaker 4: to be golden. They were quite upset that they never
Speaker 4: got to have a say in this before the building began.
Speaker 3: Who's building this statue? Why are they doing it?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 4: Who is a charity that's called the jets Grove Charitable Trust.
Speaker 4: Jetters Grove, named after an important Buddhist temple based in India.
Speaker 4: The why, well, that's somewhat of a difficult question. I mean,
Speaker 4: the charity, Jetts Grove Charitable Trust has said now in
Speaker 4: a letter that's come a couple of months down the
Speaker 4: track from building beginning, they have said that they are
Speaker 4: building this as a gift to the community. They say
Speaker 4: that they're very grateful to New Zealand for its open minded, tolerant,
Speaker 4: respectful approach to culture, that it's a nation of kind
Speaker 4: hearted people with communities that, as they say, are beautifully
Speaker 4: integrated across different ethnic groups. And as a reflection of that,
Speaker 4: they have decided that they would like to build the
Speaker 4: statue and give it to the people of New Zealand
Speaker 4: as a gift. The neighbors of wyw'd A Valley are
Speaker 4: more of a mind to say return to sender, thanks,
Speaker 4: thanks for the offer, but no thanks, But they don't
Speaker 4: actually get a say.
Speaker 2: And the neighbors that you've spoken to the described it
Speaker 2: as horrifying.
Speaker 4: Why is that, Well, there's a tremendous number of words
Speaker 4: that have been used to describe the statue. Monstrosity, horrifying,
Speaker 4: blight on the landscape, all of these sorts of things.
Speaker 4: It's because it really will look very different from anything
Speaker 4: else that is in that valley. And actually, I think
Speaker 4: if you throw a net across the entirety of the
Speaker 4: North of Auckland, which would include the Gibbs far that
Speaker 4: has these extraordinary works of art, it still looks very
Speaker 4: different from anything that you would see anywhere in North
Speaker 4: of Auckland, and that is because it is a large
Speaker 4: statue of religious iconography today or say, they wouldn't care
Speaker 4: if it was a statue of Christ or a Canoo
Speaker 4: figure or whatever religion it might be. It's this thing
Speaker 4: that is sticking out like the proverbial on top of
Speaker 4: a tall hill that's going to be gold. It will
Speaker 4: shine in the sun where the sun comes up in
Speaker 4: the morning, and they just don't want it.
Speaker 5: The size is just it's monstrous for a valley like this.
Speaker 5: It's going to be very visible from all the properties
Speaker 5: around here. It's going to be bright gold, which just
Speaker 5: doesn't make sense in a rural environment. It's a faithful
Speaker 5: replication of apparently an image of gurum Posh. To my mind,
Speaker 5: that describes a religious and dormant it doesn't describe art,
Speaker 5: and so.
Speaker 2: This didn't need to be approved because it counts as
Speaker 2: a work of art. Is that right?
Speaker 5: That's right?
Speaker 4: And this is a really this is a really interesting
Speaker 4: thing about this Auckland Council process and about the approval
Speaker 4: process for this Buddhist statue. When the application was put
Speaker 4: in by the Jettis Grove Charitable Trust to build the statue,
Speaker 4: they described it as a work of art and it
Speaker 4: it led it to neighbors. They have said it was designed,
Speaker 4: it was crafted by a Taiwanese artist and they say
Speaker 4: it is a work of art. So under the Auckland
Speaker 4: Council Unitary Plan, which is Auckland Council's wolves for building
Speaker 4: in the wider Auckland area, if something is designated as
Speaker 4: a work of art, it isn't a rural area. You
Speaker 4: don't need to go through the resource consent process. You
Speaker 4: go through a completely different process at all, where you
Speaker 4: don't need to consult with your neighbors. You can just
Speaker 4: go ahead and you can build it.
Speaker 3: Do you reckon that's a bit of a loophole in
Speaker 3: the law.
Speaker 4: Well, the neighbors certainly think it's a loophole. And you know,
Speaker 4: I talked to some ferociously clever academics that have spent
Speaker 4: their life working in art and studying art, and the
Speaker 4: outcome of those conversations was basically artist in the eye
Speaker 4: of the beholder. What might be art to me might
Speaker 4: not be art to you. There are precedent cases in
Speaker 4: New Zealand of things that one might not see it
Speaker 4: as art being described as art. There was a shipping
Speaker 4: container in Hamilton that had a door in the side
Speaker 4: and a window around the other side that was found
Speaker 4: to be a piece of art because it was commentary
Speaker 4: on housing and New Zealand. One of those academics that
Speaker 4: I spoke to, he had said, the problem here isn't
Speaker 4: that this is art or this isn't art. The problem
Speaker 4: here is the Auckland Council decision making process. Because you
Speaker 4: can call it anything art and it will be to
Speaker 4: someone and so you can build anything you like.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us, David, Thanks very much. We're now
Speaker 2: joined by Associate professor from Massi University's Resource and Environmental
Speaker 2: Planning program, Caroline Miller. Can you just outline for us
Speaker 2: the standard planning process for councils in New Zealand, if.
Speaker 1: That be sics right planning one on one? If you
Speaker 1: want to do something on your property, then you one
Speaker 1: of the first things you need to do is to
Speaker 1: check your district and regional plans. So we're presuming it
Speaker 1: might be in a rural environment or in an open one,
Speaker 1: but you have eased the district plan, and the district
Speaker 1: plan will list a series of activities as the Act
Speaker 1: calls them, So that could be housing, it could be retail,
Speaker 1: could be some industrial activity. Having defined what these different
Speaker 1: activities are, then you determine what type of controls might
Speaker 1: be needed to ensure that they fit into the environment
Speaker 1: in which they're established and that they don't cause a
Speaker 1: huge array of negative impacts for the people around them.
Speaker 1: So essentially, what planning does says, here's your opportunity to
Speaker 1: put forward what you want to do. In many cases,
Speaker 1: it's what we call a permitted activity. So there are
Speaker 1: some standards in the plan which you have to meet.
Speaker 1: So in a housing situation, you may have to be
Speaker 1: so many meters off a boundary, there'll be a restriction
Speaker 1: on how high you can go to ensure there's an overshadowing, etc.
Speaker 1: The activity could be quite complicated. So if we look
Speaker 1: at a couple of these things that we've recently seen
Speaker 1: they have looked at things like helicopter landing pads, probably
Speaker 1: be on their experience of existing ones in urban and
Speaker 1: rural areas, and then they would define the activity or
Speaker 1: a landing pound for a helicopter and then decide what
Speaker 1: level of controls you need to ensure that it doesn't
Speaker 1: have significant adverse effects on surrounding properties and the people
Speaker 1: who lived there.
Speaker 2: That's the helipad in Westmere that Anna Moobray and Ali
Speaker 2: Williams have been fighting over. This has been obviously a
Speaker 2: contentious process for some time, and that got approved just
Speaker 2: the other week against the wishes of the community, and
Speaker 2: it's led to some locals to say that they've lost
Speaker 2: faith in the resource management process.
Speaker 3: Do you think that's fair?
Speaker 1: No, I don't think it is at all, Because they
Speaker 1: have all benefited from the resource management process, they perhaps
Speaker 1: don't recognize that at the most basic level, we've ensured
Speaker 1: that nobody is going to build a large, noisy, dirty
Speaker 1: factory next, because you've separated our activities and gathered to
Speaker 1: ones together that are largely compatible with each other. So
Speaker 1: in a residential area, they'll be provisioned for school, childcare centers,
Speaker 1: sorts of things which fit into a residential zone. What
Speaker 1: you do then get are a whole lot of activities
Speaker 1: which might be acceptable or can be made acceptable in
Speaker 1: terms of controlling anverse effects. But you need to examine
Speaker 1: them on a one by one beast and that is
Speaker 1: clearly where you have got. These helipads being seen to
Speaker 1: be some dispute on this are restricted or a discretionary activity?
Speaker 6: Yeah, copses by residents in Auckland are pushing back against
Speaker 6: a new helicopter pad Zuru co founder Animobra and Habbi
Speaker 6: Ali Williams have applied to build one on their property.
Speaker 6: Neighbors fear it may cause harm to local birds. I
Speaker 6: just think Ali Williams is hoping that if he builds
Speaker 6: a helicopter pad, maybe maybe Richie McCall will finally come
Speaker 6: and visit. Do you think he calls it an allicopter?
Speaker 3: Oh my god, how the whole thing came.
Speaker 2: He doesn't want a helipair, He was like, I want
Speaker 2: to build an alli pad. Is it enough for a
Speaker 2: community to simply not like something, for counsel to have
Speaker 2: to change its mind when it comes to consenting all
Speaker 2: different kinds of plans.
Speaker 1: No, the act says you must demonstrate that you are
Speaker 1: adversely affected, and that is harder perhaps than people think. Look,
Speaker 1: this particular decision is a real matter of judgment and
Speaker 1: I would be surprised if it doesn't go to appeal
Speaker 1: because I think that this is one of perhaps it's
Speaker 1: just a small number of people seeking helipads in established
Speaker 1: residential area. I know there's a lot on y Heki,
Speaker 1: but you can see, well, that is a very mixed area.
Speaker 1: It's not densely urban, it's partly rural, partly rural residential, etc.
Speaker 1: So you might expect things like helicopters in that environment.
Speaker 1: All that the evidence that they have been presented. However,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that they may be overalled by a
Speaker 1: higher authority. And that's what the Environment Court exists for
Speaker 1: so that people can say, we're not happy with this decision,
Speaker 1: we believe is defective in the following ways, we want
Speaker 1: the Environment Court to consider it. And in New Zealands
Speaker 1: our system is very often in terms of giving people
Speaker 1: the right to make comment on these sorts of development
Speaker 1: and also give them a path to a higher level
Speaker 1: of appeal. It's not actually a standard point of every
Speaker 1: other planning system. Across the world. We have always had
Speaker 1: a very generous system in that regard. However, in the end,
Speaker 1: from my experience, some people will never be happy.
Speaker 2: What about when it comes to a sixteen meter tall
Speaker 2: Buddha statue in why We're the Valley right now?
Speaker 1: That is an interesting one, definitely a one off. However,
Speaker 1: as the cancel has pointed out, the plan has a
Speaker 1: new definition of what is art, because remember, art is
Speaker 1: in the eye of the beholder. I couldn't imagine you
Speaker 1: being able to easily write a definition of what is art.
Speaker 1: For the people who are erecting it, this is a
Speaker 1: symbol of their faith. So in many ways, if you
Speaker 1: think about it, cathedrals have great height and steeples, etc.
Speaker 1: Because they are again indications of faith. In this case,
Speaker 1: it's going to be put into a rural residential area
Speaker 1: where essentially there's just brassland around it, on undulating land.
Speaker 1: It will be prominent, but because the activity has not
Speaker 1: been defined, there will be nothing in the plan that
Speaker 1: controls it. Yes, it will be a prominent structure, but
Speaker 1: I think that is the whole point. These people want
Speaker 1: this as a signal of their faith.
Speaker 2: Do you think that from now it gives credence to
Speaker 2: the fact that perhaps something like that should be in
Speaker 2: future plans.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, it might be. But remember when you sit
Speaker 1: down and write a district plan, and have done this myself,
Speaker 1: you have got to try and look at what is
Speaker 1: in the world in front of you and what might
Speaker 1: be in the world ten years ahead. So you're trying
Speaker 1: to predict the future. So yes, the district plan would
Speaker 1: have had to have contemplated that, but there's no real
Speaker 1: signal I think that this sort of thing was going
Speaker 1: to emerge. So yes, sometimes district plans don't actually contemplate
Speaker 1: activity because remember, plans take a long time to go
Speaker 1: through the processes, partly because we allow a lot of
Speaker 1: consultation and submission, right and so, but the time a
Speaker 1: plan comes into operation, it's already a number of views,
Speaker 1: all in terms of the environment of whatever you want
Speaker 1: to call it that it's based on. Yeah, but again,
Speaker 1: how do you write a definition of art and what
Speaker 1: is acceptable to me might not be acceptable to you.
Speaker 1: But also, this is a rural residential area and there
Speaker 1: will be a lot of other toll structures could come
Speaker 1: into that environment. Wind power turbines come to mind, and
Speaker 1: our hells are decorated with them. You can't stand anywhere
Speaker 1: in the city of palmstanth No and not see your
Speaker 1: wind turbine.
Speaker 3: If I wanted to build a wind turbine, say in
Speaker 3: the middle of Palmerston North, and the council said no,
Speaker 3: could I erect one anyway and call it art?
Speaker 1: I date it. I date it because there will be
Speaker 1: a definition of a wind turbine in the district plan
Speaker 1: and what you're proposing to do is covered by it.
Speaker 3: What if I bidazzle it, I.
Speaker 1: Know it won't make any difference in essence of it. Look,
Speaker 1: you can, and you could properly find a kese where
Speaker 1: you could do something, But for instance, in a residential area,
Speaker 1: generally there are hype restrictions. Yeah, I can see. I
Speaker 1: can see both sides of this. I can see why
Speaker 1: the neighbors are very upset, and I can see why
Speaker 1: of the people promoting it want to do it.
Speaker 3: How do planners balance competing interests?
Speaker 2: I guess, like economic development, you've got environmental protection and
Speaker 2: community needs and want How do they balance all of
Speaker 2: that in their decision making?
Speaker 3: Is it basically based on precedents to some extent?
Speaker 1: But remember planners don't make decisions. They present evidence with
Speaker 1: a recommendation, but that recommendation can and is ignored because
Speaker 1: the decision makers see that situation in a different way
Speaker 1: what the plant does as they see. The first thing
Speaker 1: you look at is what are the effects, who are
Speaker 1: they going to affect, and what can we do to mitigate,
Speaker 1: to reduce or even eliminate that effect. So, for instance,
Speaker 1: if you wanted to build a particular building see a
Speaker 1: small avatar in the rural area, people might not want
Speaker 1: to see that. Therefore, one way of addressing the visual
Speaker 1: impact of that on the neighbors would be to have
Speaker 1: planting around it, to have it well set off boundaries
Speaker 1: with the neighbors, etc. However, people sometimes don't care if
Speaker 1: there are conditions that are going to mitigate, reduce, or
Speaker 1: eliminate the effect because they don't believe that will actually
Speaker 1: happen and it can't be demonstrated. Unfortunately, until the activity
Speaker 1: takes place gets developed, there are at times unexpected effects
Speaker 1: that neither the applicant nor the decision makers have actually predicted.
Speaker 1: But in most cases, at the moment that artwork will
Speaker 1: look like a visual assault to everybody who can see it,
Speaker 1: because they are very focused on it and they don't like.
Speaker 1: With time, my prediction would be that people will eventually
Speaker 1: incorporate it into their view of the environment in which
Speaker 1: they live.
Speaker 3: Thanks for joining us, Caroline.
Speaker 2: That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
Speaker 2: can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
Speaker 2: at ends at harold co dot nz. The Front Page
Speaker 2: is produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is
Speaker 2: also a sound engineer.
Speaker 3: I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2: Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
Speaker 2: get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
Speaker 2: behind the headlines.