The property is scattered with sheds, houses, kids’ climbing frames and trampolines, a half-built American-style barn and a non-operational timber mill.
It is home to the Reids and, up until now, at least two other families, and is an “intentional living” community, where children are homeschooled and people visit to practice their shared Vedic faith.
The property has five additional dwellings, but the Western Bay of Plenty District Plan allows for only one dwelling and one minor dwelling.
The Reids defended themselves during their two-week jury trial earlier this year, saying they should be able to do what they want with their own land and were causing no harm.
‘Significant change of heart’
But this week it was clear there has been what the judge described as a “significant change of heart” and the family has now begun to “co-operate” with authorities to bring their property into compliance.
Enforcement orders were made at sentencing that will see the buildings removed and sold, or demolished; it’s understood the Reids are now making plans to have “tiny houses”.
Bianca, speaking on behalf of the family, told the judge that they are coming to terms with the upcoming change at their property.
She is choosing to see it as a “positive” and said they had already obtained materials for tiny houses.
Their “co-operation with the authorities” saw a compromise in terms of the enforcement orders made.
The Reid family (Jason, Dhruva, Bianca and Bhadra), pictured here at trial, spent two weeks defending 25 charges related to unconsented dwellings and buildings on their rural Katikati property.
They are “less onerous” than what was initially proposed by the Crown, Judge Kelvin Reid said, adding they will need to be complied with over a “longer period of time”.
The orders will mean that eventually the property will comply with the District Plan, but they will have until the middle of next year to finish the work.
Amicus lawyer Peter Attwood advised the court that Dhruva Reid will be a “one-man band” in terms of any disassembly of the dwellings and the construction of the planned tiny homes.
Speaking after sentencing, Bianca confirmed that buildings were for sale, and would be removed from the property.
In their place, they planned to have tiny homes on wheels with composting toilets, which didn’t require consents.
She said they still felt their “wings were clipped from the start”, in terms of how the court process played out.
However, she felt it was their “destiny that this change has come upon us”.
More than $138,000 in fines for the Reids
In addition to enforcement orders, the judge needed to decide what penalty to impose for each family member.
Across the four, they were convicted on 23 charges, which primarily related to their using more than one dwelling, failing to comply with abatement notices and notices to fix, and operating a commercial kitchen in a large building, without resource consent.
The Reids denied the large kitchen was used for commercial purposes, for food preparation for their catering company, One Love, but a jury disagreed.
The Crown was not seeking imprisonment, which the judge noted would not have been appropriate in this case, so the question was whether they’d be landed with fines, ordered to do community work, or be subject to community detention.
A pre-sentence report indicated the family had a “meagre” ability to pay fines.
However, on the eve of sentencing, the Tauranga District Court received a letter from someone offering to pay $135,000 on behalf of the family to assist with fines.
Initially, it appeared this would be conditional on there being no other penalty or enforcement orders to make the property compliant.
However, during the course of sentencing, Bianca confirmed it would still be paid if enforcement orders were made.
The judge made an order for fines to be paid within seven working days – or the Reids may be resentenced.
A total of $138,040 in fines was split into various amounts across the four family members, to reflect their varying levels of culpability and personal circumstances.
They were all given a 30% discount to account for the cost of the enforcement orders to the family, which the judge said would be a “major upheaval”.
The end fine for Bhadra Reid was $32,760; Bianca Reid was fined $27,720; and both Dhruva and Jason Reid were fined $39,000 each.
Following sentencing, Bianca said they didn’t know the benefactor personally, but had a mutual connection with them.
“All I can say is there are generous, well-intended, wealthy people who have heard about our case and feel sympathetic.”
The judge was provided with 12 character references for the family, which he said spoke of the “warmth, generosity, and genuine care they extend to those around them”.
He said it was “clear they are held in high regard” by their community.
However, the Crown said any credit for good character had to be tempered by their offending, which had taken place over a significant period of time.
The property ‘grew without a plan’
Bhadra Reid said, following the trial, that the property “grew without a plan” as they erected buildings to meet the needs of their expanding family, and other families they allowed to live on their property.
The Reid family spent two weeks defending 25 charges related to unconsented dwellings and buildings on their rural Katikati property.
The family’s position was best summed up in a letter they sent to the Western Bay of Plenty District Council in February 2021, some four years before they found themselves arraigned in the dock.
“The need for further building, which we see as our God-given right, has become a necessity.
“As it affects only ourselves, we consider it inappropriate for others to meddle in the process. It is difficult enough for us to build within our meagre means, and as such, we consider it justified that we proceed accordingly.”
Essentially, they wanted the council to leave them be, to do what they wanted to do on their land.
However, Bianca Reid said they now accepted the jury’s verdict.
“We may disagree with it, but we have showed positive action towards compliance in the last few months,” she told Judge Reid.
Judge Reid acknowledged their compliance with enforcement orders would affect their homes and personal living arrangements which “are important to them and their families”, and were connected to their “personal beliefs and their faith”.
He also noted there was a lack of evidence of any environmental harm from their offending.
While the judge said it was clear during the trial, and up until the verdict, that the family previously did not think the law applied to them, he considered this was “misguided rather than malicious”.
Bianca Reid told NZME the idea they hadn’t thought the law applied to them was overstating their position, and perhaps went a bit “too far”.
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.