A third bid in a decade to build a home on a hill overlooking Warrington has parts of the settlement up in arms again.
However, the landowners behind the latest attempt say their plans will protect the site and prevent it falling into the hands of developers.
Jamie Ryan and Karyn Becconsall-Ryan, of Waitati, have applied for consent to build the 438sq m home, garage and decks at the top of a headland at the northern end of Warrington Beach.
The proposal was against district plan rules in part because the 9.8ha rural site was less than the 15ha needed for a residential home on rural land.
However, as part of their pitch, the couple have offered an ''ecological enhancement'' programme under which existing pine trees would be replaced with natives, and a nearby stream and wetland area would be improved.
The application attracted 18 submissions - 11 of them opposed to the home - and prompted debate at a Dunedin City Council resource consent hearing this week.
It was the third attempt to build a home on the site, after two previous bids by the site's former owner were rejected in the 1990s, amid opposition from residents worried about visual effects and other issues.
Opposition to the latest proposal came from Warrington residents, neighbours and members of the Blueskin Bay Watch and the Warrington Reserve Group, who were concerned the home would be visible from all over the town and bay.
Dr Becconsall-Ryan said she and her husband had bought the site thinking it would be ''an amazing place to have a family home''.
However, they also wanted to be ''part of the community'', and said ''if we didn't buy it, some out-of-town developer would''.
That could result in the site being rezoned residential and developed, whereas their plan was for most of the site to be left as undeveloped rural land, and farmed on a lifestyle basis.
''It is our genuine belief that the headland at the north end of Warrington beach should be protected in the long term in the public interest.''
The couple were also committed to their plans for ecological improvement, ''not simply because it is a nice thing to do, but because it will significantly enhance the environment as seen from the beach'', she said.
The couple's counsel, Phil Page, went further, saying the site was ''quite simply too important to Warrington'' to be subdivided, and the protection of coastal environments was ''a matter of national importance''.
However, submitters opposed to the house argued it would be visible from the rest of the township, and allowing it - when other sites were available inside the residential zone - encouraged urban sprawl.
Rosemary Penwarden, of the Blueskin Bay Watch group, said the area's coastline had ''so far avoided permanent intrusion into natural coastal landscapes''.
''This proposal would set a precedent for such development,'' she said.
Geraldine Tait, from the Warrington Reserve Group, agreed, saying allowing the home could encourage development of other rural land to the north and south, including Potato Point.
''The reasons for refusing past applications still holds up.''
However, council consultant planner Julie McMinn recommended consent be granted, in part because the planning environment had changed since the 1990s.
Members of the hearings committee - chaired by Cr Colin Weatherall - would conduct a site visit before deliberating and releasing a decision.
