Selwyn Huts resident Kirrily Fea says the ongoing wrangle with the Selwyn District Council is "exhausting". Photo:
Selwyn District Council heard more impassioned pleas for the future of the Selwyn Huts settlement, as residents presented to yet another meeting on Wednesday, councillors took yet another vote and staff waded through archaic legislation, council archives and numerous amendments.
A report was adopted, consultation will proceed with three options put to residents - whether they prefer licence terms of five years with a final, non-renewable expiry date, a single fixed term of 30 years with a final, non-renewable expiry date or rolling ten-year terms with the ability to renew, up to a maximum of 30 years total.
But some residents say the question is inaccurate, and appeared to confuse some of the councillors voting on it.
The first fisherman's huts at the Upper Selwyn Huts were built in 1888. Until about 1990, prospective owners had to have a current fishing licence in order to obtain a hut licence. Intended only as temporary accommodation, over the years there had been a drift from occasional to permanent use of the Huts.
Hut owners were granted licences to occupy, usually on a five-year basis.
Upper Selwyn Huts is managed by the Selwyn District Council, on a reserve owned by the crown, Springston South Reserve. According to the council, there are 96 occupancy licences, locals estimate around 150 people lived at the settlement.
A timeline contained in the council's report outlined many years of resolutions, legal advice and determinations, dating back to a decision in 2017 to explore refusing to renew licences or to renew them for a lesser term. A unanimous decision in 2019 determined the licences and renewals were "short term and ultimately for a finite period."
Deeds of licence due to expire in 2020 were extended via letters, and in 2022, another letter extended the licence to occupy until June 2024, on the basis of encroaching climate change and modelling showing rising sea and lake levels might put the settlement at risk.
Subsequent extensions were granted to allow for consultation processes with the community.
In March 2024, the council voted to confirm residentswould have to leave by 2039.
But in July, another vote saw the council agreeing to [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/523036/upper-selwyn-huts-residents-get-reprieve-from-future-eviction
pause the process] to allow for further consultation with residents.
The lawyer representing some Upper Selwyn Huts residents, Clare Lenihan, presented during the public forum at Wednesday's meeting, speaking to her legal opinion that council had obligations it was failing to fulfil under the 1924 Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act.
Several residents also presented, including Kirrily Fea of the Selwyn Huts Owners Association, the group retaining Lenihan.
The council faced a vote on several aspects relating to the huts, including whether to adopt a proposal laying out further consultation with residents and the specific questions to be posed, rolling over licences for another year, and how long to grant licence holders in arrears to pay outstanding amounts.
More than three hours later, an element of confusion reigned. Amendments to amendments were proposed, and for the most part lost, points of governance were challenged, and the council's legal, financial, and communications teams were frequently called on.
Eventually, the vote passed on the recommendations more or less as originally proposed.
But Kirrily Fea said the confusion, and hours spent rehashing old decisions and attempting to clarify new ones, is all part of the problem.
Her group's position was that the question council signed off on for consultation is flawed, and conflated terms of the lease with whether the leases were renewable or finite.
A bid by councillor Elizabeth Mundt to add another option, that would allow the terms of the licence to be renewed, was not passed.
She said it was disappointing to feel like they were back at square one, even after 14 months of consultation and engagement, time, effort and costs.
The report noted the council has spent more than quarter of a million dollars in this financial year on formal decision-making and implementation the licence.
Fea said engaging a barrister was a significant cost for the association too.
"It's very expensive, and it's exhausting."
The issue - and costs - became fraught after the council changed the management structure more than a decade ago, Fea said.
"Pre-2011, we had a sub-committee with one councillor on it, and we didn't cost the council anything".
But she said the group feels compelled to keep up the fight, because they don't believe the council is justified in making the terms of new licences finite and non-renewable.
There are about 95 occupancy licences at Selwyn Huts. The council initially gave residents a deadline of 2039, but has since paused the process to carry out further consultation. Photo: RNZ / Nate McKinnon
The council's own reports did not find the threat from climate change to be imminent, she said.
Both reports the council commissioned last year concluded the settlement would not be affected by rising groundwater and lake levels for thirty years or even later in the century, she said.
But Keith Morrison, representing another resident's group, said it was always privilege to hold a licence to occupy a reserve which had special recreational and wildlife values.
"We have always recognised - based on legal opinions obtained prior to signing our first licences and over the three decades we have had regularly renewed them - and we know that it cannot be taken for granted."
A change in the community began when the council allowed lease holders to rent their properties, "which turned the reserve into a real estate business and a type of de facto social housing."
"We consider the council made a mistake and request the council correct it."
If not, Morrison said his group requested the council "do it properly."
They wanted to see the council become the sole landlord for huts that became rentals, not licence holders, and have the council work with the Ministry of Social Development to ensure those most in need in the wider community received housing, enforced Healthy Home standards and linked rents to the income of those most in need.
Morrison said the move to allow licence holders to rent their homes had created a more stratified community, left some vulnerable tenants in substandard housing, and others to overcapitalise.
He said council needed to help licence holders and tenants on how to prepare for when the settlement is "eventually, inevitably closed down due to the effects of climate change" and accused some in the community of having a "sense of entitlement" as they arguing against contributing to infrastructure such as a new waste water scheme.
Councillor Lydia Gliddens told the meeting she failed to see why the terms had to be finite, and was "not convinced on the why" of the managed retreat.
Consultation will begin next month by mail, with drop in submissions to follow, and hearings planned for August.
A final decision is due in September.
