Sticky Forest

Love Sticky Community Forum
14 February 2017
‍
Panellists
‍Ella Lawton – QLDC Councillor
Mike Beresford – Representative of the beneficial owners of Sticky
Mike Theelen – QLDC CEO
Phil Page – Environmental and Resource Management Lawyer
Ian Greaves – Senior Planner and RMA Consultant
Facilitator
‍Simon Telfer – Bike Wanaka
 
The following are paraphrased notes taken by Bike Wanaka at the Forum. They have not been reviewed or verified by the panel and should not be taken as formal minutes of the community meeting.  
‍
Panel Questions
Simon - Mike B: Could you share with us where you are at with this process of transfer of legal ownership of the land from the Crown to you and the other families?
Mike B:The process to transfer legal ownership is currently with the Maori Land Court. The process is very slow as all owners need to be identified first.  There are some owners that are still unknown and may never be known.The Maori Land Court is working to find all owners and update them of the situation. Once all the owners have been found, they have to decide what category they would like the land to be zoned; Maori Reserve land or General land. Before a decision on land use can be made, the owners need to understand the needs of all owners and the local community. He noted that the owners are all descendants of the original families and are mostly in their 70’s and not living in this area. Then an entity needs to be established to take over ownership of the land.  This will all take a while – at least 6 months as the Maori Land Court itself is currently being restructured.
Simon - Mike B: Are all the families in agreement with what should happen to Sticky Forest when they become legal owners?
Mike B:This will be a long process, there is no unanimous agreement at this stage but that is what his Working Group are facilitating.   There are many people involved. There are four other land blocks nationally that are going through the same process although this block seems to be taking longer.
Simon - Ian: What is the existing zoning of the site and what, in simple terms, can the landowners do with the land?
Ian:The current zoning is Rural General with the majority of the land classified as Rural, Alpine or protected as an area of Outstanding Natural Landscape.It may be possible to change the zoning to Agricultural or Recreational.  It would be hard to change it to Residential or other. QLDC wants to keep the zoning as is or Agricultural and Recreational.
Simon - Ian:  On behalf of the future owners of the land, Mike B applied, under the District plan, for the land to be rezoned. Could you give us some background on that?
Ian:Mike B: has completed a submission to ask for a rezone of the land to low density residential.  He applied as an individual.  He did this to ensure the most value is sought for the land for the future landowners.  
Mike B: stressed he did this as an individual and not part of the Working Group.
Simon - Ian: What, in simple terms, will the landowner be able to do with the land if this submission is successful?
Ian:Every ten years the District Plan is reviewed.  In the last review period, Mike opposed the current zoning of Sticky Forest as Rural.  No further submissions were lodged.  The rezoning of Sticky was publicly notified along with 2-300 other areas throughout the district. No one put in a counter submission at this time either. Should Mike’s bid be successful Sticky Forest would be zoned as residential and could mean around 500 sections available.
Simon - Ella: What is the Council’s role in hearings under the District Plan?
Ella:-The council’s key roles are to follow the Resource Management Act and to; review the plan, decide how to do this, choose the commissioners and do the administration.
Simon - Mike  B: Do you have a sense as to what % of the total area of Sticky you may be looking to develop?
Mike B:Looking to rezone and develop less than half.  The southern half to be developed the northern half, from the area of Outstanding Natural Landscape to be kept as recreational. Mike would want to work with Bike Wanaka and Council to help keep the ‘best bits’ as is.
Simon - Ian:  There is currently no road access in to Sticky Forest.  What are the implications of that?
Ian:This poses a hurdle for development.  The Resource Management Act does require there to be road access.  But is confident a deal could be made with adjoining land owners to gain access.
Mike B:Back in 1906 the reason for the land deal was to give economic sustenance to the landowners.  The land did have road access at that time.  What happened?
Simon - Phil: Can access in perpetuity be granted to Sticky Forest?
Phil:Yes. The High Court has the ability to make this happen but would prefer to see a commercial deal struck rather than making an order.
Simon - Ella: What so you see as the possible future opportunities for the community in the use of Sticky?
Ella:-Can’t say until the ownership and its implications are decided.  Sticky could be anything from a 100% mountain bike park or multi use recreational space or even council buildings??
Simon - Ella: Do you have any examples of different approaches from elsewhere in NZ or overseas?
Ella:Locally the Snow Farm is a good example; community got the funding and then worked with the Council through a trust to take over ownership and management.  The Old Ghost Road is also a great example of volunteer partnerships (with DOC) to create a community project.  In Vancouver, Canada a similar situation as Sticky Forest existed with Cumberland Forest, the community funded and saved the forest. So different acquisition/ownership models can work.
Simon - Phil: Do you have thoughts on different acquisition, ownership and management models for the land? Is there anything that can be learned from Rotorua mountain biking or the new adventure park in Christchurch?
Phil:It is hard to please all.A good model may be for the Council to act as owners and a community group is set up to manage Sticky Forest as a reserve.  In Dunedin a similar model is working between Mountain Bike Otago and the Council.This model can work with any group, it doesn’t have to be the Council, it could be direct with other owners of the land.
Simon - Phil: Do you have a sense as to the value of the forest itself?
Phil:Currently Sticky Forest is more of a liability than an asset.  The forest is ageing and will need to be felled one day and there is no access to do so.  Once the forest is felled, what next?  Replace with a pine forest?  Revegetate?  Another commercial project?
Simon: There is a track counter on one uphill track in Sticky and since late April 2016 this has clocked 32,000 users, averaging 177 riders per day. At the peak time over New Year it was averaging 330+ riders a day.
Simon - Mike T and Ella:  Is the council able to quantify the value of revenues that mountain biking brings to the Wanaka community through bike retail, accommodation and other services used by visiting mountain bikers?
Mike T:Biking is popular in Wanaka and enhances visitor numbers.  No figures available.
Ella:Council does not collect such data but Lake Wanaka Tourism does; one in five visitors said biking was a reason to come to Wanaka.  This equates to 12,500 guest nights per year, $240k per day, $50-80million per year.
Mike T:Acknowledges that mountain biking is a key activity in Wanaka and if Sticky Forest weren't available than a replacement would be needed.  There is no site in mind.
Simon - Mike T: Where does the future of Sticky Forest currently sit on the QLDC list of priorities?
Mike T:High priority.  Council is awaiting the process decisions.  Once there are zoning and classification certainties they can participate where appropriate.  The main role of the council is to ensure the process is followed properly.
Simon - Mike T: What sort of financial reserves does the Council have to buy strategically important areas of recreational use?
Mike T:Reserves are from developer contributions and these are spread between Wanaka and the Wakatipu.  Other funds can be used too (unspecific).At present there is $2million in the Wanaka reserve.
Simon - Mike T: Can some of the funds from the sale of Scurr Heights be used to help acquire the land?
Mike T:$15million was made from the sale of Scurr Heights.  All $15million will stay in Wanaka. None of this fund is allocated yet but the Wanaka Pool will use some.
Simon - Mike T: There were reports that QLDC have commissioned Colliers International to value Sticky by the end of January 2016. Do you know if that took place?
Mike T: Yes. QLDC wanted to know what the value of Sticky Forest is.  This information is commercially sensitive, therefore any further information cannot be given.
Simon - Mike T: Could you share with us the status of any discussions between the Council and the beneficial owners?
Mike T:The Council have talked with Mike Beresford previously. There have been no formal discussions about partnerships or commercial agreements.
Simon - Mike B:  Have you had or are you in discussions with a developer?  
Mike B:Yes, has talked to a developer but no relationships, deals or decisions made.  The talks were to seek advice and assess options. At this stage, trying to find a balance and seek agreements from landowners/shareholders. No decisions of any kind can be made until ownership of Sticky Forest has been given.  This will take a minimum of six months, most likely longer._______
Subsequent questions from the floor:
Q: If Sticky Forest is rezoned will the ‘Outstanding Natural Landscape’ area be lost or rezoned also?
Ian:If Sticky is rezoned as residential the ‘ONL’ for that area will be lost.
Q: If the public are ‘shut out’ of Sticky by the landowners, can QLDC submit a deal or partial process?  How will QLDC represent the community?
Mike T:QLDC will try to maintain the current zoning (ie Rural).  All discussion, hearings and panels will adhere to the law. Once settled, QLDC does have options to deal or contribute.  Ultimately this will be a commercial deal done at that time.
Q (Simon): PC51 has been appealed.  What impact will the success of PC51 have on Sticky Forest?  Is there a link?
Phil:No link but the neighbouring developments of Kirimoko, Northlake and Peninsular Bay have all been designed around Sticky Forest.  So, if Sticky was rezoned it would be ‘game on’ for the neighbouring developers.
Q - Is it too late to make a submission against the District Plan?
Mike T: Yes.  Only Mike Beresford submitted at the time.
Ian:The opportunity to submit was completely missed.  The District Plan process is not that good for the general public to be aware of all the different submissions on zoning.
Quentin Smith (Community Board Member on the floor):There were 575 submissions at the time.  Sticky got lost in a huge process.  We all missed the boat.
Q - If QLDC created a ‘no build zone’ and reserve around Sticky then why allow Sticky to be rezoned?
Mike T:QLDC would like the land to stay ‘rural’ but it is private land and it will be up to Commissioners to make a decision.________


Closing observations from each of the panel members
Ella:  Thank you.  A lot of process is in play and we need to be patient.  The re zoning process is now out of our control but the community can be proactive outside of the council.  The community should act sooner rather than later.
Mike B: Discussions and relationships have been made with QLDC and Bike Wanaka.  Mike is wanting transparency and openness between all parties whilst prioritising the well-being of the landowners.
Ian:  Rezoning is not a certainty.  The Resource Management Act process must be gone through.  The community must trust the process and be assured that the Hearing Panel is experienced.  Would be surprised if Sticky was fully rezoned.  
Community involvement and ‘movement’ is needed.
Phil:  Sticky is private land.  The families are entitled to this land.  Let’s strike a respectful deal.
Mike T:  QLDC is ‘live to the issue’, understands all the options and wants to ensure all parties are allowed due processes.

Help fund Bike Wanaka Advocacy with a donation using PayPal or connected credit cards.