For those living outside Wanaka it is difficult to understand the depth of feeling over the planned watersports building on the edge of the lake in the Roys Bay Recreation Reserve.
The issue, the debate and the hearings have divided people with strongly held, genuine views. Both sides are concerned about the future of the town they love.
Judge John Hassan this week disallowed the appeal by Save Wanaka Lake Front Reserve Inc against the decision to grant resource consent for the 420sq m Wanaka Watersports Facility.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent already and no actual work on the ground has started. Assuming there is no appeal to the High Court, the way should now be clear for the Wanaka Watersports Facility Trust to raise further funding and find contractors.
There is no doubt a waterfront centre is needed. Wanaka as a prime scenic, adventure and lifestyle destination continues to boom. Along with that comes the need for all sorts of facilities beyond the indoor aquatic centre, sports grounds and the impressive network of walking and cycling tracks.
The lake itself is a magnet for rowers, swimmers, multisport athletes, paddle-boarders and kayakers. These growing non-motorised activities need a home, and the corner of the lake by Stoney Creek was the logical place, already being popular with participants and facing into the prevailing northwest wind. While arguments will remain over whether other sites were feasible, the facility trust has always claimed other places were not workable.
Wanaka, fortunately, has for many years had strong lobbies to preserve its special places. The fights over Eely Point and Penrith Park are testament to activism that has safeguarded premier public spaces against threatened development. Meanwhile, for all the criticism it sometimes receives, the Upper Clutha Environmental Society has achieved much over a long time to safeguard outstanding natural landscapes.
Wanaka is blessed with its open lakeshore near the town. Too often in New Zealand and overseas access to harbours and lakes has been blocked through private ownership and buildings and sections right to the water. Ideally, no more structures would be built on reserves by the lake. In this instance, however, there is a strong countervailing public interest, the acute need for the facility for the people of the district. Therefore, any decision on the application inevitably compromises one ideal against another.
At least, the Resource Management Act has allowed for a method where opposing values can be debated and an independent decision made. Insiders and influential citizens could not just make a decision on the terms the backers wanted. The proposal was exposed to extensive scrutiny and discussion.
The impact of the building is ameliorated to some extent through the process, even if the fundamental decision must come down on one side or the other. Conditions can also be attached so the public are not shut out.
Wanaka residents and holiday-makers have long argued the town should not become another Queenstown. Given Wanaka's rapid expansion, it is heading towards where Queenstown was some years ago, whether that is liked or not.
Wanaka can, nevertheless, use the experience of its much larger neighbour across the hill and learn from that, balancing in this case the value of pure preservation against the value of suitable facilities. Whatever the outcomes, Wanaka's popularity means town residents and decision-makers must keep an eye on the horizon.
That might mean a major retail precinct on the edge of town, as in Three Parks. It might mean provision for higher-density housing so everyone can be fitted in the decades ahead. And it might mean attention to long-term arterial roads, recognising how quickly traffic density increases.
