The future of Sticky Forest remains undecided despite a recent decision by the Environment Court to give the future owners of the land the option to develop approximately 18 hectares for residential use.

There are still a few hurdles to clear before the land is transferred to the future owners.

From there, it will be up to them to leave the forest intact, develop the land or sell it. 

“It will be for the intended owners to determine how they use the land within the scope of the District Plan, including the zoning of the land, and any other overlays on the land under the District Plan,” Department of Justice chief executive Lil Anderson told the Wānaka App.

The Crown will hold the land until it is transferred to the future owners. While Sticky Forest remains in Crown ownership, it will not prohibit people from using it recreationally, but Lil noted “there is no legal right to public use”.

Who are the future owners of Sticky Forest?

The Māori Land Court has identified more than 2,000 successors to the 50 original beneficiaries to land.

Court officers are working to identify successors to Irihapeti Toria, the last of the 50 original beneficiaries to be considered by the court. This research will be completed in 2025.

The group representing the future owners of Sticky Forest is “cautious to not raise expectations” about community use of Sticky Forest. PHOTO: Wānaka App

Once the Māori Land Court is satisfied with the list, the successors will need to determine how to receive and hold the land. Once they have made those decisions, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations will be authorised to transfer the land.

Read more: ‘Ngāi Tahu have always been here’: 200 years of tribal history

The Crown is bound contractually and by statute to transfer Sticky Forest to the Hāwea/Wānaka SILNA successors under the 1998 Ngāi Tahu settlement. 

What is SILNA?

In the late 1800s, the Crown agreed to make land available to Māori in the South Island, recognising that land purchases in the 1800s had left Ngai Tahu as a tribe, and as individuals, without sufficient land to sustain themselves.

Sections of land were assigned to specified individuals and legislation was passed by Parliament, the South Island Landless Natives Act 1906 (‘SILNA’), to effect the land transfer.  

Included in the SILNA scheme was land at The Neck (between Lakes Wānaka and Hāwea) which was allocated to 50 people. However, the SILNA was repealed in 1909 leaving some allocated blocks of land untransferred to the intended beneficiaries. The Neck was one such block; it was subject to a long-term pastoral lease to private leaseholders.

In settling with Ngāi Tahu, the Crown accepted that its failure to complete the transfer of the Neck was a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It also accepted its obligation to complete the SILNA transactions.

Sticky Forest was identified as a substitute block of land and made available for the successors under the Ngāi Tahu Deed of Settlement. 

The Environment Court decision

Some of the individual Hāwea/Wānaka SILNA successors identified by the Māori Land Court (Michael Beresford, Theo Bunker, and Lorraine Rouse) sought the rezoning of part of the land in Queenstown Lakes District Council’s (QLDC) 2018 proposed district plan. (Both Mike and Theo have died since Mike originally filed the appeal).

When the initial application was declined by QLDC, an appeal was filed with the Environment Court. On July 31, 2024, the Court upheld the appeal in favour of the appellants who sought rezoning of approximately 18 hectares of the land for residential use. 

The Attorney-General joined the appeal for the public interest given the land had been committed in the Ngāi Tahu Treaty settlement and is yet to transfer. Te Arawhiti (who administer the land in question for the Crown) instructed the Crown Law Office in the proceedings.

Crown Law said not advocating for the rights of the successors to use their redress as they see fit “would be a failure to actively protect the rights of the intended owners to this land”.

In some parts of New Zealand where forestry land has been transferred to Māori for redress, local bike clubs have secured access rights agreements with the landholding iwi. PHOTO: Supplied

None of the parties to the Environment Court proceedings appealed the outcome by the deadline of August 21, meaning the future owners will now have the option of developing the rezoned area.

Read more:

• Sticky Forest gets green light for residential development
• Council accepts Sticky Forest decision

How will the successors hold this substitute land? 

That is for them to decide through a Māori Land Court voting process, in accordance with the Māori Assembled Owners Regulations 1995. This might be 12 months away, the Department of Justice said. 

The Hāwea/Wānaka SILNA Group (which was formed in 2024 to represent the successors) will develop a proposal about how to receive the land, which they will present to the successors.

The successors are not limited to a particular type of ownership: They may choose to take the land as Māori freehold land subject to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993; or as general land; or they may sell the land after they have received it from the Crown. 

Decision-making about any possible disposal by the new owners will be subject to the way in which the land is held. For example, if the future owners choose to take the land as Māori freehold land (rather than general land), decisions to sell the land would be subject to limitations on disposal under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.  

What about community use of Sticky Forest?

Bike Wānaka has advocated for ongoing use of Sticky Forest by mountain bikers. The area is also used by locals for dog walking.

The adjoining owner on the eastern boundary, Northlake, has agreed to provide access over their land (provided for by the Northlake Private Plan Change 54 which is now operational in the district plan). 

The Hāwea/Wānaka SILNA Group has indicated they are open to forming a relationship with Bike Wānaka, the Department of Justice said. 

“However, they are cautious to not raise expectations, as the group will not be the entity to receive and hold the land for the successors, and future aspirations of the successors for the land are at this time unknown.”

The land is not subject to any easements or similar that make public use a legal right, and the Crown must transfer the land in the same state and condition as it was committed in the 1997 Ngāi Tahu deed of settlement.

In other parts of New Zealand where forestry land has transferred as redress, local bike clubs have secured access rights agreements with the landholding iwi through post-transfer negotiations. This includes the forestry land in Nelson transferred to Ngāti Koata and the Whakarewarewa forest in Rotorua. 

Where such use agreements have not been secured with landowners, landowners have asserted their landowner rights. For example, the Wellington City Council has closed a number of unauthorised mountain bike tracks and restored the damaged areas to their natural state in Thorndon (Te Ahumairangi Hill), Mount Victoria, Huntleigh Park, and Aro Valley.