Selwyn Council Faces Backlash Over Huts Eviction Options

The ongoing dispute between residents of Upper Selwyn Huts and the Selwyn District Council is reaching a critical phase as residents prepare to voice their concerns over proposed tenancy options. Currently, there are 93 residents facing the prospect of eviction, with the council presenting three options that all include a definitive end date.

The council’s proposals include a five-year fixed term with no possibility of renewal, a single 30-year fixed term, or rolling ten-year terms that could extend up to a maximum of 30 years. Each option has been met with strong opposition from the residents, who are adamant that none are acceptable.

Public Hearing and Community Response

During a five-week consultation period, the council received 211 submissions from residents, supporters, and various stakeholders. A public hearing is scheduled to take place at the Lincoln Event Centre where 59 individuals have signed up to present their views. Following this hearing, council members will deliberate on the options, culminating in a final decision during the last council meeting of the term on September 17, 2023.

Many residents expressed their frustration with the council’s approach. Katie Cranston, one of the submitters, highlighted the lack of flexibility in the proposed options, stating, “The way this form is, I have to pick one. But I do not agree with any of these. Residents should be allowed to extend beyond 30 years.”

Another resident, Bronwyn Murphy, echoed similar sentiments, saying, “They all end in eviction. Why even ask the question if it all ends in eviction?” This sentiment was further supported by Sue Stokes, who remarked, “There is no option for a licence in perpetuity. This is an unfair question as it only gives options for shutdown and not continuance.”

Concerns Over Eviction Trigger Points

In conjunction with the tenancy options, the council also sought feedback on proposed “trigger points” that could justify the eviction of residents if the settlement were deemed uninhabitable. Proposed scenarios include flooding that cuts off vehicle access for more than 24 hours, destruction of roads, or any flooding event causing serious injuries or fatalities within the settlement.

Residents have raised concerns regarding the fairness and consistency of these trigger points. Dean Syme, another submitter, criticized the council, stating, “There are plenty of other parts of Selwyn that get cut off two or more times per year due to flooding, snow, and other weather events. So that should not be a relevant argument.”

In the past, residents were advised to evacuate during heavy rainfall in May due to flooding risks; however, the stop bank successfully prevented the Selwyn River from breaching its banks. This incident has led many to question the council’s rationale for the proposed evacuation criteria.

The outcome of this dispute not only affects the current residents of Upper Selwyn Huts but also reflects broader issues regarding housing security and the rights of long-term residents in similar settlements. As the public hearing approaches, the sentiments expressed by residents indicate a strong desire for a more permanent and secure arrangement.