Council rejects mobile sauna's trading permit
Businessman and sauna-fanatic John Ryan has failed to get the go-ahead from the Central Otago District Council or Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand (Linz) to periodically park his travelling sauna on public land beside the lake.
Mr Ryan's sauna is 2.5m by 3m, can fit 15 people and sits atop a trailer pulled by his Land Rover.
"One side has a big open window, so you can look out to the lake," Mr Ryan said.
Several weeks ago, Mr Ryan had a trial run of the sauna at Alpha Street Reserve, offering free use of it to members of the public.
"I parked up near the swimming platform there, so people could have a sauna and have a dip," he said.
"Seventeen people turned up and they all loved it."
However, Mr Ryan's application to the district council for a mobile trading permit for the venture has been declined.
"Their excuse was they want to protect the reserve", he said.
He also took his idea to Linz, which administered some of the lakeside land in Cromwell, but staff there "knocked it back".
"I don't think they fully understand what it is or how it runs."
District council parks and recreation manager Gordon Bailey confirmed the reserve-land status of the spots Mr Ryan wished to park at was the reason his application was declined.
The land in question was governed by the council's reserve management plan — which specified what could and could not go on reserves — as well as the Reserve Act 1977, he said.
The commercial rather than recreational nature of Mr Ryan's activity meant it "was not consistent" with the plan, nor the Act.
Meanwhile, although Linz had no official record of a conversation with Mr Ryan, head of Crown property Sonya Wikitera told the Otago Daily Times her staff received many inquiries about the use of Crown land for commercial businesses and were always available to talk through a person's plans before any official application to Linz was made.
"When providing advice or assessing formal applications, Linz considers the potential impact on the Crown land, public use, impact on other businesses already operating in the area, other applications which may have already been made, feedback from other agencies and the public, as well as impacts on existing infrastructure like toilets, rubbish bins and carparking," Ms Wikitera said.
Mr Ryan's sauna is wood-clad, has a chimney out the top and is heated by a "Sweaty Meg" — a custom-built wood burner sold through his other business, Roaring Meg Fires.
"They're like traditional Finnish wood-fire heaters," he said.
On the trial night, Mr Ryan had hand-held lanterns ready outside the sauna for people to take to guide them down to the lake in between stints in the sauna.
He reckoned a one-hour session was about right — 15 minutes in the heat, five minutes for a cool dip, then back to the sauna and repeat times two.
Mr Ryan is a sauna convert.
"They're amazing; good for your health. I've 'sauna-ed' every night for, oh, I don't know how long," he said.
"They help fight cardiovascular disease. They're good for sleep. There's so much research been done on saunas now."
Mr Ryan's case is not the only one where a mobile sauna has faced consenting challenges.
The Marlborough District Council has gone back and forth on its decision to reject a proposal to allow a similar set up on reserve land beside a beach in Picton.
Mr Ryan has launched a petition in an attempt to persuade the Central Otago District Council to reconsider his proposal.
kim.bowden@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Real estate agents caught altering sale agreements
House buyers - particularly those using money from KiwiSaver - may be being put at risk by real estate agents altering sale and purchase agreements, the Law Association warns. The association's property law committee raised a concern with the Real Estate Institute after members noted real estate salespeople were altering agreements to waive buyers' title requisition rights. These give buyers time to ensure the title is acceptable, even if an offer is unconditional. Changes were also being made to allow the early release of buyers' deposits to the vendors. Law Association president Tony Herring said it was not a widespread issue, but had been noted on a handful of agreements. He said if the title requisition right was unaltered and there was a problem with it, the purchaser had time to get the defect fixed or to back out of the deal if necessary. But if it was not, he said, buyers could be put in an impossible position. "There's not often defects on the title but it does happen, and it happened to me recently where there was a cross-leased title involving four different properties and there was an error on the title. "To get that fixed is very difficult and very costly and can take quite some time because you need to involve surveyors, banks." The purchaser's lawyer would have to alert the bank to the problem. "If there is a defect on the title, the bank will then say 'we are not going to advance the mortgage funds until you've fixed it'. In the meantime the settlement date is coming up and the purchaser has to settle because they are in an unconditional situation, but they cannot raise the money from the bank. Therefore it is catch-22." Herring said a standard sale and purchase agreement said the person holding the deposit, whether that was a salesperson or a lawyer, needed to hold it for 10 working days, which aligned with the title requisition period. Once that was over and the buyer's conditions were satisfied, it could be released. "If the deposit is released earlier than that and the vendor spends the deposit - maybe they use it for paying down debt, to put a deposit on a house they are buying or they might go overseas, if the requisition period is activated and the purchaser has to cancel the contract - if that deposit is gone, it makes it much more difficult to get back." Herring said if someone was using KiwiSaver to pay a deposit, their lawyer had to give a legal undertaking to the provider that if anything went wrong and settlement did not go ahead, the money would be returned. But if something happened and the money had disappeared, that would be much harder. "It heightens the risk for KiwiSaver first-home buyers." He said people who discovered a change had been made to an agreement they had signed should seek legal advice. Real Estate Authority (REA) chief executive Belinda Moffat said her organisation had provided general advice to the sector on the issue. "Section 123 of the Act requires agents to hold money received in respect of a transaction for 10 working days - unless both parties agree to an earlier release. "Ultimately, this 10-day rule exists to protect consumers. If a vendor fails to settle, or an issue arises before settlement, if the deposit has already been released it could leave the purchaser with no security that their deposit can be recovered. "An early release of a deposit is only permitted by court order, or if each party to the transactions signs an authority agreeing to the early release. REA is concerned that some licensees and parties have sought to include an early release clause as an additional clause in the Sale and Purchase Agreement. "REA does not consider that an early release clause in the Sale and Purchase Agreement meets the purposes of the Act. Such clauses may undermine the consumer protection intent of section 123. Licensees should instead ensure parties give informed authority to early release." Moffat said she was not able to comment on the current status of any complaints. "We note further that whether there is a finding of breach of the conduct rules will depend on the facts of each case."
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Students' business taking on sunburn
Two Dunedin secondary school students are taking the fight to summer sunburn. As part of the Young Enterprise Scheme, Fleur de Clifford and Lily Falcous wanted to create a business idea that their peers would use and that served a purpose. The year 12 Otago Girls' High School students settled on creating their own sunscreen and did not want to see a single sunburn this summer. Lily said the idea came about because, as they grew up, many of their friends started giving up on sunscreen in an effort to get a "bronze tan". However, over the past couple of years she had noticed a cultural shift and sunscreen was "becoming cooler again". "SPF is now in lots of lotions. However, sometimes it just sits at about 15+. We wanted to make one that was more effective than that." So, they created their own sunscreen called "Sunscent", and sales go live on Friday. The sunscreen doubles as a bug-spray. Lily said not wearing sunscreen was a choice between having tan lines now or staying healthy for another 50 years. When the pair first started in February, they attempted to make their own formula, but soon found sunscreen was a seriously involved product to create. They changed tactics and cold-called more than 50 companies before finding an Auckland-based business that was willing to help them formulate the sunscreen and put the product through regulation in Australia. In New Zealand, sunscreen is regulated under the Fair Trading Act and the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act. It must be shipped to Australia to be tested, which costs up to $10,000. "That offer from the person in Auckland was so generous," Lily said. Fleur said the job was a lot tougher than they thought it would be and they briefly contemplated switching to lip balm. "Then we were like 'Oh, no, we can definitely do this'. "It definitely has a bit more complexity trying to create a sunscreen than some other projects we could have done — we wanted a challenge and we definitely got a challenge," Fleur said. At the moment, the pair had 50 units of sunscreen to sell, but had more on hand if needed.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Controversial West Coast mine has fast track-bid declined
By Kate Green of RNZ Te Kuha Mine on the West Coast has had its application for fast-track approval declined, after failing to meet seven of the application criteria. The project has raised concerns over its impact on the environment and had already been rejected multiple times by the courts. Now, a letter sent to the company behind the plan, Stevenson Mining, in March but only recently published, showed the application never got as far as the minister for final approval, with the Ministry for the Environment finding it did not comply with seven requirements in the Act. Notably, it lacked an explanation of why the fast-track approvals process would enable it to be processed in a more timely and cost-effective way than under normal processes. It did not consult with local authorities like Buller District Council, the Ministry for the Environment, Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the Department of Conservation. It did not address other approvals which would be needed for the project to go ahead, like access to land owned or administered by other parties, including KiwiRail, which runs the Stillwater to Ngākawau line near the proposed mine site. Stevenson Mining has been approached for comment. Te Kuha Coal Project would have created an opencut mine, with a footprint of 144 hectares, near Westport. It would have extracted some 4 million tonnes of coking coal - the kind used for making steel - over 16 years. It would have necessitated a land swap with the Department of Conservation, as it overlapped with stewardship land. The project had already been rejected by the Supreme Court in 2020 and the Environment Court in 2023. Adam Currie, campaigner for 350 Aotearoa, said it was welcome news. "MfE declining it for now is a win for the environment," he said. "It's the process in this instance working as it's supposed to." He said it showed the lack of regard for detail and process which mining companies often demonstrated. "It's pretty incredible that companies are making these massive applications that have ginormous impacts on all these things, and they're just not thinking through these basic things." But Patrick Phelps, manager of Minerals West Coast, said it was a new piece of legislation, and companies were "getting to grips with how it actually works". "It's a novel process - any applicant, they don't fully know what the expectations are. They'll get the best advice, hydrology experts, and they'll put forward the best information that they can. "While I'm disappointed that they haven't got over the line, I would simply say that that should be an indication to people that the fast-track process is not just a rubber stamp." A spokesperson from the Ministry for the Environment said it generally did not comment on individual fast-track referral applications, but explained that it checked referral applications against the requirements of the Acts. "Incomplete or non-compliant applications are returned to applicants, along with reasons for them being returned." Applications which met the requirements would then be sent on to the Infrastructure Minister (currently Chris Bishop), who gathered advice and reports on the project's impact and, if they saw fit, would refer it on to the final step, the expert panel. The ministry said applicants were allowed to reapply if their initial application was found to be incomplete, but it would be treated as a new application, with a fresh application fee - which, according to the MfE website, would cost $12,000.
