An accusation of "predetermination" was levelled at the Wanaka Sports Facilities Working Party during a fiery debate at the Wanaka Community Board meeting yesterday.
The debate was hampered by the non-availability of reports on two related matters - the Wanaka Lakeview Holiday Park upgrade and the proposed Wanaka Aquatic Centre.
The sports working party has investigated four sites for a proposed $6 million to $9 million "sports hub" and prefers the showgrounds and camping ground site.
This would close the camp.
Queenstown Lakes District Council chief executive Duncan Field had hoped all three reports needed would be available together, but said the camping ground review had proved harder to document than first thought, while the aquatic centre report was not due until next month.
Board deputy chairman Ken Copland led the charge against the working party yesterday, asking party chairman Mike Saunders if he was comfortable the report the working party presented to yesterday's meeting was "unbiased and correct".
Mr Saunders said he was, but Mr Copland was not satisfied.
"Personally, I think this document is a sham . . . it will do away with 40,000 people who come to the camping ground every year," Mr Copland said.
Mr Field had asked board members not to express site preferences until the 10-year long term community plan was considered in November - to do so could risk board members being disqualified from later debate.
The board's job yesterday was to agree to release the working party's document for public submissions, he said.
Mr Copland was asked by board chairman Lyal Cocks to "keep emotion out of this".
However, Cr Cocks added he shared some of his concerns.
The report will raise debate about the future not just of the camping ground but the nearby showgrounds and several "greenfields" sites on Ballantyne Rd.
It also raises new questions about Wanaka's proposed aquatic centre, which many thought would be built on Kellys Flat.
The working party now lists Kellys Flat and Lismore Park as the least favoured options - it favours co-location with a swimming pool, because of potential cost savings and community benefits.
An informal group first raised the question last year whether there could be a change of use for the showgrounds and campground.
The suggestion came after the council decided to spend $5 million upgrading the camp.
The council appointed the working party earlier this year to investigate various "sports hub" sites.
Mr Copland was annoyed by the working party's "unsupported assertions" the camping ground would be uneconomic even if it was upgraded, and that spending by campers would not drop significantly if they were relocated to other camps.
Mr Copland said he did not want the public to think the community board endorsed the report.
"In the last six to eight months, I've been told by lots of people around town and by members of the working party that the camping ground would be the focus . . . it didn't matter what I said or other people said, that would be the case.
"The report indicates that is where it has got to. The public needs to know that these people around the table today have not made a determination. We do have an open mind," Mr Copland said.
Deputy mayor John Wilson, who was on the working party, categorically denied" any predetermination on the issue.
People could hold personal opinions, but the chairman of the working party had been elected democratically and the report was fair and balanced, he said.
Board member Jude Battson, who is on the separate aquatic centre working party, said she was not against co-location of facilities if this was supported by the community, but the camping ground was a major and potentially divisive issue.
The majority of the board agreed to receive the report and authorised Cr Cocks to approve the final wording before it is released publicly.
Mr Copland and Ms Battson requested their dissenting votes be recorded.
