No Hilton for Wellington
The Environment Court has turned down the proposal for a 5 star Hilton to be built on the Wellington Waterfront.
I was generally supportive because the current location is occupied by an ugly warehouse used for indoor sports which just doesn’t make any use of the stunning views of its location. There may have been features of the actual proposal which made it undesirable -but I haven’t studied it in detail.
Wellington has no top class hotels at all. The Intercontinental (which fought the proposal as they don’t want competition) is closest, but we will struggle to attract certain conventions and conferences without a five star hotel.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Environment Court, Hilton, RMA, Wellington Waterfront
March 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I hope the decision was not based on flooding from global warming.
March 15th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Cheer up David, maybe Paris might visit, whether she is five star or not is debatable.
March 15th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Someone needs to tell the Environment Court that there’s a difference between careful development (perhaps cluttering the waterfront with tall buildings isn’t all that aesthetically pleasing) and no development at all. I wonder if any attempt was made to reach a compromise?
edit: sideshow bob… I hear she’s five (herpes) scar though…
March 15th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Rex, don’t say that sort of shit about Paris please.
She’s allllright.
March 15th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Yet another case of anti-competitive NIMBY syndrome in the Environment Court:
Nearby property owners?
It’s about a protective shield being wielded as an anti-competitive sword: I think a proper balance has yet to be struck between those genuinely aggrieved by a project/development (shield), and those who are commercially motivated to appear before the Environment Court (anti-competitive sword).
This is another recent illustration of the problem:
Back to the Wellington waterfront issue, I’d also like to hear from those arguing against the development: what alternative would they propose for the waterfront area, and who should pay for it – the hapless ratepayers? I’ll read the decision as I’d like to know who currently owns the land – the council?
March 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
The Intercontinental is just plain shabby and desperately overpriced. The Bolton is cheaper and MUCH nicer.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Bloody Intercontinental.
Bloody environment court.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I have to admit that the Bolton would have to be my favourite Wellington Hotel. I can’t comment about the price as I’ve only ever stayed there on business and never had to worry about that but the rooms and service is always outstanding. My only criticism is that their breakfast buffet isn’t the best (the menu selection is much better) and I would prefer that their meals were a little less “artistic” and a bit more substantial.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Good post POC. The anti competitive hijacking of the consent process can only happen to the extent allowed by the district or regional plan, and even then (hopefully) on reasonable grounds. More importantly the environment court won’t piss about with frivilous objections, if the objection is raised by a competitor, it’s still got to based on a decent argument or the Court will throw it out.
It just so happens that the only people who can be arsed ( and have the money for) objecting usually are competitors.
At worst, a competitor can only slow the process down. Unless there’s substance behind the objections the consent will be granted anyway.
I just wish there was an environmental lawyer around to comment on this issue.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Helmet:
Just ask Philu or Phillip John/Roger Nome – I believe they could refer you to, er, yourself
March 15th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
The Hilton design wasn’t exactly inspiring, so I’m not so sad to see to blocked.
For a well-informed view on this see the Eye of the Fish’s latest blog post at the link below. The Eye of the Fish is an excellent ‘wide-angle view of urban life, design and architecture in Wellington’. This blog is a great example of how blogging can be used for niche topics. Recommended.
http://eyeofthefish.org/the-hilton-vanishes/
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
March 15th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Its not the end of the world. Apartments and shops would go well there too. Or just nothing.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Bryce:
Thanks for the informative link. I note the following quote:
Who currently owns the site?
I was hoping to find the answer by reading a copy of the EC decision. However, it appears that EC decisions aren’t freely available (the EC website, surprisingly, doesn’t list any recent decisions of interest) – only through subscription-based websites. Can anyone shed any light on this?
March 15th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
No doubt POC, no doubt. You’re pretty quick today dude!
By the way, you wanna have a heated debate about peak oil while we’re all here? I’m going to say it’s a conspiracy, what do you think?
March 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I had a look on brookers for you POC, they won’t let me access the full text unless I pay more. I’ll keep looking.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Helmet:
I won’t try DPF’s patience by taking this thread in a new direction.
Let’s just say I’m torn between feeling sorry for Phillip John/Roger Nome. One fateful Sunday morning last year, over here, he was “freaking out about the fact that we are on the cusp of global recession yet no one in New Zealand’s blogsphere seems to have a clue about it“. Phillip John/Roger Nome arrived late to the party: Philu has apparently been trying – trying being the key word – to tell Kiwiblog readers for “well over a year..what’s coming down“.
Whatever next from those two “Agony Aunties”?
Thanks for trying Brookers. I tried looking at NZLII – but they don’t seem to collect Environment Court decisions. I’m not complaining, as they do a great public service as it is.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Bugger. This week it’s been soooo hard to get a thread going on peak oil. I just thought, y’know, what with your name and all….. you might be into it?
Brookers want to charge me fifteen bucks per page for the pdfs of the case, if you spot me the cash I’ll hook it right up! It’s only a few pages. You’ll just have to take a packed lunch this week.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Helmet:
$15 per page (it’s reportedly a 94-page decision) is a bit steep. Guess I’d better become a “highly-paid academic” before I take up your offer. I hear the pay rates are better than for lawyers – especially environmental lawyers like you
March 15th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Lawyers are leeches.
Edit – I thought that Wellington already has a Hilton Hotel and it was called the Beehive.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
D4J:
Steady on there – not all lawyers work in (or for) the Family Court. I’m a commercial lawyer and Helmet is (if you believe Philu and Phillip John/Roger Nome) a full-time environmental lawyer and part-time malicious website hacker.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
POC; the real smart lawyers always grab commercial law dude. My beef is with bent criminal lawyers.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Wellingtonians = NIMBYS
March 15th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Welcome to our lovely Capital it is called Nimbyton.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Slightly of topic but still covering the RMA. Look at the Pak and Save case on the North Shore, Progressive ( funny name that ) Enterprises have manged to prevent it opening for over two years as they wander off to the Environment and High Courts to object to anything they can find. Foodstuffs did the same at Ferrymead to a Woolworth’s Store a few years ago but I do not think that the North Shore case is Utu it is just purely an attempt to reduce competition.
Using the RMA for a commercial purpose was not one of the things that its authors would have planned I am sure. This shows that there is a need to reform the RMA and other Planning Laws to remove the ability of a competitor to stymie a development so as to reduce the threat of competition
March 15th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Stuarts-Burgers:
Indeed. And see here for yet another example – concerning Josephine Grierson and her $15m development of a Northcote shopping outlet:
I’d be hardpressed to clearly formulate a test for objection rights under the RMA, as it’s not my area of expertise, but the status quo is unacceptable.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Why would a small fishing village like Welllington need a 5 star hotel?
I guess to attract higher class hookers for the MPs?
March 15th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
The Environment Court is a sham tribunal set up by socialists to enable minority activists to use vexatious claims to slow development for their own political and commercial ends.
It should be shut down at once, and the money previously appropriated for it’s running costs returned to the taxpayers of New Zealand.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:55 am
I’m an ex-pat “Kuh-wuh” living in Bangkok, Thailand. There are 3 Hiltons here in Thailand, the Bangkok one overlooking the city centre with wonderful views day and night. There are condos and offices going up all the time in Bangkok, 20 to 40 storeys. New giant airport, Suvarnabhimi Airport, just (1 year) completed, elevated rail link from city to airport still being built. New subway recently (2 years ago) finished, elevated lightrail “Skytrain” being extended. Just look at his project recently completed, massive suspension bridge:
http://www.angkor.com/2bangkok/2bangkok/Bridge/wongwein/wongwein.shtml
Just in my local neighbourhood (I live in the “‘burbs”, where it’s cheaper – the small 23rd-floor 2-bedroom condo I rent is $320 a MONTH) a new bridge over the Chao Praya river has just been completed at Pakkred, with follow-on flyovers along Chaengwattana Road and tunnel under the nearby 5-way Pakkred intersection.
When I read about this court turning down a hotel and IKEA store, and housing being unaffordable (my 60-year-old mother has just mortgaged the rest of her life away after buying a tiny cottage in Port Chalmers), I just despair for my country. It’s like there’s some dark power at work willfully sabotaging the country’s development and future.
Bangkok is congested and polluted, Thailand’s still developing, with various internal problems of its own (social, cultural, economic, political), but at least if some infrastructure is needed, THEY ACTUALLY BUILD IT. Why isn’t there a second harbour bridge by now? Why is Auckland still debating the Western Ring Road after FORTY YEARS? Transmission Gully?
New Zealand is sinking into a quagmire of visionless mediocrity and eventual oblivion.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:59 am
We cannot tar all Wellingtonians with the same brush.
There is however a very vocal minority in the city which opposes every new project on the grounds that may affect the environment, i.e., the Hilton, the Aquarium, Transmission Gully, extensions to the stadium, etc.
The Luddite Greens are at the forefront of this opposition, alongside the perennially discontented. It is lamentable this mob are left to dictate the pace, and, even worse, the Courts side with them.
Shame on the rest of the population of the capital for its passivity and for tolerating this abuse of rights by a minority.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Waterfront Watch don’t speak for me, and I doubt they speak for many Wellingtonians. They really need to travel more and see what a thriving, beautiful waterfront really looks like, rather than perpetrating an empty, rusting tin shed museum, which is what we have now.
Bloody socialists.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am
ISeeRed – But at least it will be a carbon neutral oblivion! *snort*
March 16th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I wonder if anyone from the environment court has even been to visit the outer “T” where the Hilton was going to be built.
Generally there’s no-one at all on the entire section of wharf other than those of us that play indoor soocer etc there. On the news the other night two people were using the entire outdoor space.
I have no problem with the Hilton not proceeding provided an alternative is offered. If we want public space, make it public space. At the moment it is a bloody great shed and the outside area isn’t used because it’s ugly, there’s nowhere to sit and it’s generally friggin windy – and, there’s a bloody great private helicopter pad at one end that is fenced off.
At least with a Hilton and some cafes/restaurants one could have a meal there or stay a night or two on special occassions but as it is no-one will use it at all.
So, I just hope if the opponents are successful (I undersatnd there’s 15 days to appeal) they might come up with an alternative rather than simply being against changing the bloody great ugly shed that’s there now!
March 16th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
We stayed in a motel in WGTN last year, had a 70′s socialist theme, jeeess it was tacky and really shite, outrageously overpriced obviously due to the lack of competition, an ya wonder why WGTN is NZED’s only real gulag, the RMA is being used by companies to hold the citizens to ransom, I bet Geoffery Palmers law firm was involved in the process somewhere.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
The Act actually says that consent authorities must NOT have regard to trade competition but over the years the lawyers and hired gun consultants have corrupted that to mean that this only refers to price competition and that genuine innovation is a terrible threat which leads to the inefficient use of resources. In other words if this interpretation of the RMA had been around when aircraft were being introduced into NZ they could have been prevented because all those ships would be sent to the break up yard – and as for TV vs Radio or the Internet vs telephones – forget it.
Hence here is my proposed reform for the relevant sections of the RMA:
(3) A consent authority must not—
(a) have regard to any effects on social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which may arise as a result of trade or business competition, including competition based on price, innovation, location, scale, or term, or as a result of any re-distribution of expenditure or investment arising from any business or trading activity, when considering an application:
The existing ACT simply says “A consent authority must not have regard to trade competition. I can only hope the extra words make things “perfectly clear”.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
The other issue this points up is that there are now two “publics” in New Zealand. Those sitting on their own land or using public land.
They have remarkable rights to prevent other people using their own land – including effects on the environment, on their own property values and their own amenities.
But the public served by proposed developments have no rights at all to their enjoyment of the same amenities.
For example let is suppose this was a 1000 room hotel with dining rooms meeting rooms etc. It would be reasonable to assume that some 200,000 people a year might visit the hotel either as occupiers or attending conferences or just using the dining rooms. They would enjoy a wonderful view of the harbour etc etc. But these 200,000 or more members of the public have no rights at all. The only people who promote their enjoyment of the amenities are ranked as greedy developers hell bent on raping the earth mother.
The same with current children. Future generations have rights but they are lost as soon as they leap from their mothers’ loins.
It’s a weird world we live in.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
“. . as soon as they leap from their mothers’ loins.
It’s a weird world we live in.”
I’ve attended a few childbirths, but that’s something I’ve yet to see.
Sounds really weird.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Explains why Wellington is such a backward place and ignored by the rest of NZ as irrelevant.
Its a bitch of a place to find a nights accomodation during an average week, let alone when there is events on.
The accomodation scene in Wellington should be a shame for the whole city.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:40 am
“Explains why Wellington is such a backward place and ignored by the rest of NZ as irrelevant.”
Let’s not mention a recent stadium debacle then… Native trees on Queen Street… No, how ’bout some billboards then? Yep, Wellingtonians are wishing they were as advanced and cosmopolitan as a certain large settlement north of the Bombay Hills…
(I’d add a smiley face to show that the comment was tongue in cheek if they weren’t so corny…)
March 17th, 2008 at 11:57 am
enough rope’
It’s called poetic fancy.
Here are these future generations being given all these favours at the expense of current generations; so they could reasonably expect to find being alive a real treat – hence they leap from their mothers’ loins (a play too on a Shakespearian line from Macbeth), only to find they lose their rights immediately.
See how long it took to say in prosaic language.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“It’s called poetic fancy.”
Or purple prose, Or overwrought hyperbole, depending on your more-or-less poetic fancy.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I have used the RMA to get consents for my business (residential apartments – yes I’m greedy nasty and tearing the heart out of my community. Despite everything I’ve built being used right now as a home for a family. Quite an exceptional cntribution I would have thought. But thats another story).
I got a resource consent for a 14 level buildling that breached numerous plan requirements in one day once! The last one I also got within a few days (also 14 level building that breached height, recession plane, bulk , etc etc requirements).
The trick is to work with the local council, the immediate neighbourhood and the wider community in that terrible thing called ‘consultation’, which is really simply being open and honest and having lots of chats with your neighbours etc. Work with them and the council and things flow oh so easily. That then flowed into supreme ease in working through the subdivision consent process (titles out 3 months before the building was finished) and the building consent process (caouldn’t be faulted). My local council people are brilliant. And I suspect they are no different from other locales.
The reason resource consents fail is often because they go about things the wrong way. Near the top of the reason-for-failure- list is an overload of consultants and lawyers. I got the above consents with no such involvement at all. Limit consultants severely.
The fiasco above I would suggest is because of the way it was approached. Be interested to know who the developer is.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Mind you I agree wholeheartedly with the comments re the process being held to ransom by competitors. That is a serious flaw which I cant believe has not yet been rectified.
But overall the RMA proces no longer scares me and I have been working with it since its inception.
In fact, to the contrary, if it is approached the right way then some exceptional things are able to be achieved.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
vto
Your experience is the way it is meant to work but unfortunately it depends very much on the local councils involved.
I deal with people all over the country who have had things working very well for years and then suddenly a change in councillors, or change in planning staff or a change in the advising consultants can turn everything to custard.
You are obviously enjoying good fortune and have developed good skills but do not presume that the difficulties around the country are the fault of bad practice or lack of skill.
For nine years I enjoyed your kind of experience in my own District – then a change in the councillor line up and a change in the consultanting firm suddenly turned everything to custard – causing huge distress to all manner of people simply trying to look after themselves and their families. Fortunately, since the last election the new Mayor is working hard to turn things round and consents are now coming through after being deadlocked for two years or more.
So enjoy it while you can -it can all turn to custard tomorrow.