Wellington Scoop

Shelly Bay sale and lease of land – public invited to have their say

Press Release – Wellington Regional Council
The Wellington City Council is inviting public submissions on a proposal to sell and lease some of its land to Shelly Bay Limited, so a planned development of housing and public space can go ahead.

Shelly Bay Ltd’s development includes plans for a new neighbourhood, with 350 homes; a waterfront walkway; green space; parking and seating; cafes, bars and shops; a microbrewery and a 50-bed boutique hotel.

Shelly Bay Ltd is a joint venture between Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust (the entity set up to manage the Treaty settlement package for Taranaki Whānui) and developers The Wellington Company. The Council gave Shelly Bay Ltd resource consent for the development in April this year.

Acting Wellington Mayor and Housing Portfolio Leader Paul Eagle says: “The development is an opportunity for Council to resolve the future of Shelly Bay and enhance the open space and public’s access to the waterfront.

“Millions of dollars will flow into our economy during and after construction, with more than 100 full time jobs created when the development is complete.”

The proposal involves the Council selling a plot of land to Shelly Bay Ltd for housing, and leasing a plot of land and two buildings on the waterfront for the development of housing and commercial/retail space.

It is also proposed that Council and Shelly Bay Ltd share the cost of the infrastructure improvements (including upgrading the Council’s seawall and road) and the development of public space.

A Councillor working party has overseen the development of the consultation process and material.

Working Party Chair Councillor Diane Calvert says: “We want to ensure that the public have clear and complete information about the proposal to sell and lease land to Shelly Bay Ltd. We’re keen to hear people’s view on the proposal”.

Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust Chair Wayne Mulligan says the development at Shelly Bay will play an important part in the iwi achieving its aspirations for its people.

“We purchased land at Shelly Bay in 2009 and are keen to see the development go ahead so we can start generating value for our people. The development of Shelly Bay will greatly enhance our efforts to assist our people in achieving their social, educational and cultural goals, something all Treaty settlements should provide.”

To find out more detail about the Shelly Bay proposal and to make a submission, from next Monday go to wellington.govt.nz/shellybay or email your submission to shellybay@wcc.govt.nz

· Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and the Council will be contacting businesses in Miramar and Maupuia to invite them to a meeting to find out more about the development and proposal for Shelly Bay.

· Public drop-in sessions will be held at Shelly Bay from 11am-3pm on Sunday 23 and 30 July, including a short presentation by Shelly Bay Ltd at 12pm and 1pm and a display of the proposals.

· Members of the public can also view an outdoor display about the Shelly Bay Development – follow the signs when you get to the bay. An indoor display will be at City Council reception, 101 Wakefield Street.

· Public consultation starts on Monday 17 July at 9am and closes on Monday 14 August at 5pm.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url


  1. Michael, 14. July 2017, 23:09

    On paper this all seems really good BUT I would like to know exactly what sharing costs actually means in the following statement. “It is also proposed that Council and Shelly Bay Ltd share the cost of the infrastructure improvements (including upgrading the Council’s seawall and road) and the development of public space”.

    “Shared” indicates 50/50 does it not? My concern is Wellington ratepayers are going to be paying the major share to ensure the developers can make their profits!

  2. Paul S Goldsmith, 6. August 2017, 17:33

    The Cassells development as described looks fine on the surface.
    Councillor Simon Marsh suggests the approval requires the parties to “look at the bigger picture.” In view of the overall impact, 530 dwellings, and an increase in vehicle traffic from 1200 movements/day up to 4700/day is a critical issue to be addressed and solved. The impact of increased traffic to the Mt Vic tunnels and the Evans Bay/Oriental bay network requires resolving as a condition of the resource consent.
    The offering of a ferry service to the city may well be a clue to the best practice solution, maybe part of the mix of smart transport solutions. I suggest a city ferry service be considered as a broader network for the margins of the harbour. A system that connects say Shelly Bay, airport hub, Greta Point, Rewa bay, Oriental Bay, CBD, Inter-islander port , and there may be others. Brisbane City operates a catamaran service on its river. This focuses on passengers to and from the CBD and its hubs of city life, residential, commercial, education etc; that would seem like a good model to check for business comparison. That service links well to other transport networks, especially buses and private cars/cycles etc.
    Private car provisions. There would appear to be potential to plan cars out of the development. 350 new dwellings does not automatically mean 350 new private cars. Less or more ? , Ian Cassels, his talented professionals and the joint wisdom of WCC lead strategic staff and councillors can achieve a much smarter solution to car ownership and the suggested vehicle volumes: 4000/day if a “big picture” approach is applied wisely.
    The development is exciting however. I would be grasping this initiative as a catalyst for addressing smart transport. I would wish to see these two items as resource consent conditions.

  3. Mike Mellor, 6. August 2017, 22:04

    WCC and the developers acknowledge that this development will be almost entirely served by private cars, so planning cars out of it does not appear to be on the agenda. In Wellington’s harbour a small fleet of small ferries cannot provide a fully reliable service due to the vagaries of weather, maintenance and surveys, as current users know, even if there is an operator prepared to operate it. A bus service to Shelly Bay is not on anyone’s agenda, and cyclists will have to share the road with the increased traffic.

    That leaves just cars and walking as reliable, safe options, and all walkers will get is a narrow 1.5 metre footpath (assuming that other road users don’t encroach on it). So as far as the Shelly Bay proposal is concerned the car will be king, together with all that implies. And so much for the Great Harbour Way!