Wellington Scoop
Network

City Council confirms sale of its land for development at Shelly Bay

shelly bay artists impression of development

Wellington.Scoop
The Wellington City Council tonight voted to confirm the sale of a small piece of land that it owns at Shelly Bay – which is wanted as part of a controversial new housing development.

The council first voted in 2017 to sell the land, and today it debated the sale for a second time and made ” a final decision,” after years of controversy.

shelly bay vote 3

Nine councillors voted to sell the land, and six – including Mayor Andy Foster – voted against.

The DomPost reports that after the vote, Mayor Foster Foster called the decision “sad” and “flying against the majority of Wellingtonians.” He reiterated his preference for two legal challenges to be settled before the council made a call on the land sale.

The development plan includes 280 apartments, 58 town houses, a 50-bed hotel, and a rest home for 150 people.

Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh are among those who oppose the development, with concerns that include congestion issues on the narrow coastal road.

In the DomPost today, Tom Hunt wrote that the Shelly Bay development doesn’t hinge on today’s vote. But he said the meeting was still crucial. If the council decided not to sell the land, the developers would have to amend their resource consent. And if the council votes for the deal, [developer Ian] Cassels will want to get started immediately.

In the NZHerald, Georgina Campbell wrote that councillors would be voting on one of the most contentious land deals they would ever be presented with.

Four hours of public participation was scheduled before councillors started their debate at 6pm and reached their decision about three hours later.

50 comments:

  1. Claire, 11. November 2020, 13:16

    This is the wrong piece of land for housing, especially that many. Maybe a smaller amount would work. But then there is climate change, erosion, and the narrow road. And all the Iwi and possible treaty issues. Any smart councillor would say no.

     
  2. Michael Gibson, 11. November 2020, 13:33

    I have heard from the Council that they had enough requests to make submissions to last five hours if all were to be heard. Mine was turned down but the Council people have told me that my submission “that the report lie on the table” has at least been circulated to the Mayor and Councillors. Apparently there are 16 submissions which are due to heard. It would be quite wrong for the Council to proceed to do anything as things stand.

     
  3. Toni, 11. November 2020, 14:45

    This issue is contentious because of so many reasons and as such should be completely re-examined under a transparent process. The sale of the land seems to have been underhand along with the council-backed decision to block the public from having a say by pushing the project through under a Special Housing Area application which avoided normal planning rules and consultation. On top of this there are infrastructure and climate change considerations which the council has been banging on about regarding other projects, but seems happy to ignore this regarding Shelley Bay.

     
  4. Patrick Morgan, 11. November 2020, 21:31

    How will the WCC upgrade Shelly Bay Road to protect people on bikes and foot from 7000 vehicles/day + construction traffic? A narrow shared path is unacceptable. And who will pay? Many unanswered questions. [via twitter]

     
  5. Magdelena, 11. November 2020, 21:41

    Poor, ill advised decision – but good to know how aspiring future Mayoral candidates voted. Will the council now spend the money funding the profits for the developer, or funding something the whole community can use? Public open space is lost and ratepayers contribute to a development with no affordable housing.

     
  6. Toni, 11. November 2020, 21:42

    What a travesty. The process has been underhanded and I will find it hard to trust the councillors after this. Wonder how much in extra rates we are going to have to pay when it becomes obvious the infrastructure and roading will require a damn sight more than the agreed $10 million from the WCC.

     
  7. Tim Jones, 11. November 2020, 21:54

    While I understand why many Councillors voted for this, I think history will prove this decision to have been a mistake. And I hope the courts find likewise. [via twitter]

     
  8. michael, 11. November 2020, 22:03

    Just wonder how many more extra millions rate-payers will end up paying out to widen the road after a few accidents occur. No doubt it will mean the rest of us having to put up with a few more burst pipes for longer as council return on investment in Shelley Bay is highly unlikely to be covered by the extra rates it generates.

     
  9. Double Judy, 11. November 2020, 22:23

    If any of the nine councillors would care to explain their motivation on here I’d be grateful. All I’m hearing from them is – we must build houses wherever and however, regardless. To that I’d say this will basically be a gated community minus the gates for the uber wealthy and will not make a jot of difference to the housing crisis. The other argument is one around helping iwi which quite frankly is elitist – we know what’s best for you maori folk. A large group of the iwi don’t want this to go ahead and you refuse to listen to them! But hey, they might be able to buy one of the businesses in the development and slog their guts out trying to make a living out of it in the future. Also the destruction of one of Wellington’s finest open/green spaces and cycling/recreational routes. Some of these councillors are the most left leaning, environmental members on the council, I can’t fathom it. Chalk it up to another one of 2020s crazy outcomes.

     
  10. aom, 11. November 2020, 22:36

    This decision is another in the long line of questionable Council deals on behalf of well-heeled developers. At least voters will now know which are the naive newbies who don’t deserve a second term, and which longer serving Councillors have principles that need re-evaluation.

     
  11. Claire, 11. November 2020, 22:46

    Bad move councillors! Will this satisfy the spatial plan? These homes will be very expensive so probably not.

     
  12. Iona Pannett, 11. November 2020, 23:30

    Disappointing given the sea level rise, insurance and 27m high buildings but understand that there are benefits for mana whenua. Planning will need to be rigorous around hazards as we develop our new District Plan. Earthquakes and climate change coming. [via twitter]

     
  13. Luke Fitzmaurice, 11. November 2020, 23:44

    Kia ora Tamatha Paul, Teri ONeill, Rebecca Matthews – it would be awesome to know why you voted for the Shelly Bay sale, especially re the mau whenua issue (when you get a chance, I’m sure you’re busy and have been asked 100 times). Not a loaded question, just keen to hear your view. [via twitter]

     
  14. Rebecca Matthews, 11. November 2020, 23:45

    Kia ora Luke – factors for me were building housing when we have a crisis of supply, trust given decision to develop was made in 2017 & this was terms of sale, & relationship w Taranaki Whānui who strongly support. I believe issues with Mau Whenua are for Mana Whenua to resolve. [via twitter]

     
  15. michael, 12. November 2020, 0:46

    @ Rebecca Matthews. The crisis in housing is affordable housing which this is not. And what about the insurance costs which will result in additional premiums for earthquakes as well as climate change and flooding. It makes a mockery of the WCC’s supposed concerns about climate change.

    Did any councillors read the “WCC Sea Level Rise Options Analysis Report” before making this decision? The report states that “Wellington … has a long coastline and finite resources to fund work required to protect vulnerable coastal areas. The process of managed retreat is therefore likely to be central in the approach to sea level rise adaptation, as it may not be affordable to provide protection to all areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise and have value to communities”. Wonder how long before a managed retreat will be needed for Shelley Bay?

     
  16. Kara, 12. November 2020, 8:32

    With the Mapuia (relatively low) range immediately east of the proposed development at Shelly Bay blocking sunlight until late morning during the winter, why would anyone want to live in that area?

     
  17. aom, 12. November 2020, 8:37

    Rebecca, given the plethora of information that is available to the general public, there appears to be a lack of depth and nuance in your reasoning. The comments about the former owners should have no bearing in the matter. Whether or not they support the developer who has now done pretty well in at least three ‘back-door’ land acquisitions which they have been involved with the Trust should have no more influence in the decision making of the Council than some of your colleagues believe Peter Jackson should have – none! The faith a number of ratepayers had in electing younger and supposedly more progressive Councillors looks as though it was misguided.

     
  18. Rhodo Baggins, 12. November 2020, 9:39

    Is anybody keen to crowd fund a brass plaque for the area? ‘In memory of Shelly Bay – the destruction of which was enabled in 2020 by the following councillors…’

     
  19. Jouer, 12. November 2020, 10:00

    Great decision, and great leadership from the positive councillors. As Jill Day said. ”A deal is a deal.” Just what business wants to hear and a firm foot forward for a city that has become moribund.

     
  20. Wendy, 12. November 2020, 10:29

    @ Rebecca Matthews: I note in the council’s ‘Shelly Bay FAQ’s February 2020’ councillors” have been advised that with the consent decision granted in October 2019, work will progress as agreed to in September 2017 and will be reported back to Councillors later this year. This includes investigating any upgrade of Shelly Bay Road beyond a level required by the developer’s resource consent”. Surely this investigation should have happened before resource consent was granted, and if there is a requirement for a multi-million upgrade to the road exactly where is the money coming from?

     
  21. Concerned Wellingtonian, 12. November 2020, 10:33

    I think that Councillor Day was referring to another “deal”. Unfortunately for her the other “deal” wasn’t actually a “deal”. Perhaps she can explain.

     
  22. Claire, 12. November 2020, 10:41

    Jouer this is not good leadership, saying Wellington is open for business at any cost. This is a lack of understanding and skill. Just because you agreed once doesn’t mean you can’t diverge with new compelling information. There are many reasons why this should not have gone ahead. Apart from the court cases.

     
  23. Tamatha Paul, 12. November 2020, 10:51

    For me, in terms of iwi, I have relationships on both sides but when I thought of who has given us so much of their time and energy this triennium it has to be those supporting the sale. I detailed this in my kōrero. Defs a hard one but WCC not equipped to determine iwi problems. [via twitter]

     
  24. Concerned Wellingtonian, 12. November 2020, 11:15

    Wendy, the money is mainly coming from the developer. The Council’s contribution to infrastructure is limited to $10,000,000 and it is clearly stipulated that this includes the coast road.
    Where everybody went badly wrong yesterday was failing to make it clear that improvements to the road would be satisfactory including for cyclists.
    Please would readers ask their local Councillors if they agree with what I have said in my first paragraph, or perhaps Councillors can answer direct to this.
    P.S. It was interesting to hear the developer say on RNZ this morning that commuters didn’t have to be considered because not many of the likely purchasers of the upper-market houses would be commuters!

     
  25. Chris Calvi-Freeman, 12. November 2020, 11:18

    The majority of councillors have voted to support PNSBT by agreeing to sell/lease the council’s 10% to make an integrated development with waterfront lawns etc. If the majority had voted against, 90% of the development would still have been able to proceed. And yes, I think it looks overdeveloped, but it met the council’s rules under HASHAA and that’s the development the developer wants to build. There’s not much the public can do to stop something just because they/we don’t like it, if it meets the rules and is on private land. [via twitter]

     
  26. aom, 12. November 2020, 11:25

    Tamatha – What has Iwi to do with this? Their part in the deal was extinguished when the land was sold to the developer unless the Trust is held to account by the pending legal proceedings. This was made even more obvious when Wellington Company said that some businesses could be sold to Iwi purchasers on the land they formerly owned. Perhaps you should have found out what this meant with another of the company’s ‘Maori land deals’ in Petone. Nothing much has changed since the candles, trinklets and blanket era of the Wakefields’ NZ Company (please note the irony when comparing company names). This time, the Council has not only played into the developer’s hands, it has disposed of open space that was owned by the city and left the ratepayers exposed to massive infrastructural costs. The punctuation mark is sewerage in the water at Queen’s Wharf and another serious water supply failure today.

     
  27. Claire, 12. November 2020, 12:07

    Chris the rules don’t always make sense. Climate change and erosion and problems with the road alone are reason not to give resource consent.
    The citizens elect the councillors and they can vote them out. We live in a democracy and have the right to strongly disagree.

     
  28. wendy, 12. November 2020, 12:36

    @concerned citizen: Surely when Q&A states that reporting back to the council “includes investigating any upgrade of Shelly Bay Road beyond a level required by the developer’s resource consent” this indicates that, if the work required to be done to the road by the developer and WCC is not fit for purpose, then the WCC is going to have to spend millions to bring the road up the required standard.

     
  29. Concerned Wellingtonian, 12. November 2020, 12:53

    Wendy, it is bad that the councillors did not pin this down yesterday.

     
  30. Johnny Overton, 12. November 2020, 12:55

    The only real option left is to take peaceful direct action against the Shelly Bay development plans. The councilors who voted yes should be ashamed of themselves. Let’s hope Wellingtonians will see though their murky agenda & show them the door at the next election. Some years ago I occupied Crown land on Mt Crawford & put a “tree of life” (pou whenua) sculpture in the ground. Around this sculpture I created a unique spiral shaped garden. This unusual work of landscape art was also my way of peacefully protesting against plans to privatize Crown land on the Miramar peninsula. This spiral grove gathering place (which continues to thrive ) inspired the establishment of the vibrant community gardens at Mt Crawford. I hope this example of positive direct action will inspire other Wellingtonians to take similar action to save Shelly Bay & the wider peninsula from; the clutches of special interest groups, speculators & developers etc.

     
  31. Toni, 12. November 2020, 12:58

    Ironic how Maori strong spiritual bonds to the land have been ignored in this sale. And how Councillor Jill Day can claim this has been in the best interest of iwi to build collective prosperity is beyond me, especially when Mau Whenua are challenging the sale of the iwi-owned land in court. Surely any decision by the WCC should have been left until the court decision had been made.

     
  32. Chris Calvi-Freeman, 12. November 2020, 13:32

    Claire, the council officers, not the councillors, determined the resource consent. There is no provision for “calling in” this decision, i.e. allowing councillors to challenge it. This lack of provision was something I raised with the chief executive in the last triennium.

     
  33. Paul Redican, 12. November 2020, 14:13

    So currently I cannot enjoy my daily ocean swims in Evans Bay / Shark Bay because of untreated sewage being dumped into the harbour. Yet the council are prepared to spend millions of ratepayer dollars to develop the narrow road to service this enclave for the wealthy. As a daily user of this road and someone who clambers into the sea from Shelly Bay Road I have watched newly reinorced retaining walls start crumbling within months of completion. in winter there are daily small slips as the steep Eastern side hills crumble onto the road whilst the sea is increasingly undermining the road on the seaward side We will be paying for this for years. Mark my words it is a ratepayer disaster in the making.

     
  34. Ms Green, 12. November 2020, 14:32

    This outcome is peculiar and full of inconsistencies, to say the least. The logic of councillors and the mayor is hard to understand. Why?
    Those who voted for the development said their main reason was support for mana whenua and te Tiriti when the fact is that the developer, according to one public submitter’s calculations, stands to make about $100 million, and mana whenua gain almost zilch, and as well they lose land. A councillor said this was cultural sustainability. How does this development resemble cultural sustainability? It is commercial profitability for the developer.
    Those who voted to support also said it was to support housing – but the Special Housing Area legislation was to provide affordable housing, not luxury or non affordable housing (or a hotel and resthome). The fact that this development is not for affordable housing did not seem to bother Labour councillors, nor did the fact that the commercial terms they were voting on, which resulted in a poor commercial deal for ratepayers and especially for mana whenua.
    Why did the Council vote now on this, knowing that there is Court case filed, to be heard in March next year? Why did the Council not wait for that outcome?
    Why did climate activist and cycling councillors ignore sea level rise and increased emissions from increased traffic and vote for it. Because of Te Tiriti?
    Why did they ignore “managed retreat” from the coast, of housing developments, and instead promote with their vote managed advance (into the sea?)
    Finally why did the mayor vote for Shelly Bay to be a Special Housing area on 8 October 2015, then go on to fight and win a mayoral campaign in 2019 claiming he had always been against it, and then yesterday move the motion to support the development and then vote against, saying afterwards that the outcome of the vote 9:6 to support the development was “sad”. Such inconsistencies have left only one person laughing all the way…

     
  35. Chris Horne, 12. November 2020, 16:49

    Should the proposed isolated enclave of flash flats designed for the well-heeled, an old-people’s home and an hotel be built at Shelly Bay, it will be akin to Wellington’s other isolated enclave, the suburb of Grenada North, except that the latter has a range of homes, mostly modest. Imagine living in Shelly Bay – no sign of the sun, or warmth from it, until about midday. Then try to imagine Shelly Bay in 2100, after 80 more years of sea-level rise. At high tide, the tiny park, footpath & cycle path, Shelly Bay Rd and the flash flats’ forecourts will be inundated at high tide. Might that tickle the inhabitants’ and visitors’ aqueous humour or just wet their feet?

     
  36. Corrina Connor, 12. November 2020, 17:14

    What is this mysterious hold that Ian Cassels has over WCC? It’s a mystical power. [via twitter]

     
  37. bsmith, 12. November 2020, 20:19

    Will say it again… “Anywhere but my back yard”… throw in climate change/cyclists/nimbys… wow the perfect storm.

     
  38. Pam, 12. November 2020, 21:35

    With the substantial increased density of housing in Wellington, open space becomes ever more important. The Jessie St /Taranaki St development is an example of how people will be living in large apartment blocks with minimal access to open space and in many cases minimal sunlight. A sad day for Wellington, nine WCC councilors have gone against the wish of most Wellingtonians.
    RIP Shelly Bay it was great to know you as an iconic un-spoilt area in Welly. WCC not only could have not sold the land the council held but purchased the site for a fraction of the cost of the town hall refurbishment.

     
  39. Local, 12. November 2020, 23:15

    Pam as far as I know, many of the apartments at Shelly Bay will be much higher (27m) than all of the Paddington Jessie/Taranaki 2-storey terraced houses (and a few 3 storeys), with no vehicles on the open space lanes with plantings.

     
  40. wendy, 13. November 2020, 9:19

    This is as much about the underhand process used to get to this outcome. When will the council learn to be transparent from the start, listen to all the options and issues, and then make a much more informed decision. The WCC process of consultation (or in this case, lack of consultation) too often ends up costing the city thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a huge backlash from the public.

     
  41. Keith Flinders, 13. November 2020, 10:23

    As we, the public in general, elect those in central and local government who make up the rules around town planning, then we have ourselves to blame.

    Personally I would like to see some development at Shelly Bay, to replace the once pristine but now rotting structures, but nothing of the scale proposed. If The Wellington Company are complying with what is permitted then that is their option, no matter what their detractors want to see. Without developers we won’t see more much-needed housing, so we have to give them certainty right from the start of their planning stages. The Shelly Bay proposal will have already cost millions without the first sod being turned.

     
  42. Elaine Hampton, 13. November 2020, 12:09

    Thank you for coming back to us.
    Rebecca – this housing will not ameliorate the housing crisis, how could it. Sea level rise, and saying “I believe issues with Mau Whenua are for Mana Whenua to resolve”. Couldn’t we wait until this and other issues are resolved?
    Tamatha – for you in terms of Iwi? was this the only consideration, you were elected to represent all Wellingtonians, who do not want this folly for good reasons.
    To all councilors – developers make their money and go, future problems are not their concern, (see Christchurch red zone) but it should be our Council’s concern. Money raised from the public in rates etc is still public money.

     
  43. Unmanaged Retreat, 13. November 2020, 12:21

    I notice councillors who voted for this don’t want to elaborate on their decision besides the tropes MOAR HOUSING! And “we won’t get involved in iwi matters”- obviously the agreed spin this voting bloc decided upon prior to the vote. I’d be particularly interested to hear from the councillors who campaigned on voting no and changed their vote. Wellingtonians deserve an answer after electing a council they believed would vote no on this issue.

     
  44. Andy Foster, 13. November 2020, 12:55

    Thank you for the comments. I am really, deeply sad at the result of the Council vote, for Wellington and especially for the Eastern Suburbs community and for Mau Whenua and their many supporters. The next steps now are Enterprise Miramar’s judicial review against the resource consent, and Mau Whenua’s case on the land sale by Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust.

    Three quick points to respond to.
    1 – Chris Calvi-Freeman – could the development proceed without the ‘10%’ of Council land (I am pretty sure it is more than 10%). It is clear that different lawyers would have different views on that. Some say it would just need a variation to the existing resource consent, others say it would need a wholly new consent – which would bring the District Planning rules (much, much less intense development)back into play.

    2 – Chris again – Chris you say it met the rules under HASHAA. I have said publicly many times that HASHAA was a horrible, deliberately anti democratic piece of legislation – deliberately designed to exclude real public involvement in the resource consent process. When the SHA was agreed to by Council in April 2015, and extended (into Open Space land) in October 2015, Council was told that the District Plan would apply, with the special Design Guide – and heights no more than 12 metres, and generally less. Actually what happened when it came to the resource consents is that those assurances from Council staff proved completely hollow. The height limit on the agreement with the Minister of Housing even said 27 metres!

    3 – Ms Green – You are 100% wrong when you say I voted for the Special Housing Area status on 8 October 2015. We had two votes – actually 8 April 2015 and then 28 October 2015. I voted and spoke strongly against the SHA status on both occasions, and indeed on many more occasions since then at Council. Both votes passed 10 -5 with the opponents on both occasions being Andy Foster, Sarah Free, David Lee, Iona Pannett and Helene Ritchie.
    In addition Simon Woolf and Malcolm Sparrow both voted against the sale and lease in 2017, and Sean Rush did this week along with myself, Sarah, Iona, Simon and Malcolm.
    As I said above the legislation was an abomination, and I think Council was completely and utterly wrong to make such an iconic place a ‘Special Housing Area’. When Enterprise Miramar surveyed candidates pre the 2019 election I said I would vote against selling and leasing and I have absolutely honoured that commitment. I believe in doing everything I can to meet the promises I make. Sometimes others do not allow that to happen. I do not think Council has supported or stood with the people on the future of Shelly Bay, and it is being left to others now to try to put that right. Very, very sad.
    Kia kaha everyone.

     
  45. D'Esterre, 13. November 2020, 14:14

    Over the last few years, I’ve followed the Shelly Bay controversy. I also watched on YouTube the latter part of the Council meeting.

    I noted a banner held by some people at that meeting, invoking Ihumatao. The two situations are commensurate, in that both involve privately-owned land, for which the owner has a consent for the proposed project. Though I’m not sure if that was the message that the banner-holders intended to convey. Regarding the current ownership of the land, claims about honouring the Treaty look to be irrelevant: the PNBST sold all of its land there to the Wellington Company. At this stage, therefore, it has no ownership rights.

    Like many Wellingtonians, I was, and remain, opposed to the project. That’s for environmental reasons. However. Because of decisions made previously about the proposal (including, it appears, incorrectly using the HASHAA to approve it: this was never an affordable housing project), the current Council had been left with a pig’s ear. The project has a consent, and can go ahead. Had Council voted against selling and leasing its land, the project could still go ahead, albeit with an amended consent.

    I’m surprised that Council would vote to sell and lease ratepayer-owned land, when the project is currently facing two legal challenges. Surely it would have been wiser to wait until the outcome of those challenges is known? Moreover, it isn’t at this stage clear which entity will buy and/or lease that land. We don’t know this: it’s likely that Councillors don’t know it either.

    Following the 2019 election, the majority of Councillors stated that they were opposed to the project. We ratepayers can therefore be forgiven for concluding that the emphatic vote in favour was for political reasons, rather than in-principle support.

     
  46. Benoit Pette, 13. November 2020, 19:39

    While I acknowledge it was a hard decision, and while I appreciate the efforts some have made in explaining their reasoning, I still can’t make sense of how you can possibly have been elected on a position of opposing the development and then vote the other way. For me, the fate of Shelly Bay is pretty bad right now, but what is worse is the collapse of my trust in local democracy. My vote, our votes, were worth less than all other arguments. It’s like saying as an elected member, I know better than all the people who put their trust in me. Who to vote for next time when words can’t be trusted?

    Oh and this argument for not intervening in iwi matters: either way, for or against, sold or not sold, leased or not leased, it WAS intervening in iwi matters. Wednesday was the chance for the council to put all this to bed, a debacle that started when Celia Wade-Brown’s council made Shelly Bay an SHA. It was an opportunity to bring peace in the community, in the city, and this opportunity has been missed.

     
  47. Chris Calvi-Freeman, 13. November 2020, 20:03

    Mayor Andy – thanks for your posting.

    Regarding point 1, I’m not a lawyer or a qualified resource planner, but it seems to me that if Cassels had to leave out a building or two because he couldn’t get the council land, he would still be able to build the rest, rightly or wrongly, without having to go back to square one (HASHAA-expired rules). And yes, you may be right – the council land may actually be 11 or 12 %, but your council’s own report says “The Council-owned land that was resolved to be sold and leased is approximately 10% of the land that makes up the proposed Shelly Bay development under the resource consent (excluding the road)” so I guess that’s about what it is.

    Your point 2: yes again, I agree. Cassels has used HASHAA to his advantage, and I’ve said many times that I would have preferred a less over-developed proposal – but that’s largely irrelevant, as he does have resource consent, which city councillors can’t overturn. Incidentally, when I worked in London, I attended many meetings where councillors had “called-in” officer-granted consents where the councillors felt that something wasn’t right. I asked the CEO why we didn’t have that facility in Wellington, but didn’t get a clear response. You’ve been a city councillor and planning lead for a number of terms – was that something that you also explored? And yes, the council officers told me as well as you that HASHAA was designed to streamline/facilitate the resource consent process, not ride roughshod over it. Looks like we both fell for that, but I was in the first year of my council term and believed that officers played a straight bat. Equally importantly, when the council first voted to sell/lease the council land, councillors were clearly under the impression that the iwi land was held in a joint venture between iwi (whom we wished to support) and the developer, not that it had been sold outright to the developer, and certainly not that that sale was disputed.

    Anyways, I’ve taken the trouble to read the report for the 11 November council meeting (which is more than a number of submitters had evidently done) and have watched about half of the meeting on YouTube. Some great entertainment there, including the bit where old hand Cr Woolf and newbie Cr Rush (a lawyer no less) were bullied into submission by that trustee lady (boy was she rude! – I almost felt sorry for them). Happily, I didn’t have to vote. But I will say this: why on earth did this come to the council for a decision before the legal challenge on the sale/ownership of the iwi land was concluded, and why on earth wasn’t the roading issue fully researched and costed, a full three years after councillors in my term instructed the officers to progress this investigation?

    Finally, I see that D’Esterre has made similar comments to mine, in his posting above, but I don’t agree with his last paragraph. I won’t speculate on the motives of the councillors who voted yes, except to suggest that perhaps they considered, all things being equal in this complex and confused situation, that it was the logical & honorable thing to do, and I commend them for going with their principles when the simple, populist option would have been to vote against, as Eastern Ward councillors Free and Rush did, fully aware that the proposal would pass by majority and they could therefore have “a quid both ways”. But good on you, Andy, for sticking to your promise to continue to oppose the development. Enterprise Miramar’s main funder, a person or persons somehow unknown to Enterprise Miramar’s presenter, will applaud you.

     
  48. Toni, 13. November 2020, 20:53

    Gone are the days when we were naive enough to believe in democracy. This process has highlighted the covert means WCC used to ensure the public could not have a say in the development of Shelley Bay. This showed no real respect or regard for Wellingtonians and has made it difficult for many of us to believe in those we elected to serve our interests.

     
  49. D'Esterre, 13. November 2020, 22:51

    Chris Calvi-Freeman: “….the bit where old hand Cr Woolf and newbie Cr Rush (a lawyer no less) were bullied into submission by that trustee lady (boy was she rude!….” I noticed this as well; I was horrified by it. That trustee came across as hostile, defensive and rude. I expected that another councillor would have spoken up in support of the two being so egregiously bullied. And I’d have expected the Mayor to call that trustee to order. I fail to understand why she wasn’t challenged. There’s no excuse for plain bad manners and rudeness.

    “….I won’t speculate on the motives of the councillors who voted yes, except to suggest that perhaps they considered, all things being equal in this complex and confused situation, that it was the logical & honorable thing to do…” When they were elected, the majority of councillors stated that they were opposed to the project. Here we are: a year later, more or less, and enough have changed their minds that the vote was 9-6 in favour. Given that the consented proposal remains the same, that’s a mighty quick turnaround, if it’s in-principle support. Nor can I recall any councillor standing up and saying as much, before the vote was taken. I think that many of us are justified in our conclusion that
    this turnaround is for political reasons. It’s difficult to see it as anything else.

     
  50. Wellington.Scoop, 13. November 2020, 22:54

    Comments on this report are now closed – as we’ve reached the maximum number that our system can contain.

     

Write a comment: