Lights out for Basin Reserve
Day-night tests at New Zealand’s spiritual home of cricket are now an unlikely prospect with Wellington City Council ditching plans to pay for new lights.
The council announced last week that it proposed to spend $7.7 million on strengthening the venue’s quake-prone Museum Stand, rather than demolishing it.
But that’s at the expense of the $8m set aside in the Basin Reserve’s $21m master plan for flood lights to meet the future requirements of cricket and other events.
Now if the council approves the strengthening plan at a committee meeting tomorrow, lights will happen only if Cricket Wellington and the community could raise the necessary cash, councillors were told.
After they heard of the lower priority being given to the Basin’s lighting budget, it was revealed that part of the reason for keeping the stand was to avoid a potential ‘‘drawn out’’ court process and public backlash.
Council city growth projects manager Danny McComb told councillors yesterday that Cricket Wellington and the community would have pay for flood lights without council assistance.
Cricket Wellington chief executive Cam Mitchell said lights would add significant value to the Basin so were still a priority.
Funds could be collected from a number of sources but he would not confirm if this would include naming rights.
The Basin Reserve Trust has engaged a consultancy to secure a naming rights sponsor, budgeting revenue of about $80,000 per annum. Trust board member and
councillor Fleur Fitzsimons said there was still a commitment for lights but how they would be paid for was still to be determined. It may involve grants and sponsorships.
McComb also told councillors there would have been objections to any consent process to demolish the stand.
The Gordon Wilson flats and the Harcourts building in Wellington were cited as examples where the Environment Court spared demolition for heritage value.
McComb said the council also took on the ‘‘strong views’’ of interest groups and believed objections would have landed in the Environment Court, with an unfavorable outcome.
‘‘If we look at the Harcourts building decision, economics is not a reason to demolish a building on its own. We would be looking at a drawn-out process.’’
Property developer Mark Dunajtschik, who lost the Harcourts building battle, said that he would not have saved the Museum Stand.
He did not believe in trying to prop up old buildings, when it was ‘‘much wiser to start fresh with modern knowledge’’.
People were afraid to demolish heritage buildings and the backlash it brought, he said. After being ‘‘kicked’’ in court, he stayed clear of controversial heritage issues now.
However, developer and engineer Maurice Clark said while people were right to be gun-shy about heritage buildings, they should use modern techniques to ensure such sites remained.
The heritage-listed Museum Stand closed to spectators in 2012 after it was found to be just 23 per cent of new building standards. Anything under 34 per cent is considered quake-prone.