Scant opposition to hotel

The proposed new ILT hotel will significantly help revitalise Invercargill’s town centre, offsetting a loss of heritage values, hearings commissioner John Maassen was told yesterday.

The licensing trust is seeking resource consent from the Invercargill City Council to demolish buildings including a Class 2 heritage building on the south-east corner of Don and Dee streets to build its hotel. ‘‘This is not a choice of demolition and replacement versus repair and reuse,’’ planning consultant Tim Joll said. ‘‘Rather demolition and replacement versus ongoing vacancy and dilapidation.’’

The building was on a local, but not national, heritage list; was not habitable; was below 20 per cent of National Building Standards, and the cost of reinstating and reusing it would not bring acceptable returns.

Dr Hayden Cawte, of NZ Heritage Properties, told Maassen that trying to adapt the building and retain a ‘‘relatively nonfunctional’’ facade for the project would be expensive and still result in less-than-desirable outcomes for heritage. There were greater heritage benefits in undertaking the ILT project as proposed. A revitalised area would have advantages for the retention and use of other buildings, he said.

Maassen asked Cawte: ‘‘Would you describe the building at the moment as pleasant?’’ Personally, Cawte did not, but said it depended on perspective.

Maassen wondered whether a new building might be more a symbol of prosperity and confidence than the presence of a building now unlikely to find use.

Trust lawyer Lauren Semple acknowledged a loss of heritage values but said a contemporary landmark hotel as a replacement was consistent with the district plan and resource management law. The provision of a new hotel to help provide focus and confidence for the Invercargill inner city to thrive was one of five transformational projects identified in the Southland Regional Development Strategy, she said.

The hearing, set down for a potential three days, was concluded in one, without any ardent defenders emerging to advocate the retention of the building.

Submitters at nearby 55 Dee St did raise concerns about potential loss of privacy, including over a rooftop used for outdoor living . Maassen suggest lattice screening may be part of a solution.

Roger Hodgkinson and Nathan Surendran, while not opposing the project itself, spoke against the ‘‘concrete and steel dinosaur thinking’’ of the design in contrast to global best practice for sustainable urban planning.

Among proposed conditions for consent, Joll had suggested no demolition work could begin until the building consents, construction contract and finances were formally in place for the replacement building. Trust general manager Chris Ramsay said not being able to advance on both fronts at the same time would add to both time and costs.

Maassen suggested setting a limit of 12 months on how long the site could remain vacant. Ramsay agreed, but said the plan was for much swifter progress.

Submitters queried whether another requirement, that the ILT contribute $50,000 to establish an Invercargill heritage fund, should be greater. Joll said this contribution was a proposal from the trust itself and, had it not been, he would not have made it a requirement.

‘‘This is not a choice of demolition and replacement versus repair and reuse.’’ Tim Joll, planning consultant