Convention centre site in CBD axed
Project team in rush now to draw up new set of plans for Queens Wharf.
PLANS to build a $100 million Hilton hotel and convention centre opposite Te Papa have been suddenly axed, raising questions on whether it will ever be built in the capital.
Those involved are now proposing the CentrePort-owned Interisland Wharf, next to Wellington railway station, as the best site for the 165-room, five-star Hilton and 2500-capacity convention centre.
Head developer and investor Mark Dunajtschik was going to build and own the complex in Cable St, opposite Te Papa. The Wellington City Council agreed to lease the convention centre from him for $4m a year.
Council chief executive Kevin Lavery said the demise of the Cable St proposal became clear on Friday, when the developer’s team confirmed they had ‘‘ended their interest’’ in the site.
It is the second time in recent years that plans for a five-star Hilton in Wellington have dissolved. In 2008, the Environment Court stopped the construction of a $45m hotel on the outer-T of Queens Wharf.
Architects and engineers were now redesigning the plans, and delays in opening a building were inevitable, Lavery said.
‘‘So we are acting quickly. It will be a new design. We will have to go back, and it will delay the project. The requirements for the site are completely different.’’
Construction could start in 2016, with the hotel and convention centre opened by the end of 2017 – about six months later than planned for Cable St.
The council issued a statement quoting Dunajtschik as saying that, for a variety of reasons, the Cable St site was no longer considered viable. He and Hilton Hotels believed the wharf site was a better location.
‘‘This is a proposal that will be great for the city and it’ll bring even more people and vitality to the waterfront.’’
Robert Scullin, Hilton’s vicepresident, development and asset management, was quoted as saying: ‘‘We would be happy to be involved in the hotel and convention centre in this location that showcases the best of the city.’’
The council voted 13-2 in November to proceed with the lease for the convention centre, which it identified as a key driver for the capital’s economy, jobs and international attractiveness.
It was expected to create about 200 jobs and pump nearly $30m into the local economy each year.
However, if the council is to provide funding of up to $4m a year, councillors must reconfirm their support in February.
Councillor Helene Ritchie, who opposed the Cable St plan, said that, as things stood now, there was ‘‘no way council can in any way, shape or form make a decision in relation to the financial commitment on another site’’.
‘‘The whole thing has been a nonsense,’’ she said.
The proposed wharf development would require resource consent under the Regional Coastal Plan. Lavery said that, if consent was granted by Greater Wellington Regional Council, it could be appealed against, potentially delaying or killing the proposal.
‘‘There is definitely risk around the project in terms of the land issues on the wharf and the resource consent process.’’
He said the agreed package of hotel rooms and conference capacity would not change under the new proposal, and nor would the costs to the council.
The regional council owns 76.4 per cent of CentrePort, which owns the Interisland Wharf.
CentrePort chief executive Blair O’Keeffe said the company had been reviewing the future use of the wharf when discussions with Dunajtschik’s team started. ‘‘The possibility of a hotel and convention centre integrated with maritime activity is an exciting prospect for company and city.’’
Derek Fry, the city council’s growth and partnerships director, said it was disappointing the Cable St proposal had fallen over, and the entire Hilton project would need to be revisited from a design and economic perspective.
‘‘We will be looking for the comparative, if not better, option from the convention centre point of view.’’
Economic growth committee chairwoman Jo Coughlan said the wharf location would give the development a ‘‘major and positive point of difference’’.