New deal gives iwi greater stake in Shelly Bay development
Tuesday, 18 May 2021
Taranaki Whānui and The Wellington Company have reached an agreement on the $500 million development at Shelly Bay, in a joint venture that will have cultural, social, environmental and commercial dimensions.
Under the new plan, the iwi will have a greater stake in the development project than previously proposed, including owning all commercial assets and securing a “distinctive” presence in the area.
“We know not everyone will agree with the development, but those directly involved in this kaupapa know the gains we’ve achieved and the progress we’re making for our people,” said Taranaki Whānui Limited director Jamie Tuuta.
The two parties had worked hard to secure an outcome that delivered the greatest good for the current and future descendants of Taranaki Whānui, Tuuta said, describing the development as “part of a broader strategy to grow the tribal asset base” and preserve the iwi’s mana in Wellington.
**READ MORE:
* Developer's $10 million plan to end 24-week-and-counting Shelly Bay standoff
* Engineers for The Wellington Company turned away from Shelly Bay occupation site
**
Ian Cassels, the developer who owns The Wellington Company, said the proposal was “really quite wonderful” and would see the iwi owning the waterfront land at Shelly Bay.
“This is a real saving of Shelly Bay,” he said. “It will become a pristine community that’s never been seen before in New Zealand in terms of what it offers and what it does.”
Cassels has moved to better accommodate Taranaki Whānui requests since saying in July that the iwi’s only involvement would be having first right of refusal to buy any non-residential parts of the development.
The new offer comes following a lengthy standoff over the development, which has been embroiled in several legal battles and, more recently, an occupation of land that the Wellington City Council agreed to sell and lease to The Wellington Company for the project in November.
In the new deal, obtained by Stuff, some of the existing waterfront buildings and other heritage buildings would be redeveloped as commercial entities, and Taranaki Whānui would retain ownership through a joint venture partnership.
The two parties would each contribute $3m to develop commercial services at Shelly Bay, with Taranaki Whānui to own the services. The company’s $3m contribution would be in the form of a 125-year loan, repayable only if the iwi divested any of the commercial landholdings in the future.
The former Shelly Bay lodge would be turned into a boutique hotel, while the Shed 8 building and Pulley House would be converted into commercial and residential spaces. The Shipwrights building and Chocolate Fish Cafe would be developed into commercial and retail spaces.
The deal included a purpose-built wharenui (meeting house) that will be called Te Whare Marukaikuru and will be located in a designated green space or cultural reserve, together with an artist in residence programme.
A $100,000 fund for education and training for iwi members would also be established, and iwi members would be offered offer first right of refusal on 43 other affordable housing units that The Wellington Company is building in Mt Cook and Te Aro.
It is understood the proposal will not go to a vote of iwi members.
Council officers were reviewing the options against the principles and conditions it agreed at the 2017 and 2020 meetings, said spokesman Richard MacLean. Any change to the resolutions agreed to by council would need to be brought back to the council for consideration, he said.
City Councillor Jill Day welcomed the agreement.
“The development at Shelly Bay will deliver better outcomes for all residents while ensuring mana whenua receive an ongoing financial benefit,” she said. “This is a constructive step forward for mana whenua and Wellington. Mana whenua are making decisions for whānau here today and yet to be born.”
It did, however, have at least one detractor. Catherine Love from Mau Whenua, a group with a small number of members occupying the site, said the new proposal was “unacceptable” and the group would likely to reject it.
The assets were in fact “liabilities” because many were derelict and asbestos-ridden, and would be expensive to redevelop, she said, calling the proposal the equivalent of being offered “a punctured tyre for a stolen car”.