Hearing continues on the fate of the abandoned Adelaide hotel building in Wellington

The fate of an abandoned hotel building in Wellington is still undecided as a judge awaits a new presentation from counsel for the council before setting “a framework for a final decision.”

Auckland-based Lakhi Maa Limited purchased the Adelaide Hotel building, located in Wellington’s Newtown, two years after the deadline to complete the strengthening works expired.

The company first appeared in court in October following a request from the Wellington City Council for a court order to do the strengthening work itself. At that time, it was only heard “partly” and the hearing resumed on Monday afternoon.

The case is the first time that a local authority requests the court order, despite the fact that they are legally authorized to do so if the building owners do not meet the strengthening deadlines or do not advance at “reasonable speed”.

READ MORE:
* Attorneys state that Adelaide Hotel owners are not responsible for the public safety of people outside the building.
* Decisive time for Wellington’s abandoned Adelaide Hotel as city hall takes owners to court

The city council wants to upgrade the building to at least 34 percent of the new construction standard (NBS) and recoup the costs from the owner.

However, on Monday Kevin Smith, the attorney for Lakhi Maa Limited, said the owners had paid their application to the city council to demolish the building or create a new hotel but retain the old facade.

Smith said the company’s obligation under the Building Act was to protect the people who used the facilities, but no one was using the building.

The seismic work to bring the building to 34 percent meant that it could not be occupied at “such a low level” and “does not take us far from financial responsibility.”

There was also no clarity on what the assessments would actually require, he said.

“You have to be very careful going forward. At the end of the day before you are basically a blank check … the app is unfortunate because it doesn’t have a lot of meat, I don’t know what to look for.”

Judge Chris Tuohy said Smith’s argument about the definition of user did not “immediately catch up,” but was “drawn into the argument around required or requested seismic work” that needed to be specified.

However, City Attorney Nick Whittington said he maintained the position with which he came to court.

Whittington said the boards had other controls, such as procurement rules and also general construction experience.

“So it’s a little strange to think [they’re] get a blank check, ”Whittington said. I’d be making a new submission to Judge Tuohy on behalf of the council.

In his presentation he had proposed conditions that he said were “appropriate” and would hand them over to Judge Tuohy on November 13.