[ad_1]
Filmmakers Sir Peter Jackson and Dame Fran Walsh are making one last attempt to halt the $ 500 million development in Shelly Bay ahead of a pivotal vote at Wellington City Hall today, with their attorneys warning councilors of the legal consequences if they vote. for a land deal.
The proposed development would dramatically transform disused Air Force land into a prime waterfront area on the Miramar Peninsula, creating 350 new homes at a time when the capital is facing a serious housing crisis.
But the influential couple behind the Miramar film empire are opposed to development. They compared the design to “Soviet” style architecture, asked how much it will cost taxpayers on roads and infrastructure, and criticized the city council’s handling of the process.
The city council meets Wednesday to vote on whether to sell and lease 0.9 hectares on the site to make way for development. Developer Ian Cassels previously purchased the interior parts of the bay in front of Wellington iwi Taranaki Whānui.
Things obtained a letter written by attorneys Craig Stevens and Tiho Mijatov, on behalf of Jackson and Walsh, to Mayor Andy Foster, councilors and council executive director Barbara McKerrow before the vote.
READ MORE:
* We are not united: board member breaks ranks ahead of Shelly Bay vote
* Mayor hints at trick up his sleeve ahead of Shelly Bay’s big vote
* Heat builds as Wellington council approaches Shelly Bay vote
“The total sale of lands of cultural importance (at a loss) cannot benefit future generations,” they wrote in the letter, dated November 2.
This came after Councilwoman Jill Day said she supported the sale as it would benefit from Wellington iwi Taranaki Whānui’s descendants for “generations to come”.
“We must respect mana whenua’s decision on the future of Shelly Bay; if we don’t, we run the risk of creating a new Treaty complaint against the council, ”Day said. Things. She said Tuesday that she stood firm on her statement.
Ross Giblin / Stuff
Filmmaker Sir Peter Jackson in Shelly Bay in 2019 while supporting Andy Foster’s successful bid for Mayor of Wellington.
Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, which administers the Waitangi Treaty agreement for Taranaki Whānui, purchased land in Shelly Bay in 2009 before selling it, in a series of transactions through last year, to developer Ian Cassels at a net loss.
But Taranaki Whānui has been far from merging his approach to the land with ongoing disputes over whether it was bought in 2009 for financial gain or, as opponents of development argue, a foothold for Taranaki Whānui in port for generations. to come.
The series of sales to Cassels was made without the necessary 75% approval from iwi members. As a result, Mau Whenua, a group of Taranaki Whānui members and others who oppose the sale, questions the validity of the sale in court.
Things reported in August that Sir Wira Gardiner, Founding Director of the Waitangi Tribunal and first CEO of Te Puni Kokiri, conducted a review of the Port Nicholson election and registration process. It found that more than 12,000 Taranaki Whānui members were unable to register for voter registration prior to the 2016 vote on the land sale.
Ross Giblin / Stuff
A $ 500 million development is planned at Shelly Bay, which is a former Air Force base.
The legal letter warned the city council that the land sale “was not a mana whenua decision.”
“On the contrary, the vote of the beneficiaries was subverted by the partial sale of the land,” he said. The council would be “complicit in a treaty complaint” if it voted for the sale and lease of coastal lands, the letter continued.
He went on to say that councilors were voting Wednesday before knowing what work, and cost, was needed to bring Shelly Bay Rd up to par and cope with the increased traffic flow that development would bring.
“The attempt … to ignore roads and other infrastructure will make the council vulnerable to judicial review for putting the decision to a vote without taking into account all relevant considerations,” he said.
Day said Tuesday that she received multiple emails from residents and that she would not attach more importance to the legal letter than to others.
“I keep my previous comments accurate and appropriate,” he said. “No resident has to pay lawyers to be heard; each voice is valuable ”.
