Shelly Bay Taikuru

New Seaside Town for Wellington

The development of Shelly Bay Taikuru represents a significant milestone for Wellington. Through the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust (PNBST) and The Wellington Company, the redevelopment of Shelly Bay can now be made possible.

Positioned on the Miramar Peninsular, Shelly Bay has for over 130 years remained guarded and off limits to any form of development.

Shelly Bay is a special place, that has played an important part in defining who we are today, and as a place for tomorrow will continue to play an important role in defining how world class communities should live, work and play, setting a new benchmark for a modern standard living.

In time Shelly Bay will become home to over 850+ new residents and a place which many thousands more will seek to experience and enjoy. A key element of this new community is its underpinning commitment to sustainability and being a place that is shared and connected, founded on community building and sustainability principles that will preserve and enhance what already exists.

As a community, Shelly Bay will become a Wellington landmark, iconic for what makes Wellington a great city and most importantly a taonga tuku iho – a treasure to be passed down to future generations.

Please register your interest here.

Latest News About Shelly Bay:

The following email was written by and sent from Ian Cassels to Sir Peter Jackson in response to Sir Peter’s Facebook post of 29 April 2019, which made comments about Mr Cassels and The Wellington Company. This email is intended to represent only the views of Mr Cassels and The Wellington Company. For any other parties mentioned in Sir Peter’s original post, please contact those parties directly.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 8:16 PM:
30 April 2019
[via email]
Dear Sir Peter

Statements about Shelly Bay re-development.
I am writing to you directly to set out some basic facts about the redevelopment of Shelly Bay – Taikuru.

You clearly oppose the redevelopment, as is your right. The Wellington Company (TWC) has no issue with you expressing your opposition to the proposed redevelopment. Like every other resident of Wellington you are entitled to a view on the merits (or otherwise) of the proposal. However, your published statements to date repeat a series of falsehoods and present an entirely incorrect and misleading account of what has happened and what is likely to happen.

I encourage you to stick to the facts.

To be clear, the proposed redevelopment is not a “modern day land grab”. Such a suggestion is offensive to all concerned and wrong. At the core of this proposal is our partnering relationship with Tarnaki Whanui (Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust (PNBST) a relationship which multi dimensional and is delivering real outcomes to the members of Taranaki Whanui.

It is also simply wrong to suggest, as you have, that any “deal” was “done” in China, while I was participating on a Wellington City Council led business tour to China. The purpose of that trip, which included a range of local business leaders, was to showcase Wellington and its economic opportunities. However, there is no Chinese investment in the Shelly Bay – Taikuru.

On the issue of the land valuation, you are correct to state that there have been a number of different valuations of the Shelly Bay development area over a number of years. But to characterise this as some kind of conspiracy is completely false and misleading. Valuations of this nature are necessarily made on the basis of a range of assumptions. The valuation you rely on – “over $23m” – makes assumptions that are simply not correct. The later valuations reflect more accurately the likely use (and therefore value) of the land. At the time some of the blocks of land at Shelly Bay were sold the total value of the land was assessed at an amount that was reflected in the transfer value and terms agreed.

It is also wrong (not to mention defamatory) to infer, as you have, that TWC and the Council and/or Mayor are involved in some sort of conspiracy to conceal the true infrastructure costs. Likewise it is wrong to say, as you have, that ratepayers will face a “financial hit” at some future date when “the undisclosed, astronomical cost” of widening the road becomes known. The scenario you so colourfully describe is fanciful..

As developers of this project we firmly believe the infrastructure costs required by the project (including water, waste water, public amenities and the widening of the road) will fall within the budgeted $20m. Council has agreed to pay $10m of that amount. In the event those essential costs for the purposes of Shelly Bay – Taikuru are greater than budgeted, any additional sum will be paid, not by Council, but by TWC.

The basis of payment for infrastructure costs is clearly recorded as a resolution adopted by Council in the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2017. That cap provides certainty to the city and to ratepayers. Any suggestion otherwise is mischievous and misleading.

Your latest suggestions about the ownership of land at Shelly Bay are simply incorrect. Our understanding is, and we have no reason to doubt that understanding, that Tai- Kuru is the vehicle through which Taranaki Whanui has chosen to structure its interest in the land. TWC and PNBST have committed to a partnership at the highest levels, across a number of different projects, which all have their own unique partnership requirements specific to the needs of those projects. The way that PNBST structures its commercial engagements in each of those projects is fundamentally a question for them to decide, as the representative of their members.

There are a range of other factual inaccuracies in your publications which we object to but which we will not itemise here. Suffice to say, your characterisation of Shelly Bay – Taikuru,, its genesis and the motivations and actions of the parties involved in it and your assertions regarding Taranaki Whanui landholdings in Petone and Wainuiomata is false, misleading and defamatory.

The reality is this: the proposal will soon be resubmitted as an application for resource consent. That is the appropriate process within which these issues will be considered and determined.

However, in any further public comment please refrain from repeating false claims and deliberately using your considerable influence to spread misinformation.

We would be happy to meet with you at a convenient time if that would assist.

Otherwise, should you continue to defame me and my company I will have no option but to respond.

Yours faithfully
Ian Cassels