Archive | Gisborne

Last of Dorchester trust properties on market

Turners Ltd (the former Dorchester Pacific Ltd) has put on the market the last of 4 properties it dropped into a separate trust in the wake of the global financial crisis to protect the value of its mortgage portfolio.

Dorchester bought out the prior mortgages on the portfolio’s 3 hotel properties, becoming an owner instead of being a powerless lender. The 3 hotels – the Goldridge in Queenstown, Parkview in Christchurch and the Emerald in Gisborne – represented just over $30 million of Dorchester’s $40 million of property loans at the time it entered a moratorium in December 2009. The fourth asset was an apartment building in Queenstown.

The moratorium ended in August 2010 but, by the time an attempt to take control of the trust management was launched last year, only the apartments had been sold. Since then the Christchurch & Queenstown hotels have been sold, leaving the Emerald.

It’s one of Gisborne’s largest commercial properties, including the 50-unit Quality Emerald hotel, 1910m² in 3 commercial tenancies, 4 retail tenancies, a vacant 2-storey building & 96 parking spaces at the corner of Gladstone Rd & Reays Quay, overlooking the Taruheru River.

The trust has taken the property to international tender through Bayleys, closing on Wednesday 13 April.

Marketers Alan Haydock & Cameron Melhuish (Bayleys Auckland) & Colin McNab (Gisborne) said it was being offered for sale in multiple parcels of either individual parts or the entire property. The parcels are:

  • The 4-star plus Qualmark-rated Quality Emerald Hotel & conference centre plus 2 levels of fully leased offices on the same title, 1554m² occupied by Gisborne District Council and returning $317,505/year net + gst, plus the 96 parking spaces in an adjoining building, some on long-term leases and the balance used by the hotel
  • The 3 retail units totalling 488m², each on its own title, one vacant, 2 leased to longstanding tenants for a total $73,116/year net, which can be tendered for individually or together, and
  • The vacant 324m² 2-level heritage building at 9-11 Gladstone Rd, where each floor is on a separate title & available for purchase individually.

Russian businessman Serguei Sonkin developed the property in the mid-2000s. The hotel was built in & around the former Quay Point office building, some of which was retained. 6 apartments added on top of the building were sold individually and the 4-level parking building beside the hotel contained retail space on the ground floor. All the buildings have a seismic rating exceeding 66% of new building standard.

Earlier stories:
2 June 2015: Bid to oust Dorchester trust manager fails, but sales process to accelerate
15 May 2015: 2 investors turn heat up on Dorchester property trust manager
11 March 2011: Dorchester signs Frankton Arm sale agreement, cautions on Briggs offer for property trust units
1 July 2010: Dorchester reconstruction approved
17 May 2010: Dorchester finalises reconstruction plan, awaits trustee approval
27 November 2009: Dorchester completes third hotel purchase
21 August 2009: Byrnes described the way back up for Dorchester

Attribution: Agency release, own files.

Continue Reading

Judge tells Waitangi Tribunal to get on with Mangatu claims resolution

High Court judge Denis Clifford has told the Waitangi Tribunal to get on with resolving Maori claims relating to thousands of hectares north of Gisborne instead of putting the matter in the ‘too hard’ basket.

In 2 proceedings heard last November, The Proprietors of Mangatu Blocks Inc chairman Alan Haronga, the Te Aitanga a Mahaki Trust & David Brown challenged, as unlawful, decisions of the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal declining & adjourning applications for the resumption of Crown forest lands.

The claim, dating back to 1992, is for the return to Mangatu of 8626 acres (3491ha) the Crown acquired from Mangatu in 1961, which now form a quarter of the Mangatu State Forest. Other parties are now also involved in the claim.

The Waitangi Tribunal reported to the Government in December 2013 on applications for binding recommendations relating to the Mangatu Crown forest-licensed lands, after the Supreme Court had directed it in 2011 to hear the Mangatu Incorporation’s application for the remedy of its claim in respect of the Crown’s 1961 purchase of 8522 acres in the Mangatu 1 block.

The tribunal said in that report: “The Crown purchased the 1961 land from the Mangatu Incorporation to establish a forest to prevent & control hill country erosion & downstream flooding. “In its report, Turanga tangata turanga whenua: The report on the Turanganui-a-Kiwa claims, the Waitangi Tribunal found that the Crown ‘failed to act reasonably & with the utmost good faith when it acquired the Mangatu forest lands from the Maori owners’ and therefore breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

The tribunal said in the closing chapter to its 2013 report, The pathway to settlement: “It would be far better for the applicants to negotiate with the Crown for as large a settlement package as possible, and then agree with each other as to how to divide any proceeds, than for the tribunal to impose a solution by way of a binding recommendation.”

The tribunal recommended mediation between claimants and a return to negotiations with the Government: “In the event that settlement negotiations are not successful, we reserve leave to the claimant groups to apply to the tribunal for a comprehensive remedies process.”

However, Justice Clifford said in his judgment out yesterday: “As I read the Mangatu Remedies Report, there are essentially 2 reasons why the tribunal adjourned the Mahaki Trust’s application. First, negotiations with the Crown for comprehensive relief were ongoing and so, reflecting its ‘remedy of last resort’ approach, the Mahaki Trust’s efforts & energies were better spent in that forum. The tribunal would need to undertake a comprehensive remedies inquiry before making a binding recommendation.

“Second, the task of deciding as amongst the various claimant groups was a difficult one. I think the extracts from Haronga that I have cited above demonstrate the error in those reasons. That is, the tribunal is not entitled to defer to the fact of Crown negotiations to adjourn a resumption application.

“If a claimant invokes the tribunal’s adjudicatory jurisdiction under section 8HB then, subject to a narrow power of deferral under section 7A and the discretion under section 8HB(1)(b), a decision is required. That conclusion is reinforced by the context of the Forestry Lands Settlement Agreement.

“The bargain was, put simply, that the Crown could sell the forests and that specific claims for the return of forestry lands would be expedited and, where successful, the economic benefit of the sale proceeds would be paid to the successful claimants, subject to the 5-100% range in schedule 1.”

Justice Clifford said the tribunal was at odds with the Supreme Court’s approach to reason that a significant factor in deciding not to make binding recommendations as regards the Mahaki Trust “was that it had not conducted a comprehensive remedies inquiry. That reflects the tribunal’s erroneous ‘last resort’ reasoning. It also seems a little hard on the Mahaki Trust, given that it had filed a comprehensive claim, and the tribunal had (quite understandably in light of Haronga) limited itself to the Mangatu Lands resumption issue.

“In other words, and supplementing the process for non-binding recommendations, a claimant was entitled to invoke the greater protection of section 8HB(1). To indeed be greater, that protection cannot be made subject to non-binding recommendations which the Crown may or may not accept. Nor can it be made subject to Crown settlement policy.

“Secondly, and perhaps even more clearly, the difficulty in making the apportionment decision as between successful claimants of land & compensation is not a reason for the tribunal not to undertake the exercise and make that decision. That was its statutory role.

“The Supreme Court was of the view that the tribunal had considerable flexibility in fashioning the terms & conditions of binding recommendations to achieve an appropriate apportionment. That it was a hard task was beside the point.

“Finally, the transfer of land & compensation are matters which can, after the event, be taken account of by the tribunal when making further recommendations for compensation. But it is not the tribunal’s role, as I read Haronga, to assess whether or not implementing the bargain from the Forestry Lands Agreement meant that a successful claimant would, in effect, receive more than had been indicated by the parameters of a Crown settlement proposal and by the tribunal’s recommendatory view of how compensation offered by the Crown might properly be apportioned between overlapping claims.”

Links: 22 May 2015, Clifford decision

Mangatu Remedies Report

Attribution: Judgment, Mangatu Remedies Report.

Continue Reading

Gisborne Carters sale

Published 25 May 2009

Round 2 for the week of Bayleys Real Estate’s tally of recent sales transactions covers the North Island south of the Bombays, and Christchurch. This section of the report covers sales in Gisborne:

 

Gisborne, 342 Gladstone Rd, 2683m2 Carters building supply depot on 8920m2 of fringe commercial land, sold for $3.1 million at an 8.5% yield; 9-year lease to Carter Holt Harvey Ltd from August 2007, with fixed annual rental increases of 3%. (David Gubb, Bayleys Auckland; David Brown, Bayleys Gisborne)

 

Want to comment? Go to the forum.

                                       

Attribution: Bayleys release, story written by Bob Dey for the Bob Dey Property Report.

Continue Reading
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux