Shanghai developer gets consent for bungy site tower
Consent has been granted to a Shanghai developer for a 52-storey 209m multi-use tower on Victoria St in the Auckland cbd – 15 floors & 50m shorter than the building a Korean developer got consent for 5½ years ago.
The new developer is the New Development Group, which bought the vacant (apart from a bungy jump) former Royal International Hotel site fronting Albert, Elliot & Victoria Sts from Dae Ju Housing Co Ltd for $53 million last year.
The new proposal is for a 302-room hotel &d entertainment complex, apartments, shopping centre, restaurants, cinema & sky decks. The site is on the route of the proposed city rail link, adjoining the northern end of the Aotea station.
The $350 million development would be New Zealand’s second-tallest building behind the 328m Sky Tower.
Beaumont leasehold plus 2 Tower Hill units sell
A leasehold unit in the Beaumont Quarter was sold at Barfoot & Thompson’s mortgagee auction today.
2 units in the Tower Hill apartment block were also sold under the hammer. Apartment auction results:
Beaumont Quarter, 22 Fisher Point Drive, unit 308, leasehold, mortgagee auction, sold for $90,000, sales agents Paul Humphries & Philip Davis
Tower Hill, 1 Emily Place, unit 4C, sold for $552,000, Alan Vessey
Tower Hill, 1 Emily Place, unit 7G, sold for $366,000, Aaron Cook
Waterfront Auckland loses “clean & tidy” fight with Mobil
Waterfront Auckland has failed entirely in its High Court claim against Mobil Oil NZ Ltd for not delivering up contaminated Wynyard Quarter sites in the state the agency said they should have been.
Justice Sarah Katz said after a long history of use by oil companies and contamination from fill from the old gasworks site nearby, and their industrial zoning when Mobil’s lease terms began in 1985, Waterfront Auckland could not have expected Mobil to present it with land suitable for non-industrial uses such as apartments.
The judge rejected Waterfront Auckland’s interpretation of the “clean & tidy clause”, which required Mobil to deliver up the land “in good order and clean & tidy and free from rubbish, weeds & growth, to the reasonable satisfaction of [the lessor].
The agency argued it should have been delivered in an uncontaminated condition, except for those gasworks-derived wastes. Justice Katz described the agency’s interpretation as “untenable, commercially unrealistic and not in accordance with the common intention of the parties as at 1985”.
Attribution: Company release.