Tekapo businessman Anthony Tosswill said yesterday the rejection would tell New Zealand and the world "that Dunedin is a very hard place for new investors to do business".
"It is with deep regret that the development has been rejected ... Dunedin needed this project to move forward," he said.
His comments came after a panel of independent commissioners yesterday announced Mr Tosswill’s bid for consent for his 17-storey hotel and apartment tower in Moray Pl had been rejected.
The panel cited "significant" concerns, including height and visual dominance, which would result in it towering over neighbouring heritage buildings and casting a midwinter shadow over the Octagon.
Mr Tosswill, in a statement, said he appreciated the support his project had received, including from Dunedin City Council staff who worked with his team before the consent application.
He ruled out appealing the decision, but said he would consider a revised design "only if we have support".
The process had already come at "great expense" to him and he was disappointed an earlier revision — reducing the building to 15 storeys, including just 12 above ground — did not sway the panel.
The commissioners had accepted the desirability of a hotel on the site, but not his design, which he found "confusing to say the least".
"It fails to grasp the commercial reality of hotel investment in a relatively low-yield environment like Dunedin.
"This is not Queenstown or Auckland. ‘‘If Dunedin thinks that a five-star hotel is a priority for the city, then the city needs to rethink its planning," he said.
Mayor Dave Cull said he was also disappointed, but insisted the city remained open for business.
Mr Cull was not available for an interview yesterday, but in a statement said he remained "supportive" of a five-star hotel development in the city.
"I am disappointed at the outcome ... Both I and the council have been clear for some time that we would warmly welcome an appropriate five-star hotel in the city," he said.
He accepted the panel’s decision, but "strong demand, and a gap in the market, for this type of accommodation" remained, he said.
The decision also divided opinion online, 67% of respondents to an Otago Daily Times informal poll, which had attracted more than 1300 votes by last night, saying they were against the panel’s decision.
Otago Chamber of Commerce chief executive Dougal McGowan said the business community would also be "pretty disappointed".
The project would have attracted a new type of visitor to Dunedin, and "that’s an opportunity that could be lost", he said.
He also worried the decision "might deter" other potential investors.
"I would say people will start thinking twice about it," he said.
However, heritage advocate Peter Entwisle, who was among those to oppose the project, said he was not surprised by the outcome.
"It seemed to be very far away from what is required by the district plan."
Yesterday’s decision came two years after talks between the parties began, leading to a consent application being filed in April.
It was deemed non-complying under district plan rules and attracted 271 submitters, including 206 opposed to the hotel.
The panel — chairman Andrew Noone, Stephen Daysh, of Napier, and Gavin Lister, of Auckland — heard arguments over seven days before releasing their decision yesterday.
The building would be the tallest in the central city, at 62.5m, and "out of scale" with its surroundings, which included the Municipal Chambers, town hall, St Paul’s Cathedral and the Octagon, they said.
There was a place for "exceptional" modern architecture next to heritage buildings, but only if the design was right.
"Despite extensive questions on this matter, we did not receive persuasive evidence that the building would have the qualities to ‘pull off’ the contrast.
"Having made these determinations ... we are unable to grant consent," the panel said.
Hotel plan
• 17-storey building (three below ground)
• 210 hotel rooms
• 64 apartments
• Four penthouse suites
• Retail spaces, public hot pools
Related Stories
Comments
I think that the message sent is that we will look with favor on a design which is sympathetic to the surrounding architecture, I.e. not a self aggrandizing phallus which would desecrate the town centre and cast swathes of it into shadow in the winter months.
Additionally, if experience is any guide, I fear that the council would likely have denied any plans for investment, then sunk substantial quantities of rates cash into it, to the detriment of funding for power poles, tertiary sewage treatment and a variety of more necessary (though probably less sexy) projects.
I don't see Dunedin as a difficult place to do business - but I very much hope it's seen as a place full of people who are difficult to push around. Thank God we weren't bullied into accepting this architectural abscess.
So, too potential developers, here's my alternative to Mr Tosswill's take on things.
Design something decent, commit to funding it yourself, with no tax breaks or public subsidy (let's see how committed to actual business we really are) and you might just get somewhere.
An ODT informal poll tells us nothing. Can be done with a bunch of mates with smart phones and a few beers- just like the local liquor laws. Everybody had their opportunity to make a submission.
I don't have a problem with people not liking the design, but I didn't like the personal abuse being directed towards Mr. Tosswill. The ODT ran a good article about hotel designs in places like Hobart, but if the council are being proactive on this we aren't hearing much about it.
Philright- where have you come across personal abuse to Mr Tosswill?
Im sorry Mr Cull but we obviously are not open for business and its plain for all to see
So many times we have seen the same old excusses its to this or to that or and this is a real doozie it casts a shadow in the winters low sun - so what its cold and dark in the winter here or have they forgotten that wee fact, it appears nothing is appropriate for our fine city
Yes we've got some grand old buildings but for cryng out loud lets not use them as an excuss for keeping us stuck in the 19 century
I agree that we need a five-star hotel, or similar, and hope it comes to pass. But wrong design in that location, so not surprised it didn't pass muster. I hope someone comes up with a sympathetic design that matches its site and the surrounding architecture, and then I think it will get through. These mirror high-rises are just not the answer.
"that Dunedin is a very hard place for new investors to do business".
It's not hard if you do your due diligence , and design your building to comply with the district plan and the RMA. Not to mention planning to build it in a complying area. I'm sick of people just expecting their designs and locations to be accepted and exempted just because they flash the cash, and then they blame Dunedin instead of themselves. Who spends that sort of money before checking the rules. All these developers claiming they need tall buildings to be economical yet they can build in Queenstown which has much more restrictive rules.