THE Chateau Tongariro was built using reinforced concrete in 1929. The new wing, built in 2003 and 2004, met the standards of the New Zealand Building Code
The earthquake strength of the now defunct Chateau Tongariro building remains a mystery, as the building’s former owners seem reluctant to release a seismic report which they commissioned last year.
In announcing its intention to close the historic hotel for good on February 5, then owners KAH New Zealand made it known that in their view the ground under the building was unstable, but to date they have produced no evidence that this is so.
“Unfortunately, and unexpectedly, the most recent seismic assessment found that underground shifts over time have meant some of the hotel infrastructure no longer meets current safety standards,” KAH said in a media release.
But repeated efforts by the King Country News to obtain the seismic assessment referred to, including a request made to the Department of Conservation under the Official Information Act, have all come to nothing.
Asked yesterday when the seismic report would be made available, KAH representative Kevin Peeris, avoided the issue by saying his company was still in the process of holding ongoing discussions with DOC, “in regard to all matters pertaining to the chateau.”
“And DOC will be in a better position to provide updates at a future date.”
However, following KAH’s exit from the scene, and DOC taking over ownership of the chateau last week, DOC is still in the dark over when its people will see the seismic report.
The department’s director of operations support Karl Beckert said although KAH and DOC agreed custody of the property would transfer on March 9, there were still matters to be worked through, as could be expected with a lease of 30 years.
“The department has asked for a copy of the seismic report, however, as it could be considered intellectual property it is KAH’S decision whether they provide it or not.
“When, or if, the department receives a copy of a seismic report it would be subject to release under the Official Information Act with the usual provisions to withhold material for reasons as specified in the Act,” Karl said.
But this won’t wash with Ruapehu Mayor Weston Kirton, who said the seismic status of the chateau should be a matter of public record.
“It is essential that the seismic assessment report on the chateau is made available so that there is full transparency on any work required.
“All stakeholders committed to growing regional tourism need to be working together to ensure that whoever is the next operator has a sustainable long-term future,” Weston said.
Meanwhile, Heritage New Zealand reported the chateau owners were successful in applying for $65,000 from the National Heritage Preservation Fund, with this figure representing half the cost of the detailed seismic assessment (DSA) now at issue.
A source within Heritage told the King Country News KAH had so far not handed the report over for inspection, and therefore had not been paid the promised $65,000.
This could leave the impression that seismic issues exist on the chateau site, though it seems this has not put off prospective buyers entirely.
Mayor Kirton said he has fielded several inquiries from parties who said they were interested in purchasing the chateau.
And interestingly, a former manager of the chateau has reported that previous seismic reports gave the building a clean bill of health.
Kathy Guy, who managed the hotel from 1999 till 2018, said seismic reports were commissioned following construction of the chateau’s new wing in 2003 and 2004. More seismic reports were called for following the Christchurch Earthquakes in 2011, Kathy said, yet no issues were found.
And though KAH international has given up ownership of the chateau, a Ministry of Business Innovation and Investment investigation into allegations that its managers mistreated staff there last year remains active.
MBIE compliance and enforcement head, Stu Lumsden, confirmed this yesterday (Wednesday).
But he added that since the investigation had not concluded he could not say more, “as to do so could prejudice the investigation or impact on the enforcement outcome.”
