Dear Wellington City Council,

Consider this a request for information under the local government official information and meetings act 1987.

1. What was the occupancy rate of the Tākina Convention Centre for the most recent financial year?
(Please include monthly or quarterly breakdowns if available.)
2. What criteria or definition does the Council or its relevant subsidiaries use to determine when occupancy is considered “achieved” at the Tākina Convention Centre?
(E.g., is occupancy based on number of days booked, square metres used, event attendance, or revenue thresholds?)
3. What total revenue was generated from bookings, lettings, and associated services at the Tākina Convention Centre during the same financial year?
(Please break this down by event type or revenue stream, if available—e.g., conferences, exhibitions, catering, room hire.)
4. What were the original occupancy and revenue projections or forecasts for the Tākina Convention Centre as outlined in its business case, financial model, or pre-construction planning documents?
(Please include any comparisons between forecast and actual figures, if these have been prepared internally.)

I understand your response may refuse or withhold information under provisions of the LGOIMA. I would request the council consider the public interest in the information requested. I would argue there is a High degree of public interest in the matter.

I look forward to a response on the matter within 20 working days.

Yours faithfully,

Guy Nunns

Dear BUS: Official Information,

Kia ora team

I note that the Council has extended the timeframe under section 14(1)(b) of the LGOIMA on the grounds that consultations are necessary before a decision can be made.

The Ombudsman’s guidance on extensions explains that this ground may only be relied upon when consultation is genuinely necessary to inform the decision on release, and that requesters should be given enough detail to understand why consultation is required.

Could you please clarify:
- Who the Council needs to consult with (e.g. another unit within Council, a CCO, or an external party); and
- Why that consultation is considered necessary in order to make a decision on my request.

This will help me to understand the basis for the extension.

Yours sincerely,

Guy Nunns

Dear BUS: Official Information,

Thanks for the response, Chelsea.

Very interesting that the time to provide the information has been pushed out to 24 September effectively taking the response time up to almost 2 months since the request was made.

I am not entirely satisfied that the Council is being transparent in the matter and has already signalled withholding grounds for information without providing the information.

You state that some information has been withheld under section 7(2)(ii) of LGOIMA to protect against prejudice to a commercial position. Could you please clarify whose commercial position would be prejudiced, and in what way? Further, how did the Council determine that the risk of prejudice outweighs the public interest in transparency regarding the occupancy and revenue performance of a publicly funded facility?

Again, I urge the Council to consider the public interest in the matter.

Apologies I am not intending for my questions to come across as vexatious, nor do I wish to place an unreasonable burden on Council officers. My concern is a genuine one: there is a strong public interest in understanding how major civic investments are performing against their projections, especially where ratepayer funding and long-term financial commitments are involved.

Yours sincerely,

Guy Nunns