THE backers of a new hotel in Belfast’s Cathedral Quarter have dropped plans to demolish the former Nambarrie Tea building to make way for the £25 million development.
A bid to raze the red brick 1960s-era building along with the adjacent Justice building to make way for a 151-bed hotel first emerged in late 2019.
The site has already been linked to Moxy, the hotel brand owned by Marriott.
But on the request of Belfast City Council, the investors behind the project have said they will retain both buildings and instead seek to add four floors on top.
The developers have proposed a larger 170-bed hotel to account for extra £3m cost they say is involved in retaining and refurbishing the existing buildings over the cost of a complete new build.
They have stated that the new proposal involves 95 per cent of the current building fabric being retained.
The move is significant given Belfast City Council granted planning permission in 2013 to a previous developer to demolish the Nambarrie building to make way for a seven storey apartment development.
The Nambarrie building was constructed in 1960 more than 20 years after the previous structures were destroyed during the Belfast Blitz.
Next month marks the 80th anniversary of the Luftwaffe attack on Waring Street which reduced those buildings to rubble.
The current hotel plan is being taken forward by Waring Street Limited, which is owned by Surrey-based property investment group Propiteer, founded by David Marshall and Colin Sandy.
Mr Sandy is former finance director at Alan Suagar's Amshold Group.
The investment company acquired the site for around £2.5m in 2018. The Nambarrie building has been empty for around at least a decade.
The Derry business brothers Lawrence and Brendan Duddy Jnr have previously confirmed their involvement in the Propiteer venture.
A report submitted in support of their application has suggested that the hotel will represent an investment of around £25m.
In that report, the developers state: “We understand that many people have proposed many different schemes for the building over this time period and indeed longer, including hotel proposals that included the retention of the buildings without extension.
“These schemes ultimately did not proceed because of financial viability issues and hence the building remains unused.
“The retention of these buildings requires significant additional expenditure and hence the viability of schemes for retention require equal additional income generating potential to create a proposal that is viable in the long term.”
