The Auckland Waterfront Consortium has launched an ambitious proposal that would see a 50,000-seat fully enclosed stadium built alongside a redeveloped Bledisloe Wharf.

Auckland's latest multibillion-dollar waterfront stadium proposal could be dead in the water, with the city's planning chairman hinting council will not fork out for pre-feasibility work.

Pleas of urgency from the private consortium behind the $1.8 billion proposal appear to be falling on deaf ears at Auckland Council.

SUPPLIED/INCREDIBLE IMAGES The waterfront stadium is being proposed by Auckland Waterfront Consortium.

Last week, Auckland Waterfront Consortium's Michael Sage, a partner at the law firm Simpson Grierson, said the private consortium wanted Auckland Council, along with the Government, to enter into a feasibility study to see if the "free" proposal was achievable.

Since then, the consortium has received no firm indication of what is going to happen next, Sage told Stuff.

READ MORE:

* Auckland waterfront stadium's fate could be decided within months

* Backers of $1.8 billion Auckland stadium proposal 'confident' project can succeed

* Plans for $1.8 billion Auckland waterfront stadium unveiled

* There's no such thing as a free stadium, however iconic its design

"We weren't expecting to have a response to our request there and then on the day, but we are now wanting one," he said.

"I think, firstly, we made it pretty clear, I thought, that there is a genuine need for urgency here.

"There are some things which could foreclose this project if we don't get into the standstill position on them pretty quickly – the obvious one is the car park that Ports of Auckland (POAL) is about to start building on Bledisloe Wharf, which is an abomination.

"It's a disgraceful proposition to put something like that on our waterfront and there is simply no immediate need for it."

POAL hopes to start construction next February or March on a five-storey car park building occupying part of the Bledisloe Wharf site eyed by the stadium promoters.

JASON DORDAY/STUFF Michael Sage of Simpson Grierson and Dave Wigmore, chairman of the consortium proposing the waterfront stadium.

Auckland Council Planning Committee chairman Chris Darby said the sum of money signalled for feasibility work was $4 million.

"$4m is a substantial sum of money and we've only just confirmed our 10-year budget, as of June 30 this year," Darby said.

"We never, ever heard prior to that any suggestion that we should set aside $4m for such a study, we never had those submissions and then just three or four months later ... we're getting a request for $4m.

"Council doesn't do its business like that."

Instead, Darby has asked council staff to consider "how we treat the proposals that come in".

"I've said to our staff there is a body of work to be undertaken at some point and that is the planning of the waterfront land that is currently occupied by an operational port," he said.

"I've said present us with some options as to how we can address the planning for that land, taking into account we've still got an operating port and there are no signals in the short to medium term that the port will be relocated at this time."

ALDEN WILLIAMS/STUFF Planning committee chairman Chris Darby says council is not in the business of forking out $4 million once its budget has been set.

Sage acknowledged stadium matters would be considered at the next Auckland Council Planning Committee meeting.

"But that doesn't really tell us what's going to happen next with this proposal, so I go back to my urgency point – there's a real need to move quickly," he said.

"What I think the councillors are not aware of ... is that if they don't positively support this quickly they're actually making a defacto decision, which is that we're going to lose this opportunity, the waterfront is probably going to be stuffed for at least the next generation because we're going to destroy it with car parks and other things.

"Even if we decide now that we don't actually need a world-class stadium in Auckland, which itself beggars belief, sooner or later Aucklanders are going to say that's unacceptable and there will then be a need to build a stadium, and suddenly the cost would have gone up from zero dollars to, in today's terms, probably circa $1.8b."

But Darby rubbished the stadium proposal's "free" tag.

"It's not a free offer – the council has to give up its dividend on the Port, the waterfront land on half the port and give up its interest in Eden Park, which it doesn't have directly but of course we underwrite Eden Park," he pointed out.

"So if Eden Park was restructured, or possibly even liquated, then that land would most likely belong to council.

"There's no free lunch in that proposal whatsoever."

However, the consortium said the council would not have to give up its port dividend, adding its proposal would have to be done in a way that "ensures no negative impacts to the POAL's business resulting from the development".

It also pointed out its proposal would take up 16.5 hectares of the port's total 77ha area.

Under the consortium's proposal, the 50,000-seat covered stadium would be built by a private firm in return for the rights to build 2500 dwellings and commercial buildings nearby, as well as the right to redevelop the current Eden Park site in Kingsland.

While Eden Park Trust had a loan underwritten by Auckland Council, the consortium suggested that could be factored into the development deal "to ensure the council is not out of pocket".

"Eden Park Trust would contribute the Eden Park site in return for management rights to the new stadium."