A new rule that would in many cases require people wanting to demolish pre-1940 houses to get a resource consent is to be challenged in the Environment Court.
The rule was designed to add a layer of protection for heritage amid a series of changes that allow greater intensification of housing in parts of the city and more options for development.
Those changes came into force last week and the Dunedin City Council expects they will allow for about 1900 new dwellings to be added across the city in the next decade.
They include providing more flexibility for development, such as by making it easier to average out site sizes in subdivisions, and some rezoning.
Just one appeal was lodged against the council’s proposed changes, which are collectively known as variation 2 to the second-generation district plan.
Everything not under appeal has come into force.
Among the confirmed changes are removal of restrictions on who can live in family flats, providing for duplexes and the introduction of 12 new medium-density zones.
Heritage is frequently touted as a key marketing edge for Dunedin, but the city was also required to act to alleviate an anticipated housing shortage.
The rule under appeal was designed to prevent demolition of houses before their potential heritage value had been appraised.
The council has described the appeal as relating to "unscheduled" significant heritage buildings in areas proposed for intensification.
Some buildings there that could hold significant heritage value were not on a formal schedule.
The appeal was brought by Paterson Pitts, a surveying, planning and land development consultancy that operates throughout Otago.
The firm’s representatives argued in their notice of appeal new requirements about pre-1940 houses were beyond the scope of the variation.
No person reading the notified variation could have reasonably suspected their pre-1940 house was going to be subject to a new rule protecting it from demolition, they argued.
"The rules requiring a resource consent to be obtained for demolition of ... pre-1940s buildings is arbitrary and inefficient because it applies whether or not a building has significant heritage values.
"The rule is uncertain since there is no certainty about what significant heritage values mean in relation to non-scheduled buildings."
Requiring the Southern Heritage Trust to be identified as an "affected person" was also wrong and inappropriate, Paterson Pitts argued.
The council has previously estimated 88 pre-1940 dwellings could be demolished in the next 10 years.
Analysis showed a higher proportion of buildings of that age were in areas closest to the central business district.
The council has said the new rules, overall, have delivered a welcome boost to housing development across the city.
More development opportunities may also be on the way.
Potential introduction of new greenfields development zones will be the subject of a separate hearing beginning next month.
The hearing is expected to run for three weeks.
