The ruling has been welcomed by housing developers and consultants, but has raised fears about potential loss of character homes in a city where heritage is a celebrated point of difference.
A preliminary heritage assessment of houses built before 1940 was to be a pre-demolition requirement applying to much of Dunedin, as part of adjusted development rules aimed mostly at enabling greater housing intensification and more flexibility.
The heritage provision, requiring resource consent, was brought in by a panel of commissioners that considered a variation to the Dunedin City Council’s district plan.
It was challenged by surveying and resource management consultancy Paterson Pitts, supported by another consultancy, Terramark.
The panel had been concerned about homes being potentially lost before an understanding had been obtained about their heritage value.
The appellants argued the city council did not have the legal scope to introduce the rules it wanted to.
Paterson Pitts principal Kurt Bowen said the court’s ruling was a good result for residents.
It would better enable urban redevelopment, particularly the replacement of old, poorly maintained housing stock.
"The court decision issued this week removes a burden that had been placed on many landowners, the majority of whom would have been entirely unaware of the new rules and their implications," Mr Bowen said.
Heritage was valuable for Dunedin, but the rules would have imposed costs, for not much gain, he said.
"We don’t want to over-burden the system with more cost and uncertainty."
Terramark planning manager Darryl Sycamore was relieved.
If the council considered it had insufficient information about the heritage value of the city’s housing stock, it could remedy this in future in a way that allowed the public to have a genuine opportunity to participate in the process, he said.
The council was not able to provide comment yesterday.
Southern Heritage Trust chairwoman Jo Galer was dismayed by the court’s ruling.
"We feel there is scant protection for our heritage legacy," Ms Galer said. "Heritage is an economic resource, not just a nuisance to stand in the way of development."
Ms Galer said she was thankful more developers had become appreciative of heritage, but she was worried "ugly, cheap builds" would "detract from the beauty of Dunedin".
New Zealand Property Solutions director Denise Casey said Dunedin needed new, warm, healthy homes.
Housing that made way for this was typically past its use-by date.
"We need more homes, new homes and quality homes," Ms Casey said.
The company was not opposed to retention of heritage, but the now-discarded rules could have provided a headache for developers, she said.
Blue Sky Property Group director Lyndon Fairbairn said the heritage provision would have been a step too far.
It would have applied to a substantial part of Dunedin and created some indecision, he said.
"We’re happy for it to come out."
