Agenda of Planning and Environment Committee

Notice of Meeting:

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee will be held on:

Date: Tuesday 13 June 2017

Time: 1.30 pm (or at the conclusion of the previous meeting, whichever is later)

Venue: Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers,

The Octagon, Dunedin

Sue Bidrose

Chief Executive Officer

Planning and Environment Committee

PUBLIC AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Cr David Benson-Pope
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Damian Newell	Cr Conrad Stedman
Members	Mayor Dave Cull	Cr Rachel Elder
	Cr Christine Garey	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Aaron Hawkins	Cr Marie Laufiso
	Cr Mike Lord	Cr Jim O'Malley
	Cr Chris Staynes	Cr Lee Vandervis
	Cr Andrew Whiley	Cr Kate Wilson

Senior Officer Sandy Graham (General Manager Strategy and Governance)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

Lynne Adamson

Governance Support Officer

Telephone: 03 477 4000

Lynne.Adamson@dcc.govt.nz

www.dunedin.govt.nz

Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee

13 June 2017

Part A Reports

Planning and Environment Non-Financial Activity Report for the Quarter Ended 31 March 2017

Department: Community and Planning and Customer and Regulatory Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report updated the Committee on activities including city planning, resource consents, building services, alcohol licensing, environmental health, animal control and parking enforcement.

1 RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Planning and Environment Non-Financial Activity Report for the Quarter Ended 31 March 2017.

BACKGROUND

2 The Community and Planning group of activities works with other agencies to set the direction for managing Dunedin’s built and natural environment, and is responsible for promoting the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources through its administration of the functions of the Council under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

3 Regulatory services contributes directly to the Safe and Health City outcome which is a part of the Social Wellbeing Strategy and enhances personal safety in relation to building services, animal services, health licensing, the sale and supply of alcohol and parking enforcement.

DISCUSSION

Service and Satisfaction

4 The Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS) is the principal mechanism by which the Council measures resident satisfaction with a wide range of its activities.

5 From July 2016 the ROS has been conducted on a continuous monthly basis, aiming to obtain around 100 responses each month, to replicate the average annual sample size of around 1,200 obtained in previous years. The quarterly results in the graphs below generally reflect the response of around 300 residents. A sample of 300 has an expected 95% confidence interval (margin error) of +/- 5.7%, whereas the annual result for 2015/16 had a margin of error of +/- 2.5%. Results for the year will continue to be published in the annual ROS report at year end. Two key changes are listed below.

6 A 2% increase in satisfaction with ‘overall look and feel of the city’ was reported in the quarter ended March 2017 when compared to the previous quarter.

7 A 7% decrease in satisfaction with ‘overall satisfaction with regulatory services’ was reported in the quarter ended March 2017 when compared to the last quarter.

Value and Efficiency

Resource Consents

8 During the quarter all applications were processed within the statutory deadline. The number processed for each month was 62, 89 and 86. The graph shows on a monthly basis resource consent processing over the last five years up to March 2017. The blue line shows the percentage meeting the statutory deadline; ranges from 97 to 100. The red line shows the number of resource consents granted each month; average is 70. There is quite a bit of fluctuation. The low points are normally the December to January period when many staff take a holiday.

Port Environment Noise Liaison Committee

9 The Port Environment Noise Liaison Committee is a community liaison group established as a requirement of Environment Court proceedings relating to the current District Plan requirements. As part of the requirements for the establishment of the Committee, representatives of the Council attend the meetings. This includes a representative of the Community Board, Otago Regional Council, as well as Council staff from City Planning and Environmental Health. The attendance of the staff was required specially because of issues of compliance with District Plan rules for Port Noise, and the provisions of the Resource Management Act for excessive noise, as well as wider environmental and resource management issues.

10 Various issues arise that are reported back to Council including matters relating to the road network and reserves in the vicinity of the Port. Staff attending the meetings discuss the issues with the relevant Council departments to obtain advice to report back at subsequent meetings.

Building Consents

11 Record numbers of Building Consent applications continue to be received for the first quarter of 2017. Staff resignations and a long term absence are likely to put pressure on the 100% turnaround within 20 working days which has been achieved throughout the quarter. Recent recruitment will see three new building consent processing officers start mid-June although short term this negatively impacts on productivity as they are trained.

12 Overall consents values for the quarter remain in line with previous figures at $65.8M. Live consent numbers as at the end of the quarter were 107 although in recent days we have seen the numbers over 150. As mentioned above, pressure to maintain the 100% turnaround is likely to be seen late in the next quarter ending June and early into the following quarter commencing July pending the new-recruit initial training being completed.

Alcohol Licensing

13 The format of the alcohol licensing data is being reviewed and has been omitted from this report until the content and format is completed. This will be completed and available on the non-financial report for the quarter ended 30 September 2017.

Environmental Health

14 The new Food Act 2014 came into force on 1 March 2016 requiring food operators to use a new risk management system. These figures indicate that this change has had a positive impact on the standard of hygiene in Dunedin food premises. Environmental Health staff work closely with food operators to ensure they have a good understanding of the new systems and assist them to achieve these high standards.

Environmental Health – Noise

15 The significant increase in noise complaints during the month of February and March coincides with the return of students to the city. Noise complaints are generally higher at this time. Environmental Health staff are working closely with the noise control officers, University Proctor and property owners in an effort to address these issues.

Animal Services

16 Customer Service requests are trending very similar over this three month period compared to 2015/16.

Parking Services

17 There was an increase in the number of infringements over this three month period compared with 2015/16.

18 The number of service requests for parking enforcement, blocked vehicle entrances and leased car parks increased over the period, correlating with the return of students to the city and officers spending more time monitoring and enforcing compliance in the city.

Major Initiatives

19 The following section is not confined to the January to March 2017 and also provides updates on the current status of the initiatives.

20 Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP) – Hearings on the 2GP commenced in May 2016, and in the January to March 2017 quarter the Public Health and Safety, Transportation, Rural and Urban Land Supply (Part 1) hearings were held. Two original hearings and one reconvened hearing are left of a total 2GP hearing programme of 27 hearings. Primary hearings are scheduled to conclude in June 2017, with some reconvened hearings and wrap-up Hearings scheduled for July 2017 and potentially September. Decisions are expected to be released near the end of this year.

21 Enviroschools – During the reporting period, one of the two Enviroschools facilitators left and the DCC advertised for a replacement facilitator. The remaining Enviroschools facilitator concentrated much of her work in Term 1 on secondary schools. In addition she participated in the Central Otago Early Years Education Cluster (COEYEs) – investigating skinks and the Central Otago Teacher workshop. She has been preparing for the Dunedin Secondary Students’ Leadership day, due to be held on 2 April.

22 Taskforce Green – during the reporting quarter, Taskforce Green staff and volunteers undertook 5,570 hours of work for the Council and the community. Work ranged from graffiti removal to weed eating, painting and planting. The Taskforce Green team removed 2,350 'tags' between 1 January and 31 March. This included painted tags, stickers and unauthorised postings.

23 Keep Dunedin Beautiful – the keep Dunedin Beautiful Coordinator is currently unwell, and other staff within the team are covering this portfolio of work. Due to the staff member illness, the Keep Dunedin Beautiful Awards were postponed from late March to late May.

Capital Projects

24 Central City Plan (CCP) – Design of Jetty Street hardscape and softscape elements have been finalised and passed onto the main contractors. Physical works are due to commence 29 May 2017. Resource consent application was submitted in late May, and this included a broader area including Bond Street and the road reserve adjacent to the heritage stone bridge abutment in Vogel Street. Some details are yet to be finalised such as a final planting plan (although near completion). These works are for the final stage of the Warehouse Precinct work, to be contracted out and built before 30 June 2018.

25 Following a presentation and feedback session with Councillors on 29 May 2017, Transport and City Development teams will map a strategic way forward for CCP work in 2017-2019, set out a preliminary project structure for the delivery phase, and seek feedback on draft options for the CCP palette of materials and street furniture. A full report will be provided to the Planning and Environment Committee at the August meeting.

26 As well as providing a strategic framework to advance the Central City Plan, Boffa Miskell has also been engaged to produce a document similar to The Streets and Spaces: Strategic Guidance document for Christchurch.

27 Octagon Pavers – Recently there have been more instances of people slipping on the pavers outside of the Civic Centre and elsewhere in the Octagon. The age and condition of the pavers are such that there is no temporary fix to resolve the safety issue. Staff have discussed the option of using sections of the Octagon to trial pavers that may be used more widely through the central area during the implementation of the Central City Plan. This will allow the public to view and comment, and staff an opportunity to see how the pavers respond to different maintenance treatments. Urban Design staff will identify paving options for the trial and work with Transport staff to arrange installation.

OPTIONS

28 As this is an update report there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

29 A further update report will be provided after the conclusion of the next quarter. The priorities for the next quarter are the LTP planning and consultation, refining the program for the Central City Plan and completing the hearings on the 2GP while maintaining base activities at the high service levels achieved in this quarter.

30 Alcohol reporting will be available for the non-financial activity report for the quarter ended 30 September 2017.

Signatories

Author:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Adrian Blair - Group Manager Customer and Regulatory Services

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy and Governance

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report relates to providing a public service and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

The Planning and Environment portfolio of activities support the outcomes of a number of strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

As an update report, there are no specific implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

As an update report, there are no implications for the LTP, although some measures are level of service performance measures annually reported as part of the LTP.

Financial considerations

The updates reported are within existing operating and capital budgets.

Significance

This decision is considered of low significance under the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

As an update report, no external engagement has been undertaken.

Engagement - internal

As an update report, no internal engagement has been undertaken. Input to the major initiatives and project updates has been provided by teams within Regulatory Services and Community and Planning Groups, with the Group Manager Transport also providing input regarding the Central City Plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Not applicable.

Planning and Environment Committee

13 June 2017

Update: Heritage Buildings at Risk Register

Department: Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to follow up the 'Options to Address Demolition by Neglect and the Degradation of the Dunedin Streetscape' report presented to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 3 June 2014.

2 The report recommends the development of a new Dunedin Heritage Monitoring Programme. The key purpose of the monitoring programme will be to monitor progress in preserving and enhancing the city's heritage, by recording investment in and use of heritage buildings, and conversely highlighting any buildings and areas at risk that may need targeting of resources or other actions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Approves the development of the Dunedin Heritage Monitoring Programme in accordance with Option One.

BACKGROUND

3 On 3 June 2014, City Development presented a report to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 'Options to Address Demolition by Neglect and the Degradation of the Dunedin Streetscape'. One of the proposed measures in the report that the Committee requested more information on was the development of a buildings at risk register.

4 Heritage at risk registers identify the sites that are most at risk of being lost as a result of neglect, decay or inappropriate development. They are common overseas, particularly in the United Kingdom.

5 The registers are developed and maintained both by independent heritage advocacy groups and by central and local government authorities. Further details of how these work in England are given in Appendix 1.

6 While they are described as a register, most often the register or list of at risk sites itself is only one part of a broader programme to protect and conserve heritage. These programmes not only identify at risk sites, but also normally include research, advocacy, community outreach, working with funders to assist rehabilitation, and providing advice and assistance to owners.

7 Heritage at risk registers are typically updated annually, to provide an up-to-date snapshot of the sites most at risk and in need of action to safeguard into the future. They can relate to a range of types of heritage including, in addition to buildings, structures and monuments, archaeological sites, conservation areas, and gardens.

8 Historic England describes the value of their heritage at risk programme in the following way:

"The Heritage at Risk Register tells communities about the condition of their local neighbourhood. It encourages people to become actively involved in restoring what is precious to them. It also reassures them that any public funding goes to the most needy and urgent cases".

9 The annual updating of at-risk registers also provides data to assess trends over time. In the case of Historic England's register, for example, in 2014 it was noted that over 60% of the historic sites on the 1999 Register had since had their future secured. It can also help evaluate the effectiveness of efforts and initiatives such as incentive funding schemes or targeted advocacy intended to save at risk buildings.

10 Section 35(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act requires councils to monitor the state of the whole or any part of the environment to the extent that is appropriate to enable the local authority to effectively carry out its functions under the RMA. The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development is a matter of national importance under Section 6(F) of the RMA and is a key function of Dunedin City Council.

11 Section 94(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the Auditor-General to report in the Long Term Plan, on whether the Plan gives effect to the purposes contained within the Act, which includes describing community outcomes, and, further on the quality of information and assumptions underlying the forecast information within the Long Term Plan.

12 Presently City Development keeps ad hoc notes on the condition of scheduled building. This is usually as a result of information being received from members of the public or by officers who have noticed properties in a particularly poor state of repair. This information is not currently formally reported.

DISCUSSION

Proposed Heritage Monitoring Programme

13 City Development proposes to implement an annual heritage monitoring programme. This will record the use and condition of scheduled heritage items i.e. buildings, structures and areas identified in Schedule 25.1 of the District Plan. It will also monitor the condition of heritage precincts, primarily focusing on character-contributing buildings within them.

14 The monitoring programme would complement the existing programme of heritage incentives, advocacy and public information. It would be used to identify pressures on heritage and successes to be promoted or replicated elsewhere. It would identify key areas of concern and help prioritise funds and staff time, ensuring that these would be targeted at heritage items at greatest risk.

15 The monitoring programme will include an annual survey of heritage items and precincts, including an assessment of the condition of each item and the overall precinct. This will require a mix of site visits and desktop analysis.

16 The programme will monitor:

· condition of buildings

· degrees of occupation

· levels of investment (via building consents)

· changes of use (where possible via resource consents).

17 The data collected will relate solely to the heritage item and will not contain information about identifiable individuals.

18 There is already a record of heritage buildings on the council’s Pathway software that can be adapted in order to record the data and produce an annual report.

19 In terms of building condition, some work has already been undertaken as part of the building assessments done as part of the 2GP development. This will reduce the resources required for the initial establishment of the register, at least in terms of scheduled heritage buildings.

20 The intent would be to report the results of the monitoring programme to the Planning and Environment Committee or Council annually.

21 It is proposed that this programme would be largely completed within existing resources. Further development of the programme is necessary to do an exact costing, but any additional resources required are estimated to be small if required.

Legal matters and other risks

22 There are some potential risks from establishing the monitoring programme.

23 Firstly, property owners whose buildings are reported as being at risk may react negatively because they see this reporting as an attempt to ‘name and shame’ them, even if their name is not directly listed in reports (as proposed). Careful communication around the project to highlight its purpose as enabling Council to better focus council grants and advocacy will be necessary to minimise this risk. Nonetheless, the outcome of reporting may lead to other actions being considered such as the need to consider enforcement actions under the Building Act or the Resource Management Act where applicable.

24 Secondly, DCC-owned heritage items may be scored poorly. While this initially may seem critical of DCC, in future years where the ratings of council owned heritage are improved through appropriate restoration and/or reuse, there is a potential for positive stories, which can be used as examples for others to follow.

25 The results of the monitoring programme can be disclosed under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

OPTIONS

Option One – Develop a Heritage Monitoring Programme based on proposed criteria

26 In this option, a heritage monitoring programme is developed in accordance with the discussion above.

Advantages

· Will identify heritage at risk of loss through neglect, damage or vacancy and allow support, including financial incentives, to be better targeted at these buildings and precincts, in accordance with the Long Term Plan’s Outcome Vision “Dunedin’s built heritage is valued and heritage buildings are in active re-use”.

· Allows for on-going monitoring of trends and evaluation of the efficacy of council heritage incentives.

· May encourage owners of identified buildings to improve maintenance or consider avenues such as sale of the buildings.

· Allows for the prioritisation of funds at both local and national levels.

· Allows for the identification of factors affecting heritage precincts that can be improved by other work programmes e.g. urban realm improvements.

· Enables potential new owners to easily identify buildings in need of restoration.

· Will meet DCC’s monitoring requirements under the RMA.

Disadvantages

· If badly framed, it may attract more negative attention to heritage, rather than the more positive focus that has been built over the last six years.

· Requires staff resource that could be directed to other areas of heritage work.

Option Two – Do not develop a Heritage Monitoring Programme

27 In this option, no monitoring programme is developed. Existing ad hoc methods for identifying heritage at risk and addressing demolition by neglect will remain in place.

Advantages

· Staff time can be spent on other heritage projects.

· No risk of negative reaction from property owners.

· No risk to the current perception of heritage in the city.

Disadvantages

· Heritage items and precincts will continue to deteriorate at an unknown rate.

· Does not meet DCC’s monitoring requirements under the RMA.

NEXT STEPS

28 Development of the programme’s methodology will continue. Implementation of the heritage monitoring programme will begin in spring/summer 2017.

Signatories

Author:

Dan Windwood - Heritage Planner

Authoriser:

Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Alan Worthington - Resource Consents Manager

Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy and Governance

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Appendix 1: Heritage At Risk Registers – the English experience	30

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This proposal relates to providing a public service and a regulatory service and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

The proposal primarily contributes to Objective MEM2 of the Spatial Plan where Policy (f) states that we will “identify the causes and solutions to the problem of ‘demolition by neglect’ and the impacts on city amenity from inadequate building maintenance.” It will also contribute to the Economic Development Strategy’s Strategic Theme 5 “A compelling destination”, the Parks and Recreation Strategy’s Objective “Our Parks, Natural Landscapes, Flora And Fauna Are Treasured By The Community”, the Social Wellbeing Strategy’s “Better Homes” implementation pathway, and the Arts and Culture Strategy’s Strategic Theme 1 “Identify Pride” and Strategic Theme 4 “Creative Economy”.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

The proposal would not have any adverse implication on the sustainability of Dunedin.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications on current levels of service or performance measures.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

The proposal is consistent with existing policy and strategy on built heritage in the Spatial Plan and is considered to be low impact in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. It also accords with the requirements for monitoring in the RMA.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with Business Information Services around the IT needs of the monitoring programme. Existing software and hardware are able to meet the project’s requirements. The programme has been discussed with Building Control and no concerns have been identified. Comments have been received from Legal Services.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Standard safety procedures around site visits will be carried out during monitoring.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards may well be interested in the monitoring of heritage in their area. Potential exists for the involvement of Community Boards in the project, particularly when monitoring heritage precincts.

Planning and Environment Committee

13 June 2017

Appendix 1: Heritage At Risk Registers – the English experience

Background:

In England, the responsibilities of drawing up Heritage at Risk (H@R) Registers fall on both local government and the national government heritage agency, Historic England. There are also some other Buildings at Risk lists maintained by NGOs which are discussed later.

The predominant type of designated heritage assets in the UK is listed buildings. Listed buildings in the UK are buildings of special architectural and historic interest. They are protected by Acts of Parliament across the four nations (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). Listed building consent needs to be sought, usually from the local council, before any works that affect their significance are carried out. It is a criminal offence to carry out works that affect their significance before this consent is granted. Enforcement powers are also available to require owners to maintain listed buildings in a weather-tight and water-proof condition. Failure to do this can lead to the compulsory purchase of the listed building by the local council or the relevant national government heritage agency.

In England, listed buildings are identified by Historic England and are formally designated by the relevant minister at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Listed buildings are graded I, II* or II. Grades I and II* cover the most important 8% of listed buildings, while most are grade II. The same Acts of Parliament that protect listed buildings also require councils to create conservation areas in order to protect places of special architectural or historic character. Planning controls are tougher in conservation areas and the impact of any proposed development on the character and appearance of the conservation area has to be carefully considered before permission is granted.

The Register:

Historic England carries out an annual condition survey of all religious listed buildings and all grade I and grade II* secular listed buildings, alongside other types of nationally identified or protected heritage assets including parks and gardens, battlefields, shipwrecks and archaeological monuments. Councils are also requested to provide information about the condition of their conservation areas as part of the national survey. The result of this is the annual Heritage at Risk Register.

Councils have the option of carrying out their own condition surveys to draw up their own Heritage at Risk Registers for grade II listed buildings, which make up the vast majority of listed buildings. Many councils do not carry out an annual survey any more due to staff shortages, or they do it in conjunction with community heritage groups who carry the majority of the fieldwork.

Buildings are assessed on their occupancy/use and their condition, both of which are recorded. A priority category is created and is compared with the previous year’s entry. The type of ownership (crown, local government or private) is recorded but the name of the owner is not published. The priority categories break down as follows:

A. Immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric; no solution agreed.

B. Immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric; solution agreed but not yet implemented.

C. Slow decay; no solution agreed.

D. Slow decay; solution agreed but not yet implemented.

E. Under repair or in fair to good repair, but no user identified; or under threat of vacancy with no obvious new user (applicable only to buildings capable of beneficial use).

F. Repair scheme in progress and (where applicable) end use or user identified; or functionally redundant buildings with new use agreed but not yet implemented.

England’s national register can be explored here: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/heritage-at-risk/search-register/. Local registers vary from council to council but most follow the template laid down by the national register.

Advantages of Heritage at Risk Registers in England:

· It allows for the prioritisation of funds and attention at both local and national level (including enforcement action or compulsory purchase where appropriate).

· It focuses media attention on heritage buildings every year it is released.

· It can spur owners into carrying out works or selling buildings to more active owners.

· It enables potential new owners to easily identify buildings in need of restoration.

Disadvantages of Heritage at Risk Registers in England:

· The majority of listed buildings at risk are grade II listed and fall outside the remit of the national survey. Resources are required at local government level in order to carry out a survey of the majority of listed buildings. The majority of councils have not carried out local surveys in recent years due to funding cuts.

Other Buildings at Risk Lists:

Both the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) and Save Britain’s Heritage (SAVE) maintain their own records of listed buildings at risk.

The SPAB list is only for listed buildings in need of repairs or renovation and that are for sale. It is only supplied to members who are looking for new projects. Properties are added to this list by reference from real estate agents, individuals, auctioneers, dioceses and local councils. Contact details of the relevant real estate agent are provided.

The SAVE list provides records of a range of listed buildings that are vacant and with an uncertain future. Its aim is to identify new owners able to repair them and/or find a new use for them in order to secure the building's future. Not all are actively being marketed.

Both of these registers are kept in order to identify vacant buildings with an aim to finding new owners capable of providing new long-term uses.