Agenda of Consultation Hearings - Monday, 30 March 2026

Consultation Hearings

30 March 2026

Results of consultation on review of Dangerous, Insanitary and Affected Buildings Policy

Department: Corporate and Regulatory

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This informs the Hearings Committee (the Committee) that there were four submissions on the review of the Dangerous, Insanitary and Affected Building Policy (the Policy).

2 Two submitters agreed overall with the proposed Policy, one did not agree, and one did not answer this question. All submitters provided comments and suggestions. One submitter asked to be heard by the Committee.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Considers the submissions on the review of the Dangerous, Insanitary and Affected Building Policy

b) Makes recommendations to the Council on the Dangerous, Insanitary and Affected Building Policy.

BACKGROUND

Building Act 2004

3 The Council is required under section 131 of the Building Act 2004 (the Act) to adopt a policy on dangerous, insanitary buildings. The policy must take into account affected buildings and it must state:

· The approach that Dunedin City Council will take in performing its functions under the Act

· Its priorities in performing these functions and

· How the policy will apply to heritage buildings.

4 Policies must be reviewed within five years of the policy being adopted and then at intervals of not more than five years. A policy does not cease to have effect because it is under review or being reviewed.

5 The special consultative procedure must be used if the policy is amended or replaced.

Policy history

6 The Council adopted its first Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy in 2007. It was reviewed in 2011 in light of lessons learned from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes.

7 It was reviewed again in 2017/2018 following the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 which introduced major changes to the way earthquake-prone buildings were identified and managed by territorial authorities. The Amendment Act 2016 removed the requirement for territorial authorities to have earthquake-prone building policies and instead created a national policy framework. Because of this the earthquake-prone buildings section became redundant and was removed.

8 The policy was reviewed in 2021 to include affected buildings when it became the Dangerous, Insanitary and Affected Buildings Policy.

DISCUSSION

Policy review

9 The Policy is working well to address dangerous, insanitary and affected buildings in Dunedin. Minor changes are proposed to make the Policy easier to understand and to update language.

10 Greater clarity has been provided around dealing with protected heritage buildings deemed dangerous or insanitary or when protected buildings are affected by neighbouring buildings.

11 Details of proposed changes are:

Section	Proposed change	Reason
Policy history
Policy history	Adding the history of the policy including dates of adoption and review.	Greater clarity and in response to audit.
Definitions
Heritage definition	Updating this definition	To align with updated terminology.
Section 1: Taking action on dangerous, insanitary and affected buildings
Section 1.3	Additional section on how Council may respond to a dangerous, insanitary or affected building including examples.	To provide greater clarity.
Sections 2 and 3: Heritage buildings
Sections 2 & 3	Providing additional explanatory information for buildings that are also heritage buildings.	To provide greater clarity and information for owners of these buildings.
Section 2.6	Adding that the Council will notify New Zealand Heritage Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT) of any notice requiring building work or restricting entry to a building that is included on the NZHPT list.	To be clear about this requirement of the Building Act 2004.
Section 6: Review
Review	Adding reference to the special consultative procedure that is required when this policy is amended or replaced.	To be clear about this requirement of the Building Act 2004.

12 See Attachment A for tracked changes to the proposed Policy and Attachment B for the statement of proposal.

13 Following consultation, it is also proposed to:

· add the word “ordinary” to the definition of Dangerous buildings to accurately reflect this definition in the Act.

· add the words to 2.4 “Any proposed work affecting buildings or areas subject to heritage orders, covenants and encumbrances may require additional consents.” for greater clarification.

Community engagement

14 The special consultative procedure was used to review the Policy, as required by the Act. Consultation was open from Wednesday 18 February until Tuesday 24 March via the Dunedin City Council website. It was advertised in the Otago Daily Times.

Results of consultation

15 There were four submissions on this review, with one submitter wishing to be heard.

Overall agreement with proposed Policy

16 Two submitters agreed overall, with the proposed Policy, one did not agree, and one did not answer this question. All submitters made comments or suggestions on the proposed Policy.

Specific feedback

17 One submitter would like greater Council scrutiny over residential premises, citing the Health Act 1956 as well as other legislation. This submitter wishes to be heard. See Attachment C for Michael Gibson’s submission.

18 A submission from Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) commented that the Policy is simple and clear but noted that the word “ordinary” is missing from the definition of Dangerous buildings. As the word “ordinary” was inadvertently omitted from this definition, staff agree it should be included to accurately reflect the Building Act definition. See Attachment D for the FENZ submission.

19 Another submitter asked for penalties for owners of derelict and insanitary buildings. See Attachment E for Murray Lawrence’s submission.

20 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) commented that it is generally supportive of the Council’s commitment in the proposed Policy to take into account the heritage values of the building in determining possible courses of action. It recommended including additional information and clarification on certain points relating to heritage buildings and archaeological sites. See Attachment F for the HNZPT submission.

OPTIONS

21 There are no options to this report as its purpose is to present the results of consultation to the Committee.

NEXT STEPS

22 Next steps are for the Committee to make recommendations to the Council on the Policy review.

Signatories

Author:

Anne Gray - Policy Analyst

Grant Sutton - Principal Advisor Building Services

Authoriser:

Mike Hart - Acting Manager, Building Services

Paul Henderson - General Manager Corporate and Regulatory Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Tracked changes to Dangerous, Insanitary and Affected Buildings Policy	16
⇩b	Statement of proposal for review of Dangerous, Insanitary and Affected Buildings Policy	21
⇩c	Michael Gibson submission	26
⇩d	Fire and Emergency New Zealand submission	28
⇩e	Murray Lawrence submission	29
⇩f	Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga submission	31

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social and economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

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

This policy review contributes to the priorities of healthy and safe people within the Social Wellbeing Strategy, and compelling destination within the Economic Development Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

No specific impacts for mana whenua were identified. However, in recognition of the Autūroa and Autakata pou in Te Taki Haruru, the two rūnaka were advised of the review and the opportunity to provide feedback.

Sustainability

There are no specific implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

This review is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

The special consultative procedure was used to review the Policy, as required by the Act.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement during this review with In-House Legal Counsel, Council Communications and Marketing, and the Heritage Team.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

Chairperson	Cr Lee Vandervis

Members	Cr Russell Lund	Cr Mandy Mayhem

Author:	Lauren Riddle - Governance Support Officer
Authoriser:	Paul Henderson - General Manager Corporate and Regulatory Services