Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2022 Submissions Received
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2022 Submissions Received
Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy
ID 1 Not Speaking
reference 398041646221914
First name Bruce
Last name Dickson
Organisation
Role
KEY ISSUES
Heritage
That the policy be updated to give effect to the Heritage Strategy by :
● encouraging adaptive reuse and redevelopment of building to prevent them needing
to be dealt with under the policy; Strongly agree
● taking into account the heritage values of a building in determining possible courses
of action under this policy; and
● seeking to avoid demolition wherever possible.
Minor amendments
That the following minor amendments be made to:
● update the purpose to better reflect the different aspects of the Policy ; Strongly agree
● improve clarity in the procedures for considering potentially dangerous, affected or
insanitary buildings; and
● include a definition for “heritage building”.
Further comments
The proposed changes to the current policy are sensible adjustments to recognise the importance and value of heritage
buildings and their potential for conversion to residential accommodation in particular .Not only does this make urban
environmental sense but the sustainable advantages of adaptive reuse are considerable and calcuable
Submission method Online
16/05/2022 1Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy
ID 2 Not Speaking
reference 925041750223616
First name ian
Last name bartlet
Organisation
Role
KEY ISSUES
Heritage
That the policy be updated to give effect to the Heritage Strategy by :
● encouraging adaptive reuse and redevelopment of building to prevent them needing
to be dealt with under the policy; Strongly agree
● taking into account the heritage values of a building in determining possible courses
of action under this policy; and
● seeking to avoid demolition wherever possible.
Minor amendments
That the following minor amendments be made to:
● update the purpose to better reflect the different aspects of the Policy ; Agree
● improve clarity in the procedures for considering potentially dangerous, affected or
insanitary buildings; and
● include a definition for “heritage building”.
Submission method Online
16/05/2022 2Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy
ID 3 Not Speaking
reference 088041117223722
First name Stephen
Last name Hormann
Organisation
Role
KEY ISSUES
Heritage
That the policy be updated to give effect to the Heritage Strategy by :
● encouraging adaptive reuse and redevelopment of building to prevent them needing
to be dealt with under the policy; Strongly agree
● taking into account the heritage values of a building in determining possible courses
of action under this policy; and
● seeking to avoid demolition wherever possible.
Minor amendments
That the following minor amendments be made to:
● update the purpose to better reflect the different aspects of the Policy ; Strongly agree
● improve clarity in the procedures for considering potentially dangerous, affected or
insanitary buildings; and
● include a definition for “heritage building”.
Attachments
Additional Comments on Review of Whanganui District Council Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2022.docx
Further comments
Concern for the preservation (where reasonably possible) of our heritage buildings as this is an important feature of
Whanganui's character and part of its lifestyle and tourism appeal.
Submission method Online
16/05/2022 3Additional Comments on Review of Whanganui District Council Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2022 Personal submission from Stephen Hormann, 29 Turoa Road, Kowhai Park, Whanganui In addition to my online form submission on the above policy review (which mainly relates to the consideration of how to treat heritage buildings), I would like to give the following example of a dangerous and insanitary building situation and make some comments and suggestions. My wife and I have been residents and ratepayers in Turoa Road, Kowhai Park/Whanganui East for over 30 years. We enjoy the generally quiet street and the semi-rural lifestyle that it offers. A house across the road for us, at the base of a steep hill leading up to the Bastia Hill Water Tower, was severely damaged by a large landslide in 2015 during the major rainstorm/flood event that impacted Whanganui. Thankfully, no one was killed or injured by the slip as the house occupants were away at the time. The house was red-stickered by WDC inspectors. With further slip activity a potential hazard, the house presumably could not be easily repaired, the section reinstated and the building reoccupied. The property owner was paid out by her insurance company and she shifted to Australia. Since that time the building has remained derelict and probably in a dangerous and insanitary condition. The building would be damp and mouldy inside and most likely infested by vermin. The formerly well-kept gardens are now overgrown. As no repair or reinstatement work has been done on the property, I assume the red-sticker status remains in place (I am also assuming that significant engineering and repair work would be required to allow the property to be reoccupied). Other than some barricades being erected to prevent entry and some vegetation trimming done to keep the footpath clear, little work has been done by the current owners. Council may be aware of what the new owner’s intentions are regarding the property but the local residents are left wondering what may happen or when. The property’s ongoing poor condition would likely be having some effect on street appeal and local property values. Ideally, we would like to see the house repaired (if possible) or the building demolished, the section reinstated and (if allowed by Council) a new house built. We feel that seven years seems a long time to wait for this matter to be resolved, although understand that the issue is complex. We appreciate that this concerns private property, however, Council also needs to recognise that such unresolved matters can negatively affect neighbouring properties and residents in the local community. In another situation, while recently walking in the central city between Liverpool and Glasgow Streets, I observed three neighbouring houses completely overgrown with ivy that looked derelict and abandoned (at least, I hope, no one was living in them). In the same area, I have often spotted other derelict buildings and some empty sections that looked abandoned. In a time when Whanganui is experiencing a housing crisis, these properties should really be re-developed to allow for the provision of better standard housing. Due to the above serious housing situation and the likely impacts of accelerating climate change (with more severe weather events such as storms and floods predicted), I would like to submit that
Council give consideration to ways that it could encourage or require property owners of derelict buildings to resolve/reinstate them within a reasonable time period. This could involve perhaps an extra charge on rates or fine if suitable progress is not being made. It is not responsible or fair on the community if buildings are just left in a dangerous or insanitary state nor is it the most effective use of available land within the city area. If rates remain unpaid or the owners cannot be contacted (i.e. they are effectively abandoned), the Council should have the power to seize the properties and sell them for redevelopment. Thank you for your consideration of my submission. Yours sincerely, Stephen Hormann 22 April 2022
Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy
ID 4 Not Speaking
reference 756041537221328
First name Dean
Last name Raymond
Organisation Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
Role
KEY ISSUES
Heritage
That the policy be updated to give effect to the Heritage Strategy by :
● encouraging adaptive reuse and redevelopment of building to prevent them needing
to be dealt with under the policy; Strongly agree
● taking into account the heritage values of a building in determining possible courses
of action under this policy; and
● seeking to avoid demolition wherever possible.
Minor amendments
That the following minor amendments be made to:
● update the purpose to better reflect the different aspects of the Policy ; Strongly agree
● improve clarity in the procedures for considering potentially dangerous, affected or
insanitary buildings; and
● include a definition for “heritage building”.
Attachments
HNZPT Submission on Whanganui Dangerous and insanitary buildings policy.pdf
Further comments
Refer to attached letter
Submission method Email
16/05/2022 4Tairangahia a tua whakarere;
Tatakihia nga reanga o amuri ake nei
Honouring the past; Inspiring the future
28 April 2022 File reference: 33003-081
Whanganui District Council
101 Guyton Street
Whanganui 4500
policysubmissions@whanganui.govt.nz
Review of Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy
To: Whanganui District Council
Name of Submitter: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
1. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on
the review of the of the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy.
2. This letter is supplementary to the completed submission form, and provides further comments on
our submission.
3. HNZPT strongly agrees with the three main points listed in the Key Issues section of the submission
form. The reason for our agreement with these points is that the reviewed policy appropriately
aligns with the Council’s Heritage Strategy and takes into account the special circumstances of
heritage buildings.
4. HNZPT is supportive of Section 8.2 of the policy (Application of the policy to heritage buildings). This
section includes a are comprehensive and appropriate list of matters that Council will take account
of in dealing with any heritage building under the policy.
5. HNZPT is also supportive of other sections of the policy where heritage matters are mentioned.
These sections include the following:
• Purpose of the Policy - Section 4.1(c)
• Section 7 – working with other agencies
• Related legislation – Section 10
6. In several places (clauses 9.4(e) and 9.7.4) the policy refers to ‘scheduled heritage buildings’. The
policy would be more encompassing if the word ‘scheduled’ was deleted, so that the clauses refer
(64 4) 494 8320 Central Regional Office, Level 1, 71 Boulcott Street PO Box 2629, Wellington 6140 heritage.org.nzto all heritage buildings, as defined in the policy, and not just places included in the District Plan
schedule.
7. HNZPT is supportive of the definition of heritage building in the policy. The definition is
appropriately broad and encompasses the New Zealand Heritage List / Rārangi Kōrero, the District
Plan schedule, and the Old Town Heritage Overlay.
8. Apart from the minor amendments suggested in paragraph 6 above Heritage New Zealand Pouhere
Taonga is fully supportive of the revised policy.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Policy review. Please contact us at this
office if you would like any further discussion or clarification of our submission.
Yours sincerely
Dean Raymond
Kaiwhakahaere ā Takiwā (Area Manager)
Te Takiwā o Te Pūtahi a Māui
(64 4) 494 8320 Central Regional Office, Level 1, 71 Boulcott Street PO Box 2629, Wellington 6140 heritage.org.nzDangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy
ID 5 Not Speaking
reference 961050839223403
First name Carol
Last name waldman
Organisation
Role
KEY ISSUES
Heritage
That the policy be updated to give effect to the Heritage Strategy by :
● encouraging adaptive reuse and redevelopment of building to prevent them needing
to be dealt with under the policy; Strongly agree
● taking into account the heritage values of a building in determining possible courses
of action under this policy; and
● seeking to avoid demolition wherever possible.
Minor amendments
That the following minor amendments be made to:
● update the purpose to better reflect the different aspects of the Policy ; Agree
● improve clarity in the procedures for considering potentially dangerous, affected or
insanitary buildings; and
● include a definition for “heritage building”.
Further comments
I would like the council to support owners of heritage buildings to be able to maintain them and use them without excessive
costs. If a building does need to be demolished all efforts should be made to recycle and reuse as much as possible of the
old building.
Submission method Online
16/05/2022 5Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy
ID 6 Not Speaking
reference 742051109225009
First name Brian
Last name Milham
Organisation
Role
KEY ISSUES
Heritage
That the policy be updated to give effect to the Heritage Strategy by :
● encouraging adaptive reuse and redevelopment of building to prevent them needing
to be dealt with under the policy; Strongly agree
● taking into account the heritage values of a building in determining possible courses
of action under this policy; and
● seeking to avoid demolition wherever possible.
Minor amendments
That the following minor amendments be made to:
● update the purpose to better reflect the different aspects of the Policy ; Strongly agree
● improve clarity in the procedures for considering potentially dangerous, affected or
insanitary buildings; and
● include a definition for “heritage building”.
Further comments
N/A . Proposed amendments must be done.
Submission method Online
16/05/2022 6You can also read
