Thousands of Hamilton home-owners have been thrown into limbo after their properties were slapped with stringent rules around what they can and can’t do to them as the city council attempts to further protect its heritage and natural environment.
Some owners whose properties have been impacted by Hamilton City Council’s proposed Plan Change 9 to the district plan told OneRoof the new rules undermined their private property rights and added another unnecessary expense in the form of resource consents when making changes to their homes.
They claimed it was a “rushed” and “dirty trick” by the city council to try and stop some areas being developed before the Government’s new intensification rules allowing buildings of up to three storeys on most sites in cities without any need for resource consent is introduced later this month.
One property owner said the changes were a “multi-million-dollar kick in the guts”.
Start your property search
But the council refuted these claims and said the changes were planned well before the Government announced its intensification plans and the new rules were not aimed at stopping development and instead added an extra layer to make sure Hamilton’s important features were protected.
Under Hamilton City Council’s proposed Plan Change 9 to the district plan, it identified 7295 properties with natural and heritage characteristics important to the city’s history and needing protection.
Of those properties impacted, 403 were identified as built heritage, 2908 were in historic heritage areas and 1869 were significant natural areas. Some properties had multiple elements identified.
Properties identified as heritage buildings now required resource consents for a range of work including alterations and extending any structure or fence on site, while houses within historic heritage areas need resource consents for work such as alterations and additions to buildings on a front corner and through site and to build fences and walls, according to Hamilton law firm Harkness Henry.
Property owners in significant natural areas will need resource consents to prune, maintain or remove indigenous vegetation or trees.
Developer John Kenel said the changes had impacted plans for five of his properties. Photo / Supplied
The rules take immediate effect to protect the properties and items while the formal hearing process in underway.
Sharon Robinson, who is an architectural designer living in Hayes Paddock in Hamilton East, said her community felt “blindsided” after receiving the letters two weeks ago notifying them that their houses were now classed as being in a historic heritage area.
Hayes Paddock was already deemed as being a special character area so residents were already restricted by what they could do to their properties, but Robinson said the latest changes were a “step too far”.
Taking the rules on face value, she said property owners who wanted to renovate their homes or extend out the back would now need to apply for a costly resource consent which in her experience could cost between $5000 and $20,000.
Robinson said it was expensive enough to maintain and repair buildings without adding extra costs that could make it too hard.
The rules also seemed counter intuitive of the council who was pushing for warmer, drier homes, but then made it harder for people to do so by requiring them to get a resource consent to insulate the property’s external walls, she said. The rules also appeared to prevent homeowners from installing solar panels or even garden sheds without permission.
The plan change felt “reactionary” and “rushed”, she said.
Homeowner Sharon Robinson said she felt blindsided by the changes. Photo / Supplied
“It just kind of makes you feel that you are made to paid for an asset that Hamilton City Council wants to protect and yet you are dictated to how you live in your own home. It’s almost draconian.”
Assured Properties chief executive John Kenel said the changes meant he owned five properties that were now deemed to be of historic or natural significance.
Kenel was still trying to work out exactly what the council letters meant, but said right now he couldn’t go ahead with planned changes to the properties.
“All they’ve done is sent the letters out and said stop and removed your rights to do anything with your property.”
Among the five affected properties was a house on Brooklyn Ave next to the bush by Claudelands Showgrounds and the other was an older property on Marama Street in Frankton.
A lot of the properties on Marama St had already been developed and replaced with townhouses and Kenel estimated it would cost him around $250,000 if he couldn’t use the land for its highest and best use.
“As if the development of new housing wasn’t hard enough today. I’ve just taken a multi-million-dollar kick in the guts,” he said.
The new rules made it riskier for developers to buy properties in advance and also make it harder for people to find sites in Hamilton where people could build affordable infill housing, he said.
Kenel said the changes weren’t just impacting developers, but also everyday homeowners and he wanted to get a group of property owners together to fight it collectively.
“I don’t like the way they’ve done it. It’s not right. You do the consultation first and then you change the rules.”
One of Kenel’s townhouse developments in Hamilton Central. Photo / Supplied
Harkness Henry associate Charlotte Muggeridge, who specialises in resource management law, said a number of her clients had been surprised by the heritage status of their properties, especially because some felt they were worn down and didn’t have any heritage value.
People in these properties who wanted to do alterations or build a fence at the front of their property now needed a resource consent, while owners of properties deemed to fall in a significant natural area needed them to prune, maintain or remove any indigenous vegetation.
Muggeridge said the proposal also raised significant concerns around whether they could develop or demolish the property and whether it would impact their property value.
“I think the reason being is because the houses in built heritage are being identified. So, it’s something that’s really personal and arguably cutting through private property rights – what you can and can’t do with your property. “
While those suburbs with historic heritage areas had been more affected, the build heritage properties were “scattered” all over the city.
She said a lot of people were getting caught out by the fact that the plan change was already operative and questioned whether it was a “sneaky way” of the council trying to get less submissions by only giving owners a couple of weeks to respond.
Hamilton City Council planning unit manager Mark Davey said the proposed changes were not about stopping the development of notified properties and were instead aimed at adding “an extra layer of protection to those elements that have defined Hamilton”.
Davey said property owners might need resource consent to carry out work on their properties, but this would depend on the work being carried out and the heritage and natural environment element.
“There are inevitably trade-offs between balancing greater good vs private property rights. We believe we’ve struck the right balance through plan change 9.”
Addressing concerns around whether it would limit inner city developments, Davey said the council had allowed for a significant development within the city and Plan Change 9 would have limited impact on the supply of housing.
Property owners had until August 19 to submit on the proposal which would then be considered by a hearings panel who was expected to release its decision in mid-2023. Property owners unhappy with the decisions could then appeal and this could take another 12 months to go through the court process.
The council defended giving people enough time to submit and said it had been engaging with property owners about significant natural areas since July 2021 and property owners within heritage areas or archaeological sites since May 2022. Staff had also been attending markets and hosting drop-in sessions to answer any questions property owners had.
