
It comes after the Dunedin City Council closed submissions on its proposed plan change one to the second-generation district plan (2GP), which outlines a swathe of new planning rules, including for heritage buildings and sites.
In total, there were 146 houses heritage-listed on the council’s schedule, but some homeowners said they were not informed before their houses were listed.
Hearings are set to take place later this year, but already some heritage property owners have expressed concern about how the council has handled things.
Vaughn Malkin said the heritage assessment of his 1950 Belleknowes home was "contradictory" and "substandard".
His submission said this lack of clarity made it challenging to engage with the heritage process, "which is already fairly complex and opaque".
"If the council wants to be serious about this, they need to offer heritage owners something.
"Now, they’re quite happy to offer commercial property owners things like rates rebates.
"What’s happened is that there’s now an additional burden on the private individuals to benefit the public."
Mr Malkin said he would like to see some or all of the heritage status removed from his property, which was an early design of late architect Sir Miles Warren.
"If I can’t get the hearing commissioners to agree with that, then I guess I will get legal advice and consider going to, I think, the Environment Court that you have to go to to appeal these things."
Fellow property owner Petrus Yen, who also submitted, said he would consider his options depending on the outcome of the hearings.
"We support preserving heritage, but as it is a public good, it would be much fairer for the public to fund it either by purchasing the property outright or fully covering costs related to protecting the designated heritage elements.
"While I understand that this could be expensive and ratepayers may hesitate to shoulder the cost, it feels even more unjust to place the entire burden on private homeowners."
Meanwhile, heritage advocates have mixed views of the proposed plan change.
Developer Ted Daniels, who owns and operates several heritage buildings in Dunedin, said while there had been valuable discussion regarding heritage, the rules still did not provide adequate safeguards for heritage.
"Not every building requires protection, but buildings with historical, architectural or cultural significance should be prioritised.
"Protection measures should be focused on structures that contribute meaningfully to the history, character and streetscape of a given precinct. Clear criteria for identifying these buildings, based on their contribution to the area’s heritage, should be developed and implemented."
He said developers buying heritage properties should understand that these buildings were "not simply assets to be demolished or altered at will".
"Instead, developers should explore opportunities to retain or adapt these structures within their projects. Preservation of heritage buildings contributes to the city’s character and helps maintain the collective memory of Dunedin’s history."
Southern Heritage Trust chairwoman Jo Galer said communication was vital.
"What we don’t want is a lip service situation where something’s set up to fail and the opposition becomes the story, because of all these people being put upon by the council and told what to do with their properties."
Ms Galer said she would like to see more notification of buildings that were going to be demolished.
"Because when you put those buildings in the schedule, it’s still only just scratching the surface of what we have.
"I think they’re focusing on the suburbs, which is great, and we did want that. We’ve always asked for that."
The issue of "demolition by neglect", where heritage buildings were abandoned to deteriorate, was also something that needed to be addressed, she said.
A council spokesman said it had received about 300 submissions on the proposed plan change.
Hearing dates were yet to be confirmed but would likely be mid-year.