The policy relating to historical use of lead-based paint has been slated by developers as overly cautious, needlessly adding significant cost to projects, they say.
Terramark resource management planner Darryl Sycamore made an Official Information Act request and it uncovered an extraordinary amount of correspondence on the subject.
He passed on the information to council by-election candidate and former city councillor Andrew Whiley.
Mr Whiley last year called for a rethink about how the council handled the matter.
The Otago Daily Times has begun to sift through information forwarded on by Mr Whiley.
Much of it is technical.
In the end, the Ministry for the Environment said it was comfortable with the council’s approach.
‘‘We are comfortable the council is not applying a blanket rule to all pre-1945 homes; decisions are made case by case,’’ a media statement said late last year.
However, that was not always the flavour at the ministry.
Senior adviser James Mitchell had a series of comments on October 24 last year.
‘‘While we fully appreciate that DCC is trying to prevent adverse health outcomes as a result of exposure to soil contaminated with lead-based paint, the way they are going about it could be better,’’ he said.
The DCC approach might turn into a precedent for other councils about other issues, such as the likelihood of arsenic leaching into soil from a deck, he suggested.
Ministry meeting notes record a ‘‘free and frank discussion’’ with council staff on October 31 last year.
That included the DCC stating where a development was proposed, soil sampling was required to confirm lead levels. The ministry pointed out this was not a requirement under the national environmental standard for managing contaminants.
‘‘DCC agreed that this is a council process or policy’’ and it was ‘‘prepared to take ownership of this, so that [standard] can be implemented as intended’’.
Other correspondence included an email from council resource consent manager Alan Worthington in July 2024 about a report by Stantec.
Its key finding was about development where there was, or had been, a pre-1945 building, he said. In these situations, it was more ‘‘likely than not’’ the lead level in the soil would be above the level in the regulation.
