But another resident whose home has been protected, despite his opposition, is gearing up for an appeal.
The Dunedin City Council announced last week it had given 129 heritage buildings greater protection from demolition or modification without consent under changes to the district plan.
A further 17 properties initially proposed for protection were removed from the list.
Belleknowes resident Vaughn Malkin said he was "quietly thankful" at the decision not to schedule his house.
"I feel vindicated, I guess, that the bulk of my argument against scheduling seems to have been accepted," he said.
"People wouldn't have to go through this if the council actually involved building owners at the very beginning instead of presenting it as a fait accompli."
"It would be much better if the council actually behaved like we were partners on this rather than ‘we're the council, do as you’re told’."
In their written decision, commissioners Rob van Voorthuysen (chairman), Cr Sophie Barker and Cr Jim O’Malley said the 1930s house contributed positively to the area’s heritage streetscape and had social, historic and design significance.
"The overall form and composition of the dwelling, use of quality materials and restrained decoration all contribute to a magnificent presence on a substantial corner site."
Mr Yen said he felt many of the key points in his tabled submission opposing protection were not addressed, leaving him "feeling sidelined and unheard".
An economic impact report commissioned by the council in March found "heritage protections might indeed cause reductions in property values of up to 13% over the medium term".
"For us, that translates to a potential loss of $286,000," Mr Yen said.
"That kind of loss is life-changing. And even if there is some public value, shouldn’t the cost be shared by the public, not borne entirely by one individual family?"
Mr Yen said he was "seriously considering" appealing the decision.
"It is a significant cost, but the impact to us is also significant.
"We are just a family trying to build a future, and suddenly we are facing the risk of losing our savings or even our home because of a decision made by the very council we pay rates to," he said.
"It feels like we are forced to fund both our own defence and the prosecution against us."
The commissioners’ report also made an out-of-scope recommendation urging the council to help homeowners manage increased costs associated with heritage listings.
The council should consider waiving resource and building consent fees for alterations, significant maintenance and repairs to scheduled buildings when the need for consents is only due to the buildings’ protected status, the decision report said.
Increasing the amount available for the Dunedin Heritage Fund and providing rates relief for heritage scheduled buildings should also be considered.
There is a 30-day appeal period.
