Towns grow tired of derelict buildings
The clock is ticking for owners of buildings that must be strengthened or demolished. But the earliest deadline is still more than a decade away for many owners, leaving many towns wondering what to do about buildings that are boarded up and falling apart.
Councils in these towns have found that at present there is virtually nothing they can do legally about it.
Adrienne Staples, the former mayor of south Wairarapa, knows the problem all too well.
In her hometown of Featherston, several shabby commercial buildings have been shut up for years.
Despite complaints that they are holding the town back, the council found there was no effective legal remedy.
‘‘We can take them to court under the RMA [Resource Management Act] for loss of amenity, but it’s very difficult to describe.
‘‘It’s subjective, rather than objective. So that’s quite a hard thing to win in court.
‘‘Even if you did win, to start with it’s extremely expensive to take someone to the Environment Court, a council would be up for $60,000 to $100,000.’’
And after all that, enforcement was difficult.
‘‘You can have a judgement that says, yes the building’s not up to scratch, but then what, basically?’’
Landlords had reasons why they did not want to make the investment, Staples said.
At least one landlord she knew believed the buyer should do the alterations, others were perhaps wary of opening a can of worms because of tighter building codes.
In Rotorua, the problem has been more houses than derelict commercial buildings, but the same issue prevails.
Mayor Steve Chadwick said they were potential fire risks and dragged down the value of surrounding properties. Neighbours had complained.
‘‘These are real eyesores, they’re a blot on the landscape. I’m very worried they become hangouts for kids. Nefarious activity obviously generates to these places and it’s dangerous for a neighbourhood.’’
Chadwick discovered that because derelict property was not defined in legislation, the properties had to fit other descriptions such as unsafe or unsanitary.
Under the Health Act, any who put offending material on a property could be forced to remove, a possible method of control for overgrown sections and dilapidated houses. But what was offensive was debatable under law.
Chadwick has campaigned to have a definition of derelict buildings inserted in the Building Act.
Local Government NZ supported her and was trying to get amendment through Parliament.
Every council had derelict buildings, a situation they often tried to deal with it through bylaws, Chadwick said.
‘‘But I think a derelict building, whether it’s in Stewart Island or the Far North or Rotorua, it’s derelict and we can define it.’’
She shares the concerns of the Property Council, a lobby group for commercial landlords and developers, that the tighter earthquake rules will see more buildings abandoned until their time runs out.
That’s not to say that empty buildings in reasonable order should be demolished, she says.
‘‘But if a building is left to become derelict than surely it would be better to knock it down and have a vacant space.’’
Like other countries, Staples believes purpose-build legislation is needed here, but political will is weak.
‘‘Where we have to be a wee bit careful is infringing on people’s property rights.’’