RMA reform could provide relief for reluctant owners of heritage properties
Saturday, 20 June 2026
Wellington homeowner Sophie Kahn is desperate to have her heritage home delisted - but current laws make this very complicated.
In a piece for The Post, Kahn details her struggle over her Ngaio home, which was designed by legendary post-war architect Ernst Plischke and has a Historic Place Category 1 classification, the highest ranking possible.
While the ranking by Heritage New Zealand has no technical power by itself, the Resource Management Act (RMA) mandates heritage protections in city district plans, and specifies Heritage New Zealand as a recognised “Heritage protection authority”.
Consequently, Kahn’s home has been included on the Wellington District Plan since 2011 as a recognised heritage property, with the council evaluation about the listing specifying the Heritage New Zealand listing as the reason for its evaluation.
Read more:
Govt reviews Wellington heritage rules, Hamilton housing requirements
Sixty-plus Wellington properties ask for removal of heritage protection
She argues her house is incredibly difficult to insure or make liveable thanks to the strong protections on changes that come as a consequence.
“The external footprint of my home cannot be altered, not a window, not a roof material. Repairs and maintenance must meet prescribed heritage standards and use heritage materials. My land cannot ever be developed,” Kahn writes.
“My property has become functionally uninsurable by many mainstream providers; many underwriters will no longer issue cover because reinstating a building to heritage standards using heritage materials represents a liability they refuse to carry. The state now compels me to privately fund a risk that global insurance entities, backed by billions of dollars in reinsurance capital, will not touch.”
Kahn in 2022 submitted to the council asking for her home to be removed from the heritage list and won the backing of the council, but not the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) required by the RMA for changes to district plans.
RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop chose to back the IHP and leave the house protected, despite a general stance in favour of freeing up land use.
Bishop says he was legally constrained by the current RMA from making the decision on anything other than the evidence before him.
“I was required to choose between the Independent Hearings Panel’s (IHP) recommendation to retain the heritage listing, and the council’s alternative recommendation to remove it. I was only allowed to consider information available to the IHP at the time of decisions,” Bishop said.
“There was insufficient evidence to support the delisting. Council did not provide that evidence along with their alternative recommendation, and there was no heritage evidence lodged by the building owners.”
Bishop said he was eager to fix the wider issue with his long-brewing RMA reform, alongside quicker fixes including a streamlined planning process that allowed the de-listing of heritage buildings.
“The more fundamental solution is to replace the RMA which will support a more balanced approach to enabling development while protecting significant heritage. This includes a new planning bill which focuses on regulating the use, development and enjoyment of land, and targeted national policy direction requiring councils to focus on protecting the most significant heritage buildings, while enabling easier alteration and modernisation,” he said.
“The planning bill also includes a regulatory relief mechanism that requires councils to consider the impact of protections such as heritage on the reasonable use of land. Under the bill, regulatory relief can be provided in a range of forms – councils don’t have to provide monetary relief. It can also include things like rate or fee reductions, extra development rights, land swaps, or targeted grants.”
When this issue last came to light, Heritage New Zealand central region director Jamie Jacobs noted that heritage listings did not drop property values and that the Kahn House was originally listed with the enthusiastic backing of its owner at the time.
The original evaluation which recommended that it be added to the Wellington City Council’s District Plan described the house as a “notable example” of the modernist movement.
“The Kahn House has significant national historic value for its association with European émigrés who came to New Zealand to escape Nazism, in this case both Austrian-born architect Ernst Plischke and his clients Joachim and Gertrud Kahn. Many of these refugees from Nazism had a significant impact on New Zealand art, design and architecture, in particular, the spread and promotion of Modernist principles.”