Proposed new rules on natural hazards that could affect thousands of Dunedin properties have largely been welcomed, despite concerns some owners will be left out of pocket.
The proposals, which would ban development in the most at-risk areas and introduce new controls in other parts of the city, were unveiled by the Dunedin City Council yesterday.
And, despite confirmation about 10,000 properties would be covered by the new rules, property developers, real estate industry figures and the Otago Chamber of Commerce largely welcomed the proposed changes yesterday.
Chamber chief executive John Christie said the city needed to ''face facts'' and the new approach allowed people to make informed choices about developments.''
There will be consequences for people and we'll have to work through them community by community, but I think the council is acting prudently.''
However, Real Estate Institute of New Zealand director Liz Nidd, of Dunedin, worried the ''broad brush'' approach could see properties not at risk being labelled hazardous.
''It has the potential to damage the value of properties if they take the brush too wide.''
The council's approach aimed to manage the risk from a host of potential threats, ranging from flooding and landslips to storm surges and sea-level rise.
Council policy planner Sally Dicey said yesterday new hazard maps and planning rules would be added to the council's second-generation district plan, which was being worked on. The council planned to consult the public on the proposals, beginning later this month.
Any changes would not be introduced until the second-generation district plan was operative next year.
If confirmed, the new rules would cover up to 8600 of the city's 46,600 residential homes and about 1500 commercial and industrial properties.
The extent of restrictions would vary depending on the perceived level of risk, and the most extreme rules would apply to only 282 existing residential properties.
Existing homes could also remain as-of-right in those areas, but new developments - or significant expansions - would be prohibited, which was ''quite a strong approach'', Ms Dicey said.
That could affect those who had planned to develop or sell vacant lots they owned inside the most at-risk areas.