Fitzroy Hotel Auckland Ltd and owner fined for failing to fix ‘dangerous’ building
35,000 after failing to comply with an Auckland Council Dangerous Building Notice. Photo / Auckland Council" data-test-ui="article-media__image" fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" />The owner of a heritage-listed former hotel in Auckland has been fined $135,000 for failing to address safety concerns over the derelict building.
Built around 1855, the former Fitzroy Hotel on Wakefield St is considered the city’s oldest brick building, but has been in a derelict state for many years.
Auckland Council required urgent work on the deteriorating building following engineering assessments that identified “significant cracking”, subsidence and the risk of falling masonry.
The Auckland District Court found owner Terry Huang and his company The Fitzroy Hotel Auckland guilty of failing to comply with a Dangerous Building Notice issued in October 2023 under the Building Act 2004.
At sentencing yesterday, the court declined an application by Huang for a further adjournment.
Judge EP Paul imposed fines of $45,000 on Huang and $90,000 on The Fitzroy Hotel Auckland.
These are the largest reported Building Act 2004 fines imposed on a single entity.
In sentencing, Judge Paul cited the public safety risk created by the offending, the duration of the non-compliance and the fact that no remediation work had been done.
It was important that the fines imposed were not seen as a mere cost of doing business, he said.
The court heard the council repeatedly sought compliance from the defendants and provided opportunities for them to undertake remedial works.
The Dangerous Building Notice required all necessary work to be completed by November 10, 2023.
So far, no physical work has been carried out on the building.
Auckland Council has been investigating concerns about the building since 2020, following complaints about cracks appearing in the facade.
Structural engineers from Tonkin + Taylor carried out multiple inspections and concluded the building’s condition had “progressively deteriorated”.
Judge Paul accepted expert evidence that the building was “dangerous” and posed an “ongoing risk to public safety”.
He rejected arguments that the notice was unclear or unreasonable.
After finding Huang personally liable as a director, Judge Paul said he had not taken all reasonable steps to prevent or stop the offending.
“The stark reality is no works or actions were ever undertaken to reduce or remove the danger.”
‘Responsibilities don’t disappear because the work is difficult’
Auckland Council Regulatory and Safety Committee chairwoman, councillor Josephine Bartley, said the sentence should leave building owners with no doubt about their responsibilities.
“This was not a case where the risks were unknown or the expectations unclear. The building was identified as dangerous, a notice was issued, and the owners were given multiple opportunities over an extended period to take action.
“They chose not to,” Bartley said.
She said there were no excuses when public safety was at stake.
“Owning a heritage building comes with responsibilities, and those responsibilities don’t disappear because the work is difficult, expensive or inconvenient.”
Bartley said Aucklanders have a right to expect their city centre buildings to be safe.
Auckland Council team leader investigations Paul Cowling said the outcome reflected the seriousness of failing to address known safety risks.
“Council officers spent years engaging with the owners, providing opportunities to comply and seeking a resolution without prosecution.
“Dangerous Building Notices are not optional, and they are not open-ended,” Cowling said.
If a building poses a risk to the public, he said owners must act.
“When they don’t, Auckland Council will not hesitate to take enforcement action.
“Our role is to protect the public. Building owners who ignore serious safety risks and fail to meet their legal obligations should expect to be held accountable,” Cowling said.