14 April 2026
Your email:
The information in these articles is general information only, is provided free of charge and does not constitute legal or other professional advice. We try to keep the information up to date. However, to the fullest extent permitted by law, we disclaim all warranties, express or implied, in relation to this article – including (without limitation) warranties as to accuracy, completeness and fitness for any particular purpose. Please seek independent advice before acting on any information in this article.
New Zealand communities, including the places people live, their property and supporting infrastructure, have been (and continue to be) developed in locations or in ways which mean they are at high risk from natural hazards. Cyclones, flooding and slips keep delivering the same message – the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) has not delivered acceptable natural hazard management outcomes.
Against that background, the Government introduced the National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards (NPS-NH) on 15 January 2026. The NPS-NH is intended to provide a consistent, risk-based framework for managing natural hazard risk associated with subdivision, use and development across the country.
The NPS-NH must now be considered in resource consent decision-making, which means that councils, applicants and practitioners need to get to grips with the key parts of this national policy statement.
The NPS-NH applies to seven natural hazards – flooding, landslips, coastal erosion, coastal inundation, active faults, liquefaction and tsunami. It covers all activities managed under the RMA, with the exception of infrastructure and primary production.
The NPS-NH sets out the minimum standard for managing natural hazard risk. Councils and other decision-makers can adopt a more stringent approach, including managing the risk of other natural hazards not covered by the national policy statement. However, the NPS-NH does not override any existing use rights under the RMA.
Part 3 of the NPS-NH sets out the framework for managing natural hazard risk.
Natural hazard risk associated with subdivision, use or development must be assessed by reference to two factors – (i) the likelihood of the natural hazard occurring, and (ii) the consequence of the event for life and property. Those factors are then combined using the risk matrix in Appendix 1 to give an overall risk level – low, medium, high or very high.
When assessing natural hazard risk, decision-makers must consider any existing and proposed mitigation measures.
Where subdivision, use or development is assessed as having “very high” natural hazard risk, that risk must be avoided (Policy 3).
Where activities will create or increase significant natural hazard risk on other sites, that risk must be avoided or mitigated using an approach that is proportionate to the level of natural hazard risk (Policy 4).
Natural hazard risk assessment and decisions must be based on the best available information and must be made even when that information is uncertain or incomplete (Policy 5).
Finally, the potential impacts of climate change to at least 100 years into the future must be considered when managing natural hazard risk (Policy 6).
We generally expect that the new framework will shift questions around the appropriate location of new development to the planning stage, rather than then consenting stage. Assuming the NPS-NH makes it into national direction in the new resource management system, regional spatial plans, land use plans and natural environment plans prepared under the new legislation must implement the direction in the NPS-NH (clauses 67 and 68 of the Planning Bill). Accordingly, a key issue in spatial planning going forward will be the identification and mapping of “very high” risk land.
As currently drafted, natural hazard controls are excluded from the regulatory relief regime in the Planning Bill. Regulatory relief is confined to rules on the “specified topics” in clause 63 of Schedule 3 (i.e., significant historic heritage sites and structures, outstanding natural landscapes and features, sites of significance to Māori and areas of high natural character in the coastal environment, wetlands, lakes, rivers or their margins). Natural hazards are not listed.
We have of course seen buyouts of homes following adverse weather events. However, these have not been systematic responses and the exclusion of high-risk properties from a system of regulatory relief reflects the Government’s concern that buyouts or regulatory relief are not fiscally sustainable in the long term. This expectation resetting can be put no more starkly than Cabinet’s 22 September 2025 decision in relation to the establishment of a National Adaptation Framework, which records:
“agreed that the Government’s intent is to move towards an end state where the Crown no longer distorts risk signals and blunts incentives to manage risk by providing financial assistance where homeowners suffer significant losses after major events (especially in the form of residential property buyouts);”
“agreed that in the near-term, where central government provides any discretionary support, the objective is not to fully cover homeowner’s losses and there should be no expectation of financial assistance based on full pre-event property valuations;”
If you have any questions about the NPS-NH or how it might impact you, please reach out to our specialist Local Government and Environment team.
Mike Doesburg, Partner – Wynn Williams Environment & Planning team
Elliot Massen, Senior Associate – Wynn Williams Environment & Planning team
Emma Tod, Associate – Wynn Williams Environment & Planning team
WWW.WYNNWILLIAMS.CO.NZ
