Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill: Key Select Committee Changes

New Zealand’s resource management reforms have taken another significant step forward, with the Planning Bill (PB) and Natural Environment Bill (NEB) now reported back by the Environment Select Committee.

The Select Committee has recommended substantial revisions to the drafting of the Bills, many of which are described as clarifications or intended to improve workability. In practice, these changes alter the inner workings of the system in ways that will affect all system participants. Our summary of the key changes are provided below.

Big picture: national direction still runs the show

The fundamental structure – a “funnel” with national direction flowing down through regional and local instruments – is unchanged. But the Select Committee has reinforced just how central national instruments will be.

What this means in practice:

• The most important policy battles will be fought at the national instrument level, not in consent hearings.
• Many of the system’s real obligations will remain uncertain until national instruments are developed.
• Local discretion is significantly narrowed.

Narrower range of effects to be considered

One of the PB’s defining features is clause 14 — the mechanism that narrows the range of effects the planning system regulates. Under the RMA, decision-makers considered broad “effects on the environment.” The new system deliberately excludes certain effects from scope, and the Committee has kept this core policy while sharpening the drafting. Built form, trade competition, retail distribution, financial viability, private views, precedent and landscape are confirmed as unwanted bedfellows of the new system, as are matters dealt with under other legislation (except for natural hazards and contaminated land).

The bottom line is clear: the narrower scope of effects (one of the most significant enablers of development in the new system) survives Select Committee scrutiny intact. The refinements add clarity and should reduce grounds for argument about what is and is not in scope.

The PB would amend the RMA to exclude some effects as part of the transitional arrangements. However, not all effects are proposed to be excluded – landscape, character, appearance, aesthetic qualities, precedent, and matters dealt with under other legislation are not excluded during transition.

Real work will be done by national instruments

The proposed planning system is structured around a hierarchy of national instruments, with national policy direction, national standards, regional spatial plans, and local plans providing the framework for implementation. Select Committee amendments reinforce this approach by requiring a single national policy direction under each Bill that elaborates on all statutory goals. As a result, territorial authorities will have a more constrained role, with local land use plans required to give effect to nationally determined policies and standards (not the goals themselves). This significantly narrows local discretion and shifts the key policy debates away from individual consent processes and into the development of national instruments, making them the primary arena for influencing development outcomes.

This means the most important policy battles will be fought at the national instrument level, not in consent hearings.

Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements not to be transferred

Contrary to the Select Committee Report, Cabinet has announced that existing and initiated Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements will not carry over into the new system. This is one of the more significant and contested changes from a Treaty partnership perspective. Instead, there will be an opportunity to form new “Iwi participation arrangements”, which will likely have narrower scope, aligned with the Bills.

Less council discretion, more developer opportunity

For developers seeking to unlock land for growth, this is one of the most practically useful changes under the new system. The Committee has recommended reducing the grounds on which councils may reject private plan change requests in future – a direct response to concerns about excessive council discretion.

• Councils’ ability to summarily refuse private plan change proposals under the new legislation will be limited.
• Developers with live projects or land holdings where plan change pathways were previously blocked would have substantially enhanced opportunity.

However, during the transition period, private plan changes will be more limited. Any new private plan change request would require an exemption from the Minister, similar to the “plan stop” restrictions on councils.

Relaxation of precautionary and environmental limit constraints

The Committee has made two notable shifts:

• Removed the precautionary default. Permit authorities will no longer be required to default to caution where information is uncertain. Permitting decisions should instead be proportionate and evidence-based.
• Widened departures from environmental limits. Activities beyond significant infrastructure can now exceed environmental limits where a public benefit test is satisfied.

Taken together, these amendments reduce the risk that legitimate development is stalled by information gaps, and create new pathways for projects that can demonstrate clear public benefits.

Controlled activities return

The controlled activity classification (familiar from the RMA) has been reinstated under the NEB only. Controlled activities require consent to be granted, though conditions may still be imposed. The Committee also shifted the activity classification framework from mandatory principles to non-binding guidance, giving greater flexibility to plan-makers but potentially more variation across the country.

Regulatory relief for landowners

Despite drawing a lot of attention from submitters during the Select Committee process, regulatory relief is here to stay.

Councils will be required to assess the impact of planning rules on the reasonable use of private land and consider providing relief where restrictions are significant. This applies to heritage, natural landscapes, biodiversity and sites of significance to Māori, and extends to cumulative impacts of existing controls during the transition.

For property owners and developers, this may provide a new mechanism for challenging overly restrictive provisions, though some councils have flagged the framework as expensive to administer, raising questions about whether the relief that is theoretically available will be practically accessible.

Natural hazards and existing use rights: a new council power

Amendments would allow certain natural hazard rules to override existing use rights. This gives councils a stronger tool to address increasing risks from flooding, erosion and other hazards – including potentially managed retreat. Longstanding activities may no longer be protected from new hazard management rules.

What happens during the transition from the RMA?

The transition from the RMA to the new system has been extended from 30 to 39 months, with mechanisms allowing some aspects of the new regime to take effect earlier. The extended timeframe gives councils, developers and stakeholders additional time to prepare and adapt to the new planning framework.

Our national Environment and Planning Team is following these legislative changes closely. If you would like to understand what the proposed changes could mean for your projects, operations or existing responsibilities, please get in touch.

Mike Doesburg, Partner – Wynn Williams Environment & Planning team

Kate Woods, Special Counsel – Wynn Williams Environment & Planning team

Piper Pengelly, Law Clerk – Wynn Williams Environment & Planning team