The new dawn of resource management law – consenting changes explained

Following a short Select Committee process, the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill passed through its third reading on 10 December 2025. It now awaits royal assent before becoming law – our view is that this will be completed within the next week. The Bill puts forward changes to the already fairly contentious Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 which the Government purports will “promote grocery competition” and make beneficial “technical and machinery changes” following feedback from current fast-track system users. The Bill’s provisions will come into force in two stages, some provisions having immediate legal effect upon royal assent, and others with a “lag” that will have effect on 31 March 2026. Those changes with immediate legal effect include: Limitation of appeal rights to only those persons or entities that are required to be invited to comment. The ability for the panel to impose infrastructure conditions to ensure there is adequate infrastructure to support the project. The ability for the Government to prepare Policy Statements, which will outline the regional and national benefits of certain activities. The panel must consider any relevant Government Policy Statement when making its decision (although none have been prepared at this time). 20 listed projects have had either their description and/or location changed in Schedule 2. Additionally a new power is available for applicants to request that the description or location of a listed project is changed by Order in Council. Changes that will kick-in on 31 March 2026 include: A cap on the timeframe that the Panel Conveners can set for the decision is 90 working days from the date comments are received (unless the applicant otherwise agrees to a longer timeframe). A requirement that the panel must commence work within 5 working days of it being stood up. A power that the Minister for Infrastructure can direct how the EPA conducts its functions under the Act, so long as such direction does not relate to a specific substantive application or person nor impede on a statutorily independent function of the EPA. A requirement that comments provided to the panel by local authorities and administering agencies must be relevant to the substantive application and the decision the panel is required to make. The pre-lodgement consultation requirement is shifted to a notification requirement for the majority of consultees. Opportunity must be provided to notifyees (at least 20 working days) to provide responses which must be incorporated into an application by it was informed by those responses. Several changes that were initially put forward in the Bill, but were subsequently amended or abandoned, before it was passed include: Removal of a draft provision requiring that the Panel Conveners stand up a panel within 15 working days of receiving an application. The initial cap on decision timeframes was put forward as 60 working days from the date comments were received, but this was increased to 90 (as addressed above). Removal of a (new) proposed power in which an applicant could raise concerns as to the suitability of prospective panel members. Removal of a (new) provision in which the panel’s ability to invite comments from non-mandatory invitees would have been fettered by the requirement that they cannot be invited if their comments would be addressed by the local authority or administering agency. This is a fairly high level summary of the main changes proposed, and there are many more changes which will impact on the fast-track process for all persons and entities involved. To know more about these changes, and what they may mean for you, please contact one of resource management members below.

Fulfilling its promise, the Government introduced the two Bills that are intended to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), these being the Natural Environment Bill (NEA) and the Planning Bill (PA). The intention appears for these Bills to read for the first time in the coming week, and for them to be enacted in mid-2026. This memorandum will address the policy and planning structure of the new system. For information about changes to the consenting process please see our article here. By in large, the Bills follow the recommendations made in the blueprint for RMA reform produced by the Expert Advisory Group in March 2025. Each Bill serves an interrelated although distinct purpose but both seek to establish a framework for how the new system will operate, being: For the NEA, for the use, protection, and enhancement of the natural environment; and For the PA, for planning and regulating the use, development, and enjoyment of land. How is the new system structured? The Bills establish a hierarchy of instruments, similarly to that under the RMA. Each instrument must implement the instrument directly preceding it in this hierarchy (and must only implement a higher instrument if there is a requirement to do so in that higher instrument). This hierarchy is as follows, in descending order: Goals National Policy Direction National Standards Regional Spatial Plan Land Use Plans and Natural Environment Plans As was, and is, the case for the RMA the devil lies in the detail so it is likely that the detail of matters such as the allocation of resources, status of particular activities, etc will be fleshed out in greater detail in the national level documents. It will be important to stay abreast of the changes being made so that you can participate in all relevant stages of implementation of the new system (where you are able to) to ensure that your particular interests are put forward and preserved. Goals Comparatively to the expansive purpose of the RMA, the purposes of the Bills are intended to be deliberately straightforward and descriptive. Instead of an overarching purpose, the substantive direction for the system is provided by the goals in the Bills which must be sought to be achieved when undertaking functions or duties or exercising powers under the Bills. The goals sit at the top of the hierarchy but there is no inherent hierarchy within the goals themselves. These goals are intended to define the outcomes that the systems are trying to achieve – The PA’s goals are centred around matters such as separation of incompatible land uses, enabling development of land, planning for infrastructure demand (current and future) and protecting outstanding natural features and landscape, and significant historic heritage. On the other side of the coin, the NEA’s goals focus on use and development of natural resources within environmental limits, safeguarding the life supporting capacity of these natural resources, and achieving a no net loss of indigenous biodiversity. Some RMA matters of national importance have been carried over into these goals, albeit with modification. Notably absent are goals concerning amenity values, climate change related effects, and the relationship with Māori with the environment. There is also no “principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi” provision, as the goals instead provide for Māori interests to be accounted for by way of consultation and participation in the process of creating the planning instruments. This is a pivot from the Te Tiriti provisions in the RMA, and the Bills are prescriptive in how they meet the Crown’s Te Tiriti obligations. Notably, the Bills provide for negotiation between the Crown and PSGE as to how existing and new Treaty settlements will operate under this new system. National Policy Direction A combined National Policy Direction under each Bill will be prepared centrally and will particularise the goals and direct how they must be achieved. National Policy Direction will also address how conflicts between the NEA’s and PA’s goals are to be resolved. The Ministry for the Environment has advised that the first package of National Policy Direction will be released at the end of 2026. National Standards National Standards, like National Policy Direction, will be prepared centrally and will be intended to be an instrument that provides procedural, regulatory, and administrative consistency, specific direction on how a NEA or PA goal is to be achieved in relation to a matter that is not controlled or covered by a National Policy Direction. In our view these standards will have the most impact on how the lower level instruments will be formed. Most notably, these standards will set some environmental limits and give direction as to the nation’s standardised zoning which for all intents and purposes are “rules” that must be implemented. With respect to environmental limits these must be set for air, freshwater, coastal water, land, soil, and indigenous biodiversity and are to be put in place to protect human health and the life-supporting capacity of the natural environment. An important objective of the new system is the establishment of greater consistency between council plans across New Zealand through greater standardisation which will be driven for the large part by National Standards. This will be implemented by a National Standard that specifically addresses standardisation. Mechanisms are in place whereby a councils can depart from the standardisation which requires provision of a justification report, detailing why a departure is warranted. Regional Spatial Plan In the new system, there must be a combined plan for each region at all times, which will consist of a Regional Spatial Plan and a natural environmental plan (under the NEA) for the region and a land use plan (under the PA) for each district in the region. These are the main point of integration between the PA and NEA regimes. Unlike national level documents, Regional Spatial Plans are more akin to your “boots on the ground” RMA instrument, and are intended to set strategic direction for development and public investment in a particular region for a period not less than 30 years. With respect to environmental limits prescribed in National Standards, Regional Councils are to implement these into their Regional Spatial Plans and if a less stringent limit is so be established, the Council must first provide a justification report to the Minister. No justification report is required if a Regional Council wants to establish a more stringent environmental limit. Land Use Plans Land Use Plans are established under the Planning Bill and regulate the use and development of land within a district and are by all means replacements of district and city plans under the RMA. Natural Environmental Plan This plan is prepared under the NEA by Regional Council and its purpose is to enable and regulate the use, protection, and enhancement of natural resources in a region and to assist Regional Councils in carrying out their functions and responsibilities under the NEA – these are akin to and replace regional plans under the RMA. Under a NEA a regional council will be responsible for allocating natural resources which can be done through permitted activities and permits granted: In the order in which applications are lodged (i.e. the status quo of first in first served); Market-based consenting centred around auctions and tenders. This form of allocation is not permitted to be used until specified in a national standard which can also operational details as to how the process if to be followed; or Comparative consenting which involves an assessment of applications that will use the same resource against one another taking into account the merits of each application and criteria set out in the relevant plan or a national standard. What is the timeframe? The RMA will continue to survive for the time being, until such time as the Minister is satisfied that the combined plans for every region have been notified. At such time, an Order in Council will be made that specifies the “transition date” which will bring to an end the “transitional period” (the transitional period begins one month after both Bills obtain royal assent). On the transition date the RMA will be repealed, the NEA and PA come into full force, and legal effect will be given to all Land Use and Natural Environment Plans. The PA specifies that the transition date cannot be later than 31 December 2027 and no sooner than 6 weeks after the Order in Council comes into force. Whilst not confirming a specific date, the Government’s intention is that this entire process (i.e. final decisions on all plans are made) should be completed in 6 years (although depending on when the Order in Council is made, the RMA may only survive for a portion of that 6 year period). Environmental limits We touched on environmental limits earlier, but this is an important change in the new system as it has a big impact on use of finite resources. Environmental limits are: Human health limits, set by the responsible Minister in national standards; and Ecosystem health limits, set by regional councils in its natural environment plan. The detail of how these limits are to be set will be set out in the national standards. These environmental limits can require: An action plan (being a plan developed by a Regional Council setting out decision making processes, reviews of permit conditions, and preparations of rules in a natural environment plan); A cap on natural resource use (i.e. a maximum amount of a particular resource, e.g. water from a River, that Regional Council may allocate through plan rules and permits); or Both an action plan and cap. Regional Council is required to avoid breaching the set environmental limits and must take action if a limit is breached or if there is sufficient evidence to indicate that a limit will be breached. Regulatory relief The PA establishes a regulatory relief framework in which Councils are required to consider the impact on private landowners as a result of planning controls on indigenous biodiversity, significant natural areas, significant historic heritage, sites of significance to Māori, outstanding natural features and landscapes, and areas of high natural character. Where any controls create an impact on the landowner that is more than minor, the council must provide relief. Relief can take a variety of forms including, but not being limited to, development rights, no-fee consents, rates relief, access to grants, provision of expert advice, monetary compensation, or land swaps. This is a rapidly changing area of New Zealand’s law and will eventually impact every person in the country in one way or another. We will continue to release further detailed updates on the Bills as changes are made. If you would like to know more about how these changes will affect you, or you would like assistance drafting a submission (once the submission period dates are announced), please contact one of our Resource Management team members below.

Aiming to capitalise on faster-tracked consenting the Government has introduced the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. While marketed at improving grocery competition through supermarket-specific consenting options, the Bill in fact provides much more nuance. The Bill has had its first reading and is referred to the Environment Select Committee for consideration. Its proposals are indicative of the Government’s quick clean-up of large-scale resource consenting and prioritisation of super market development. The significant changes are as follows: The creation of panels and their decision-making would be streamlined under the Bill. Panel conveners would have 15 working days to set up a panel after receiving notice to do so (Clause 29). Panels would then be required to make their decisions no later than 90 working days from the panel’s establishment, unless otherwise agreed by the applicant (Clause 44). This includes 10 working days for the panel to invite written comments, 20 working days to receive these comments, and a proposed maximum of 60 working days after receiving these comments to make their decisions. In saving more time the Bill will facilitate amendments to listed projects under Schedule 2 (Clause 54). The proposed Section 117A allows corrections to the project description and approximate geographical location of a listed project. These changes may only be made by the Governor-General, by Order in Council, at the Minister’s recommendation. Changes to the regional or national significance of the project, its purpose, and its location, scale and nature will influence the Minister’s recommendation. The Bill eases consultation requirements proposing that councils, iwi authorities, hapū, treaty settlement entities, and administering agencies need only be notified of a referral application or a substantive application for a listed project as opposed to being consulted (Clauses 6(2) and 14). These entities would have 20 working days to provide a response to the applicant. The introduction of Government Policy Statements look to provide a clear picture of the Government’s view on the benefits of certain regional or national infrastructure or development projects (Clause 5). Relevant statements must be considered when assessing a referral application or deciding approvals in a substantive application. Such clarity might leave little to speculation and add weight to these decisions. The Bill would allow the modification or withdrawal of approvals sought in lodged substantive applications prior to the panel making its decisions at the Minister’s discretion (Clause 42). Across the Bill decision makers are given power, with specified time constraints, to request and gather further information from the applicant where necessary. This includes information related to: a. The MfE’s determination that a referral application is complete and within scope (Clause 8); and b. The EPA’s determination that a substantive application is complete and within scope, (Clause 25). Comments by third parties on referral and substantive applications have been specifically narrowed: a. Comments on referral applications would be specifically invited from the Minister for Māori Crown Relations and the Minister for Māori Development. Comments from an administering agency or local authority would need to be relevant to the application and its decision (Clause 9). b. Comments on substantive applications would also need to be similarly relevant. Any other persons invited to comment are restricted from doing so unless an administering agency or local authority does not sufficiently address the matter or does not intend to comment on it (Clause 33). As part of its proposal a referral application would, under the Bill, need to outline not only the potential and known adverse effects of the project on the environment but also the significance of those effects (Clause 7(1)). These proposed changes may well expedite fast-track resource consenting by compressing timeframes and limiting powers. We would expect this to result in faster decision-making.