Daniel Stankovich

As the resource management landscape continues to evolve, so too has our team. Many of you will know members of our Environment and Planning team through existing projects and longstanding relationships with Holland Beckett. Led by Vanessa Hamm, our specialist team advises clients on resource management, environmental, local government and regulatory matters throughout New Zealand. We support clients across a broad range of sectors, including infrastructure, renewable energy, urban development, water, marine, primary industry and public sector projects. Our work spans strategic planning, consenting, plan processes, hearings, fast-track approvals, appeals, enforcement matters and litigation. As our team continues to grow, we wanted to share a few recent developments. Promotion to Senior Associate We are delighted to share the promotion of Laura Murphy to Senior Associate. Laura advises clients on a wide range of resource management and planning matters, both contentious and non-contentious. Her work includes plan processes and appeals, resource consent applications and appeals, enforcement matters, judicial review proceedings, development contributions, customary marine title claims, due diligence and local government matters. Since joining Holland Beckett in 2020, Laura has been involved in a number of significant projects throughout New Zealand and has become a highly regarded member of our team. She continues to make a valuable contribution to the profession as a member of the New Zealand Law Society Environmental Law Committee and Secretary of the Bay of Plenty Resource Management Law Association. We are pleased to recognise her contribution to the firm with this promotion. Promotions to Associate Alongside Laura, the firm has recognised the contributions of Cory Lipinski and Jemma Hollis with promotions to Associate. Cory advises public and private clients on matters including resource consents, fast-track approvals, enforcement proceedings, local government issues, plan changes, judicial reviews and large-scale due diligence projects. He has acted as lead counsel in Council and Department of Conservation hearings and as junior counsel in the High Court. Jemma brings a unique combination of specialist legal expertise and more than a decade of planning and policy experience. Her experience spans resource management and planning, public works acquisitions, local government processes, enforcement and legislative reform. She has appeared as counsel in the District Court, Environment Court, High Court and Supreme Court. Jemma is also actively involved in a number of professional organisations, including TLANZ Environment and Resource Management National Committee, the New Zealand Planning Institute and the Resource Management Law Association. You may also recognise Cory and Jemma as the winners of last year\'s Resource Management Law Association Junior Moot competition. Welcoming Sarah Eriksson We have recently welcomed Sarah Eriksson to the team as a Senior Associate. Sarah brings more than a decade of experience advising public and private sector clients on resource management, environmental, local government and regulatory matters. Her background includes major infrastructure, transport and development projects, together with valuable in-house commercial experience gained in Stockholm as in-house counsel for a global bio-packaging company. Sarah\'s experience in both private practice and in-house legal roles gives her a strong commercial perspective and a practical understanding of the challenges organisations face when making strategic decisions. Together with Bridget Bailey, Senior Associate, and Daniel Stankovich, Solicitor, these appointments and promotions reflect the depth of experience across our Environment and Planning team and our ongoing commitment to supporting clients through an increasingly complex regulatory environment. The RMA Replacement As many of you will be aware, the Government\'s replacement for the Resource Management Act is expected to be enacted in the next month. Our team regularly publishes updates and commentary on legislative reform, significant cases and other developments affecting the planning and environmental sector. You can find our latest insights on our website by visiting our News & Resources page and filtering by Environment & Planning. With significant reform of New Zealand\'s resource management framework on the horizon, we recognise that many clients are considering what the proposed changes may mean for their projects and future planning. If you have any questions about the proposed reforms, please get in touch with our team. Thank you for your continued support. We look forward to working with you in the months ahead.

The new Planning and Natural Environment Acts establish the architecture of the new resource management system, but National Policy Direction and National Standards will supply much of the operational detail. The Government’s illustrative National Policy Direction gives an early indication of the issues likely to matter across sectors. Illustrative National Policy Direction National Policy Direction is intended as the translator of the goals in the new Planning and Natural Environment Acts. They direct how the goals are to be achieved and how conflicts between them should be resolved. On 25 August 2026 the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions & Transport (MCERT) released an Illustrative National Policy Direction (Illustrative NPD). The Illustrative NPD is the Government’s early example of how National Policy Direction could look under the Acts. Five themes for the first package The Illustrative NPD is arranged around five themes: Housing and development; Infrastructure; Primary production; Resources (quarrying, mining, and waste); and Public values. This thematic structure suggests that the first operative direction may be organised around activities and outcomes rather than simply reproducing the current collection of national policy statements. Cross-cutting and system wide directives The Illustrative NPD includes ‘cross-cutting’ and ‘system-wide’ directives, although the distinction between the two is unclear. The directives are designed to apply broadly to the themes and deal with: Private property rights; Economic growth; Reverse sensitivity and land-use compatibility; Regional spatial plans; Avoiding unnecessary duplication; Decision-making on consents and permits; Te Ture Whaimana; Māori interests; and Natural hazard risk management. For applicants and councils, the interaction between these directives may be as important as the sector-specific content. Development may engage economic growth and property rights directions, for example, while also raising infrastructure compatibility, Māori interests or hazard issues. Competitive urban land markets A goal of the Planning Act 2026 is to enable competitive urban land markets through business and residential opportunities. The Illustrative NPD, rather than the Planning Act 2026, defines those markets as: “a market in which there is an abundant supply of developable land suitable for different uses such that land prices do not materially and persistently reflect premiums caused by constraints on land use.” The definition is likely to influence how urban capacity, zoning choices and constraints are evaluated. The eventual operative direction will determine what councils must do to demonstrate that their plans enable a genuinely competitive market. Natural hazard risk Long-term natural hazard constraints will be managed through regional spatial plans. Land-use plans must also not restrict infrastructure solely because it is exposed to natural hazard risks. Resilience to natural hazards should be addressed outside of the planning system, through asset management, design, and investment planning. This approach places importance on coordination between spatial planning, infrastructure providers, funding decisions and technical design, rather than expecting regulation through land use plans to carry the full burden. Infrastructure Infrastructure is acknowledged as an enabler of economic growth, community wellbeing, and energy security and resilience through permissive directives. This is inclusive of direction for planning instruments to provide for the operation, maintenance, renewal, upgrading and development of infrastructure, while recognising its functional and operational needs to locate in certain areas. Primary production and the rural economy The farming and rural economy directives seek to protect and enable primary production activities by recognising their importance to New Zealand’s economy and export sector. The directives focus on maintaining productive rural land, supporting the ongoing operation and development of farming activities, and reducing planning constraints that could undermine rural productivity, while also recognising the need to manage natural hazards and other environmental considerations. Feedback closes on 16 October 2026 The Illustrative National Policy Direction is not legally binding, but it provides an early opportunity to test the direction and workability of the new system. Feedback is open until 16 October 2026. Organisations should consider whether the illustrative direction adequately recognises their activities, whether the cross-cutting directives are clear, and whether the proposed division between planning controls and non-planning tools is workable. If you would like assistance reviewing the illustrative direction or preparing feedback, please contact Holland Beckett’s Environment and Planning team.

The replacement Acts have passed, but the Resource Management Act 1991 has not disappeared overnight. A staged transition will operate while national direction, standards and regional plans are developed. The RMA remains in force for now The Planning Act 2026 and Natural Environment Act 2026 have had their third reading and are due to receive royal assent shortly. However, they are not yet fully operative. The RMA continues to apply during the transition period, although it will be significantly amended as the new system is progressively introduced. The transition begins one month after Royal assent and is expected to run for more than three years if the statutory deliverables proceed without extensions. During that period, applicants, councils and other participants will need to work across both the amended RMA and the emerging replacement framework. The transition timetable and the roll out of the new system Despite the Acts passing into law they are not yet fully operative, and the RMA continues to be in force (albeit with significant amendments). The transition period, from Royal assent to full RMA repeal, has been further clarified by the Acts, which we have summarised below: Sep 2026 — Royal Assent — Planning Act 2026 and Natural Environment Act 2026 become law. Oct 2026 — Transition period begins — Commences one month after the Acts receive royal assent. Sep 2027 — National Policy Direction & National Standards — NPS and first tranche of NS issued (structure & form of RPSs). Mar 2028 — National Standards — Second tranche of National Standards issued (human & ecosystem health limits). Jun 2028 — National Standards & Regional Spatial Plans — RPSs notified. Third tranche of NS issued (standardised LUP/NEP provisions). Mar 2029 — Regional Spatial Plans (RSPs) — Within 9 months following their notification, a decision must be made on RSPs. Dec 2029 — Draft NEPs & LUPs — Once NEPs & LUPs are notified, Order in Council is made repealing RMA, ending the transitional period. The new Acts are then fully in force. Early 2030 — RMA repealed — Once NEPs & LUPs are notified, Order in Council is made repealing RMA, ending the transitional period. The new Acts are then fully in force. Overall duration from royal assent to RMA repeal is ~3.25+ years The new regime will be implemented from the top down. The Acts establish the goals and statutory framework. National Policy Direction will then explain how the goals are to be achieved and how conflicts between them should be resolved. National standards will provide more detailed and nationally consistent rules, processes and methodologies. During the transition period, Initial National Standards may be introduced before the RMA is fully repealed. They may identify national rules or other content relevant to RMA decision-making and may override existing national or regional policy statements, national environmental standards, and operative or proposed plans where there is conflict or duplication. The national instruments will inform the preparation of combined regional planning frameworks. Each region will move towards: a regional spatial plan providing long-term strategic direction for development, infrastructure and investment; land use plans regulating land use and development; and a natural environment plan regulating the use and protection of natural resources. The result will be a staged rollout rather than an immediate replacement of the existing system. The RMA will continue to operate during the transition, subject to amendments and any Initial National Standards, while national direction, regional spatial plans and the new regulatory plans are developed. Early national rules may override existing instruments Initial National Standards allow parts of the new system to be introduced before full RMA repeal. They may identify national rules or other content relevant to RMA decision-making. Where there is conflict or duplication, an Initial National Standard may override existing national or regional policy statements, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, national environmental standards, and operative or proposed plans. Applicants and councils will therefore need to check both the familiar RMA instruments and any new transition instruments. What happens to existing resource consents? Existing RMA consents and permits will continue to be dealt with under the RMA until such time as the transition period ends. At that time, those consents and permits will automatically be treated as their new system equivalents under the Acts. What happens to resource consent applications? Timing will matter. Applications lodged before the transition period are to be processed under the RMA as it stood immediately before the Acts became law. Applications lodged during the transition will be processed under the RMA as in force when they are lodged, including any Initial National Standards then applying. This means two similar applications lodged at different times may be assessed under different versions of the RMA and different national rules. Applicants should consider the legal and strategic implications of lodgement timing rather than assuming the current framework will remain static. Practical steps Practical steps that should be considered as we move into and through the transition period include: Review the likely timing of any consent application, plan change or designation against the transition timetable. Monitor National Policy Direction and Initial National Standards relevant to your sector or project. Identify where existing plan provisions may conflict with or be displaced by new national rules. Prepare evidence and technical work so it can respond to both the amended RMA and the developing new framework. Engage early in regional spatial planning because it will shape the later regulatory plans. If you are considering an application or project during the transition period, Holland Beckett’s Environment and Planning team can advise on the applicable regime and timing risks.

The Planning Act and Natural Environment Act are now law, and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is one step closer to its second repeal in less than a decade. But what’s changed since the Acts were introduced back in December 2025? For an outline of those original proposals you can read our earlier articles on the Acts’ structure and framework and changes to the consenting process. What has stayed the same? The new Acts retain the proposed hierarchy of planning instruments. At the top sit the statutory goals, followed by National Policy Direction and national standards. Regional spatial plans, land use plans and natural environment plans then translate that national direction into regional and local decision-making. The structure matters because each lower-tier instrument must implement the direction above it. The practical detail will therefore sit not only in the Acts, but also in the national instruments and the combined regional plans developed under them. Refined goals under each Act Both Acts set different overarching goals intended to achieve the purpose of those Acts. Since their introduction the goals have been slightly amended: Planning Act: urban development and infrastructure is to be “enabled” rather than planned and provided for; natural hazard risks are now tied to land use and development. Natural Environment Act: new goal to “support and enable the enhancement of the natural environment”; reference to “within environmental limits” is removed from the goal enabling use and development of natural resources; “no net loss” of indigenous biodiversity is replaced with protection of “significant” indigenous biodiversity; natural hazard risks are now tied to use and protection of natural resources. There remains no hierarchy between the goals in each Act, meaning all are equally important. However, the Acts were amended to record that each key instrument is not required to seek to achieve all goals in all places at all times. National standards The final Acts give more direction to the content of national standards. They may direct how land use and natural resources are managed and how local authorities must make decisions and use processes and methodologies. They may also direct what is to be included in land use, natural environment, and regional spatial plans and further measuring, monitoring, and reporting requirements. National standards may create national rules which further dictate how lower-tiered plans should approach different activities. Following the report of the Select Committee was the introduction of Initial National Standards. These can be implemented during the transition period (between Royal assent and RMA repeal) as an early adoption of the new system. Those standards: May identify national rules or other content as relevant to RMA decision-making; and Will override national or regional policy statements, New Zealand coastal policy statements, national environmental standards, and a plan or proposed plan where there is conflict or duplication. Transitional consenting The Acts provide for an approximate 3.25 year transition period for the new system to roll out. For an outline of the process for transitioning to the new system you can read our article on the transition framework contained within the Acts here. Applications lodged during that transition period will be processed under the RMA, albeit a version that is amended by Acts which include changes to s 104 to restrict consent authorities from considering certain matters. Those provisions have been amended further to particularise the restriction on considering internal (and certain external) layouts of a building, by specifically excluding consideration of: the presence, absence, nature, or extent of windows in relation to street, balconies, or outdoor living space; the internal fit-out; the minimum unit size; the outlook space; and landscaped areas for the construction of a building (except in relation to permeability). Also, the ability for resource consent applications to be publicly notified in ‘special circumstances’ has been removed. New procedural principles will also be in play that require decision makers to act in a pragmatic way that supports practical solutions, ensures documents are succinct and use plain language, and ensures sufficient and necessary information is available and before further information is requested they consider the cost and feasibility of obtaining such information and the scale and significance of the matter to which their decision relates. Regulatory relief remains The final Acts retain the regulatory relief framework despite significant opposition during the Select Committee process. The framework recognises that controls protecting matters such as indigenous biodiversity, significant historic heritage, sites of significance to Māori, outstanding natural features and landscapes, and areas of high natural character may impose more than minor impacts on private landowners. The detail of the available relief, and when it will be required, will be important for councils and affected landowners as new plans are prepared. What now? The new framework is enacted, but much of its practical effect will depend on National Policy Direction, national standards and the preparation of regional plans. Businesses, infrastructure providers, developers, primary producers and landowners should identify which national and regional instruments matter to their activities and engage early where consultation opportunities arise. For an outline of the proposals as introduced, see our earlier article on the structure and framework here. If you would like advice on how the new framework may affect your land, project or operations, please contact Holland Beckett’s Environment and Planning team.

Ready or not, here it comes – resource management law and resource consenting is on the move. The RMA’s replacement Planning and Natural Environment Bills are expected to be enacted as early as September 2026. Below, we delve into some of the Select Committee’s recommendations on transitional provisions. The RMA law transition period The new regime will be introduced in stages through a “transition period”. The transition period will begin with amendments to the RMA, and the amended RMA will continue to operate while the transition occurs. The RMA amendments will be in force one month after enactment – around October 2026. The rest of the transition period will progress in three tranches: 2026: National direction changes (and RMA amendments). 2027: Early application of new Initial National Rules. Mid 2027: Establishment of the Planning Tribunal. Resource consents lodged prior to the start of the transition period will be processed under the RMA as it was just prior to the Planning Bill becoming law, whereas resource consents lodged during the transition period will be processed under the RMA as in force at the time the application is lodged – which will include the new Initial National Rules (discussed below). What changes for resource consent applicants? One of the most immediate and practical changes is to the factors councils must assess when deciding resource consent applications. From October 2026, the new s 104 RMA will prevent consent authorities from considering certain matters, including: Views from private property; The financial viability of or demand for a project; Internal (and certain external) layouts of a building; The type of residents to be housed in a new development; Negative trade and competition effects; and Effects on retail distribution. Councils may amend their district and regional plans to remove or modify these ‘out of scope’ matters, but this is not a requirement. Alongside this, a new alternative permitted activity pathway will be introduced for land use activities. Projects with marginal or temporary non-compliances with a rule or standard relating to an ‘out of scope’ matter will be a permitted activity. From October 2026, Councils will also be expected to apply new procedural principles when processing applications — they must take all practicable steps to operate in a timely, cost-efficient, proportionate and pragmatic manner. From 2027 Initial National Rules will apply across the country. The Initial National Rules will introduce new ‘system standards’ which can be applied early under the RMA. Where there is a conflict, the Initial National Rules will override existing National Environmental Standards. Also of note are changes to the RMA to prevent private plan changes from being notified by local authorities between 1 January 2028 and the end of the transition period (i.e. after 2030), unless exempt by application to the Minister. The return of the Planning Tribunal From mid 2027 the Planning Tribunal will be live as a division of the Environment Court. The Tribunal will become the decision maker for lower level disputes and matters, such as reviewing local authorities’ decisions on application completeness and strike out of submissions, as well as decision making on existing use rights and declarations on conditions interpretation. Substantive appeals on plans and consent applications and significant matters will continue to be heard by the Environment Court. Enforcement provisions roll through Existing compliance and enforcement provisions will carry on through the transition period. Of note is the new adverse publicity order tool, which is on track to come into force from September 2026. The adverse publicity order is a ‘name and shame’ tool, and gives the Environment Court the power to require a person convicted of an offence to publicise the offence, the impact on the environment or health, and any penalties imposed. These changes will be of interest to businesses, landowners, planners and developers alike. At Holland Beckett we are closely monitoring the progress of these reforms and their implications. However these reforms affect you, our specialist environment and planning team is available to assist.

Environment & Resource Management We are pleased to share that our specialist resource management team has once again been recognised in the Doyle’s Guide rankings for Environment & Resource Management. Vanessa Hamm, Partner, was recognised as a Recommended Leading Environment & Resource Management Lawyer in this years list. Holland Beckett was also recommended in the Leading Environment & Resource Management Law Firms list. Family & Relationship Property Rebecca Savage, Partner, has been listed as a Recommended Leading Family & Relationship Property Lawyer in this year\'s rankings. Congratulations to Vanessa and her team, and to Rebecca, on this recognition. Doyles is the \'premier rankings of Leading Lawyers, Law Firms & Barristers across Asia-Pacific, the UK & the UAE\'. We\'re honoured to be included in these listings, which pull together New Zealand based solicitors and firms who have been identified by clients and peers for their expertise and abilities in each area.

Commercial activities on Lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti have been slapped with potential delays and prohibitions following Council’s recent vow to review consenting obligations of existing operators. For many businesses, obtaining a resource consent can be costly, time consuming and uncertain. However, failing to comply with resource management law requirements can create even greater commercial risk. What is unusual about the situation in Rotorua is the number of operations caught without a consent. So just how did so many companies get it wrong? The resource consent rules In 2016 the Rotorua District Plan introduced rule WTRZ-R12, requiring anyone wishing to operate “commercial outdoor recreation activities, including associated buildings and structures” on Lakes Rotorua or Rotoiti to obtain a discretionary resource consent. Prior to 2016 this resource consent was not needed. This represents an important aspect of New Zealand\'s resource management law and highlights the importance of understanding changing consent requirements. For existing operators, even those who have operated on the lakes for decades, section 10A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) could be followed. This section allows existing commercial activities to continue if: The activity began before rule WTRZ-R12 came into force; The activity’s effects have remained “the same or similar in character, intensity, and scale” after the rule’s commencement; and Consent under the new rule is applied for within 6 months of the rule becoming operative. If the above requirements are met the activity may continue to be carried out until the consent application is determined (including any appeals). The rule became operative in July 2016 along with the entire plan. This meant that, if no consent was applied for by January 2017, existing operators would be noncompliant and open to Council enforcement. Why are businesses being investigated now? It seems the Council hadn’t enforced the rule until the Lakeland Queen’s liquor licencing application in 2025. Launched in 1986, the Lakeland Queen dining cruiser has voyaged Lake Rotorua up until its recent hiatus to restore the vessel. After completion in 2025, its subsequent liquor licence application was denied as it did not hold the required consent under rule WTRZ-R12. The Council noted: “Now that this situation has come to light, we are also looking into the status of other operators and will work with anyone affected to address any consenting requirements.” In March 2026 the Council had identified 14 noncomplying businesses and had given them 14 days to lodge, or show evidence that they have begun to prepare, an application for consent. This was generous and not required by Council. Those 14 days are now up, leaving any remaining noncompliance issues to be worked through by Council. Managing your planning and compliance risks Noncompliance with the RMA or local planning documents is not forgiven simply because the Council neglects to police it. They remain enforceable by Council whether the operator knows the rules or not. Businesses are responsible for their own education of the planning framework and compliance with it. At Holland Beckett we understand that navigating Aotearoa’s dense planning framework is a difficult, but necessary job for businesses. We help our clients stay updated with their planning responsibilities, resource consent obligations, law reforms and wider developments in environment and planning law. Ensuring compliance with planning provisions is our bread and butter. Our advice is steeped in a sound understanding of the law and commercial risks to find sensible solutions for our clients. To get ahead of your commercial planning risks, contact our specialist environment and planning team.

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.

The Government has 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 article focuses on the implications of the new Bills for the consenting process. You can also read our article on the structure and new policy and planning framework of the Bills here. Consenting is managed under both Bills generally following the existing split between consents/permits managed by regional councils (managed under the NEA) and consents managed by district councils (managed under the PA). Resource consents are out, resource and planning permits are in The consenting framework under the Bills align with the Government’s goals of enabling development and reducing regulation. These changes impact what effects can be considered and who can be involved in resource consent processes. A change in language will occur as some resource consents will become resource permits. The key changes to the way of changes in which resource permits and considered and made are: Activity statuses: Controlled and non-complying activity classifications cease to exist. At this time it is unclear if controlled activities would become permitted or restricted discretionary under the system. Effects: The consideration of effects of an activity will be curtailed by the Bills. Positive effects, cumulative effects and natural hazards are now included. The following effects are excluded: visual amenity, financial viability, precedent effects, internal effects and less than minor adverse effects (unless they give rise to a cumulative effect that is more than less than minor). Permitted activities: The objective is for more activities to be permitted activities, subject to conditions. This is reflective in the prescriptive wording of the Bills’ guidance on classification of activities which provides that an activity should be permitted if it is acceptable, anticipated, or achieves the desired level of use, development, or protection of the natural environment or the adverse effects of the activity are known and can be managed (i.e. by way of conditions in a permitted activity rule). Affected persons: Only those who are materially affected can participate in a permit application process. Limited notification will only occur if effects are more than minor, which is a distinct lifting of the threshold required under the RMA which provides that a person is effected if the effects on them are “minor or more than minor”. Public notification: The threshold for public notification has also been lifted and will only occur where the adverse effects of the proposed activity on natural resources or persons (NEA) or built environment (PA) are significant. Consent terms: Carried over from reforms made to the RMA in mid-2025 permits associated with long lived infrastructure and renewable energy generation: Have a starting point of a 35 year duration; and In the case of structures in the coastal marine area or beds of lakes and rivers have a maximum duration of 50 years. For other activities associated with renewable energy generation or long lived infrastructure (i.e. permits relating to water) the NEA makes it clear that the maximum duration is 35 years. What does this mean for existing resource consents? Existing consents will carry over into the new system. This provides important continuity for consent holders. The question then arises – what happens to my resource consent application? A transitional consenting process will apply from the period one month after the Bills receive royal assent and once the Order in Council repealing the RMA is made – this is referred to as the transitional period. This transitional process provides that the traditional RMA process for consent application is to be followed, albeit with some modification: The Bills’ procedural principles are to be adhered to. Certain effects are excluded from the scope of what can be considered. The “special circumstances” criteria is removed from the public notification test. Spatial plans and national standards are to be considered, once they are developed. If an application is lodged and granted pre-transition period then it will be treated as a resource consent under the RMA. If an application is lodged pre-transition period, but a decision is made post-transition period then it will be treated as a permit under either the PA or NEA. The return of the Planning Tribunal The Planning Tribunal is getting a second-wind although only in name as the scope of its jurisdiction is different to the Planning Tribunal of years gone. This new tribunal will be established as a division of the Environment Court and will address administrative matters during the consent consideration process including, but not being limited to: requests for further information, interpretation of permit conditions, notification decisions, and striking out permit conditions that are deemed to be out of scope. The Planning Tribunal will not hear appeals on plans, applications for notified permits (where there are third party participants, designations – nor will it deal with enforcement actions. Automatic consent extension Additionally, the Government introduced the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Bill on 9 December 2025, which was passed under urgency on 10 December 2025 – the only stage left before it becomes law is for it to be given royal assent. This Bill seeks to automatically extend resource consents that are due to expire before the new Bills are in force, and to deem that recently expired consents are reinstated and their expiry automatically extended. The Bill provides that: Resource consents that would otherwise expire before 31 December 2027 are automatically extended until that date. Recently expired resource consents (where an application for a replacement consent has been made under section 124 of the principal Act, but not yet determined) are deemed to be reinstated and extended until 31 December 2027. Consents relating to freshwater are excluded from extension beyond a total duration of 35 years. The resource management space is rapidly changing in New Zealand. We will continue to provide updates as the changes process. 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.

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.