RMA Reform

Natural Environment Bill (NEB) & Planning Bill (PB) Overview

The Bills set to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) had its First Reading on 16 December 2025 and are now with the Environment Select Committee (submissions close 13 February 2026), with the Government aiming for enactment in mid-2026. They introduce significant changes for local government, building on earlier high-level summaries of the split of the Bills, functions, transition, and timing.

Key Local Government Implications

This update focuses on:

• System architecture and implementation

• Enforcement tools

• Regulatory relief provisions

• Effects exclusions and limited environmental assessment

• Permitted activities

• Unclear notification provisions

• Other considerations

  
  

Ten national direction instruments (covering natural hazards, infrastructure, granny flats, biodiversity, freshwater, renewable energy, and electricity networks) will take effect on 15 January 2026 under the transitional RMA, informing the new system.

System Architecture

The Bills use a hierarchical “funnel” approach: national policy and standards → Regional Spatial Plans (RSPs) → Land Use Plans (LUPs) and Natural Environment Plans (NEPs). This standardisation aims to simplify planning, reduce duplication, and shorten drafting cycles.

Environmental limits, set by central and regional government, anchor resource allocation, supported by caps and action plans. Market-based or comparative methods may be used where demand exceeds supply.

Spatial Planning

RSPs (Regional Spatial Plans) must:

• Set a 30+ year strategic development and investment direction

• Integrate decision-making under both Bills

• Implement national instruments within environmental limits

• Support coordinated infrastructure planning and funding

• Align development planning with infrastructure investment

  
  

Centralisation, Goal Reconciliation & Resources

• National instruments shift policy-making power to central government.

• Bills do not prioritise goals, requiring reconciliation during implementation.

• Standardisation may limit local nuance, with compressed timelines creating resourcing pressures for planners.

  
  

Enforcement

Modernised enforcement tools include:

• Public compliance reporting

• Financial assurances and bonds

• Enforceable undertakings for remedial actions

• Monetary benefit orders

• Pecuniary penalties through the Environment Court

  
  

Consenting Timelines

Overall timeframes remain similar to the RMA, though simplified in form.

Regulatory Relief

Councils must provide relief where ‘specified rules’ significantly impact reasonable land use. This includes sites of historic, cultural, natural, or ecological significance. Key issues include:

• Conflict between achieving statutory goals and providing relief

• Uncertainty in thresholds, definitions, and administration

• Potential disproportionate impact on certain councils

• Risk of litigation and financial strain

  
  

Uncertainties

• Certain effects (e.g., building layout, trade competition, visual amenity) are excluded from assessment under the new bills.

• Permits and consents are restricted to the “built environment” (PB) or “natural environment” (NEB), which may be unworkable.

• More permitted activities require registration and monitoring, adding administrative burden.

  
  

Notification

• Notification thresholds are higher, with a two-step targeted test and restrictions on who can submit (qualifying residents and affected persons).

• These changes increase complexity and may raise litigation risks, especially regarding public notification and submission eligibility.

Other Considerations

• The Bills remove the complex non-complying and discretionary activity categories, shifting most consents to restricted discretionary, and focusing on less than minor effects to speed up approvals for housing and infrastructure.

• More activities with minor impacts become permitted, reducing the number of required consents.