RMA Reform Update: Why 1 January 2028 matters

Since our last update, the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill completed their Committee of the Whole House stage on 25 August. A number of amendments were considered during this stage, with the changes agreed by the House now being incorporated ahead of the third and final readings.

The Bills aren’t yet law, and the position described below remains based on the Bills reported back by the Select Committee. We’ll review the final legislation and provide an update on any material changes once the amended Bills are available.

The Government also released an Illustrative National Policy Direction for feedback last week. This isn’t the final statutory National Policy Direction, but it provides an early indication of how national priorities could guide Regional Spatial Plans and other instruments under the new system. We’re analysing it and will provide further comment, including what it may mean for clients, alongside our assessment of the final Bills.

Our previous update explained how the proposed transition from the RMA to the new planning system will unfold. This update focuses on two areas where the timing and practical implications are particularly important: private plan changes and resource consenting.

Although the RMA will continue operating during the transition, it won’t remain unchanged. Some consenting provisions are expected to change shortly after Royal assent, while the pathway for private plan changes will become increasingly constrained.

Private plan changes: lodging may not be enough

Under the reported Bills, from 1 January 2028 councils would generally be unable to notify a Private Plan Change until the specified transition date for their region, unless the Minister grants an exemption. Any exemption application would need to be made by the council rather than the private applicant.

The specified transition date is the date on which the new Planning and Natural Environment Acts begin applying in a particular region or area. It will be set by Order in Council once the region’s Regional Spatial Plan has been decided and its first land-use and natural-environment plans have been notified. The date must also be at least six weeks after the Order is made, meaning different regions may transition at different times.

If an exemption isn’t granted, the council would be unable to notify the Private Plan Change until that date. Based on the indicative transition sequence, this could mean waiting until late 2029 or early 2030, potentially two years or more from 1 January 2028. It could be later if preparation of the relevant regional plans is delayed, as the Bills don’t set a fixed maximum wait.

The critical milestone is notification by the council, rather than simply lodging the request. A plan change submitted before 1 January 2028 could still be caught by the restriction if it hasn’t progressed to notification and notification can be significantly delayed if a council requests further information in support of a Private Plan Change post-lodgement (so it will be even more important to ensure that Private Plan Changes are robust and complete on lodgement).

Anyone currently considering a Private Plan Change will need to work backwards from this date and allow sufficient time for:

• Technical investigations and evidence

• Infrastructure-provider engagement

• Pre-application discussions

• Requests for further information

• Council acceptance and processing

• Resolution of any significant servicing or environmental issues

Council capacity will also be a factor. The same planning, infrastructure and environmental specialists needed to assess private plan changes will increasingly be involved in preparing Regional Spatial Plans and the new regulatory plans.

For some proposals, particularly growth at the urban edge, the position will be different where growth requires future rezoning, infrastructure investment or strategic recognition through the first RSP and subsequent land-use plan.

A Regional Spatial Plan pathway may provide stronger strategic alignment, but it will take longer and won’t itself provide zoning, infrastructure funding, implementation planning or development approval. An RMA plan change may offer an earlier pathway, but only if it can realistically reach notification before the restriction applies.

Resource consenting will continue under an amended RMA

New resource consent applications can continue to be lodged and processed during the transition. However, shortly after Royal assent, councils are expected to begin applying several transitional changes to RMA decision-making.

These are expected to include:

• A narrower range of effects that may be considered

• New procedural principles supporting timely, proportionate and solutions-focused decisions

• Removal of special circumstances as a basis for public notification

• Transitional national rules as they are introduced

• A pathway for some activities to be treated as permitted where the only plan breach relates to an effect that is no longer within scope

These changes won’t directly change existing plan rules or activity statuses. Relevant effects will continue to apply. The activity status will depend on why consent is required, which effects need to be considered and assessed, and which effects can be disregarded.

Urban land-use applications may experience the changes differently from water takes, discharges and other natural-resource consents.

The Planning Bill narrows some land-use effects, while natural-resource activities will continue to be managed through regional plans, emerging national direction and, eventually, the Natural Environment Act.

Regional spatial plans will enter the consenting picture

Once an RSP has been decided, it may influence relevant RMA decisions during the remainder of the transition.

This could become particularly important where an RSP identifies an area for future growth or significant infrastructure, but the operative RMA plan hasn’t yet been changed to enable it. The RSP may support the strategic case, but it won’t override the existing zoning or remove the need for consent.

There may therefore be a period where the strategic direction points one way while the operative regulatory provisions still point another. Applicants and councils will need to work carefully through the relationship between the two.

Existing consents won’t simply expire when the system changes

Existing resource consents, designations and other approvals will generally carry into the new system through the Bills’ transitional provisions.

Some RMA consents due to expire during the transition may also have their duration extended for a period after the specified transition date. The practical effect will depend on the final commencement and transition dates, and the extension provisions include limitations and exclusions, including for some water and wastewater consents.

Consent holders shouldn’t assume that every expiry date will automatically move. The position needs to be checked against the type of consent, its existing duration, any replacement application already underway and the final form of the legislation.

This is particularly important for infrastructure providers with portfolios of water takes, discharges, designations and land-use consents. A future RSP or natural-environment plan won’t resolve an approval that needs attention before the new system is ready.

What should be reviewed now?

Reviewing landholding portfolios and future projects will be important to ensure that consenting strategies are aligned with the regulatory changes that are coming. For live or emerging projects, the immediate questions are:

• Can the project proceed under the operative plan?

• Does it require a PPC, resource consent or both?

• What needs to happen before 1 January 2028?

• Are any existing consents or designations due to expire during the transition?

• Could the transitional consenting changes alter the assessment pathway?

• Will a future RSP become relevant before the project is decided?

• Is the project dependent on infrastructure that isn’t yet funded or programmed?

There won’t be one answer for every project. A consent that can be progressed now may benefit from remaining within the RMA pathway, while a longer-term growth proposal may need to engage with both the private plan-change window and the first RSP process.

HG is helping clients map these pathways across development, planning, infrastructure and environmental approvals. The focus is on understanding which decisions need to be advanced, which deadlines need to be worked back from and where keeping options open provides the better position through transition.

HG is helping clients map these pathways across development, planning, infrastructure and environmental approvals. The focus is on understanding which decisions need to be advanced, which deadlines need to be worked back from and where keeping options open provides the better position through transition.

If you have projects, landholdings or consent portfolios that may be affected, now is the time to review your strategy. Contact our specialists to help you position your projects for success.