sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Sweeping reforms to the Resource Management Act will assume owners have the right to develop property and erase the need to consent routine construction work

Public Policy / news
Sweeping reforms to the Resource Management Act will assume owners have the right to develop property and erase the need to consent routine construction work
Housing Minister Chris Bishops speaks at a press conference in June 2024
Housing Minister Chris Bishops speaks at a press conference in June 2024

The Coalition Government will create a single set of residential and commercial zoning rules which local councils can use to plan their districts, as part of wider Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms.

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, who is responsible for RMA reform, said there were currently 1,175 different kinds of zones used by individual councils. Each of these has their own set of technical rules developers have to learn and comply with. 

The Government wants to move towards a system like in Japan, where the whole country has just 13 different types of zones to choose from. There are six residential zones, three commercial zones, three industrial zones, and a special city centre zone. 

Most of these allow for some amount of mixed use, particularly around key transport hubs. For example, Category 2 Residential Zones permit small businesses and hotels alongside housing, while Quasi-Industrial Zones allow both residential buildings and light industry.

Bishop said standardising zoning rules would make it easier for developers to build housing and save local councils from having to define their own zones.   

“It will also enhance local decision making, allowing elected local representatives to focus more time on deciding where development should and should not occur in their community, and less time on the enormous amount of technical detail that goes into regulating that development,” he said in a press release. 

Simon Court, an Act Party MP deputised to work on RMA reform with Bishop, said the idea was to have a Lego or Juplo box full of different land use zones that councils could use to build their districts.

Local councils will soon have to meet the Government’s requirement to zone for 30 years of housing growth at once, which was its alternative to the formerly-bipartisan MDRS policy. 

“They're gonna get to choose where they grow up and where they grow out, but using standard zones. So if you are a property developer … in Auckland, Christchurch, and Timaru you are not going to have to interpret a whole lot of different zoning conditions,” he said.

The announcement was part of a much broader set of reforms. New rules will be written which allow people to build on their property unless it significantly impacts on the natural environment, or the ability of others to use their own land. 

If regulations or limits are imposed on a property, the council or government may have pay the owner for any lost value. Details on this will be complex and haven’t been decided, but it could mean cities have to contribute to the upkeep of heritage buildings — as an example.

“We believe that the best way to stop unnecessary red tape is to attach a price to it. The new system will protect landowners against regulatory takings, enabling them to seek recourse if found that unjustified restrictions have been placed on their land,” he said. 

Court said the RMA was “a gale force headwind, battling any attempts to develop anything anywhere” and it needed dramatic reform. 

There was an estimated $1.3 billion spent on consents each year, much of it on standard projects which are done all of the time. Earthworks for a house, a culvert under a road, a wastewater treatment plant, etc. 

A set of national policy directions will be established to prevent the need for consenting on routine work that follows best practice. 

Two laws intended to replace the RMA are expected to be introduced to Parliament before the end of the year, and likely passed before the next election. 

Bishop said he would speak with the opposition about making the Bill bipartisan but said the Government had a mandate and would not make significant compromises.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

12 Comments

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, who is responsible for RMA reform, said there were currently 1,175 different kinds of zones used by individual councils. Each of these has their own set of technical rules developers have to learn and comply with. 

That's an interesting statistic - but I suspect these are not all zones, rather they are overlays on standardised zones.  So, for example you are in a residential zone (and all the residential zones rules apply to your property) but it might have a coastal hazard overlay; or a view-shaft overlay, etc. on the property.

So, it would be good to know if that number of 1,175 are all different zones; or different zones + overlays.  If the latter, it sounds to me like a smaller number than I might have imagined - if the former a much larger number than I would have imagined.

And I'm curious as to how they got that number (i.e., did the research) as well.  That would have required searching all the different District (and perhaps Regional) Plans to come up with such a number.

Either way - a fascinating statistic.  And yes, I'm all for some nationwide standardisation, not only of zoning categories but of certain rules within those categories.  I attended an MFE workshop 10 years ago that was talking about/scoping this intention.

Up
8

This is a desperate attempt to re-start GROWTH.

Which has already peaked, globally. 

It will, if it does anything at all, accelerate the collapse of firstly our culture (which is to consume as much as we can, as fast as we can, ant to h-ll with anyone/anything else) and secondly our societal construct (energy-requiring infrastructure, all subject to entropy. 

Most likely, global events will supersede, but you won't read about it in the NZ MSM. 

And 30 years of housing growth? At what exponential rate? supplied with (and built with) which energy source? Sprawling over which current-use land?

Here, in the following brackets, I list all NZ journalists who have challenged - rather than regurgitate - the phrase 'land supply'  (                         )

. Folks, they ain't making more of it, and we were subsidising real-time above-ground acres, by burning our way through stored-underground ones (the real-time demand is orders of magnitude bigger, ex fossil stocks). 

Bishop is attempting to kick-start a dead motorbike. As is Brown. As is Luxon. As is Hipkins. We need leadership prepared to explain - and lead into - the period of inevitable de-growth we are entering.

All else is BS.

Up
6

And indeed there is a way to plan for a resource constrained future. That's a less emotive way of saying de-growth.  The problem I have with "de-growth" is that in a resource constrained future - and if we plan it right - many things about our environment and our food production will grow.  For example, in planning for a resource constrained future - we will likely need to "grow" many substitutes - plant-based 'milk' products for instance; while down-sizing the more resource intensive dairy products we now consume.

EDS somewhat allude to this in their language/comment, but need to become quite a bit more definitive;

https://eds.org.nz/resources/documents/media-releases/2025/eds-responds…

At this stage, with this new government they want to stay in the circle, so to speak - whereas with the last government they were effectively driving the policy direction.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with their concerns about the government's talk of compensation for regulatory takings. If implemented well one could call such a program PES (or payment for ecosystems services).  But I doubt this is what this government has in mind in terms of that issue - they used the example of designating a building as 'heritage' (thus constraining alterations and/or demolition) as an appropriate planning action that might need compensation as a 'taking', but the other side of the coin (regulatory gains) isn't discussed.

To my mind - good planning legislation considers both in its policy execution. 

Up
4

What happens to the Auckland unitary plan here?  Future urban prices could be gutted if everything is buildable...

 

 

Up
6

The debt bubble already exists. 

How it pops, is interesting to conjecture on, but pop it will. 

Taking much that we thought of as relative weightings, with it. 

Up
4

Doubt you'll see much real change associated with the 'new' RMA for years - so I'm guessing the UP will stand for quite some time. 

For example, when the Labour government announced their proposed RMA reforms - it suggested a 10 year transitional period.  No doubt this government will look to considerably shorten that timeframe, but I'm surprised they are promising the two main proposed Acts/Bills before Christmas. But, we'll see.

Up
1

Yes, hopefully.

After all the over inflated price caused by this type of restricted zoning is one of the main reasons all housing in over priced.

This over inflated component is made up of non valued added costs which add no amenity value, yet are a huge component of any mortgage people gave, and the interest they pay on it.

This greatly reduces the amount of money people have for savings, health, education etc.

The concept of 'everything buildable', is also known as a free market.

Up
3

I agree, the development "levy" national propose also ringfences contributions to be spent on actual infrastructure for the development or nearby related.    This should increase actual sites, but right now who will build.... I guess if the land is cheap enough you could build and undercut existing by 200k a site?     If so those builders sitting on expensive sites are dead man walking.

 

 

Up
0

I agree, the development "levy" national propose also ring fences contributions to be spent on actual infrastructure for the development or nearby related.    This should increase actual sites, but right now who will build.... I guess if the land is cheap enough you could build and undercut existing by 200k a site?     If so those builders sitting on expensive sites are dead man walking.

 

now bigger guys are free to develope, as they will pay the infrastructure costs, you will see some large subdivisions from this, like extension behind Ara Hills in Orewa 

 

 

Up
0

Im curious how you expect private developers (operating under the same rules, and are the contractors for TAs) are going to provide the infrastructure development for less than they currently do?...are you suggesting that they may perhaps be rorting the TAs?...and if so why would they cease to do so when it is the consumer that ultimately pays?

Up
0

Having 13 building zones across the country sounds good, and should reduce effort and complexity.

Although I'm betting that one of them will be a blue-rinse zone where the status quo remains the same. 

Next they should look at some of the weird and wonderful school zones that exist.

Up
8

What happens to rural zoning?  Does it still exist in this proposed scenario?  In what form(s)?

Up
0