In their press release for the introduction of the Natural Environment Bill (NEB) and Planning Bill (PB) (together, the Bills), the Honourable Chris Bishop, Minister for Housing, Infrastructure, RMA Reform and Transport; and Simon Court, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Infrastructure and RMA Reform stated that, “The Government’s new planning system will make it much easier and quicker to deliver the infrastructure New Zealand needs, while giving councils, investors and communities greater certainty about what can be built and where”.^[1]

We agree that change is needed for infrastructure. The escalation costs of missing construction seasons in recent years have been eye-watering for many projects. Lengthy policy and consenting processes are often (but not exclusively to blame). That said, quality planning and consenting processes are essential to achieving good and enduring outcomes.

In this update, we take a look at what the RMA reforms mean for infrastructure.

What is ‘infrastructure’ under the PB?

Surprisingly, there is no definition in the PB for infrastructure that applies generally throughout the Bills. There is however a definition of infrastructure for the purposes of designations. The definition is expanded from the previous definition under the RMA to include social infrastructure, including schools, health facilities, emergency services, defence facilities, prisons and recovery and waste disposal facilities (see Sch 5, cl 1). The definition for infrastructure in the PB is the same as the definition of infrastructure in the recently released National Policy Statement for Infrastructure (NPS-I).

The fact that there is a definition of infrastructure for only one aspect of the PB likely indicates that the term means something else for the other aspects of the bills. It would be useful for Parliament to say what it means to avoid unnecessary debate on this fundamental issue – designations are not the only means to plan and provide for infrastructure.

 ‘Core provisions’ under the PB

 The PB has 13 different “goals” that those exercising or performing functions, duties or powers under the Planning Bill must seek to achieve. The goals carry over some of the similar concepts in Part 2 of the RMA, but not all.

The infrastructure related goal is “to plan and provide for infrastructure to meet the current and expected demand”. There is no equivalent goal in the NEB, and it is the achievement of the goals in that bill that are at times the cause of policy and consenting difficulties mentioned above. It is notable that “the efficiency of the end use of energy” and “the effects of climate change” have not been incorporated into the ‘goals’ of the PB. This has subsequently removed any recognition of the benefits of renewal energy or climate change mitigation from the core provisions that guide decision making under the PB.

There is no priority between any of the goals in the Bills. How the goals are implemented is left to a hierarchy of national instruments and plans.

Hierarchy of instruments

The PB provides a familiar but modified set of instruments to that under the RMA. The hierarchy of key instruments is:

1. national policy direction;
2. national standards;
3. regional spatial plans;
4. land use plans and natural environment plans.

Like the RMA, each instrument must implement the instrument higher than it on the list, albeit there is a significant change in that (ideally) you are just to look one instrument up the hierarchy. The most notable change from the RMA is the use of regional spatial plans (RSP) (which was also a key feature of the Labour Government’s reform proposal.)

National policy direction 

 National policy has been a feature of RMA for decades but have not been used as well as many might have liked. The government is required to set ‘national policy direction’ under both Bills. The national policy direction is ultimately to serve as a single national policy statement.

The purpose of the national policy direction is to:

1. particularise the goals under the PB and direct how they must be achieved; and
2. help resolve conflicts between the goals in section 11 of the PB and the goals in section 11 of the Natural Environment Bill.

Because no precedence is given to any of the goals within the PB or NEB, the national policy direction is the highest policy that can determine the weight given to each of the goals (to the best it can). For example, the government could place a strong directive in the national direction in favour of certain types of infrastructure. It could also specify situations where certain effects created by infrastructure may be acceptable.

The content of the national policy statement will be critical to the provision of infrastructure. It would greatly assist infrastructure providers if the national policy statement contains a clear hierarchy for the different goals that are typically engaged by infrastructure, including the goals in the NEB.

We note in passing that the National Policy Statement for Infrastructure (NPSI) was finalised after the Bills were introduced. It comes into force on 15 January 2026. The NPSI is largely as notified, but a number of tweaks and refinements have been made. It does not fully resolve conflicts between infrastructure and outcomes sought to be achieved in Part 2 of the RMA and other national direction relating to the natural environment. The NPSI will apply through the transition period until the single national policy statement is in force.

National standards

National standards have also been a feature of RMA for decades. The intention of the new regime is to use standards far more extensively, including creating standardised zones.

The national standards are to:

1. implement the national policy direction;
2. provide procedural or administrative consistency;
3. provide regulatory consistency; and
4. provide specific direction on how a goal is to be achieved in relation to a matter that is not covered by a national policy direction.

This final point means that an issue does not have to be addressed in national policy before it can be subject to national standards - putting doubt on whether the new regime is truly going to operate as a ‘funnel’. National standards may give directions which allow, restrict, or prohibit an activity; or direct that plans must implement or include certain objectives, policies or rules.

The development of national standards is an opportunity for nationwide rules to be put in place for infrastructure (and other activities with well-known effects). There could be a national standard or standardised rules for the national grid, local distribution networks, ports, and many others (possibly quarrying and even mining in some locations). Quite how infrastructure is regulated will be unclear until the standards are available.

That said, there is one noteworthy ‘carve out’ for infrastructure in the bills. Under the NEB, the national standards may state how environmental limits must be applied, achieved or implemented, while expressly allowing national standards relating to “significant infrastructure” to breach environmental limits. The NEB does not define ‘significant infrastructure’, and so it remains unclear what will fall within the exception. MfE’s explanation material refers to critical projects that cannot be located elsewhere, such as ports, airports or major transport and energy networks.

Infrastructure-enabling national standards, and the use of spatial plans, will be key to delivering the Government’s wish to make it “quicker and easier to deliver infrastructure”.

Spatial plans 

As mentioned above, one of the most significant structural changes under the PB is the new spatial planning framework, which replaces regional policy statements and future development strategies under the RMA. A RSP is required to:

1. set the strategic direction for development and public investment priorities in a region for a time frame of not less than 30 years; 
2. enable integration at the strategic level of decision making under the PB and the NEB;
3. implement national instruments made under this PB and the NEB in a way that provides for use and development within environmental limits;
4. support a co-ordinated approach to infrastructure funding and investment by central government, local authorities, and other infrastructure providers; and
5. promote integration of development planning with infrastructure planning and investment.

The RSP will provide the framework for development within each region. Of particular relevance, the RSP is required to identify (among other matters):

1. the sequenced future development areas where significant change is planned, including priority areas for public investment in the short, medium and long-term;
2. existing and key infrastructure, including corridors, strategic sites and opportunities to make better use of existing infrastructure; and
3. other infrastructure services that may be needed to serve future urban areas.
4. This forward-looking approach is designed to ensure that infrastructure needs are anticipated and provided for, supporting both current and future urban development.

Local authorities are required to take a collaborative approach in the preparation of the RSP, set up a spatial planning committee and agree how they will work with infrastructure providers, developers and sector groups, others with a strong interest in spatial planning, and communities. The development of the first RSP therefore serves as a significant opportunity for infrastructure providers to influence the future planning and development of infrastructure corridors.

Designating authorities (formerly ‘requiring authorities’ under the RMA) have two options through the spatial planning process that take place before the spatial plan is notified. They can either:

1. apply to have indicative locations for any future designations identified in the draft spatial plan; or
2. notify a proposed designation through the spatial planning process.

Indicative locations for future designations

An application for an “indicative location for a future designation” in a draft RSP must include an assessment of the strategic need for the future designation in that location. Unfortunately, ‘strategic need’ is not defined in the PB, and the PB is silent as to the level of information that is required for any such assessment.

Beyond confirming what needs to be in the application, the PB is also silent on the process that applies to these indicative locations (including who the decision maker is), and it is not clear whether they need to be included within the combined plans further down the hierarchy. In other words, it is not clear what “work” indicative locations for future designations does in terms of subsequent planning and consenting decisions.

Applications for designations in a spatial plan

Obtaining a designation through the RSP process involves two steps. First, the designating authority must obtain the spatial planning committee’s approval to process the designation through the spatial plan process. The threshold for inclusion is either the project is nationally or regionally significant, has regionally significant benefits, or will cross territorial authority boundaries, and it is appropriate in the circumstances for the proposed designation to be included in the draft spatial plan.

The spatial planning committee may decline an application, and if it does so, designating authorities have a right of objection to the newly formed Planning Tribunal.

If the spatial planning committee allows an application to be considered through the spatial plan process, the designating authority then needs to lodge a notice of proposed designation (similar to a notice of requirement under the RMA). The draft RSP is then notified with the proposed designation included in that RSP.

An independent hearings panel is required to hold a hearing, and then make a recommendation, on the draft RSP. Further, recommendations on the draft RSP are made by the Minister if it relates to a matter that will have a significant positive or negative impact on the delivery, use, performance, or cost or cost-effectiveness of existing or planned infrastructure or other assets that are owned or funded (in whole or part) by central government; or infrastructure or a matter that will support or impact a matter of national interest included in national instruments, a government policy statement, or other national plan or strategy.

Lastly, and as with the RMA, a designating authority retains the final decision-making power on a designation considered through the spatial plan process. It can decide whether to accept or reject the recommendation of the independent hearings panel in relation to a proposed designation notified in the draft RSP. If the designating authority rejects the recommendation, the designating authority must provide an ‘alternative solution’ which may or may not include elements of the draft RSP or the independent hearings panel’s recommendation.

Each local authority otherwise has the discretion to accept or reject the recommendations of the independent hearings panel on the balance of the spatial plan. The local authority does not have any ability to reconsider or amend the decisions of the Minister and the designating authority. They are to be accepted and publicly notified.

Appeals on the spatial plan to the Environment Court are generally limited to points of law. But, an appeal on the decision of a designating authority may be made to the Environment Court which can confirm, modify or cancel the proposed designation.

In practice, moving designation decisions upstream should improve alignment between spatial planning, infrastructure funding and delivery, and plan rules. As described above, the regional spatial plan process includes hearings by independent hearings panels and a defined dispute resolution pathway before adoption, which may reduce later contest about corridor selection and site placement.

Changes to designations

 Designating authorities continue to perform the same function under the Bills as requiring authorities under the RMA, just with a new name.

Schedule 5 of the Planning Bill sets out who can be a designating authority, the effect of designations and proposed designations, and two pathways to secure them - a process that is broadly similar to the process that exists under the RMA now and the spatial planning process as discussed above.

Importantly there is an important difference between section 171 of the RMA which requires particular regard to be had to whether adequate consideration has been given to any alternative sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work. This has not come across into the PB where instead a notice of proposed designation must include (amongst other things) an assessment of the effects of confirming the designation on the built environment (not the natural environment) and an assessment of the strategic need for the project in the location of the designation footprint.

Another name change is ‘outline plans’ in the RMA changing to ‘construction project plans’. In effect, the PB provides for design details and measures to manage construction effects to be addressed primarily through a construction project plan, rather than conditions of the designation itself. The conditions of modern-day RMA designations are often now as detailed as resource consent conditions, so this could be a significant improvement if it plays out as the Government intends. Outside of this, there are no further substantive changes to construction project plans under the PB.

Impact of the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill

The Government introduced the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Act (Duration of Consents Act) alongside the PB and NEB, which has subsequently passed all three readings and is now in force. The Duration of Consents Act amends the RMA to allow existing resource consents that expire before 31 December 2027, or which have already expired and the consent holder was operating on the existing consent under section 124 of the RMA, to be extended until 31 December 2027. Consents that have already expired that are within the scope of the extension are ‘reinstated’ and extended until 31 December 2027.

The extension under the Duration of Consents Act does not apply to consents relating to water that expire on the earlier of either 31 December 2027 or 35 years after the date the consent commenced.

The PB has a similar extension for resource consents that are due to expire between when the PB comes into force and within 24 months after the transition date. This could extend qualifying resource consents by a further 24 months after the specified transition date. This exception does not apply to water consents, should they exceed 35 years if an extension is provided to them.

Conclusion

The use of spatial plans, and the ability to obtain designations through the spatial planning process is likely to be useful.

Much of the detail in terms of providing for infrastructure is left to the national policy statement and national standards. How these tools are used will ultimately determine how effective the reforms are.

The changes to the designation pathway for obtaining approvals requires careful consideration as there are many minor, but also many substantial changes to the regime.

Get in touch

If you would like to discuss the implications of these reforms, or need assistance with preparing a submission, please contact one of our experts listed below.

Special thanks to Liam Stevens for his assistance in writing this article.

Read our other article in the series: The Good, the Bad, and the Uncertain: Implications for local government in resource management reform