A new National Policy Statement - Natural Hazards (NPS – NH) is one of the many components of the Government’s package of reforms to National Direction covered in our previous article. Consultation on the indicative policy approach and provisions is underway and runs until 27 July 2025. 

In this article, our experts explain how the proposed NPS-NH component will work, and why we believe it will help deliver greater consistency across the motu when it comes to assessing risk arising from natural hazards.

The NPS - NH aims to support a consistent approach to natural hazard management when local authorities make planning and consenting decisions. The NPS-NH would introduce a framework emphasising proportionate risk management based on measurable data. The Government views this policy as a key step toward achieving its broader goal of ensuring that development is appropriately located and designed in accordance with the natural hazard risk profile of each area.

It will not tell local authorities how to respond to a specific level of risk, but will require them to proportionately manage natural hazard risk when making planning and consenting decisions on new subdivision, use and development, based on the level of natural hazard risk. It includes a proposed matrix to help determine that level.

Flooding Landslips Coastal erosion Coastal inundation

Active faults Liquefaction Tsunami

For natural hazards not included in the NPS-NH scope, local authorities will continue to hold broader discretion to manage those hazards.

The NPS-NH is proposed to apply to all new subdivision use and development (except for primary production and infrastructure) in all environments and zones. However, in the coastal environment it is proposed that if there are inconsistencies between the NPS-NH and the hazard provisions in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS), the NZCPS will prevail.  

Primary production and infrastructure are excluded from this NPS’s scope as the Government believes these sectors require a tailored policy response. It has signalled that natural hazard management for these activities may be revisited in future reforms. 

Provisions of the NPS - NH

The Government is seeking feedback on the appropriate wording for an overarching objective for the NPS-NH. It has not committed to any specific wording at this stage, but has suggested that its intent could be expressed as:

In order to avoid, mitigate and reduce risks arising from natural hazards on subdivision, use and development, local authorities apply:

•    a risk-based approach to managing natural hazard risks; and

•    land use or use controls that are proportionate to the level of natural hazard risk

There are six proposed policies being consulted on. These relate to:

1. Risk assessments: When assessing the natural hazard risk for an activity in planning / consenting local authorities must consider:
   •    the likelihood of a natural hazard event occurring;
   •    the consequences of a natural hazard event for the activity;
   •    existing and proposed mitigation measures; and
   •    residual risk.
   
   The RMA currently requires that the management of significant risks from natural hazards is recognised and provided for as a matter of national importance. But "significant risk" is not defined in the RMA. The proposed NPS-NH attempts to fill that gap and standardise risk analysis by introducing a definition that incorporates a risk matrix. The risk matrix identifies levels of risk based on their likelihood of occurrence, and severity of their consequences. "Significant risk" will mean risk that is "medium", "high", or "very high" according to the matrix.
   
   Introduction of the risk matrix is intended to build a more comprehensive picture of risk by considering not only the risk itself, but also the consequences of that risk on the specific activity being considered, and any mitigation measures.
   
   
2. Climate change timeframes: The potential impacts of climate change are proposed to be considered at least 100 years into the future to ensure the long-term impacts and risks are properly considered. However, no direction is provided in the consultation documents regarding the climate change projection scenario to be used when considering impacts of climate change.
3. Proportionate management: Local authorities would be required to proportionately manage risk when making planning decisions on new subdivisions, uses and developments, based on the level of natural hazard risk.
4. Best information available: The Government is consulting on whether local authorities should be directed to use the “best information available” at the time. The intention is that local authorities would be encouraged to rely on robust information, but would not be required to commission new studies to or delay risk assessments until ‘better’ information is available and accessible.
5. Significant risk from natural hazards not exacerbated on other sites: New uses or consents must not exacerbate significant natural hazard risks on other nearby sites, as this would result in additional impacts on property, life and safety, and could render existing or future mitigation efforts ineffective.
6. Continue with risk assessment processes where information is limited: To ensure decision-making is not delayed due to the inherently uncertain and changing nature of natural hazards, local authorities must continue with risk assessment processes where information is incomplete or inconclusive.

Our thoughts 

The NPS-NH is focused on taking a proportionate approach to risk, which in our experience is what generally occurs now. However, the direction to consider standardised risk levels (and the risk matrix) alongside uniform definitions and language will hopefully assist to achieve a more consistent national approach.

We expect developers and their funders will welcome the Government’s ambition of ensuring consistent decision-making across local authorities. In practice however, the proposed approach would put a greater focus on hazard risk assessments and may place the onus and associated costs on applicants to convince decision makers that appropriate mitigation options exist. 

It will also be interesting to see how the requirement to use the best available information will play out and whether this enables or hinders delivery of consistent decision making. The best available information may have been generated more recently than that which was used to prepare district plan hazard maps. We encourage local authorities to work collaboratively with developers in sharing information and procuring more recent studies where necessary.

Careful consideration of the proposed risk matrix is informative. In particular, it appears that a large number of situations will be defined as significant risks. This is because “significant risk” is defined to include any scenario which presents in the “medium” risk threshold or above. Given that the risk matrix is to be applied within the consent application process, early pre-application discussions with the relevant consent authority will be important to help reduce surprises.

The Government plans to produce non-statutory guidance to support the NPS-NH’s implementation. We welcome this approach. It will be important for the Government to provide local authorities with the necessary tools and data to apply the NPS - NH. Otherwise, there is potential for an extended bedding in period and a degree of duplication of effort across the country, with the associated risk of delays, costs and inefficiencies, or inconsistency, placing further pressure on local authorities. 

An aspect the proposal does not directly address is whether there is still a place for community tolerance of risks. That is, if a community knows the risk and is willing to live with it, will that carry any weight in decision-making processes, or will the assessed level of risk win the day?

Our experts 

Simpson Grierson is closely following Natural Hazard reform, including the growing suite of statements and reform issued in response to natural hazards such as the latest changes to LIMs to improve natural hazard reporting.

If you have any questions about these changes or would like help in preparing feedback on the NPS- NH, please reach out to one of our experts who will be happy to assist. 

Special thanks to Natalie Wilson and Lucy Scottwood for their assistance in preparing this article.

See our other article on how the reforms will impact the rights and interests of Māori.

Read our latest article on the Government's stop to Council's plan-making in preparation for the new RMA system here.