Government signs off the blueprint for resource management reform

The Government has confirmed its direction for resource management reform, with Minister responsible for RM Reform Hon Chris Bishop and Under-Secretary for RM Reform Simon Court announcing an end to the “culture of no” in planning, alongside the Prime Minister. The Resource Management Act (RMA) will be repealed and replaced with a two-Act framework, with Cabinet agreeing that a blueprint created by Minister Bishop’s Expert Advisory Group will form the basis of the new system.

There will be two new Acts:

  • A Planning Act will focus on land use – the regulation and enjoyment of land, urban development, and infrastructure.
  • A Natural Environment Act (NEA) will focus on the use, protection, and enhancement of the natural environment. Cabinet has asked for further advice to ensure the NEA remains enabling, particularly in relation to development within environmental limits.

The new system is built around externalities, with the goal of reducing regulation to only where effects meaningfully impact other people or the environment. Effects relating to land use that are borne solely by the party undertaking the activity will not be controlled.

There is a big focus on standardisation to create efficiencies in the system and embed good planning practices. This will include a National Policy Direction under each Act, national standards, and standardised zones. Regulatory justification reports will be required for local rules that deviate from these national defaults. There will be ‘safety valves’ that can be used to consider any genuinely novel issues that come up.

Regional spatial plans will become the primary tool for long-term development strategy. The EAG recommended that these plans identify constraints, infrastructure corridors, future urban areas, and growth opportunities. They should be where regulatory planning and infrastructure planning and investment come together. Each Act will require one combined plan per region with plan chapters developed by each local authority.

Limits to protect human health will be set nationally, and we should assume this will include noise. Regional councils will be responsible for setting limits for the natural environment using a set methodology.

Reverse sensitivity – promising signs, but detail still to come

NZ Airports has strongly advocated for national policy direction on reverse sensitivity. The EAG made bold recommendations:

Those that ‘come to the nuisance’ should not be able to complain about it.

Reasonable expansion of existing activity will be permitted where the site is ‘zoned or owned’.

These recommendations go further than anything previously proposed in New Zealand’s planning law. If carried through, they would create strong protections for airports and other infrastructure from complaints and encroachment.

In the announcement yesterday, Minister Bishop and Under-Secretary Court reflected these recommendations, noting that:

There will be clear protection for lawfully established existing use rights, including the potential for the reasonable expansion of existing activities over time where the site is ‘zoned or owned’.

The Cabinet decisions released yesterday are less specific, with further detail on this approach to be determined by the Minister. That leaves some uncertainty about how strongly the no-complaints approach will be carried through.

We support the property rights-focused approach of the reforms and the government’s recognition that this includes the rights of infrastructure to continue and grow their operations. The sentiment and intent are clearly there. What we will need to ensure is that we have enough protections for infrastructure in practice – such as the standards and covenants recommended by the EAG – to balance the property rights of those in airport noise contours with the property rights of airport infrastructure owners. Without clear protections, there is a risk that the system encourages more housing near airports, with negative health effects. Without enough of a counterbalancing policy on noise and complaints, infrastructure will be exposed.

But taken together, policy emphasising existing use rights, strong spatial planning that leverages airport master plans and integrates infrastructure corridors and investment, and the standardised implementation of national noise standards, will lead to far more streamlined planning, renewed confidence for infrastructure owners and operators, and reduced costs for all involved.

We know what the government wants to achieve, and the implementation detail is key. We want to work as closely as possible with the government to get this right.

What’s next?

NZ Airports will work with our Planning Working Group to assess the draft legislation when it is released later this year. This group is open to anyone involved in the planning and resource management space. If you’re not in the group but keen to join our discussions, please contact Billie.

The RM reform process is a transformational opportunity for airports and the communities that rely on them, and we are committed to making the most of it. We will continue to advocate for:

  • Strong and directive national policy on reverse sensitivity that supports critical infrastructure
  • Clear recognition of airport master plans as key inputs into spatial plans.

Key links

 

What we said to government

In our most recent advice to officials we highlighted:

  • Reverse sensitivity is a daily issue for regional airports, with major time and cost spent monitoring development proposals that risk noise complaints and operational restrictions.
  • Aircraft noise effects areas are defined using robust standards (NZS 6805) and modelling – but still face inconsistent treatment and legal challenges across the country.
  • We called for strong national policy direction that requires:
    • Avoidance of sensitive activities in airport noise zones.
    • Recognition and protection of infrastructure effects areas in local plans.
    • Recognition of airport master plans in the spatial planning process.

We also raised concerns that a property-rights-focused system could unintentionally undermine infrastructure unless ongoing operation and future growth are equally protected.