For most New Zealanders, the 9 December 2025 release of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill landed as a long-promised but slightly abstract event. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) was being replaced. The new system would, eventually, be simpler, more permissive and more standardised. Most of the coverage from law firms, mainstream media and council websites pitched the story at infrastructure providers, environmental advocates or general property owners.
For a property developer, the reform is not abstract at all. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) determines whether a site is buildable, how long a consent will take, how much it will cost to hold a site through to a decision, and how exposed a feasibility model is to neighbours, councils and the Environment Court. Every one of those answers is now in transition. The question is not whether your next feasibility runs under the current regime or the new one. The honest answer is that, for any project starting due diligence today, the answer is “both”: the front end under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), and the back end under whatever has replaced it by the time consents lapse or the site is offered to market.
This guide focuses on what a property developer may need to know about the reform: the three phases of change since 2023, the structure of the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill, how the new “funnel” of decision-making is intended to work, what happens to existing consents and the development pipeline during transition, the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 (FTAA) as the parallel consenting pathway, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD), national instruments now in force from 15 January 2026, and the practical feasibility implications across activity classifications, notification, standardised zones, timeframes and infrastructure charges. References are to New Zealand legislation and government sources throughout, with dollar amounts in New Zealand dollars (NZD).
Why the Resource Management Act 1991 is being replaced
The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) has governed land use, subdivision, environmental management and natural resource use across New Zealand since 1991. The starting purpose, set out in section 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991, was to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Thirty-five years on, the Government’s framing of the reform is that the Act has accumulated too many objectives, layers of regulation and complex case law to function as a planning system. The headline criticisms are that consenting is slow and unpredictable, that house prices have risen faster than in any other developed economy over the life of the Act, that infrastructure delivery has lagged demand and that environmental outcomes have not measurably improved.
From a developer’s perspective the practical complaints are sharper. Activity classifications turn on bespoke district plan provisions that differ between councils, sometimes between neighbouring suburbs. The same townhouse proposal can be a permitted activity in one street, a restricted discretionary activity across the road and a non-complying activity behind a heritage overlay. Effects assessment under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is open-ended, allowing decision-makers to weigh visual amenity, landscape, character and precedent alongside genuine externalities. Notification can pull individual neighbours into a process that, on the merits, has nothing to do with them. Appeals can run for years. The cost of holding a site through to a decision, even on relatively modest proposals, has become a defining feasibility risk.
The 2023 to 2026 reform programme is intended to address those complaints by narrowing what the planning system regulates, standardising what is regulated nationally, and shifting decision-making upward from the resource consent counter to national instruments and combined regional plans. The structure is unfamiliar enough that most existing developer guidance is now partly out of date. Working out what applies, when it applies and to which projects is the first feasibility question.
The three-phase reform programme
The Coalition Government has structured the reform in three phases. Understanding which phase a particular change sits in is the easiest way to make sense of the timeline.
Phase 1 was the December 2023 repeal of the previous Government’s reform package. The Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 and the Spatial Planning Act 2023 were both repealed, and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) remained the primary planning statute. This left the system unchanged in substance, but cleared the way for the current Government’s preferred approach.
Phase 2 has run through 2024 and 2025 and focuses on targeted amendments to keep the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) workable while replacement legislation is prepared. The two most significant pieces in this phase are the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024, which received Royal Assent on 23 December 2024, and the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Act 2025, which passed its third reading on 10 December 2025. Phase 2 also includes amendments addressing freshwater, infrastructure and housing growth, and the 18 December 2025 approval of ten national direction instruments that took effect on 15 January 2026.
Phase 3 is the replacement of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) itself. On 9 December 2025 the Government introduced the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill to Parliament. Both Bills passed their first reading and were referred to the Environment Select Committee. Submissions closed on 13 February 2026 and the Committee is due to report back to Parliament by 26 June 2026. The Government’s stated intention is that the Bills will receive Royal Assent by mid-2026 and that the new system will be fully operational by 2029. The Minter Ellison overview of phase three is a useful summary of the legislative shape, though the detail continues to move.
For a developer running feasibility today, the practical takeaway from the three-phase structure is that the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) still applies. The Planning Act and Natural Environment Act have not yet been enacted. Consents lodged in 2026 will be processed under the existing Act. A project that is two or three years from completion is likely to straddle both regimes. The transition mechanics, dealt with later in this guide, are the load-bearing piece.
What the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill actually do
The reform replaces a single statute with two. Both Bills are introduced to Parliament as part of a coordinated package, and both must be read alongside each other to make sense of how a development proposal will be assessed in the new system.
The Planning Bill establishes a framework for planning and regulating the use, development and enjoyment of land. The Beehive overview of the Planning Bill describes the goals as enabling economic growth, enabling the use and development of land, providing infrastructure to meet demand, supporting Māori interests through participation in planning, and managing the effects of natural hazards. Land use and subdivision consents will be issued under the Planning Bill by territorial authorities. The standardisation of zones, overlays and rules sits primarily on the Planning Bill side of the system.
The Natural Environment Bill establishes a framework for the use, protection and enhancement of the natural environment. Coastal permits, discharge permits, land use permits affecting natural resources and water permits will be issued under the Natural Environment Bill by regional councils. The Bill introduces a binding environmental limits framework, with limits for human health set by the Minister and limits for the life-supporting capacity of the natural environment set by regional councils through natural environment plans.
The two Bills are connected through the planning hierarchy. National policy direction sits at the top of the system. National standards sit below national policy direction. Regional spatial plans, prepared by a new Spatial Planning Committee in each region, sit below national standards. Combined regional plans containing the spatial plan, the natural environment plan and the land-use plan sit at the council layer. The DLA Piper overview of the reform describes this as a “funnel” structure, with fewer matters open for debate at each successive level.
For a developer, the practical consequence of the funnel is that arguments which currently surface at the resource consent stage (about whether an activity is appropriate, whether a precedent is being set, whether visual amenity matters) are intended to be resolved upstream in plan-making or national instruments. Once a land-use plan permits a particular activity in a particular zone, an application that complies with the rule may proceed without a consent. Where consent is still required, the decision-maker’s discretion is intended to be much more narrowly framed.
The “permitted baseline” becomes mandatory
One of the more consequential changes for feasibility sits in how effects are considered under the new system. Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the permitted baseline doctrine allowed decision-makers to disregard effects that could lawfully occur as of right under a plan, but only as a matter of discretion. In practice, councils and the Environment Court have applied the doctrine inconsistently, and the line between “permitted baseline” and “actual effect” has been the source of significant litigation.
Under the Planning Bill, the permitted baseline is intended to be mandatory. If a land-use plan or a national rule permits an activity with a particular effect, the decision-maker must disregard that effect when considering a consent application. The Planning Bill also explicitly lists effects that a decision-maker must disregard regardless of the permitted baseline. These include the visual amenity of a use, development or building in relation to its character, appearance or aesthetic qualities, views from private property, effects on landscape (except outstanding natural landscapes and features), the effect of setting a precedent, internal and external layouts of buildings, and the effects of development on trade competition or retail distribution. The Russell McVeagh summary of the new Bills describes this as the explicit removal of “amenity effects” from the system.
For a developer, that is a material change to the risk profile of a townhouse, terrace or medium-density proposal. The “we don’t like the look of it” objection, which has historically driven a meaningful share of opposition to suburban intensification, may have a much narrower legal foothold in the new system. Whether councils continue to push amenity-related conditions through the back door of design quality controls is one of the open questions, but the front-door amenity argument is intended to close.
Activity classifications: simplified to four
The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) currently recognises six activity classes: permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary, discretionary, non-complying and prohibited. Most non-trivial development applications under the existing Act sit in the discretionary or non-complying space, where decision-maker discretion is broad and the gateway tests under section 104D have produced extensive case law.
The Planning Bill simplifies the ladder to four classes: permitted, restricted discretionary, discretionary and prohibited. Controlled and non-complying activities are gone. The intention, stated in the Government’s overview of the consenting reforms, is that more activities will sit in the permitted class, that the restricted discretionary class will become the default for moderate breaches of standards, and that the discretionary class will be reserved for genuinely contested proposals. Independent analysis the Government has cited suggests up to 46% of consent and permit applications currently required under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) could be removed under the new system, equivalent to 15,000 to 22,000 consents per year.
For feasibility, the question is not the count of removed consents but the implications for individual project pathways. A subdivision of a permitted-activity scale and shape, complying with standardised zone rules, may not require a planning consent at all. A subdivision that breaches a standard by a small margin may be a restricted discretionary activity with limited decision-maker discretion. A subdivision in a location where the spatial plan has signalled a different land use may sit in the discretionary or prohibited class. The triage of which projects move from “consent required” to “permitted as of right” is one of the harder feasibility judgements to make in the first 12 months of the new system, because national standards for standardised zones are not expected until mid-2027.
Notification: the threshold rises
Notification has always been the most expensive part of the consenting machine. Under the existing Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the four-pathway model (non-notified, limited notified, publicly notified, and a separate fast-track stream) sets the speed and cost of consent. The covered guide on Resource Consent New Zealand walks through how each pathway works in detail.
Under the Planning Bill, two pathways remain: public notification and targeted notification (the new term for what is currently called limited notification). The threshold for either form of notification has been raised. Public notification will occur when adverse effects are more than minor or significant (the threshold differs slightly between the Bills) and there are no affected persons or not all affected persons can be identified. Targeted notification will occur when adverse effects are more than minor and all affected persons can be identified. “Special circumstances” (the historical safety valve that has pulled otherwise non-notified applications into public notification) is no longer relevant to notification decisions.
The practical consequence is that more applications are intended to proceed as non-notified consents, with the corresponding savings in time and cost. For a developer modelling consenting risk on a typical urban infill site, the move from a default expectation of limited notification down to a default expectation of non-notified consent is material to the holding-cost line in a feasibility model. The savings need to be hedged carefully, councils will continue to test the threshold, and the new Planning Tribunal will hear reviews of notification decisions, but the direction of travel is clear.
Statutory timeframes and the new Planning Tribunal
The Planning Bill prescribes maximum processing timeframes for non-notified, targeted notified and publicly notified consents and permits. The Government has not yet published the exact numerical timeframes in the Bill commentary, but the framing is that they are intended to be shorter and harder to extend than under the current Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), where the 20-working-day statutory timeframe is routinely stopped under section 91 or extended under section 37.
The new Planning Tribunal, a division of the Environment Court, will hear reviews of council decisions in relation to the completeness of an application, submission strike-out, notification, non-compliance with statutory timeframes and existing use rights. There is a presumption that matters will be determined without a hearing. Appeals from the Planning Tribunal are limited to points of law to the Environment Court, and judicial review continues to be available to the High Court.
For a developer, the practical consequence is that the council toolkit for stretching consenting timelines becomes more constrained. The Planning Tribunal provides a relatively cheap and fast pathway to challenge a section 91 stop or a notification decision that does not match the Bill. That changes the negotiating dynamic with consenting officers in a way that is not visible on the face of the statute.
Standardised zoning: the system shifts upward
New Zealand currently has more than 1,175 different zone types across district plans, with rules that differ at a granular level between councils. The reform is intended to standardise this radically. The Government has signalled that the target is a system like Japan’s, with around 13 nationally standardised zone types covering residential, commercial, industrial and city centre uses. The detail will be set through national standards under the Planning Bill, with the first tranche due by the end of 2026 and the second tranche by mid-2027.
For a developer, standardised zoning has three practical consequences. First, site selection becomes more transferrable. A medium-density residential zone in Auckland will have the same headline rules as a medium-density residential zone in Tauranga or Christchurch, allowing a developer to apply the same design template, the same yield assumptions and the same construction methodology across geographies. Second, comparison and benchmarking across sites becomes easier, a feasibility model can compare yield on two sites in different cities without the analyst having to read two district plans. Third, the relative value of “zone-bonus” arbitrage falls. Under the existing system, identifying a site where the council has applied a more permissive zone than the surrounding land has been a profitable specialty for some developers. As zones are standardised nationally, the spatial unit on which arbitrage operates moves from the council layer to the regional spatial plan layer.
The standardisation does not happen overnight. The Planning Bill anticipates that combined regional plans will take around two years from Royal Assent to develop, with the system intended to be fully operational by 2029. Until those plans are notified, existing district plan provisions continue to apply. Developers running feasibility on long-dated projects need to model both the current zone and what the standardised zone is likely to be once the relevant region’s land-use plan is in force.
Combined regional plans and the funnel timeline
Under the existing Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), New Zealand has more than 100 policy statements and plans across 78 local authorities. The Planning Bill consolidates these into 17 combined regional plans, with each region having a single plan that contains the regional spatial plan, the natural environment plan and the land-use plan.
The transition timeline is sequential. Immediately following Royal Assent, the Government will prepare national instruments (national policy direction and national standards) to give clear direction to councils. The first tranche of national instruments is due at the end of 2026. Regional spatial plans then follow, taking about two years to develop. Once spatial plans are in place, combined regional plans containing the land-use and natural environment components will be developed. The Government’s intention is for the full system to be operational by 2029.
The community engagement that has historically happened at the resource consent stage is intended to shift to the development of combined regional plans. Where a plan permits an activity, that decision is intended to be largely settled, disgruntled neighbours of a permitted activity have very limited recourse under the new system. This is a deliberate design feature, and it shifts the political pressure on intensification, infill and brownfield redevelopment from the consent counter to the council chamber. Developers with a long-term position in a particular region will need to engage at the plan-making stage, because the consent stage will offer fewer levers to pull.
What happens to existing consents
A developer’s most immediate question about the reform is what happens to consents already in hand, applications already lodged, and proposals in due diligence. The Government has answered the first two of those with the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Act 2025, which came into force on 17 December 2025.
The Amendment Act extends two categories of consent automatically. Any resource consent that was current on 17 December 2025 but due to expire before 31 December 2027 has been extended to 31 December 2027. Consents that expired before 17 December 2025 but where the consent holder lodged a replacement application that remains undetermined have been reinstated and extended to the same date. No application or notification is required to receive the extension. There are exclusions, water-related consents cannot be extended beyond a total of 35 years, and wastewater consents already extended under sections 139C or 139D of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) are not eligible.
The Government has signalled that when the Planning Act and Natural Environment Act are enacted, the expiry of the consents already extended will be extended again to a date two years after the end of the transition period, expected to be around mid-2031. The framing is “no consent holder will be worse off during the transition.” For a developer with a consented but un-commenced project, the practical effect is that the lapse clock that drives many feasibility models has been paused.
Applications lodged before commencement of the Planning Act and Natural Environment Act will continue to be processed under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and existing district plans. The transition mechanics give applicants the benefit of some of the reforms, for example, raised notification thresholds, but the substantive process is unchanged. New applications lodged after commencement will be processed under the new Acts to the extent that combined regional plans are in place; where they are not, existing plans continue to operate as transitional documents.
The Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 as the parallel pathway
While the long-form reform proceeds through phase three, the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 (FTAA) provides a parallel consenting pathway that is already operational. The Act creates a one-stop shop for nationally and regionally significant projects, managed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). An expert panel, rather than the Minister, makes the substantive decision. The pathway has been live for substantive applications since 7 February 2025.
There are two routes into the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 (FTAA) regime. Projects listed in Schedule 2 of the Act may proceed directly to a substantive application without a referral step. Other projects can apply to the Minister for Infrastructure to be referred to the fast-track. The Schedule 2 list, available from the New Zealand Legislation portal, included 149 projects when first published, of which 44 were housing developments, 43 were infrastructure projects, 22 were renewable energy projects, 11 were mining and quarrying projects and seven were aquaculture and farming projects. The official fast-track project page carries the current list, which the Minister has expanded periodically.
For a developer of a major project, the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 (FTAA) is the most consequential single piece of the phase two reforms. The Act allows a single application to obtain resource consents under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), approvals under the Conservation Act 1987, Wildlife Act 1953, Reserves Act 1977, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, Freshwater Fisheries Regulations and other statutes through a single integrated process. The processing timeframes are much shorter than the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) baseline, and the consultation and notification requirements are constrained.
The trade-offs are real. Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 (FTAA) applications carry their own application costs, which may be material for smaller developers. The expert panel has full power to impose conditions, which may be more onerous than those a council would impose. Public participation is constrained but not absent. For projects that genuinely qualify, large housing developments, infrastructure-led mixed-use schemes, build-to-rent towers, the pathway may produce a faster and more certain outcome than the conventional Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) process.
National instruments now in force from 15 January 2026
While the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill move through Parliament, the Government has not waited to make changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) instruments that sit under the current Act. On 18 December 2025 the Government approved ten national direction instruments, comprising amendments to seven existing directions and three new ones. These came into force on 15 January 2026.
The instruments cover natural hazards, highly productive land, freshwater, biodiversity, coastal environment, urban development and infrastructure. The Ministry for the Environment overview of resource management reforms is the central reference for the detail. From 15 January 2026, councils have been required to give effect to these new and amended instruments when assessing plans and consent applications. The DLA Piper updates to national direction instruments provide a thorough commentary.
For a developer, the practical consequence is that some applications now require different supporting assessments: more focus on natural hazards in flood-affected areas, more focus on highly productive land protection in greenfield expansion proposals, and more focus on biodiversity offsets in vegetated sites. The cost of preparing a Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) application has, in some categories, moved upward in 2026, even before the Planning Bill takes effect. This is a sharp reminder that the reform is not a single event in mid-2026 but a rolling set of changes that have been in motion since December 2023.
Going for Housing Growth and Development Levies
The Going for Housing Growth (GfHG) programme sits alongside the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) reform as part of the broader housing supply package. It is structured around three pillars: freeing up land for urban development, improving infrastructure funding and financing to support urban growth, and providing incentives for communities and councils to support growth.
The piece that most directly affects developer feasibility is the proposed replacement of development contributions with a Development Levy system. Under the Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) Amendment Bill introduced in November 2025, councils and other infrastructure providers will charge developers a proportionate amount of the total cost of capital expenditure necessary to service growth over the long term. The Government has framed this as giving developers more certainty around costs and giving councils more flexibility to recover the actual costs of growth.
Regulatory oversight of Development Levies is intended to restrict local authority discretion in matters such as the methodology used to allocate project costs. For a developer the practical question is whether levy charges will be more or less than current development contributions on a given site. The honest answer is that the answer varies, and that any feasibility prepared in 2026 needs to model both the current development contributions and the proposed Development Levy outcome on the same site, with sensitivity analysis on the timing of changeover.
The granny flat exemption
A smaller but well-publicised change is the building consent exemption for small standalone dwellings, commonly known as granny flats. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment confirmed in October 2025 that the exemption would come into force in early 2026 and would cover dwellings of up to 70 square metres. The exemption is from building consent only, homeowners must still obtain a Project Information Memorandum (PIM) before building, infrastructure charges still apply, and the building work must be carried out or supervised by licensed building professionals.
For a developer in the boutique infill or accessory dwelling space, the granny flat exemption is a meaningful change to the yield equation on existing residential sites. A two-dwelling outcome on a single existing title, previously contingent on subdivision and full consent, may now be available with significantly lighter compliance requirements. The exemption does not override planning controls, a granny flat that breaches site coverage, height in relation to boundary or daylight access rules will still need resource consent, but it removes one of the more frustrating compliance layers from small-scale intensification.
Auckland’s Plan Change 78 withdrawal: a preview of how the system reorders itself
The Auckland Council’s withdrawal of Plan Change 78, effective 9 October 2025, illustrates how planning decisions are being reshaped ahead of the Planning Bill’s enactment. Plan Change 78 was the Auckland Unitary Plan amendment that gave effect to the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD), allowing three-storey housing as a permitted activity across much of suburban Auckland. Following August 2025 legislation that gave councils the option to withdraw plan changes giving effect to the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS), Auckland Council withdrew most of Plan Change 78 and notified Plan Change 120 in its place.
The practical consequence for Auckland developers was that, from 9 October 2025, the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) as a permitted activity were removed across most residential zones, and development rules reverted to the operative Auckland Unitary Plan. The parts of Plan Change 78 relating to the city centre zone, which had already become operative, were not withdrawn, and the metropolitan centre provisions outside the New Lynn and Westgate precincts also remained in force.
For a developer in Auckland with a project that was relying on Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) entitlements as a permitted activity, the withdrawal was a sharp reminder that the period of transition between regimes is itself a source of feasibility risk. Projects that were marginal under Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) may not stack up under the current Auckland Unitary Plan rules. Projects that were lodged before the withdrawal date but not yet determined have generally been processed under the rules in force when they were lodged, but the line-drawing has been contested. The Plan Change 120 replacement is more conservative on intensification and more focused on natural hazard risk, particularly in flood-affected areas.
The general lesson for a developer running feasibility on any New Zealand site through 2026 to 2029 is that the planning rules applicable to a site are a moving target. Identifying the rules in force at the time consent is lodged, the rules in force at the time of substantive decision, and the rules likely to be in force in the next combined regional plan is now part of due diligence, particularly for sites where the value is sensitive to specific zone provisions.
Iwi engagement and Treaty of Waitangi obligations
The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)‘s general obligation to consider Treaty of Waitangi principles, set out in section 8, is being replaced under both the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill by more prescriptive Treaty provisions. Iwi will be involved in plan-making and protecting sites of significance, with consultation required before any national instrument is notified. Obligations under Treaty settlements that currently apply under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) will transfer into the new system.
For a developer, the practical consequence is that engagement with iwi authorities will continue to be part of due diligence on most non-trivial sites, particularly those near coastal, freshwater or culturally significant locations. The shape of that engagement may change, earlier engagement at the plan-making stage rather than reactive engagement at the consent stage, but the underlying obligation is not diminished. The Tompkins Wake commentary on the property rights framing of the reform is one of the more detailed analyses of how the Treaty provisions interact with the wider reform.
Regulatory relief and compensation for landowners
A less-discussed feature of the reform is the regulatory relief framework, available to landowners whose land is significantly impacted by planning controls relating to significant historic heritage, outstanding natural landscapes or features, sites of significance to Māori, or areas of high natural character. The Planning Bill anticipates that councils will need to develop a relief framework as part of the plan-making process, with relief potentially including rates reductions, bonus development rights or cash payments.
The framework does not apply to designations or natural hazard mapping, which are treated as critical aspects of the planning system. It also does not apply to standard zone provisions or general bulk and location controls. For a developer holding a site where significant value has been suppressed by heritage, landscape or character overlays, the regulatory relief framework may provide a pathway to either bonus development rights or a cash settlement when the next combined regional plan is notified.
The practical caveat is that councils will be cautious about creating relief frameworks that generate significant fiscal exposure. The intention of the Government is that the framework will disincentivise overly broad disenabling provisions. Whether that intention plays out as anticipated will depend on how councils interpret the threshold for “significant impact” and how readily they offer bonus development rights as a relief mechanism.
What the reform may mean for your feasibility model
Pulling the threads together, the reform changes several inputs that flow directly into a property development feasibility model.
Consenting timelines may shorten, particularly for proposals that fall within the new permitted-activity class or within standardised zone parameters. The savings in hold costs and finance costs may be material on long-dated projects. The savings may not be uniform, projects in transition years (2027 to 2029) may sit awkwardly between regimes, and the worst-case outcome could be a project that loses the benefit of an existing district plan provision before the standardised zone provisions are in force.
Consenting risk may decrease at the application level, but increase at the plan-making level. Developers with a long-term position in a particular region will need to engage at the plan-making stage to influence the standardised zone parameters that will apply to their land. The “easy” win at the consent counter under the current Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is no longer available, but the more durable win at the plan-making level is.
Yield assumptions in feasibility may improve as the permitted baseline becomes mandatory and amenity effects are removed from consent considerations. The “we don’t like the look of it” haircut on yield, which has affected medium-density and infill proposals, may have a narrower legal footing in the new system. The savings in design compromise may translate to one or two extra dwellings per typical infill site, with proportionate effects on revenue and residual land value.
Infrastructure charges may move under the Development Levy regime, in either direction depending on the site and the council. Sensitivity analysis on infrastructure charges will be a more important feasibility input in 2026 to 2028 than it has been historically, because the model is changing on both the rate and the methodology side.
Transition risk (the risk that a project that was viable under one regime becomes marginal under another) is a new feasibility line item that does not have a natural place in most existing models. For projects with a programme of two or more years, the regime under which the consents are processed, the development contributions or Development Levies are charged, and the construction is completed may differ. The Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Act 2025 has reduced part of the risk on the consenting side, but the broader programme risk remains.
Feasly lets developers model multiple scenarios in parallel: a base case that assumes the current Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) regime continues through to project completion, a transition case that assumes the new Planning Act takes effect at a particular date, and a sensitivity case that varies development contributions and Development Levies independently. Running a project through all three scenarios is one of the more useful exercises in the transition years, because it makes the cost of regime uncertainty visible in the residual land value and internal rate of return.
Australian developers operating in New Zealand
For Australian developers operating in the New Zealand market under the Closer Economic Relations (CER) Agreement, the reform changes the operating environment but not the threshold to enter the market. Australian residents, citizens and permanent residents may still acquire and develop New Zealand property on broadly the same basis as New Zealand residents, with the Overseas Investment Act 2005 thresholds remaining in place for sensitive land.
The interaction with the brightline test continues to be the most important tax consideration. The Brightline Test New Zealand guide covers the developer-specific provisions in sections CB 6 to CB 14 of the Income Tax Act 2007, which apply to developers, builders and traders regardless of the headline brightline period. The 1 July 2024 reset of the brightline period to two years did not change those provisions.
From a planning perspective, the standardisation of zones and the funnel structure may make the New Zealand market easier for an Australian developer to operate in, because the cognitive cost of learning each council’s idiosyncratic district plan should decline. The regulatory relief framework and the more prescriptive Treaty of Waitangi provisions, however, are features without a direct Australian analogue, and they require local advice.
Where to from here
The Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill are expected to receive Royal Assent in mid-2026. The Environment Select Committee is due to report back to Parliament by 26 June 2026. The first tranche of national instruments is due at the end of 2026, with the second tranche by mid-2027. Combined regional plans are intended to be in place by 2029, marking the formal end of the transition period.
For a developer running feasibility today, the prudent approach is to assume the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) regime continues to apply to applications lodged in 2026, that the new system applies to applications lodged after commencement of the Planning Act and Natural Environment Act, and that the transition mechanics will be set out in the eventual transitional provisions of those Acts. The Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Act 2025 has bought time for consents already in hand, with the Government signalling that further extensions to mid-2031 are likely once the new Acts pass.
The reform is one of the larger pieces of statutory change to affect the New Zealand property sector since the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) itself was enacted. The honest assessment is that the system is moving in a direction that, on the face of the legislation, should be friendlier to development. The transitional years between 2026 and 2029 may be uneven. Developers who engage with the reform at the plan-making stage, who model both regimes in parallel and who watch the national instruments as they are released are most likely to capture the upside as the new system stabilises.