RMA Reform: Proposed changes to the resource consent process

RMA Reform: Proposed changes to the resource consent process
Monday 7 December, 2020
The report of the Resource Management Review Panel, released in July 2020, includes proposals for the comprehensive reform of the resource management system in New Zealand. The purpose of this article is to consider how the proposed reform will affect the process for obtaining a resource consent.
After a lengthy nationwide consultation process, the Review Panel identified the following key issues with the current resource consent process:
- The resource consent process is complex, costly and slow;
- The need to balance efficiency with access to justice, as well as reflecting Te Tiriti o Waitangi;
- Unnecessary debate, litigation and process involved in notification;
- The impact of existing use rights, and the permitted baseline test;
- The process does not effectively address cumulative effects;
- The capacity and capability of all parties in the process, including mana whenua; and
- Monitoring of environmental change through consent approvals and enforcement of consent conditions.
Changes are proposed to the resource consent process to address these issues, as well as to respond to the broader recommendations made by the Review Panel regarding the preparation of combined plans for each region combining regional policy statements, regional plans and district plans. The key changes include:
- Removing non-complying activity status;
- Enabling a single application to be made using an online consenting process encompassing all consents required under the new combined plan;
- All controlled activities will be non-notified (unless there are special circumstances) and all discretionary activities will be publicly notified; and
- For restricted discretionary activities, the combined plan will identify whether notification or limited notification is required, and the parties to be subject to limited notification.
Changes are also proposed to the way that resource consent applications will be assessed including:
- A shift from assessing the magnitude of effects to focusing on whether the proposal contributes to outcomes in the relevant plan, which by extension will give effect to the purpose and principles of the new legislation;
- Removing reference to the permitted baseline; and
- Introducing mandatory environmental limits and binding targets for the biophysical environment.
While the Review Panel proposes to retain the right to appeal to the Environment Court, an alternative dispute resolution method is proposed for minor disputes. This would enable disputes relating to controlled or restricted discretionary activities to be referred to an independent adjudicator, with leave required for an appeal to the Environment Court.
The proposed reform aims to provide more guidance in National Policy Statements and combined plans regarding the outcomes that are sought, the environmental limits and targets that apply, and the circumstances when notification is required. The expectation is that the number of resource consents, and the discretion in deciding those consents, will be reduced.
If you have any questions relating to this article, please contact one of our experts listed below.
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
