Getting ready for transitional consenting under the proposed Planning Act

Key points from this joint RMLA/NZPI webinar of 27 July 2026

This joint RMLA and NZPI webinar (sponsored by MCERT), Getting ready for Transitional Consenting under the proposed Planning Act, focused on what practitioners need to know now about the transitional consenting regime as the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill move through the final stages of reform.

The webinar was based on the Select Committee Report released on 20 July 2026 and the versions of the Bills incorporating the Committee’s recommended changes (but it is important to caution that the final version of the Bills may contain further changes).

The MCERT team provided a high-level overview of the provisional timeline for the transition to the new resource management system and discussed specific changes likely to roll out across 2026 and 2027. They also discussed national direction updates and how national direction applies during the transition period.

RMLA’s Lauren Wallace and Kate Stubbing shared some initial thoughts on the Environment Select Committee recommendations and what these may mean in practice for transitional consenting. In short, the session was a useful reminder that, while a new planning system is on the horizon, RMA-based consenting isn't going anywhere just yet. However, during the "transitional period" - expected to begin one month after the Bills are enacted - RMA consenting will be different. Under the reported-back version of the Bills, this transitional period has also been extended, with RMA-based consenting now likely to run for around 3 years and 3 months, up from the previously anticipated 2.5 years. For anyone who could not attend, the full webinar recording will be made available later this week.

A key change, as discussed by Amanda de Jong, is that amendments to s104 RMA are proposed which will mean decision-makers must not have regard to specified out-of-scope effects, such as “the internal layout of a building or the external layout of any building on a site if the effects of the external layout remain within the boundaries of the site” and “effects on retail distribution”.

Kate Stubbing: a hybrid system is coming

Kate Stubbing emphasised that councils, applicants and advisers should prepare for a period in which the current RMA framework continues to apply, but with important features of the new system layered into it.

Two places to start to understand what this will look like are Schedule 11 of the Planning Bill, which sets out the RMA amendments that will take effect during the transition, and Schedule 1, which contains the transitional provisions for both Bills. Kate noted that Schedule 1 is particularly important because it determines which version of the RMA applies depending on when an application is lodged.

Applications already lodged, or being processed now, will continue under the RMA as it currently stands. Applications lodged once the transitional period begins will be assessed under the RMA as amended by the transitional consenting changes.

Initial national rules will matter

Kate also highlighted the new requirement for consent authorities to have regard to “initial national rules” when they come into effect. These rules are expected to be released in groups, with at least the first tranche anticipated during 2027.

A key point for practitioners is the proposed new section 43AC of the RMA: if an initial national rule conflicts with existing RMA documents including national policy statements, the NZCPS, national environmental standards, regional policy statements or plan provisions, the initial national rule will prevail. That is not the hierarchy practitioners are used to, so it will be important to track these rules as they land.

Future development strategies and regional spatial plans

Another change discussed to section 104 RMA was the requirement to consider the extent to which a decision is consistent with any relevant future development strategy. Once regional spatial plans are final, those plans will then become the relevant document for that assessment.

This is one example of the new planning system beginning to influence decision-making before the RMA system has fully fallen away.

Notification remains familiar, but watch the changes

Kate noted that the Planning Bill removes “special circumstances” from the public notification assessment. She also pointed out that initial national rules may direct non-notification, meaning practitioners will need to keep a close eye on how those rules are drafted.

Although the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill each contain new notification provisions, the practical point for now is that RMA notification steps and tests will remainduring the transitional period.

Lauren Wallace: practical details to watch

Lauren Wallace focused on some of the practical mechanics that practitioners will need to work through, particularly around the new pathways for dealing with matters that are no longer to be considered in the same way under section 104.

Alternative permitted activity pathway

Lauren outlined the new alternative permitted activity pathway under section 104AA. This mechanism would allow consent authorities to treat district land use activities as permitted where there is only a marginal or temporary non-compliance with a rule or standard relating to an out-of-scope matter.

While similar in concept to the deemed permitted activity pathway under section 87BB RMA, Lauren highlighted that the section 104AA pathway is not identical. In particular, it does not include the same additional qualifiers around adverse effects being no different in character, intensity or scale, or effects on people being less than minor.

A consent authority may give notice under this pathway on its own initiative or in response to an application. If an application ismade for an activity that is then treated as permitted under the section, the application is to be returned rather than processed or decided.

District plan updates and private plan changes

Under a new s76A, territorial authorities may make targeted changes to district plans to remove plan provisions relating to out-of-scope effects, without using the Schedule 1 process. This is intended to strip these provisions out before they reach consenting stage. Councils will need to give careful thought to the pros and cons of doing so.

Lauren also noted the Select Committee recommendation to insert a new provision (section 80YA which provides that Councils must not notify any new private plan changes from 1 January 2028 until the end of the transitional period, unless a ministerial exemption is granted. .

Consent duration and expiry dates may become compicated

Another important point was consent duration. The 2025 Duration of Consents Amendment Act extended resource consent expiry dates to 31 December 2027, with exceptions. Lauren noted that the Select Committee has recommended that the Planning Bill be amended to also allow regulations to set consent durations between 24 and 48 months after the specified transition date i.e., the end of the transition period).

Because the specified transition date may be set by Order in Council and could vary by region, it will be difficult for consent holders to know exact expiry dates until those orders are made. Some consents could therefore sit in a deemed extension status for several years.

Lauren noted that this may be appropriate in some cases (and may help alleviate a processing bottleneck for Councils by avoiding all expired consents having to be renewed at the same time), it does mean some consents may be operating under conditions that are no longer appropriate for many more years.

Compliance and enforcement will continue through the transition

Lauren also touched on compliance and enforcement which continues under the RMA for now. Existing compliance and enforcement action commenced before the specified transition date can continue after that date for offences that occurred while the RMA applied.

The new adverse publicity order tool is also expected to become available during the transition period, adding another compliance tool for practitioners to understand.

What this means for practitioners

The overall message from the webinar was clear: transitional consenting will not simply be “business as usual” under the RMA, but nor will it be the full new system from day one. Practitioners will need to work carefully with the transitional provisions, check which version of the RMA applies, and stay alert to new national rules, spatial planning documents and regulatory tools as they come online.

For councils, this means preparing systems, templates and staff training for a hybrid consenting environment. For applicants and advisers, it means thinking strategically about timing, information requirements, notification risk, plan status and consent duration.

Most importantly, the webinar reinforced the need to go back to the text of the transitional schedules rather than relying on assumptions about how the current RMA system works.

Missed the webinar?

If you missed this joint RMLA/NZPI webinar, the full recording will be made available shortly once editing has been completed. It will be a useful resource for anyone involved in consenting, planning policy, compliance, enforcement or advising clients through the transition to the proposed new system.