The Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 20 August 2025, marking what the Government described as a turning point for property and infrastructure development in New Zealand.
According to Minister Chris Bishop, these amendments are part of a wider Reform Package which aim to "end the culture of 'no'" and set "clear expectations for councils to take a pragmatic approach when issuing consents."
However, for many of us on the ground, the day-to-day experience suggests otherwise. Eight weeks on, the reality in council planning departments looks remarkably unchanged and, in some respects, even more uncertain.
TLDR: I've recently heard one developer direct their project team to do everything as a permitted activity (and Schedule 1 Building Act) so that they don't have to engage with Council.
The promise: faster, simpler consenting
The Amendment Act was pitched as a fast-fix while the full RMA replacement addresses larger systemic problems. It introduced several changes designed to streamline processes:
- New limits on proportionate information requirements — changes to s 88 (application for resource consent) and s 92 (request for further information)
- Temporary suspension of plan changes until 31 December 2027
- Stronger ministerial direction to councils to enable rather than restrict development
In principle, these are sensible reforms. But legislation alone does not change behaviour — especially in organisations with entrenched risk aversion and resource shortages.
The reality: little to no change at the coalface
Across the sector, practitioners report that getting a consent today feels harder than ever.
While the Government has frozen plan changes, this has inadvertently stalled rezoning efforts crucial to housing supply, such as converting open space or rural land to residential use. In theory, councils can apply to the Minister for exemptions. In practice, few are willing to do so in light of October's local body elections.
Meanwhile, the much-touted improvements to section 92 (RFI) have failed to bite. In recent weeks, we've seen RFIs demanding:
- Details on the location of toilets and wardrobe widths inside dwellings
- Neighbour approvals for entirely complying schemes
- Council-initiated redesigns of private developments — with the implicit threat of public notification if the developer declines
These are not isolated incidents. They demonstrate that despite ministerial messaging, council staff remain unconcerned, unimpressed, and unmoved.
The structural problem: no incentive to consent
The amendment tinkers with process but leaves untouched the root cause — council staff face few, if any, incentives to approve development. At the institutional level, increased collection of development contributions appears to be a large carrot, but this has no bearing on the average consents planner.
Without accountability for processing times, and despite clear direction on enabling growth, local authorities can continue to delay or over-scrutinise proposals without consequence. Until that changes, no amount of political rhetoric will deliver the housing and infrastructure outcomes the country needs.
The path forward
The sector is now looking ahead to the full RMA replacement, which must address these deeper issues — aligning national direction, removing duplication, and creating genuine performance incentives for councils.
At Derive Consulting Group, we thrive on navigating complex regulatory environments for our clients. The 2025 Amendments have changed the legislative landscape, but not the practical reality. High-quality, strategic advice remains the most effective way to secure outcomes in an uncertain system.