Reflections on the EAG Report: A Step Forward in RM System Design
The Expert Advisory Group’s final report, published in March 2025, lays out a comprehensive framework for replacing the Resource Management Act. From a planning system design perspective, there is a lot to work with here. The structural changes proposed, particularly around spatial planning, plan-making, activity classification, and compliance, are well-considered. They respond to long-standing system inefficiencies that have affected not only practitioners, but also the quality of outcomes for our communities and the environment.
New Zealand’s planning framework has carried a heavy legislative and procedural load for some time. While incremental adjustments have been made over the years, the core structure has remained largely unchanged. The current reform process offers a welcome opportunity to step back, reassess, and lay the foundations for a more integrated, consistent, and effective system.
One Spatial Plan Per Region
A single spatial plan per region is a logical step. It creates the opportunity to embed a genuinely strategic approach to development and infrastructure coordination. Spatial plans are standard in many jurisdictions overseas, how can we plan and invest effectively without an integrated view of regional environmental constraints, infrastructure capacity and reach, and social, economic, and cultural aspirations? It’s time to catch up.
Including the coastal marine area within spatial planning is appropriate, and it’s encouraging to see recognition of both land- and water-based pressures.
Crucially, these spatial plans will carry statutory weight. That’s a significant shift. Too often, strategic planning has had little bearing on regulatory decisions or infrastructure investment. This change could help address that disconnect—provided the plans are technically sound and well-governed.
Combined Plans and Activity Streamlining
The proposal for one combined plan per region is long overdue. It should help eliminate duplication, reduce process churn, and make it easier for users to navigate the system. Standardising plan structures and provisions nationally, including the use of Nationally Standardised Zones (NSZs), is a logical next step in terms of consistency and efficiency.
The removal of controlled and non-complying activity classes is another sensible refinement. A sharper focus on permitted and restricted discretionary pathways, with better-defined matters of discretion, will assist both applicants and councils.
Compliance and the Role of a National Regulator
Shifting the emphasis from upfront consenting to compliance and enforcement is both necessary and overdue. A consistent national approach, supported by a central compliance body with regional presence, should lift performance. It will also allow councils to focus more on planning and less on enforcement, which has often been uneven across the country.
It’s encouraging to see recognition that compliance needs dedicated capability and should not sit passively behind consenting systems. A better balance here could help close the gap between what’s on paper and what happens on the ground.
Planning Tribunal: Accountability Without Overreach
The introduction of a Planning Tribunal is a welcome and practical addition - one of the more notable aspects of the proposed reform. If established, it would offer a low-cost, independent forum for resolving procedural disputes, such as notification decisions and further information requests. Councils should not be left to assess their own processes, particularly where poor practice has become embedded. A dispute resolution mechanism that avoids costly legal proceedings will serve the interests of all system users.
That said, careful design will be essential to ensure the Tribunal complements existing institutions and avoids unnecessary duplication. A clearly defined scope and robust operating guidelines will be critical, along with transparent dissemination of rulings to support and inform ongoing planning practice.
A Note of Caution: Planning Chapters by Council
One area that could create challenges is the retention of separate planning chapters for each council within combined district plans. This could be administratively efficient in the short term, but it risks reinforcing legacy silos. A regionally cohesive plan is harder to achieve if structural divisions remain baked in.
It’s understood this is a transitional measure, and may help councils get to grips with the new system. But over time, integration needs to go beyond format. Plans should be shaped by function, not governance boundaries.
Next Steps: What to Watch For in 2025–26
The reform process is now moving into its next phase, with several important developments underway:
New Legislation
Draft Natural Environment Act and Planning Act bills are expected to be introduced to Parliament later in 2025. The Government intends for these to be in force by mid-2026.National Direction Programme
Consultation documents on national direction (covering freshwater, biodiversity, coastal policy, infrastructure, urban development, and hazards) are expected by mid-2025. These will set the regulatory scaffolding for the new system.Implementation Pathways
Transitional guidance and regulatory templates—including NSZs, standard plan formats, and plan-making procedures—are likely to emerge progressively throughout the year.Amendment Bill
The RMA (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill is due back from the Select Committee by mid-2025. While transitional in nature, it previews the design logic of the new system.Fast-track Approvals
The Fast-track Approvals Act is now operational. This parallel process for key infrastructure and development proposals will inform early lessons in coordination and project delivery under the new framework.
Final Thoughts
My planning career has tracked the path of the RMA. I started university in 1994, just three years after the RMA was introduced. Since then, I’ve worked in planning systems in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United Arab Emirates, and when it comes to reform I can say with confidence: it’s time.
This system has done its job, but it has been stretched and amended past the point of clarity. The proposed changes are not without complexity, but they are necessary. If done well, they’ll strengthen the planning profession, serve the people of Aotearoa New Zealand more effectively, and deliver better outcomes for the environment.
This old planner is more than ready for what’s next.