Why Hawke’s Bay should pay attention to planning reform before the new planning system arrives.
After years of debate, the RMA is finally on track to be replaced, for real this time (Labour has indicated it would not repeal the replacement legislation, unlike the previous round of RMA reforms). Much of the discussion has focused on the destination for the new planning system.
Will consenting become faster? Will development become easier? Will costs reduce?
They are important questions, and there will come a time when the answers become clearer. But the more immediate issue is what happens in the gap between the old planning system and the new one. The RMA is not going to disappear overnight. Over the next few years, parts of the new system will be introduced, bit by bit, while the existing framework remains in place.
That transition could create both risks and opportunities.
Councils will soon be directed to disregard certain effects that have traditionally featured in resource consent assessments (such as building layout, and impacts on city centres from out-of-town retail development). New “Initial National Rules” are expected to emerge during 2027, and a much greater degree of national standardisation is intended to be rolled out over the next few years. For some businesses and projects, the transition period may create new opportunities. For others, locally-specific and enabling “quirks” of our region’s current district plans may disappear as nationally consistent rules take their place. Or there could be new risks on the horizon.
Getting the timing right, and understanding the changing nuances of the planning framework, will become increasingly important parts of any development strategy.
Building the new system, why the Regional Spatial Plan matters
Alongside the transitional consenting period, Hawke’s Bay councils will prepare a Regional Spatial Plan that will shape future planning rules and influence infrastructure investment decisions across the region. For those who participated in the recent Napier-Hastings Future Development Strategy process, the thought of doing something similar again may not immediately spark excitement.
However, the scope of the Regional Spatial Plan is broader, and its ambition should be higher. Same same, but different.
The Regional Spatial Plan’s role is greater than simply ensuring there is enough land to accommodate housing and business growth, which was the main focus of the FDS. It provides an opportunity to think about how the puzzle pieces of economic growth, infrastructure investment, water availability, transport, energy, natural hazards, climate adaptation and environmental outcomes will fit together across Hawke’s Bay over the next 30+ years.
We also need to keep in mind what it is about our region that makes it a great place to live, work and invest. Bringing (or keeping) specialist surgeons, experienced engineers and highly sought-after technical experts to the region requires more than just land and infrastructure.
Most importantly, how can these building blocks help our region and its communities thrive?
These are not questions planners, councils or elected members can answer alone. If water availability could constrain future growth, if infrastructure investment could unlock it, or if changing economic conditions are creating new opportunities for Hawke’s Bay, then the wider community has an important role in shaping those discussions. Those most likely to be affected, and those with aspirations for our region, should be preparing to engage when opportunities arise.
A clear and credible regional vision can help Hawke’s Bay speak with one voice when seeking infrastructure investment, government support and future funding opportunities.
The gap between the old planning system and the new one will create uncertainty, but it will also create opportunity. The challenge for individual projects will be understanding where the risks and opportunities lie, and when to move.
The challenge for the region will be making sure the new Regional Spatial Plan becomes more than just another planning document.
Lastly, planning “reform” is not planning “removal”. Complexities will always remain and there will always be matters to navigate. Having the right expertise around the table will be key to realising the benefits of reform. The destination matters, but over the next few years it is the gap in between that matters most.
Catherine Reaburn Senior Associate Planner, Stradegy
