Press Release
27 February 2026
Submission of Historic Places Aotearoa on the Planning Bill 2025 and the Natural Environment Bill 2025
SUBMITTER DETAILS
FULL NAME: Historic Places Aotearoa Inc.
EMAIL:
Tēnā koutou katoa, tēnā koutou katoa, tēnā koutou katoa
Introduction
1. Historic Places Aotearoa (HPA) thanks the Environment Select Committee for the opportunity to make a submission on the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill (NEB) (collectively, the Bills).
2. HPA was formed in 2013 to be a strong and independent organisation representing heritage interests nationally. Before the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 was enacted, New Zealand Historic Places Trust had 23 local branch committees. This Act saw the Trust replaced by a Crown entity, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and the regional branch committees abolished. HPA now represents many of the former branch committees. Our aims are to:
• be the lead non-statutory, independent national voice for heritage
• help preserve historic places in Aotearoa NZ for the benefit of present and future generations
• lift awareness and appreciation of heritage values
• help regional heritage groups promote heritage in their areas.
3. HPA opposes the Bills in their present form. Significant changes are needed to make them acceptable and workable.
4. We support the submissions of ICOMOS ANZ, the New Zealand Archaeological Association and the Auckland Character Coalition.
Preliminary comments
5. HPA acknowledges New Zealand needs more houses, better infrastructure and a stronger economy, but these rely on a stable, healthy environment. Consequently, the protection and restoration of the environment, which includes historic heritage, in the face of climate change needs to be the lens through which the reforms are assessed. A healthy environment and healthy communities are the foundations of a healthy economy.
6. The separation of the ‘land’ from the ‘environment’ by dividing the Planning Bill from the Natural Environment Bill is illogical. The purpose of the Planning Bill is to establish a framework for planning and regulating the use, development, and enjoyment of land. The purpose of the Natural Environment Bill is to establish a framework for the use, protection and enhancement of the natural environment. These two purposes are incompatible and will result in further degradation of the environment across the country.
7. HPA’s overriding concern is that the Bills ensure good outcomes for both historic heritage and the natural environment in a world with a changing climate. The possibility of good outcomes is undermined by the separation of the Planning and the Natural Environment Bills and the absence of regard for climate change.
8. We question the logic of the separation of the Natural Environment Bill from the Planning Bill since work is underway to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment and transfer its functions to a new entity (a Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport).
Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi
9. Both Bills dilute the Resource Management Act’s (RMA) longstanding protections for Māori interests defined in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. HPA does not support the change from the general Treaty principles provision in s. 8 of the RMA to the proposed descriptive provisions of s. 8 of each Bill. We are concerned that the Goals refer to Māori interests rather than kaitiakitanga as in the RMA, and S.9 and s.10 risk the re-interpretation of Treaty settlements. There should be clear obligations to uphold Te Tiriti principles, provide for Māori kaitiakitanga (guardianship, management, protection of the environment and its resources ), and respect for the existing Treaty Settlements in the new Bills.
Ministerial Power
10. The Bills confer extensive powers on the Minister while the involvement of others is limited. One person having the power to set national direction excludes territorial authorities, organisations and individuals from making decisions about what is best for their communities. There are no safeguards to prevent the Minister from pursuing his or her own agenda and ignoring expert advice. There is a significant risk that the Minister will prioritise development outcomes over the environment with consequent detrimental effects. Moreover, the person holding the portfolio changes regularly, which will create uncertainly in the system, leading to repeated Plan amendments with consequent implications for time and cost.
Purpose of Bills
11. The purpose of these two Bills is in contrast to the ‘sustainable management’ aspiration in s.5 (Purpose) of the RMA, which is an important element of the RMA. Combining the two bills within the broader purpose that of “the sustainable management and protection of the environment” will assist with protecting the natural environment and historic heritage. This will benefit communities and result in better planning for climate change so that the economy has an opportunity to thrive.
Landscapes
12. Landscapes are important elements in understanding New Zealand’s history and cultures which combine the natural and physical resources identified in the definition. Moreover, a landscape lens links the Planning and the Natural Environment Bills together.
13. The Japanese planning system has similarities to what is being proposed in the Planning Bill—an emphasis on private property rights and a limited number of standardised zones (and their rules) at the national level, with local planning focused on where the zones are mapped rather than the content of their policies and rules. This is efficient but it can limit the ability of local authorities and their communities to forge planning approaches that suit particular local needs and context.
14. To ameliorate this, Japanese territorial authorities are empowered to add planning rules to the mandatory requirements specified at the national level, in order to protect places, sites and building that are cherished by their communities. The (Japanese) Landscape Act, 2004, allows councils to regulate development in urban, rural and natural landscapes that are considered to be worthy of protection. By comparison, it is notable that the RMA Reform bans the protection of landscapes.
Addition to the Definition of Historic Heritage
15. Landscapes should be added as an element of historic heritage and the ban on the protection of landscapes should be removed to allow for more flexibility in how local communities protect the places that they cherish. This would enable communities, for example, in Auckland to protect their special character areas as historic heritage with landscape values in addition to the other values within those areas.
16. Remedy: Add (v) landscapes to the definition of historic heritage in both Bills
Goals
17. Matters of national importance have been replaced by Goals. The RMA has a hierarchy of matters to be recognised and provided for with those in s. 6 having greater importance than those in s. 7. The Bills do not have the same Goals. The Goals in both Bills are non-hierarchical with the direction regarding implementation to be in the supporting national instruments which have not been released even in draft form. The intention appears to be that the conflicts between the Goals will be managed through these unnamed an undefined national instruments at the discretion of the Minister. Furthermore, although the matters of national importance in s. 6 are nearly all included in the Goals in the Planning Bill, those in s. 7 of the RMA (other matters) such as kaitiakitanga (guardianship), the ethic of stewardship, the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values, intrinsic values of ecosystems, the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.
18. Remedy: Include kaitiakitanga (guardianship), the ethic of stewardship, the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values, the intrinsic values of ecosystems, the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment, the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy in the Goals of both Bills.
Significant Historic Heritage
19. The goal in the Planning Bill of particular interest to HPA is “protect from inappropriate development the identified values and characteristics of … significant historic heritage”.
20. There is no definition of ‘significant’ in the Planning Bill. ‘Significance’ changes over time and depending on the viewpoint of the person or group determining its significance. The introduction of a qualifier like ‘significant’ is problematic and completely misses the point of historic heritage, which is that it is “those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures,” and includes different things that different people value. Historic heritage is about the connections people have with diverse and treasured places and things from the past, in the present. ‘Significant’ is a qualifier that is likely to create division and litigation.
21. Moreover, being ‘Significant’ does not protect a place from inappropriate political interference.
22. Remedy: Remove the qualifier ‘Significant’ from ‘Historic Heritage’ wherever this appears in the Bill.
Absence of National Policy Direction
23. It is very difficult to comment on the Bill in the absence of national policy direction, as the Bill is generic and enabling, not specific. It would have been useful to have had draft national policy direction available when the Bill was tabled.
24. Remedy: Produce National Policy Direction and National Standards on Historic Heritage as a matter of urgency: specify in Subpart 4 that national instruments (national policy direction and national standards) covering historic heritage must be made within specified timeframes. Or halt the legislation until the National Policy Direction is determined. HPA has been waiting for many years for National Policy Direction on Historic Heritage.
Identification of Historic Heritage
25. Clause 144 (2) requires a territorial authority to regulate and manage significant historic heritage, but there is no requirement to identify historic heritage. Historic heritage is a matter of concern to local communities. Pressure on Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga restricts their ability to identify and recognise historic heritage. Territorial authorities understand their communities and can work with those communities to identify and protect the historic heritage places, sites and areas that they cherish.
26. Remedy: Include a requirement in cl. 184 for territorial authorities to identify historic heritage.
Regulatory Relief
27. There are two separate frameworks for regulatory relief proposed. The first is of greatest concern because it requires territorial authorities to create a ‘relief framework’ for any ‘specified rule’ that would have a significant impact on the reasonable use of private land.
28. There are four specified topics under the Planning Bill:
(a) Significant historic heritage sites or significant historic heritage structures
(b) Outstanding natural landscapes or outstanding natural feature
(c) Sites of significance to Māori; and
(d) Areas of high natural character in the coastal environment, wetlands, lakes, rivers, or their margins.
28. There are three further specified topics under the Natural Environment Bill:
(a) A significant natural area
(b) A site of significance to Māori
(c) Terrestrial indigenous biodiversity
29. Part 4 of Schedule 3 sets out requirements for the territorial authority to provide a mechanism for relief if a rule in a plan has a significant impact on the reasonable use of land. A relief framework must be included in a proposed plan and applies to specified rules restriction or removing development potential or imposing obligations for the protection, restoration or non-use of land (Sched. 3, cl. 66(2)). While this is fine in theory, it may make territorial authorities cautious about making rules in plans to protect heritage values from inappropriate activities.
30. Schedule 3 Part 4, Clause 68 (7) appears to contain retrospective powers, allowing relief to an individual who was the landowner when an operative plan under the RMA was publicly notified whose land was subject to a rule similar to a specified rule under the proposed legislation. The implication of this provision is that the relief given needs to take into account any impact upon the owner from the time of the RMA operative plan because otherwise an owner whose listing is transferred over from earlier plans would be covered by the relief regime in the same way as an owner whose land becomes subject to a specified rule for the first time when the land use plan becomes operative.
31. If the compensation is applied retrospectively, the claims for lost enjoyment may potentially become very litigious. Territorial authorities could potentially also become liable for restoration work done. There is the very real likelihood of owners ‘gaming the system,’ for example, claiming financial loss caused by sales falling through or prices dropping because of heritage listing.
32. Remedy: Clarify expectations for retrospective compensation, if that is what is intended.
33. The Bills’ frameworks for regulatory relief puts an undue burden onto territorial authorities, which are reliant on limited resources to function. Territorial authorities are already facing the prospect of rates capping, new measures to recover the infrastructure costs of growth (development levies), reorganisation, having to prepare and notify regional spatial plans and district plans, replacing ageing infrastructure that is suffering from deferred maintenance, very public failures such as sewage spills and to collect consent levies to fund the Ministry for the Environment to make national direction. They are going to be very cautious about making any plan rules to protect heritage values that could impose relief costs.
34. The prospect of having to provide relief to owners of heritage places to which rules apply may provide some territorial authorities with an incentive to slash their current heritage schedules.
35. To achieve the intended outcome of a more targeted and proportionate approach to “restrictions on the use and enjoyment of private property rights for wider public benefit,” it is concerning that other options aside from regulatory relief appear not to have been considered. If, for example, the perceived issue is territorial authority overreach regarding the use and application of planning controls, then an alternative option that would be available to the Minister is to introduce targeted standardisation via a national instrument to moderate the impact of regulatory takings (e.g. criteria, or methodologies, to inform provision drafting).
36. While it is acknowledged that there needs to be a strong evidential basis to justify the inclusion of provisions that could impact the reasonable exercise of private property rights there are sufficient checks and balances available in the Planning Bill to offset the need for an onerous regulatory relief regime to be introduced. These include:
• The ability to provide incentives (cl.86)
• The requirement to prepare a justification report (Sched.3, cl.11,)
• The ability for affected landowners to submit on proposed provisions and be heard by an Independent Hearings Panel (Sched.3, cls.17 & 23)
• The ability for the Environment Court to direct relief where a provision impairs the reasonable use of land (cl.105)
37. The regulatory relief framework is punitive. Incentives such as Heritage EQUIP and tax credits/deductions that may be applied to the private owners of historic heritage places to assist them with active conservation of our historic heritage would encourage owners to actively protect their heritage assets. This is standard practice in other countries and greatly encourages philanthropy.
38. Remedy: Remove the requirement for territorial authorities to create a ‘relief framework’ for any ‘specified rule’ that would have a significant impact on the reasonable use of private land. Encourage incentives to assist landowners to protect their historic heritage places.
Removal of Heritage Order Provisions
39. The RMA provided for heritage protection authorities to issue notices of requirement for heritage orders. Many were carried over from the Town and Country Planning Act but there were few new heritage orders after 1991; the process was based on the designations process and was unnecessarily complex when applied to individual properties and there was the risk of having to compensate owners. Policy was developed by a cross-agency working group on a less onerous way of providing a system to protect historic heritage. There was also talk of national direction for historic heritage. Neither has progressed, and outside of the requirement for territorial authorities to “protect from inappropriate development the identified values and characteristics of significant historic heritage” [Goals: 11(1)(g)(iii)]
40 Remedy: Resurrect the policy work undertaken in 2021–22 and include a simple workable Heritage Order provision in the Bill.
Regional Spatial Plans not covering Historic Heritage
41. The Regional Spatial Plan (RSP) is going to be an important feature of the new framework. The Purpose relates to development and investment priorities, integration with and implementation of the Natural Environment Act, implementing national instruments that provide for use and development within environmental limits, and approaches to infrastructure planning and investment. This leaves no room for identifying areas of high historic heritage value. It would be useful for these to be taken into account at a strategic level in planning development and infrastructure, to avoid conflicts down the track.
42. Clause 3 of Schedule 2 lists a range of matters that must be identified and provided for in RSPs these are largely about development, infrastructure, and climate adaption, which are incompatible activities. Although reference is made in cl. 3(1)(k) to ‘sites of significance to Māori’ a notable omission from this list is mention of ‘historic heritage.’ As protection of historic heritage from inappropriate development is a Goal that those exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers under the Bill must seek to achieve, its exclusion from cl.3 is highly concerning.
43. Remedy: Amend cl. 3(1)(k) as follows: (k) historic heritage and sites of significance to Māori.
Land Use Plans
44. Cl. 80 and cl. 81 carry forward and conflate several of the matters contained in the RMA s.74 (Matters to be considered by territorial authorities), and s.75 (Contents of District Plans) to be included or had regard to in preparing Land Use Plans, with relevant entries on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero noticeably excluded. The removal of this matter is concerning but not totally surprising given the current Government’s stated concerns about the perceived constraints heritage listing imposes on private property rights.
45. Addressing constraints on the use and development of land does not include the protection of historic heritage. Likewise, the purpose of the Land Use plans, to enable and regulate the use and development of land leaves little room to prioritise protection of significant historic heritage values, even if they are mentioned later.
46. Remedy: Explicitly require consideration of Historic Heritage in Regional Spatial Plans Schedule 3 Clause (1)(a) and in Land Use Plans. Reinstate “have regard to entries on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga List/Rārangi Kȯrero,” in cl. 80.
Alterations that may affect Historic Heritage Values
47. Clause 14(1)(a) requires anyone exercising functions etc under the Act to disregard “the internal and external layout of buildings on a site”, and (e) “the visual amenity of a building in relation to its character, appearance, and the effect of setting a precedent.”
48. But that section does not restrict the management of cl. 14(2)(c) ‘sites of significant historic heritage,’ and (d) ‘sites of significance to Māori.’
49. It is not clear the extent to which territorial authorities will be able to manage historic heritage sites by regulating relocation of buildings on the site, and significant alterations to the internal layout. These factors are important for retaining significant historic heritage values, and are regulated in most district plans now, usually as controlled or restricted discretionary.
50. Remedy: Clarify that cl. 14(2) definitively overrides cl. 14(1).
The Removal of Character and Aesthetic Qualities
51. The removal of the ability to regulate character and aesthetic qualities is of concern both for managing retention of historic heritage values and for preserving attractive, liveable cities and towns. A lot of as yet unidentified historic heritage is located within areas currently designated as ‘Special Character Areas.’ This is also true of inner city suburbs like Mount Victoria, in Wellington, where the territorial authority has yet to be sufficiently resourced to schedule and protect identified local heritage.
52. Attractive and aesthetically pleasing character areas and historic heritage places are drawcards for tourists. Ignoring character and aesthetic qualities undermines the ability of towns and cities to encourage and develop as tourism centres. The economies of cities like Napier and Ōamaru are dependent on the aesthetic qualities of both their historic heritage areas and their character areas.
53. Remedy: Clarify that territorial authorities can regulate “the internal and external layout of buildings on a site, and the visual amenity of a building in relation to its character and appearance for historic heritage sites.
Narrowing options for input to Consent Applications
54. The Bill proposes to streamline consenting processes by requiring fewer consents, making more activities permitted, and ruling consideration of character out of scope. It also significantly narrows the scope for involvement in resource consent decisions. In the case of historic heritage, smaller councils, actually most councils outside the main centres, do not have heritage specialists on their staff and rely on information provided by special interest organisations in the community during the consenting process.
55. It needs to be made clear what “an interest beyond the general public,” means and ensure that this does not preclude such groups.
56. As the Bill is written only a ‘qualifying resident’ can submit on resource consent applications and the opportunity to submit on proposed plans notified for targeted submissions is even more limited. It needs to be clear, if, for example, Historic Places Wellington would be a qualifying resident as a “person, other than a natural person, that has an office, or operates, in the district.” As the Bill is worded, Historic Places Aotearoa and other national organisations with valuable specialist input, such as ICOMOS ANZ may be excluded from having input into a publicly notified consent application under cl. 131.
57. Remedy: Extend the definition in the Interpretation section of ‘qualifying resident’ to include “a person, other than a natural person with an interest greater than the general population,” similar to the wording in Schedule 3 Clause 17(1)(b).
58. As Schedule 3 cl. 16 is written at present, it would preclude any professional body, even Crown entities like Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, from being notified of relevant proposed plans notified for targeted submissions.
59. Remedy: Amend Schedule 3 clause 16, Notification, to require territorial authorities to notify a proposed plan for targeted submissions to include, as above “a person, other than a natural person with an interest greater than the general population.”
New Systems that will affect Historic HeritageTrade-offs between Protection and Development
60. Clause 184 requires a territorial authority to enable and regulate the use and development of land, but section (2) requires regulating and managing (f) significant historic heritage. No guidance is given within the Bill on how these functions will be reconciled, or exactly what ‘regulating and managing’ covers.
61. Remedy: include in the Bill advice on trade-offs and produce national direction on historic heritage as a matter of urgency, to the timeframes set out in Schedule 1.
Monitoring and Reporting
62. Clause 185 (1)(b)(iii) requires monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of the regulatory Land Use Plan. This is a requirement currently, but very few territorial authorities monitor and report on the effectiveness of the heritage provisions in their plans. This clause would be more effective if it set out minimum requirements for reporting. Cl. 195 (2) is too generic to be effective. Likewise, Cl. 186, sets out the instruments for which effectiveness should be monitored, but not how this monitoring should be carried out, nor the minimum requirements of such monitoring. The monitoring provisions will not require territorial authorities to report on the state of the stock of historic heritage.
63. Remedy: Make explicit requirements for reporting on the following in relation to historic heritage in the Bill:
• The effectiveness of plan provisions and consenting in managing historic heritage
• The state of historic heritage in the district, including the condition of heritage sites.
HPA supports the following:
• Retaining cl. 58(2)(b)(i) that rules relating to significant historic heritage have immediate legal effect when a plan is notified. This maintains the status quo, but only for “significant” historic heritage rather than historic heritage.
• Retaining the waiver of subdivision consent requirements if land is gifted to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.
• Greater use of permitted activities, IF this makes it easier for owners to maintain and adaptively reuse heritage places, BUT the controls on activities that could reduce heritage values must be sufficient, including obtaining a certificate from a qualified person that the activity complies with requirements, cl. 38(2)(b).
• Requirements that the Planning Tribunal and the Environment Court have heritage expertise available.
• Clause 25, overall duty to avoid, minimise or remedy adverse effects.
Transitional Provisions
The comments and suggested remedies above relate to all similar provisions to amend the RMA in Schedule 1.
Overall
We support the reform of the Resource Management Act but consider the separation of the Natural Environment from the Planning Bill to be a short-sighted division in the face of climate change and current environmental reality. The Bills need to be reframed to elevate the environment, which includes historic heritage, over the economy. A healthy environment creates healthy people who are able to build a strong and vibrant economy.
Historic heritage is a significant element in the construction and fabric of our national identity and important for the wellbeing of communities. It also makes a vital contribution to our tourism sector and earns New Zealand many millions of dollars every year. Denigrating and ignoring historic heritage, the landscapes surrounding these heritage areas, places and sites, and the many communities who support the retention and enhancement of our valued places, is not a function of good government and certainly does not support the economy.
We wish to speak to our submission.
Nāku noa, nā
Elizabeth Pishief, PhD
President
Historic Places Aotearoa
021 140 8718