I’ve lived through more rounds of planning reform than I care to count. Most have added more complexity than they removed.
But this latest package of proposed RMA changes feels like it could genuinely shift the dial: splitting the legislation, consolidating plans, lifting thresholds around what needs consent, and finally forcing councils to zone enough land.
They're all meaningful changes, if they land well.
They won’t fix everything—they definitely won’t fix poor development design—but they do show real potential to speed things up.
Here’s my take on what actually matters for developers.
1. A more centralised system with simpler rules
Reducing more than 100 district plans into a small number of regional one is one of the biggest structural improvements we’ve seen in years.
Right now, every region has its own interpretation of the rules. What counts as a “minor” breach in one area is a full reset in another. For developers, that inconsistency creates cost, delay, and a lot of redesigns.
A centralised system means:
- More predictable design decisions
- Cleaner and more accurate feasibilities
- Fewer redraws
- Lower professional fees
For lenders, it also means fewer unknowns—which usually translates to quicker funding decisions.
2. Fewer consents required
This is another genuinely positive shift. Far too many good projects have been bogged down over petty consenting issues that never should have needed regulatory scrutiny in the first place.
If the threshold is lifted and unnecessary consents disappear, we’ll see:
- Less capital burned before construction
- Fewer consultants debating trivialities
- Faster feasibility and financing windows
Developers don’t need a softer process — just a practical one. This gets us closer.
3. Mandating council land supply and strengthening land-use clarity
New Zealand has never had a shortage of land — we’ve had a shortage of usable land. Poor zoning has been one of the biggest handbrakes on development.
Requiring councils to plan for 30 years of future growth is overdue. If enforced properly, it will stabilise section pipelines, give group builders confidence to scale, and create more opportunities for smaller developers.
The emphasis on clearer land-use rights also helps. When councils set rules that materially limit development, there should be a burden of proof. This rebalances things in a healthier direction.
4. A dedicated Planning Tribunal
Appeals can quietly destroy project economics. Months of delay, mounting holding costs, and no certainty in sight.
A faster, specialised tribunal for straightforward disputes should remove one of the biggest hidden drags on development timelines. If it works as intended, more projects will stay viable.
The bigger picture: who benefits from these changes?
If everything progresses as proposed:
- It should get easier to get projects moving
- Up-front costs should come down
- Feasibility becomes more predictable
- Investor confidence improves
- House prices stabilise and stay more in line with affordability
This is an environment that rewards competence. Developers who understand their buyers, design well, and run disciplined feasibilities will have an advantage.
Planning reform clears the runway—but design is still the difference between selling and sitting on stock.
Off-plan sales aren’t slow because buyers have disappeared. They’re slow because too many projects ignore how people actually want to live: storage, light, privacy, carparking, workable layouts, and space to work from home.
Get that wrong, and reform won’t save you. It’ll just make the “no” happen faster.
Where Squirrel fits in
We back the operators who build quality homes and take their responsibilities seriously. Our job is to structure funding that supports good development, reduces friction, and keeps momentum on site.
If you want to talk through how these proposed changes might shape your next project, our team is always up for a conversation.