
Resource Consent Exemptions For Granny Flats And Papakāinga
Proposed National Environmental Standards (NES) for granny flats would require all councils to permit a granny flat of up to 70 m2 on an existing property without needing to get a resource consent, subject to certain conditions.
The government is asking for public feedback on proposed changes to how we can create more housing in Aotearoa, such as 'granny flats' in backyards and papakāinga on Māori ancestral land.
Proposed National Environmental Standards (NES) for granny flats would require all councils to permit a granny flat of up to 70 m2 on an existing property without needing to get a resource consent, subject to certain conditions. The new NES for papakāinga would create uniform standards across the motu, and would allow Māori landowners to build up to 10 homes for small papakāinga without needing a resource consent.
Submissions on these and many other proposed changes to the Resource Management Act are open until Sunday, 27 July.
The SMC asked experts to comment.
Jade Kake, Senior Lecturer, Huri te Ao School of Future Environments, AUT, comments:
Comment on New NES for papakāinga:
'Papakāinga provisions vary widely throughout Aotearoa, with territorial authorities either having no provisions at all or provisions with varying approaches, rules, and definitions of papakāinga. This issue was raised in the Office of the Auditor General's 2011 report and in the 2014 follow-up. Whilst a number of individual territorial authorities have initiated plan change processes in the intervening years to adopt papakāinga policies, many have yet to initiate this process. The proposed NES will be welcomed by Māori housing advocates, including Te Matapihi he tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, who have long advocated for consistency at a national level with regards to papakāinga provisions.
'The NES for papakāinga is an important step towards unlocking Māori land for the development of papakāinga, providing national direction to territorial authorities to introduce minimum standards for papakāinga within their district plans. For some, this will mean introducing new papakāinga policies; for others, this will mean making changes to existing ones. These are minimum standards, which means that although territorial authorities can set their own rules, these must meet or exceed the minimum standards (be more enabling) but cannot be less enabling.
'A major issue is that much of Māori land is zoned rural, with density provisions of around one dwelling per 10 hectares, limiting the ability of whānau Māori to establish or re-establish kāinga on their ancestral lands. Under the proposed provisions, the NES will remove the need for notified consents for papakāinga (of up to 10 dwellings) within all territorial authority areas. Māori landowners (of Māori ancestral land as defined in the NES) will be able to develop up to 10 residential units, marae, and a number of ancillary non-residential activities (such as commercial, conservation, educational, health, sports and recreation activities, provided these are directly associated with the papakāinga) as a matter of right without the need for resource consent (for the activity – consents can still be required for other matters, such as earthworks, wastewater, Indigenous vegetation clearance, etc). The NES also includes provisions for medium and larger papakāinga: medium-sized papakāinga (11-30 units) will be a restricted discretionary activity, and more than 30 units will be a discretionary activity.'
Comment on New NES for Granny Flats (Minor Residential Units) Regulations:
'Similar to the NES for papakāinga, these changes direct territorial authorities to amend their district plans to allow for one minor residential unit per site in residential, rural, mixed-use, and Māori purpose zones across all of New Zealand. Many district plans already provide for minor residential units as a permitted activity, and some are more enabling, however, the NES will ensure that all territorial authorities adopt this standard as a minimum. Outside of papakāinga provisions, this will provide greater opportunities for multigenerational living on a single site, enabling whānau to develop a minor dwelling or granny flat without the need for resource consent.'
Conflict of interest statement: 'Not a conflict, but I have a background in policy advocacy and have provided policy advice to government and political parties and provided expert commentary both in an independent capacity and in a previous role for Te Matapihi he Tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, an independent national Māori housing advocacy organisation.'
Dr Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, comments:
Note: Dr Welch also recently wrote an in-depth piece on this topic for The Conversation.
'While New Zealand's granny flat exemption removes important regulatory barriers, we need to be honest about its limitations. Adding 13,000 small units over a decade – just 2.6% more housing supply – won't solve a crisis of this magnitude. With construction costs reaching $300,000, these units primarily benefit existing property owners who can access capital, not the young families and essential workers most in need of affordable housing.
'The real challenge isn't just regulation – it's infrastructure capacity and construction costs. Our water networks are already strained, and dispersed infill development only adds pressure. The policy's design constraints, requiring standalone single-storey units, deliver the least efficient form of density possible.
'This is progress, but incremental progress. We should embrace these reforms while acknowledging they're no substitute for the comprehensive urban development our housing crisis demands. Granny flats can be part of the solution, but only if we view them as one small component of much larger reforms needed to house New Zealanders affordably.'
No conflicts of interest.
Professor John Tookey, School of Future Environments, AUT, comments:
'The proposal for broadening the opportunities to construct 70m2 'granny flats' is a useful way of generating additional housing, specifically by creating rental properties in the category of 'home with income' subsidiary dwellings. The initial reporting around this issue in effect predicted a housing free-for-all where any proposals would likely be approved. In reality this was always misleading. The new proposals indicate more reservations in that zoning will need careful consideration of the cumulative effects of all the critical infrastructural loads servicing the proposed property. These include such issues as provision of potable water, managing stormwater, sewerage, on/off street parking, traffic volumes, schools, hospitals etc. In short, this will not and cannot be a free for all for development. In reality, councils will likely err on the side of caution in their announcements of zones suitable for the new granny flats because of these infrastructural impacts. Hence the outcome is unlikely to be a panacea for developing affordable housing in our cities. More likely a measured additional option rather than a 'go to' across the country.'
No conflicts of interest.
Bill McKay, Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, comments:
Granny Flats
'Granny flats are additional, detached 'minor residential units' on a property with an existing family home. The size limit of 70m2 will enable two bedrooms plus living area, kitchen, bathroom etc. They can be self-contained in contrast with 'sleep outs' which don't have kitchens or bathrooms. The government consultation received a lot of supportive public feedback from the public, not so councils.
'This policy will introduce consistency as the rules currently vary across many councils. It won't solve the housing crisis but it will allow families more flexibility to solve their own housing issues. Granny flats aren't just for grandparents, they can be for young adults as well. They can improve accommodation for intergenerational living. Or they could be rentals to improve family income. The proposal is to allow them without resource consent (council planning permission) or building consent, but the devil will be in the detail: They need to comply with the Building Code, how will this be ensured without building consent or inspections? Councils will want records of what is built for their statutory requirements such as property files and Land Information Memorandum. Councils will want to know what plumbing and drainage is connected to the systems they maintain. These issues explain why a detailed proposal and legislation are yet to appear.'
Papakāinga
'To do a granny flat / minor dwelling unit you need land with a family home on it already. A lot of public feedback on the granny flats proposal, particularly from Māori, focused on the desire to do small houses as of right on 'empty' land. As a result, the government has now proposed papakāinga. What's a papakāinga? Basically a small group of housing where mostly related people live together. So this proposal will allow as of right up to 10 homes on Māori or Treaty settlement land. You can build on up to 50% of the land and you can also have non-residential activity: 100m2 of commercial, accommodation for eight guests, educational and health facilities, sports and recreation activities, marae, urupā, food gardens and so on. And if you want more housing than 10 homes, that's 'restricted discretionary' meaning you will need to apply for resource consent / planning permission from your council. Just a proposal at the moment, open for consultation.
'I commend this as giving power / opportunity to Māori. A few centuries of Pākehā patronage hasn't really worked out for them so this papakāinga proposal can allow some self-determination. It hasn't got much publicity so I would encourage people to get in there and support it. And the success of this can open the door for others to build small homes on chunks of land, whether individually, such as tiny homes, or collectively such as co-housing groups or community housing providers.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

NZ Herald
19 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Shane Te Pou: Tāmaki Makaurau byelection a chance to test out campaign machine
No electorate belongs to any party and Peeni Henare (who was Tāmaki Makaurau's MP for three terms until he lost to Kemp by 42 votes) has every right to try to win the seat back. And, contrary to some claims that Henare winning would mean fewer Māori in Parliament, if he wins the electorate, Labour will have an empty list seat, with the next in line being the wāhine Māori Georgie Dansey. Labour's Peeni Henare was Tāmaki Makaurau's MP for three terms and is fighting to win the seat back. Photo / Mark Mitchell Having a contested campaign is good for Labour and Te Pāti Māori. It will allow both parties to give their election campaign machines a run and put forward their vision to people who have been hard hit by this Government's poor decisions and negligence. According to the latest census, construction is the biggest employer for Tāmaki Makaurau voters. It's also been a sector that's been hammered by the Government stopping large infrastructure projects mid-stream and cutting off funding for building more state houses. Oriini Kaipara is the Te Pāti Māori candidate for the Tāmaki Makaurau byelection. Photo / Supplied Fifteen thousand construction jobs have been lost in the past two years. Nationwide, the economy has lost 34,000 jobs in the past year and Māori unemployment is over 10%. Rising costs for basics such as food, GP visits, prescriptions, and electricity are hitting whānau who are dealing with job losses, all while being characterised as dole bludgers by a Government that seemingly has no solutions. With 79% of Tāmaki Makaurau voters renting, they're also feeling the pinch of continuing rent rises. The reality is most of our people work, but no matter how hard they work, even holding down two jobs, they just cannot get ahead in life. Many whānau live in overcrowded homes, with the constant spectre of having nowhere to live as the Government has brought back no-cause evictions and cut off access to emergency housing. Anyone who walks the streets of our largest city knows that the number of homeless people in Tāmaki Makaurau is growing, and many of them are Māori. Labour says its focus is on jobs, homes, health and the cost of living. Those are clearly key issues for voters, who are unimpressed by this Government's lack of delivery and their carelessness towards the hurt people are feeling. But voters aren't yet ready to fully embrace Labour – probably because of the lack of a vision and policy to go with those priorities. This byelection is an opportunity for Labour to start putting some meat on those bones and present themselves as an alternative government that people can trust with their vote. For Te Pāti Māori, holding on to Tāmaki Makaurau will be an important goal, to cement their hold on the Māori seats and prove that 2023 wasn't a passing high-tide mark, like 2008 was. It will also be a test of how they handle more mainstream media attention. Next year, National will spend a huge amount of money and energy trying to show that a vote for Labour is a vote for Te Pāti Māori and that they are too extreme to be let near power. It will be up to Te Pāti Māori to prove that fear-mongering wrong. Labour and Te Pāti Māori will need to use this byelection to show they can compete while keeping things civil and positive. Oriini Kaipara and Peeni Henare are excellent candidates, and I'm not making a pick on who will win. I am confident that whoever is elected will be able to represent our people well. I hope that the winner will work tirelessly for more jobs, more houses and better public services. Two years of cuts and negligence have left our people hurting. It's time for some hope.


NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Dropkicks? Shouldn't we make it easier for people to vote?
This week, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced what he described as a 'significant, but necessary change' to New Zealand's electoral laws. He said this will address 'strain on the system'. The most controversial of these changes is stopping same-day enrolment for voters in a general election. Same-day enrolments are counted as special votes, which can take about 10 times longer to count than ordinary votes. Special votes have become more common in recent elections and a Regulatory Impact Statement from the Ministry of Justice said there had been an explosion as more people enrolled or updated their details on the day they voted. There were about 300,000 to 350,000 same-day special votes cast at the last election. The total number of special votes was 602,000, or about 20.9% of all ticks made. The Electoral Commission forecasts this will rise to 739,000 special votes in the 2026 election. So, to ensure the final results for our election don't take too long, the ability to enrol to vote will stop 13 days before election day. Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said anyone who can't get their A into G in time was a 'dropkick'. 'I'm a bit sick of dropkicks who can't get their lives organised to follow the law, which registering to vote is a legal requirement. Then going and voting to tax away hard-working people's money and have people that make laws that restrict their freedoms.' After his somewhat partisan comment, Seymour went on tell reporters, 'If you can't be bothered doing that, maybe you don't care so much.' But it is obvious these people – hundreds of thousands of Kiwis – do care. They care enough about our democracy and the future of this country to go to a polling station on election day, register and vote. The Act leader also said people are fighting around the world for the chance to vote in a democracy. This is true, but the irony appeared totally lost on Seymour as he argued about the merits of a law that would restrict the opportunity for people to do just that. This country loves a battler and treating thousands of everyday New Zealanders with disdain rarely returns a positive result. Seymour might be well served to dropkick his descriptor quickly, or the battlers may dropkick him at the polls. Along with concerns about turnout, the Electoral Commission advised that special votes are more likely to come from areas with high Asian, Māori and Pacific communities. Younger people are also more likely to cast special votes – particularly first-time voters. Labour leader Chris Hipkins called the proposed changes 'draconian'. That is hyperbole. But he is right that it's anti-democratic. Perhaps any law that restricts a person's opportunity to vote should require a supermajority in Parliament? This might also stop the ridiculous see-sawing we see every government cycle around prisoner voting. Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

1News
9 hours ago
- 1News
Te Pāti Māori, Greens outraged at 'marginalising' passport changes
Te Pāti Māori says the Government's changes to passports are an attempt to whitewash the national identity. The Government confirmed on Friday that New Zealand's passport is being redesigned to place the English words above the te reo Māori text. The new look won't start being rolled out until the end of 2027. Since 2021, passports have had "Uruwhenua Aotearoa" printed in silver directly above New Zealand Passport. Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden said the positioning of text on passports will change to reflect the Government's commitment to using English first. She said the redesign, which would be unveiled later this year, was being done as part of a scheduled security upgrade, ensuring no additional cost to passport holders. ADVERTISEMENT Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the change diminishes the visibility of tangata whenua. "Our passport is not just a travel document, it's a statement of who we are as a nation. So, the stripping down of te reo Māori, or marginalising our indigenous identity, reflects this Government's sad obsession with erasing Te Tiriti o Waitangi and dragging us back to a monocultural past," she said. Ngarewa-Packer said the move undermined Aotearoa's reputation as a leading nation in recognising indigenous rights. "Restoring our reo took a long time. I mean imagine doing this in Ireland, imagine doing this to the Welsh. This was hard fought for. It's not re-ordering of words, the reformatting is deliberately done to undermine the mana [and] to sideline us tangata whenua." Not 'a positive vision' - Greens Green MP Benjamin Doyle. (Source: Green Party MP Benjamin Doyle said the move is not what New Zealanders need from the government. ADVERTISEMENT "We are seeing day by day, the rights and dignities of minority communities being stripped away while they leave the majority of New Zealanders suffering under the Government's current decisions," Doyle said. "This is not a positive vision for Aotearoa, this is not a positive step towards unifying kotahitanga and it's not benefiting anyone. Really, its just dog-whistling politics. It's the tail wagging the dog." The ACT Party celebrated van Velden's move on social media, saying the change would "restore English before te reo Māori - without costing taxpayers". The change comes as part of a deliberate push by the coalition to give English primacy over te reo Māori in official communications. New Zealand First's coalition agreement with National stipulates that public service departments have their primary name in English and be required to communicate "primarily in English" except for entities specifically related to Māori. It also includes an as-yet-unfulfilled commitment to make English an official language of New Zealand.