Infrastructure, development and primary sector national direction

The National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL) came into effect in October 2022 to protect highly productive land for use in land-based primary production,²⁷ now and for future generations.

Concerns have been raised about the impact the NPS-HPL has on making land available for urban development. Specifically, there are concerns that the inclusion of LUC 3²⁸ land in the NPS-HPL may overly restrict the supply of greenfield land, which may be suited for housing, in some parts of New Zealand. 

Figure 1: Increasing limitations to use and decreasing versatility of use from LUC 1 to LUC 8²⁹

The NPS-HPL restricts the rezoning, subdivision and use of highly productive land (HPL). It provides a consent pathway for specific purposes, including quarrying and mining, which enables consideration of these activities on HPL. To access the consent pathway, a consent application must meet ‘gateway tests’ before a consent application can be considered.

The criteria for mapping HPL is included in Clause 3.4 of the NPS-HPL³⁰. Land must be zoned for rural purposes³¹ but not identified for future urban development. It must include large and geographically cohesive areas of LUC 1 to 3 land. Councils can also identify land that is not LUC 1 to 3 as HPL, if it is considered to be highly productive in that region.³²

LUC 1, 2 or 3 land represents approximately 15 per cent of New Zealand’s landmass (approximately 3.8 million hectares). LUC 3 land makes up around 64 per cent of the land area currently protected under the NPS-HPL.³³

^{27 The NPS-HPL defines land-based primary production as “production, from agricultural, pastoral, horticultural or forestry activities, that is reliant on the soil resource of the land”.}

^{28 All land in New Zealand is classified into eight LUC classes based on its long-term potential for sustained primary production. In the LUC classification system, LUC 1 land is the most versatile land and is suitable for a wide range of primary production activities. LUC 8 land is the least versatile for primary production and is typically set aside for conservation. Land in LUC 1, 2 and 3 is generally regarded as the most highly productive land, based on its versatility for a wide range of primary production activities that are reliant on the soil (see figure 1).}

^{29 Manaaki Whenua | Landcare Research. An introduction to LUC. Retrieved 16 May 2025.}

^{30 See Clause 3.4 of NPS-HPL.}

^{31 This includes land in a general rural zone or rural production zone.}

^{32 Until HPL mapping has been made operative in a regional policy statement, HPL is LUC class 1, 2 or 3 land, zoned for rural purposes but not identified for future urban development or subject to a council-initiated, or an adopted, notified plan change to rezone it from general rural or rural production to urban or rural lifestyle.}

^{33 The NPS-HPL defines LUC 1, 2 or 3 land as “land identified as Land Use Capability Class 1, 2, or 3, as mapped by the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory or by any more detailed mapping that uses the Land Use Capability classification”. The New Zealand Land Resource Inventory is a broad-scale national map derived from field surveys generally carried out in the 1970s.}

Figure 2: LUC 1–3 land across New Zealand³⁴

^{34 Manaaki Whenua | Landcare Research. Our Environment – Baseline Highly Productive Land, Retrieved 16 May 2025.}

Figure 3: LUC 1–2 land across New Zealand³⁵

^{35 Manaaki Whenua | Landcare Research. Our Environment – Baseline Highly Productive Land. Retrieved 16 May 2025.}

Including LUC 3 land in the NPS-HPL restricts greenfield development. Removing this land from the NPS-HPL will free up the supply of land to work towards addressing our housing crisis, as restrictions on use of land for urban development impacts land prices which contributes towards housing affordability issues.³⁶

There are inconsistent definitions for quarrying and mining activities across the NPS-FM, the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) and the NPS-HPL. These inconsistencies create uncertainty for quarrying and mining activities.

More detail on quarrying and mining issues on HPL is included in Part 2.5 of this discussion document.

^{36 A joint 2024 paper reported findings authored by the Housing Technical Working Group (HTWG), a joint initiative of the Treasury, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, found that restrictions on the supply of urban land are estimated to have added $378.40 per square metre to the price of urban land immediately inside of the Rural Urban Boundary line in Auckland in 2021. The Treasury, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Reserve Bank of New Zealand. 2024. Analysis of availability of land supply in Auckland. Prepared for The Treasury, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Reserve Bank of New Zealand by the Housing Technical Working Group. Wellington: The Treasury.}

The proposal is to amend the NPS-HPL to provide more opportunities for urban development while retaining the most agriculturally productive land for primary production. It involves:

• removing LUC 3 land from NPS-HPL restrictions with immediate effect
• maintaining NPS-HPL restrictions on LUC 1 and 2 land
• testing alternative ways to continue to protect additional areas of agricultural land that are important for food and fibre production, and consulting on establishing special agriculture areas (SAAs) around key horticulture hubs like Pukekohe and Horowhenua
• extending timeframes for mapping of HPL to be completed within two to three years (2027 or 2028) or suspending requirements for mapping HPL until further direction is provided in the replacement resource management system.

A further proposal for mining and quarrying on HPL land is outlined in Part 2.5 of this discussion document.

Proposed provisions to amend the NPS-HPL are included in attachment 2.4.

The Package 4: Going for Housing Growth discussion document contains more information about key aspects of the Going for Housing Growth Pillar 1 policy proposals, along with an indicative assessment about how and where different components could be implemented in the new resource management system.

The Package 3: Freshwater – Discussion document contains more information about options for enabling commercial vegetable growing.

The intent of the proposal to remove LUC 3 land from NPS-HPL restrictions is to be more enabling of greenfield development that will provide additional housing capacity with immediate effect (ie, before HPL is mapped). The intent is also to ensure this amendment is consistent with the main objective of the NPS-HPL (ie, that HPL is protected for use in land-based primary production, now and for future generations). 

Special Agricultural Areas (SAA) are proposed to be a new category of HPL. This is intended to protect key food growing areas like Pukekohe and Horowhenua. It recognises that areas important for food and fibre production may be compromised by the removal of LUC 3, and that these areas should be subject to the NPS-HPL. 

Removal of LUC 3 land from the NPS-HPL, and potential inclusion of SAAs, means it is appropriate to extend or suspend NPS-HPL requirements for HPL maps to be notified in regional policy statements by October 2025.

Whether mapping timeframes are extended or mapping is suspended depends on whether the preference is either:

• for councils to progress plan changes under the RMA ahead of the replacement resource management system (in which case an extension of timeframes via a separate legislative process³⁷ would be more appropriate), or 
• to provide time to develop a longer-term solution for managing HPL in the replacement resource management system. This would involve directing councils to suspend mapping of HPL.³⁸

^{37 Extending timeframes could be considered under section 44(3)(d) in the RMA “to extend the timeframe for implementation of any part of a national environmental standard”, which is applied to national policy statements by section 53(2) of the RMA.}

^{38 One way of suspending the mapping may be to amend Part 4 of the NPS-HPL. Alternatively, clause 3.4 and 3.5 of the NPS-HPL would need to be removed.}

Table 8 includes an overview of the anticipated impacts of the NPS-HPL proposal on various parties. More detailed information about the proposal’s potential impacts is included in the Interim Regulatory Impact Statement: National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land available on the Ministry for the Environment’s website.

Table 8: Overview of anticipated impacts of the proposed amendments to the NPS HPL

The Minister Responsible for RMA Reform considers the proposals to be consistent with the purpose of the RMA, because they:

• enable use and development of rural land resources, which in some circumstances have lower productive potential (LUC 3) than our most productive soils (LUC1 and 2).
• better enable urban development to provide for the social and cultural wellbeing of people and communities
• enables limited use of HPL (LUC 1 and 2) for non-productive purposes to provide for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people while sustaining the potential of HPL to meet the needs of future generations. 

Analysis to date has not identified significant impacts on specific Treaty settlement redress mechanisms.

The process and requirement to involve tangata whenua in the mapping of HPL is not intended to change. However, tangata whenua may have fewer opportunities for meaningful input into the mapping of HPL if changes to the mapping criteria being proposed are progressed (eg, removing a council’s discretion to include additional land, apart from LUC 1 or 2).

Further engagement with tangata whenua and PSGEs through the public consultation process will assist in fully understanding the implications of these proposals on Māori rights and interests, including any impacts on Treaty settlement redress arrangements. Consultation will also be necessary to test whether iwi, hapū and other Māori groups have concerns about the proposal or any perceived impacts on sites of significance to Māori, marae, Māori land, land returned under Treaty settlements, or other matters of significance to Māori groups. 

Once amendments to national policy statements are gazetted, councils must have regard to those provisions (as relevant) when making consent decisions, including what is defined as HPL prior to mapping HPL.

In respect to mapping HPL, timeframes for mapping will either be extended, or mapping under the RMA will be suspended – see above section on Implications for timeframes for mapping HPL.