S+SNZ Planning & Resource Management common mistakes
S+SNZ Planning & Resource Management · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the Resource Management Act 1991 as a single-step 'effects' test and ignoring that the Act's purpose in section 5 is sustainable management, which requires weighing enabling use and development against avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects, then reading that purpose together with sections 6, 7 and 8 before assessing any activity.
Candidates memorise 'avoid, remedy, mitigate' as a slogan and skip the integrative purpose statement, often because revision guides reduce the Act to a checklist. In scenario questions this produces answers that treat environmental protection and development as mutually exclusive rather than as matters to be balanced.
What to do instead
Before answering any statutory-framework question, write out the section 5 purpose in your own words, then list which of sections 6 (matters of national importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty principles) are engaged by the facts. Practise with past-style scenarios where a development has both benefits and adverse effects, and state explicitly how you weighed them.
Citing the hierarchy of planning instruments in the wrong order or treating a national policy statement, national environmental standard, regional policy statement and district plan as interchangeable sources of obligation.
The instruments are learned as separate topics rather than as a hierarchy, and candidates under exam pressure reach for whichever instrument name they remember. The result is answers that claim a district plan can override a national environmental standard or that a regional policy statement is directly operative on land use.
What to do instead
Build a one-page hierarchy diagram from memory: RMA purpose and principles, then national environmental standards (which can override plan rules), national policy statements and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, then regional policy statements, then regional and district plans, then resource consents. Test yourself by asking, for each instrument, 'who is bound and how does it affect a consent decision?'
Describing the resource consent process as a single application-and-decision event, omitting the distinction between controlled, restricted discretionary, discretionary, non-complying and prohibited activities and the different tests that apply to each.
Candidates conflate the activity classes because they share a common application form, and they default to a full discretionary 'any effects' analysis. Marks are lost where the plan classifies an activity as controlled and the answer ignores that the plan reserves control only over specified matters.
What to do instead
Make a table of the five activity classes with the consent authority's power for each (whether it may grant or refuse, and over what it may reserve control). For each practice scenario, first identify the activity class from the plan rule quoted in the question, then state the correct statutory test before discussing effects.
Assessing effects without applying the permitted baseline, existing environment and cumulative effects concepts, and without distinguishing effects on the environment from effects on people and communities.
Effects analysis is taught as a list of environmental impacts, so candidates describe the site as if it were empty. They miss that the permitted baseline limits what can be considered, that the existing environment includes lawfully established activities, and that section 3 of the Act expressly includes effects on people and communities.
What to do instead
For every effects question, structure the answer in four steps: define the existing environment, identify the permitted baseline from the plan rules given, assess effects on the environment and on people and communities separately, then address cumulative effects over time and with other activities. Practise on a site with an existing use rights issue.
Confusing the plan preparation and review process steps, such as the roles of the proposed plan, the decisions version, submissions and further submissions, hearings, and the appeal or Environment Court stage, and treating the RMA process as identical to the Local Government Act consultation process.
The two statutes use overlapping language (consultation, submissions, hearings) and candidates merge them. They also forget that a proposed plan has legal effect once notified and that decisions on submissions change the instrument's status.
What to do instead
Draw a linear timeline of the Schedule 1 process from preparation and notification through submissions, further submissions, hearings, decisions, appeals and operative status, noting at each step whether the instrument has legal effect. Contrast this with the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act in a separate column so the differences are visible.
Using spatial information and survey data in an answer without stating the coordinate system, datum, accuracy standard or scale, and treating a GIS overlay or cadastral boundary as definitive evidence of a legal boundary.
Candidates with a GIS background assume the data speaks for itself, while candidates without one avoid technical detail. Both miss that planning evidence depends on the reliability of the spatial information, and that cadastral boundaries shown on a map are not the same as surveyed legal boundaries.
What to do instead
Whenever spatial data is relevant, state the projection and datum, the accuracy or uncertainty, and the scale of the source. Distinguish clearly between the cadastral parcel, the topographic feature and the planning zone boundary, and note when a survey plan or field measurement would be required to resolve a boundary question.
Answering a subdivision or land use controls question by listing zone rules without applying the specific development controls that govern the proposal, such as minimum lot size, building coverage, height in relation to boundary, yards, outdoor living space, earthworks and servicing requirements.
Candidates learn zone descriptions at a high level and then write generally about 'compliance with the district plan' instead of identifying which rules the proposal breaches and whether a consent is needed for each breach.
What to do instead
For each development scenario, extract the actual rule numbers and standards from the plan information given, then produce a compliance table with columns for the standard, the proposal, compliance status and the consent required if non-compliant. Practise identifying infringement of height-to-boundary and coverage rules specifically, as these are the most commonly tested.
Treating consultation as a box-ticking notification exercise and failing to address the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the role of iwi and hapu as partners, and the specific statutory obligations in sections 6(e), 7(a) and 8 of the Act, including when a customary rights or protected customary rights issue arises.
Candidates rely on generic community engagement language and are uncomfortable with Treaty and tikanga content, so they write vaguely about 'consulting tangata whenua' without naming the statutory provisions or the difference between consultation and partnership.
What to do instead
Learn the specific provisions: section 6(e) (relationship of Maori with ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga), section 7(a) (kaitiakitanga) and section 8 (Treaty principles), plus the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 for protected customary rights. For engagement questions, distinguish early involvement, good faith, sufficient information and genuine openness to influence from mere notification.
Handling natural hazard and heritage questions by asserting that a hazard or heritage item 'must be avoided' without identifying the statutory or plan mechanism, the level of risk, or the difference between a natural hazard, a contaminated site and a heritage item.
Candidates compress risk management into a single prohibition, missing that the Act and plans use risk-based frameworks (for example, avoiding subdivision in high hazard areas while allowing mitigation elsewhere) and that heritage protection can arise under the RMA, the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 or both.
What to do instead
For hazard questions, state the hazard type, the likelihood and consequence, and the plan or statutory provision that manages it. For heritage, identify whether the item is scheduled in the district plan, subject to an archaeological authority, or both, and explain which consent or authority is required. Practise with a coastal erosion and a pre-1900 building scenario.
Ignoring professional ethics and practice management dimensions, such as conflicts of interest, the duty to give impartial and accurate evidence, record-keeping, peer review and the limits of a planner's competence, and answering purely on technical planning grounds.
Candidates see ethics as an add-on topic and do not recognise that many scenario questions are testing judgment about conflicts, advocacy versus impartial advice, and the standard of care expected of a professional. They also overlook that planning evidence before a hearings panel must be independent and not merely advocate for the client.
What to do instead
For any scenario involving a client, employer, iwi or council relationship, explicitly identify the ethical issue, the relevant professional standard (such as the code of ethics of the relevant professional body, and disclosure and conflicts-of-interest obligations), and the action a prudent professional would take. Keep a short list of practice-management principles, including supervision, file notes and quality assurance, and apply it to scenario answers.