Council Planning Profiles — the D_003 five-council sample
REG_008 reg 9 lets a district plan be more lenient than the national one-DMRU-per-site default, so the community pathway on general land is council-dependent — and OT_103 adds a second council-specific layer (the engineering Code of Practice). This page profiles five councils (D_003) against a fixed 8-question schema to characterise the distribution of council treatment — not to catalogue all 78 councils, and deliberately not stratified on permissiveness (the outcome variable).
Method + tier
Each profile is built from the council’s own operative plan. Rows are tagged by evidence tier.
The 8-question schema
- Unitary, or district + regional? · 2. Rural zones present · 3. Rural subdivision minimum lot size · 4. Dwellings-per-site status · 5. NES-DMRU reg 9 — more lenient than one/site? · 6. On-site wastewater / servicing rule · 7. Papakāinga / Māori-purpose provisions · 8. Engineering Code of Practice.
The sample
| Council | Stratum | Real case | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Queenstown Lakes | Landscape-constrained rural | — | ✅ profiled (verified, REG_020) |
| Tasman | Rural-dominant; strongest prior data | Riverside, Tui | ✅ profiled (verified, REG_003) — full operative TRMP |
| Auckland | Unitary (both limbs in one plan) | Earthsong, Awaawaroa | ✅ profiled (verified, REG_021) |
| Canterbury / Selwyn | Canterbury wastewater regime (LWRP Rule 5.8) | — | ✅ profiled (verified) — regional limb REG_023 + district limb REG_024 |
| Gisborne | Māori purpose zone / papakāinga | — | ✅ profiled (verified, REG_022) |
Profiles
Queenstown Lakes (verified — REG_020, operative 07/11/2025)
A two-speed district — the answer depends on the rural zone.
| # | QLDC |
|---|---|
| 1 | District plan (Otago regional plans separate) |
| 2 | Rural General + Ski Area (Ch 5, landscape) · Rural Lifestyle + Rural Residential (Ch 8) · Rural Visitor (Ch 12) |
| 3 | Rural Residential/Lifestyle: min/average allotment per zone; Rural General: all subdivision + building-platform location Discretionary (Rule 15.2.6) |
| 4 | 🟢 Rural Residential: 1 residential unit per 4000 m² above 8000 m² (Zone Std 8.2.4.2 viii) — a ~4 ha site ⇒ ~10 dwellings. Rural General: a Discretionary consented building platform per dwelling. |
| 5 | ⚠ More enabling than the national default — in Rural Residential. But Rural General (the landscape majority) is restrictive. |
| 6 | Via subdivision + district-wide rules; water takes/discharges under the Otago regional plans (separate) |
| 7 | 🔴 None — zero papakāinga / Māori-purpose provisions in 1,488 pp. NES-P (reg_011_nes-papakainga-2026) now overrides this nationally. |
| 8 | QLDC Land Development & Subdivision Code of Practice (NZS 4404-derived, per ot_103_nzs4404-2004-subdivision-engineering) |
Discovered outcome: QLDC is simultaneously more permissive (Rural Residential density) and more restrictive (Rural General building platforms) than the national default — so “council permissiveness” is not a scalar; it is zone-specific. This validates the D_003 method: the finding is the distribution, discovered per zone, not a single label.
Tasman (verified — REG_003, full operative TRMP)
The only council in the sample with a purpose-built general-land community class.
| # | Tasman (TRMP, combined district+regional) |
|---|---|
| 1 | Unitary-style combined plan (district + regional in one), operative 19/06/2026 |
| 2 | Rural 1 (most productive), Rural 2, Rural Residential; + a dedicated Papakāinga Zone |
| 3 | Rural 1 subdivision = Controlled, 12 ha min allotment (3 ha coastal, 16.3.5.1); a site with >1 (non-minor) dwelling needs 24 ha (17.5.3.3(b)) — distinct rules — reg_003_tasman-district-plan-dwelling |
| 4 | 🟢 Single dwelling = Permitted (17.5.2.1 + 17.5.3.1) — corrected from the earlier “first dwelling discretionary” reading; second minor dwelling = Restricted Discretionary (17.5.3.3) — reg_003_tasman-district-plan-dwelling |
| 5 | 🟢🟢 “Cooperative living” = a purpose-built Discretionary pathway — “three or more dwellings… collective ownership or use” (17.5.2.8A), assessed on land-production retention, low-impact-design principles, anti-fragmentation, legal arrangement, ecology. The sample’s closest thing to a general-land eco-community regime — reg_003_tasman-district-plan-dwelling |
| 6 | ≥23,000 L on-site potable storage where unreticulated; on-site effluent + stormwater — reg_003_tasman-district-plan-dwelling |
| 7 | Rural 1 papakāinga development = Restricted Discretionary (17.5.2.7); a dedicated Papakāinga Zone permits community/kaumatua/caretaker/marae uses (17.13.2.1) — reg_003_tasman-district-plan-dwelling |
| 8 | Tasman Land Development Manual (NZS 4404-derived, ot_103_nzs4404-2004-subdivision-engineering) |
Discovered outcome: Tasman is the standout — a single dwelling is permitted, and a genuine community maps onto a named “cooperative living” class (3+ dwellings, collective ownership), a Discretionary consent explicitly assessed on low-impact-design and land-production criteria. It is the only profiled council with a purpose-built community pathway on general land (not Māori land) — Discretionary rather than permitted, and council-specific, but a real regime none of the other four offer.
Auckland (verified — REG_021, Operative in part)
Mirror image of QLDC — restrictive on general land, enabling only on Māori land; density via subdivision.
| # | Auckland (AUP — unitary) |
|---|---|
| 1 | Unitary plan (RPS + regional + district in one) |
| 2 | Five rural zones: Rural Production, Mixed Rural, Rural Coastal, Rural Conservation, Countryside Living (H19); + Rural & Coastal Settlement (H2) |
| 3 | Countryside Living: min 2 ha net site (8,000 m² / 1 ha-avg with transferable rural site subdivision; 1 ha Papakura); subdivision Discretionary (E39 A14) |
| 4 | 🔴 One dwelling/site = P; 2 dwellings <40 ha = Non-Complying; 3+ <100 ha = Non-Complying (H19.8.2). Multi-dwelling clustering foreclosed on general land |
| 5 | ⚠ More restrictive than the national default on general land — density is routed through subdivision (~1 dwelling/2 ha), not multi-dwelling-per-site |
| 6 | 🟢 On-site wastewater Permitted (E5): land-application ≤2 m³/day, off-grid no-power dwelling expressly permitted, communal ≤6 m³/day = RD. Water take ≤20 m³/day Permitted (E7). Reopens the national EPS gate ([[reg_013_wastewater-environmental-performance-standards-2025 |
| 7 | 🟢 Strong Māori-land provisions — E20 Māori Land: 10 dwellings P / 20 RD; H27 Māori Purpose Zone: 3 P / 4+ RD. *(Observed design — not a project-accessible pathway; see scope boundary in [[reg_021_auckland-unitary-plan |
| 8 | Auckland Council Code of Practice for Land Development (NZS 4404-derived, [[ot_103_nzs4404-2004-subdivision-engineering |
Discovered outcome: Auckland inverts QLDC — its general rural zones are more restrictive than the national default (multi-dwelling = NC), while density is legally achievable only by subdivision (Discretionary, ~1 dwelling per 2 ha, REG_021) or on Māori land (E20/H27). Confirms the distribution: council permissiveness is neither national nor scalar — it is zone- and instrument-specific.
Gisborne (verified — REG_022, TRMP, unitary)
The papakāinga stratum — and the most enabling Māori-land regime in the sample.
| # | Gisborne (TRMP) |
|---|---|
| 1 | Unitary plan (RPS + regional + regional coastal + district), Parts A–F |
| 2 | Rural Productive, Rural Residential, Rural Lifestyle, Rural General (+ Rural Commercial/Industrial) — Part D |
| 3 | Dwelling-site minimums: Rural Productive ≥8 ha (≥4 ha if a pre-1997 lot); Rural Residential ≥1 ha; further dwellings via subdivision |
| 4 | 🟠 One dwelling + a self-contained/second unit permitted (Rural Residential ≥1 ha; Rural Lifestyle 2 dwellings/site) — DD4.6.1B–D |
| 5 | ⚠ Modestly more enabling than the bare national one-per-site (a minor/second unit as of right) |
| 6 | 🟢 On-site wastewater Permitted (septic + advanced, per dwelling/marae; Appendix H23/H24 standards) — C6.2.18. Reopens the national EPS gate ([[reg_013_wastewater-environmental-performance-standards-2025 |
| 7 | 🟢🟢 Papakāinga = Permitted, NO dwelling cap (effects-based, opt-in, whanau autonomy) — C2.2.6(1). *Most enabling of the profiled councils; observed design, not project-accessible — see [[reg_022_tairawhiti-resource-management-plan |
| 8 | TRMP engineering standards / Appendices (NZS 4404-derived, [[ot_103_nzs4404-2004-subdivision-engineering |
Discovered outcome: Gisborne confirms the Māori-land spine finding at its most generous — an uncapped permitted papakāinga regime — while general-land rural density stays a per-site + subdivision matter. Fourth data point; on the papakāinga axis the distribution now spans QLDC (silent) → Auckland (capped) → Gisborne (uncapped).
Canterbury / Selwyn (verified — district limb REG_024 + regional limb REG_023)
The restrictive stratum on both axes. Selwyn is a district council: its zoning/subdivision are in the reviewed Selwyn District Plan (REG_024), and its water/discharge regime is the ECan Canterbury LWRP (REG_023). Both profiled at verified tier.
| # | Canterbury / Selwyn |
|---|---|
| 1 | District + regional split — reviewed Selwyn District Plan (zoning/subdivision, REG_024) + ECan Canterbury LWRP (water/discharge, REG_023) |
| 2 | General Rural Zone (GRUZ) + Māori Purpose Zone (MPZ) + urban residential zones — Selwyn SDP |
| 3 | 🔴 GRUZ subdivision = Controlled to the GRUZ-SCHED2 minimum net site area (4–120 ha per residential unit by control area); not complying → RDIS (SUB-R2) |
| 4 | 🔴 Residential unit = Permitted only on a 4–120 ha site (GRUZ-R3 + GRUZ-SCHED2: Inner Plains 4 ha … High Country 120 ha); undersized → GRUZ-R4/R5 (RDIS/NC). Density by minimum-site-size — among the most restrictive in the sample |
| 5 | ⚠ More restrictive than the national one-per-site default (a dwelling needs 4–120 ha) |
| 6 | 🔴 On-site wastewater permitted only if site ≥4 ha, ≤2 m³/day, and area <1.5 dwellings/ha + setbacks (LWRP Rule 5.8); community system = Discretionary (5.84), prohibited in a drinking-water protection zone (5.85) — [[reg_023_canterbury-lwrp |
| 7 | 🟢 Māori Purpose Zone — papakāinga housing Permitted on Māori Land, NO density minimum (MPZ-R2, built-form standards only); general land in the zone follows GRUZ-R3’s 4–120 ha. *Fourth Māori-land confirmation; observed design, not project-accessible — [[reg_024_selwyn-district-plan |
| 8 | Selwyn engineering standards (NZS 4404-derived, [[ot_103_nzs4404-2004-subdivision-engineering |
Discovered outcome: Canterbury/Selwyn is the restrictive anchor on both the density and wastewater axes — a clustered eco-community on general rural land needs 4–120 ha per dwelling (REG_024) and ≥4 ha per on-site discharge (REG_023), and its shared wastewater system is a Discretionary consent. The single pathway that escapes the density minimum is papakāinga on Māori land (MPZ-R2) — the fourth council to confirm it.
Cross-council reading (emerging)
Four district plans in (plus the Canterbury regional plan for the wastewater limb), the distribution spans a genuine range and the national one-per-site default is a floor councils vary both ways around: QLDC’s Rural Residential zone permits real community density above it (1 unit per 0.4 ha, REG_020); Auckland’s general rural zones sit below it (2 dwellings <40 ha = Non-Complying, REG_021); Gisborne and Tasman sit in between (a single/minor dwelling as of right; REG_022 DD4.6.1C–D; REG_003 17.5.2.1/.3.1). None offers a permitted-activity “eco-village” pathway; all route a genuine community through consent — though Tasman routes it through a purpose-built one (see pattern 3). Three structural patterns recur:
- The enabling multi-dwelling pathway is Māori-land-specific — confirmed by four councils, its generosity varying. Where a district enables real community density outright, it is via Māori-land / papakāinga provisions — the same instrument the NES-Papakāinga (REG_011) now nationalises. Across the sample: QLDC (silent) → Auckland (numeric caps: E20 10 permitted / 20 RD; H27 MPZ 3 P / 4+ RD) → Selwyn (papakāinga housing Permitted on Māori land, free of the 4–120 ha density minimum that binds general land, MPZ-R2, REG_024) → Gisborne (uncapped, effects-based permitted activity, C2.2.6). On general land the community is routed to a density minimum or Discretionary/Non-Complying consent in every case. (Recorded as observed regulatory design; not a project-accessible pathway.)
- National gates are council-variable — in both directions. The national wastewater EPS shuts on-site out (REG_013), yet the local answer varies both ways around it. Two district plans permit on-site — Auckland (E5, including off-grid dwellings) and Gisborne (C6.2.18, per dwelling/marae) — while the Canterbury regional plan constrains it hardest: on-site is permitted only on a ≥4 ha, <1.5 dwelling/ha site, and a clustered community’s shared system is a Discretionary consent (REG_023, Rules 5.8 / 5.84). A national “the gate stands” is neither the ceiling nor the floor of what a community actually faces.
- One council has a purpose-built general-land community class. Tasman’s TRMP defines “cooperative living” (“three or more dwellings… collective ownership or use”) as a Discretionary activity (17.5.2.8A, REG_003), explicitly assessed on land-production retention, low-impact-design principles, anti-fragmentation and an enduring legal arrangement. It is the only profiled council with a named community regime on general (non-Māori) land — a community still goes through consent, but through a purpose-built consent rather than a generic land-use/subdivision one. (This qualifies the national “only papakāinga is purpose-built” reading: nationally true, but a council may create its own.)
The zone within a district matters as much as the district — QLDC alone spans “most enabling” (Rural Residential) to “most restrictive” (Rural General). Community feasibility is council- and zone-dependent, and must be verified locally.
Relevance to the deliverable
This page is the sourced evidence layer for the project’s regulatory-framework analysis (the establishment pathway’s council-dependence, and the locational limb). It supplies the per-council rules that analysis summarises, and the “verify locally” three-tier artifact treatment (D_003).
Connections
Links to
Referenced by
Sources (1): REG_020
Concepts (1): Regulatory Consenting for Off-Grid Communities…