Regulatory Consenting for Off-Grid Communities (NZ)

Regulatory Consenting for Off-Grid Communities (NZ)

What this is

The New Zealand consenting and permitting layer a self-sufficient off-grid community must clear. The central point is that self-sufficiency is not a consent exemption: dwelling density, subdivision, earthworks, water take, wastewater discharge, works near wetlands/rivers, air emissions, building work, electrical safety and drinking-water duties are each assessed under separate regimes, and no NZ plan contains a universal “eco-village” permitted-activity category — Earthsong, Atamai and Awaawaroa were each consented through ordinary land-use/subdivision pathways, not a special designation. CR_046

This is the regulatory-feasibility framework anticipated by the NI planning target (RT_279); it is the knowledge home the future sampler 🏛️ Planning panel and the per-council overlay layer will draw on.

The three consent layers

1. Cross-cutting frameworks — the RMA 1991 (ss9/13/14/15 for land use, river/lake beds, water take, discharges), the Building Act 2004 (building consent unless a Schedule 1 exemption applies), the Water Services Act 2021 / Taumata Arowai (drinking-water supplier duties), the Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010 (CoC/ESC for prescribed electrical work), and the National Environmental Standards (Air Quality, Freshwater, Sources of Human Drinking Water, Detached Minor Residential Units, Papakāinga). CR_046

   The four RMA triggers, now on primary authority (REG_012, as at 19 May 2026) s9 land use (restricted against NES, regional rule AND district rule) · s13 any structure in or disturbance of a lake/river bed · s14(2) "take, use, dam, or divert" water · s15 discharges. REG_012

   ⚠ Two corrections to CR_046:

   1. The domestic water-take exemption is CONDITIONAL. s14(3)(b) allows a take for “an individual’s reasonable domestic needs” only if “the taking or use does not, or is not likely to, have an adverse effect on the environment” — a rider CR_046 omits. (And the “cannot be stacked” reading behind the engine’s hh≥2 gate is an interpretation; the statute says “an individual’s” but does not say the exemption cannot be aggregated.)
   2. s15 has NO domestic exemption — unlike s14. Any on-site wastewater discharge needs a regional rule or a consent, full stop.

   🔴 And micro-hydro trips THREE of them — s13 (intake/weir structure in the bed) + s14(2) (the diversion) + s9 (penstock/powerhouse land use). See micro_hydro.

   A national water-services regime — CHECKED, and it does NOT help (RT_347 answered: NO) 27 August 2025, ss9/13/14/15 each allow an activity "expressly allowed by" a wastewater environmental performance standard, a stormwater environmental performance standard, or an infrastructure design solution (made under ss138/139C, Water Services Act 2021). The enabling power is real — so the obvious hope was that on-site wastewater had become nationally permitted. REG_012

   Since

   It has not. The made standard (REG_013, SL 2025/258) expressly excludes on-site domestic wastewater: “…excludes a wastewater treatment plant to which AS/NZS 1547:2012 On-site domestic wastewater management applies.” It is a public/networked regime (local authorities, water organisations, consumer trusts — network overflows, plant bypasses and discharges), and it permits nothing (30× “controlled activity”, 4× “discretionary activity”, 0× “expressly allow”) — it channels discharges into consents.

   🔴 So the gate STANDS: on-site wastewater still needs a regional-plan rule or a resource consent under RMA s15 — which, unlike s14, carries no domestic exemption at all — and per OT_102 it reinstates resource consent even for a Schedule 1A-exempt dwelling. The hardest gate in the framework is not defused.

   ⚠ Methodological note: the enabling power exists, but the instrument made under it does not use it for on-site systems. Inferring “permitted” from the RMA cross-reference alone would have written a false hope into this framework.

   ⚠ Council-level variation runs BOTH ways (three positions). “The gate stands” is a national statement; the local answer varies above and below it.

   • More permissive — a district plan can itself permit on-site under its own s15 rule: Auckland’s E5 makes on-site land-application a Permitted activity (≤2 m³/day; a dwelling “without a permanent power supply” expressly permitted; small communal systems ≤6 m³/day = restricted discretionary), and Gisborne’s C6.2.18 permits conventional-septic and advanced systems for a single dwelling or marae. REG_021 REG_022
   • More restrictive — a regional plan can bind it harder: the Canterbury LWRP permits on-site only where the site is ≥4 ha, ≤2 m³/day, and <1.5 dwellings/ha (Rule 5.8), and a clustered community’s shared system is a Discretionary consent, prohibited in a drinking-water protection zone (Rules 5.84/5.85). REG_023

   So the on-site gate is neither uniformly shut nor uniformly open — which is precisely why D_003 profiles councils rather than resting on the national reading.

2. Per-technology consent positions — the register assesses 12 systems (rooftop + ground solar, wind, micro-hydro, heat pumps/solar thermal, biomass, rainwater, groundwater bore, community water supply, on-site wastewater, EV/V2H, private reticulation), each as national-indicative permitted / consent-required with the governing rule and confidence. CR_046

3. Site-condition triggers — physical/overlay conditions that flip an activity’s status (see below), which is where the framework becomes a GIS-wirable feasibility layer. CR_046

The permitted-activity envelope (what needs no consent)

A community can design within a set of national permitted-activity exemptions:

• Rooftop solar ≤40 m² — building-consent exempt (Building Act Sch 1, Oct 2025, wind zone ≤high). CR_046
• Ground-mounted solar — exempt within Sch 1 cl 28C (5 m setback, ≤4 m height; outside rural zones ≤20 m², with 20–40 m² needing CPEng review). CR_046
• Rainwater tank — exempt if outdoor, ground-supported, ≥1 m from boundaries, not within 10 m of a stream and not in a front yard; and ≤35,000 L ground-supported needs no building consent. CR_046
• Single-household domestic water take — no water permit (RMA s14(3)(b)) — but the exemption is CONDITIONAL, and CR_046 omitted the rider: it applies to a take for “an individual’s reasonable domestic needs” (or animals’ drinking water) only if “the taking or use does not, or is not likely to, have an adverse effect on the environment.” Not automatic. REG_012 CR_046
• Shared domestic drinking-water supply — ≤25 CONSUMERS (people, not households) → not a “drinking water supplier”, so no Taumata Arowai duties (WSA s8(e), s10). ⚠ CR_046’s “on the same land” qualifier does NOT exist — the statute expressly allows dwellings on “the land from which person A supplies the drinking water; or any other land”. 🔴 But 25 people ≈ 9 households (at 2.8 p/hh) — a hard community-size ceiling, and the Act’s own example confirms it: “A person who supplies 40 homes on the same street… is not a shared domestic supplier.” See the gate below. REG_014
• Wood burner — ⚠ CR_046’s “>2 ha” framing is misleading. reg 22(1) prohibits particle discharge from a burner on an allotment <2 ha, but reg 22(2): the prohibition “does not apply if” the burner meets the design standard (“less than 1.5 gram of particles for each kilogram of dry wood burnt”) and the thermal-efficiency standard. So a compliant low-emission (authorised) burner is permitted at ANY allotment size — small sites are not blocked. 🔴 And the threshold is per-ALLOTMENT (legal title), not per-household density: a community at 0.05 ha/hh on a single 5-ha title has a 5-ha allotment → reg 22 does not apply at all; subdivide into <2 ha lots and every burner must comply. Tenure changes the technology rule. REG_015
• 🔴 BIOMASS BOILER — blocked in a polluted airshed (the rule CR_046 missed). reg 17: “A consent authority must decline an application for a resource consent to discharge PM10 if the discharge… would… increase the concentration of PM10… by more than 2.5 micrograms per cubic metre in any part of a polluted airshed.” A community biomass boiler is a consented discharge to air → in a polluted airshed the council is directed to decline it, not to weigh it. biomass_district_heating (D01) is effectively blocked there. REG_015
• ⚠ The binding constraint on wood heat is the BUILDING ACT, not air quality. NES-AQ permits a compliant burner; Schedule 1A requires heaters to be “either electric or gas” (REG_007 cl 2(1)(l)). Taking the ~$4,000/dwelling consent saving forecloses wood heat regardless of allotment size or airshed.
• Air-to-air space heat pump — no building/resource consent (electrical CoC only). CR_046
• Electrical work — no building/resource consent, but a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) is required for all general/high-risk work + an Electricity Safety Certificate (ESC) to connect to supply, issued per job (a build cost, not recurring). ⚠ A Schedule 1A-exempt dwelling STILL needs full electrical certification — the regs were amended 15 Jan 2026 to wire this in (reg 74E(2A)). Off-grid kit is routine: a stand-alone power system → AS/NZS 4509.1, PV array → AS/NZS 5033. The s79 owner self-wiring lever is real but the work must still be inspected + certified. REG_017
• Papakāinga on Māori ancestral land — a graduated pathway, not just a ≤10-home rule (CR_046 understated this): ≤10 units = permitted activity; 11–30 units = restricted discretionary; >30 = discretionary; plus ancillary non-residential buildings up to 50% of residential floor area. Permitted zones include rural. Four profiled councils confirm this is the only enabling community-density pathway — Auckland (E20/H27), Gisborne (C2.2.6, uncapped), Selwyn (MPZ-R2, free of the 4–120 ha density minimum), vs QLDC (silent); see council_planning_profiles. ⚠ Not a Neobiome pathway — see the boundary below. REG_011 REG_024

The small-dwelling consent exemptions (Schedule 1A + NES-DMRU) — read as a constraint

Two separate instruments, both in force January 2026, both capped at the same floor area — and they are easy to conflate. OT_102

• Building Act Schedule 1A — a new, stand-alone, single-storey dwelling ≤70 m² needs no building consent; estimated saving over $4,000 per dwelling. Still required: a PIM before work starts, LBP design/supervision, records of work, as-built plans on completion (within 20 working days), and development contributions may still apply. No council inspections, no code compliance certificate. The full Building Code still applies. OT_102
• NES-DMRU (RMA regs) — a minor dwelling ≤70 m² needs no resource consent in residential, rural, mixed-use and Māori purpose zones. OT_102

Three carve-outs that bite the off-grid community case specifically

1. NES-DMRU is a granny-flat rule by default — but the cap is a FLOOR, not a ceiling. Nationally, “One DMRU per site is a permitted activity” (reg 5(1)) in Māori purpose, mixed use, residential and rural zones, and a DMRU is by definition “completely detached from its principal residential unit” (reg 3) — so there is no national permitted-activity pathway for a community of N dwellings. ⚠ BUT reg 9 expressly allows a district plan to be MORE LENIENT than both the one-per-site rule and the reg 6 standards. The community pathway is therefore not nationally closed — it is council-dependent. REG_008 OT_102
2. Resource consent returns wherever there is on-site wastewater disposal — i.e. exactly the no-mains-sewer case. (The building-consent exemption does cover the on-site water/wastewater work itself; that is a different instrument. Do not conflate.) OT_102
3. The exemption forecloses two Neobiome technologies. An exempt dwelling cannot include a solid-fuel heater, and its frame “must be made of lightweight building products, being steel or timber” — which excludes rammed earth and CSEB (load-bearing masonry, no frame). So it is a wood burner or the exemption, not both, and earth-wall construction is out entirely. Note the wood-burner permitted-activity entry above is RMA discharge consent — a different axis that must ALSO hold. OT_102

RESOLVED (RT_338 → REG_006) — the two limbs decouple, and the saving IS available at community scale

MBIE’s own words: “The NES-DMRU and the building consent exemption can operate independently.” The four statutory Schedule 1A criteria are standalone · new · ≤70 m² · single storey — there is no principal-dwelling criterion, and “standalone” means “not connected to other buildings” (a physical condition, not an ownership one). MBIE explicitly contemplates more than one exempt dwelling on a site: “If more than one granny flat is proposed on a site, a separate PIM is required for each dwelling. In this situation a resource consent may also be required.” REG_006

So: a community CAN take the building-consent exemption on every dwelling (~$4,000 × N), but CANNOT escape the resource consent. The ancillary-to-a-principal-dwelling restriction belongs to the NES-DMRU limb alone. REG_006

The exemption is not free. Surviving costs: the PIM fee, development contributions (payable within 20 working days of completion), network-utility connection approvals, vehicle crossings, and any easements/covenants/consent notices. REG_006

🟢 The statute ACCOMMODATES off-grid servicing — more than the guidance conveys

Schedule 1A read verbatim (REG_007):

• On-site systems need no building consent at all — cl 2(3): “building work in connection with an on-site system does not require a building consent.”
• The plumbing restrictions expressly do NOT bind on-site systems — cl 2(2) excludes them, so an off-grid dwelling escapes the “no pumped systems” and ≤30-fixture-unit limits for its own water/wastewater.
• “Not available” is defined generously (cl 3): either no network is close enough, or the operator “informs the owner… that the NUO system does not have sufficient capacity.” Insufficient network capacity is a lawful route to on-site servicing — not only remoteness.
• An on-site system is “a system for the independent management of stormwater, wastewater, or water supply that does not connect to an NUO system.”

🔴 The heater rule is a WHITELIST, and it is broader than "no wood burners"

BRANZ rendered it negatively. The statute does not: cl 2(1)(l) — “where heaters are installed, they must be either electric or gas heaters.” That excludes anything not electric or gas — wood burners, pellet burners, and any biomass-fed appliance. Heat pumps are fine. Open (RT_341): does a hydronic radiator fed by a community biomass district-heat loop count as a “heater”? The statute does not define the term. If it does, a community of exempt dwellings cannot connect to a biomass DH loop — a direct hit on biomass_district_heating (D01). REG_007

Statutory spacing floor: an exempt dwelling must be “at least 2 metres away from any other residential building or any legal boundary” (cl 2(1)(f)) — a hard minimum on inter-dwelling spacing for a community of exempt dwellings. REG_007

What a council may NOT impose on a DMRU (reg 7(4) — a real liberalisation): “No other rules or standards in a district plan apply to a DMRU, including… amenity values… individual outdoor open space, privacy, or sunlight access… facade glazing or total area of glazing… parking.” A DMRU cannot be refused or conditioned on any of those grounds. REG_008

What still bites the off-grid case (regs 7(2)–(3), 8): earthworks and subdivision rules survive — the two things a greenfield community build actually does — as do RMA s6 matters of national importance, papakāinga rules, natural-hazard rules, and “site-specific infrastructure requirements… associated with drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater”. And regional plan rules apply in full (reg 8), so the water-take and discharge regimes are untouched by this instrument. NES-DMRU setbacks: residential 2 m all round; rural 10 m front / 5 m side+rear; coverage ≤50% of site in residential zones. REG_008

Also usable: rural NES-DMRU setbacks (10 m front / 5 m side+rear, vs 2 m in residential) are a harder spatial constraint than Schedule 1A’s 2 m; and a homeowner who will live in the dwelling may do some of their own wiring under the Electricity Act 1992 s79 domestic exemption (inspection still required) — a real labour-cost lever for an owner-builder community. OT_102

The sibling Schedule 1 SLEEPOUT exemption (BRANZ BU703) — the “different exemption” OT_102 §1.0.10 named, now on primary authority. A separate instrument (Schedule 1 sleepouts, not Schedule 1A dwellings), and confirmed a dead end as housing:

• Not a dwelling, no community pathway. An exempt sleepout “cannot include cooking facilities or any sanitary facilities” and “can only be constructed where there is also a dwelling on site that has sanitation facilities” — a prior MBIE determination requires that neighbour to be a home (a tramping-club hut does not qualify). So it is a consent-free ancillary sleeping room subordinate to a serviced house, never a stand-alone or self-sufficient unit. This is the pathway OT_102 flagged at §1.0.10; it closes RT_340. OT_107
• The usable envelope — a CapEx-relief lever where serviced homes already exist: four options — a ≤10 m² building (no building consent, no setback to boundary/any residential building, ≤3.5 m above floor) and three 10–30 m² routes (lightweight materials / CPEng-reviewed kitset / LBP-supervised, 1 m setback); all single-storey, floor ≤1 m above ground, smoke alarm, no kitchen/bathroom. Fire: a wall <1 m from the boundary (or <2 m from a home) needs a 30/30/30 FRR. The full Building Code still applies (habitable space); the electrical link needs a registered electrical worker + CoC, and stormwater/soak-pit work can re-trigger a building consent. OT_107

The highly-productive-land gate (NPS-HPL) — “grow food there, don’t live there”

Highly productive land = LUC 1, 2, 3. On it, councils are directed to avoid the very things a community build does. REG_009

• cl 3.9(1): “Territorial authorities must avoid the inappropriate use or development of highly productive land that is not land-based primary production” — where land-based primary production means production “reliant on the soil resource of the land”. Dwellings are not.
• cl 3.8(1): “Territorial authorities must avoid the subdivision of highly productive land” — unless the lots retain overall productive capacity long-term, it is specified Māori land, or it is specified infrastructure.
• Policy 6: rezoning and development of HPL as rural lifestyle is avoided. Policy 8: HPL is protected from inappropriate use and development.
• ⚠ The 2025 Amendment (in force 15 Jan 2026) liberalises LUC 3 — but “for any activity other than rural lifestyle”. The loosening specifically excludes the category a Neobiome community most resembles. Whether an eco-community is “rural lifestyle” in law is open → RT_343.

This is "avoid", not "prohibit"

Exceptions survive under cl 3.9(2): specified Māori land · “a small-scale or temporary land-use activity that has no impact on the productive capacity of the land” · “supporting activities on the land” · s6 matters of national importance · and — notably — “intensive indoor primary production or greenhouse activities”. So the community’s food infrastructure is fine; it is the dwellings that are constrained. Treat HPL as a consent-difficulty / planning-risk flag, never a hard feasibility kill. REG_009

Every zoning route on HPL is “avoided” — except one

Read the NPS-HPL against the National Planning Standards zone framework (REG_010) and the escape routes close one by one:

Zoning route for a community on LUC 1–3	Caught by
Rural lifestyle zone	Policy 6 — rezoning/development as rural lifestyle is avoided
Settlement zone — “a cluster of residential… and/or community activities… located in rural areas”, i.e. the zone that actually describes an eco-village	⚠ classed urban (NPS-HPL cl 1.3(1)(b)) → Policy 5 — urban rezoning is avoided
Stay General rural / Rural production (no rezoning)	cl 3.9 — dwellings are not land-based primary production
Māori purpose zone / specified Māori land	✅ nothing — escapes all three

The Māori-land pathway converges from FIVE independent instruments

Not a suggestion — a triangulated result:

1. Specified Māori land — express exception to NPS-HPL cl 3.8 (subdivision). REG_009
2. Specified Māori land — express exception to NPS-HPL cl 3.9 (use and development). REG_009
3. Māori Purpose zone — expressly carved out of NPS-HPL’s “urban” definition (cl 1.3(1)(e): “any special purpose zone, other than a Māori Purpose zone”) → escapes Policy 5. REG_010
4. NES-Papakāinga — a graduated community pathway: ≤10 units permitted, 11–30 restricted discretionary, communal buildings ≤50% of residential floor area. REG_011
5. NES-DMRU — reg 5(1)(a) applies in the Māori purpose zone. REG_008

🔴 The SQ4 headline: there is NO general-community pathway in NZ law

SCOPE BOUNDARY — this is a comparator, NOT a Neobiome pathway

Neobiome is not a papakāinga and is not a Māori project. It has no claim to this route and must never be presented as knowing, occupying or delivering a papakāinga solution. The NES-P requires Māori ancestral land — a land status (Māori customary/freehold land, Māori reservations, Māori Trustee land, PSGE land) that cannot be acquired by a general purchaser. The pathway is cited here as evidence about the state of NZ law, nothing more. (Project scope boundary, 2026-07-14.)

Set the instruments side by side:

Instrument	What it enables for a community
NES-DMRU	One minor unit per site, ancillary to a principal dwelling. Not a community. [[reg_008_nes-dmru-2025
Building Act Sch 1A	A ~$4,000/dwelling building-consent saving — but no resource-consent pathway at all. [[reg_007_small-standalone-dwellings-amendment-act-2025
NPS-HPL	On LUC 1–3, every zoning route for a community is “avoided”. [[reg_009_nps-hpl
NES-Papakāinga	≤10 permitted · 11–30 restricted discretionary · communal buildings ≤50%. A structured route to a village. [[reg_011_nes-papakainga-2026

New Zealand law contains exactly one structured, community-scale residential pathway — and it belongs, rightly, to Māori landowners. For a general eco-community on general land, no equivalent exists.

That is the finding, and it is sharper than “papakāinga is a good model”:

1. It is an existence proof. The NES-P shows a community-scale permitted / bounded-discretionary pathway is legislatively feasible in NZ — the drafting exists and the graduated structure works. The obstacle to a general-land equivalent is not technical.
2. It measures the gap precisely. A general community must assemble its outcome from instruments designed for single dwellings (Sch 1A, NES-DMRU) or that actively avoid it (NPS-HPL). No instrument contemplates it.
3. It supports a legitimate recommendation — that NZ could provide an equivalent general-purpose pathway — without any claim on the papakāinga route. → RT_346

⚠ Open (RT_345): the 2025 Amendment excludes from HPL mapping any LUC 3 land under a consent application “for any activity other than rural lifestyle” — and a settlement-type community is “other than rural lifestyle”. On LUC 3 specifically this might remove the land from HPL mapping, though Policy 5 would likely still bite on the rezoning. This is legal interpretation beyond what the text settles — needs a planning-law practitioner, not a guess.

The tension this creates for Neobiome: the model rewards LUC 1–3 for food self-sufficiency (arable_pct_luc13, OT_097) while planning law restricts dwellings there — a site can pass the food gate and fail the planning gate. The engine does not yet model it (RT_344).

Overseas comparators - what the pathway looks like where it exists

The absence above is a NZ fact, not a universal one. Three overseas instruments, each in a different instrument class, show the pathway existing in law (all three ingested 2026-08-15):

• NSW (Australia) has long legislated the general-land community pathway NZ lacks. Schedule 5 “Rural land sharing communities” (descended from the former SEPP No 15 - Rural Landsharing Communities, held in the SEPP (Primary Production and Rural Development) 2019 version in force 17 Jul 2020, and carried into the current SEPP (Primary Production) 2021, EPI 2021-729) permits with consent 3 or more dwellings on a single collectively owned rural lot of >= 10 ha with subdivision prohibited once developed; density steps from 4 dwellings at 10 ha to a hard maximum of 80 dwellings (>= 210 ha), occupancy capped at 4 persons per permitted dwelling; siting limits (<= 25% prime crop and pasture land with no dwellings on it, slope <= 18 degrees, height <= 8 m, no tourism uses); and communal self-provision (water and waste, bushfire, internal roads and reticulation) is a mandatory consent consideration. A maintained statutory existence proof that the “structured community-scale pathway on general land” absent from NZ law is legislatively feasible. ⚠ The held text is the repealed 2019 predecessor; cite current NSW law to the 2021 instrument. REG_042
• Wales delivers the pathway at the policy layer - no Act required. One Planet Development (TAN 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities, July 2010, paras 4.15-4.23; carried into Planning Policy Wales itself from the 4th Edition, Feb 2011) is statutory national planning guidance, not primary legislation, and it opens the open countryside to low-impact development that “can either be single homes, co-operative communities or larger settlements”, with multi-family proposals “managed and controlled by a trust, co-operative or other similar mechanism”. The consent price is quantified self-sufficiency: an ecological footprint of 2.4 global hectares per person or less (trending to 1.88), “zero carbon in both construction and use”, and minimum needs (income, food, energy, waste assimilation) met from the land in no more than 5 years - evidenced by a management plan that becomes the basis of a legal agreement (planning condition / S106), with an annual monitoring report and enforcement on breach. The 2012 Practice Guidance makes the test measurable (65% of food grown/reared on site or 30% + the rest bought from site income; all energy from on-site renewables; grid import/export reported annually) and names “Ecovillage (larger planned community)” as a basic type. For NZ the mechanism matters as much as the existence proof: Wales shows a community-scale pathway deliverable through the national-direction layer (the NPS/NES analogue), not only through legislation. REG_043
• EU (energy law, not planning law) - the category-creation move at supranational scale (Directive (EU) 2018/2001 “RED II”). EU law contains a bespoke legal category for community ENERGY: Art 2(16) defines a “renewable energy community” (open and voluntary participation, autonomy, members “in the proximity of” the projects, primary purpose “environmental, economic or social community benefits … rather than financial profits”), and Art 22 makes an “enabling framework” for the category MANDATORY in every Member State - market rights (produce, consume, store, sell, share, access markets), removal of “unjustified regulatory and administrative barriers”, fair and proportionate procedures, DSO cooperation, accessibility “to all consumers, including those in low-income or vulnerable households” - monitored through national energy and climate plans. The precise limit: the analogue stops at energy. Land-use planning is a member-state competence, and the directive’s only planning reach (Art 15(3)) instructs Member States’ own authorities to provide for renewables “when planning, including early spatial planning”. So the define-the-community-entity-then-oblige-the-state-to-enable-it drafting pattern a general settlement pathway would need is demonstrated in EU energy law, while community SETTLEMENT has no EU category at all. ⚠ Held text is the 2018 act as adopted, since amended (RED III, 2023/2413). REG_044

Together: NSW shows the legislated-consent-scheme class, Wales the policy-guidance class, the EU the category-plus-mandatory-enabling-framework drafting pattern. The NZ gap is closable by more than one instrument class; NZ’s nearest analogue to the Welsh mechanism is national direction (NPS/NES) under the RMA.

🔴 The drinking-water gate is a COMMUNITY-SIZE ceiling (REG_014)

The statute, not the register: s10 was replaced on 27 August 2025, so this is a recent carve-out and CR_046 may have been describing the old rule. REG_014

“shared domestic supplier” — “supplies drinking water to no more than 25 consumers who reside in domestic dwellings located on (i) the land from which person A supplies the drinking water; or (ii) any other land.” And s8(e): a “drinking water supplier” “does not include a domestic self-supplier or a shared domestic supplier.”

• The threshold is PEOPLE, not households. “consumer means a person who consumes or uses drinking water.” At 2.8 people/household, 25 consumers ≈ 9 households. Above ~9 households a community with a shared supply becomes a registered drinking-water supplier — Drinking Water Safety Plan, monitoring, reporting, compliance, and their recurring cost. The B1 slider spans 2–100 households, so most of the model’s range is already over the line.
• ✅ The “same land” restriction is a myth. The statute expressly allows “any other land”.

🔴 The COMMON HOUSE may break the exemption by itself — regardless of headcount (RT_349)

The carve-out covers consumers “who reside in domestic dwellings”, and a “domestic dwelling” is “a building used as a single household unit.” The Act’s own statutory examples exclude non-dwellings by name:

• “A marae wharekai (dining hall) or community hall that has its own river water supply is not a domestic self-supply.”
• “A person who supplies a home and fruit packhouse on a neighbouring property is not a shared domestic supplier.”
• “A person who supplies a neighbouring school… is not a shared domestic supplier.”

A common house is the defining feature of co-housing (Earthsong has one; the model carries community buildings, B5). If the community water system feeds the common house, the community may be a registered drinking-water supplier even at five households.

⚠ Flagged, NOT asserted. The examples concern self-supply and supply to other properties; whether a common house on the same title, on the same system breaks it is a strong inference, not a stated rule. → RT_349.

The community water & drinking-water gate

The single biggest step-change from “household” to “community” is water. Taumata Arowai defines a domestic self-supply as one dwelling and a shared domestic supply as piped to any number of dwellings where total population is ≤25; a small networked supply is normally 26–100 people — so most 5–100-household communities with shared reticulation become a registrable drinking-water supply unless deliberately kept within the ≤25-person carve-out. CR_046 This is a parallel obligation to the water-take consent: a communal bore already needs a resource consent under RMA s14(3)(b) (per-individual, can’t be stacked — see borehole, CR_045, OT_090), and the drinking-water registration sits on top of it. On-site wastewater adds a third gate: RMA s15 discharge consent unless a regional permitted standard is met — a common (not national) threshold is ≤2,000 L/day, and Canterbury LWRP Rule 5.8 requires ≤2,000 L/day AND a site ≥4 ha, which a 5–100-household settlement typically exceeds unless designed as compliant clusters. CR_046

The council-fee + annual-charge primaries behind the water-take consent cost (REG_025). Two regional-council fee schedules — Waikato RC + Environment Canterbury — retrieved and read verbatim, now stand behind the consent-cost figure this framework cites:

• Consent processing is a deposit-plus-hours charge, not a fixed price. ECan levies a 5,000 single-consent deposit** (GST-incl); **Waikato a 1,000 minimum deposit (or ≤50% of the estimated cost) then staff at **160–220/hr** (GST-excl), with actual/reasonable costs recovered above the deposit. So the "council fee" is a derived estimate (deposit + a few staff hours), not a schedule line — ECan's 5k deposit anchors the top of CR_045’s $2–7k band. The dominant hydrogeology/AEE consultant cost is covered by no fee schedule (RT_297 open). ⚠ GST basis differs between councils (ECan incl / Waikato excl) — normalise before comparing. REG_025
• The recurring annual consent-holder charge floor is ~230/yr** — ECan **230/water-permit/yr; Waikato **≈230/yr** for a modest non-farm take (165 admin + 65 info-gathering; +80 for a farm take; then 48c/m³ by volume) — a small ongoing OpEx on top of the one-off consent, revising CR_045’s earlier “300–1,500/yr" floor slightly *downward* to ~230 (the $1,500 top stays volume-driven). REG_025

Site-condition feasibility triggers

Ten site conditions change the consenting answer — the logic that makes this a GIS-overlay layer: gazetted polluted airshed (solid-fuel bans / boiler discharge consent); DOC / conservation land (a concession in addition to all RMA consents, refusable); within 100 m of a natural wetland (NES-FW consent + fish passage); over-allocated water catchment (a new take is non-complying / effectively prohibited → rely on rainwater/recycling); coastal marine area (RMA s12 + NZCPS 100-year hazard avoidance); 100-year flood zone (Building Act ss71–73 refusal risk + minimum floor levels); rural zone (multiple dwellings usually restricted-discretionary/discretionary + minimum-lot rules block small subdivision); rural-residential/lifestyle (more enabling, 0.4–2 ha lots); Māori purpose/ancestral land (NES-P enables ≤10 homes); heritage/special-character overlay (consent for externally visible changes including solar). CR_046

🔴 The natural-wetland trigger, on primary authority — harsher than a one-liner (REG_018)

The NES-Freshwater escalates by what the work does to the wetland (setback = horizontal distance from the wetland boundary): earthworks/clearance within 10 m for infrastructure = discretionary (reg 45); a water take within 100 m with a hydrological connection = discretionary; but earthworks or a water take in the 100 m band that would DRAIN the wetland = NON-COMPLYING (reg 52) — the second-hardest RMA class, frequently refused. A drainable wetland within 100 m of the buildable area is close to a build-exclusion. ⚠ And the softer discretionary doors mostly require the activity to be “for the purpose of constructing specified infrastructure” — a community’s DWELLINGS are not that, so a Neobiome build doesn’t even get the pathway a lines company would. Compounds with NPS-HPL — both national instruments bite rural parcels. REG_018

Fish passage: Subpart 3 covers culverts, weirs, dams and fords. A culvert is how a rural site crosses a stream for a driveway/internal road — reg 70 permits it only if it passes fish (“the same passage of fish upstream and downstream”, laid parallel to the bed). Any waterway crossing on a rural parcel is regulated — a design condition on internal roading, not a bar. REG_018

Pending law (2026)

The RMA is being replaced by the Planning Bill + Natural Environment Bill. ⚠ These are BILLS, not law — Planning Bill 235—1 / Natural Environment Bill 234—1, as introduced (9 Dec 2025), before the Environment Committee, not enacted as at 2026-07-15. REG_019

The reform DEFUSES the obsolescence risk — it is not a cliff

The RMA does not switch off on enactment: a transitional consenting framework runs from one month post-assent, the RMA continues ~3.5–6 years, and the new system is fully operational only by 2029. Any community established in the research horizon is consented under the RMA — so the whole primary-backed spine above remains the correct operative basis. The reform is a transition to describe, not a foundation to rebuild on. REG_019

Structure: the RMA’s single statute splits into a Planning Act (enabling development / land use) and a Natural Environment Act (protection). Direction: pro-development — “make it easier to get things done… unlock development capacity”, with standardised provisions. Watch (RT_354): whether the final law creates any community-scale pathway, and whether it preserves or weakens the NPS-HPL and NES-FW protections — Neobiome’s two hardest site gates, which live in the Natural Environment Bill. Directional intent, not enacted rule.

Already in force: NES-DMRU (15 Jan 2026 — one ≤70 m² detached minor unit per site), NES-Papakāinga (2 Jul 2026 — ≤10 homes on ancestral Māori land), AS/NZS 4777.1:2024 (compliant V2H/V2G), and NPS-FM stock-exclusion amendments (7 May 2026). CR_046

Relevance to Neobiome

This layer turns “what can we build here?” into a feasibility gate the NI engine and sampler can apply: the permitted-activity envelope sets what needs no consent; the site-condition triggers (airshed, wetland, over-allocation, coastal/flood hazard, DOC land, zoning) map onto sampler layers to flip activity status per site; and the indicative consent costs feed a feasibility-cost view. It is the framework half of RT_279 — the per-council zoning/overlay scrape and the 🏛️ Planning panel are the remaining build. It also directly extends the water-consent thread (borehole / CR_045 / OT_090) into drinking-water registration and wastewater discharge. See D03 for the water/waste domain and D01 for the energy technologies whose consent positions the register covers.

Connections

Links to

Sources (27): CR_045 · CR_046 · OT_090 · OT_097 · OT_102 · OT_107 · REG_006 · REG_007 · REG_008 · REG_009 · REG_010 · REG_011 · +15 more

Technologies (3): Biomass District Heating (Wood Chip) · Groundwater (community-scale water … · Micro-hydro (run-of-river, community-scale)

EDT domains (2): D01: Renewable Energy & Storage Systems · D03: Water, Waste & Circular Systems

Decisions (1): D_003: Council profiling — a purposive 5-counc…

Cases (1): Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood

Concepts (1): Council Planning Profiles (D_003 five-council …

Referenced by

Sources (8): CR_046 · OT_129 · OT_136 · OT_240 · REG_025 · REG_042 · REG_043 · REG_044

EDT domains (2): D03: Water, Waste & Circular Systems · D04: Sustainable Habitat & Building Technology

Technologies (1): Groundwater (community-scale water …