What ‘adequate’ provision to protect the land really means

Recent determination by MBIE considers What ‘adequate’ provision to protect the land really means 

In a recent Determination 024/025, MBIE considered Wellington City Council’s decision to grant a building consent for a large mixed-use development subject to s 72 of the Building Act 2004.

Key findings

The determination provides a helpful summary of the natural hazards provisions, before looking specifically at whether:

  • the land in question is subject or likely subject to a natural hazard; and
  • ‘adequate provision’ would be made to protect the land.

Unsurprisingly, MBIE found that flood depths of up to 800mm, with flooding present for up to two hours in a 1 in 100 year flood event, met the ‘likely’ test in section 71(1) of the Act.  This is consistent with the approach taken in previous determinations and guidance.

Adequate provision: A closer look

The aspect of the determination that is, however, sparking interest is whether adequate provision was made to protect the land.  Part of the land would clearly be protected, as fill was proposed to be brought in to elevate the residential units located in the middle of the site.  However, this wasn’t true for the whole of the site, and inundation was modelled to potentially enter the ground floor of some units, as well as the common walkways between units.

Importantly, MBIE found that it was not sufficient for the land to be subject to the hazard and for that land to be intimately connected with the building work.  Instead, MBIE found that there also needed to be evidence of damage to that part of the land as a result of the hazard and, in the absence of such evidence, was satisfied that adequate provision had been made to protect the land from the hazard.

What does this mean for councils?

From our discussions with our local government community, we know that this determination has spurred interest, and it remains to be seen how it will impact councils’ processes.

For further guidance on navigating issues relating to natural hazards, please contact our Regulatory team Director, Laura Bielby, on 021 081 25063 or laura.bielby@ricespeir.co.nz.

Related news

Is the balance shifting in alcohol regulation?

Last week, the Government introduced the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill (Bill). While much of the commentary has focused on the hospitality sector, the changes will be just as significant for local government and District Licensing Committees (DLCs). What the bill does: Narrows the scope for who can object to…

Two reforms, one issue: RMA and Building Act changes for granny flats

From 15 January 2026, two major regulatory changes will take effect that together reshape how detached minor residential units (commonly known as “granny flats”) are delivered in New Zealand: Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Detached Minor Residential Units) Regulations 2025 (NES-DMRU) under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA); and Changes to the Building Act…

New councils, new priorities – is it time to review delegations?

With the local government elections now behind us, councils across the motu are working through inductions, briefings, and the first meetings of the new triennium.  It’s a period of adjustment, with new faces around the table and returning members settling back into the rhythm of governance. It’s also an ideal moment to pause and consider…

High Court reinforces importance of minimising alcohol-related harm

The High Court has revoked the off-licence of a bottle store at a contentious South Auckland site following an appeal brought by the Auckland Alcohol Licencing Inspector (Inspector).  The case of Singh 13 Investments Limited [2025] NZHC 2868 concerned a Thirsty Liquor located in Māngere East, a vulnerable community known to have high levels of…