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

Not above the law: options when faced with a sovereign citizen

As local councils across New Zealand carry out their statutory duties under the Building Act 2004, a growing challenge has emerged in the form of “sovereign citizens.” These individuals typically attempt to deny the legitimacy of government authority and may attempt to frustrate compliance processes—including by refusing entry to property, rejecting compliance action, or disputing…

Natural Hazard Information: what’s changing for LIMs in 2025

Natural hazards are a topical issue, and big changes are on the horizon for how hazard information is communicated in Land Information Memoranda (LIMs). From 1 July 2025, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Act 2023 (LGOIMA) will come into force, introducing changes to the LIM provisions that are specifically tailored to the…

Three-day inspection mandate: well intentioned, but is it well thought out?

In a move designed to improve efficiency and reduce delays in construction projects nationwide, the government has announced a significant new requirement for Building Consent Authorities (BCAs).  Intended to commence from late 2025, BCAs will be required to complete 80 percent of building inspections within three working days of the request. The Government aims to…

30 years on – Solicitor-General Prosecution Guidelines revamp

30 years on – What does the 2025 revamp of the Solicitor-General Prosecution Guidelines mean for local authorities? Overview The Solicitor-General Prosecution Guidelines are fundamental in shaping Aotearoa’s criminal justice system, and they have recently been updated following the most comprehensive review in over 30 years. While the definition of “prosecuting agency” excludes local authorities,…