RMA reform takes effect: new Auckland homes can now be built without gardens — will house prices fall?

Would you accept a home without a garden in exchange for a larger living room or a more affordable overall price?

From 30 October 2026, some assessment requirements for residential resource consents in Auckland change, covering matters such as outdoor living space, balconies, dwelling size and landscaped area. However, saying that new homes can be built without gardens does not mean every project can simply remove its outdoor space, or that building a home will no longer require approval.

How much could relaxed planning requirements save? Could an extra home be built on the same site? Will buyers gain more choice, or end up with less living space?

To explore how the reform affects residential development and home-buying decisions, YIJU interviewed the United Portfolio (UP) team exclusively, drawing on official guidance and legal analysis to examine the practical implications of the policy changes.

The scope of assessment is changing, and application dates matter

Auckland Council explains that, for residential applications covered by the new arrangements, it no longer needs to consider specified matters including outdoor living space, internal layout, whether balconies are provided, window glazing area, dwelling size and the extent of landscaping. Exceptions remain, however, for historic heritage protection and landscaping requirements relating to permeability.

This does not mean the RMA has disappeared overnight. Law firm MinterEllisonRuddWatts notes that the transition to the new planning system is phased: routine consenting and enforcement remain governed by the amended RMA while new planning documents are progressively developed.

The application date is also a dividing line. The council makes clear that applications lodged before 30 October will still be assessed under the previously applicable provisions; applications lodged after the new arrangements take effect will be subject to the reduced scope of assessment.

Determining whether a requirement no longer applies therefore means looking at the specific proposal, its lodgement date and other relevant provisions, rather than simply checking whether the old wording has been struck out.

UP team: greater design flexibility comes first

According to information provided by the company, United Portfolio provides land development services, helping clients identify potential issues and organise the development process around project conditions and planning requirements to reduce unnecessary time and costs.

This exclusive interview was conducted through written questions and answers. Responses were prepared by experienced planner Annejo Liang, a UP Senior Associate and founder of Envision Planning, and reviewed by UP founding partner Dr Kelvin Zuo. Kelvin has a background in engineering management and law and is currently an adjunct senior lecturer in construction costing and construction law at Massey University.

The team said:

“The biggest changes are often greater layout flexibility and fewer repeated design revisions to meet specific standards. But that does not necessarily mean construction costs will fall substantially.”

Take a hypothetical development of six townhouses. Previously, some homes might have needed their building positions adjusted, indoor areas reduced, or more expensive decks and balconies added to meet outdoor space dimensions. Relaxing the requirements gives designers more options.

Reducing balcony structures, waterproofing, balustrades, paving and some landscaping work could lower direct costs. But if the space freed up is used to increase indoor floor area, the total construction cost could also rise.

The team stressed the need to distinguish between three questions: “Has the total project cost fallen, has the cost per home fallen, and has it become easier for the project to meet the conditions needed for development?” A professional quantity surveyor should compare the original and revised designs to establish the potential savings.

The same site may not accommodate an extra home

For landowners, the most appealing question may be whether more homes can be built.

The UP team's assessment is: “Possibly, but not every site will accommodate more homes.”

If the original design was mainly constrained by outdoor living space or landscaped area requirements, a revised layout might accommodate an extra home or make a previously unworkable proposal feasible.

But if the constraints come from building coverage, height, setbacks, height in relation to boundary controls, topography or driveway layout, removing outdoor space standards may not allow more homes to be built. Water supply, wastewater capacity, stormwater management, flood and landslide risks, and vehicle access may also affect the development outcome.

Landscaped area and permeability must be distinguished in particular. Changes to some planting requirements do not mean a site can simply be covered in hard surfaces.

“Identify the site's actual constraints first, then decide how to use these changes.” The team advised that, beyond calculating whether another home can be squeezed in, the comparison should focus on whether a design is easier to build and sell, and whether the project as a whole is feasible.

Will cost savings mean lower prices for buyers?

“Lower costs may create room for price reductions, but they will not automatically translate into an equivalent reduction in the sale price,” the UP team said.

New-home pricing is also affected by location, market supply and demand, comparable properties, financing costs and buyers' ability to pay. In a competitive market, savings may translate into lower prices, more room to negotiate, or better specifications for the same price. They may also simply allow a project with insufficient margins to proceed.

At the regulatory level, the law firm's analysis also notes that whether a project meets market demand or is financially viable is among the matters excluded from assessment.

This makes it even more necessary to assess planning feasibility and commercial viability separately. Approval does not guarantee that finance will be secured or homes will sell readily; reducing garden provision alone does not establish that the sale price is reasonable.

A large garden may be optional, but usable space still matters

The UP team believes that relaxed consenting requirements make it more important to consider whether spaces are genuinely usable.

Families with children generally need safe play areas that are easy to supervise. Where there is no private garden, buyers should consider whether nearby parks are suitable for children and genuinely easy to reach.

Households with older family members may place greater importance on level pathways and easy access. Buyers looking to downsize may not want to maintain large lawns or elaborate planting.

“Not every household needs a large garden. Some people prefer low-maintenance homes. The key is to offer different choices and ensure buyers clearly understand what they are choosing.”

The team hopes to see less mechanical provision of space simply to meet planning requirements, alongside more practical use of the spaces that remain.

If you have bought off the plans, can the developer simply change them?

The UP team cautioned that changes to planning standards do not automatically invalidate existing approved plans and conditions.

“You cannot simply remove a garden, deck or landscaping on site because a standard has been struck out.”

Anyone wishing to amend an approved design should first assess the relevant procedures. The team noted that changes to a resource consent could be sought through a formal application under section 127 of the RMA, depending on the project.

Consent changes and contractual commitments must also be checked separately: does the contract allow changes to garden area, layout and materials? When is notification or agreement required? How will discrepancies at handover be addressed?

These questions cannot be brushed aside by saying, “The new rules have been relaxed.”

Room for a car does not mean parking is approved

During the interview, the UP team gave an example buyers should watch for: a home has no approved parking space, but the seller points to a paved area out front and says, “You can park a car here.”

Yet a car fitting into the space does not make it an approved parking space. On the approved plans, the area may be designated for landscaping or pedestrian access, or be restricted by consent conditions. Paving it, even with permeable pavers, does not automatically change its use.

Buyers should cross-check the contract attachments, resource consent, latest approved plans, handover specifications and title documents to establish whether the garden is on privately owned land, an exclusive-use area or common property, and clarify who is responsible for maintenance.

For features that particularly matter to them, buyers should ask a planner to verify the approved use, then have a lawyer confirm the contractual protections, rather than relying solely on verbal assurances.

YIJU's view: after planning rules are relaxed, who will pay for homes that are good to live in?

The reform expands design choices while leaving more decisions about the homes offered to developers and buyers: garden size, whether to retain balconies and how to arrange planting will depend more on market positioning and lifestyle needs.

For developers, the figures worth revisiting extend beyond “How many more homes can we build?” to “What kinds of homes will sell more readily?” Reducing outdoor space may improve land-use efficiency, but if the homes do not suit their target buyers, longer selling periods and holding costs could offset the savings.

For buyers, greater choice is positive, provided prices and specifications are sufficiently transparent. Does giving up a garden or balcony deliver a lower overall price, more indoor space or less maintenance? These trade-offs need to be reflected in the homes actually delivered.

The cumulative effects on neighbourhoods also deserve attention. A little less planting in an individual project may have limited impact. But if every new development along a street makes the same choice, whether sufficient shade, streetscape amenity and outdoor living space remain needs to be assessed at a wider scale.

YIJU believes the reform should be judged by whether it delivers more reasonably priced homes suited to different households, rather than simply by how much development capacity it adds. With greater design flexibility, developers need a better understanding of their customers, while buyers need a clearer understanding of plans, contracts and handover standards.

As the UP team cautioned during the interview: “Look beyond how a space could be used, and establish exactly how it is approved to be used.”