Proposed Plan Change 2

Current context

The Environment Court released its final decision on Proposed Plan Change 2 in June 2026. You can read the final decision here. It should be read in conjunction with the court's interim decision on Plan Change 2, which was released in December 2025. You can read that decision here. 

The decision confirms a consenting pathway for existing intensive farming land uses within targeted catchments, and removes uncertainty faced by farmers and growers, us, and our communities for some time.  Alongside the pathway for farms meeting the cumulative nitrogen leaching maximums from Table 14.2 (now Table 12), there are alternative controlled activity pathways available, and a discretionary activity pathway to seek consent where any of the controlled activity limits are not met.

We are currently working through the decision and preparing a final set of provisions in response to the Environment Court’s final directions. These will include updated cumulative nitrogen leaching maximums for Table 12. The plan framework also now sets out a method to ensure the values in Table 12 remain in step with Overseer updates over time.

We have a webpage with FAQs we hope will help answer some questions in the meantime. We will update that webpage, which you can find here,  as and when we have more information to provide about implementing Plan Change 2.  

Background

Plan Change 2 (PC2) seeks to improve the workability of the One Plan provisions that manage existing intensive farming land uses (dairy farming, commercial vegetable growing, cropping, and intensive sheep and beef) in targeted water management sub-areas. We identified that the policies and rule framework for managing existing intensive farming land uses were not working in the manner intended at the time the One Plan was made operative. The One Plan intended for most farms using good management practice to be able to meet Table 14.2 (now known as Table 12) cumulative nitrogen leaching maximums, and be considered as controlled activities.

PC2 has clarified and amended the nutrient management framework so it effectively works towards achieving the strategies for surface water quality set out in the One Plan. The plan change has updated the cumulative nitrogen leaching maximums in Table 12 to reflect the best available Overseer modelling information; provide a workable pathway for existing intensive farming land use activities to apply for resource consent where they cannot meet Table 12 within targeted water management sub-zones; and reinforces good management practices as part of intensive farming land use activities.

Proposed Plan Change 2 Timeline

Why was Plan Change 2 Needed?

At the time PC2 was lodged, the One Plan provisions to manage nutrient leaching were no longer working as intended as the result of two external factors which arose after the One Plan became operative:

• There have been ongoing changes in the Overseer model. This means that farm systems that could have met the cumulative nitrogen leaching maximums in Table 14.2 of the One Plan, using the Overseer version that was used to originally develop them, no longer do so when modelled in the current version. This is the case even if nothing has changed in the farm’s practice in real terms.

• Changes in case law require the provisions to be applied in a way that may not have been anticipated when the One Plan was prepared. Directive policies to achieve or not exceed the cumulative nitrogen leaching maximums now make it very difficult to grant consent in circumstances where the limits are not met, even though the rules are written to provide for this to be considered.

As a result, very few existing intensive farming land uses could meet the cumulative nitrogen leaching maximums in Table 14.2 (now Table 12). It was almost impossible to grant resource consents for these activities, even if the land use has not substantially changed since the One Plan became operative. There are about 250 farms affected across the region which fall into this category.  Those activities were effectively not regulated, delaying environmental improvements.

The uncertainty of this situation for intensive farming land use farmers was having considerable social and economic effects. Strict enforcement of the operative provisions would have even greater social economic effects, with potentially serious consequences for intensive farming businesses in the Manawatū-Whanganui Region.