The Fast-Track Approvals Act (FTAA) promised to streamline infrastructure and development approvals. Six months after its passing, the lived experience so far has been mixed at times, but on balance a positive, development focused process. This article reflects on the early implementation of the FTAA, the challenges encountered, and practical guidance for those considering using the new process.
1. A rocky start: Completeness checks and regulatory expectations
One of the earliest hurdles for applicants has been the higher bar set for substantive application completeness. In contrast to established practice under the Resource Management Act (and the earlier COVID-19 fast track process), a number of early substantive applications under the FTAA have been rejected by the EPA as "incomplete". It is clear that the EPA and regulatory agencies, including local councils and the Department of Conservation, have expected significantly more upfront detail – such as draft management plans and detailed wildlife approval applications – which has affected the EPA's approach to acceptance of applications.
This has led to frustration for applicants, particularly as the FTAA does not currently allow for minor supplementary information to be provided post-lodgement to address any completeness issues meaning the application is required to be re-lodged. (The affected applications were relodged with further detail and accepted for processing.)
This approach seems to us misaligned with ministerial expectations for ease and speed, particularly given the nature of some of the matters being raised, and has slowed the acceleration the framework was designed to achieve.
2. First panels and referral decisions
Over the last two months, the first expert consenting panels have been appointed for a handful of projects. These include:
- Port of Auckland's Bledisloe North Wharf and Fergusson North Berth Extension.
- Two urban development projects in northern Auckland - Delmore and Milldale.
- Two urban development projects in southern Auckland - Sunfield and Drury Metropolitan Centre.
- The Maitahi Valley urban development project near Nelson.
A number of other projects have lodged substantive applications, with some awaiting panel appointment. There has not been the significant wave of listed projects lodging substantive applications as expected, with many of the listed projects still considering or utilising other consenting options, or undertaking further work to prepare their substantive applications.
Referral decisions have also been made for projects outside the original 149 projects listed in the legislation. Early projects to be referred include:
- The Ayrburn Screen Hub.
- The Ashbourne urban development project in Matamata.
- Helios Energy's Grampians solar project in the Mackenzie Basin.
While there is no statutory time limit for the Minister to make a decision on whether to refer a project, these decisions have generally adhered to a three to four month timeframe, consistent with experience under previous fast-track regimes under COVID-19 and the Natural and Built Environment Act.
This is helpful – and we would hope this timeframe is retained (or even further simplified/shortened), as this pace is providing applicants with real investment certainty.
3. New guidance and process enhancements
Considerable thought has clearly been given to enhancing the substantive decision-making stage. One example is a new Practice and Procedure Guidance document prepared by the Panel Conveners to support applicants, panels and stakeholders. This guidance reinforces established procedures while introducing new initiatives such as:
- Panel convener conferences: These conferences are held before panel appointments to enable the Applicant and other key stakeholders to provide input to the Panel Conveners to help ensure the right expertise is assembled for the panel for each project.
- Project overview conferences: An early meeting between the Panel, Applicant and Council to familiarise panels with the project, and enable some dialogue between the Panel and parties.
In our experience, these have been very positive additions to the process, helping panel members quickly understand a project and grasp the key issues is in everyone's best interests.
4. Cost recovery and capacity: A balancing act
Fee regulations introduced in early 2025 have resulted in a significant increase in fees from previous regimes. These have obviously been designed to ensure full cost recovery and availability of high quality panels.
These are important outcomes and we agree the process shouldn't be "cheap". However, the very high cost will be a deterrent. The fee increases could be one of the reasons why uptake has not been as large as expected, including for listed projects.
5. Decision timelines: what to expect
Applicants should be prepared for a number of new steps required post-lodgement of the substantive application before a panel is appointed. These include a completeness check (15 working days); a competing application report (10 working days); a section 18 report (for listed projects) (10 working days); and the scheduling of a convenor conference.
Applicants should also expect extensions to the statutory minimum timeframes for issuing decisions. The panel now must issue its decision within 30 working days of receiving feedback from invited parties, unless a different timeframe is set by the Panel Convener. So far, an extended timeframe has been provided for every panel appointed. The timeframes for decisions have varied from 40 to 87 working days from the date specified for feedback to be received.
These variations reflect both the complexity of the projects and the tight procedural timelines once a panel is convened. All parties should be prepared for an intensive process once the clock starts and an applicant's expert and advisory team needs to be on hand and available throughout to "drop everything" to help with information requests and responses to feedback from invited parties. While a pain point, this is a major benefit of fast track: it is indeed pretty fast once you're underway.
Of course, the FTAA process also carries litigation risk, particularly given the controversial nature of some of the projects looking to utilise it. For example, Port of Tauranga's fast-track application has already attracted High Court litigation, and we expect more. So for particularly "tricky" projects, get a good team around you, work carefully with your experts and advisors to ensure the Panel has everything it needs to ensure all the relevant tests are well addressed, and put your best foot forward including with stakeholders to minimise litigation risk.
6. Political uncertainty and strategic timing
With a general election less than 18 months, some potential applicants are weighing the political risks and wondering how long the framework will remain in place – and how early applications need to be lodged to avoid potential repeal or reform. At this stage, our advice is if you are interested in using the FTAA, get your application in.
Encouragingly, our early experience suggests that capacity constraints have not been a major issue for panel appointments so there appears to be good pace in moving into and through the substantive process.
Final thoughts
The FTAA offers a powerful tool for advancing major projects, but it is not without its own challenges. Applicants should be prepared for a high standard of documentation, a rigorous process once underway, significant cost and a degree of political uncertainty.
But with the right preparation, the framework can still deliver on its promise of accelerated approvals.
* The Environment & Planning team at Russell McVeagh has deep experience with fast-track processes and is currently acting for several of the applicants listed above and on other projects, for other interested stakeholders and/or have been appointed to panels. If you have any questions about the process, or want advice on getting involved, please get in touch with us.