The Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 (FTAA) is now being used by a range of applicants to seek approvals for housing developments, mines, quarries, power stations, solar farms, and more. 

The fast-track website shows that, as of 11 July 2025, there are:

• 14 listed projects “in progress”.
• 7 projects which have been referred.
• 1 referral application being processed (there are likely more that have not made their way onto the website yet).
• 1 project that applied for referral but had its application returned. 

We are working on a range of FTAA projects all over the country, including infrastructure projects and housing developments that are both at the listed and referral stage. In this Insight we describe how the FTAA is being operationalised, and highlight three processes which applicants and stakeholders need to be aware of. 

It’s Fast-track… but not that fast

Back in December 2024, we wrote that the FTAA process might take around 15 weeks from lodgement of a substantive application for a decision to be issued. This estimate was based off the statutory timeframes, including the default timeframe of 30 working days for a decision. But now that we’ve seen the process in action, it’s clear that applications are taking a bit longer.

While no decisions have yet been issued, our observations are that:

• It’s taking between 7 and 9 weeks for a panel to be stood up once the completeness check is complete.
• The current timeframes for decisions have been set by the panel conveners at between 8 and 14 weeks, with an average of 11 weeks. 
• Most applicants will struggle to comply with the five working day timeframe to respond to comments from iwi, councils, or other parties that are invited to comment and are likely to need to suspend their applications.

The average timeframe so far (based on time taken to date and decision dates set by the panel conveners) is 28 weeks, with a best case of 25 weeks and a worst case of 33 weeks. These timeframes are significantly longer than the 15 weeks provided by the legislation, and do not allow for any periods where the applicant may request suspension of the process (for example to respond to comments). 

The process of appointing a panel may become more efficient over time. However, finding panel members may also become more difficult as the pool of potential candidates shrinks. 

We recommend applicants seek to narrow the issues with councils and the relevant administering authorities (e.g. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and the Department of Conservation) as much as possible prior to lodgement, rather than relying solely on the formal comments process which has extremely tight timeframes.

Takeaway: If you’re applying for FTAA approval (and are already listed or referred), allow 6-8 months from lodging your substantive application to a decision, and focus on engagement with the councils and administering agencies prior to lodgement to narrow the issues.

There’s a lot more to the application than you might expect

The application process is a lot more prescribed than under the RMA. The application form is 77 pages, and includes 17 checklists (although these are approval-specific so applicants only need to complete the applicable ones). Applicants so far have been completing the application form and then also providing a stand-alone Assessment of Environmental Effects document along with attachments, including technical reports, legal analysis, plans and consultation records.

Some of the extra requirements compared to the RMA are:

• The requirement to identify affected and adjacent landowners and occupiers. This is different to the ‘affected person’ test under the RMA for notification.
• There is a prescribed list of those who must be consulted which includes iwi, councils and administering agencies (including the Ministry for the Environment for RMA matters and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage for archaeological authorities).
• Additional property searches are needed to confirm whether the project is in a location that would make it an ineligible activity under the FTAA (e.g. Māori Land and certain types of reserve).

Takeaway: The decision process might be streamlined, but the front-end work is still intensive – in some respects more so than normal RMA processes. Be prepared to invest time in getting your application right. There is a difficult balance between making sure you provide enough information to pass the completeness check and swamping the panel with volumes of technical information that is not useful to their decision-making process.

Panels’ approach to inviting comments and identifying adjacent landowners

Two areas where we’ve already seen panel decisions are in relation to:

• Who is an “adjacent owner” for the purpose of section 53.
• Who should be invited to comment on the application.

While most panels have simply listed the persons they consider to be “adjacent owners”, one panel has observed that ‘adjacent’ means ‘adjoining’ or ‘nearby’, with ‘nearby’ interpreted relatively narrowly given the purpose of the FTAA to facilitate the delivery of projects. However, land that is separated from the project site by a road, railway line or reserve has been included as “adjacent” by at least two panels, with the owners and occupiers of that land being invited to comment.

In relation to the category ‘any other person the panel considers appropriate’, the FTAA has a list of persons and groups who must be invited to comment. In addition, the panel can also invite comments from “any other person the panel considers appropriate”. Panels have generally disregarded RMA caselaw on similar concepts, and have instead created lists after considering:

• The purpose of the FTAA.
• The requirement to issue a decision with a tight timeframe.
• Any relevant aspect of the public or community interest that requires consideration.
• The likely extent of local authority participation in the application process.
• The nature of the proposed development.
• Whether the project would otherwise be prohibited.
• The quality of technical information and how the applicant has addressed consultation.
• Whether the wide range of persons/groups already required to be invited to comment means that all relevant information will be presented to the panel.
• If there are any novel or contentious legal issues or disputed matters beyond that normally expected of regionally or nationally significant projects.
• Exceptional factors that go well beyond mere public interest.

Some panels appear to have taken a broader approach in relation to public interest and have invited groups who represent the public interest. It is unclear how project-specific those decisions were.

Takeaway: Get ahead of this issue by identifying adjacent landowners early and engaging with key stakeholders before lodging. So far, panels have taken a pragmatic approach to deciding who is an ‘adjacent landowner’. The approach to inviting “other persons” to comment is still developing but we would hope that panels will continue to keep the purpose of the FTAA in mind when making these decisions.

If you would like assistance with a FTAA project, whether it is listed or not, please get in touch with us.