The Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 (FTAA) is in full swing, with applications progressing significantly since our Fast-track update in July:

• Two applications have been granted. The Bledisloe North Wharf and Fergusson North Berth Extension (Bledisloe Wharf) was approved on 21 August 2025, 113 working days (just over 5 months) since the applicant lodged the substantive application. The Matiahi Village was recently granted on 18 September 2025, 146 working days (8 months) since the application was lodged. 
• Two further draft decisions have been released by expert panels. The draft decision for Milldale is to approve the application. The draft decision for Delmore proposed to decline the approvals relating to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), and the application was subsequently withdrawn. The applicant plans to relodge a fresh substantive application for Delmore in the future. 
• 20 projects are listed as "in-progress" on the Fast-track website, compared to 14 in July. 
• 13 projects have now been referred, compared to just one in July, including three which are currently ‘in-progress’. Four referral projects have been returned to the applicants due to being incomplete or non-compliant with the FTAA, and one referral application was declined by the Minister for insufficient detail. The applicant can apply for referral again, and the application will be treated as a new application.

Timeframes: It’s fast – but slower than statutory expectations

We commented in July that the average timeframe for a decision, from the date of lodging the substantive application, was 28 weeks (based on time taken for applications up until that point, and the decision dates that had been set by the panel conveners). The average timeframe is now 35 weeks (159 working days). The Bledisloe Wharf application took 13 weeks, whereas the Maitahi Village decision took 29 weeks, and the Milldale decision is expected to take 26 weeks. Unsurprisingly, the applications that are taking the longest are typically those that are most challenging to consent, and require more extensive consultation (such as Taranaki VTM which seeks consents for seabed mining).

All applications have extended the default statutory period of 30 days for a decision (following the close of comments), with the average now being 60 working days / 12 weeks. This does not account for any suspensions, which have happened for various projects, usually to allow the applicant time to respond to comments from invited parties, as the statutory five working day timeframe is proving tight.

Staying within scope – legal lessons from the Stella Passage and Drury Applications

Port of Tauranga wharf extension – Application not within scope as differs from listing description

The Stella Passage application for wharf extensions at Tauranga Port was subject to judicial review as to whether the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) had lawfully determined that the application was within the scope of its Schedule 2 listing in the FTAA. In Ngāti Kuku Hapū Trust v Environmental Protection Agency [2025] NZHC 2453, the High Court found that the project did not fit within the listing description in Schedule 2, and the EPA’s decision to accept the application as complete was unlawful. The panel was directed to not commence considering the application.

The project was described in the Schedule as: "In stages, extend the Sulphur Point wharf, including associated reclamation and dredging of the seabed." However, the application sought approval to extend both the Sulphur Point and Mount Maunganui wharves. The High Court concluded the EPA was wrong to accept the substantive application, as the EPA may only accept an application as complete and within scope if it “relates solely to a listed project” (s 46(2)(b) FTAA).

The Court was not convinced by the Port’s arguments that the omission of Mount Maunganui wharf from the Schedule 2 listing was a mistake. The reference to extend the Sulphur Point wharf "in stages" did not "imply" an intention to include Mount Manganui wharf as the second phase of the project. Further, the description of the development’s approximate geographical location – described as “8.5 hectares of the coastal marine area within Tauranga Harbour at Sulphur Point and Mount Maunganui” – was not found to indicate an intention to include the Mount Maunganui wharf.

Applicants should be careful to ensure their application fits the listing description. However, a "grab bag" of amendments to the FTAA is proposed for the end of 2025. Perhaps these amendments could either amend Schedule 2 directly or provide a process for listed projects that have issues with their listing descriptions to correct their Schedule 2 descriptions to avoid scope issues at the substantive application stage.

Panel seeks legal advice on Drury application - banking development and jurisdictional issues 

The expert panel overseeing the Drury Metropolitan Centre application sought legal advice to clarify its jurisdiction and assess concerns around "banking" development capacity. The panel was considering whether aspects of the application, such as its scale, 15-year lapse period and reliance on future infrastructure upgrades, potentially undermine the purpose of the FTAA by blocking infrastructure delivery or other developments. The advice found “banking” development capacity could be a relevant consideration for the panel, provided there is a clear basis for it, such as a planning provision that requires consideration of "banking" or a related adverse effect.

The legal advice also noted that the approximate areas in the project description in the application exceed those in the listing description by 38,911m2. Although the EPA found the application complete and within scope, project listings have come under scrutiny following the Stella Passage judicial review.

The panel has not yet expressed a view on the advice and has invited the applicant to respond, including whether it would consider modifying the proposal if scope concerns are confirmed.

Legal insights from early Fast-track decisions

The approved and draft decisions are starting to provide some insight into how the FTAA is applied to substantive applications. The legal issues have not been analysed in depth, although panels have provided useful guidance in some decisions.

Greatest weight given to the purpose of the FTAA

When making a decision on approvals sought in a substantive application, the panel must take into account various factors, including relevant provisions of the RMA and other relevant legislation, but give the “greatest weight” to the purpose of the FTAA. The purpose of the FTAA is to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits.

In the Bledisloe Wharf decision, the panel found it did not need to give "greater weight" to the purpose of the FTAA in order to grant the decision. However, it did outline some helpful principles around weighting, guided by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Enterprise Miramar Peninsula Inc v Wellington City Council [2018] NZCA 541 (Enterprise Limited) which considered a hierarchy of criteria  in the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA):

• The panel must not rely on the purpose of the FTAA at the expense of due consideration of other factors.
• The panel must still consider all factors on an individual basis, prior to standing back and conducting the overall weighting exercise.
• Environmental effects "do not become less minor simply because of the purpose of the FTAA", but they may be outweighed by the purpose of facilitating the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits.

This approach was adopted in the Milldale draft decision, but the Maitahi Village panel did not find reference to the HASHAA or Enterprise Limited of assistance as the legislative weighting arose in a different statutory context and employs different language. However, the Maitahi Village panel did note that to give greatest weight to the purpose of the FTAA does not mean that it will always outweigh other considerations, but in the event of any tension with the purpose of the RMA (sustainable management), the FTAA must prevail.

Proportionality test

Section 85(3) FTAA provides that an approval may be declined if adverse impacts are "out of proportion" to the project’s regional or national benefits.

This test was not individually assessed in the Bledisloe Wharf and Maitahi Village decisions, as the approvals were straightforward and the benefits unequivocal.

In the Delmore draft decision, the panel accepted that the purpose of the FTAA must be awarded the greatest weight, but found the adverse impacts were so significant that they were out of proportion to the project’s regional benefits, and conditions could not sufficiently avoid, remedy, mitigate, offset or compensate for the adverse impacts. Accordingly, the application was proposed to be declined.

Regional and national benefits

When considering the purpose of the FTAA, the panel must consider the extent of the project’s regional or national benefits (section 81(4)). This is especially relevant as an approval can only be declined if the adverse impacts are out of proportion to regional or national benefits (s 85(3) FTAA). However, the FTAA does not specify whether this means gross benefits or net benefits, nor does it provide a methodology for assessing benefits (i.e., cost-benefit analysis or other) or define what might constitute a significant regional or national benefit.

In both the Bledisloe Wharf and Maitahi Village decisions, the panels relied on section 22(2) of the FTAA, which relates to the criteria for assessing a referral application, as providing some guidance, such as whether the project:

• Will deliver new regionally or nationally significant infrastructure or enable the continued functioning of existing regionally or nationally significant infrastructure.
• Will contribute to a well-functioning urban environment.
• Will deliver significant economic benefits and support primary industries.
• Will support climate change mitigation and adaption, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, natural hazard management and address significant environmental issues.
• Is consistent with local or regional planning documents.

Both panels found the projects would unequivocally deliver significant regional and national benefits, so the methodology for assessing benefits was not tested.

In the Delmore draft decision, the applicant and Council disagreed on the magnitude of the benefits. The Council argued that the project’s contended benefits were overstated, did not reach the level of regional significance, and that the initial listing decision is not determinative. The Council’s economic assessment adopted a net benefit approach, which the panel found to be the correct approach. The panel agreed with the Council that simply because the project is listed does not void the requirement for the panel to assess the benefits, concluding the benefits (largely economic) had been overstated by the Applicant.

Conditions must be no more onerous than necessary

Section 83 FTAA provides that a panel must not set a condition that is more onerous than necessary to address the reason for which it is set. The application of s83 has not yet been tested by any applications.

Takeaways

The FTAA is beginning to show operational character, with decisions and draft decisions offering early insights into how panels are interpreting the legislation. Whilst most approvals have been straightforward, emerging legal issues – particularly around scope – signal that panels are navigating novel statutory terrain.

As more applications progress, we expect sharper legal issues to arise and be tested, especially around scope, benefits and the application of the proportionality test. Applicants should be mindful of statutory requirements, particularly in relation to scope and the evidential basis for claimed benefits.

We will continue to monitor developments, and provide updates as further decisions are released. 

This article was written with the assistance if Ella Harkness, Law Graduate in our Environment and Planning team.