Author – Clare Price BRP (HONS) MNZPI Senior Planner Stradegy
New Zealand’s Infrastructure Commission, Te Waihanga, raised concerns in July 2021 regarding the significant escalation of resource consenting costs for infrastructure projects.
Their research revealed a 70% increase in direct consenting costs and a 150% extension in consent timeframes between 2014 and 2019. Notably, for smaller projects under $200,000, consenting costs consumed 16% of the project’s total budget, well exceeding international examples.
While the contributing factors behind these increases are multifaceted, exploring fast-track consenting alternatives for the right projects were identified as a potential solution to streamline consenting costs and expedite timelines compared to traditional council-led processes.
In response to the economic challenges posed by the global pandemic, the now-expired COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 offers a good example of a fast-track consenting pathway in New Zealand.
This stand-alone legislation, distinct from the Resource Management Act, aimed to stimulate economic activity by streamlining the consent process for specific projects where economic benefits could be demonstrated. Fast-track consenting diverges from traditional council-led processes in several key ways. Notably, it offers accelerated timeframes, often reducing the need for oral hearings.
Furthermore, appeals against decisions are not to the Environment Court, instead to the High Court and focusing solely on points of law. Crucially, the Covid-19 fast-track process excluded projects with identified significant adverse effects. The Covid-19 fast-track framework this process involved two distinct stages.
First, applicants sought permission from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) to utilise the fast-track route. Upon approval, a substantive application was submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which subsequently appointed an expert panel to consider the case.
Though the COVID-19 fast-track process eliminated the need for formal hearings, consultation remained crucial. Councils (both district and regional), adjoining landowners, and iwi authorities still had involvement. Proactive pre-application consultation, mirroring the standard council process, was highly recommended to build understanding and address potential concerns early on.
These parties also retained the right to comment and present their views on the application itself. Our recent experience with the COVID-19 fast-track process at Stradegy highlights both its benefits and complexities. While tight timeframes demand agility, they also offer greater certainty for investment compared to the potential delays and uncertainties of a council process and Environment Court appeal.
However, “fast” is relative, as applicants had to first secure MfE approval to utilise the process, followed by a separate substantive application to the EPA
with an expert panel review. It’s also important to note this route wasn’t intended to bypass public engagement and significant adverse effects – as the number of withdrawn or stalled fast track applications demonstrates. Additionally, the ‘one shot – one chance’ nature of the process did involve greater upfront costs with all necessary inputs needing to be completed upfront and to a high level.
The Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Acts have been repealed by the new government but the fast-track consenting scheme survives.
This decision suggests a continued recognition of the need for streamlined consenting processes, acknowledging the potential benefits they offer. New Zealand Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Chris Bishop is putting forward a permanent fast-track consenting legislation for critical infrastructure and development projects. This legislation, aimed at local, regional, and national levels, will undergo a select committee process starting in March. While only limited details are currently available, the framework is expected to incorporate key elements from past fast-track schemes, and is likely to reflect the following:
■ The new fast-track process will be contained in a standalone Act with its own purpose statement,
■ Locally, regionally and nationally significant infrastructure and development projects will be prioritised,
■ There will be a process for the responsible minister to refer projects for acceptance into the fast-track process, and the bill will also contain a list of projects that will be first to have their approvals granted, and
■ Referred projects will go to an Expert Panel, which will have limited ability to decline a project once referred and will apply any necessary conditions to ensure adverse effects of the project are managed.
It will be interesting to see how the legislation is ultimately resolved, but improving infrastructure resilience and providing quality housing are obvious priorities. For applicants embarking on these projects, exploring the option of using the fast-track consenting process could prove valuable – but it does need to be considered on a case-by-case basis for each project’s specific needs and potential effects. However, when deemed suitable, it may significantly expedite the process and contribute to cyclone recovery, infrastructure outcomes and housing needs. If you have any questions about fast-track consenting, please don’t hesitate to reach out.
Clare Price BRP (HONS) MNZPI Senior Planner Stradegy
