The Fast-track process does not allow short cuts: compliance is key as rejections at the first hurdle rise and new guidance is issued

In addition, new guidance from the Fast-track Panel Conveners shakes up the current approach to consenting, envisaging a new inquiry-led process for approvals, quite different to current practices under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). While the panel has discretion over processes, this guidance will likely be influential in shaping how applications are managed.  

Four referral applications declined due to failure to meet statutory requirements

Under the Act, projects can apply for referral to use the Fast-track process. If they are accepted, a substantive application can then be made for resource consent and other approvals. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) is responsible for determining whether referral applications are compliant with section 14(2) of the Act. For an application to be compliant with section 14(2), the following criteria must be met: 

• the application must comply with the requirements for referral applications in section 13 of the Act (these include general requirements applying to all applications, information requirements, and matters relating to specific proposed approvals);
  
  
• MfE must consider that the project may be capable of satisfying the criteria in section 22 of the Act (that the project is an infrastructure or development project that would have significant regional or national benefits, and referring the project to the Fast-track process would facilitate the project, including by enabling it to be processed in a more timely and cost-effective way than under normal processes, and is unlikely to materially affect the efficient operation of the Fast-track process), and does not appear to involve an ineligible activity; and
  
  
• all fees and charges payable under regulations in respect of the application must have been paid.

At the date of writing, four referral applications submitted for Fast-track consideration have been deemed by MfE to be non-compliant with statutory requirements under the Act and returned to the applicants.  

Referral applications approved and declined as of 13 August 2025.
Source: https://www.fasttrack.govt.nz/projects

Key non-compliance reported by MfE included:

• Failure to engage / consult:
  
  • Failure to engage with relevant administering agencies or to consult with relevant iwi authorities and Treaty settlement agencies.
    
    
• Lack of clarity as to approvals sought:
  • Failure to provide an outline of, or clarity as to, the approvals sought via the Fast-track process, undermining MfE’s ability to assess the scope and consultation requirements accurately.
    
    
• Failure to meet section 22 criteria:
  • Failure to explain how each stage of a proposed staged approach individually met the criteria in section 22 of the Act.
  • Failure to demonstrate how Fast-track referral would facilitate the project more efficiently than standard procedures.
    
    
• Ineligible activities:
  • Project appeared to involve an ineligible activity / applicant did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the project excludes an ineligible activity.
    
    
• Incomplete Information:
  • Did not include information required, e.g. identification of parcels of Māori land within the project area, Treaty settlements that apply to the project area, assessments for approvals sought, information required under specific sections of the Act.
  • Did not describe the applicant’s current legal interest in the land or how that affects the applicant’s ability to undertake the project (instead, the application relied on outdated concession documents and historic land titles).

These decisions by MfE to decline referral applications highlight an expectation that applicants must demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of the Act. However, the lack of an ability to provide supplementary information post-lodgement to address completeness issues, forcing applicants to re-lodge their applications if they fail the completeness check, is arguably at odds with the Government’s speed and efficiency ambitions. It has become clear that while there is a ‘fast track’ for consenting, there are to be no short cuts on that track that bypass applicants’ statutory obligations.

New guidance from Panel Conveners

The Panel Conveners have recently issued guidance for the substantive Fast-track process, promoting a quasi-inquisitorial, inquiry-led process under the Act, which differs significantly from typical adversarial processes common under the RMA.

The guidance note encourages early issue identification, collaborative problem-solving, and a more efficient, focused decision-making process than seen in standard RMA consenting. Applicants should expect to commit time towards actively engaging with participants in a collaborative and solution-focused manner and be ready to offer practical and innovative solutions to disputed matters to ensure timely and efficient decision-making. 

While the guidance note is a must-read for applicants embarking on the Fast-track, here are some of our key takeaways:

• Structure and form of applications: Applicants should provide well-structured, complete applications, proportional to the complexity of the project and prepared with the Act (including its bespoke terminology) in mind. The guidance note contains a list of recommendations as to the requirements of substantive applications, particularly in relation to their structure, form and content. For example, it suggests the lodgement of an overview of the application (including by way of a memorandum of legal counsel), statements that should (and should not) be in technical export reports, and the preparation of separate technical and assessment reports and condition sets for each approval sought/administering agency.
  
  
• Early issue identification will be critical: It is the role of the Panel Conveners to decide the timing of the panel’s decision on a fast-track application, and the guidance note explains that issue identification is a key method to ensure that the timeframe set by the Panel Conveners is appropriate. Proactive, genuine and meaningful consultation is therefore critical from the infancy of a project (i.e., pre-lodgement) and throughout the process, as it enables early issue identification and opportunities for resolution. The guidance also notes how the level of legal, evidentiary and factual complexity will have a bearing on the appropriate timing of decision-making. In our experience, projects with significant regional or national benefits (i.e., those of the nature eligible to use the fast-track process) are almost always complex. In our view, applicants will need to work very hard to justify, with reference to the relevant criteria, the imposition of the default 30 working-day timeframe for decision making under the Act. We expect timeframes imposed to be more realistic than optimistic to enable panels sufficient time for decision-making. To date, an extended timeframe has been provided for every panel appointed, varying from 37 to 87 working days from the date specified for feedback to be received. It is clear that timeframes will not be set that prevent proper scrutiny of an application.
  
  
• Prepare for an interactive process: Applicants should be prepared for on-going dialogue between with the Panel Conveners and panel throughout the process. The guidance note sets out a range of conference types anticipated as part of the fast-track process, including a panel convener conference, project overview conference, issue conference, conference on the appointment of a special or technical adviser, and pre-hearing conference. We understand the intention is that these conferences will enable applicants to respond flexibly to issues and in real time.
  
  
• Targeted hearings may become more common: Hearings, if held, may not be on the whole application, or follow the conventional adversarial hearing model. The guidance note anticipates the use of targeted hearings (e.g., on disputed fact or opinion, selected topics or issues, proposed conditions, legal issues) and quasi-inquisitorial hearing features (e.g., joint empanelment of group(s) of experts, interactive workshops on proposed conditions).
  
  Overall, the guidance recommends a clear shift towards a more collaborative, transparent, and responsive consenting process. Applicants will need to adapt to this new approach by investing in early engagement, preparing high-quality, well-structured applications, and being ready to participate in a rigorous, interactive process. Applicants up for this challenge will be best positioned to navigate the process effectively, meet the expectations of the Act, and obtain the faster approvals they seek.
  
  If you would like assistance with a Fast-track application, or if you would like more information about the matters discussed in this article, please get in touch with the contacts listed or your usual Bell Gully adviser.

Disclaimer: This publication is necessarily brief and general in nature. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.