Faster decisions, but at what cost? Learning from New Zealand's fast-track planning approach

Delays in the planning system remain one of the biggest barriers to developing renewable energy projects at the scale and pace needed to meet the UK's clean power ambitions. Over the past couple of years, the UK government has placed increasing focus on speeding up the planning process, leading to a number of positive reforms. However, despite progress, delays remain, raising an important question: could we go further, and if so, what trade-offs will we need to consider?

The challenge of speeding up the planning process is not unique to the UK and was a key theme of my Churchill Fellowship trip to Australia and New Zealand.

As part of that research, New Zealand's Fast-track Approvals Act really surprised me. The Act prioritises speed and certainty, but removes opportunities for communities to influence decisions once an application has been submitted. For me, that raises an important question about where we draw the line between faster decision-making and maintaining public trust and involvement. While there are aspects of this approach that I think are unsuitable for the UK, there are also elements that may offer useful lessons as we continue to reform our own planning system.

What is New Zealand’s Fast-track Approvals Act?

The Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 built on New Zealand's temporary COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track consenting) Act 2020 which was introduced to help accelerate projects that could support the provision of ongoing employment and investment across New Zealand.

The 2024 fast-track provides a consenting pathway for projects that can demonstrate "significant regional or national benefits". Rather than navigating multiple consenting processes separately, developers submit a single application covering all required approvals through a central fast-track system.

Some projects were pre-identified in the legislation itself. The 2024 Act includes 149 listed projects (22 of which are renewables) which are considered as priority projects that can move straight into the substantive application stage. Other projects must first apply to the Minister for Infrastructure to be referred into the fast-track process.

For me, one of the most interesting parts of this approach is the use of independent expert panels to determine the applications. A separate panel is established for each project, comprising up to four members alongside the panel convenor, who is usually an experienced lawyer. Other members are appointed by the panel convenor based on the expertise needed for the project, and at with least one member who has an understanding of indigenous Māori development. Panels can also seek additional specialist advice where required.

Local authorities continue to have a role in the process through nominating a member for the panel and being invited to provide written comments, usually within a 15-working-day timeframe.

Once an application is lodged, the panel reviews the evidence, considers comments from invited parties and decides whether approvals should be granted and with what conditions. Decisions are generally made within a defined timeframe, set by the panel convener. This can be set as no more than 90 working days after comments are received, giving applicants much greater certainty about when a decision will be reached.

The process operates on a user-pays basis and comes at a high financial cost for developers, with applicants covering the costs of government agencies, local authorities and the expert panel itself. Those I spoke to noted that the overall process is not necessarily dramatically faster, however certainty, rather than speed, was identified as the key benefit.

The removal of social licence?

There's one huge red flag for me in the New Zealand approach: the lack of community involvement once an application has been submitted.

For fast-track projects, engagement is front-loaded but not part of the decision-making process. Applicants are expected to engage with affected parties and to explain what consultation has taken place before an application is submitted. However, what surprised me most was that communities are not given the opportunity to share their comments or concerns with the decision-making panel.

Panels can invite comments from specified parties and affected stakeholders. Unlike planning in the UK, there is no open process where members of the public can submit comments or objections – only those who are invited to comment can do so. In the cases I explored during my research, the wider community had not been invited to comment.

The rationale is clear: there are fewer responses for decision makers to read and consider, but this is also where the model becomes difficult to translate into the UK context.

Public engagement is sometimes perceived as creating delays, yet meaningful engagement can help reduce overall opposition. Removing that opportunity entirely risks creating a different problem: faster decisions, but greater opposition.

That tension is already visible in New Zealand; while many developers have welcomed the increased certainty provided by the regime, environmental organisations, community groups, members of the public and some local government representatives have raised concerns. Such groups and individuals have voiced strong opposition about reduced public participation and democratic oversight, including through protests against the Act.

There is another notable feature – decisions can only be challenged through the courts on points of law rather than on the merits of the decision itself. This limits opportunities for lengthy legal disputes, although legal scrutiny remains available where decision-makers are alleged to have acted unlawfully. Similarly, the UK has focused on reducing the potential for ‘meritless’ legal challenges.

For me, if a UK version of this model were ever developed, community input would need to remain part of the process, even if the timescales for their participation were shortened. Speed matters, but so does public trust, and the challenge is finding a way to achieve both.

Could the UK adapt some of New Zealand's ideas?

Firstly, it's important to recognise that fast-tracking major infrastructure isn't a new concept in the UK. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 focused on streamlining the consenting process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs).

We already have a dedicated fast-track Development Consent Order route that developers can choose to pursue. However, uptake has been low and many have considered it not to be worth the extra cost.

Yet despite these changes, we are still having the same conversation. Resourcing pressures continue across planning authorities and statutory consultees, while the need to accelerate delivery of energy infrastructure has become even more pressing in the context of Clean Power 2030 and the emerging Strategic Spatial Energy Plan (SSEP).

While removing community input is definitely not something we should be considering in the UK, there are several aspects of the New Zealand approach that I think are worth exploring further.

1. A clear focus on priority projects. The New Zealand model prioritises projects that can demonstrate significant regional or national benefits. As the UK develops the first SSEP, there may be value in considering whether a similar approach could help to prioritise clean energy and transmission projects.
2. Expert panels could help address resourcing challenges. One of the most interesting aspects of the model is the use of project-specific expert panels. At a time when recruiting and retaining experienced planners remains difficult, bringing together planning, environmental, engineering and legal expertise for strategically important projects could help focus scarce resources where they are needed most.
3. Greater certainty through clear expectations and timescales. The New Zealand system places a strong emphasis on applicants submitting well-developed projects. Developers cannot rely on working through major issues once an application has been submitted. That creates greater certainty, both for applicants and decision makers. However, there are trade-offs to this approach; once an application has been submitted there is limited opportunity for ongoing dialogue with decision makers unless the panel requests further information. While this undoubtedly improves efficiency, it is less clear whether it always improves decision making.

What was clear from my visit is that New Zealand's fast-track process is not a system of automatic approval. During my time there, a controversial seabed mining proposal was progressing through the regime and the expert panel ultimately recommended that it be declined, concluding that the environmental risks outweighed the claimed benefits. For me, that was an important reminder that the purpose of fast-track is not to guarantee approval; its real value lies in creating greater certainty about how decisions are made and the timeframe in which they will be reached.

Looking ahead: planning reform in a more strategic energy system

The UK government has made it clear that speeding up the delivery of energy infrastructure will be critical to achieving Clean Power 2030 and beyond. In that context, New Zealand's fast-track approach provides an interesting example for policymakers to consider.

At the same time, it highlights an important lesson. While faster consenting is clearly needed, there is a point where efforts to increase speed can start to undermine public confidence in the process itself.

I don't think the New Zealand model is exactly the right solution for the UK – the removal of community involvement from the decision-making process does not align with our country's ambitions for a fair and just transition. However, some elements are worth exploring further. If resourcing continues to be one of the biggest constraints facing the planning system, project-specific expert panels could provide a credible way of concentrating scarce expertise on strategically important projects.

With the development of the UK's first SSEP and the (re)introduction of regional planning through Spatial Development Strategies, we are moving towards a more strategic approach to planning energy infrastructure. If these frameworks establish broad agreement about where major infrastructure is needed, it may become easier to justify more streamlined consenting routes for projects that align with those plans.

The UK does not need to copy New Zealand's model, but there is value in studying it. For me, the biggest lesson is that faster decisions and community involvement should not be seen as competing objectives; the challenge is designing a planning system that can deliver both.

At Regen we are continuing to work on planning reform to help ensure that the planning system balances speed with social licence. You can see some of our recent work on planning here or drop me an email to discuss our work in more detail.