BuildPath NZ logo

Due diligence

Infrastructure review

This stage checks whether public and private infrastructure can support the proposed dwellings. This page shows what a beginner residential developer in Auckland should check, who to ask, what evidence to save, and where to verify before committing money or instructions.

infrastructureserviceswatercarestormwaterwastewater6 rolesLast reviewed 11 August 2026

How to execute this stage

Micro-stage control plan

Work through each applicable step in order. A hold point means pause the dependent decision or work until the stated evidence and authorised review are complete.

8 structured steps
  1. 01WaterLevel 2 · Due diligence
    TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext action

    Simple explanation

    Water

    Technical context

    Test this point against Services plan, the current feasibility version and written input from Civil engineer. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.

    Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether infrastructure costs are acceptable.

    Prerequisites

    • Services plan is current and its source/date are recorded.
    • The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
    • Civil engineer has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.

    Checks

    • Does Services plan directly support the conclusion?
    • Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
    • Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?

    Evidence to save

    • Services plan
    • Written Civil engineer response or a recorded reason it is not required
    • Dated feasibility/risk/decision update

    Hold point

    Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.

    Stop or escalate when

    • The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
    • The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
    • A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.

    Documents and records

    • Services plan
    • Infrastructure checklist
    • Risk register
    • Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
    Cost effect
    Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether infrastructure costs are acceptable.
    Programme effect
    Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.

    Next action

    wastewater

    Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.

    Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.

  2. 02wastewaterLevel 2 · Due diligence
    TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext action

    Simple explanation

    wastewater

    Technical context

    Test this point against Civil feasibility note, the current feasibility version and written input from Watercare. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.

    Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether design or yield must change.

    Prerequisites

    • Civil feasibility note is current and its source/date are recorded.
    • The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
    • Watercare has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.

    Checks

    • Does Civil feasibility note directly support the conclusion?
    • Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
    • Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?

    Evidence to save

    • Civil feasibility note
    • Written Watercare response or a recorded reason it is not required
    • Dated feasibility/risk/decision update

    Hold point

    Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.

    Stop or escalate when

    • The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
    • The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
    • A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.

    Documents and records

    • Civil feasibility note
    • Infrastructure checklist
    • Risk register
    • Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
    Cost effect
    Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether design or yield must change.
    Programme effect
    Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.

    Next action

    stormwater

    Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.

    Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.

  3. 03stormwaterLevel 2 · Due diligence
    TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext action

    Simple explanation

    stormwater

    Technical context

    Test this point against Watercare/council correspondence, the current feasibility version and written input from Auckland Council. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.

    Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether further applications are needed.

    Prerequisites

    • Watercare/council correspondence is current and its source/date are recorded.
    • The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
    • Auckland Council has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.

    Checks

    • Does Watercare/council correspondence directly support the conclusion?
    • Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
    • Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?

    Evidence to save

    • Watercare/council correspondence
    • Written Auckland Council response or a recorded reason it is not required
    • Dated feasibility/risk/decision update

    Hold point

    Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.

    Stop or escalate when

    • The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
    • The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
    • A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.

    Documents and records

    • Watercare/council correspondence
    • Infrastructure checklist
    • Risk register
    • Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
    Cost effect
    Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether further applications are needed.
    Programme effect
    Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.

    Next action

    power

    Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.

    Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.

  4. 04powerLevel 2 · Due diligence
    TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext action

    Simple explanation

    power

    Technical context

    Test this point against BeforeUdig responses, the current feasibility version and written input from Utility providers. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.

    Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether infrastructure costs are acceptable.

    Prerequisites

    • BeforeUdig responses is current and its source/date are recorded.
    • The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
    • Utility providers has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.

    Checks

    • Does BeforeUdig responses directly support the conclusion?
    • Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
    • Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?

    Evidence to save

    • BeforeUdig responses
    • Written Utility providers response or a recorded reason it is not required
    • Dated feasibility/risk/decision update

    Hold point

    Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.

    Stop or escalate when

    • The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
    • The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
    • A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.

    Documents and records

    • BeforeUdig responses
    • Infrastructure checklist
    • Risk register
    • Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
    Cost effect
    Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether infrastructure costs are acceptable.
    Programme effect
    Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.

    Next action

    telecommunications

    Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.

    Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.

  5. 05telecommunicationsLevel 2 · Due diligence
    TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext action

    Simple explanation

    telecommunications

    Technical context

    Test this point against Stormwater strategy, the current feasibility version and written input from Surveyor. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.

    Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether design or yield must change.

    Prerequisites

    • Stormwater strategy is current and its source/date are recorded.
    • The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
    • Surveyor has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.

    Checks

    • Does Stormwater strategy directly support the conclusion?
    • Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
    • Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?

    Evidence to save

    • Stormwater strategy
    • Written Surveyor response or a recorded reason it is not required
    • Dated feasibility/risk/decision update

    Hold point

    Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.

    Stop or escalate when

    • The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
    • The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
    • A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.

    Documents and records

    • Stormwater strategy
    • Infrastructure checklist
    • Risk register
    • Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
    Cost effect
    Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether design or yield must change.
    Programme effect
    Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.

    Next action

    vehicle crossing

    Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.

    Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.

  6. 06vehicle crossingLevel 2 · Due diligence
    TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext action

    Simple explanation

    vehicle crossing

    Technical context

    Test this point against Services plan, the current feasibility version and written input from Planner. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.

    Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether further applications are needed.

    Prerequisites

    • Services plan is current and its source/date are recorded.
    • The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
    • Planner has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.

    Checks

    • Does Services plan directly support the conclusion?
    • Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
    • Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?

    Evidence to save

    • Services plan
    • Written Planner response or a recorded reason it is not required
    • Dated feasibility/risk/decision update

    Hold point

    Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.

    Stop or escalate when

    • The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
    • The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
    • A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.

    Documents and records

    • Services plan
    • Infrastructure checklist
    • Risk register
    • Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
    Cost effect
    Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether further applications are needed.
    Programme effect
    Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.

    Next action

    road corridor impacts

    Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.

    Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.

  7. 07road corridor impactsLevel 2 · Due diligence
    TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext action

    Simple explanation

    road corridor impacts

    Technical context

    Test this point against Civil feasibility note, the current feasibility version and written input from Civil engineer. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.

    Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether infrastructure costs are acceptable.

    Prerequisites

    • Civil feasibility note is current and its source/date are recorded.
    • The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
    • Civil engineer has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.

    Checks

    • Does Civil feasibility note directly support the conclusion?
    • Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
    • Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?

    Evidence to save

    • Civil feasibility note
    • Written Civil engineer response or a recorded reason it is not required
    • Dated feasibility/risk/decision update

    Hold point

    Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.

    Stop or escalate when

    • The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
    • The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
    • A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.

    Documents and records

    • Civil feasibility note
    • Infrastructure checklist
    • Risk register
    • Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
    Cost effect
    Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether infrastructure costs are acceptable.
    Programme effect
    Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.

    Next action

    capacity

    Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.

    Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.

  8. 08capacityLevel 2 · Due diligence
    TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext action

    Simple explanation

    capacity

    Technical context

    Test this point against Watercare/council correspondence, the current feasibility version and written input from Watercare. Separate verified facts, professional opinion and assumptions.

    Why it matters: This check can change yield, consent pathway, acquisition terms, funding, cost, programme or exit strategy. It must be resolved before the developer relies on whether design or yield must change.

    Prerequisites

    • Watercare/council correspondence is current and its source/date are recorded.
    • The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
    • Watercare has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.

    Checks

    • Does Watercare/council correspondence directly support the conclusion?
    • Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?
    • Has the feasibility, programme, risk register and decision register been updated?

    Evidence to save

    • Watercare/council correspondence
    • Written Watercare response or a recorded reason it is not required
    • Dated feasibility/risk/decision update

    Hold point

    Do not waive a condition, instruct design/work, commit funding, lodge, purchase, settle or represent the conclusion as confirmed until the authorised decision-maker has the required evidence and advice.

    Stop or escalate when

    • The source is missing, old, inconsistent or outside the reviewer's scope.
    • The check changes yield, approval pathway, funding, legal rights, tax, safety or a material cost/programme assumption.
    • A deadline is approaching and the responsible professional has not confirmed the position.

    Documents and records

    • Watercare/council correspondence
    • Infrastructure checklist
    • Risk register
    • Current feasibility, risk register and decision register
    Cost effect
    Record changes to land value, consultant/council cost, construction/civil cost, finance, holding cost, contingency and exit value before whether design or yield must change.
    Programme effect
    Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.

    Next action

    Make and record the stage decision: Whether design or yield must change. Then open the next applicable development stage.

    Applicability: Confirm whether this check applies to the actual site, ownership, strategy, consent pathway, infrastructure and delivery model; record a reason when not applicable.

    Use current site-specific documents and appropriately appointed professional advice. BuildPath does not make the development decision for you.

Developer go / no-go control

Decision gates before the next commitment

A gate records whether evidence supports a commercial decision. It does not replace advice or predict an authority, lender, purchaser or market outcome.

Before going unconditional or settling

Decision: Proceed, renegotiate, extend, or withdraw under professional advice

Minimum evidence

  • • Lawyer confirms title and agreement matters within scope
  • • Planner/design/engineering advice supports a credible pathway
  • • Funding, valuation, insurance and cash requirements are evidenced

Update before deciding

  • • Acquisition and holding costs
  • • Confirmed investigation/design/authority allowances
  • • Settlement-to-revenue cashflow and contingency

Stop / escalate when

  • • A critical report/approval is outstanding at the condition deadline
  • • Feasibility fails the agreed downside threshold
  • • Conflicting advice is unresolved
Record this gate in the Workspace →

What this stage means

  • Infrastructure review is the part of the project where the developer turns an idea into a checked decision, not a guess.
  • The stage should connect market demand, planning rules, legal constraints, design, cost, funding, time, risk, and exit strategy.
  • For Auckland residential development, the answer is site-specific. The same idea can be low risk on one site and unworkable on the next because of zoning, overlays, title interests, services, slope, flooding, neighbours, or finance.

Why this stage matters

  • Early mistakes become expensive because land, design, consultants, holding costs, consent fees, and finance costs continue even when the project is paused.
  • The developer needs written evidence for lenders, consultants, lawyers, valuers, builders, purchasers, and future dispute protection.
  • This stage usually needs verification from Auckland Council GeoMaps, Watercare builders and developers, BeforeUdig service location, Auckland Transport corridor access, Relevant professional advice before the developer treats the conclusion as reliable.

Step-by-step guide

  1. 1Define the decision needed at the end of this stage and the date it is needed by.
  2. 2Gather the stage documents: Services plan, Civil feasibility note, Watercare/council correspondence, BeforeUdig responses, and the remaining stage records.
  3. 3Read the documents once for understanding, then again to list unknowns, risks, contradictions, missing evidence, and professional questions.
  4. 4Ask the responsible professionals to confirm the critical points: Civil engineer, Watercare, Auckland Council, Utility providers.
  5. 5Update the feasibility, programme, risk register, and decision register with source references and dates.
  6. 6Decide whether to proceed, pause, redesign, renegotiate, add conditions, seek more advice, or abandon the option.
  7. 7Save the evidence in a dated folder and write a short stage closeout note explaining what was decided and why.

What the developer must do

  • Write down the development objective for infrastructure review in one clear paragraph: build-to-sell, build-to-rent, retain one dwelling, subdivide, renovate, or staged development.
  • Open the current feasibility, programme, decision register, risk register, and due diligence folder before making new commitments.
  • Collect the documents needed for this stage: Services plan, Civil feasibility note, Watercare/council correspondence, BeforeUdig responses, Stormwater strategy.
  • Send focused questions to the right people: Civil engineer, Watercare, Auckland Council, Utility providers, Surveyor, Planner.
  • Record assumptions separately from verified facts so the feasibility does not look more certain than it really is.
  • Update cost, time, consent, finance, and sales assumptions immediately after receiving new information.
  • Escalate anything that changes yield, sale price, cost, timing, consent pathway, title, funding, or settlement risk.

Verification

Source / where to check

Use current official information and the controlled documents for the actual project.

Auckland Council GeoMaps

Use GeoMaps as an early desktop check for property layers, contours, flooding/overland flow information, services context, and council spatial information. Confirm critical matters with professionals and council.

Watercare builders and developers

Use Watercare and civil engineering advice to verify water and wastewater connection requirements, network capacity, approvals, fees, and construction standards.

BeforeUdig service location

Use BeforeUdig and utility providers before intrusive investigations, demolition, earthworks, service trenches, or connection works.

Auckland Transport corridor access

Check corridor access, traffic management, vehicle crossing, road occupation, and public road/footpath requirements where the site works affect the transport corridor.

Relevant professional advice

Planner, surveyor, architect, engineer, quantity surveyor, lawyer, accountant, lender, valuer, real estate agent, and other project specialists must confirm site-specific decisions.

Project-specific consented documents and professional advice override generic guidance.

Common mistakes

  • Treating an agent comment, generic online rule, or old document as verified site-specific advice.
  • Forgetting to update the feasibility after design, consent, finance, or market information changes.
  • Not allowing enough contingency, professional fees, council fees, finance costs, holding costs, and time risk.
  • Failing to keep written records of who confirmed what and when.
  • Using infrastructure review to push ahead even when the red flags show the project should pause.

Common risks

  • Yield reduces after proper planning, engineering, title, or infrastructure review.
  • Costs increase after QS, builder, civil, geotechnical, demolition, asbestos, or consent information is received.
  • Programme moves out because consultant inputs, council RFIs, neighbour issues, finance, title, or construction sequencing take longer than assumed.
  • Funding or sales assumptions change before the project reaches settlement.
  • The developer relies on unverified information and loses negotiating power or misses a due diligence deadline.

Common costs

  • Professional fees for planner, architect/designer, surveyor, engineer, QS, lawyer, accountant, valuer, and lender reports.
  • Council fees, consent fees, development contribution estimates, engineering approvals, infrastructure checks, and inspection/monitoring costs where relevant.
  • Design revisions, reports, investigations, demolition/asbestos work, service location, geotechnical testing, and valuation updates.
  • Holding costs such as interest, rates, insurance, utilities, temporary maintenance, and security.
  • Contingency for unverified conditions until the relevant professional confirms them.

Quotes and fee proposals to obtain

  • Obtain written fee proposals or quotations from the relevant stage professionals: Civil engineer, Watercare, Auckland Council, Utility providers, Surveyor, Planner.
  • Issue the same current documents and a clear scope to each party so prices, exclusions, assumptions, deliverables, lead times, and programme can be compared.
  • Identify council, authority, investigation, testing, design, construction, monitoring, and close-out charges that may sit outside a consultant or contractor quote.
  • Record every provisional sum, estimate, exclusion, expiry date, dependency, and unverified allowance in the Quote Register and feasibility.
  • Do not approve an appointment or purchase order until scope ownership, evidence required, payment terms, variation process, insurance or competency checks, and completion deliverables are understood.

Common delays

  • Waiting for property file, LIM, title instruments, survey information, consultant reports, or council responses.
  • Design changes caused by planning controls, infrastructure constraints, engineering findings, budget pressure, or market feedback.
  • Lender, valuer, lawyer, or purchaser conditions not being satisfied on time.
  • Council RFI responses needing more consultant work than expected.
  • Construction or subdivision closeout documents not matching settlement or sales deadlines.

Common consultant questions

  • For Infrastructure review, what are the three highest risks that could change cost, time, yield, or approval pathway?
  • Which parts of your advice are confirmed, which are assumptions, and which require another professional to confirm?
  • What documents did you rely on, and are any documents missing, outdated, superseded, or inconsistent?
  • What decision does the developer need to make now, and what should wait until more information is available?
  • What wording should go into the decision register, consultant meeting minutes, or lender/client update?

Red flags

  • A professional says the issue is outside their scope and no one else has been asked to confirm it.
  • The feasibility only works if optimistic sale prices, low construction costs, fast consent, low interest, and no delays all happen together.
  • A title, planning, flooding, geotechnical, access, service, or covenant issue may prevent the intended yield.
  • A seller, agent, builder, or consultant pressures the developer to waive due diligence before core checks are complete.
  • The project file has no written evidence for a major decision.

When to stop and get professional advice

  • Stop and get professional advice when title, easements, covenants, unit title, cross lease, or subdivision matters affect the proposal.
  • Stop and get professional advice when zoning, overlays, activity status, notification, infrastructure capacity, flooding, geotechnical, contamination, or heritage could affect yield.
  • Stop and get professional advice when GST, income tax, entity structure, lending, guarantees, or sale contract terms affect the decision.
  • Stop and get professional advice when the developer is about to sign, waive a condition, lodge consent, start work, approve a variation, accept practical completion, or settle.

Decisions that must be made

  • Whether infrastructure costs are acceptable
  • Whether design or yield must change
  • Whether further applications are needed

Evidence to save

  • Dated source documents and consultant advice.
  • Feasibility version showing the assumptions used at the time of decision.
  • Risk register and decision register entries.
  • Meeting notes, emails, marked-up plans, calculations, photos, and council/lender/consultant responses.
  • Clear note of who approved the next step and any conditions attached to that approval.

Beginner-friendly example

Wastewater connection appears possible on a map, but the civil engineer asks Watercare to confirm capacity and requirements before feasibility is locked.

Use this in my project

Turn infrastructure review into controlled action

Open the relevant workspace register, create the project-specific record, link the controlling documents and preserve evidence. The guide does not automatically approve or verify the action.

Open workspace
Create a task →Record a document →Update feasibility →Record a decision →Record a constraint →Compare quotes →
All development stagesDevelopment problem solverDevelopment formsQuote register