Due diligence
Services review
This stage checks the actual location, capacity, ownership, and connection path for services. 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.
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.
01Existing pipes/cablesLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
Existing pipes/cables
Technical context
Test this point against BeforeUdig plans, 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 service strategy.
Prerequisites
- BeforeUdig plans 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 BeforeUdig plans 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- Which information is verified, assumed, missing, superseded or contradictory?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 plans
- 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
- BeforeUdig plans
- Services 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 service strategy.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
connection points
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.
02connection pointsLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
connection points
Technical context
Test this point against Service location report, the current feasibility version and written input from Utility locator. 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 investigation scope.
Prerequisites
- Service location report is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Utility locator has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Service location report 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
- Service location report
- Written Utility locator 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
- Service location report
- Services 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 investigation scope.
- 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.
03capacityLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
capacity
Technical context
Test this point against Drainage records, 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 cost allowance.
Prerequisites
- Drainage records 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 Drainage records 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
- Drainage records
- 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
- Drainage records
- Services 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 cost allowance.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
easements
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.
04easementsLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
easements
Technical context
Test this point against Utility provider responses, the current feasibility version and written input from Power provider. 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 service constraints affect design.
Prerequisites
- Utility provider responses is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Power provider has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Utility provider 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
- Utility provider responses
- Written Power provider 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
- Utility provider responses
- Services 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 service constraints affect design.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
private vs public services
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.
05private vs public servicesLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
private vs public services
Technical context
Test this point against Civil design notes, the current feasibility version and written input from Telecommunications provider. 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 service strategy.
Prerequisites
- Civil design notes is current and its source/date are recorded.
- The project objective, feasibility version and decision deadline are clear.
- Telecommunications provider has a focused brief where professional confirmation is required.
Checks
- Does Civil design notes 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 design notes
- Written Telecommunications provider 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 design notes
- Services 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 service strategy.
- Programme effect
- Record the decision deadline, dependencies, information lead time and effect on acquisition, consent, procurement, construction, sales or settlement milestones.
Next action
upgrade cost
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.
06upgrade costLevel 2 · Due diligence
TaskCheckHold pointEvidenceRecordNext actionSimple explanation
upgrade cost
Technical context
Test this point against BeforeUdig plans, 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 investigation scope.
Prerequisites
- BeforeUdig plans 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 BeforeUdig plans 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 plans
- 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
- BeforeUdig plans
- Services 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 investigation scope.
- 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: Investigation scope. 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 the next material commitment
Decision: Proceed, pause, obtain evidence, or escalate
Minimum evidence
- • Current source documents and professional responses
- • Versioned feasibility, risk and programme update
- • Named owner and deadline for every unresolved dependency
Update before deciding
- • Cost and contingency
- • Time and holding/finance effect
- • Yield, value, consent and exit effect
Stop / escalate when
- • A material conclusion is still an assumption
- • Sources conflict or are out of date
- • The authorised decision-maker cannot see the downside consequence
What this stage means
- Services 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 BeforeUdig service location, Watercare builders and developers, Auckland Council property file, Relevant professional advice before the developer treats the conclusion as reliable.
Step-by-step guide
- 1Define the decision needed at the end of this stage and the date it is needed by.
- 2Gather the stage documents: BeforeUdig plans, Service location report, Drainage records, Utility provider responses, and the remaining stage records.
- 3Read the documents once for understanding, then again to list unknowns, risks, contradictions, missing evidence, and professional questions.
- 4Ask the responsible professionals to confirm the critical points: Civil engineer, Utility locator, Watercare, Power provider.
- 5Update the feasibility, programme, risk register, and decision register with source references and dates.
- 6Decide whether to proceed, pause, redesign, renegotiate, add conditions, seek more advice, or abandon the option.
- 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 services 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: BeforeUdig plans, Service location report, Drainage records, Utility provider responses, Civil design notes.
- Send focused questions to the right people: Civil engineer, Utility locator, Watercare, Power provider, Telecommunications provider, Surveyor.
- 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.
Use BeforeUdig and utility providers before intrusive investigations, demolition, earthworks, service trenches, or connection works.
Use Watercare and civil engineering advice to verify water and wastewater connection requirements, network capacity, approvals, fees, and construction standards.
Review historic building consents, drainage plans, previous approvals, CCC records where available, and historic plans. Compare records with what physically exists on site.
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 services 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, Utility locator, Watercare, Power provider, Telecommunications provider, Surveyor.
- 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 Services 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
- Service strategy
- Investigation scope
- Cost allowance
- Whether service constraints affect design
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
A pipe shown on a record plan is not assumed accurate; the developer arranges service location before excavation planning.
Use this in my project
Turn services 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.