New: swept paths now use Austroads AP-G34-23 design vehicles, B-doubles included. See what's new

Xuro
Start free trial

What changed from CoPTTM to NZGTTM for TMP designers

NZGTTM replaces CoPTTM's set layouts with a risk-based approach. As a TMP designer, you now start from a site-specific risk assessment, choose controls that fit the actual risks, and show your reasoning so the council can review it. Layouts still matter, but they must match the risk assessment. NZTA stopped maintaining CoPTTM from 1 November 2024.

NZGTTM in a paragraph

NZTA published the New Zealand Guide to Temporary Traffic Management (NZGTTM) in April 2023. Auckland Transport's summary of it: the guide "outlines how to use a risk-based approach" and advises organisations to put risk assessment and planning first, "before decisions on control types and equipment are made". NZGTTM itself says it "sets out our principles and is only a guide", so what you must do comes from your council and client. CoPTTM gave you a layout to pick for the road and the work. NZGTTM asks you to work out the risks at this site and show how your plan manages them.

What's different for the designer

1. Evidence, not just layouts. Queenstown Lakes District Council sums up the change as an "emphasis on evidence-based submissions rather than layout-based compliance". A layout that matches a code diagram is no longer enough on its own. The council wants to see why it's the right layout for this site.

2. The risk assessment comes first. The TMP now carries the risk assessment as well as the drawings. Christchurch City Council expects the documents to show three things clearly: the risk assessment, the fundamental TTM controls and the detailed site design. Since 4 May 2026, Auckland Transport returns applications that arrive without a risk assessment or risk control plan.

3. New forms, but no fixed template. NZGTTM's example forms are a planning form (the activity, context, hazards and risks), a general form (how risks will be managed during the work) and the traffic management diagrams. NZGTTM says its example TMP form "is not mandatory", QLDC notes that it doesn't mandate specific templates, and Christchurch stopped requiring the standard form in September 2026, as long as the content is there.

4. Controls must be proportionate. Under NZGTTM the aim is controls that fit the risk, not the most you could put out. QLDC asks applicants to avoid both under- and over-control. The Transport Minister said the approach means "fewer unnecessary traffic management measures". QLDC adds that reduced controls must still be justified through the risk assessment.

5. Generic TMPs need justifying. QLDC says using a generic TMP or a standard scheme doesn't, on its own, show the risks are managed. You need to show it suits the activity and location.

6. Councils review your reasoning. Councils such as Auckland Transport and QLDC now peer review the risk assessment. Auckland Transport's reviewers ask whether risks were missed, whether better controls exist, whether your controls create knock-on risks, and whether the layouts match the risk assessment. More in Checking a TMP before you submit.

What stays the same

You still draw traffic management diagrams showing the devices, road user paths, work areas and how the site meets the live road. Councils still accept TMPs through their corridor access process. And the TMP still has to be clear and practical to set up on site: QLDC lists that as its own checklist item.

CoPTTM's status

From 1 November 2024, NZTA says CoPTTM remains on its website but will not be updated or maintained, and NZGTTM is the preferred guidance. Councils set their own dates for TMPs on their roads; see NZGTTM deadlines by council. Since 1 July 2026, councils have also needed a risk-based approach to temporary traffic management to receive National Land Transport Fund money for their transport projects.

Warrants and training

The change also reached qualifications:

Getting ready

Xuro Designer shows layout distances for CoPTTM or NZGTTM, and the Xuro Review Engine checks a TMP package against either standard.

Questions

What is the main difference between CoPTTM and NZGTTM?

CoPTTM was prescriptive: you picked a set layout for the road and the work. NZGTTM is risk-based: you assess the risks at the site, choose proportionate controls and show your reasoning. QLDC calls it a shift to "evidence-based submissions rather than layout-based compliance".

Is CoPTTM still valid?

NZTA stopped updating and maintaining CoPTTM from 1 November 2024. Councils set their own dates, and since 1 July 2026 the Government has tied council transport funding to a risk-based approach. Some no longer accept CoPTTM-based TMPs for new applications. Check your council's current rules.

Do STMS and TMO warrants still exist?

Warrants gained up to 31 October 2024 remain valid and recognised. From 1 November 2024, NZTA stopped registering warrants where an identical unit standard exists, including TMO and STMS. You now gain the matching NZQA unit standard instead, assessed by an assessor with consent to assess, such as one registered with Connexis. Those unit standards are due to expire at the end of December 2026.

What qualification do TMP designers need under NZGTTM?

NZGTTM doesn't prescribe a qualification: QLDC says your organisation must make sure a competent person prepares the TMP. Check your employer's and council's requirements. The TTM Design micro-credential (NZQA 4922, Level 4) is for people who develop TMPs, and the Construction and Specialist Trades ISB says it replaces the TTM Planner warrant.

Sources

Last checked: 23 October 2026