I've been chewing on an issue in the NPS-UD and MDRS since May 2024. What's on my mind is what appears to be an internal contradiction in the design of Qualifying Matters.
The Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 required Tier 1 councils to amend their district plans to apply the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS). In practice, MDRS has been incredibly useful — it's pushed a higher permitted baseline and more lenient bulk and location standards. Residential consenting is (mostly) easier and faster as a result.
At the time, I thought it was a good idea that there was a check and balance on this universal intensification approach. Enter Qualifying Matters — an extra lens to apply over development in specific areas due to significant constraints.
I've long believed Section 6 of the RMA 1991 should play a much bigger role in land use zoning. A system where: if Section 6 matters aren't present, you have a genuine green light. If they are, there's a clear stop signal. Simple. Transparent. Predictable.
The contradiction
But four-ish years into applying MDRS, I think the 2021 Amendment Act missed the mark. Here's why: we're up-zoning land for development and use, only to restrict it through Qualifying Matters overlays. To me, that feels disingenuous.
In my real-world experience, it confuses (or frustrates) the public, especially people doing due diligence on sites. We could zone land more transparently if the true intention was to limit development in those areas that are subject to unacceptable risk.
It's hard not to be cynical when areas subject to Qualifying Matters are given live-zoning, and I think this happens for two reasons:
- The NPS-UD requires councils to show they're providing sufficient development capacity for housing and business land in the short, medium, and long term.
- Councils want to avoid the political backlash of red-zoning large swathes of urban land.
This leads to a question: if you can't get a consent because of natural hazard policies or other Qualifying Matters, is that land really part of the supply pipeline? Is it available for housing or business use?
Key takeaways
- I don't think councils have live-zoned as much land as their planning maps suggest.
- At the due diligence stage, don't assume a site is good to go just because it's zoned High-Density or Mixed-Use. Always check the overlays, precincts, and other planning map features.
For honest and accurate due diligence advice on property purchases, contact the team at Derive Consulting Group.