National’s policy is to weaken the current regime by making the MDRS optional, but still requiring councils to zone more land for housing.
The potential compromise was to force councils to stay in the current mandatory MDRS regime, but allow councils to opt out if they could prove that they could not zone sufficient housing using greenfield and other development.
Councils would not just have to prove they could plan this development, they would also have to show how they would finance the infrastructure to service it.
It takes the guts of National’s optional approach, but shifts the burden of responsibility to earlier in the process - forcing councils to stay in the current regime, until they could prove they could meet the housing objectives outside of it.
Another area of movement was the issue of recession planes, which dictate how the effects of sunlight impact a building’s ability to comply with the standard - the rules are intended so buildings do not cast their neighbours into deep shadow and shade.
Recession planes in the MDRS are blunt, and do not take into account where in the country the buildings are being consented, despite the fact that the effects of the sun are different depending on a house’s latitude.
Changing these rules to take that into account is also on the table.
By the end of the week it will be clear whether there is a mandate from National’s caucus to negotiate further - although that seems unlikely.
The original deal created the MDRS that allow developers to build three three-storey townhouses on most residential sections without the need for a building consent, allowing as many as 48,200-105,500 new dwellings to be built.
But the standards were unpopular in the suburbs subject to intensification and National walked from the deal last month saying the MDRS had failed. National unveiled a new policy last month, which would make the MDRS optional for councils.
Councils would be required to allow for 30 years worth of development immediately, but could use a mixture of tools like the MDRS and greenfield development to hit this target.
The greenfield development would be funded by targeted rates, not ordinary council rates.
Labour has questioned the feasibility of using targeted rates to fund greenfield development, saying this would lead to unaffordably high rates for people who buy those homes.