Select a screening check to view its E-state outcomes, authority, and assessment method.
Capability describes what the land can physically support. Water describes what the supply will bear. This describes what the law and the record allow. Six checks across three groups — one unknown is never read as a permission.
Select a screening check to view its E-state outcomes, authority, and assessment method.
The worked example teaches the notation as a single grid — four locations, six checks, one reported code per location. Shaded cells are non-clear. The pattern reads by scanning without reading every label.
E1 is rarer than it looks. Ownership alone is unrecorded across most non-urban land, so a large share of otherwise unencumbered ground will report E2 (ET) for that single reason. Location C — all six clear — is the exception, not the reference state for the country.
| Location | EP Protected Areas |
EV Rangeland & Vegetation |
ET Ownership & Tenure |
EZ Planning & Zoning |
EX Conflicting Use |
EH Hazard Restriction |
Reported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location A Five clear, one to resolve — no cadastral record for the parcel; nothing else applies. | E1 | E1 | E2 | E1 | E1 | E1 | E2 (ET) |
| Location B Three to resolve — inside a 3 km reserve buffer, two competing ownership claims, zoning requiring case-by-case approval. Three authorities. | E2 | E1 | E2 | E2 | E1 | E1 | E2 (EP, ET, EZ) |
| Location C All six clear — ownership recorded and holder confirmed, zoning compatible, no designations. The exceptional case. | E1 | E1 | E1 | E1 | E1 | E1 | E1 |
| Location D Prohibited — inside a military exclusion zone. Tenure is also unrecorded, but that finding is not reported while the bar stands. | E1 | E1 | E0 | E1 | E3 | E1 | E3 (EX) |
The land answer tells the ministry where the ground is good. The water answer tells it what the supply will bear. This one tells it what stands between a good site and a signed decision — and, crucially, whether that thing can be moved.
A military zone cannot be moved. A missing ownership record can. Reporting both as simply “unavailable” would hide the single most actionable finding the assessment produces: how much good land in this country is held back by paperwork rather than by anything in the ground.
That gap — capable, watered, and waiting only on a document — is what tells the ministry where cadastral work would unlock the most potential. It is visible only because tenure is recorded as its own state rather than folded into either available or excluded.
Legal, not economic. These findings answer whether development is permitted, not whether it is worth doing. A hectare can be physically excellent, legally clear and still uneconomic — and those two judgements are kept apart deliberately.
A screen, not a determination. This is planning-level screening from existing records. It is not a legal opinion and it does not confirm title. Formal confirmation comes from the responsible authority. Every check names the body that holds the record so a finding can be taken to the right office rather than merely disputed.