DOCSLIB.ORG

Board - Public Session - Agenda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Board - Public Session - Agenda Board - Public Session - Agenda WATERCARE SERVICES LIMITED AGENDA BOARD MEETING Tuesday, 1 June 2021 Venue Watercare Services, Level 3 Boardroom, 73 Remuera Rd, Remuera Time 9.15am Open Public Meeting Item Spokesperson Action Sought Supporting Material 1 Opening Karakia Brendon Green 2 Meeting Administration Chair For discussion Verbal update 3 Apologies Chair Record apologies Verbal 4 Minutes of Meeting Chair Approval of minutes of the meeting of 29 Minutes of the meeting of 29 April April 2021 2021 5 Public Deputations Chair For information Verbal 6 Enterprise Model Update Graeme Johnson CEO NZ - Fulton For discussion Presentation Hogan & Peter Reidy CE Construction - Fletcher Building 7 Chief Executive’s Report Jon Lamonte For discussion Report 8 Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report Bronwyn Struthers For discussion Report 9 For Information 9.1 April 2021 Central Interceptor Report Shayne Cunis For information Report 9.2 Drought Update Steve Webster For information Presentation 9.3 Iwi Relationships Richie Waiwai For information Report 9.4 CCO Review Update Rob Fisher For information Report 10 For Approval 10.1 Asset Management Plan 2021-2041 Steve Webster For approval Report 11 For Discussion 11.1 Board Committee Updates Committee Chairs For discussion Verbal 12 Directors’ Corporate Governance Items 12.1 Board Planner Chair For noting Report 12.2 Directors' Appointment Terms and Committee Memberships and meeting attendances Chair For noting Report 12.3 Disclosure of interests Chair For noting Report 13 General Business Chair For discussion Verbal update Date of next meeting Monday, 5 July 2021 1 Board - Public Session - Minutes of Meeting MINUTES 4 SUBJECT WATERCARE SERVICES LIMITED BOARD MEETING VENUE Watercare, Level 3 Boardroom, 73 Remuera Road, Remuera DATE 29 April 2021 TIME 9.15am PUBLIC SESSION Present: In Attendance: Guests: Margaret Devlin (Chair) Jon Lamonte None Dave Chambers Marlon Bridge (from 9.30am, during item 7.1) Frances Valintine Steve Webster Nicola Crauford Nigel Toms Brendon Green Amanda Singleton Hinerangi Raumati-Tu’ua Jason Glennon Graham Darlow Rebecca Chenery David Hawkins Shane Morgan Shayne Cunis Bronwyn Struthers (from the start until the end of item 9.2) Richard Waiwai Mark Bourne (from the start until item 8.1) Richie Rameka (for item 9.1) Jacky Simperingham Jodie Atkin Pinaz Pithadia 1. Opening Karakia Brendon Green opened the meeting with a karakia and welcomed Jon to his first Board meeting as Chief Executive. 2 Board - Public Session - Minutes of Meeting 2. Meeting Administration 4 The Chair of the Board formally welcomed Jon to his first Board meeting in his official capacity. On behalf of the Board, she congratulated: ∑ Hinerangi Raumati-Tu’ua on her appointment as Chair of Tainui Group Holdings. ∑ Nigel Toms (Acting Chief Financial Officer) for winning the Risk Professional of Year award. ∑ Shane Morgan (Chief Operations Officer) and Amanda Singleton (Chief Customer Officer), for their work on the Nerve Centre. 3. Apologies Apologies were received from Councillor Linda Cooper, Claire Gomas (Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships, Auckland Council) and Rob Fisher (Company Secretary). Marlon Bridge also apologised for his late attendance (due to conflicting Deputy Chief Executive duties). 4. Minutes of Meeting The Board resolved that the minutes of the public session of the Board meeting held on 30 March 2021 be confirmed as true and correct. 5. Disclosure of Directors’ Interests Hinerangi Raumati-Tu’ua advised that she has resigned from the following positions: i) member of Venture Taranaki, and ii) Trustee of PKW Trust. 6. Public Deputations There were no public deputations. 7. For Information 7.1 March 2021 Central Interceptor Report Shayne Cunis (Executive Programme Director, CI) presented this report which was taken as read. Shayne noted that March was a difficult month in relation to health, safety and wellbeing (HSW) as the report indicates. A significant effort is being made to address the problems, especially in preparation for tunnelling which will commence in June and July. He explained that staff (supervisors and engineers) who were not performing as required, specifically in relation to HSW, have left the project and have been replaced by staff who are taking greater ownership of HSW. 3 Board - Public Session - Minutes of Meeting The Board requested that the next monthly Central Interceptor report should include the actions being taken to reduce incidents. Shayne provided examples of the actions that 4 have been taken which include the above-mentioned staff changes and replacing ladders with staircases. He noted that WorkSafe have been informed of incidents as required and it is satisfied that there has been no negligence on the GAJV’s (Ghella Abergeldie joint venture) or Watercare’s part. Shayne also explained that machinery is regularly inspected, and there are procedures are in place if machinery failures do occur. This includes the use of exclusion zones. The Board expressed its concern at the amount of crane (lifting) related incidents that have occurred and requested that Shayne and Jon Lamonte (Chief Executive) obtain an independent critical risk assessment of crane lifts by the GAJV. The Board noted that whilst the Central Interceptor project is on a critical pathway, the Board does not support cutting corners, and safety must remain paramount. The Board asked whether there are sufficient resources in place to ensure safety. Shayne advised that it is challenging to recruit and retain people. He said that at this time it is not a matter of needing more people, as the workload is insufficient to fully utilise them. At this stage we have been able to cover extended work hours with existing staff prepared to work on altered patterns. If the GAJV open more sites, this will not be possible and we are working with them to optimise productivity for both parties. The Board asked whether, in light of the recently published review of HSW at the Ports of Auckland, staff on our sites feel safe. Shayne advised that staff do feel safe and comfortable coming to work, especially following the replacement of some supervising staff (mentioned above). The new supervisors are owning problems, and providing solutions. He said the workforce is confident in the safety culture, and know that they will be looked after. He also noted that upcoming milestones for the project, such as launching the TBM (tunnel boring machine) and the MTBM (micro-tunnel boring machine) will increase morale. The Board requested that Francesco Saibene (project director of GAJV) attend the 29 July Board meeting, following the launches of the TBM and MTBM. Bronwyn Struthers (Head of HSW) advised that following the crane rigging incident at the Haycock Rd site, two new specialists have been brought in (by the contractor) to conduct an internal review of the lifting operations. In response to a question from the Board, regarding whether this is done on other Watercare projects, both Bronwyn and Steve Webster (Chief Infrastructure Officer) confirmed it is standard for contractors across New Zealand to have such specialists in place. The Board noted the need to ensure that responsibility is taken for safety procedures to be followed as it is not sufficient to merely have procedures. The report was noted. Marlon Bridge (Deputy Chief Executive Officer) joined the meeting during this item. 4 Board - Public Session - Minutes of Meeting 7.2 Drought Update 4 Mark Bourne (Head of Servicing & Consents) presented this paper, which was taken as read. He also tabled the latest drought related figures. In particular he noted that lake levels were stable throughout April. He advised that demand remains very low which indicates the domestic sector is maintaining low demand. This resulted in the need to decrease storage production, and at Ardmore WTP (water treatment plant) production will move to low-flow as of next week. Mark advised that a new winter forecast will be provided as of next month. He said NIWA has forecast normal rainfall over the winter. Mark spoke to the graphs, noting that actual demand is significantly below what it was at this time last year. This is a result of the cumulative effect of all the levers pulled by the business since May last year. He explained that, had the interventions (augmentation projects, water restrictions, increased leak detection) not been undertaken, lake storage would now be at 28% (they were at 52.5% at the end of March, with April figures not final at the date of the meeting). He noted that it is the long-term, cumulative effect that is significant; short-term measures do not have such substantial impacts. In response to a question from the Board, there was discussion regarding the reductions and deferrals of works under the AMP due to Council debt constraints. Mark explained that Management are undertaking a prioritisation process. The Board noted that a change to reporting on leakage figures had previously been discussed. Shane Morgan advised that a working group is currently working on the use of a factor that will enable international comparisons to be made. This will involve a short-term SOI target and a longer-term water strategy target. A paper will be provided to the Board next month. The Board noted the need to communicate any change in reporting to Auckland Council. It was also noted that we need to facilitate increased water literacy across all our stakeholders, in line with one of the Aurecon recommendations. The Board asked if there were any delays due to Covid-19. Shane advised that supplies are generally being delayed by several weeks due to stevedoring issues but nothing on the critical pathway to date. The report was noted. 7.3 Iwi Relationships Richard Waiwai (Poutiaki, Tikanga Māori (Principal Advisor)) presented the report which was taken as read. He explained that two iwi (Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust and Te Ara Rangatū o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiōhua Incorporated) have been introduced together because over the past two years, leadership for both iwi has been uncertain.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Auckland Trail Notes Contents
    22 October 2020 Auckland trail notes Contents • Mangawhai to Pakiri • Mt Tamahunga (Te Hikoi O Te Kiri) Track • Govan Wilson to Puhoi Valley • Puhoi Track • Puhoi to Wenderholm by kayak • Puhoi to Wenderholm by walk • Wenderholm to Stillwater • Okura to Long Bay • North Shore Coastal Walk • Coast to Coast Walkway • Onehunga to Puhinui • Puhinui Stream Track • Totara Park to Mangatawhiri River • Hunua Ranges • Mangatawhiri to Mercer Mangawhai to Pakiri Route From Mangawhai Heads carpark, follow the road to the walkway by 44 Wintle Street which leads down to the estuary. Follow the estuary past a camping ground, a boat ramp & holiday baches until wooden steps lead up to the Findlay Street walkway. From Findlay Street, head left into Molesworth Drive until reaching Mangawhai Village. Then a right into Moir Street, left into Insley Street and across the estuary then left into Black Swamp Road. Follow this road until reaching Pacific Road which leads you through a forestry block to the beach and the next stage of Te Araroa. Bypass Note: You could obtain a boat ride across the estuary to the Mangawhai Spit to avoid the road walking section. Care of sand-nesting birds is required on this Scientific Wildlife Reserve - please stick to the shoreline. Just 1km south, a stream cuts across the beach and it can go over thigh height, as can other water crossings on this track. Follow the coast southwards for another 2km, then take the 1 track over Te Ārai Point. Once back on the beach, continue south for 12km (fording Poutawa Stream on the way) until you cross the Pākiri River then head inland to reach the end of Pākiri River Road.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Assessment for the Auckland Region Mario A
    Housing Assessment for the Auckland Region Mario A. Fernandez, Chad Hu Jennifer L. R. Joynt, Shane L. Martin, Isobel Jennings July 2021 Housing assessment for the Auckland region Mario A Fernandez Chad Hu With Jennifer L R Joynt Shane L Martin Isobel Jennings July 2021 Auckland Council National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 ISBN 978-1-99-100246-4 (Print) ISBN 978-1-99-100247-1 (PDF) This report has been peer reviewed by the Peer Review Panel. Review completed on 28 July 2021. Approved for Auckland Council publication by: Name: Megan Tyler Position: Chief of Strategy Name: Jacques Victor Position: Manager, Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research Department Name: Eva McLaren Position: Manager, Research and Evaluation Unit, RIMU Date: 30 July 2021 Recommended citation Fernandez, M. A., C. Hu, J. L. R. Joynt, S. L. Martin and I. Jennings (2021). Housing assessment for the Auckland region Endorsed by the Auckland Council Planning Committee, July 2021. Cover image credit: Apartment buildings, Stonefields, Mt Wellington, Auckland. Photograph by Jay Farnworth. © 2021 Auckland Council Auckland Council disclaims any liability whatsoever in connection with any action taken in reliance of this document for any error, deficiency, flaw, or omission contained in it. This document is licensed for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. In summary, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the material, as long as you attribute it to the Auckland Council and abide by the other licence terms. Acknowledgements Auckland Council Spatial Analysis and Modelling Team Mike Oberdries, Oberdries Consulting Ltd With special thanks to: Chloe Trenouth, Director, Hill Young Cooper Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2038 Watercare Services Limited 1 | P a G E
    Foreword by the chief executive Our work is vital for life, keeps people safe, and helps communities to flourish. Delivering 100% Aa-grade water Watercare delivers 100% Aa-grade water, day in, day out, to Auckland. Drinking water appears. Wastewater disappears. We are leading the water utility of a major city – Auckland – at a time when, globally, the use of the planet’s water resource is in question. While water is not as scarce for us here as it is in other countries, across New Zealand there is now a growing discussion about the use of water for industry and the quality of water in our rural and urban waterways. Water treatment in towns and cities is under scrutiny also, following a serious drinking water supply incident in Havelock North. This event was linked to four deaths and thousands of sick people and prompted an in-depth government inquiry into the delivery of water services nationally. So, questions are being asked about water use and the steps that need to be taken to make improvements for the sake of the environment, our economy and our community. Public consciousness of the value of water seems to be growing – and with it the material importance to our stakeholders of all that is within Watercare’s remit. Enabling growth Here in Auckland, where the population is well served with high-quality water services, the discussion about water is focused on the city’s rapidly-growing population. Water demand is forecast to outstrip current supply within 10 years, prompting planned additions to our existing water supplies.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Area Plan Hibiscus and Bays
    Draft Area Plan Hibiscus and Bays October / November 2012 Draft for public engagement: 23 October to 23 November 2012 1 DRAFT HIBISCUS AND BAYS AREA PLAN Table of contents Hibiscus and Bays vision 3 What are Area Plans? 4 The relationship between Area Plans and other plans 5 The role and purpose of the Area Plan 6 Community Engagement in the Draft Hibiscus and Bays Area Plan 7 Setting the strategic context: Auckland-wide 8 What does the Auckland Plan mean for the Hibiscus and Bays Area Plan? 9 Setting the local context: Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area 10 Future challenges and opportunities for Hibiscus and Bays Local area 11 Hibiscus and Bays outcomes and actions 13 Hibiscus and Bays key moves 14 Area Plan Framework Map 2042 16 Hibiscus and Bays Town Centres, Local Centres and Neighbourhood Centres 26 Coastal Villages 32 Natural, Heritage and Character Outcomes 34 Economic and Community Development Outcomes 42 Transport and Network Infrastructure Outcomes 50 Implementation and prioritisation plan 58 Key Priorities 59 10 year prioritisation schedule 62 Glossary 68 Disclaimer: Auckland Council is not liable for anyone or any entity acting in reliance of this area plan or for any error, defi ciency or omission in it. Front cover image: Long Bay Regional Park looking south towards urban Auckland. Inside cover: Ōrewa Town Centre from Red Beach. 2 Hibiscus and Bays vision The Draft Hibiscus and Bays Area Plan provides a vision for how the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area could change over the next 30 years. It outlines the steps to “Hibiscus and Bays - values achieve this vision and how the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area will contribute to Auckland becoming the our beaches and coastal world’s most liveable city.
    [Show full text]
  • Hatfields Beach 3 (Kauri Orewa Limited - ‘Chin Hill’ Precinct)
    BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of Topic 081b Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical areas) AND IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF NATHAN TE PAIRI ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL Hatfields Beach 1 (Seaforth Ltd) Hatfields Beach 2 (Objective Holdings Limited) Hatfields Beach 3 (Kauri Orewa Limited - ‘Chin Hill’ precinct) 29 February 2015 1. SUMMARY 1.1 I have reviewed the submitters' evidence with regards to the proposed precincts being Hatfields Beach New 1, Hatfields Beach NEW 2 and Hatfields Beach NEW 3. 1.2 Having regard to that evidence, I maintain my position as stated in my evidence-in- chief (EIC) and do not support the inclusion of the proposed precincts into the PAUP. 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 My name is Nathan Te Pairi. I have the qualifications and experience set out in my EIC dated 28 January 2016. 2.2 I confirm that this rebuttal statement of evidence has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. 3. SCOPE 3.1 This evidence should read alongside the rebuttal statements on behalf of the Council Stephen Brown - Landscape; Shona Myers - Ecology; Tim Segedin on behalf of Auckland Transport (AT) - Traffic Safety Andre Stuart of Watercare (WSL) – Infrastructure; and Carol Stewart: Parks and Recreation. 3.2 My EIC collectively responded to the submissions and commented on each of the proposed precincts where relevant.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Member Directory
    Commercial Member Directory Barfoot & Thompson Commercial 34 Shortland Street +64 9 3076300 [email protected] Auckland, 1140 www.barfoot.co.nz Title Name Email Phone # Commercial Referral Coordinator John Urlich [email protected] +64 21395396 Commercial Broker in Charge Peter Thompson [email protected] +64 9 3075523 Certifications Applies Service Tiers Applies ALC Commercial Division/Office BOMA Dedicated Commercial Agent(s) Build-to-suit Resi-Mercial Agent(s) CCIM CPM Lease negotiation SIOR Service Types Applies Network Affiliations Applies Hotel / Resort CBRE CORFAC Industrial CRESA Investment CW/DTZ Land / Agricultural JLL Knight Frank Landlord Rep NAI Leasing Newmark TCN Service Types Applies Logistics Medical Office Multi-Family Office Property Management Retail Tenant Rep City State / Province Country Ahuroa NZL Albany NZL Albany Heights NZL Alfriston NZL Algies Bay NZL Ararimu NZL Ardmore NZL Arkles Bay NZL Army Bay NZL Auckland NZL Avondale NZL Awhitu NZL Bay Of Islands NZL Bay View NZL Bay of Plenty NZL Bayswater NZL Bayview NZL Beach Haven NZL Beachlands NZL Belmont NZL Big Bay NZL Birkdale NZL Birkenhead NZL Birkenhead Point NZL Bland Bay NZL Blockhouse Bay NZL Bombay NZL Botany Downs NZL City State / Province Country Broadwood NZL Brookby NZL Browns Bay NZL Buckland NZL Bucklands Beach NZL Burswood NZL Cable Bay NZL Campbells Bay NZL Canterbury NZL Castor Bay NZL Central Otago NZL Chatswood NZL City Centre NZL Clarks Beach NZL Clendon Park NZL Clevedon NZL Clover Park NZL Coatesville NZL Cockle
    [Show full text]
  • Get Active Regional Parks Beautiful Beaches
    N A O H T A R W U R M I D IK S R O A I A I E I T O T R AA T R D O I Tomarata D I E N DG Takapuna Beach, North Auckland E T R D E E E S R R T Y N T E I I Y R T A D T T CURRYS L AWMHAANI H A E O A IR Wellsford I NG GRADW L M B BUSH A N N A W L 1 L M A B C D E F G A W C O E A S RES IN T I V S G A North Auckland A N N I T H P H O A O J R T R WO 1 Te Ao A MATHESON ROAD M 1 M O A Marama Pakiri Beach T T E L HAMA H Maori Holiday Park 1. OLYMPUS RD E WO S Cultural R O K W N D D E E R CORONATION I RO Centre A R N A V TIO D O OA TA R A S CAPE RODNEY- AR WH H R AW Te Hana A D NHGA A C NR OKAKARI POINT W GIPAOR O V T AL E LE O Y I MARINE RESERVE R O H RD O AR N R H A T R E EY D IS H O VALL N T U T A E Okakari A I T TY N S A B N M T E R Point U E N R Y IT A NIA O M Mus IAL O B A M PAKIRI V R P 1 O I R W E AL A R O T REGIONAL R GRANVILLE K O PARK RES WELLSFORD K 1 WAR MEM N O S B R Pakiri P R E R EN PARK O D L T D R Y 16 L C Te Hawere-a-Maki/ E H D E E E N AD V R L R E E Goat Island U A TA VAL R E Y WELLSFORD W A D 4 M U R L P C CENTENNIAL A E 2 A O I T Z K D T A L M A R E A D L PARK V E T H I A O O N E S E N F E Goat Island G AF T A D F T S D LA S I L A W D G V T A R Camping S I Y I E R PARK S L PAKIRI E L R I D E N IA Cape Rodney beautiful beaches R N WH O T E N WELLSFORD EY ANG AD E LL RD Waiteitei AR T CENTENNIAL A IP N V O E D PARK O P SPOILT FOR CHOICE C IP AK A I O R R V R A I G A Whangaripo M N L A Leigh L R R A T N Wellsford H E A D O W Y K T A ou’ll find glittering beaches lining the coast of North Auckland, all C D N I D A Panetiki Island R R R 0 250m 500m V the way from Cheltenham in the south to Pakiri in the north.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2010: Sampling Procedure and Technical Details
    T h e N Z A V S - 10: Sampling Procedure | 1 This document can be cited as: Greaves, L. M., Krynen, A. M., Rapson, A. B., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2010: Sampling procedure and technical details. Unpublished technical report, The University of Auckland. The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2010: Sampling Procedure and Technical Details Report prepared by Lara Greaves, Research Intern, and Ariana Krynen and Angela Rapson, 2011 Summer Scholarship recipients for the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (NZAVS), University of Auckland. All analyses conducted by Dr. Chris Sibley. Dr. Chris Sibley, Primary Investigator for the NZAVS, Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected] http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/chris-sibley/ New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study Website: http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/nzavs Note for researchers: A copy of the technical report detailing the scales and questionnaire items used in the NZAVS-10 is available from Dr. Chris Sibley upon request. T h e N Z A V S - 10: Sampling Procedure | 2 Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3 Sampling procedure ............................................................................................................................ 4 Demographics ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rodney-Ward-Map.Pdf
    Rodney Ward OAD A D Y R O E R KI L A S NG R O A R STATIO D O A OA N RO A E A PA P PAR 12 D G H R R PA S D A R U E A A A K O O V I A R R G U U R O E A A D 2 V D D S R D H O 1 O H O A R T N J H N O T C O 1 I U I R AD A R A F S R D IF A A O D D R 2 R D T D A G A A D W L L L R F D O O L O R A O S 1 O O B R 2 R A R BA SH R A D E R D M O L A A Y H OA D O D CK O A E N N D R R ON R M L Y U O B A W TA O E R N T A O TA O M O D O E A U R I L C R K A P P N D B SWAM R I I R B A D O R R R ± H O D O D H AI A A W O AKAP D A A A A P O IR R A D G D A W H A O N D U A D O A R AKA -M O R I W TE KO S A W K N R H H C A E O D IC I R F B EV AN B D L O F B A D D A E I A A O W AL A R T R A OA A G R D LY D C O T T R O D A H S N V EN C S R A M E R E A O O C E Y E P E M L E R S S E P Eyres Point N N K D E L S L H L E ROA T I C A T R D U R A LL I Y D E T I OA A M E R B O E O A R D L K O S T R M H O D R A A C E A O D I H R R H D A D U ALL RO R B A Te Arai Point A N R T C R E D S S D L K E O O M A E U R R M Y Y P TIO R O E O A OA A E Spectacle Lake T E O D D D N A R RO I N A T B N R SH O D E O U RY D P A T 1 R D S A P O A AOA RO A N YA R B I I I N A O L R R P ROA Te Arai D AT R O D I KIN S A H D K RO D G I C A L OA O D R E Extent of L A D L I B P W R I S S A O IR A R K Main View D A D O D R A P P O A A OLLARD AD K D RO O D WI C A D R O T T A I R R L R H R A O D A R P E D D H C D U A D A U R A REK S Y A A I O O A AD O A O K P O OO O Tomarata I T B R R R P L R O I O R L I T R L A R A I R I O REGIONAL OVERVIEW G H H R D A N W R D A E A E O N U V L R I R O S I O D E A IT
    [Show full text]
  • Average Deprivation Scores for Census Area Units
    Average Deprivation Scores for Census Area Units For administrative purposes, Statistics New Zealand The first table lists the CAUs, as well as the codes for divides the country into about 1900 Census Area Units the District Health Board (DHB) and Territorial Authority (CAUs) of unequal population size. Each is made up (TA) to which each belongs, and for each provides the of many meshblocks. At the time of the 2006 Census CAU deprivation decile and the population-weighted there were 1927 CAUs and 41,376 meshblocks. The average deprivation value. As with the NZDep2006 small NZDep2006 index of deprivation was created from area deciles, the value 1 indicates a CAU in the 10 per 23,786 NZDep2006 small areas that were, in general, cent least deprived CAUs in New Zealand, and the value either one meshblock, or two nearby meshblocks. 10 indicates that the CAU is in the 10 per cent most deprived CAUs. CAU averages and deciles are missing For many purposes it is useful to have an idea of the – indicated by a period – for CAUs where the usually deprivation characteristic of CAUs, which are often linked resident population was insufficient to calculate any to natural neighbourhoods, such as suburbs. Users component NZDep scores. should be aware though that there may be considerable variation in deprivation among the small areas that make An alphabetical index of the CAU names is provided after up the CAUs. This variation will be hidden when using an this table for cross-reference. average deprivation statistic for the CAU. Each CAU is part of one of the 21 DHBs.
    [Show full text]
  • General SA2 Level 2018 Census Results (Charles Crothers, AUT)
    General SA2 Level 2018 Census results (Charles Crothers, AUT) Pop 2013_2018 15_29_years_201 30_64_years_201 65_years_and_ov occupied pvt dwel unoccupied pvt SA2namet TA name Pop_Total_2018 percentChange 8 % 8 % er_2018 % 2018 dwel 2018 North Cape Far North District 1602.00 16.80 14.23 44.94 21.16 633 219 Rangaunu Far North District 2310.00 13.90 16.88 42.47 15.84 777 174 Harbour Inlets Far North Far North District 45.00 -28.60 6.67 60.00 33.33 75 3 District Karikari Peninsula Far North District 1251.00 7.50 9.83 46.28 25.90 483 657 Tangonge Far North District 1134.00 .30 15.34 45.77 16.40 393 66 Ahipara Far North District 1230.00 19.20 16.59 45.85 15.85 396 153 Kaitaia East Far North District 2388.00 20.40 20.85 38.57 13.44 768 87 Kaitaia West Far North District 3483.00 19.90 19.55 36.61 16.88 1119 105 Rangitihi Far North District 936.00 14.30 17.95 44.55 16.67 333 33 Oruru-Parapara Far North District 846.00 23.10 14.89 49.65 15.96 288 90 Taumarumaru Far North District 2193.00 21.00 11.08 40.90 31.60 882 516 Herekino-Takahue Far North District 963.00 3.90 14.64 44.86 17.13 330 105 Peria Far North District 1107.00 16.40 14.36 48.78 15.99 426 90 Taemaro-Oruaiti Far North District 867.00 30.20 13.49 49.13 19.38 282 243 Whakapaku Far North District 744.00 5.10 10.89 45.97 22.18 276 234 Hokianga North Far North District 795.00 6.90 15.09 39.25 20.00 297 114 Kohukohu- Far North District 726.00 16.30 11.57 46.28 23.14 285 81 Broadwood Whakarara Far North District 1344.00 31.00 15.40 43.75 20.31 480 231 Kaeo Far North District 1191.00 18.50 16.12
    [Show full text]
  • Rodney District Plan Chapter 4
    4 OVERVIEW Contents 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Profile of the Rodney District 4.2.1 Location 4.2.2 The People 4.2.3 Function of Places 4.3 Rodney District in the Regional Context 4.3.1 Rodney District 4.3.2 Local Government Amendment Act 4.4 The District Development Strategy 4.5 The Direction for this Plan 4.5.1 Introduction 4.5.2 Rural 4.5.3 Residential 4.5.4 Business 4.5.5 Future Development 4.5.6 Open Space ........................................................... Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 Overview : Chapter 4 ........................................................... Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 Overview : Chapter 4 4 OVERVIEW 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a profile of the Rodney District as it currently is (November 2000), and an overview of the direction sought to be achieved in this District Plan. The direction sought stems from a variety of policy documents including the Auckland Regional Policy Statement, the Council's own District Development Strategy, the subsequent infrastructural strategies developed by the Council (the Roading Strategy for example) along with the Council's Long Term Financial Strategy. The direction has also been influenced by the Council's Adopted Structure Plans, although not all of the elements in the adopted structure plans are included in this District Plan because some preconditions for rezoning, or intensification will not be met within the life of this Plan, and/or rational sequencing of growth areas mean intensive zonings are inappropriate at present. The relationship between the various documents referred to is set out graphically in Appendix 1A in Chapter 1 - Introduction.
    [Show full text]