Section 2 : Background to the District
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
13 Introduction SECTION 2 : BACKGROUND TO THE DISTRICT 2.1 Description of the District 2.2 Brief History of the District 2.3 Administrative History 2.4 Population Characteristics 2.5 Anticipated Population and Dwelling Growth 2.6 Community Development 2.6.1 General 2.6.2 Civic and Community Facilities 2.6.3 Community Groups 2.6.4 Child Care Facilities 2.6.5 Youth Facilities 2.6.6 The Elderly 2.6.7 Cultural and Minority Groups 2.6.8 The Disabled 2.6.9 Objectives and Policies 114 Introduction 15 Background SECTION 2 : BACKGROUND TO THE DISTRICT 2. 1 Description of the District The East Coast Bays Planning District is the most northerly urban district of the Auckland metropolitan area. It consists of a north-south coastalstrip some 1.6 - 3.2 kilometres wide and about 8 kilometres in length with a total area of approximately 1555 hectares. The western boundary follows the crest of a broad ridge, along East Coast Road, between60 metres and 105 metres above sea level. The eastern boundaryfollows the coast of the Hauraki Gulf and the District is generally bounded in the northby Glenvar Road.The southern boundary is the southern boundary of Centennial Park. From the main western ridge some 12 major and minor spur ridges run easterly towards the coast where the seven major spurs terminate in 20 to 30 metres cliffs separated by six small sandybeaches. In this area of ridges, spurs andvalleys, the largest area of flatland is at Browns Bay. It is there that for natural and historic reasons the main centre of the District has been established. 2.2 Brief Histor of the District The land within the District was formerly partof the Mahurangi Block which extendedfrom North Head up to Taere. Through a series of conquests and marriages the land was claimed by several Maori tribes; the Ngati Whatua, Ngati Paoa,Te Kawerau and Tainui. It provided the Maori with an important area for fishing and shellfish collection. The European settlement of the district followedon from the settlementof Auckland. Temporary camps for gum diggers were a feature of the early days, but most of the permanent settlers were farmers who established their farms on the flat lands of the bays. Only one of these bays, Murrays Bay, retains the name of the original farming settler. The initial urban development comprises seaside cottages near the beaches and along a winding coastal road (Beach Road) which linked the beaches to the settlements to the south at Milford and Takapuna. Development later spread inland up the spurs along some seven roads linking Beach Road with East Coast Road which follows the summit of the main ridge. With the opening of the harbour bridge in 1959, the District experienced a rapid growth of population. In 1954 the population was 7,000 but by 1966 it had increased to over 12,000 and by March 1986 risen to over 31,000. Slightly more than 50 percent of the working population travel to and from places outside the North Shore to work. 2.3 Administrative Histor East Coast Bays became a part of the former County of Waitemata on the formation of that county in 1875. It remained as part of the county until 1954 by which time it was apparent that the interests of a fast growing district could no longer be adequately served by a single riding representative on a council responsible for administering an area of over 600 square miles. On 1 April 1954 the district becamea borough responsible for its own affairs and city status was granted twenty years later. In October 1990 the City of East Coast Bays was abolished and incorporated into the North Shore City Council. 2.4 Population Characteristics The population growth of the District over the last ten years is demonstrated in the following table: Background16 TABLE 1 : POPULATION GROWTH 1976 - 1986 Suburb Total Population Increase or Decrease Census Number Percent 1976 1981 1986 1976 1981 1976 1981 - 81 -86 -81 -86 Torbay 5389 7509 8340 2120 831 39.3 11.0 Waiake 2882 3093 3255 211 162 7.3 5.2 Browns Bay 3180 5496 2316 1176 72.8 21.4 Rothesay Bay 2746 2919 6723021 173 102 6.3 3.5 Murrays Bay 2906 3057 3201 151 144 5.2 4.7 Mairangi Bay 4288 4590 4509 302 -81 7.0 1.7 Campbells Bay 2099 2109 1887 10 -222 0.5 10.5 TOTAL 23490 28767 30888 5277 2121 22.5 7.4 (Department of Statistics : Census 1986) TABLE 2: OCCUPIED DWELLINGS : 197686 Suburb Total Dwellings Increase or Decrease Census Number Percent 1976 1981 1986 1976 1981 1976 1981 - 81 -86 -81 -86 Torbay 1666 2426 2781 760 355 45.6 14.6 Waiake 860 979 1112 119 133 13.8 13.6 Browns Bay 990 1849 2267 859 418 86.8 22.6 Rothesay Bay 912 1008 1095 96 87 10.5 8.6 Murrays Bay 919 1027 1130 108 103 11.8 10.0 Mairangi Bay 1252 1412 1546 134 12.8 9.5 Campbells Bay 542 593 635 1651 42 9.4 7.1 TOTAL 7141 9294 10566 2153 1272 30.1 13.7 (Department of Statistics: Census 1986) From this table the number of persons per household unit is now 2.96, a decline from 3.1 in the 1981 census. For the ten year period 1971 to 1981 the average was 3.2 per household. It is anticipated that the occupancy rate, in line with national trends could decline still further. This trend Is reflected in the population projections shown in Table 3. 17 Background TABLE 3:PROJEC TED TOTAL POPULATION OF DISTRICT Projection 1981 Base Projected Total Population at 31 March 1986 1990 1996 2001 2006 High 28300 37000 38700 40500 42100 43600 Medium 28300 35400 36200 37100 37800 38300 Low 28300 33800 33800 33700 33500 331 00 (Demographic Trends Bulletin 1986:Department of Statistics) It should be noted that the population at the time of the 1986 census was less than the low projection for 1986. TABLE 4: AGE STRUCTURE OF DISTRICT 1976 - 1986 Age Group in Census Years 1976 % 1981 % 1986 % 0-4 2158 9.2 2133 7.4 1962 6.3 5-14 4919 20.1 5709 19.8 5298 17.1 15-19 1939 8.2 2529 8.8 3024' 9.8 20-29 3338 14.2 3n1 13.1 3912 12.7 30-39 3662 15.6 4896 17.0 5034 16.3 40-49 4655 19.8 3288 11.4 4386 14.2 50-59 2736 9.5 2835 9.2 60 and over 2819 12.0 371 1 12.9 4446 14.4 TOTAL 23490 100 28767 100 30888 100 (Department of Statistics : Census 1986) The age and sex structure of the present population does not depart significantly from the national average and is not expected to change sufficiently in this planning period to require a change in emphasis to the planning policies enunciated in the following sections. 18 Background TABLE 5: ETHNIC STRUCTURE OF DISTRICT 197�1986 Census Category 1976 % 1981 % 1986 % European 22,430 95.5 27,543 96.2 29.298 94.8 NZ Maori 229 0.9 378 1.3 432 1.4 Pac Is. Polynes. 66 0.3 117 0.4 81 0.3 Europ./NZ Maori N/A* N/A N/A* N/A 396 1.3 Europ./Pac. Is Polynes. N/A* N/A N/A* N/A 99 0.3 Chinese 46 0.2 78 0.3 N/A* N/A Indian 17 0.07 48 0.2 N/A* N/A Other 702 3.0 102 0.4 387 1.2 Not Specified N/A N/A 360 1.2 204 0.7 TOTAL 23,490 100 28,626 100 30,897 100 (Department of Statistics : Census 1986) * The Census did not separately identify this ethnic group. The population is predominantly European comprising 95 percent of the total population. The percentage of New Zealand born has increased butthe percentage of those born overseas is still high amounting to 28 percent of the population. This is a reduction from the 31.5 percent at the 1976 census. Two thirds of those born overseas came from Britain or Ireland. The percentage increase from this group and also from Continental Europe was very small and reflects the drop in immigration from those sources. The 12,633strong workforce (1986 census) is predominantly white-collar and the place of work is largely outside the city boundary. A 1985 survey established that less than 18% work in the District, less than half on the North Shore with the rest travelling to central Auckland and beyond. The caris the favoured means of transport to work. Public transport presently carries only slightly more people than are carried as passengers in cars. 2.5 Anticipated Population and Dwelling Growh Population growthwithin the District is expected to follow a path close to the low projection until 1991 and thereafter it could be closer to the medium projection up until 2006. That is approximately 39,000 people by 2006. East Coast Bays is predominantlya dormitory suburb on the NorthShore but the quality of life and, by association, density of development is considered to be important in determining the future form of the District. 2.6 Community Development 2.6. 1 General The Council has over a long period of time been concerned about and involved in social and community matters in the District. The 19TT revision of the Town & Country Planning Act makes it mandatory for local authorities to accept responsibility for social planning: 19 Background "Provision for social, economic, spiritual and recreational opportunities and for amenities appropriate to the needs of the present and future inhabitants of the District, including the interests of children and minority groups· (Second Schedule) Consequently objectives and policies for community development are included at this Review and they set out the Council's · role In providing for and facilitating social and cultural development.