DOCSLIB.ORG

Comments Received from Auckland Council

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comments Received from Auckland Council consent under Regulation 45(4) of the NES-F. However, Council’s specialist also notes that the current application documents do not clarify this level of detail, nor the corresponding level of effects. Furthermore, there is currently insufficient information to determine whether consent is required under Regulation 45(3) of the NES-F, and if triggered, what scale of effects are potentially / likely to occur. Similarly Healthy Waters has raised concerns with how lineal rail corridors act to constrain and divert the natural flows of stormwater and in many instances act as significant barriers to upstream flood flows. Healthy Waters notes that the applicant indicates that there will be no increase in flood or storm water effects outside of the rail corridor. However Healthy Waters state they are unable to confirm this as they consider no information has been provided that would support this comment. Stream and wetland classification Councils’ specialist acknowledged that this application excludes stream work activities and that such detail will be included in a second application package of future works. But noted that the absence of agreement between Kiwirail and Auckland Council around the classifications and extent of streams and wetlands within 100m of the P2P alignment is a risk to the project due to the potential for unintentional adverse effects on streams and wetlands (including natural wetlands) from the temporary earthwork activities, Ecology - Vegetation clearance within riparian areas of streams and wetlands (including comments from Parks) Councils Ecologist has raised concern with the Ecological assessment including: - Incomplete list of fauna records as this may give the reader the impression that the nearest record is 3km away, when this is quite untrue, and the animals are much closer and in habitat typical of that being removed through this consent application [i.e., skinks] - The survey for lizards did “not constitute a comprehensive survey using a range of methods. - The ecology report does not provide an accurate map of all habitats along the route, as such there is no way of knowing what they have assessed and whether or not other trees may be potential roost sites (noting bats roost in trees with stem diameter of more than >15cm). Auckland Council Parks notes that it is not clear what the extent of the replanting programme (required for mitigation purposes) is on open space and whether Parks/Community Facilities would then become responsible for its maintenance. Creation of new impervious areas / Stormwater (including comments from Healthy Waters) Councils Development Engineer (DE) considers that the new impervious area (Construction of two temporary access tracks outside of the rail corridor located within SMAF 1) is considered minor scale. No stormwater controls are considered necessary given the temporary nature of discharge. Healthy Waters notes that the application states there will not be an increase in impervious surfaces within the rail corridor, however the application includes several new station platforms which Healthy Waters would consider to be additional impervious surfaces that have not been considered. Healthy Waters notes that to date the applicant has not engaged with Auckland Council seeking for their Stormwater discharges to be authorised under Councils Regionwide network discharge consent (NDC). Cultural and Built Heritage Council’s Cultural Heritage specialist has advised there are four (4) unscheduled historic heritage sites that the proposed works have the potential to affect that are not covered by granted Authority 2021/307. Therefore, additional management processes need to be considered as the applicant has demonstrated that there is reasonable cause to suspect the presence of these historic heritage sites. Councils Built Heritage specialist has raised concern with: Relocation of the Pukekohe Railway Station; the lack of consideration of built heritage; and management of heritage effects during construction. Development engineering (including comments from Watercare and Auckland Transport) The Councils Development Engineer states that overall, from a development engineering perspective the proposal will have minor effects to the receiving environment in regard to the infringements as per the AUP rules. Watercare is, in principle, supportive of the application but seeks to ensure that their existing and planned assets are protected in accordance with the Resource Management Act and the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020. Auckland Transport (AT) generally agree with the findings of the application material and on that basis have no significant concerns with the Project. The Project is considered to help to achieve the purpose of the Act, by providing infrastructure in order to improve economic, employment, and environmental outcomes, and increase productivity. AT consider that there should be no transport reason why consent should not be granted. National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil Papakura to Pukekōhe rail electrification Page 4 of 7 to Protect Human Health (NES-CS) Councils’ specialist agrees with the reasons for consents under the NES:CS as outlined in the application documents and consider that the DSI and CSMP lodged with the application have been prepared by a SQEP in general accordance with the Contaminated Land Management Guidelines and adequately details the likely soil contamination profile of the works area. Councils’ specialist notes that the DSI lodged with the application confirms the presence of the identified HAIL sites adjacent to the rail corridor have not caused significant soil contamination within the rail corridor. The soils are generally suitable for reuse within the rail corridor or would likely require disposal to managed fill if offsite disposal is required. Noise and Vibration Council specialist generally supports the assessment, methodology and conclusions in the report titled Papakura to Pukekohe (P2P) Electrification Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment (Rp 002 20200795) dated 12 February 2021 prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics. Planning A Council planning officer reviewed the draft assessment of environmental effects (AEE) for this proposal, the draft AEE had the same reasons for consent as the final AEE that was lodged. In Councils feedback to Kiwirial regarding the draft AEE Council’s planning officer advised that in general Jacobs had provided, in accordance with schedule 4 of the RMA, an AEE in such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the activity may have on the environment. Council planning officer also stated that having considered the draft AEE and proposal descriptions; and based on experience with similar applications relating to works within the rail corridor and electrification projects. They considered that the applicant had reasonably identified the relevant permitted activities and reasons for consent that are likely to apply to the proposal and the relevant effects to consider an application of this nature. It was also agreed that the applicant had identified the relevant existing environment to assess the application within. However, for any specialist matters, Councils planning officer defers to Council specialist who have had the opportunity to review the final AEE and all supporting technical documentation that was lodged with the EPA. Summary Both Council specialist and Healthy Waters have raised concerns with potential damming, diversion and discharge of water and the lack of information to draw a conclusion on such matters. Council specialist has noted that there is a risk to the P2P project due to the potential for unintentional adverse effects on streams and wetlands (including natural wetlands) from the temporary earthwork activities if there is no agreement between Kiwirail and Auckland Council around the classifications and extent of streams and wetlands. Council Ecologist has raised concerns with the application’s ecological assessment. Auckland Council Parks notes that it is not clear what the extent of the replanting programme (required for mitigation purposes) is on open space and whether Parks/Community Facilities would then become responsible for its maintenance. Healthy Waters notes that new station platforms are additional impervious surfaces that have not been taken into consideration. Healthy Waters notes that to date the applicant has not engaged with Auckland Council seeking for their Stormwater discharges to be authorised under Councils Regionwide network discharge consent (NDC). Council’s Cultural Heritage specialist has recommended consideration of additional management processes as there is reasonable cause to suspect the presence of 4 unscheduled historic heritage sites. Councils Built Heritage specialist has raised concern with: Relocation of the Pukekohe Railway Station; the lack of consideration of built heritage; and management of heritage effects during construction. Watercare has advised that, in principle, they are supportive of the application but seeks to ensure that their existing and planned assets are protected. Auckland Transport (AT) generally agree with the findings of the application material and on that basis have no significant concerns with the Project. Specialist raised no concerns raised with NES-CS or Noise and Vibration matters. From a Planning perspective, the applicant has provided: an AEE in such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attachment 5 Local Board Resolutions
    Attachment 5 Local Board Resolutions Contents Albert Eden ............................................................................................................................. 2 Devonport-Takapuna .............................................................................................................. 5 Franklin ................................................................................................................................... 7 Great Barrier ......................................................................................................................... 13 Henderson-Massey ............................................................................................................... 17 Hibiscus and Bays ................................................................................................................ 21 Howick .................................................................................................................................. 28 Kaipatiki ................................................................................................................................ 31 Mangere-Otahuhu ................................................................................................................. 38 Manurewa ............................................................................................................................. 42 Maungakiekie-Tamaki ........................................................................................................... 49 Orakei ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Auckland Progress Results
    Progress Result Issue: Mayor (1) Date: 09/10/2010 Auckland Council Time: 12:23:00 Candidate Affiliation Candidate No Votes Received Rank AUSTIN, Aileen Independent 101 1552 BANKS, John Independent 102 161167 BARR, Marlene Independent 103 692 BRIGHT, Penny 104 2529 BROWN, Len Independent 105 2213651 CHAPMAN, Hugh Independent 106 1878 CRAIG, Colin Independent 107 40483 DAVE, Nga Independent 108 840 FONG, Harry Independent 109 1434 GILLIES, Shannon 110 467 KAHUI, Vinnie 111 1120 MCCULLOCH, Alan Independent 112 1520 MCDONALD, Steve Independent 113 643 NEESON, Vanessa Independent 115 2885 O'CONNOR, Phil Christians Against Abortion 116 1209 PRAST, Simon Independent 117 3578 PRESLAND, Raymond 118 278 ROSS, Mark Independent 119 3076 VERMUNT, Annalucia Communist League 120 427 WILLIAMS, Andrew Independent Progressive Leadership 121 3813 WILLMOTT, David Roads First 122 519 YOUNG, Wayne 123 553 INFORMAL 124 1261 BLANK 125 3752 Progress Result Issue: Rodney Ward (1) Date: 09/10/2010 Auckland Council Time: 12:23:00 Candidate Affiliation Candidate No Votes Received Rank ASHTON, Tom Independent 201 3941 PEREIRA, Vincent Independent 202 444 ROSE, Christine 203 5553 WEBSTER, Penny Independent 204 8063 1 INFORMAL 205 21 BLANK 206 701 Progress Result Issue: Albany Ward (2) Date: 09/10/2010 Auckland Council Time: 12:23:00 Candidate Affiliation Candidate No Votes Received Rank BALOUCH, Uzra Independent 221 736 BELL, Rodney Independent 222 3151 BRADLEY, Ian Independent 223 5273 CONDER, Laurie Independent 224 1419 COOPER, David Independent 225 2821 COOPER,
    [Show full text]
  • Ward and Local Board Boundary Maps and Relevant Population
    Current ward population. This is based on population statistics provided through the Local Government Commission for the purpose of reviewing our boundaries. The statistics are a 2017 estimate based on the 2013 census. The council has proposed changes to the Local Government Commission to reduce the non- compliance in the Waitematā and Gulf ward Per cent Population Difference difference per from from Ward Population Members member quota quota Rodney Ward 64,300 1 64,300 -18,560 -22.40 Albany Ward 169,800 2 84,900 2,040 2.46 North Shore Ward 156,800 2 78,400 -4,460 -5.38 Waitākere Ward 176,500 2 88,250 5,390 6.50 Waitematā and Gulf Ward 119,100 1 119,100 36,240 43.74 Whau Ward 84,700 1 84,700 1,840 2.22 Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward 172,200 2 86,100 3,240 3.91 Ōrākei Ward 91,500 1 91,500 8,640 10.43 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Ward 79,700 1 79,700 -3,160 -3.81 Howick Ward 150,200 2 75,100 -7,760 -9.37 Manukau Ward 168,900 2 84,450 1,590 1.92 Manurewa-Papakura Ward 148,900 2 74,450 -8,410 -10.15 Franklin Ward 74,600 1 74,600 -8,260 -9.97 Total 1,657,200 20 82,860 Current local board population Statistics supplied through the Local Government Commission. Population Board Population Members per member Rodney 64,300 9 7,144 Hibiscus and Bays 104,500 8 13,063 Upper Harbour 65,300 6 10,883 Kaipātiki 94,000 8 11,750 Devonport-Takapuna 62,800 6 10,467 Henderson-Massey 122,300 8 15,288 Waitākere Ranges 54,200 6 9,033 Great Barrier 1,000 5 200 Waiheke 9,630 5 1,926 Waitematā 108,500 7 15,500 Whau 84,700 7 12,100 Albert-Eden 109,200 8 13,650 Puketāpapa 63,000 6 10,500 Ōrākei 91,500 7 13,071 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 79,700 7 11,386 Howick 150,200 9 16,689 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 81,100 7 11,586 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 87,800 7 12,543 Manurewa 94,500 8 11,813 Papakura 54,500 6 9,083 Franklin 74,600 9 8,289 Total 1,657,330 Local board subdivisions The following table shows those boards with subdivisions, and their current population.
    [Show full text]
  • Auckland Council ALUPIS Mario
    ID Council Issue Last Name First Names Affiliation 3764 AC Mayor - Auckland Council ALUPIS Mario <none> 1537 AC Mayor - Auckland Council AUSTIN Aileen Independent 6141 AC Mayor - Auckland Council BRIGHT Penny Independent 6156 AC Mayor - Auckland Council BROWN Patrick Communist League 1385 AC Mayor - Auckland Council CHEEL Tricia STOP 211 AC Mayor - Auckland Council CRONE Vic Independent 2597 AC Mayor - Auckland Council GOFF Phil Independent 420 AC Mayor - Auckland Council HAY David Independent 6131 AC Mayor - Auckland Council HENETI Alezix <none> 663 AC Mayor - Auckland Council HOLLAND Adam John Auckland Legalise Cannabis 1416 AC Mayor - Auckland Council MARTIN Stan Independent 6181 AC Mayor - Auckland Council NGUYEN Binh Thanh Independent 703 AC Mayor - Auckland Council O'CONNOR Phil Christians Against Abortion 1622 AC Mayor - Auckland Council PALINO John Independent 398 AC Mayor - Auckland Council SWARBRICK Chloe Independent 1370 AC Mayor - Auckland Council THOMAS Mark Independent 1239 AC Mayor - Auckland Council YOUNG Wayne <none> 1618 AC Albany Ward BENSCH John Independent 6130 AC Albany Ward HENETI Alezix <none> 6214 AC Albany Ward LOWE Graham Auckland Future 1389 AC Albany Ward WALKER Wayne Putting People First 688 AC Albany Ward WATSON John Putting People First 6213 AC Albany Ward WHYTE Lisa Auckland Future 1629 AC Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward CASEY Cathy City Vision 432 AC Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward FLETCHER Christine C&R - Communities & Residents 1433 AC Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward HARRIS Rob Auckland Future 2579 AC Albert-Eden-Roskill
    [Show full text]
  • Local Board Information and Agreements Draft Long-Term Plan 2012-2022
    DRAFT LONG-TERM PLAN 2012-2022_ VOLUME FOUR LOCAL BOARD INFORMATION AND AGREEMENTS DRAFT LONG-TERM PLAN 2012-2022_ VOLUME FOUR LOCAL BOARD INFORMATION AND AGREEMENTS About this volume About this volume This is Volume Four of the four volumes that make up the draft LTP. It is set out in two parts, one which provides background on the role of local boards, their decision-making responsibilities and some general information about local board plans and physical boundaries. The second part contains the individual local board agreements for all 21 local boards, which contain detailed information about local activities, services, projects and programmes and the corresponding budgets for the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013. Here we have also included additional information like ten-year budgets for each board and a capital projects list. What this volume covers: the status of draft local board agreements how to have your say during the public consultation period an overview of the local boards local board activities information on the development of local board plans and agreements local board financial information including a consolidated statement of expenditure on local activities about each local board, with an overview of the local board including their strategic priorities and a message from the chairperson draft local board agreements for each local board covering scope of activities levels of service and performance measures local activities including key initiatives and projects expenditure and funding notes to the local board agreements contact details, how to contact your local board, including individual contact details for each local board member an appendix to each Local Board information section which includes their expenditure statements and capital projects for the ten-year period 2012 to 2022.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of Papakura Local Board
    Papakura Local Board OPEN MINUTES Minutes of a meeting of the Papakura Local Board held in the Local Board Chambers, Papakura Service Centre, 35 Coles Crescent, Papakura and via video conference (Skype for Business) on Wednesday, 26 May 2021 at 4.30pm. PRESENT Chairperson Brent Catchpole Deputy Chairperson Jan Robinson Members Felicity Auva'a George Hawkins Keven Mealamu Sue Smurthwaite APOLOGIES FROM WARD COUNCILLORS Councillor Daniel Newman, JP ALSO PRESENT Councillor Angela Dalton Via Skype for Business Papakura Local Board 26 May 2021 1 Welcome Member Felicity Auva’a led the meeting in prayer. 2 Apologies Resolution number PPK/2021/69 MOVED by Member F Auva'a, seconded by Deputy Chairperson J Robinson: That the Papakura Local Board: a) accept the apology from Councillor Daniel Newman for absence. CARRIED 3 Declaration of Interest There were no declarations of interest. 4 Confirmation of Minutes Resolution number PPK/2021/70 MOVED by Member G Hawkins, seconded by Member S Smurthwaite: That the Papakura Local Board: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 5 May 2021, as true and correct. CARRIED 5 Leave of Absence There were no requests for leave of absence. 6 Acknowledgements There were no acknowledgements. 7 Petitions There were no petitions. Minutes Page 3 Papakura Local Board 26 May 2021 8 Deputations 8.1 Deputation - Life Education Trust Resolution number PPK/2021/71 MOVED by Member K Mealamu, seconded by Member F Auva'a: That the Papakura Local Board: a) thank Lincoln Jefferson, CEO of the Life Education Trust, for his presentation about the activities of the Life Education Trust.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Local Elections Preliminary Results – Mayor, Local Board
    Result: LGE 2019 - Preliminary Result Type: Preliminary Candidates sorted by: Votes Generated on: Sunday 13 October 2019 Elections: Auckland Council Election: 01 - Auckland Council Issue: Mayor - Auckland Council Number of vacancies: 1 Candidate Voting ID Candidate Name Affiliation Votes Received Rank 105 GOFF, Phil Independent 176599 1 118 TAMIHERE, John JT for Mayor.co.nz 79551 111 LORD, Craig Independent 29032 108 HONG, John Independent 15965 109 JOHNSTON, Ted 15401 119 VAUGHAN, Peter 6127 102 COOTE, Michael Independent 5530 101 CHEEL, Tricia STOP Trashing Our Planet 4013 114 O'CONNOR, Phil Christians Against Abortion 3917 110 KRUGER, Susanna Justice for Families 2840 104 FORDE, Genevieve 2824 115 SAINSBURY, Tom Independent 2804 116 SNELGAR, Glen Old Skool 2576 117 STOPFORD, Tadhg Tim The Hemp Foundation 2380 107 HENRY, Jannaha 2356 103 FEIST, David John LiftNZ 2259 112 MADDERN, Brendan Bruce Independent 1430 121 YOUNG, Wayne Virtual Homeless Community 1388 120 VERMUNT, Annalucia Communist League 1030 113 NGUYEN, Thanh Binh Independent 941 106 HENETI, Alezix 507 122 Informal 1558 123 Blank 6982 Election: 01 - Auckland Council Issue: Albany Ward Number of vacancies: 2 Candidate Voting ID Candidate Name Affiliation Votes Received Rank 224 WATSON, John Putting People First 28073 1 223 WALKER, Wayne Putting People First 24371 2 222 PARFITT, Julia Independent 19884 221 HENETI, Alezix 3167 225 Informal 23 226 Blank 2989 Election: 01 - Auckland Council Issue: Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa Ward Number of vacancies: 2 Candidate Voting ID Candidate
    [Show full text]
  • Written Submissions Written Submissions
    ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENTWRITTEN 3 - WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMISSIONS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS Individuals Submissions Contents Page Sub# Individual Page 4 Dr Adriana Gunder QSM JP 2 6 Dr Grant Gillon 2-3 7 Kevin Fox 3-4 3 Nick Muir 4 6 Owen Thompson 4-5 *Submission number relates to the order the submission was received and used here for cross reference purposes. 1 Sub# Individual Submission 4 Dr Adriana Gunder QSM JP I agree with option 4 but I would like no signs at all on private land on specific public places as per the list you propose. 1. My comments are that because they are on private land there is no uniformity and it look very messy, plus the sign of one party (council election or political election) can upset neighbors and they might be cause for vandals to came into a private property to damage the sign. We can see damage of the signs into public land and it is no different if they are on private property. 2. In some European countries when there is an election (council or general) the council provide some large board in very public places and a part of the board is given to every political parties and they can put on it what they want, but no in other places. 6 Dr Grant Gillon 1. I question the right of Auckland Transport to promulgate such a bylaw. I don‟t question the right of Auckland Transport to promulgate bylaws within its jurisdiction but argue that Election matters are not matters for Auckland Transport.
    [Show full text]
  • Numbers of Children in Aotearoa / New Zealand by District Or Local Board Area
    Numbers of children in Aotearoa / New Zealand by district or local board area. Populations of Territorial Authority areas and Auckland unitary areas in 2015 – children aged under 15, and young people aged 15-19. Area total % under 15 Area 0-14 Years 15-19 Years population Total, New Zealand 4595700 914300 316800 19.9% Far North district 61300 13500 4110 22.0% Whangarei district 85900 18600 5610 21.7% Kaipara district 21100 4100 1320 19.4% Auckland 1569900 316000 110270 20.1% Rodney local board area 60000 12100 4040 20.2% Hibiscus and Bays local board area 98700 18100 7190 18.3% Upper Harbour local board area 60300 11300 4480 18.7% Kaipatiki local board area 89900 17200 5400 19.1% Devonport-Takapuna local board area 60100 10600 4310 17.6% Henderson-Massey local board area 117300 26500 8320 22.6% Waitakere Ranges local board area 52200 11600 3510 22.2% Great Barrier local board area 980 170 15 17.3% Waiheke local board area 8980 1560 410 17.4% Waitemata local board area 94500 8900 5420 9.4% Whau local board area 80800 15800 5370 19.6% Albert-Eden local board area 104300 18000 7610 17.3% Puketapapa local board area 59900 10900 4120 18.2% Orakei local board area 86400 16000 5470 18.5% Maungakiekie-Tamaki local board area 76500 16500 4530 21.6% Howick local board area 142700 27000 10460 18.9% Mangere-Otahuhu local board area 78900 21600 6850 27.4% Otara-Papatoetoe local board area 84500 20900 7010 24.7% Manurewa local board area 90400 23900 7020 26.4% Papakura local board area 51100 12400 3670 24.3% Franklin local board area 71100 15200 5050
    [Show full text]
  • Nominations Media Report - 21/08/2013 3:10 P.M
    8/21/13 Noms2013MediaReport21151046.html Nominations Media Report - 21/08/2013 3:10 p.m. Address TA Issue Surname First Names Affiliation Phone Email Other Affordable AC Mayor - Auckland Council BERRY Stephen Auckland 021 165 3464 [email protected] 86A School Road Kingsland Auckland 1021 AC Mayor - Auckland Council BRIGHT Penny Independent 09 846 9825 [email protected] 8 Tiffany Close Totara Park Manukau Auckland 2016 AC Mayor - Auckland Council BROWN Len Independent [email protected] AC Mayor - Auckland Council BUTLER Jesse 021 128 3978 [email protected] 15 Woodlands Crescent Browns Bay Auckland 0630 AC Mayor - Auckland Council CHEEL Tricia 027 469 2233 [email protected] www.mycafe.co.nz AC Mayor - Auckland Council DUFFY Paul 0276 888579 [email protected] 5/60 Avenue Road Otahuhu 1062 AC Mayor - Auckland Council GOODE Matthew 0212552981 AC Mayor - Auckland Council HUSSEY Emmett Independent [email protected] Susanna 16A Parnell Road Parnell Auckland 1052 AC Mayor - Auckland Council KRUGER Independent Susara 021 1139789 [email protected] 4 Ethel Street Morningside Auckland 1025 AC Mayor - Auckland Council MINTO John Mana Movement 022 085 0161 [email protected] 09 846 3173 Christians Against AC Mayor - Auckland Council O'CONNOR Phil file:///C:/temp/Noms2013MediaReport21151046.html 1/41 8/21/13 Noms2013MediaReport21151046.html Abortion AC Mayor - Auckland Council PALINO John Independent [email protected] AC Mayor - Auckland Council SHADBOLT Reuben Independent 021 2677764 [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Census Results Local Board and Special Area Information Sheets
    2018 Census Results Local board and special area information sheets Research and Evaluation Unit (RIMU) October 2019 Contents Auckland Local Boards Albert-Eden Aotea / Great Barrier Devonport-Takapuna Franklin Henderson-Massey Hibiscus and Bays Howick Kaipātiki Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Manurewa Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Ōrākei Ōtara-Papatoetoe Papakura Puketāpapa Rodney Upper Harbour Waiheke Waitākere Ranges Waitematā Whau Special areas City centre The Southern Initiative The Western Initiative 2018 Census results Auckland The 2018 New Zealand Census of Population and Number of dwellings Dwellings was held on 6 March 2018. The census captures the number of occupied and This is the official count by Stats NZ of how many unoccupied private and non-private dwellings. Non- people and dwellings there are in New Zealand. It private dwellings will not be reported here. (They provides a snapshot of New Zealand on census provide short or long-term communal or transitory day. type accommodation, e.g. communal staff quarters, hospitals and prisons). This information sheet provides an overview of initial results from the census for Auckland, and At the 2018 Census, Auckland had a total of background information on the census. 498,789 occupied private dwellings, an increase of 26,745, or 5.7% from 2013. This represents slower growth compared to that of New Zealand (6.6% Population growth increase). At the 2018 Census there were 1,571,718 usual In addition, 39,393 unoccupied private dwellings residents in Auckland, an increase of 156,168 were counted. people since the 2013 Census. This represents a 11.0% increase between 2013 and 2018. Auckland’s growth is very similar to that of New Zealand (10.8% increase).
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 2028 LTP CEI 10 Year Budget Auckland Plan Update Final
    THE 10-YEAR BUDGET AND AUCKLAND PLAN 2050 Final Update Report April 2018 HAVE y our WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED: 26,556 OTHER SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED: Feedback received in person: 5,374 participants across 100 events Social media feedback: 114 comments HOW WE’VE RECEIVED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMISSION TYPE Total # Total % 10-year Budget # Auckland Plan # Online form 11,680 44% 11,656 11,168 People’s Panel online form 2,157 8% 2,157 2,141 Hard copy form 4,755 18% 4,726 4,670 Non form* 7,964 30% 7,130 763 Total 26,556 100% 25,669 18,742 * Feedback received via anything other than a Council form (e.g. letter, email, pro forma) ** Submitters can feed back on both plans WHO WE’VE HEARD FROM The information below indicates what demographic categories submitters identified with. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic information on a feedback. GENDER # % Male Female Gender Diverse Male 7,836 47% 3500 Female 8,669 52% Gender diverse 153 1% 3000 Total 16,658 100% 2500 AGE Male Female Diverse Total % 2000 < 15 118 166 1 384 2% 1500 15 – 24 732 987 31 1,885 11% 25 – 34 1,206 1,389 22 2,678 16% 1000 35 – 44 1,454 1,686 27 3,242 19% 45 – 54 1,380 1,687 28 3,163 19% 500 55 – 64 1,109 1,304 10 2,478 15% 0 65 – 74 1,156 948 16 2,194 13% < 15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 + 75 + 539 353 10 955 6% Total 16,979 100% Analysis conducted by Auckland Insights Team 1 Citizen Engagement and Insights Unit, Communications and Engagement Department ETHNICITY # % 14000 European 11,941 72% 12000 Pakeha/NZ European 11,010
    [Show full text]