DOCSLIB.ORG

Housing Assessment for the Auckland Region Mario A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. Peer reviewer Kyle Balderston, Team Leader, Urban Growth and Development, Otago Regional Council Doug Fairgray, Director, Market Economics Ltd David Norman, Executive Advisor, Economics and Business Cases, GHD Auckland Council: Pania Elliot, Policy Manager, Community and Social Policy Shyamal Maharaj, Economist, Chief Economist Unit Claire Gray, Principal Advisor, Growth and Spatial Strategy Ross Wilson, Economic Analyst, Economic and Social Research and Evaluation Team Auckland Council Development Programme Office We would also like to acknowledge the advice, feedback, encouragement and constructive comments from across Auckland Council and the wider planning and development community in the undertaking of this assessment. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Housing assessment for the Auckland region iv Executive summary In August 2020, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) came into effect with the purpose of boosting the competitiveness of the housing and urban markets as a mechanism to improve access to affordable homeownership through better planning decisions. As part of evidence-based decision-making, the NPS-UD requires that the Auckland Council develop a Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment (HBA) that provides information on the demand and supply of housing and business land, over the short, medium, and long-term, and the impact of council’s planning and infrastructure decisions. The NPS-UD is prescriptive in nature and shares commonalities with its predecessor, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) 2016, but does not provide details for implementation. The NPS-UD differs from its predecessor in that it provides space for users to refine the terminology used and develop appropriate assessment methods, tailored to the context of individual territorial authorities. Since the adoption of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP), Auckland’s annual dwelling supply has reached an all-time high, and the latest consenting data from the council and Stats NZ shows this increase continuing. This HBA is the latest in a long series of housing and business development capacity supply monitoring work for Auckland, and aims to meet the requirements of the NPS-UD. It builds on previous monitoring work by analysing the impact of housing supply on housing affordability, that is, it assesses affordability through the lens of ordinary home buyers who are experiencing increased difficulty in entering the housing market. However, there are aspects that are not included in this HBA and are left for future assessments and research. The key findings and implications of this HBA are summarised below. Development capacity 1. Total net infill development capacity is 101,649 dwellings and the total net redevelopment capacity is 909,179 across Auckland’s urban zoned land. If all suitable sites are all redeveloped to the maximum as enabled by the plan, Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban combined could provide 678,851 additional dwellings or 75 per cent of the total net redevelopment capacity. 2. If development potential is maximised, Franklin and Howick local boards provide 28 per cent (28,310 dwellings) of the total net infill capacity. The combined areas of Henderson-Massey and Howick have the potential to supply 23 per cent (210,556) of the total net redevelopment capacity. 3. To identify capacity that is commercially feasible, two capacity scenarios are used – the maximum percentage of profit yield and the minimum priced dwelling units _____________________________________________________________________________________ Housing assessment for the Auckland region v scenarios. Approximately 840,000 dwellings are commercially feasible for the maximum percentage of profit yield scenario, where the average sales price is $1.66 million and terrace housing comprise most of the feasible typology. Under the minimum priced dwelling scenario, about 1.4 million dwellings are commercially feasible, where the average price is $1.04 million with an average floorspace of 107 square metres. Apartments and terrace housing comprise over 84 per cent of the feasible dwellings tested under the minimum priced dwelling scenario. Infrastructure-ready 1. Water supply, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure, at a network (bulk) infrastructure level, is broadly adequate to cater for projected growth over the short, medium, and long-term. Land transport capacity is not included in this HBA and ongoing work to develop land transport assumptions will be included in the next HBA. 2. The initial assessment of the bulk water supply and wastewater networks indicates that of net plan enabled capacity, 57 per cent is infrastructure ready in the short-term, 77 per cent in the medium-term, and 99 per cent in the long-term. 3. Although constraints exist within the existing networks, projects funded through the Long-term Plan and identified in the Infrastructure Strategy will continue to unlock further development capacity across the region. This assessment is not required to, and therefore does not, take into account local infrastructure requirements (which is usually developer built), and may play a significant role in enabling growth in specific areas. Competitiveness margin 1. The expected level of residential demand plus the relevant competitiveness margin over the next 30 years ranges from 332,000 to 384,000 dwellings. It is anticipated that the short-term (including 20 per cent margin, year 0-3) growth is approximately 36,000, the medium-term (including 20 per cent margin, year 3-10) growth ranges from 88,000 to 104,600, and the long-term (including 15 per cent margin, year 10- 30) growth ranges from 200,000 to 207,000. Demand and sufficiency of capacity 1. The primary objective of the NPS-UD is to test the sufficiency of development capacity to meet growth demand over the next 30 years. The HBA findings have identified both the plan-enabled development capacity and the feasible development capacity are sufficient to meet the projected growth demand plus competitiveness margins. It is acknowledged that some development capacity is infrastructure _____________________________________________________________________________________ Housing assessment for the Auckland region vi constrained at the bulk network level which the council is addressing though planned investment in the Long-term Plan and Infrastructure Strategy. 2. Delving deeper in the housing demand-supply paradigm, this HBA uses the concept of intermediate market households as a benchmark to assess the affordability aspects of the competitive market due to the influence of the NPS-UD (i.e., greater releases of land capacity). The intermediate households consist of private renter households and the level of income required to affordably pay the mortgage on a dwelling purchased at the lower quartile dwelling sale price. Required income is $132,300 for a sales price of ($770,000) (Mitchell 2019, 2020). 3. Two additional demand scenarios are constructed to provide detailed analyses for the short and medium-term – the likely and the high-growth scenarios over the next 10 years. Relative to 2021, in 2026 and 2031 about 41,000 and 77,000 additional households will demand a dwelling under the likely scenario; and, about 58,000 and 110,000 in the high-growth scenario. 4. In 2021 intermediate households numbered 97,156 and 104,128 households for the likely and high-growth scenarios respectively. By 2031 there will be approximately 9600 additional intermediate households demanding a dwelling under the likely scenario; and, about 32,600 in the high-growth scenario. 5. To assess the sufficiency of affordable housing development capacity, five supply scenarios are constructed to represent the whole spectrum
Recommended publications
  • Auckland Trail Notes Contents

    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.
  • Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2038 Watercare Services Limited 1 | P a G E

    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.
  • Draft Area Plan Hibiscus and Bays

    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.
  • Hatfields Beach 3 (Kauri Orewa Limited - ‘Chin Hill’ Precinct)

    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.
  • Commercial Member Directory

    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
  • Get Active Regional Parks Beautiful Beaches

    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.
  • The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2010: Sampling Procedure and Technical Details

    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 ....................................................................................................................................
  • Rodney-Ward-Map.Pdf

    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
  • Average Deprivation Scores for Census Area Units

    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.
  • General SA2 Level 2018 Census Results (Charles Crothers, AUT)

    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
  • Rodney District Plan Chapter 4

    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.
  • The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2009: Sampling Procedure and Technical Details

    The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2009: Sampling Procedure and Technical Details

    T h e N Z A V S - 09: Sampling Procedure | 1 This document can be cited as: Reid, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2009: Sampling procedure and technical details. Unpublished technical report, The University of Auckland. The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2009: Sampling Procedure and Technical Details Report prepared by Jessica Reid, Summer Scholarship recipient 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-09 is available from Dr. Chris Sibley upon request. 1 T h e N Z A V S - 09: Sampling Procedure | 2 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3 Sampling procedure ................................................................................................................................ 4 Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Gender ...............................................................................................................................................