Worked example · Material findings, screening indicators, and planning overlays
This is a real PropertyKete report for a community site on South Titirangi Road, in the bush-clad hills of west Auckland. It carries two very different kinds of evidence at once — one direct finding about this parcel, and one broad regional layer that flags the area rather than the site — plus planning overlays that change what can be done here. Telling those apart is the whole skill of reading a property report.
PropertyKete classifies every finding into one of three kinds, and gives them different visual weight because they deserve different responses.
**Material evidence** is direct and parcel-level: this property intersects this mapped feature. It is the strongest thing a desktop check can produce, and it is what should change what you do next.
**A screening indicator** is a broad regional or probabilistic layer. It tells you the area has a characteristic, at a scale where a single property is a rounding error. It is a reason to look harder — commission the right report, ask the right question — not a determination about the site. Treating one as if it were material evidence produces false alarm; ignoring it produces false comfort.
**Context** is neither risk nor reassurance. Which council you deal with, what zone applies, which schools you are in zone for. Background you need in order to act, that says nothing about whether the property is a good idea.
This property has all three, which is why it is here.
Two findings on this parcel are worth attention, and they are not equivalent. Read the cards — note that the report labels them differently — then come back for why that difference matters.
No active fault trace is mapped within 500 metres of this property in GNS Science's NZAFD-AF250 database. That is a real result and worth having, but it is not an earthquake-risk clearance: it means one regional-scale dataset has no mapped trace within 500 metres, and it says nothing about ground shaking, liquefaction, landslide or tsunami.
Source: GNS Science — Active Faults (NZAFD-AF250) · NZAFD-AF250 · higher = more risk
This property is not within Auckland Council's modelled 1% AEP flood plain. Modelling is at catchment scale and updated over time; site-specific risks (e.g. local drainage, overland flow) may still apply.
Source: Auckland Council — Flood Plains · 2025-01-16 · higher = more risk
An overland flow path crosses this property. These are routes water takes across the surface during heavy rain. They are mapped from LiDAR and used by Auckland Council to set building setbacks and review consent applications.
What to do: Confirm setback requirements with Auckland Council before any building or earthworks. If buying, ask the vendor about ponding or surface flooding history. A stormwater engineer can review options if the path crosses a building footprint or driveway.
Source: Auckland Council — Overland Flow Paths · 2025-01-05 · higher = more risk
This property is not within Auckland Council’s modelled 1% AEP coastal inundation extent at present sea level. Coastal modelling is at catchment scale; site-specific factors (local drainage, ground level) may still apply.
Source: Auckland Council — Coastal Inundation (1% AEP) · 2025-01 · higher = more risk
This property is not within Auckland Council’s modelled 1% AEP coastal inundation extent under +1m sea-level rise. Note this only covers one SLR scenario; higher rises are possible under some climate trajectories.
Source: Auckland Council — Coastal Inundation (1% AEP +1m SLR) · 2025-01 · higher = more risk
This property falls in an area classified as moderate susceptibility to shallow landslides under Auckland Council's 2025 regional mapping (TR2025/7). The area shows several of the factors associated with shallow slope failure (e.g. slope angle, geology, surface drainage). The mapping is at regional scale and is not intended for site-specific assessment.
What to do: Ask Auckland Council for the LIM and any landslide overlay notes for the parcel. If you plan earthworks, retaining, or new drainage, a preliminary geotechnical review is sensible.
Source: Akl Landslide Susceptibility Shallow · 2025-05 · higher = more risk
This property's slope unit is classified as low susceptibility to large-scale landslides under Auckland Council's 2025 regional mapping (TR2025/7). That sits in the background-risk band — no material landslide-hazard finding is flagged here. Ground conditions can still vary at site level; the mapping is at regional scale and is not intended for site-specific assessment.
Source: Akl Landslide Susceptibility Large Scale · 2025-05 · higher = more risk
The overland flow path finding is material evidence. A mapped flow path crosses this parcel: a route surface water takes across the ground in heavy rain, derived from LiDAR elevation data. It is specific to this land, and Auckland Council uses these paths directly when setting building setbacks and assessing consent applications. If you wanted to build here, extend, or regrade, this finding would shape the design and the consent conversation. That is a concrete consequence, which is what makes it material.
The shallow landslide susceptibility finding is a screening indicator, and the report says so on the card rather than leaving you to infer it. It comes from Auckland Council’s 2025 regional susceptibility mapping — a 32-metre grid, recommended for viewing at 1:20,000 to 1:25,000, and described by the council as not intended for site-specific use without further assessment. It is telling you something true about this part of the Waitākere foothills: the terrain here has characteristics associated with shallow slope failure. It is not telling you that this section will slip.
The right response to those two findings is different in kind, not just in degree. The flow path is a design constraint to work with — a stormwater engineer does this routinely. The susceptibility layer is a prompt: if you are buying on a slope in west Auckland, and particularly if you intend to build, retain, or change ground levels, a chartered geotechnical engineer doing a site-specific assessment is the person who can actually answer the question the map only raises.
It is also worth noticing what came back clear. The flood plain check found nothing on this parcel, and so did both coastal inundation scenarios and the active fault check. Those clean results carry the same caveats as any clean result — see the limitations below — but they do narrow the field.
Both findings cite Auckland Council as the source, with the date each dataset was current. The susceptibility card carries the council’s own statement about the mapping not being intended for site-specific use. We pass that on rather than smoothing it away, because a limitation the publisher states about its own data is exactly the kind of thing a reader needs and would never otherwise see.
The planning section on this property is doing more work than on most. Read the zone, and then read what sits on top of it.
This property sits within Auckland. The council is responsible for building consents, resource consents, district / unitary plan rules, and Land Information Memoranda (LIMs) at this address. The council's planning information is available at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/Pages/default.aspx.
What to do: When you go unconditional, request a LIM from the council and check the district / unitary plan rules that apply to this address. The council can also tell you about any consents granted, infringements, or special features on the property file.
Source: Stats Nz Ta 2025 Clipped · TA2025 · higher = better outcome
Under the Auckland Unitary Plan, this property sits within the Open Space - Community Zone (Auckland Council zone code 34), which Auckland Council records as operative. Each zone has its own rules covering permitted activities, building height, site coverage, and development standards. These Unitary Plan overlays also apply to this property and can change what you may build, alter, or remove: Historic Heritage Overlay (Extent of Place); Significant Ecological Areas Overlay. Overlays usually add resource-consent requirements. The current zone description and rules are at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/Pages/default.aspx.
What to do: Confirm the zone and any active overlays with Auckland Council before going unconditional. A LIM from the council lists the zone, overlays, and any consents on the property file. For a development question, a resource-management planner can read the rules against your specific plans.
Source: Akl Unitary Plan Zones · Auckland Unitary Plan zone layer — this feature: Operative · higher = more risk
A base zone sets the general expectations for the land. Overlays sit on top of the zone and modify what the rules allow, and they are the constraints most likely to surprise a buyer — because they rarely appear in a listing and they can restrict exactly the things people assume they can do. Removing a tree, altering a facade, extending toward a boundary, clearing vegetation: all of these can be controlled by an overlay rather than by the zone.
PropertyKete checks a defined set of Unitary Plan overlays and names which ones it checked, rather than implying it has checked them all. That distinction matters on a property like this one: the Unitary Plan carries many more overlays, controls, designations and precinct provisions than we hold, and west Auckland’s bush environment attracts several of them.
The report also states the planning status of the mapped feature rather than assuming everything in the council’s layer is in force. The Unitary Plan is operative in part, and appeals and plan changes continue to move both zones and overlays.
What none of this tells you is whether a specific proposal would be consented. That is a question for a resource-management planner reading the operative rules against your plans, and for the council itself — which is why the report routes you to a LIM and to Auckland Council rather than offering an opinion it is not in a position to have.
Context, not risk — grouped by whether the address is in zone or merely nearby.
This address is inside the enrolment zone for 3 schools (confirm directly with each school — zone boundaries change over time). In-zone schools (priority enrolment): • Titirangi School (200 m) — EQI 366 • Green Bay High School (1.5 km) — EQI 430 • Glen Eden Intermediate (1.6 km) — EQI 420 Nearby schools (not in-zone): • Kaurilands School (1.2 km) — EQI 388 • Green Bay Primary School (1.7 km) — EQI 391 • Konini School (Auckland) (1.7 km) — EQI 414 • Titirangi Rudolf Steiner School (2.0 km) • Woodlands Park School (2.4 km) — EQI 375 • Arahoe School (2.4 km) — EQI 385 • Fruitvale Road School (2.8 km) — EQI 440 • Prospect School (3.0 km) — EQI 495 • Oaklynn Special School (3.2 km) — EQI 453 • Glen Eden School (3.4 km) — EQI 469 • Kelston Girls' College (3.5 km) — EQI 507 • New Lynn School (3.5 km) — EQI 451 • Laingholm School (3.6 km) — EQI 403 • Kelston School (4.0 km) — EQI 479 • TKKM o Hoani Waititi (4.1 km) — EQI 493 • Iqra School (4.2 km) — EQI 409 • St Leonards Road School (4.5 km) — EQI 481 About the Equity Index (EQI): it is the Ministry of Education's estimate of the socioeconomic barriers a school's students face as a group (roughly 344–569; a higher number means greater barriers). It informs how equity funding is allocated and is not a measure of school quality, teaching, or student results.
What to do: Confirm with each school that this address is in-zone and that the boundary has not changed since this data was published. Zone maps are on the Ministry of Education's School Finder (schoolfinder.education.govt.nz).
Source: Ministry of Education — Enrolment Zones · 2025 · higher = better outcome
The distinction between in-zone and nearby is the whole point of this section. In-zone means the address falls inside a Ministry of Education enrolment scheme boundary. Nearby is proximity, which is not entitlement, and a listing that mentions a school without saying which of the two it means is not telling you anything you can rely on.
Enrolment schemes are reviewed and boundaries move. Confirm with the school directly if a specific one matters to your decision.
Area-level data, labelled as such on every card that carries it.
The statistical area (SA1) containing this property falls in the below-average deprivation (deciles 3–4) of the NZDep2023 index (decile 4 of 10, where 1 is least deprived and 10 is most deprived). NZDep2023 combines eight dimensions of 2023 Census data to measure socioeconomic deprivation at the neighbourhood level. This is an area-level measure — it reflects the SA1 population, not this property specifically. Underlying 2023 Census measures for this area: adults with no formal qualification 8.2%; unemployment rate 3.1%; adults receiving a main benefit 8%; adults who do not own their home 42.6%; households without internet access 11.1%; households without a motor vehicle 0% (Stats NZ 2023 Census; area-level, counts randomly rounded).
Source: University of Otago — NZDep2023 · 2023 · higher = better outcome
This address has a wide range of everyday amenities within about a 1 km walk (8 of 8 categories tracked): • Supermarket: nearest approx 100 m from this address • Convenience store: nearest approx 150 m from this address • Pharmacy: nearest approx 150 m from this address • GP / medical clinic: nearest approx 150 m from this address • Park: nearest approx 150 m from this address • Café: nearest approx 100 m from this address • Childcare / kindergarten: nearest approx 55 m from this address • Library: nearest approx 31 m from this address Amenity locations are sourced from OpenStreetMap and may not reflect every shop or service — newer or smaller places can be missing.
Source: OpenStreetMap — Amenities · higher = better outcome
These describe the surrounding statistical area — thousands of people, many properties — and say nothing about this address or anyone at it. Stats NZ rounds and suppresses figures to protect confidentiality, so they are deliberately imprecise at fine grain.
Each finding above cites its dataset and, where we hold one, the date that dataset was current. These are the sources behind this report:
Every dataset PropertyKete uses — with its owner, licence, refresh schedule and coverage — is published in full, and what guides the build explains why missing data is reported as missing rather than treated as a clear result.
Each of these guides uses this report to illustrate a point, and explains the finding in more depth than a worked example can.
The reason to separate material evidence from a screening indicator is not tidiness. It is that they lead to different actions, and collapsing them into one undifferentiated list of "risks" makes a report simultaneously more alarming and less useful.
A property report that flags everything equally trains you to ignore all of it. One that says plainly which findings are about this land, which are about the area, and which are simply background, is one you can act on — including by deciding that the screening indicator here warrants a geotechnical engineer before you go any further.
Run this on an address you care about
Free, no sign-in, and usually ready in seconds.
Search an addressFor information only. PropertyKete is not a LIM, registered valuation, engineering report, building inspection, insurance assessment, legal advice, or planning approval. Verify material matters with your solicitor, council, insurer, builder and other qualified professionals before making any property decision.
