View objections

Objection

---

Phillipa O'Connor

The proposed change to include streets north east of Balmoral Road into Mount Albert should not be made. This area strongly associates with Epsom, is a community that associates with Mt Eden Village and children attend Epsom Girls. It will split this community into two, creating unnecessary division.

• Phillipa OConnor snapshot 1745526028 0 (png 566 KB)

Objection

---

Mr Stephen Kane

I don't wish for my electorate to change from Epsom to Mt Albert as it will impact the school zoning - specifically EGGS - which will my step daughter is due to attend in two years.

• Stephen Kane snapshot 1745536198 0 (png 961 KB)

Objection

---

Partha Akella

I wish to register my objection to the proposed change that would move the impacted section of Balmoral Road into the Mt Albert electorate. While I understand the broader goal of balancing population across electorates, this particular adjustment doesn’t align well with how this neighbourhood actually functions or identifies.

Local Life Doesn't Point West
This part of Balmoral Road sits right on the edge of Mt Eden and Epsom, and our daily patterns — whether it’s weekend groceries, pharmacy visits, cafes, or dog walks — all happen in that Mt Eden and Epsom zone. Mt Albert, by contrast, isn’t a place we naturally pass through, shop in, or access services from. The connection simply isn’t there. Moving us into a different electorate that’s oriented toward a different part of the city creates a mismatch between where we live and how we live.

Educational Implications Shouldn’t Be Overlooked
One of the main reasons people buy in this part of town is to be in zone for Auckland Grammar and Epsom Girls Grammar. While electorate changes don’t directly determine school zoning, they can influence how zoning boundaries evolve in the future. Even raising questions about our eligibility for these schools — or disrupting the clarity that exists now — could have knock-on effects for property value and family decision-making. It’s a sensitive area that deserves caution.

Representation Should Reflect Community Identity
Shifting this area into Mt Albert means our concerns and priorities could become less visible to our local MP. The types of issues we face — traffic flow on Dominion Road, school infrastructure, public transport links to the CBD — are more closely aligned with those in Mt Eden and Epsom than with Mt Albert. If democracy is meant to be local, this change would only make representation feel more remote.

• Partha Akella snapshot 1745537924 0 (png 806 KB)

Objection

---

Po Leung

I strongly object to remove my current electorate area from Epsom to Mt Albert.

I and my family have attached to Epsom for nearly 30 years because of good education, good health care services, good security and strong neighborhood support. Epsom represents our voice best.

Objection

---

Ms Janice Antunovich

I believe that my address ([street address], Mt Eden) relates more to Mt Eden/Epsom for all amenities as opposed to Mt Albert, therefore the boundary should not be changed.

Objection

---

Neil Scott

I need to express my objection to the illogical proposed boundary change to the Epsom electorate, specifically the rectangle north of Balmoral Road being passed into the Mount Albert electorate. After living in [street name] for 12 years our family spends the vast majority of our lives within the current Epsom/Mt Eden community, so we have a far greater attachment to this electorate which holds our greatest interests at heart. We live a short walk to the Mount Eden shops making it our most visited commercial area for goods and services, and regularly visit the mountain green space for exercise and wellbeing. The Our shopping, leisure and amenities

I suppose electoral boundaries need to change occasionally for population variations, but in our case there doesn’t seem to be any consideration given to the electoral community we are most connected to in our day to day lives, with respect to shopping, leisure and amenities.

• Neil Scott snapshot 1745615033 0 (png 354 KB)

Objection

---

Helen Han

As a parent raising kids in this neighborhood, I’m really concerned about the plan to shift our area (north of Balmoral Road up to Herbert, Croydon and Fairview Roads) into the Mount Albert electorate. Our schools, shops, and community events are all tied to Mount Eden and Epsom. Moving us away would break those ties and cause confusion. Please keep us in Epsom where we belong.

• Helen Han snapshot 1745627493 0 (png 371 KB)

Objection

---

Diancai Han

I don’t support the proposed boundary change (proposed removing an area north of Balmoral Road up to Herbert, Croydon and Fairview Roads, from Epsom into the Mount Albert electorate). This area is part of Epsom, plain and simple. We shop, learn, and live connected to Mount Eden — not Mount Albert. Splitting us off would mess with a well-functioning community.

• Diancai Han snapshot 1745628069 0 (png 366 KB)

Objection

---

Reef G

I strongly oppose shifting our neighborhood into the Mount Albert electorate (i.e. proposed removing an area north of Balmoral Road up to Herbert, Croydon and Fairview Roads, from Epsom into the Mount Albert electorate). Like many others here, I rely on Epsom for everything from my morning coffee to gym classes and networking events. It just doesn’t make sense to realign us with Mount Albert when our lifestyle and routines are centered around Mount Eden.

• Reef G snapshot 1745628525 0 (png 191 KB)

Objection

---

Jason Singh

As a small business owner in the affected area (north of Balmoral Road up to Herbert, Croydon and Fairview Roads), I can confidently say our clientele, collaborations, and support networks are all Epsom-based. A boundary shift would hurt our visibility and weaken community ties that are crucial to local business. Please reconsider.

• Jason Singh snapshot 1745629053 0 (png 188 KB)

Objection

---

Lisa Zhu

I object to the proposed boundary adjustment (removing the area north of Balmoral Road up to Herbert, Croydon and Fairview Roads, from Epsom into the Mount Albert electorate). The Electoral Commission’s goal should be to reflect actual community identities and ties. This proposal does the opposite by disconnecting a neighborhood that clearly integrates with Epsom. Keep our representation aligned with our real-world connections.

• Lisa Zhu snapshot 1745629442 0 (png 354 KB)

Objection

---

Mr Charles Nicholls

I wish to make a representation objecting to the Boundaries Commission proposal to moving a significant part of the Wesley area of the current Mt Roskill electorate into the Mt Albert electorate. I am a longtime resident of Mt Roskill, having lived in the Wesley community for thirty-seven years. I have been a Justice of the Peace for 30 years in this area and many of my clients reside in the Wesley area.
My wife and I made a submission to have Wesley accepted as the name for the area, based on its historical significance. We were delighted when the New Zealand Geographic Board, in deciding that Wesley should be identified officially with this name, recognised this historical and geographical importance of the Wesley area as part of the heartland of Puketapapa/ Mt Roskill. The Wesley Community centre, Wesley Intermediate School , Wesley Primary School and the Wesley Market, along with a range of places of worship, are at the heart of our diverse and vibrant community.
Moreover, the local public transport links connect the residents of Wesley and its surrounds more closely to the Mt Roskill communities and the Stoddard Rd retail areas than to Mt Albert.
The Puketapapa Local Board has always had a strong focus on improving the environment in the Wesley area along the Te Auanga/Okaley Creek boundary, as one of the strategic development goals of its planning. It is widely recognised that during the crises and flooding of the 2023 Cyclone Gabrielle and the previous weekend’s flooding as well, which affected significant numbers of people in the Wesley area, it was to the Mt Roskill Member of Parliament and the local Mt Roskill community organisations that those affected turned, as these were the entities that understood their needs and knew their community members.
A large proportion of the social support services for many of the newer residents of New Zealand, and also for many of those in the lower socioeconomic strata who are disadvantaged and vulnerable are located in the area which is proposed to move into Mt Albert and we think this would be disorienting for many of those who need these services as they would no longer be directly associate with Mt Roskill. Designating the Wesley area as Mt Albert rather than as Mt Roskill would potentially have negative effect on social cohesion in the area.
Therefore, we would strongly suggest that the proposed boundary change is modified to move only a section of Wesley to the south of Oakley Creek/Te Auaunga so that the Mt Roskill boundary would be aligned with the natural feature of the creek and several of the Te Auaunga parks. This would result in this section of Mt Roskill boundary being along O’Donnell, Denny and Coleman Avenues, ensuring that most of the key institutions closely associated with the Wesley community would remain in Mt Roskill. By moving the proposed Mt Albert boundary a little towards the Arch Hill area so it remains in Mt Albert which currently represents this area, the two electorates of Mt Albert and Mt Roskill would both be within the population number tolerance.

Objection

---

Dr Helen Nicholls

would strongly suggest that the proposed boundary change is modified to move only a section of Wesley to the south of Oakley Creek/Te Auaunga so that the Mt Roskill boundary would be aligned with the natural feature of the creek and several of the Te Auaunga parks. This would result in this section of Mt Roskill boundary being along O’Donnell, Denny and Coleman Avenues, ensuring that most of the key institutions closely associated with the Wesley community would remain in Mt Roskill.

Objection

---

Mr Geoff Manks

Nonsensical readjustment of Eden/Epsom boundary.
The carving out of the Epsom electorate from Fairview rd down to Landscape rd, but adding in Newton down to Carlaw park, makes a complete mockery of your electorate MP being representative of your area/community. Common sense would suggest the Newton-Grafton-Carlaw park areas should clearly remain Ak central, with perhaps Parnell also logically falling into the Ak central.
The areas of Mt Eden [Fairview-Landscape] sit immediately adjacent to Epsom, with the properties from Fairview to Balmoral rd unquestionably Mt Eden zoned.

I have attached a screenshot of a google search of Mt Eden Epsom electorate. This is what the electorate is know as, infact I have never heard it referred to as anything else i.e. Epsom Remuera? Epsom Parnell? To remove part of Mt Eden, but include Grafton-Newton and Carlaw park, is nonsensical in its purest definition. My 105yr old grandmother would easily identify these as outside the Eden Epsom Electorate and would be Ak central all day long.

Change always creates conjecture and unease. This can largely be alleviated where changes are grounded in logic and common sense. The proposed movement of boundaries to the Epsom [Eden] electorate defy both these standards and will incur the ire of this strong community. The beneficiaries of the changes are unknown and the changes made without a true understanding of the community and where people live their lives.

The justification for adjusting boundaries is stated on the Govt website site as.
'Regularly adjusting the electorate boundaries makes sure each electorate has about the same number of people. This gives all New Zealanders equal representation in Parliament'.
- why is this even relevant under our voting system? The number of people in each electorate may have a slight bearing on the outcome of the election of the MP, but not the party vote - this being completely unattached to the electorate anyone sits in. If the election of MP's is meant to reflect the area and community they represent, then this must take precedent to the drawing of boundaries simply to save/add 500 people into/out of an electorate. We would be far better served to have some electorates twice the size of others if this enabled the MP's to achieve local representation ahead of number counting!

• Geoff Manks snapshot 1745635953 0 (png 831 KB)
• Geoff Manks snapshot 1745635953 1 (png 769 KB)
• Screenshot 2025 04 26 at 14.36.17 (png 129 KB)

Objection

---

Mrs Bronwyn Ward

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes to the electoral boundaries of the Epsom Electorate that are currently being considered. As a resident and concerned member of the community, I believe these changes will have significant negative consequences, not only for local representation but also for the stability and cohesion of our neighbourhoods and school systems.
First and foremost, one of my key concerns is the potential disruption to community identity. Electoral boundaries are more than just lines on a map; they represent the connections and shared experiences that bind people together.
Having lived in Mt Eden for the last 38 years I have made long-established relationships with the Mt Eden and Epsom businesses, services and community on a day-to-day basis.
These relationships have not been made in Mt Albert as the business and service area is too far away and inconvenient to get to.
Local initiatives, community events, and the collective spirit of the area will undoubtedly be harmed by splitting our community into a different electorate.
I cannot understand if the Epsom Electorate is to expand to include more residents why take out the area north of Balmoral Road up to and including Herbert, Croydon and Fairview Roads and place it into the Mt Albert Electorate?
I urge you to reconsider these proposed changes, taking into account the deeply rooted concerns of myself, local families, educators, and residents who will be most affected by the proposed changes.