I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Upper Harbour Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

7.00pm

Upper Harbour Local Board Office
30 Kell Drive
Albany

 

Upper Harbour Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Brian Neeson, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Lisa Whyte

 

Members

Callum Blair

 

 

John McLean

 

 

Margaret Miles, JP

 

 

Christine Rankin-MacIntyre

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Karen Durante

 

16 July 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 484 8396

Email: Karen.durante@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 

Portfolio Activity

Responsibilities

Board Lead/s and Alternate

1

Governance

·         Board Leadership

·         Board-to-Council Relationships

·         Board-to-Board Relationships

·         Civic Duties

·         Advocacy (local, regional, and central government)

·         Relationships with Maoridom

·         Relationships with government departments and agencies

·         Relationship with Property CCO

·         Relationship with Auckland Waterfront Development

·         Advocacy with Governing Body (Local Board Plan; Local Board Agreements)

·         Unitary Plan

·         Local area plan

Brian Neeson

Lisa Whyte

 

2

Regulatory & Bylaws / Civil Defence Emergency Management

.

·         Resource consents

·         Heritage

·         Liquor

·         Gambling

·         Swimming pools fencing

·         Trees

·         Bylaws

·         Relationships with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group

·         Community preparedness, disaster response, relief, and recovery

Callum Blair

John McLean

Christine Rankin-MacIntyre

Margaret Miles (Resource Consents only)

3

Events / Arts and Culture

 

·         Community celebration

·         Community identity

·         Neighbourhood gatherings and renewal

·         Event compliance

·         Relationship with ATEED

·         Relationship with Regional Facilities CCOs

·         Tourism

·         Artistic and cultural service levels

·         Promoting all aspects of artistic endeavour

·         Development of public art strategy and policy

Margaret Miles

4

Community and social well-being / Local Facilities

 

·         Community development

·         Neighbourhood relationships

·         Funding for neighbourhood projects

·         Community safety (excl. town centres)

·         Graffiti removal

·         Community advocacy

·         Relationships with Youth

·         Leisure centres

·         Community houses

·         Halls

·         Community hubs

·         Arts facilities

·         Community Partnerships

·         Asset Management

Callum Blair
Margaret Miles

 

 

 

 

Portfolio Activity

Responsibilities

Board Lead/s and Alternate

5

Libraries

·         Stewardship of libraries

·         Mobile library

Christine Rankin-MacIntyre
Lisa Whyte

6

Sports parks and recreation (active) / Parks, Reserves and playgrounds (passive)

 

·         Stewardship of sports parks

·         Stewardship of recreation facilities

·         Relationship with sports clubs

·         Neighbourhood parks and reserves (incl. esplanade reserves and the coastline)

·         Design and maintenance

·         Plantings, playgrounds, bollards, and walkways

·         Skateparks

·         Track Network development

Margaret Miles

Lisa Whyte

7

Town Centres

·         Town centre renewal

·         Design and maintenance

·         Community safety within town centres

·         Business Improvement Districts liaison

·         Urban design

·         Built Heritage

Margaret Miles
Brian Neeson

8

Transport / Regional Transport and CBD development

 

·         Local transport projects and public transport

(incl. roading, footpaths, cycleways)

·         Liaison on regional Transport matters

·         2nd harbour crossing

·         Bridge walk cycleway

·         Inner City Rail Link

·         Waterfront development

·         CBD master plan

John McLean
Margaret Miles

9

Natural Environment

.

·         Restoration of wetlands, streams, and waterways

·         Local priorities in relation to regional environmental management

·         Costal management including mangrove encroachment and erosion mitigation

·         Relationships with Watercare

·         Waste minimisation strategy

·         Bio security

John McLean
Callum Blair
Lisa Whyte
(waste minimisation only)

10

Economic Development / Financial oversight

 

·         Key relationship with Business Development Manager in Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development team

·         Establish and promote local opportunities for increased tourism and economic development

·         Budgets

·         Project expenditure

·         Monitor GB strategy and Finance

·         Service Levels

·         Local funding policy

Lisa Whyte
Margaret Miles

 

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         7

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          7

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       7

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          7

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    7

8.1     Neighbourly                                                                                                          7

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  8

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

12        Allocation of Decision Making Review                                                                       9

13        Stormwater Management in the Vicinity of the Meadowood Reserve, Unsworth Heights                                                                                                                                       51

14        Approval of Scoping and Cost for the Tauhinu Road Upgrade                            57

15        Proposed school bus stops - 75 and 80 Bush Road                                               61

16        Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback                71

17        Local board role in alcohol licence applications                                                     93

18        Upper Harbour Local Board submission to the Auckland Transport Parking Discussion Document                                                                                                                   103

19        Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds Status as at the financial year end of June 2014                                                                                                                    109

20        Summary of Actions and Reports Requested - Upper Harbour Local Board - July 2014                                                                                                                                     117

21        Records of the Upper Harbour Local Board Workshops held on 1 and 8 July 2014   125

22        Granted Resource Consent Applications by Local Board Area                          131

23        Governing Body Members' Update                                                                         137

24        Board Members' Reports                                                                                         139

25        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

26        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               141

C1       Confidential - Special Housing Areas: Tranche 4                                                 141  

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

Apologies for non attendance have been received from the Chairperson Brian Neeson and Member John McLean.

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 8 July 2014, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

 

7          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

8          Deputations

 

8.1       Neighbourly

Purpose

1.       Maureen Glassey, Community Partnerships Manager Neighbourly, will be in attendance to address the Upper Harbour Local Board regarding Neighbourly.

Executive summary

2.       Neighbourly.co.nz is a free, community website, which is connecting neighbours all over New Zealand.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the deputation from Maureen Glassey, Community Partnerships Manager Neighbourly.

b)      thank Maureen Glassey for her attendance and presentation.

 

 

 

9          Public Forum

 

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Allocation of Decision Making Review

 

File No.: CP2014/14060

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of the report is to seek local board input to a review of the non-regulatory allocation of decision making as part of the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan (LTP).

Executive summary

2.       The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (‘the Act’) sets out the functions and powers of the governing body and local boards.

3.       The governing body is reviewing the non-regulatory decision-making allocation as part of the development of the 2015-2025 LTP.  The review is based on the current allocation, with amendments proposed “by exception” where governance experience has demonstrated a need to amend the allocation.

4.       To inform the review, Local Board Services has drafted an issues paper for consideration by local boards. The issues paper will be updated to include formal feedback from local boards and reported to the Budget Committee in August 2014.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the allocation of decision making review issues paper and identify any additional issues relevant to the scope of the review.

 

Comments

5.       The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (‘the Act’) sets out the functions and powers of the governing body and local boards.  Local boards functions and powers come from three sources:

·        those directly conferred by the Act;

·        non-regulatory activities allocated by the governing body to local boards; and

·        regulatory or non-regulatory functions and powers delegated by the governing body or Auckland Transport to the local boards.

6.       The initial decision-making allocation to local boards was made by the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA). The current decision-making allocation was determined as part of the 2012-2022 Long-term Plan (LTP) and was adopted by the governing body through a robust and extensive process. A copy of the current allocation table is attached at Attachment A.

7.       The governing body is reviewing the non-regulatory decision-making allocation as part of the development of the 2015-2025 LTP.  This review is based on the current allocation, with amendments proposed “by exception” where governance experience has demonstrated a need to amend the allocation.

8.       To inform the review, Local Board Services has drafted an issues paper which is presented as Appendix A. The issues paper sets out the approach and scope of the review and includes issues identified for consideration and feedback from local boards.

9.       Local board feedback is not limited to these issues, but should focus on governance rather than operational issues as the latter are out of scope of the review.

10.     The issues paper will be updated to include formal feedback from local boards and reported to the Budget Committee in August 2014. Changes to the allocation table will be part of public consultation on the draft 2015-2025 LTP and any changes to the allocation will not come into effect until 1 July 2015.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11.     Local board views are being sought via this report. Changes to the allocation of non-regulatory decisions could have implications for local board decision-making and budgets.

Maori impact statement

12.     There are no particular impacts on Maori in relation to this report, which are different from other population groups in Auckland.

Implementation

13.     Local board feedback will be analysed and reported to the Budget Committee on 13 August 2014. Changes to the allocation table will be part of public consultation on the draft 2015-2025 LTP and any changes to the allocation would come into effect on 1 July 2015.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Allocation of Non-Regulatory Decision-Making Responsibilities - Issues Paper - Local Boards

11

      

Signatories

Author

Alastair Child – Principal Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 









































Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Stormwater Management in the Vicinity of the Meadowood Reserve, Unsworth Heights

 

File No.: CP2014/14548

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to update the Upper Harbour Local Board regarding drainage in the Meadowood Reserve area, Unsworth Heights, as per the request in resolution b) number UH/2013/212 below:

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

b)      requests an update report be obtained from stormwater on the progress relating to drainage at Meadowood Community House and the surrounding area, including work pertaining to flood plain management.

2.       Staff also seek endorsement from the Upper Harbour Local Board for the approach the Stormwater Unit is taking in managing the flooding issues identified in this area.

Executive summary

3.       Two main flooding issues have been identified in the vicinity of the Meadowood Reserve, Unsworth Heights. The first issue relates to surface flow of stormwater (overland flow) down Cabello Place and into the reserve. The second issue relates to the predicted accumulation of stormwater in a depression behind State Highway 18 (SH18).

4.       The impact of these issues include predicted flooding of two garages, nuisance flooding around the crèche in Meadowood Reserve, predictions of floodwater ponding to depths in excess of 1.0m in Caribbean Drive and flooding across the Upper Harbour Highway.

5.       The original intention was to attempt to resolve both flooding issues together. However, due to the complexity of the Caribbean Drive issue and the existing flood nuisance experienced by the crèche, the planning section of the Stormwater Unit proposes to submit the Cabello Place/Meadowood Reserve overland flow path project plan for prioritisation and consideration for inclusion in the stormwater capital works programme.

6.       This report seeks endorsement from the local board to pursue the Cabello Place/Meadowood Reserve overland flow project works independently (but in consideration) of the Caribbean Drive flood project.

 

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Stormwater Management in the Vicinity of the Meadowood Reserve, Unsworth Heights report.

b)      endorse the decision to pursue the Cabello Place/Meadowood Reserve overland flow project works independently (but in consideration) of the Caribbean Drive flood project.

 

Comments

7.       Meadowood Reserve is located in the Oteha Valley Stormwater catchment (see Figure 1). Stormwater catchment planning in the Oteha Valley catchment is well progressed: a stormwater model has been built and validated, stormwater issues have been identified and options to resolve these issues are close to completion.

8.       This report is to update the Upper Harbour Local Board on the assessment and proposed resolution of flooding issues in the Meadowood Reserve area.

Figure 1. Location of Meadowood Reserve (encircled).

Issues

Overland Flow-Related Flooding

9.       Two main stormwater issues have been identified in the vicinity of Meadowood Reserve. The first issue relates the to overland flow of stormwater down Cabello Place and into Meadowood Reserve (see Figure 2). This overland flow has the potential to cause flooding of two garages in Cabello Place in the event of roadside stormwater catchpits blocking or the pipe capacity being exceeded. The design standard for the residential pipe network is to cater for the 10 year storm event, which means the possibility of this flood event occurring in the future is high.

10.     Further downstream (towards the reserve) the contour of the land directs surface flow into Meadowood Reserve. A recent survey undertaken in the reserve has confirmed that the car-park is slightly elevated above the lawn to the east of the crèche building and is acting as an impedance to surface flow. The terrain of the reserve (west of the crèche) is identified as a high point, thereby creating an obstruction to surface flow accessing local drainage inlet points. These obstructions (plus the building itself) are the cause of surface water ponding underneath and around the crèche building. It has been reported that this surface ponding is creating difficulties with managing crèche activities and has been resulting in damp and unhealthy conditions within the building. The floor of the crèche (and the community building to the south of the crèche) is high enough to not be at risk of flooding. 

Figure 2. Overland flow path entering Meadowood Reserve via Cabello Place. Survey indicates that overland flow ponds in a depression around the creche.

Caribbean Drive Stormwater Ponding

11.     Low lying land in Caribbean Drive and within the adjoining Meadowood Reserve receives overland flows from an approximately 37 ha catchment,  and is bounded by the Upper Harbour Highway at the downstream end. The highway is approximately 1m higher than the low point in Caribbean Drive and reserve. In a small rainfall event the stormwater is drained from this low lying area by entering the piped stormwater network that conveys stormwater beneath the highway to an outlet into an open channel wetland system on the northern side of the highway.

12.     In a severe storm the pipe and inlet capacity is predicted to be exceeded. Flooding of the low lying area is expected, including ponding of depths greater than 1m in Caribbean Drive (see Figure 3). These ponding depths are expected as frequently as a 10 year storm. The subsequent flooding of this area will have negative impacts both on the roading network and the western edge of the adjacent reserve area, which is predominantly open space. The flood plain does extend to the east to surround the community buildings.

13.     Of particular interest is the children’s crèche that is within the adjacent reserve area and subject to a risk of flooding in an extreme event. However, the flood levels are not expected to reach the habitable floor level of the crèche, or any other properties within the identified flood zone.

14.     Besides the ponding predicted in Caribbean Drive, of equal or greater concern is the risk of flooding across State Highway 18 in storms starting at a 10 year average return frequency. In a 100 year storm event the flooding depth on SH18 is estimated to reach 300mm.

 

Figure 3. Aerial image showing the flood risk predicted in the Meadowood Reserve area.

Options Considered

15.     The management of flooding in Cabello Place and Meadowood Reserve is relatively straight forward and can be managed through modification of the overland flow path. The capacity of the downstream pipe network is limited. In addition, overland flow paths should be able to cater for storms up to the 100 year storm, compared with the 10 year storm design standard for the pipe infrastructure. Some drainage in the reserve may be appropriate, but the focus is on re-direction of surface flow. The cost of these works is estimated at $80,000.

16.     Conversely, the mitigation of flood risk resulting from the elevated SH18 is more complex and is likely to be more expensive. Preliminary work has considered a number of options to manage this ponding and highway flooding, including:

·        doing nothing

·        upgrading the inlet capacity of roadside catchpits

·        providing additional large diameter inlets

·        upgrading the existing 1350mm diameter pipe under SH18

·        providing an additional pipe under SH18.

17.     The cost of these options ranges from $170,000 to $2,000,000 and the greatest benefit appears to come from the most expensive option (the additional pipe concept).

18.     Further work is required to validate the modelling and engineering feasibility of the options identified. Discussions also need to be initiated with NZTA regarding the timeframes for the proposed upgrade of SH18 and opportunities for project alignment. Furthermore, a benefit/cost assessment is required to further assess the project feasibility and assist in project prioritisation.

 

 

 

Recommended Option

19.     Given the complexity of the preferred mitigation option for the Caribbean Drive ponding issue, the need to consult with NZTA regarding the upgrade of SH18, and that ponding is predicted to occur infrequently, the Stormwater Unit will continue to identify the preferred approach towards mitigating flooding issues predicted to arise behind SH18.

20.     The Stormwater Unit proposes to undertake a benefit and cost assessment on the Cabello Place/Meadowood Reserve overland flow project and submit it for consideration for inclusion in the stormwater capital works programme. The stormwater unit will work with local parks sports and recreation staff in remedying the stormwater issues experienced by the crèche.

21.     The Stormwater Unit will report back to the local board on the outcome and timelines for any potential works once the project has been submitted for inclusion in the capital works programme.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22.     This report is in response to Upper Harbour Local Board resolution UH/2013/212, and seeks local board endorsement for the proposed project to mitigate flooding in Cabello Place and Meadowood Reserve.

Maori impact statement

23.     It is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management has integral links with the mauri of the environments and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

Implementation

24.     Any decisions arising from discussions and changes to work programmes will have financial and resourcing implications which will need to be managed.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Nick Brown - Flood Planning Team Manager, Stormwater Unit, Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Approval of Scoping and Cost for the Tauhinu Road Upgrade

 

File No.: CP2014/15379

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The Upper Harbour Local Board is requested to approve the funding proposal put forward by Auckland Transport regarding the implementation of improvements to Tauhinu Road for the final stage in order to complete the upgrade of the length of Tauhinu Road.

Executive summary

2.       On the local board’s request, Auckland Transport carried out a costing investigation for the final stage of the upgrade of Tauhinu Road, being approximately 275m to Greenhithe Road.

3.       The rough order of cost for this final stage is approximately $440,000, which brings total cost of the project to approximately $1,050,000.

4.       The cost estimates would be the potential local board share and do not include stormwater and road rehabilitation costs, which will be covered by internal funding from Auckland Transport.

5.       If the local board wishes to proceed with the final section of Tauhinu Road to Greenhithe Road, it would need to approve expenditure of an additional $376,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

6.       The board currently has $337,000 available in the LBTCF for the 2014/15 financial year and is able to commit funds from the 2015/16 years budget. It is recommended that an amount of $39,000 be brought forward from the 2015/2016 financial year in order to complete the project.

7.       If approved, it is intended that the physical works will start in early November 2014 with a completion date of early April 2015.

8.       The Upper Harbour Local Board is now requested to approve the funding proposal put forward by Auckland Transport regarding upgrading the final section of Tauhinu Road, as detailed in paragraph 5 above.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve the allocation of $337,000 from its 2014/2015 Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

b)      approve the bringing forward of $39,000 from its 2015/2016 Local Board Transport Capital Fund budget, in order to complete the Tauhinu Road upgrade project.

 

Comments

 

9.       The 2012-2022 Long-term Plan allocated significant capital funding to Auckland Transport to deliver the transport programme.  Auckland Transport prioritises this capital budget based on a number of criteria. Generally, large projects receive a high ranking because they impact on a large number of people or vehicles. The nature of the criteria and the prioritisation process means that projects that may be significant to local communities, but do not deliver regional outcomes, are unlikely to receive a high priority or be delivered in a constrained fiscal environment.

10.     At the 3 April 2012 Strategy and Finance Committee meeting, Auckland Transport was requested to ring fence $10 million per annum from its capital budget for local board priorities. Auckland Transport was asked to report back to the committee on the implications for the work programme in the Long-term Plan, with a view to continuing to maximise the New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) subsidy. The committee also requested that staff develop options for the allocation of transport funding to local boards, and report this back to the committee after consultation with local boards.

11.     Following the decision of the Strategy and Finance Committee, staff developed a discussion document that outlined the objectives of the funding, issues, options, and criteria. This discussion document was used as the basis for consultation with local boards, which occurred over May and June 2012.

12.     Staff subsequently reported the issues, options and a recommended approach to the
2 August 2012 Strategy and Finance Committee meeting. The report included feedback from the consultation with local boards.

13.     At its meeting of 28 August 2012, the Upper Harbour Local Board was presented with a report providing information on Auckland Transport’s (AT) proposed process and timeline for the implementation of the Strategy and Finance Committee’s decision. It also provided the board with an opportunity to formally endorse proposals for scoping by Auckland Transport.

14.     The allocation of the $10 million of Auckland Transport’s capital funding apportioned to the Upper Harbour Local Board amounted to $337,066.

15.     At its business meeting of 28 August 2012, the Upper Harbour Local Board resolved to approve the upgrade of Tauhinu Road, for scoping by Auckland Transport for the 2012/2013 financial year as part of the Local Board Transport Capital Programme resolution number UH/2012/180.

16.     At its business meeting on 12 February 2013, the Upper Harbour Local Board resolved as follows:

17

Approval of Scoping and Cost for the Tauhinu Road Upgrade

 

Resolution number UH/2013/2

MOVED by Member BK Neeson, seconded Member MA Miles:  

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      Approves the staged approach to the Tauhinu Road upgrade project.

b)      Approves the allocation of the Board’s 2012/2013 Local Board initiatives budget of $337,066.00 to the construction of Stage 1 of the Tauhinu Road upgrade project.

c)      Approves the bringing forward of $103,000.00 from its 2013/2014 budget in order to proceed with stage 1 of the Tauhinu Road upgrade project.

CARRIED

17.     Subsequently, at its business meeting of 25 June 2013, the Upper Harbour Local Board resolved as follows:

15

Approval of Scoping and Cost for the Tauhinu Road Upgrade

 

Resolution number UH/2013/3

MOVED by Member MA Miles, seconded Member LW Whyte:  

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approves the staged approach to the Tauhinu Road upgrade project.

b)      approves the allocation of the Board’s 2013/2014 Local Board initiatives budget of $506,756, minus a renewals component of $81,545.00, to the construction of Stage 2 of the Tauhinu Road upgrade project.

c)      recommends to the incoming local board that it considers approving the allocation of the Board’s 2014/2015 Local Board initiatives budget of $434,541.00, minus a renewals component of $60,985.00, to the construction of Stage 3 of the Tauhinu Road upgrade project, to be considered at the Board’s initial meeting following the elections.

CARRIED

18.     With a correction resolved on at its business meeting of 9 July 2013, as follows:

17

Auckland Transport Update to the Upper Harbour Local Board, July 2013

 

Resolution number UH/2013/4

MOVED by Member BK Neeson, seconded Member WW Flaunty:  

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receives the Auckland Transport Update to the Upper Harbour Local Board, July 2013 report.

b)      approves the allocation of $234,066, as a correction to Item 15, resolution (b) number UH/2013/130, previously resolved at a meeting of the Upper Harbour Local Board held on 25 June 2013, being the remaining unallocated portion of the Board’s 2013/2014 Local Board Transport Capital Fund budget, towards the construction of a portion of Stage 2 of the Tauhinu Road Upgrading project.

CARRIED

19.     Through the above resolutions, the Upper Harbour Local Board fully committed its allocation of the Transport Capital Fund budget for financial years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, towards stages 1 and 2 of the upgrade of Tauhinu Road.

20.     At its business meeting on 8 April 2014, the Upper Harbour Local Board resolved as follows:

19

Local Board Transport Capital Fund – overview of total programme for the current local boards

 

Resolution number UH/2014/5

MOVED by Member C Blair, seconded by Member JG McLean:  

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      request Auckland Transport to confirm the costs for completion of the Tauhinu Road project.

CARRIED

21.     This report provides the costs for the completion of the Tauhinu Road project.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22.     The local board’s view was sought throughout the process, as mentioned above, and approval is now required for the allocation of the remaining funding.

Maori impact statement

23.     No specific issues with regard to the Maori impact statement are triggered by this report.

General

24.     The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy. All programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the council’s Annual Plan and LTP documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Implementation

25.     All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Ivan Trethowen  – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Proposed school bus stops - 75 and 80 Bush Road

 

File No.: CP2014/14647

 

 

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek local board feedback on the proposed new school bus stops outside 75 and 80 Bush Road.

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Transport is proposing to install new bus stops outside 75 and 80 Bush Road for the Pinehurst School bus service, and is seeking feedback on the proposal from the Upper Harbour Local Board (see Attachment A) and all affected property owners and occupiers (see Attachment B).

3.       Plans illustrating the proposed location of the bus stops are attached as Attachment C and Attachment D.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      provide feedback to Auckland Transport on the proposed new school bus stops outside 75 and 80 Bush Road by 25 July 2014.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Letter to the Upper Harbour Local Board dated 27 June 2014

63

bView

Letter to affected property owners and occupiers dated 30 June 2014

65

cView

Plan showing proposed location of new bus stop outside 75 Bush Road

67

dView

Plan showing proposed location of new bus stop outside 80 Bush Road

69

 

Signatories

Authors

Ivan Trethowen - Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 



Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 



Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback

 

File No.: CP2014/13519

 

 

 

Purpose

1.       To request formal feedback from local boards on the draft Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy.

Executive summary

2.       The purpose of this report is to provide local boards with a copy of the draft Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) and to request formal feedback by resolution. 

3.       On 13 May 2014, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopted the LAP Project: Statement of Proposal (a copy will be available at the meeting and it can also be viewed on the Auckland Council website), which includes the draft Auckland Council LAP, for public consultation (resolution number REG/2014/60(a).  Following this decision, the council commenced public consultation (using the special consultative procedure), on 16 June 2014.

4.       In addition to the public consultation process, council staff are seeking feedback from local boards on the draft LAP.  Throughout June 2014, staff have facilitated workshops with local boards to discuss the content of the draft LAP.  This report is a follow up to those workshops and provides local boards with an opportunity to pass formal feedback on the proposals.  A list of key topics for local boards to consider passing resolutions on is included as Appendix C.

5.       The draft LAP includes proposals relating to the following:

·        location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

·        location of licensed premises by reference to proximity to premises or facilities of a particular kind or kinds

·        whether further licences (or licences of a particular kind or kinds) should be issued for premises in the district concerned or any stated part of the district

·        maximum trading hours

·        the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions.

6.       The details of these proposals are outlined in the body of this report.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      provides formal feedback (by passing resolutions) on the draft Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy, noting that the resolutions will be included in the officers’ report to the Local Alcohol Policy Project Hearings Panel.

Comments

Legislative framework

Background: law reform

7.       In December 2012, Parliament enacted the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act).  The Act introduced a new national framework for regulating the sale and supply of alcohol.

8.       One of the key policy drivers behind the new legislation was an increased focus on local decision-making.  In line with this, the Act removed the ability for council staff to consider alcohol licence applications under delegation and instead established new, strengthened

          local decision-making bodies (district licensing committees; “DLCs”).  The Act also introduced the ability for local authorities to tailor some of the new national provisions (such as maximum trading hours) to their own local circumstances and to create additional regulations (such as the regulation of licence density) through the development of local alcohol policies (“LAPs”).

9.       Whilst LAPs are not mandatory, the Act specifically empowers local authorities to develop them.  The Act also explicitly requires licensing decision-makers, including DLCs and the new appellate body, the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (“ARLA”), to have regard to the content of LAPs when making decisions under the Act.  This statutory recognition represents a significant change from the previous system and allows local authorities, in consultation with their communities and stakeholders, to have greater influence over their local licensing environments.

 

Scope of LAPs

10.     The Act restricts the scope of LAPs to the following licensing matters (section 77 of the Act):

·        location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

·        location of licensed premises by reference to proximity to premises or facilities of a particular kind or kinds

·        whether further licences (or licences of a particular kind or kinds) should be issued for premises in the district concerned or any stated part of the district

·        maximum trading hours

·        the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions

·        one-way door restrictions.

11.     Rules relating to each of these matters can be applied to: on-licences (e.g. bars, restaurants, taverns); off-licences (e.g. bottle stores or supermarkets) and club licences (e.g. sports clubs, RSAs) through the LAP.  For special licences, a LAP can only include rules on hours, discretionary conditions and one-way door restrictions. 

 

Effect of LAPs

12.     The Act specifies when a LAP must be considered by licensing decision-makers (i.e. the DLC and ARLA).  It also stipulates the effect that LAPs can have on the outcomes of different types of applications.  The provisions of the Act relevant to these matters are summarised in the table below.

Table 1. Application of a LAP in licensing decisions

 

Summary

When LAP to be considered

·      The Act requires the DLC and ARLA to “have regard to” the LAP when deciding whether to issue or renew a licence. 

Effect of LAP on applications for new licences

·      The Act provides that where issuing a new licence would be inconsistent with the LAP, the DLC and ARLA may refuse to issue the licence (section 108)

·      Alternatively, the DLC or ARLA may issue the licence subject to particular conditions to address the inconsistencies with the LAP (section 109)

Effect of LAP on existing licences

·      For applications to renew a licence, the DLC and ARLA cannot refuse to issue the licence on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the LAP.  They can however, impose conditions on the licence to reduce the inconsistency (section 133).

o   The main implication of this is that location and density policies contained within a LAP will not apply to existing licences, meaning it will take time to give effect to the intention of location and density policies. 

·      Provisions of a LAP relating to maximum hours and one-way door policies will apply to all licensees at the time that those provisions come into force (section 45).

o   This cannot be less than three months after public notice of adoption of the LAP, providing all appeals have been resolved.

o   The effect of this is that licensees with longer hours will have to revert to the maximum trading hours stated in the LAP, while licensees with shorter hours will not be affected.

 

 

Statutory process for developing LAPs

13.     The Act prescribes the process for developing a LAP.  In particular, it:

·        outlines the matters that local authorities must have regard to when developing a LAP (section 78(2))

·        requires local authorities to consult with the Police, inspectors and Medical Officers of Health before producing a draft LAP (section 78(4))

·        requires local authorities to develop a draft LAP (section 78(1)), to give public notice of the draft LAP and to use the special consultative procedure to consult with the public (section 79(1)).  (The draft policy then becomes the provisional policy.)

·        requires local authorities to publicly notify the provisional policy and to allow submitters to appeal against the provisional policy (section 80).

14.     The Act also sets out an appeal process and states that:

·        only those who have made a submission on the draft LAP may appeal

·        the only ground on which an appeal can be lodged is that the provisional LAP (or a part thereof) is unreasonable in light of the object of the Act.

15.     The object of the Act (section 4) is that:

a)     the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly; and

b)     the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised.

16.     The Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), as well as the sections below, provide information on the process Auckland Council has followed in developing its draft LAP, in line with the statutory requirements.

 

Auckland Council’s Local Alcohol Policy Project

Council’s decision to develop a LAP

17.     In 2012, in anticipation of the new Act, Auckland Council completed the LAP Research Project, which focused on gathering and analysing information to support the development of a LAP. In May 2012, staff presented the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) with a copy of a research report, which was structured around the information requirements as set out in the then Alcohol Reform Bill (and that were later carried through into the final legislation). 

18.     After considering the research report, the RDOC approved the development of an Auckland Council LAP, subject to the passing of the Bill (resolution number RDO/2012/78(d)).  This decision was later confirmed by the Governing Body in January 2013, after the new Act received Royal assent on 18 December 2012.

 

Project plan: key steps for developing council’s LAP

19.     Auckland Council has followed an extensive process in preparing its draft LAP.  The key steps are outlined in the table below.  (Step 8 onwards will occur after the consultation process).

 

Table 2. Project plan overview

Step

Description

Timeframe

1.   Project organisation / governance

·      Established stakeholder reference groups and Joint Political Working Party

Complete

2.   Issues analysis

·      Reviewed, updated and analysed information gathered as part of Local Alcohol Policy Research Project in accordance with statutory requirements

Complete

3.   Options analysis

 

·      Identified assessed options available, within the parameters of the Act, to the council for addressing the issues identified at step 2.

·      Develop an issues and options paper with input from political working party and stakeholder reference group

Complete

4.   Initial engagement period

·      Initial engagement with internal, external and political stakeholders on issues and options paper

Complete

5.   Engagement on staff position

·      Developed a position paper with staff recommendations based on issues and options analysis, and feedback received through initial engagement period

·      Reported position back to internal, external and political stakeholders involved in the initial engagement period for further feedback

Complete

6.   Develop and gain approval of draft policy

·      Analysed outcomes of steps 2 to 5, completed detailed impact assessment, completed final engagement with elected members and developed draft policy

·      Present draft policy to the Committee for approval

·      Publicly notify draft policy

Complete

7.   Special consultative procedure

·      Follow special consultative procedure as set out in the Local Government Act 2002, which includes receiving written submissions, holding hearings and deliberating in public (i.e. full public consultation)

·      Parallel process for local boards and council advisory panels to provide feedback on the draft LAP

Current – September 2014

8.   Provisional policy

·      Work with Hearings Panel to report back to Governing Body with Provisional LAP

·      If the Governing Body endorses the provisional policy, give public notice of:

the provisional policy

rights of appeal against it

the ground on which an appeal may be made.

October / November 2014

9.   Appeals

·      Appeals will be dealt with in accordance with the Act

TBC

10.  Adopt final policy

·      Adopt final policy in accordance with the Act

·      Timing will depend on whether appeals have been lodged and if so, when they are resolved.  

TBC

11.      Implementation

·      Work with officers from Licensing and Compliance and other relevant areas of council on the implementation of the policy.  Officers will also develop a monitoring and evaluation framework. 

TBC

 

Auckland Council’s draft Local Alcohol Policy

Council’s decision to adopt the draft Auckland Council LAP for public consultation

20.     On 13 May 2014, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopted the Local Alcohol Policy Project: Statement of Proposal, which includes the draft Auckland Council LAP, for public consultation (resolution number REG/2014/60(a); a full copy of the resolutions is provided in Attachment A of this report).

21.     Following this decision, the council commenced the public consultation process (using the special consultative procedure), on 16 June 2014.  The key consultation dates are summarised in the table below:

Table 3. Key consultation dates

Date

Milestone

16 June 2014

Written submission period opened

16 July 2014

Written submission period closes

July/August 2014

·      Officers will review and analyse all submissions and report to Hearings Panel.

·      This report will include all resolutions passed by the local boards and council advisory panels with feedback on the draft policy.

Late August/ September 2014

·      Public hearings will be held

·      Local Boards will be invited to attend a meeting with the Hearings Panel.

October 2014

Hearings Panel will report back to Governing Body with a provisional LAP

 

Background to draft LAP: stakeholder feedback

22.    The following paragraphs provide an overview of the feedback received on the key issues associated with the project.  A detailed summary of the feedback received from different feedback groups on the specific policy levers and proposals outlined in the staff position paper is provided in Attachment B. 

23.    There was a reasonable level of agreement across the different feedback groups on the following matters:

·       Variation by licence – That the draft LAP needs to set different rules for different kinds of licences (i.e. on-licences, off-licences, club licences and special licences).

·       Local variationThat given the size and diversity of the Auckland region, the draft LAP should provide a degree of local variation.  Most agreed that at least the Central City should be treated differently, particularly in relation to on-licence hours.

·       Club licences Staff received very little feedback on how the LAP should regulate club licences, at both the issues and options stage and in response to the position paper.  Of those that did comment, most agreed that issues with club licences are typically related to the operation and management of the premises, rather than location or density.  Feedback also focused on wider issues beyond the scope of the LAP, such as the interrelationship between alcohol and sport. 

·       Discretionary conditions There was strong support for the LAP to specify a range of discretionary conditions, even from industry groups, provided the conditions are clear (both in terms of compliance and the rationale), practical and reasonable.

24.    Feedback varied across the different groups on most other matters, particularly the following: 

Off-licence density

·       Most agreed that the proliferation of off-licence premises across Auckland is one of the most pressing issues to be addressed through the LAP.  Statutory stakeholders, public health sector stakeholders, community groups, residents and local boards (especially the southern boards) were all particularly concerned with this issue and wanted to see strict density controls through the LAP.  The on-licence industry also expressed concern about clusters of off-licences within close proximity to on-licences and the issues this can create with pre- and side-loading. 

·       The off-licence industry however, opposed the use of density controls.  Supermarkets in particular, argued that whilst density and clustering of premises may be an issue for other types of off-licences, it is not a concern for supermarkets. 

·       Other off-licensees (such as bottle stores), as well as umbrella organisations representing different retailers (e.g. business associations) acknowledged that there are issues with off-licence density in some parts of Auckland, but suggested that blanket rules would not be appropriate.  These groups argued that the issues associated with off-licence clusters would be better managed through policy approaches designed to improve compliance combined with greater monitoring and enforcement of the Act.  The main concern here was that blanket (‘umbrella’) rules penalise ‘good’ operators rather than targeting those with poor compliance.

 

On-licence density

·       By contrast, most feedback groups seemed supportive of on-licence clustering, although comments tended to focus on positive notions of vibrancy and economic development associated with clusters of restaurants and cafes.

·       Statutory stakeholders expressed concerns that the clustering of other types of on-licences (particularly late night bars) can have negative amenity effects and cumulative impacts on an area, ultimately leading to increased alcohol-related harm.  The Police and Medical Officer of Health advocated for strong regulation of on-licence density.

·       Licence inspectors acknowledged there can be issues with on-licence clusters but also suggested concentrating on-licences in certain areas can allow for easier enforcement. 

 

Off-licence opening times

·       Most stakeholders, community groups and residents were supportive of the LAP reducing off-licences hours across the region.  Statutory stakeholders and public health sector stakeholders were particularly supportive, and some wanted to see trading hours even further restricted than those recommended by staff.

·       The off-licence industry (with the exception of supermarkets) were also generally supportive of reduced trading hours for off-licences, provided that all types of premises were treated the same (i.e. that restrictions should be applied to bottle stores and supermarkets).

·       Representatives for the supermarkets were strongly opposed to any restrictions on off-licence hours provided under the Act.  They were especially opposed to the proposed opening time of 9am.  The supermarkets argued that alcohol sales between 7am and 9am are minor and that this would inconvenience their shoppers.

·       Other stakeholders, members of the community and elected members had mixed views on whether supermarkets should be treated separately. 

 

On-licence closing times

·       The topic of on-licence closing times has been the most contentious issue throughout the policy development process.  Almost all groups (except the hospitality industry) were supportive of the shift away from 24 hour licensing that the Act has provided.  However, in terms of ‘which parts of Auckland should close when’, the feedback was very mixed.

·       The Police argued strongly for 3am closing in the Central City with 1am closing everywhere else.  The Medical Officer of Health also shared these views, although on occasion suggested even more restrictive hours. 

·       Public health sector stakeholders were mixed.  Some supported the Police recommendations, others suggested very strict closing times  and others still, supported the staff position paper recommendations.

·       The on-licence industry’s feedback was that ideally the LAP would override the 4am default position set in the Act, but if not, then no further restrictions to the default hours are required.  The on-licence industry was also opposed to the idea of restrictions based solely on location as this fails to take account for the quality of individual operators (in terms of host responsibility etc.).

·       Community views were very mixed.  Staff met with some community groups that wanted to see certain types of premises open late, whereas other groups were comfortable with 3am or 4am closing. 

 

 

 

One-way door policy

·       Throughout the initial engagement period, there was some support for the use of the one-way door policy.  However, other stakeholders raised concerns about the practicality of this tool and the potential for other unintended consequences such as:

Risks to individual safety (e.g. if an individual is separated from their group of friends)

Increased drinking in public places

Higher risk of conflicts for security staff (e.g. large queues just before one-way door commences, issues with outside smoking etc.)

 

Background to draft LAP: local board feedback

25.     Throughout the development of the draft LAP, staff regularly engaged with, and considered the views and preferences of local boards.  In particular, staff:

·    reported to the Alcohol Programme Political Working Party, which included local board membership

·    provided local boards with individualised research summaries on alcohol-related issues within their local board areas

·    held workshops with local boards on the issues and options paper

·    reported to local boards to gather feedback on the position paper.

26.     Table 4 below summarises the feedback received from local boards on the position paper, which was released prior to the development of the draft LAP.  (Note: This summary represents an overview of the feedback received.  Some individual boards may not have agreed with the majority views). 

27.     Feedback received specifically from this local board is included, along with a response from officers, in the “Local board views and implications” section of this report (below). 

Table 4. Summary of local board feedback

Position paper proposal

Summary of Feedback

Policy lever 1 – Location: Broad Areas

Establish six broad policy areas; five based on zoning in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and a sixth “high stress/high risk” overlay.

Mixed views.

·      Some supported in principle

·      Others preferred a regional approach

·      Some suggested that some areas needed to be shifted between areas 2 and 3 (e.g. Devonport/Takapuna re-categorised as Area 3)

·      Some wanted local boards to be able to make rules in their area.

Use of a high stress overlay to identify problem areas or vulnerable communities

Mostly very supportive.

Policy lever 2 – Location: Proximity

Indirectly regulate the location of off-licences in relation to schools:

·      through the cumulative impact process

·      by delaying off-licence opening times until 9am

·      by regulating advertising through the signage bylaw

Mixed views.

·      Most supported the cumulative impact assessment including this as a consideration.

·      Southern boards supportive of buffer zone, others happy to rely on discretionary conditions

·      Concern around advertising

 

 

Policy lever 3 – Density

Allow clustering of on-licences in urbanised/ business focused areas (Broad Areas A and B)

Unclear.

·      General agreement that there is a case to treat the CBD differently, less certain on metropolitan centres

·      Some local boards considered that clusters of on-licences (e.g. restaurants) could be beneficial from an economic perspective and in terms of creating vibrancy etc.

 

Temporary freeze on off-licences in the CBD and high stress areas

 

Mostly supportive.

·      Mostly concerned with density of off-licences

·      Support for combination of cumulative impact approach and area based temporary freezes

·      A minority did not like this approach

The use of cumulative impact assessments to limit the establishment of new licences in other areas

Mostly supportive.

·      Many supported in principle but requested more information

·      Some suggested this should be required across the whole region.

·      Others wanted stronger density controls such as a sinking lid or cap

Policy lever 4 – Maximum trading hours

Maximum hours of 9am to 10pm for off-licences across the region

 

Supportive

·      Some boards, especially Southern boards, would prefer even greater restrictions

·      The rest were generally supportive of the proposed regional approach

Maximum hours of 8am to 1am for club licences across the region

Negligible feedback on club hours.

Maximum on-licence hours varied across the region:

·      CBD: 8am to4am

·      Metro centres:8am to 3am

·      Rest of Auckland (including high-stress areas):8am to 1am

Mixed views.

·      Some were happy with the hours proposed

·      Some Southern boards wanted earlier closing but would be happy if this was picked up through the high stress overlay

·      There was reasonable support for having localised entertainment hubs (i.e. metropolitan centres) to reduce migration to CBD

Trial extensions for operators in Broad Area A and Broad Area B

Mixed.

·      Some supported extended hours based on good behaviour.

Policy lever 5 – One-way door

No one-way door

Very mixed.

Policy lever 6 – Discretionary conditions

A range of discretionary conditions based on licence type

 

Supportive.

·      General support for a range of conditions, especially those that support good host responsibility


Summary of draft LAP content

28.     This section of the report summarises the proposals contained within the draft LAP.  The proposals:

·        are evidence-based

·        align with the object of the Act

·        as far as possible, respond to feedback and concerns from elected members and stakeholders.

Purpose (section 1 of draft LAP)

29.     The purpose of the draft LAP is to provide guidance to the DLC and ARLA on alcohol licensing matters in a manner that:

·        is appropriate to the Auckland Council region

·        reflects the views and preferences of Auckland’s communities and stakeholders

·        is consistent with the object of the Act.

30.     Overall, the draft LAP aims to reduce Auckland’s issues with alcohol-related harm by:

·        prioritising areas where the LAP can have the greatest impact on harm reduction

·        controlling where new licences are allowed

·        controlling how many new licences are allowed

·        reducing the hours that licensed premises can sell alcohol

·        identifying additional conditions that the DLC can apply to licences to help improve the consistency of standards across Auckland’s premises.

31.     This purpose aligns with the object of the Act, the requirement for the LAP to be reasonable in light of this object and the policy intent of the Act to provide greater local input into licensing decisions.

 

Location and density of licences

32.     Auckland’s differing communities and areas means a blanket approach to policy provisions is not suitable. The draft LAP categorises the Auckland region into three broad areas each of which has different rules (reference to draft policy: Part B: Section 2 and appendices).

 

Table 5A. Policy areas

Area

Overview

Broad Area A (City Centre, Ponsonby, Newton)

The three centres included in this broad area function as the region’s main entertainment hub.  However, these areas also experience high levels of alcohol-related harm, including crime and anti-social behaviour. 

Broad Area B (rest of the region)

The intended outcomes across the region are relatively consistent and therefore can be achieved through consistent policy tools.

A priority overlay which provides additional rules.

The priority overlay identifies areas that have high numbers of existing licences and communities that experience higher levels of alcohol-related harm. These are termed priority areas. The overlay will help protect these areas from further harm by imposing specific policies and rules.

33.    The draft LAP also proposes the following policy tools to manage location and density issues.

34.     Temporary freeze: The distribution of off-licences across Auckland is uneven and some areas have much higher licence density than others (e.g. the City Centre and many centres captured by the Priority Areas Overlay).  Evidence shows that these areas also tend to experience disproportionate levels of alcohol-related harm.  The draft LAP therefore, proposes that the DLC and ARLA should refuse to issue new off-licences in these specific areas for a period of 24 months from when the policy is adopted. 

35.     International case studies show that the temporary freeze is a useful policy tool, not only to allow time for saturated areas to recover but it can also lead to improved compliance.  These are both important in achieving the object of the Act. 

36.     Environmental and Cumulative Impacts Assessment Process: Staff are proposing that certain applications for new licences would need to undergo an Environmental and Cumulative Impacts Assessment (ECIA) to help the DLC or ARLA in determining a licence application.  Whether an ECIA is required would depend on the location of the proposed site and the risk profile of the premises under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013.

37.     The process would build on the decision-making criteria under the Act to provide a more comprehensive framework for the assessment of new licence applications.  In particular, it would ensure that following matters were fully considered, in order to better manage location (including proximity to sensitive sites) and density issues arising from applications for new licences:

·        The risks associated with the location (including external and environmental risks such as the existing licence environment and the current levels of alcohol-related crime); and

·        The individual risks associated with the proposed licence (such as the type of premises, the risk profile etc.).

38.     A key advantage with this approach is that rather than requiring absolute policy provisions (which would be very difficult to apply in an area as vast as Auckland), it allows the DLC and ARLA to exercise discretion and consider applications in the Auckland context, yet in a consistent and transparent manner. 

39.     The ECIA process is applied in the draft LAP in different ways, depending on the kind of licence and the location, but ultimately the process would assist the DLC and ARLA to determine which of the following outcomes is most appropriate:

·        That the licence should be issued

·        That the licences should be issued subject to certain discretionary conditions

·        That the licence should not be issued. 

40.     Rebuttable presumption: The rebuttable presumption is the most restrictive way that the ECIA process is applied through the draft LAP.  Staff have recommended that it be used in specific parts of the region where there is evidence that the alcohol licensing environment has a negative cumulative impact on the area (e.g. to restrict the establishment of new off-licences in neighbourhood centres).  The effect of the rebuttable presumption would be that applications for new off-licences would generally be refused, unless the DLC or ARLA was satisfied that the operation of the premises would not unreasonably add to the environmental and cumulative impacts of alcohol on the area. 

Maximum trading hours

41.     The draft LAP proposes regional hours for club and off-licences, and hours based on location for on-licences.  The hours proposed are as follows (reference to draft policy: Part B: Section 3.4; and sections 4 to 7):

Table 5b. Proposed maximum trading hours

Licence

Proposed hours

Off-licences

9am to 10pm

On-licences

·        Broad Area A: 9am to 3am

·        Broad Area B: 9am to 1am

·        Priority Overlay: Same as underlying broad area.

Club licences

9am to 1am

Special licences

Case by case, with consideration for location and nature of event/risks associated with event

42.     Restricting the hours that alcohol is available can help to decrease alcohol-related harm. The licensed hours proposed in the draft LAP:

·        represent a reduction from the national default hours (implemented in December 2013)

·        reflect the views of the statutory stakeholders (Police, medical officers of health and licence inspectors)

·        accommodate a majority of club and on-licence premises’ existing licensed hours

·        will help to decrease inappropriate consumption (e.g. “side-loading” – leaving a bar to purchase cheaper alcohol from an off-licence before returning to the bar).

 

 

Trial extensions of hours for on-licences

43.     The draft policy allows for on-licences (except those in the priority overlay) to apply for a two-hour maximum trial extension of hours.

·        These will be granted on a trial basis, at the DLC’s discretion and following the completion of an environmental and cumulative impact assessment.

·        Applicants will have a history of best-practice operation, and will need to continue to demonstrate high levels of compliance to keep the extension.

·        Trial extensions will be preferred in the city centre for Broad Area A and in the metropolitan centres for Broad Area B.

·        No extensions will be allowed in the priority areas.

 

Additional discretionary conditions

44.     The draft LAP recommends a range of discretionary conditions for the DLC to apply. These conditions strengthen provisions already in the Act, and will help minimise harm to individuals and the community from inappropriate and excessive drinking.

Table 6. Discretionary conditions

Conditions recommended for all licences

Conditions which can be applied on a case-by-case basis

Where in draft LAP

Includes:

·       an onsite incident register

·       host responsibility policies  for club and on-licences

·       prohibition on single unit sales for off-licences

 

Includes:

·       Restrictions on drinks prior to closing

·       Clean public areas outside

·       Certified manager to be onsite at BYO and club licences (already required for on- and off-licences)

·       CCTV

·       Monitoring of outdoor areas for late-trading premises (on-licences).

Part B: Sections 4 to 7

 

 

Summary of on-licence provisions

45.    The table below demonstrates how the policy tools described above are applied to on-licences within the draft LAP.  This on-licence policy package is designed to:

·        reduce alcohol-related harm by:

o requiring greater scrutiny of new on-licence applications, taking into account not only the applicant’s proposals but also the surrounding environment and existing licences.

o significantly reducing licence hours from the previous 24-hour licensing regime, and only allowing best practice on-licence operators to trade later.  These operators will also be subject to higher standards.

·        provide targeted policy interventions and additional protection for vulnerable communities from alcohol-related harm in Priority Areas

·        improved practices amongst the off-licence industry through a range of discretionary conditions.

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Summary of draft LAP provisions for on-licences

Policy lever

Policy tool

Risk profile

Broad Area A

Broad Area B

Priority Areas

Metro Centres

Neigh-

bourhood centres

Rest of Broad Area B

Location / density

ECIA

Very High

Required

Required

Required

Required

Required

High

Required

Required

Required

Required

Required

Medium

NA

NA

Required

Required

Required

Low

NA

NA

Required

NA

Required

Very Low

NA

NA

NA

NA

Required

Proximity to sensitive sites

ECIA

Risk profile is one of the triggers

DLC & ARLA directed to consider proximity to sensitive sites as part of ECIA

Hours

Standard maximum hours

-

9am- 3am

9am - 1am

·      Hours to align with underlying area

·      LAP encourages even more restrictive hours

Trial extension for best practice operators

Risk is a factor in considering applications for extensions

Up to 2 hours

Morning or evening (not both)

 

Preferred over other parts of Broad Area B

Directs DLC not to grant extensions in these areas

Up to 2 hours

Morning or evening (not both)

Centres preferred

Directs DLC not to grant extensions in these areas

Conditions

-

-

 

Range of conditions

 

 

Note: An A3 version of this table is provided in Attachment B.

 

Summary of off-licence provisions

46.    The table below demonstrates how the policy tools are applied to off-licences within the draft LAP.  This off-licence policy package recommended is designed to achieve the following:

·        Enable the direct consideration of proximity issues by ensuring that the DLC and ARLA are made aware of any sensitive sites and existing premises relevant to an application, allowing them to make an informed decision as to what is appropriate

·        Reduced access to alcohol from off-licences and reduced issues with pre and side-loading, especially in the Central City

·        Strong regulation of off-licence density in areas with the greatest density and greatest levels of alcohol-related harm (e.g. the Central City and Priority Areas) and in neighbourhood centres, to align with feedback that ‘bottle stores on every corner’ are not appropriate or desirable

·        Improved practices amongst the off-licence industry through a range of discretionary conditions.

 

 

 

Table 8. Summary of draft LAP provisions for off-licences

Policy lever

Policy tool

Risk profile

Broad Area A

Broad Area B

Priority Areas

First 24 months

After 24 months

At all times policy in force

First 24 months

After 24 months

Neigh-

bourhood centres

Rest of Broad Area B

Location / density

ECIA

Very High

 

 

Temporary freeze

 

ECIA required

 

Presumption against approval

 

ECIA required

 

Presumption against approval

 

 

 

 

 

ECIA required

 

DLC to “take into account

 

Temporary freeze

 

ECIA required

 

Presumption against approval

High

 

 

Medium

 

 

Low

 

 

Very Low

 

 

NA

Proximity to sensitive sites

ECIA

Risk profile is one of the triggers

DLC & ARLA directed to consider proximity to sensitive sites as part of ECIA

Hours

Reduced hours

-

 

9am to 10pm regional maximum

6am to 10pm remote sales by off-licence (e.g. online sales)

(Note: transaction can occur at any time but delivery times restricted)

Condition

-

-

Range of conditions

 

Note: An A3 version of this table is provided in Attachment B.

Special licences

47.    The draft LAP proposes the following for special licences:

·        Maximum hours should be determined on a case-by-case basis but should generally be in accordance with the policies that would apply to the Broad Area within which the event will be held

·        A range of discretionary conditions designed to improve host responsibility and to reduce the overall alcohol-related harm associated with events.

Other options considered

48.     Staff have not recommended the use of the one-way door policy, as overall, there is insufficient evidence to show its effectiveness in reducing alcohol-related harm.  Key points from the research are summarised as follows:

·        Some studies report displacement of patrons from area to area as an unintended consequence of the one-way door policy.  This could result in increased drink driving if patrons then travelled across the city. 

·        When looking at case study examples, staff found that Melbourne has experienced issues with two ‘swills’ due to the one-way door approach: one as people leave one area to get to another area with longer hours before the one-way door commences; and then a second at closing time. Other research has even shown that the one-way door approach may increase some types of alcohol related harm such as damage to licensed premises, and vehicle-related offences.

·        In areas where there was a decline in harm following the implementation of a one-way door, this tended to be for a short period before behaviours adjusted and incidence of harm returned to previous levels or increased.

 

 

49.     Staff considered a range of other options throughout the development of the draft LAP.  These are detailed in the attached Statement of Proposal. 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

50.     The table below outlines the feedback received from the Upper Harbour Local Board in 2013 on the Issues and Options paper and/or the Staff Position Paper, and provides a response from officers to show how the feedback has informed the draft LAP, or if not, why this is the case.

Table 9. Upper Harbour Local Board feedback

Topic

Local Board feedback

Officer response

General

·      Support that on- and off-licences should be treated differently under the LAP.

·      On- and off-licences have different hours, density rules and discretionary conditions as suggested by the board.

Hours

·      Members thought that hours should be varied by location and licence type. The local variation could be based on classifications in the Unitary Plan or Auckland Plan.

·      Hours are varied by location, based on two broad areas and overlay. These areas were originally classified from the Unitary Plan and then simplified further for ease of understanding.

·      Unitary Plan zoning is also used in the policy to differentiate in the following provisions: trial extensions in Broad Area B are preferred in Metropolitan centres and generally to be refused in residential areas; and there is a presumption against new off-licences in Neighbourhood centres.

Maori impact statement

Research and data on Maori and alcohol

51.     Where possible, staff have gathered data on alcohol-related issues by ethnicity.  For example, data collected from the three Auckland-based district health boards (2012) showed that for the 2010/11 fiscal year, Maori had proportionately higher rates of alcohol-related emergency department presentations.

52.     Throughout the initial engagement phases of the project, staff worked with the Policies and Bylaws team, Te Waka Angamua (Maori Strategy and Relations Department), policy advisors at the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) and Hapai Te Hauora to deliver a program for engaging with Maori on alcohol issues. 

53.     As part of this, staff ran a workshop with rangatahi (youth), organised a rangatahi engagement session as part of the Atamira event and held a hui with mana whenua and mataa waka to discuss both the LAP Project and the Alcohol Control (Liquor Ban) Bylaw Project. 

54.     The IMSB was represented on the Political Working Party.  Hapai Te Hauora Tapui was represented on the Public Health Sector Reference Group.

55.     There are no specific references in Iwi Management Plans to alcohol or alcohol policy, other than a statement about general health and well-being.

Implementation

56.     Community Policy and Planning staff have worked closely with Licensing and Compliance Services throughout the development of this draft LAP. 

57.     As part of the options analysis, staff carefully considered practicality and ease of implementation.  The proposals included in the draft LAP meet these criteria. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting May 2014 - Resolutions on draft Local Alcohol Policy

87

bView

A3 Copies of Tables 7 and 8 from report

89

cView

Key topics for feedback from local boards

91

     

Signatories

Authors

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 



Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Local board role in alcohol licence applications

 

File No.: CP2014/15050

 

 

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek local board feedback on the role local boards could play in alcohol licence applications, a process that was established by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

Executive summary

2.       The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Alcohol Act) establishes processes for alcohol licence applications.  Some local boards may wish to have input into the application process, due to concerns about alcohol-related harm within some Auckland communities. 

3.       To inform the discussion about the role of local boards in alcohol licence applications, Local Board Services has drafted an issues paper for consideration by local boards. Local boards’ formal feedback is being sought on this issue, which will inform a report to the governing body. The report will seek the governing body’s decision on the preferred option for local boards to provide input into alcohol licence applications.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the preferred option for local boards to provide input into alcohol licence applications.

 

Comments

 

4.       The Alcohol Act establishes processes for alcohol licence applications.

5.       The governing body has a number of roles under the Alcohol Act:

·     It sets a local alcohol policy for the region, with input from local boards.  This establishes the overall policy framework, covering matters such as location of licenced premises and maximum trading hours.  The governing body has developed a draft local alcohol policy for public consultation.

·     It establishes District Licensing Committees (DLCs), which have responsibility for all uncontested and contested licensing applications.

·     It has the statutory power to object to licence applications (although it is unlikely that the governing body would exercise this power).

6.       Local boards provide input into the development of the local alcohol policy.  Local board members can also be appointed to sit on DLCs.  Under current Auckland Council policy, they cannot hear applications relating to their local board area.  Local boards do not currently have the power to object to licence applications

7.       Local boards have standing under the Alcohol Act to object to licence applications, as a local board can be expected to have a greater interest in the issue than the public generally.  However, in order to exercise this, the governing body must first allocate or delegate the power to object to local boards.

 

 

 

8.       Given the role of local boards as advocates for their communities and the strategic importance placed on managing alcohol related harm by a number of local boards, it is reasonable to expect that at least some local boards will wish to express a view on alcohol licence applications.

9.       To inform the discussion about the role of local boards in alcohol licence applications, Local Board Services has drafted an issues paper which is attached at Attachment A. The issues paper sets out the role the governing body and local boards currently have under the Alcohol Act, the process for licence applications under the Alcohol Act and options for local board involvement in these matters.

10.     Feedback from local boards is being sought on the preferred option for local boards to provide input into alcohol licence applications. This formal feedback will inform a report to the governing body on this issue. The report will seek the governing body’s decision on the preferred option for local boards to provide input into alcohol licence applications. All formal local board feedback will be compiled into a report and included as an attachment to the governing body report.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11.     Local board views are being sought via this report. An outcome of this process could see local boards playing a different role in alcohol licence applications to what they presently do.

Maori impact statement

12.     Māori are likely to be interested in and impacted by DLC decisions on alcohol licence applications.  This is an issue for the DLCs when considering alcohol licence applications.

Implementation

13.     Local board feedback will be analysed and will inform a report to the governing body. This report will seek a decision from the governing body on their preferred role of local boards in alcohol licence applications.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Local board role in alcohol licence applications - issues and options

95

 

Signatories

Authors

Christine Gulik – Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 








Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Upper Harbour Local Board submission to the Auckland Transport Parking Discussion Document

 

File No.: CP2014/15582

 

 

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of the report is for the Upper Harbour Local Board to approve its submission to the Auckland Transport’s Draft Parking Discussion Document.

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Transport released Auckland’s Draft Parking Discussion Document 2014 for consultation on 31 May 2014.  The Upper Harbour Local Board was invited to make a submission on the Discussion Document by 31 July 2014. 

3.       A draft submission to the Discussion Document has been prepared by the working party, consisting of members Callum Blair, John McLean and Margaret Miles and appears on this agenda for approval by the Upper Harbour Local Board. (refer Attachment A)

4.       Once finalised and agreed by all the members, the final submission to the Draft Parking Discussion Document will be forwarded to Auckland Transport by 31 July 2014.

5.       This report seeks approval by the Upper Harbour Local Board of the submission to Auckland’s Draft Parking Discussion Document.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      approve the submission to Auckland’s Draft Parking Discussion Document, to be forwarded to Auckland Transport by 31 July 2014.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Upper Harbour Local Board draft submission to Auckland Transport Parking Discussion document

105

     

Signatories

Authors

Karen Marais - Local Board Services

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 





Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds Status as at the financial year end of June 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/15369

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an update on the status of the Upper Harbour Local Board’s discretionary funding. It provides a running total of the balances of the board’s various discretionary funds.

Executive summary

2.       The Upper Harbour Local Board has a number of discretionary funds available in the 2013/2014 financial year. The current balances of the board’s discretionary funds are as follows:

Fund

Total available in 2012/13
($)

Amount spent
($)

Balance remaining
($)

Local Board Discretionary Opex Fund

228,000

228,000

0

Local Events Contestable Fund

35,000

34,984

16

Local Discretionary Community Grants

107,121

107,121

0

Local Board Local Events

17,546

17,546

0

3.       Attached for the information of the board, is the breakdown of all funding allocated for the 2013/2014 financial year.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Fund Status as at the financial year end of June 2014 report.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Discretionary Opex Budget

111

bView

Event Support Fund

113

cView

Discretionary Community Grants Fund

115

    

Signatories

Authors

Karen Marais - Local Board Services

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Summary of Actions and Reports Requested - Upper Harbour Local Board - July 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/15377

 

 

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to update the Upper Harbour Local Board matter has been resolved.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Summary of Actions and Reports Requested – Upper Harbour Local Board – July 2014 report.

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

4.       Local board views have not been sought.

Maori impact statement

5.       There are no particular benefits or adverse effects on Maori from this report.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Summary of Actions and Reports Requested - July 2014

119

    

Signatories

Authors

Karen Marais - Local Board Services

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 






Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Records of the Upper Harbour Local Board Workshops held on 1 and 8 July 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/14738

 

 

 

Executive summary

The Upper Harbour Local Board held workshops on 1 July 2014 and 8 July 2014.  Copies of the workshop records are attached.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the records of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on 1 July 2014 and 8 July 2014.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board Workshop held on 1 July 2014

127

bView

Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board Workshop held on 8 July 2014

129

 

Signatories

Authors

Lesley Sharp - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 



Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Granted Resource Consent Applications by Local Board Area

 

File No.: CP2014/15187

 

 

 

Executive summary

Please find attached Northern Resource Consents granted applications for June 2014.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)         receive the Granted Resource Consent Applications by Local Board Area report.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Granted Resource Consent Applications by Local Board Area June 2014

133

    

Signatories

Authors

Jan Asplet - Unit Administrator

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 




Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Governing Body Members' Update

File No.: CP2014/15054

 

 

 

Executive summary

An opportunity is provided for governing body members to update the board on governing body issues relating to the Upper Harbour Local Board.

 

 

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)         receive the governing body members’ verbal updates.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Lesley Sharp - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Board Members' Reports

 

File No.: CP2014/15055

 

 

 

Executive summary

An opportunity is provided for members to update the Upper Harbour Local Board on projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

[Note: This is an information item and if the board wishes any action to be taken under this item, a written report must be provided for inclusion on the agenda.]

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the verbal board members’ reports.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Lesley Sharp - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

      

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

22 July 2014

 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Confidential - Special Housing Areas: Tranche 4

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest.

In particular, the report contains inormation which, if released, would potentially prejudice or disadvantage commercial activities..

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.