Agenda of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

13 May 2014

Local Alcohol Policy Project - Approval of draft policy for special consultative procedure

File No.: CP2014/07695

Purpose

1. To recommend that the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopt the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) for public consultation.

2. The Statement of Proposal includes the draft Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy (“LAP”), which has been developed in accordance with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (“the Act”). The Act requires the Council to follow the special consultative procedure to consult on its draft LAP.

Executive summary

3. The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopt the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) for public consultation using the special consultative procedure.

4. The development of a LAP is not mandatory under the Act, but Auckland Council has opted to do so. This decision was originally made in May 2012 by the Regional Development and Operations Committee after it considered a research report prepared by staff on alcohol-related issues experienced in Auckland. However, at that time the new legislation had not yet been passed. The decision was therefore later confirmed by the Governing Body (in January 2013) after the new Act had received Royal assent (in December 2012).

5. In developing the draft LAP, staff have consulted with the Police, inspectors and the Medical Officer of Health (“statutory stakeholders”) and have also engaged with various stakeholders and community groups. Statements from each of the statutory stakeholders confirming this consultation process are included in Attachment B. A summary of the feedback from all stakeholder groups is summarised in this report, and is provided in more detail in Attachment C.

6. 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.

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

8. If the Committee approves the draft LAP, staff will commence the public consultation process using the special consultative procedure. As part of this staff will also report to the Hearings Committee seeking the establishment of a Hearings Panel to hear submissions, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body for a provisional LAP.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) adopt the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), which includes the draft Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy, for public consultation under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

b) note that before developing the draft Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy included in the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), Auckland Council consulted the Police, inspectors and Medical Officers of Health, as required by section 78(4) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

c) note the statements provided in Attachment B from the New Zealand Police, Manager of Alcohol Licensing (on behalf of the Auckland Council inspectors), and the Medical Officer of Health confirming that Auckland Council has fulfilled its obligations under section 78(4) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 to consult with them.

d) note the following in relation to local board input:

i) that council staff have engaged with local boards at each key phase of the Local Alcohol Policy Development Project.

ii) that in developing the draft Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy, included in the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), council staff have considered the views and preferences of local boards.

iii) that following the adoption of the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) council staff will hold workshops with, and report to, all local boards to gather their feedback on the draft Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy.

e) note that in developing the draft Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy included in the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), council staff have considered feedback from internal stakeholders, council advisory panels, the Independent Maori Statutory Board, mana whenua, mataa waka, industry stakeholders, public health sector stakeholders, community groups, residents, ratepayers and citizens.

f) note that, following the adoption of the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), council staff will report to the council advisory panels to gather feedback on the draft Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy.

g) authorise the Manager Community Policy and Planning to make any minor edits or amendments to the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) to correct any identified errors or typographical edits and/or to reflect decisions made by the Committee that affect the Statement of Proposal.

Comments

Background: Legislative reform

9. 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.

10. 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”).

11. 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: Provisions of the Act

12. 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.

13. Policies on 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). For special licences, a LAP can only include policies on hours, discretionary conditions and one-way door restrictions.

Effect of LAPs: Provisions of the Act

14. 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.

Developing LAPs: Provisions of the Act

15. 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).

16. The Act sets out the 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 decision to develop a LAP

19. 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).

20. 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.

Process for developing Auckland Council’s draft LAP

21. 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. Process 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	Current
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)	Mid June – 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: o the provisional policy o rights of appeal against it o 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

Feedback to inform Auckland Council’s draft LAP

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 C.

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 variation – That 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 every where 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:

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

o Increased drinking in public places

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

Overview of recommended approach for the draft LAP

25. 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.

26. Provisions that apply to the draft LAP as a whole are summarised first, followed by an overview of the provisions that vary across the different kinds of licences. A full copy of the draft LAP is provided in Attachment A, as part of the Statement of Proposal.

Purpose (section 1 of draft LAP)

27. 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.

28. 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.

Local variation / Location: Broad Areas (section 2 of draft LAP)

29. The Act provides that there can be one LAP for the Auckland region. However, the policy may provide differently for different parts of the region. The Act also specifically empowers the council to include policies on the location of licences “by reference to broad areas” (section 77(1)(a)).

30. Given the significant amount of local variation throughout the Auckland Council region, one set of policy provisions would not be appropriate. The draft LAP therefore, categorises the region into three ‘broad areas’ to which different policy provisions will apply.

31. This broad areas approach is summarised in Table 3 below. The relevant provisions are detailed in section 2 of the draft LAP (Attachment A) and detailed maps are included in the appendix to the draft LAP.

Table3. Broad areas approach

	Where	Description and rationale
Broad Area A	Covers the City Centre, as well as the Ponsonby and Newton commercial areas.	· Broad Area A is unique when compared to the rest of the region. The council’s strategic objective is to develop the centres in Broad Area A as business and entertainment centres that are attractive places to live, work and visit. However, these centres are also characterised by high levels of alcohol-related harm, including crime and anti-social behaviour. This combined with proliferation of licences due to the previously permissive licensing regime, means that these centres are also considered high stress environments. · In recognition of this inherent tension, the draft LAP distinguishes Broad Area A from the rest of Auckland, and proposes a set of policies that are tailored to the specific circumstances and characteristics of the areas. This allows the council to balance its aspirations for vibrancy and a mix of entertainment, with the need to reduce alcohol-related harm in these areas.
Broad Area B	Covers the remainder of the Auckland region.	· Broad Area B encompasses diverse populations, land uses and existing licence environments. · Originally, staff proposed multiple broad areas to account for these differences. However, feedback suggested that the issues relevant to these areas were relatively consistent. Accordingly, the appropriate licensing provisions can also be fairly consistent, and any relevant nuances can be addressed by way of the DLC and ARLA’s right to exercise discretion. · The draft LAP also specifically recognises neighbourhood centres with Broad Area B (as part of the rebuttable presumption) · In addition, the inclusion of the Priority Areas Overlay in the draft LAP allows for more targeted policy interventions in areas that are markedly distinct from the rest of Broad Area B.
Priority Areas (Overlay 1)	Overlay of areas experiencing greater levels of alcohol-related harm	· The overlay identifies various Priority Areas (and priority streets). · These areas have been identified through a data driven process, based on a combination of stress factors and risk factors. The areas are characterised by high levels of alcohol-related harm and significant concentrations of population groups that research suggests are at greater risk of alcohol-related harm. · For each Priority Area, the draft LAP identifies priority streets where Police data indicates alcohol-related offending is most prevalent. The Priority Area zone then applies to the areas within 250 metres of the priority streets. Although rather than having a rigid boundary, the draft LAP also encourages the DLC and ARLA to have regard to Priority Areas when considering applications for premises on the periphery of the 250 metre boundaries. The purpose of this is to avoid any unintended consequences such as displacement. (It is for this reason that boundaries are depicted with dashed rather than solid lines in the policy maps).

Policy tools (section 3 of draft LAP)

32. The draft LAP applies a range of policy tools under each of the policy levers available for the purposes of the LAP. These tools, along with the rationale to support their use, are summarised below.

Temporary freeze

33. 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.

34. 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.

Environmental and Cumulative Impacts Assessment Process

35. 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. Information about these risk profiles is included in Attachment F.

36. 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).

37. 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.

38. 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.

Rebuttable presumption

39. 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.

Restricted hours

40. There is a significant body of academic and professional literature that provides consistent evidence of a positive relationship between trading hours and alcohol-related harm. The draft LAP therefore include policies on maximum trading hours for on, off, club and special licences.

Trial extensions for best practice operators

41. The council’s policies on maximum hours for on-licences include provisions for “standard maximum hours” as well as specific provisions relating to “extended maximum hours” for best practice on-licence operators. These extensions would be allowed for up to two hour and would only be issued to best practice operators with a proven track record of compliance on a trial basis. The draft LAP provides full details about how the extensions would be applied (see sections 3 and 4).

Discretionary conditions

42. The Act regulates the operation of licensed premises by:

· establishing a number of requirements that all licensees must adhere to

· requiring the DLC and ARLA to apply a number of mandatory conditions to all licences

· allowing the DLC and ARLA to apply additional conditions to licences relating to prescribed matters

· allowing the DLC and ARLA to apply any other condition that is reasonable in light of the object of the Act.

43. The Act also allows the council to recommend certain additional conditions be applied to licences at the discretion of the DLC and ARLA. Accordingly, for each kind of licence the draft LAP recommends:

· specific conditions to be applied to every licence

· conditions to be applied to appropriate licences, depending on the type of premises

· matters for the DLC and ARLA to consider addressing through the use of discretionary conditions.

Summary of on-licence provisions

44. 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

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

Table 4. Summary of draft LAP provisions for on-licences

Policy lever	Policy tool	Risk profile	Broad Area A	Broad Area B			Priority Areas
Policy lever	Policy tool	Risk profile	Broad Area A	Metro Centres	Neigh- bourhood centres	Rest of Broad Area B	Priority Areas
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
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 D.

Summary of off-licence provisions

45. 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 5. 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 D.

Club licences

46. The draft LAP proposes the following for club licences:

· Maximum hours of 9am to 1am on a regional basis

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

47. The location and density of club licences were not identified as significant issues for Auckland.

Special licences

48. 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

49. 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.

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

Effect of adopting the draft LAP

51. This report recommends that the Committee adopt the Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) Project Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) for public consultation. The effect of this decision is that it will enable staff to commence the special consultative procedure to consult with the public on the draft LAP.

Next steps: Process overview

52. Following the adoption of the Statement of the Proposal, staff are planning to complete the following:

· Report to the Hearings Committee to establish a Hearings Panel to hear the oral submissions on the draft LAP, to deliberate in public and to make recommendations back to the Governing Body for a provsisional LAP

· Prepare a summary of information outlining the key proposals in the Statement of Proposal, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002

· Finalise the council’s communications plans

· Give public notice of the draft LAP and open for written submissions (Mid June)

· Schedule and hold the public hearings.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

· Regularly 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.

54. Table 6 below summarises the latest feedback received from local boards on the position paper. A full overview of the feedback received from each individual local board is also provided in Attachment E. (Note: This feedback is not on the specific details of the draft LAP as some amendments have been made following the feedback provided).

Table 6. 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

55. Following the approval of the Statement of Proposal, staff will attend workshops with interested local boards, and report to all local boards for their feedback via formal resolution. This feedback will be included in the report to the Hearings Panel along with submissions that are received from stakeholders and the public.

Maori impact statement

Research and data on Maori and alcohol

56. 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.

Engagement with Maori

57. 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.

58. 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.

Other

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

Iwi management plans

60. 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

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

62. 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
a View	Local Alcohol Policy Development Project: Statement of Proposal	25
b View	Statements from Statutory Stakeholders regarding section 78(4) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012	133
c View	Summary of Feedback received on Position Paper	137
d View	A3 copies of Tables 4 and 5 from the report	141
e View	Local Board Feedback Table	143
f View	Information about risk profiles	147

Signatories

Authors

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Team Leader, Regionwide Social Policy

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

13 May 2014

Local Board resolutions and feedback in response to Issues and Options paper (May 2013) and the Staff Position Paper (September 2013)

Local Board

Issues and Options feedback

Position Paper feedback

Albert-Eden Local Board

· Supportive of high stress/high risk but some concern about displacement.

· Concerned that buffer zones are not practical

· Concerned about proliferation of off-licences

· Supportive of varying hours by location

Workshop date: 18/09/13

· Concern around bottle stores and locations

· Support off-license density controls

· Support single sale restriction/prohibition, especially near on-license areas

· Support buffer zones around schools

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

· Some support for cumulative impact approach

· Supportive of varying hours by location

· Mixed responses on one-way door

Meeting date: 17/09/2013, resolution number DT/2013/323

Delegated feedback as follows:

· Supportive of broad area approach, but does not support the inclusion of Devonport in Broad Area 2 (city fringe).

· Support density controls, including encouraging clustering of on-licences in Areas 1 and 2.

· Support no direct proximity controls and including this in cumulative impact assessment

· Support maximum hours for licences, including trial extensions (if Devonport is removed from city fringe), but would like to see off-licence hours restricted further.

· Support no one-way door.

Franklin Local Board

· Support licences locating in commercial areas

· Support conditions based on proximity to sensitive site or other licensed premises

· Supportive of cumulative impact approach

· Do not support temporary freeze

· Support national default hours as maximum

· Support a one-way door one hour before closing time, do not support trial extensions

Meeting date: 24/09/2013, resolution number FR/2013/236

Resolved as follows:

· Supportive of broad area approach and clustering on-licences in centres and away from residential areas.

· Supports the cumulative impact assessment.

· Does not support the temporary freeze for off-licences.

· Does not support no direct controls on proximity to sensitive sites (i.e. a “buffer zone”) being included in the policy.

· Does not support the different hours of operation and closing time for on-licences across the broad areas; all closing times should be the same across the region.

· Supports the proposed maximum hours of operation for off-licences from 9am to 10pm and club licences from 8am to 1am.

· Requests a one-way door one hour before closing time.

· Supports discretionary conditions but requests the provision of transport by the premises as a condition in rural areas.

Great Barrier Local Board

· Most issues raised generally not a problem on Great Barrier Island

· Agree that options make sense for rest of Auckland

Meeting date: 11/09/2013, resolution number GBI/2013/200

Resolved as follows:

· Supports Great Barrier Island being categorised as Broad Area 5: Rural and Coastal Villages

Henderson-Massey Local Board

No workshop held

Not included in agenda

Hibiscus & Bays Local Board

· Use health indicators and other demographic socio economic

· Buffer zones good in theory but problems with practicality

· Support cumulative impact assessment and temporary freeze in problem areas

· Want hours varied by local board area, with a 3am maximum in Hibiscus and Bays

· Support extended hours trial

Meeting date: 4/09/2013, resolution number HB/2013/219

No further feedback given.

Howick Local Board

· Support extend hours trials, community impact statements and one way doors as tools to regulate hours

Meeting date: 9/09/2013, resolution number HW/2013/194

Resolved as follows:

· Supports applying discretionary conditions based on the proximity to sensitive sites or other premises, but these should not be too restrictive.

· Supports the use of a cumulative impact assessment.

· Wants local boards to influence/decide licence applications.

· Hours should be applied on a case-by-case basis.

Kaipātiki Local Board

· Some support for cumulative impact approach

· Supportive of varying hours by location

· Mixed responses on one-way door

Meeting date: 11/09/2013, resolution number KT/2013/292

Resolved as follows:

· Requests more clarity in the policy on the outcomes to be achieved through the Local Alcohol Policy

· Supports a regional policy with local variation (balancing regional consistency with local rules)

· Supports use of the density policy lever to restrict certain types of on-licences and to regulate off-licences in neighbourhood and local centres

· Supports the discretionary condition prohibiting the sale of single serves

· Supports the proposed maximum trading hours of 8am – 1am for town and local centre on-licences and 9am –10pm region wide for off-licences

· Requests further investigation into proximity controls for schools and other local community services

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

· Support buffer zones

· Support sinking lid on off-licences in local board area

· Supportive of varying hours by location

Meeting date: 11/09/2013, resolution number MO/2013/510

Resolved as follows:

· Supports the recommended approach which addresses many of the local board’s concerns, including greater say by communities on alcohol and licensing matters and the requirement of cumulative impact assessment reports and limiting of hours – particularly for off-licenses.

· Requests immediate policy support and advice to develop a Local Board position and action plan for liquor licence application submissions and alcohol-harm minimisation in our area.

Manurewa Local Board

· Supportive of broad areas based on land use and risk/stress

· Supports proximity controls for sensitive sites, supportive of buffer zones

· Off-licences in commercial zones only and away from residential areas

· Supportive of cumulative impact assessment

· Do not support a regional cap on licences

· Support localised sinking lid

· Supportive of varying hours by location

· Want local boards to set hours

Meeting date: 12/09/2013, resolution number MR/2013/174

Resolved as follows:

· Seeks to make decisions on a number of key elements of the LAP, particularly sinking lid policies, hours for off licence trading, and buffer zones around schools and other sensitive sites.

Meeting date: 12/12/13, resolution number MR/2013/208

Resolved as follows:

· Requests a discretionary condition limiting RTD sales in off-licences to 15% of the floor/fridge space.

Meeting date: 13/02/14, resolution number MR/2014/20

Resolved as follows:

· That the high stress/high risk overlay is an unnecessary stigmatisation of South Auckland and instead, local boards should be able to make local rules around off-licences, off-licence hours and sinking lid policies.

· Concern that the board’s feedback is not incorporated and that local boards are best positioned to make decisions about their areas.

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

· Supportive of broad areas based on land use and risk/ stress

· Mixed views on cumulative impact and sinking lids

Meeting date: 10/09/2013, resolution number MT/2013/97

Gave feedback as follows:

· Requests further definition on the high risk/high stress areas and how these will defined and identified.

· Requests that Point England and Oranga be included in the high risk/high stress areas.

· Requests further definition of the cumulative impact assessment, and asks that includes factors such as patron capacity, trading hours, proximity to other licensed premises, surrounding land uses, socioeconomic, demographic characteristics of the area as well as health, safety and crime statistics.

Orākei Local Board

· Supportive of broad areas based on land use but not risk/stress in Orakei

· Supportive of cumulative impact assessment

· Hotels may need different hours

· Do not support vary hours by premise risk

Meeting date: 5/09/2013, resolution number OR/2013/234

No further feedback given.

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

· Want areas based on old TLA boundaries

· Mixed views on high risk indicators – hard to determine based on deprivation.

· Need to consider off-licence proximity to sensitive sites

· All types of off-licences to be treated the same

· Want a sinking lid on of-licences in Otara-Papatoetoe

· Want off-licence hours 11am - 8pm and on-licence hours 1am or 2 am closing in Otara-Papatoetoe.

· Support one-way door two hours before closing

Meeting date: 17/09/2013, resolution number OP/2013/512

Resolved as follows:

· Notes that the earlier comments made by the board have largely been incorporated into the Position Paper, and supports the recommendations

· Requests that further consideration be given to including in the LAP a sinking lid on licenses in high stress/high risk communities in the local board area.

· Requests immediate policy support and advice to develop a Local Board position and action plan for liquor licence application submissions and alcohol-harm minimisation in our area.

Papakura Local Board

· Supportive of broad areas based on character

· Would like a sinking lid for off-licences

· Mostly concerned about off-licence hours, want earlier closing for on-licences in residential areas

Meeting date: 18/09/2013, resolution number PPK/2013/257

Resolved as follows:

· Wants local boards to be responsible for licence locations, proximity to sensitive sites, density, and operating hours.

· Has concerns over who is going to be responsible for supplying the Cumulative Impact Assessment.

Puketāpapa Local Board

· Access to public transport should be considered

· Concern about proximity to sensitive sites but recognise that buffer zones may not be practical

· Would like a localised cap on licence numbers

Not included in agenda

Rodney Local Board

· High stress/high risk should be considered on a case-by-case basis

· Do not support sinking lid, prefer density controls through cumulative impact

· Default national hours a good place to start when looking at licencing hours

· Trial extensions OK but on a case-by-case basis only

Meeting date: 9/09/2013, resolution number RD/2013/292

Delegated feedback as follows:

· Supportive of broad area approach

· Supportive of high stress/high risk criteria

· Supportive of cumulative impact assessments to regulate density, requests that these be required for on-licence applications in high stress/high risk area

· Supports temporary freeze in the city centre and high stress/high risk areas, requests that the cumulative impact assessment is required once freeze is lifted

· Requests “buffer zones” around sensitive sites

· Supports the proposed hours but do not support trial extensions.

· Supports the proposed discretionary conditions

Upper Harbour Local Board

· Some support for cumulative impact approach

· Supportive of varying hours by location

· Mixed responses on one-way door

Meeting date: 10/09/2013

No further feedback given.

Waiheke Local Board

· Supportive of broad areas based on land use, could use entertainment precinct overlays or similar

· Supportive of high risk/stress area

· Supportive of cumulative impact assessment

· Supportive of temporary freeze in places but for off-licences only

· Do not support regional cap or sinking lid

· Support not distinguishing between types of off-licences

· Supportive of hours varied by location and trial extensions

Meeting date: 19/09/2013, resolution number WHK/2013/311

No further feedback given.

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

· Do not support high risk/stress area – inappropriate, judgemental and difficult to identify

· Recognise practicality issues with buffer zones

· Supportive of area-based approach to density controls and hours

· Support extend hours trials, community impact statements and one way doors as tools to regulate hours

Not included in agenda

Waitematā Local Board

· Supportive of broad areas based on land use, would like 1) city centre, 2) metropolitan centres, 3) suburbs and 4) high risk/deprivation overlay. City fringe to be assessed to determine where it fits best.

· Proximity controls do not work in the city centre

· Supportive of cumulative impact assessment but concerned about cost to applicant

· Do not support temporary freeze, regional cap or sinking lid

· Support national default hours for city centre, could be more restrictive in suburbs

· Extended hours trial should be linked in with cumulative impact

· Support one-way door

Meeting date: 10/09/2013, resolution number WTM/2013/258

Delegated feedback as follows:

· Supportive of broad area approach (based on Unitary Plan)

· Supports not using “buffer zones”

· Supports temporary freeze but need to ensure an exemption is made for sale of businesses

· Supports hours, including metro centres so young people can go out locally

· Supportive of cumulative impact assessment

· Supports discretionary condition prohibiting single sales

Whau Local Board

No workshop held

Not included in agenda

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

13 May 2014

Submission to Ministry for the Environment (MfE) on draft regulations for discharge and dumping activities under the EEZ Act

File No.: CP2014/06893

Purpose

1. To present a submission that was made to the Ministry for the Environment on the draft Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2014.

Executive Summary

2. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) released draft regulations for discharge and dumping activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf in February 2014. The regulations relate to the discharge of sediments from mineral prospecting and exploration, discharges from petroleum extraction, discharges of garbage, and dumping of various types of waste.

3. There was insufficient time to seek committee approval of a draft submission. The submission sent included a note that formal committee approval was needed and that amendments may be sent later to MfE.

4. This matter was previously presented to councillors in September 2013 when Auckland Council made a submission to MfE on a discussion document which proposed to classify various discharge and dumping activities in the EEZ. The subsequent draft regulations addressed some points in the council submission, but also introduced matters that had not been included in the discussion document.

5. The March 2014 council submission is largely technical (Attachment A). It seeks a reduction in the thresholds for discharge of sediments from prospecting and exploration classified as a permitted activity, and that various conditions or definitions be strengthened or clarified. The submission supports the classification of the dumping of dredged material in authorized dumping grounds as a non-notified discretionary activity and in other areas as a discretionary activity, as it is generally equivalent to the current regulatory regime.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve retrospectively the submission on draft regulations for discharge and dumping activities under the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Act, noting that the submission was lodged with the Ministry for the Environment on 19 March 2014.

Discussion

Background

6. The purpose of the EEZ Act is to promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the EEZ and continental shelf. It is the equivalent of the Resource Management Act 1991 which applies to land and the territorial sea. The EEZ is the portion of ocean extending from 12 to 200 nautical miles offshore. The continental shelf is the seabed out to the continental margin (the point where the shelf drops into deep water but not exceeding 350 nautical miles).

7. Prior to the development of the EEZ Act, there was no overarching environmental legislation applying to the EEZ. Environmental effects were managed through approvals under legislation such as the Crown Minerals Act 1991, Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and Maritime Transport Act 1994. The EEZ Act covers the gaps in existing legislation for the EEZ and provides an extra layer of environmental oversight that ensures a full assessment of impacts and conditions to mitigate impacts if required.

8. Under the EEZ Act, activities can be classified as either permitted, non-notified discretionary, discretionary (must be notified), or prohibited.

9. The first set of regulations under the EEZ Act came into force on 28 June 2013 and classified the following activities as permitted activities provided they met specified conditions: seismic surveying; prospecting and exploration phases of seabed mineral mining and petroleum (excluding exploratory oil and gas drilling); submarine cabling; marine scientific research.

10. The second set of regulations, classifying exploratory oil and gas drilling as a non-notified discretionary activity, came into force on 28 February 2014. Auckland Council made a submission opposing this proposal in January 2014.

11. The latest draft regulations bring various discharge and dumping activities within the scope of the EEZ Act. At present Maritime New Zealand regulates several of these activities through the Marine Protection Rules made under the Maritime Transport Act 1994. In October 2013 the EEZ Act was amended to transfer responsibility for managing certain activities from the Marine Protection Rules to the EEZ Act, specifically: the discharge of harmful substances from offshore structures and production facilities on mineral mining ships, and the dumping of waste. The functions will be transferred when regulations are made that bring the EEZ Amendment into force. Operational shipping discharges and oil spill contingency planning will remain under the administration of Maritime New Zealand.

12. Without a transfer of discharge and dumping activities to the EEZ Act regime, activities would continue to be regulated by Maritime NZ while the parent activity causing the discharges or dumping to occur (for example, drilling for petroleum) would be regulated and monitored by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under the EEZ Act. This means operators would be required to submit details of their discharge and dumping activities to two regulators. The consenting regime of the EEZ Act allows the EPA to holistically consider the effects of activities and set conditions on a case by case basis.

13. The matters in the draft regulations were proposed in a discussion document on classifications under the EEZ Act in September 2013. That document included very little justification for the proposals. Auckland Council submitted that several definitions were needed or should be amended to provide greater clarity and consistency with other legislation. These points have been addressed in the draft regulations. The council’s submission did not support making discharge of sediments a permitted activity as the proposals did not include conditions and there was insufficient information to make an informed decision on whether to support the proposed classification.

14. In the September 2013 consultation process MfE received a total of 50 submissions that related to the discharges and dumping proposals. Submitters generally opposed the proposals or sought greater definition of the activities and conditions.

15. Dumping and discharges can have significant adverse effects on water quality and on marine ecology. These effects can be from oil discharges coating mammals, seabirds and fish; chemical discharges with toxic effects on organisms; tailings from mining may smother the seabed and harm benthic communities, affect the water column and its inhabitants; dumping can crush the benthos, create sediment plumes and introduce contaminants. Such effects could spread into the coastal marine area for large scale activities. It is important that the limits and conditions on permitted and non-notified activities are restrictive enough to avoid the possibility of such effects.

16. Copies of the draft regulations and their supporting information are available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/oceans/current-work/.

The Draft Regulations

17. The draft regulations classify the following discharges from mineral prospecting and exploration as permitted activities:

· discharges of sediments from iron sand prospecting and exploration if the discharge is less than 1000 tonnes of sediment within a single permit area and no more than 100 tonnes is discharged in a single event;

· discharges of sediments from phosphate nodule prospecting and exploration if the discharges total less than 100 tonnes of sediment within a single permit area or are between 100 and 1000 tonnes and the sediment is discharged in the bottom 5% of the water column;

· discharges of sediments from seafloor massive sulphide prospecting and exploration if the discharges total less than 10 tonnes of sediment within a single permit area or are between 10 tonnes and 100 tonnes of sediment if the sediment is discharged at the surface of the water.

18. These activities have conditions regarding notification and reporting to the EPA and iwi.

19. The discharge of sediments from mineral operations other than petroleum operations, other than the discharges to which the regulations noted above apply, is classified as a discretionary activity.

20. In the provisions relating to discharge of oil, the discharge of harmful substances from petroleum extraction offshore processing drainage, displacement water and production water is a discretionary activity. The discharge of harmful substances from production water for the purpose of a test flow of an exploration well is a non-notified discretionary activity. Oily waste from a machinery space on a structure is a permitted activity if it meets certain conditions.

21. The discharge of operational chemicals from mineral mining activities and the discharge of harmful substances in drilling fluids are classified as a non-notified discretionary activity.

22. The discharge of food waste that meets certain conditions is a permitted activity. The discharge of other garbage is a prohibited activity.

23. The dumping of any of the following is a non-notified discretionary activity: fish waste, sewage sludge, organic material, structures placed for the purpose of mineral exploration. Dumping in an authorised dumping ground of dredged material or vessels is a non-notified discretionary activity. Dumping of any of the following is a discretionary activity: dredged material or vessels (unless in an authorised dumping ground); structures; carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration; inert inorganic geological material; bulky solid waste from locations where dumping is the only practicable disposal option. Any dumping of waste or other matter not otherwise classified is a prohibited activity. There are five authorised dumping grounds around New Zealand.

24. Burial at sea is allowed provided that certain conditions are met, including that it be located in an authorised dumping ground. After issuing a certificate of compliance for burial, the EPA must notify every iwi and hapu the EPA considers may be affected.

The Submission

25. The attached submission seeks several changes to the draft regulations with respect to the discharge of sediments from mineral prospecting and exploration.

26. The permitted activity discharges of sediments from prospecting and exploration (regulations 6, 7 and 8) have very large volume limits (1000 tonnes for iron sand or phosphate nodules and 100 tonnes for seafloor massive sulphides (SMS)). In the operative Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal and the proposed Unitary Plan, prospecting as a permitted activity is limited to no more than one cubic metre of sand, shell, shingle and other natural material in any 24 hour period.

27. The NIWA report, provided as background to the new regulations, estimates that the proposed EEZ permitted activity discharge limits are the levels at which moderate or greater consequences for sensitive environments can be expected. The submission seeks that the permitted activity thresholds be amended to the more restrictive volumes which were determined to have negligible or minor effects – 100 t for iron sand and phosphorite nodule regions and 10 t for SMS deposit regions.

28. The submission notes that the NIWA assessment is based on judgements of an expert panel and involves a large number of location-specific assumptions. It is requested that the regulations for the discharge of sediments from prospecting and exploration classified as a permitted activity be amended to limit them to the geographical locations or habitat types considered in the background report, i.e. iron sands from the west coast of the North Island, phosphorite nodules from the Chatham Rise, and seafloor massive sulphides from the Kermadec volcanic arc. More restrictive volume thresholds for these activities should be used in other areas of the EEZ.

29. The supporting information notes that MfE are considering including a condition in the regulations to require, where practical, the discharge of sediments back into the same area of seabed from which sediments were extracted. The submission supports this proposal.

30. With respect to dumping, it is considered that the draft regulations have insufficient detail on how applications will be assessed. It is requested that the regulations be amended to include conditions to ensure that appropriate matters are taken into account, e.g. to require that an application include sediment plume modelling and benthic habitat assessments; and that they include a linkage to the Maritime NZ guidelines equivalent to the current requirements under the Maritime Transport Act.

31. The regulations include monitoring requirements for permitted activities. It is requested that this be extended to ensure that non-notified discretionary and discretionary activities are also monitored.

32. The classification of dumping of dredged material is supported as it effectively retains the current regulatory regime. The non-notified classification for dumping in an authorised dumping ground provides greater certainty for operators as notification is possible at present. There is a risk that if the EEZ regulations make dumping dredged material more onerous for operators, there will be greater pressure for allowing dumping within the Hauraki Gulf. Council policies discourage dumping in the Gulf due to its wide range of values and significance under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

Consideration

Local Board Views

33. Local Boards were sent a copy of the attached submission on 10 April 2014. Support for the submission has been received from the Manurewa Local Board. An update on any other responses from Local Boards will be provided at the meeting.

Maori Impact Statement

34. Feedback was sought from 25 local iwi contacts in September 2013 regarding the classification of activities in the EEZ discussion document and a copy of the attached submission on the draft regulations was sent to them on 4 April 2014. In September 2013 Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority both supported the council’s proposed position regarding the classification of dumping and discharge activities.

35. If any responses from the iwi contacts are received regarding the submission on the draft regulations, an update will be provided at the meeting.

General

36. There has been significant public interest in the recent application to the EPA for sand mining in the EEZ off the coast of Taranaki. That application related to extraction, whereas the draft regulations relate to iron sand prospecting and exploration.

Implementation Issues

37. The submission period for the draft regulations closed on 19 March 2014. If the Committee wishes to amend the submission, it will need to be resent to MfE.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Council submission to MfE on the draft regulations for discharge and dumping activities under the EEZ Act.	159

Signatories

Authors

Kath Coombes - Principal Specialist Coastal

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

13 May 2014

Auckland Council LOGO Small

Submission to the

Ministry for the Environment

on the

Consultation draft of

proposed regulations for discharge and dumping activities under the EEZ Act

19 March 2014

Introduction

1. This is the Auckland Council’s submission on the consultation draft of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2014.

2. Auckland Council is the unitary authority for Auckland, a region containing a third of New Zealand’s population. Auckland has a significant amount of coastal marine area (11,000 km²) which is highly valued by the region’s people.

3. Auckland Council thanks the Ministry for the opportunity to make a submission on the draft regulations. We have a strong interest in developments in this area due to our local communities’ concerns and the linkages with our regulatory functions under the RMA for the coastal marine area.

4. The council made a submission in September 2013 on the discussion document on activity classifications under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environment Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ Act). Some of the points we raised have been addressed in the draft regulations but we wish to reiterate our concerns in other areas.

5. This submission has not yet been formally approved by Auckland Council. The short submission period did not allow time for the council’s usual reporting processes or consultation with iwi and local boards. The draft submission will be presented to the next meeting of our Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee. If any changes to the submission are required, they will be sent to MfE with a request to amend the submission.

6. Please direct any enquiries to Dr Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer – phone 09 307 6063 or email roger.blakeley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

General comments

7. The draft regulations bring various discharge and dumping activities within the scope of the EEZ Act, rather than being split between the EEZ Act and Maritime Transport Act 1994. The council supports this move to more comprehensive and integrated environmental regulation for the EEZ.

8. Dumping and discharges can have significant adverse effects on water quality and on marine ecology. Such effects could spread into the coastal marine area for large scale activities. It is important that the limits and conditions on permitted and non-notified activities are restrictive enough to avoid the possibility of such effects.

9. It is also important that the new regulations do not inadvertently impose barriers on activities that currently occur in the EEZ. For example, it should not become more onerous to dump dredged material in the EEZ. We have policies to avoid dumping dredged material within the Hauraki Gulf due to the area’s national significance. Such material is generally dumped in approved reclamations or at authorised sites in the EEZ.

10. For these reasons we consider that finalising these regulations should include further consideration of the requirements for similar activities in the adjacent coastal marine area. Greater consistency would enhance integration between the EEZ and RMA regimes for activities close to the coastal marine area boundary.

Discharges of sediments and tailings

11. The permitted activity discharges of sediments from prospecting and exploration (regulations 6, 7 and 8) have very large volume limits (1000 tonnes for iron sand or phosphate nodules and 100 tonnes for seafloor massive sulphides (SMS)). In the operative Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal and the proposed Unitary Plan, prospecting as a permitted activity is limited to no more than one cubic metre of sand, shell, shingle and other natural material in any 24 hour period.

12. The NIWA report^{^[1]}, provided as background to the new regulations, indicates that much smaller volumes should be used. The last paragraph of the report (page 46) notes that effective employment of mitigation strategies requires good knowledge of the spatial distribution of the different benthic habitats with respect to the distribution of the mineral resource within the permit area, as well as the function of marine ecosystems in the area. The report states that “the compilation of available data or a degree of sampling effort to obtain this basic information will be required prior to undertaking prospecting and exploration activities that will involve the discharge of sediment above 100 t for iron sand and phosphorite nodule regions and 10 t for SMS deposit regions, because only below this scale are the impacts of discharges assessed to be negligible or minor”.

13. It appears that the permitted activity thresholds in the draft regulations have been set at the level at which moderate or greater consequences for sensitive marine environments are expected (NIWA report, page 44). To ensure that appropriate data gathering and mitigation strategies are employed, and to avoid the risk of effects occurring in the coastal marine area, these thresholds should be at the lower level where impacts are negligible or minor.

14. The NIWA report is useful background information but is based on judgements of an expert panel and literature review exercise, rather than field-based assessments of effects. It involved making large assumptions, particularly for seafloor massive sulphide. The report assessed thresholds by order of magnitude (e.g. 1t, 10t, 100t, 1000t) which is a rather coarse approach when developing legislation for permitted activities. The conclusions of this report should be treated cautiously and the more restrictive volumes applied to a permitted activity threshold (i.e. the negligible or minor effects level as opposed to the moderate effects level).

15. The NIWA report presents an assessment of the potential effects of prospecting and exploration for particular minerals in different areas of the EEZ but the regulations apply the conclusions to prospecting and exploration anywhere in the EEZ. The report assessed iron sands on the shelf along the west coast, phosphorus nodules on the Chatham Rise and seafloor massive sulphide along the Kermadec trench. The acceptable discharge thresholds that have been determined are closely related to the type of environments where the mining is taking place, as opposed to the actual mineral being mined, or method of mining. The conclusions are specific to the ecology of the different areas. This has been translated into permitted activity conditions that are inconsistent between the different types of mining. For example, sediments from phosphate nodule prospecting must be discharged at the bottom of the water column but sediments from SMS prospecting must be discharged at the surface of the water. Iron sand prospecting has a condition limiting the volume to be discharged in a single event but this is not applied to other mineral types. It appears that the conditions are specific to the ecology of the areas considered and to the types of discharges from currently possible mining methods.

16. The EEZ has a relatively low level of scientific assessment and it is possible that these minerals may be found in other areas in future. The permitted activities conditions should include geographical locations or habitat types as well as the type of mineral being removed, as these were the key determining factors on environmental effect. One way of doing this would be to restrict the permitted activities to the particular areas that were assessed. Lower, more precautionary, volume thresholds should be used in other areas of the EEZ.

17. The supporting information^{^[2]} for the regulations states that the Minister is considering including a condition in the regulations to require, where practical, the discharge of sediments back into the same area of seabed from which sediments were extracted (in particular for the mining of iron sands, SMS and phosphates) (page 20). Auckland Council supports this suggestion. It would limit the effects of the discharges to the area already affected by the extraction rather than spreading effects to a new area.

Discharges from petroleum extraction

18. The supporting information (page 22) notes a change from the proposals in the 2013 discussion document for the discharge of harmful substances from offshore processing drainage, displacement water and production water. The proposed permitted activity has not been included in the draft regulations. The information notes that advice was received that such discharges do not occur during the exploration phase of operations. In the unlikely event these discharges were to occur at the exploration stage, they are proposed to be classified as non-notified discretionary (regulation 13(2)). Auckland Council supports this change to the proposals.

19. In the draft interpretation section, ‘production water’ is defined as ‘any water extracted from the reservoir’. It is not clear what ‘the reservoir’ is. Wording from the supporting information suggests it is the resource being drilled in to (i.e. an oil reservoir). This should be made clearer in the regulations.

Dumping of waste

20. Auckland Council supports the classification of dumping dredging material in an authorised area as a non-notified discretionary activity and in other areas as a discretionary activity (regulations 25 and 26). This largely carries over the current management approach under the Maritime Transport Act’s Marine Protection Rules which means all dumping requires a permit which Maritime NZ can grant or decline. Applications must be publicly notified but this requirement can be waived if the Director considers the dumping will have minor adverse effects on the marine environment. The proposed classification removes the possibility of notification for authorised sites and gives greater certainty for dredging operations. As noted earlier, Auckland Council has policies that avoid dumping dredged material in the Hauraki Gulf. We do not wish the EEZ regulations to make it any harder to dump material in the EEZ and thereby place greater pressure on the Hauraki Gulf.

21. The draft regulations have insufficient detail regarding how dumping applications will be assessed. There is no detail on what information applicants have to provide, how the EPA will assess it, or who will monitor any environmental effects from approved activities. The supporting information (page 60) has some detail on what all marine consent applications need to provide under the EEZ Act. However, there are no requirements specific to dumping. Conditions should be included in the dumping regulations to ensure that appropriate matters are taken into account. For example it could require that an application include sediment plume modelling and benthic habitat assessments. Such matters are addressed in the Maritime NZ document “New Zealand Guidelines for Sea Disposal of Waste” (Issue No. 180‐1, 30 June 1999). The guidelines are incorporated by reference in rule 180.8(2) of the marine protection rules, made by the Minister of Transport under section 389 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994. A similar linkage to the guidelines should be with respect to the EEZ regulations.

Monitoring

22. There is very little in the regulations to ensure that adequate monitoring of environmental effects is undertaken. Regulation 29 requires the EPA to monitor permitted activities to determine whether activities are being undertaken in accordance with the conditions imposed by the regulations. A similar requirement should be included for non-notified discretionary and discretionary activities with the monitoring requirement placed on the consent holder. There has been very little assessment in the past of activities in the EEZ such as the dumping of dredged material at authorised sites. Monitoring should be undertaken to determine the scale of environmental effects and how far they extend from the dumping site. There is potential for the effects of such activities to spread into the coastal marine area.

Summary of changes sought

23. Auckland Council seeks that the following changes be made to the draft regulations for discharges and dumping under the EEZ Act:

a) Amend the thresholds for discharge of sediments from prospecting and exploration classified as a permitted activity to the volumes given for negligible or minor effects: 100 t for iron sand and phosphorite nodule regions and 10 t for SMS deposit regions

b) Amend the regulations for the discharge of sediments from prospecting and exploration classified as a permitted activity to limit them to the geographical locations or habitat types considered in the background report i.e. iron sands from the west coast of the North Island, phosphorite nodules from the Chatham Rise and seafloor massive sulphides from the Kermadec volcanic arc. Use more restrictive volume thresholds for these activities in other areas of the EEZ.

c) Include a condition in the regulations to require, where practical, the discharge of sediments back into the same area of seabed from which sediments were extracted.

d) Amend the definition of ‘production water’ to be clear on what is meant by ‘the reservoir’.

e) Amend the dumping regulations to include conditions to ensure that appropriate matters are taken into account, e.g. to require that an application include sediment plume modelling and benthic habitat assessments.

f) Ensure that the dumping regulations include a linkage to the Maritime NZ guidelines equivalent to the current requirements under the Maritime Transport Act.

g) Amend regulation 29 to ensure that non-notified discretionary and discretionary activities are monitored as well as permitted activities.

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

13 May 2014

Proposed amendments to NPS Freshwater Management - Opportunities for Auckland

File No.: CP2014/08916

Purpose

1. To advise the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee of steps taken since providing the Ministry for the Environment with the Auckland Council’s submission on proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM).

Executive summary

2. Proposed amendments to the NPSFM introduce game changing responsibilities that will make freshwater quality – and its connection with coastal water – an important driver of the form and nature of Auckland’s development.

3. A strategic pathway aimed at prioritizing investment and achieving short term wins for water quality in balance with achieving economic development and housing affordability. At the same time the strategy provides for building council capacity and public support for the long term objective of achieving national bottom lines in degraded waterways.

4. A detailed action plan supported by a robust evaluation of its short and long-term costs and benefits is in preparation. The immediate focus of this analysis will be on the implications for the Long Term Plan but its scope will include the short and long-term costs to households and communities.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) note the work officers are taking to prepare the Auckland Council to meet its responsibilities under the soon-to-be amended National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM)

b) note that officers have developed a strategic pathway for responding to proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management that:

i. prioritises investment

ii. aims to achieve short term wins for water quality in balance with economic development and housing affordability

iii. builds council capacity and public support for the long journey towards achieving national bottom lines in seriously degraded waterways

c) note that staff will report to the Infrastructure Committee in July or August 2014 on current progress and actions to support water sensitive urban design and freshwater outcomes, and further action needed. This will take into account current thinking on the NPSFM, the water sensitive city benchmark report, and other initiatives currently underway.

Comments

Background

5. In 2011 the government released the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) which requires councils to manage fresh water in an integrated and sustainable way, while providing for economic growth within set water quantity and quality limits.

6. At the time of its introduction, it was acknowledged that more direction and guidance would be needed to help councils implement the NPSFM.

7. On 7 November 2013, the government announced the next step in its process of freshwater management reform through the release of Proposed Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 (Discussion Document). Council’s submission was approved by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 February 2014 (Resolution number REG/2014/25).

New ‘game changing’ responsibilities

8. The proposed amendments in the Discussion Document introduce:

· hard national bottom lines for freshwater quality (objectives must be set to meet them)

· mandatory freshwater quality accounting requirements and reporting processes.

9. Auckland Council’s response to the NPSFM will be transparent, as will its performance in terms of achieving freshwater quality objectives – the NPSFM makes Auckland Council visibly accountable for freshwater quality.

10. These new responsibilities are a game changer.

· Many of Auckland’s urban freshwater bodies and some of its rural freshwater bodies (largely in Franklin) currently fail to meet the proposed national bottom lines.

· Historically, wherever urban Auckland has expanded into greenfield areas water quality has dropped below the proposed national bottom lines.

11. It is important to note that these failures have arisen under an historic resource management regime.

12. The figure below describes the potential impact of a national bottom line in three different environmental contexts; urban, future urban and rural.

13. When these proposed amendments to the NPSFM are introduced they will make freshwater quality – and its connection with coastal water – an important driver of the form and nature of Auckland’s development. Auckland Council will be required to both (a) lift freshwater quality to these bottom lines over time, and (b) prevent further expansion/intensification from increasing the number of freshwater bodies in the region that fail to meet them.

Key Issues

14. If, as the evidence indicates, in some areas of Auckland’s freshwater is below prescribed bottom lines now:

1. How can Auckland accommodate up to 40% of its growth outside of the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) without more bottom line failures?

2. How can we accommodate 70% growth inside the 2010 MUL and reduce the number of bottom line failures?

3. How can we meet aspirations for improved rural productivity when current land use is generating bottom line failures?

Approach – opportunities and pathways

15. To address these immediate issues, an interim taskforce worked to:

· summarise the issues as they pertain to Auckland

· identify opportunities that will accelerate progress of Transformational Shift 2 – strongly commit to environmental action and green growth

· propose pathways that roll into the broader NPSFM implementation programme.

16. This taskforce identified three key opportunities and two key strategic pathways.

Opportunity 1: Leadership in Water Sensitive Urban Design

17. The requirement to meet freshwater quality bottom lines effectively mandates further investment in stream restoration and protection. The requirement to meet housing supply and affordability targets gives Auckland Council a prime opportunity to take a global leadership role in Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD).

Opportunity 2: Cement position as national leader

18. A quality compact city can reduce the impact of urban development on freshwater quality – if designed with that objective in mind. Demonstrating that the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) provisions effectively meet NPSFM requirements in an urban context could promote the Auckland Council’s growth management approach as a template for others to follow.

Opportunity 3: Integrate policy and implementation

19. The Government is promoting an iterative and collaborative process for making freshwater management decisions. Collaborative community-driven approaches are already a well-established component of many Auckland Council projects (e.g. ‘Sustainable Catchments’ and ‘Waicare’).

20. It is not economically feasible to lift water quality in all catchments across the region at once. To respond effectively to the NPSFM, the Auckland Council will need to develop a coherent long-term vision for freshwater management. Investment in some streams will deliver more ‘bang for buck’ than others, and 50+ years will be required to meet bottom lines in some degraded streams.

21. Building on the mana and momentum of existing successful water sensitive and environmental programmes will help the Council gain community buy-in to prioritization and timeframe decisions.

22. The current national policy direction in support of collaborative freshwater decision making provides a platform for dovetailing existing engagement programmes with the “policy conversation” on freshwater quality bottom lines, resilience to climate change and housing supply/affordability.

Strategic pathway option 1 – Net benefits through integration and targeted investment

23. Auckland Council can prioritize its investment and achieve short term wins for water quality, economic development, and housing affordability – at the same time building council capacity and public support for the long term objective of achieving national bottom lines in seriously degraded waterways. This will involve:

i. Accepting that attempting to lift water quality across-the-board will be prohibitively costly and that in some places it will take a long time to lift water quality to where we want it to be. There will be “unders and overs” in terms of national bottom lines for some decades.

ii. Advancing five priorities concurrently:

1. Act now to prevent further degradation below national bottom lines in greenfield development areas – prevention is far more effective and cheaper than cure

2. Concentrate available funds in ‘marquee’ WSUD and remediation projects that have a high probability of success – we can’t do everything at once and picking ‘low-hanging-fruit’ builds public support, increases capacity and builds economies of scale that will reduce the cost of subsequent projects

3. ‘Cycle’ concentrated funding around the region’s urban and rural catchments in line with an agreed schedule – we need to avoid diluting our investment but, over time, everyone needs to benefit from concentrated funding

4. Ensure operational investment in the maintenance and renewal of existing systems is slowly working towards long-term compliance with the national bottom lines – aligned objectives will help avoid expedient decisions that make it much harder (and more costly) for the Council to meet its freshwater quality responsibilities in the long term

5. Prioritize ‘multifunctionality’ in council design initiatives so that expenditure delivers multiple objectives e.g. stormwater infrastructure, community connectivity, ecological corridors and high-amenity open space.

Risk

24. Significant investment in restoration may not be sufficient to lift the quality of some seriously degraded urban streams. These waterbodies could be allocated long timeframes for improvement and tackled only once the Council has built its experience and capacity through ‘marquee’ projects.

Strategic pathway option 2 – Minimize short-term costs by extending business as usual and using exceptions

25. Rely on current approaches for implementing the NPSFM and minimize short-term expenditure when managing the impact of urban growth on freshwater quality. This involves:

· Setting long timeframes for lifting water quality into compliance with national bottom lines – where they currently fail

· Setting freshwater objectives for greenfield development areas at national bottom lines (the minimum required under the NPSFM)

· Investing in wastewater and stormwater infrastructure with the primary objective of enabling growth at minimal up-front cost to ratepayers and secondary objective of maintaining and improving freshwater quality

· Using the NPSFM ‘exceptions framework’ to set objectives for water quality in existing areas of ‘failure’ that are lower than national bottom lines, where the cost of meeting bottom lines would be high.

Risk

26. It is substantially more difficult and costly to manage a degraded waterbody back up to the national bottom line quality requirements than avoiding a reduction in quality in the first place. Current urban design and stormwater management approaches have demonstrated their effectiveness where applied at a local scale but would require scaling up across the isthmus in order to meet or exceed the proposed national bottom lines for all urban freshwater systems.

27. The exceptions framework has received substantial criticism through consultation and may not be retained in its current form. There may also be “parity” concerns if exceptions are argued for in urban catchments but not rural catchments – a strategy that relies on exceptions is vulnerable

28. Failure to meet bottom lines or an attempt to circumvent them could prompt Government to use its intervention powers.

Recommended pathway

29. Strategic pathway one is recommended as the most prudent and preferable. Staff will progress this on the following basis:

· Develop a detailed action plan and conduct a detailed evaluation of its short- and long-term costs and benefits. The immediate focus of this analysis will be on the implications for the LTP but its scope will include the short- and long-term costs to households and communities.

· Investigate the principle of 'multi-functionality' as a potential key-driver of the council’s approach to water quality management i.e. the achievement of multiple outcomes (and delivery of multiple benefits) through integrated design.

· Use existing mechanisms and processes to progress this work – potentially using the “integrated consenting process” as a key platform for this work.

· Involve the Housing Project Office, Watercare Services Ltd, Auckland Transport in the process

· Investigate opportunities to use economic instruments and the council’s procurement process to shape market incentives.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. Council’s submission on the proposed amendments to the NPSFM was informed through engagement with local boards via council’s Principal Local Board Advisor. A memorandum describing the proposed amendments was provided to Local Board members. Two formal responses were received. One supported Auckland Council making a submission and being part of the reform process by providing expertise and local experience concerning freshwater management issues. The comments in the other response touched on the interrelationship between fresh water, ecosystems, land use and development activities and the coastal environment. This feedback was included in a submission from Auckland Council.

Maori impact statement

31. Auckland Council is engaging with Mana Whenua to help establish the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management (NPSFM) programme. Mana Whenua will be involved in programme implementation. A hui was held on 12 December 2013 to discuss Auckland Council’s NPSFM programme and the submission on the proposed amendments.

General

32. Matters raised in this paper were canvassed with the Rural Advisory Panel at its meeting on 7 April 2014. Panel members were knowledgeable of the proposed amendments to the NPS FWM, aware of the potential implications for both rural and urban Auckland, and endorsed a partnership approach whereby council works closely with the rural community on the implementation of the NPSFM.

Implementation

33. There are no implementation issues associated with this report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research

Authorisers

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

[1] NIWA, 2014. Environmental risk assessment of discharges of sediment during prospecting and exploration for seabed minerals, report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, January 2014.

[2] Ministry for the Environment, 2014. Supporting information for the exposure draft of proposed regulations for discharge and dumping activities under the EEZ Act. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Chairperson	Cr George Wood, CNZM
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Members	Cr Cameron Brewer	Cr Mike Lee
	Mayor Len Brown, JP	Kris MacDonald
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr John Watson
	Cr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO	Cr Penny Webster
	Cr Penny Hulse	Glenn Wilcox
	Cr Denise Krum

Risk rating	Risk category	Example(s)
26 plus	Very high	· Bottle store, supermarket, or restaurant with two or more enforcement holdings in last 18 months · Bar closing at 3 – 5 am with one or more enforcement holdings in last 18 months
16–25	High	· Bottle store, supermarket or restaurant with one enforcement holding in last 18 months · Bar closing at 3 – 5 am
6–15	Medium	· Bottle store · Supermarket · Restaurant with a bar area · Function centre · Bar closing by 2am · Club with over 1000 members
3–5	Low	· Remote sales off-licence · Café · Restaurant with no bar area (serving alcohol to tables only)
0–2	Very low	· Winery cellar door · BYO restaurant · Club with less than 250 members