Agenda of Great Barrier Local Board

Great Barrier Local Board

09 July 2014

Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback

File No.: CP2014/13485

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

3. On 13 May 2014, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopted the LAP Project: Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), which includes the draft Auckland Council LAP, for public consultation (resolution number REG/2014/60(a). Following this decision, the council commenced public consultation (using the special consultative procedure), on 16 June 2014.

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

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

· location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

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

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

· maximum trading hours

· the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

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

Comments

Legislative framework

Background: law reform

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

8. One of the key policy drivers behind the new legislation was an increased focus on local decision-making. In line with this, the Act removed the ability for council staff to consider alcohol licence applications under delegation and instead established new, strengthened local decision-making bodies (district licensing committees; “DLCs”). The Act also introduced the ability for local authorities to tailor some of the new national provisions (such as maximum trading hours) to their own local circumstances and to create additional regulations (such as the regulation of licence density) through the development of local alcohol policies (“LAPs”).

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

Scope of LAPs

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

· location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

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

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

· maximum trading hours

· the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions

· one-way door restrictions.

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

Effect of LAPs

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

Table 1. Application of a LAP in licensing decisions

	Summary
When LAP to be considered	· The Act requires the DLC and ARLA to “have regard to” the LAP when deciding whether to issue or renew a licence.
Effect of LAP on applications for new licences	· The Act provides that where issuing a new licence would be inconsistent with the LAP, the DLC and ARLA may refuse to issue the licence (section 108) · Alternatively, the DLC or ARLA may issue the licence subject to particular conditions to address the inconsistencies with the LAP (section 109)
Effect of LAP on existing licences	· For applications to renew a licence, the DLC and ARLA cannot refuse to issue the licence on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the LAP. They can however, impose conditions on the licence to reduce the inconsistency (section 133). o The main implication of this is that location and density policies contained within a LAP will not apply to existing licences, meaning it will take time to give effect to the intention of location and density policies. · Provisions of a LAP relating to maximum hours and one-way door policies will apply to all licensees at the time that those provisions come into force (section 45). o This cannot be less than three months after public notice of adoption of the LAP, providing all appeals have been resolved. o The effect of this is that licensees with longer hours will have to revert to the maximum trading hours stated in the LAP, while licensees with shorter hours will not be affected.

Statutory process for developing LAPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auckland Council’s Local Alcohol Policy Project

Council’s decision to develop a LAP

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

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

19. Project plan: key steps for developing council’s LAP

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

Table 2. Project plan overview

Step	Description	Timeframe
1. Project organisation / governance	· Established stakeholder reference groups and Joint Political Working Party	Complete
2. Issues analysis	· Reviewed, updated and analysed information gathered as part of Local Alcohol Policy Research Project in accordance with statutory requirements	Complete
3. Options analysis	· Identified assessed options available, within the parameters of the Act, to the council for addressing the issues identified at step 2. · Develop an issues and options paper with input from political working party and stakeholder reference group	Complete
4. Initial engagement period	· Initial engagement with internal, external and political stakeholders on issues and options paper	Complete
5. Engagement on staff position	· Developed a position paper with staff recommendations based on issues and options analysis, and feedback received through initial engagement period · Reported position back to internal, external and political stakeholders involved in the initial engagement period for further feedback	Complete
6. Develop and gain approval of draft policy	· Analysed outcomes of steps 2 to 5, completed detailed impact assessment, completed final engagement with elected members and developed draft policy · Present draft policy to the Committee for approval · Publicly notify draft policy	Complete
7. Special consultative procedure	· Follow special consultative procedure as set out in the Local Government Act 2002, which includes receiving written submissions, holding hearings and deliberating in public (i.e. full public consultation) · Parallel process for local boards and council advisory panels to provide feedback on the draft LAP	Current – September 2014
8. Provisional policy	· Work with Hearings Panel to report back to Governing Body with Provisional LAP · If the Governing Body endorses the provisional policy, give public notice of: 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

Auckland Council’s draft Local Alcohol Policy

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

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

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

Table 3. Key consultation dates

Date	Milestone
16 June 2014	Written submission period opened
16 July 2014	Written submission period closes
July/August 2014	· Officers will review and analyse all submissions and report to Hearings Panel. · This report will include all resolutions passed by the local boards and council advisory panels with feedback on the draft policy.
Late August/ September 2014	· Public hearings will be held · Local Boards will be invited to attend a meeting with the Hearings Panel.
October 2014	Hearings Panel will report back to Governing Body with a provisional LAP

Background to draft LAP: stakeholder feedback

23. 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.

24. 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.

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

Off-licence density

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

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

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

On-licence density

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

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

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

Off-licence opening times

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

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

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

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

On-licence closing times

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

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

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

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

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

One-way door policy

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

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.)

Background to draft LAP: local board feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4. Summary of local board feedback

Position paper proposal	Summary of Feedback
Policy lever 1 – Location: Broad Areas
Establish six broad policy areas; five based on zoning in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and a sixth “high stress/high risk” overlay.	Mixed views. · Some supported in principle · Others preferred a regional approach · Some suggested that some areas needed to be shifted between areas 2 and 3 (e.g. Devonport/Takapuna re-categorised as Area 3) · Some wanted local boards to be able to make rules in their area.
Use of a high stress overlay to identify problem areas or vulnerable communities	Mostly very supportive.
Policy lever 2 – Location: Proximity
Indirectly regulate the location of off-licences in relation to schools: · through the cumulative impact process · by delaying off-licence opening times until 9am · by regulating advertising through the signage bylaw	Mixed views. · Most supported the cumulative impact assessment including this as a consideration. · Southern boards supportive of buffer zone, others happy to rely on discretionary conditions · Concern around advertising
Policy lever 3 – Density
Allow clustering of on-licences in urbanised/ business focused areas (Broad Areas A and B)	Unclear. · General agreement that there is a case to treat the CBD differently, less certain on metropolitan centres · Some local boards considered that clusters of on-licences (e.g. restaurants) could be beneficial from an economic perspective and in terms of creating vibrancy etc.
Temporary freeze on off-licences in the CBD and high stress areas	Mostly supportive. · Mostly concerned with density of off-licences · Support for combination of cumulative impact approach and area based temporary freezes · A minority did not like this approach
The use of cumulative impact assessments to limit the establishment of new licences in other areas	Mostly supportive. · Many supported in principle but requested more information · Some suggested this should be required across the whole region. · Others wanted stronger density controls such as a sinking lid or cap
Policy lever 4 – Maximum trading hours
Maximum hours of 9am to 10pm for off-licences across the region	Supportive · Some boards, especially Southern boards, would prefer even greater restrictions · The rest were generally supportive of the proposed regional approach
Maximum hours of 8am to 1am for club licences across the region	Negligible feedback on club hours.
Maximum on-licence hours varied across the region: · CBD: 8am to4am · Metro centres:8am to 3am · Rest of Auckland (including high-stress areas):8am to 1am	Mixed views. · Some were happy with the hours proposed · Some Southern boards wanted earlier closing but would be happy if this was picked up through the high stress overlay · There was reasonable support for having localised entertainment hubs (i.e. metropolitan centres) to reduce migration to CBD
Trial extensions for operators in Broad Area A and Broad Area B	Mixed. · Some supported extended hours based on good behaviour.
Policy lever 5 – One-way door
No one-way door	Very mixed.
Policy lever 6 – Discretionary conditions
A range of discretionary conditions based on licence type	Supportive. · General support for a range of conditions, especially those that support good host responsibility

Summary of draft LAP content

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

· are evidence-based

· align with the object of the Act

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

Purpose (section 1 of draft LAP)

30. 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.

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

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

· controlling where new licences are allowed

· controlling how many new licences are allowed

· reducing the hours that licensed premises can sell alcohol

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

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

Location and density of licences

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

Table 5. Policy areas

Area	Overview
Broad Area A (City Centre, Ponsonby, Newton)	The three centres included in this broad area function as the region’s main entertainment hub. However, these areas also experience high levels of alcohol-related harm, including crime and anti-social behaviour.
Broad Area B (rest of the region)	The intended outcomes across the region are relatively consistent and therefore can be achieved through consistent policy tools.
A priority overlay which provides additional rules.	The priority overlay identifies areas that have high numbers of existing licences and communities that experience higher levels of alcohol-related harm. These are termed priority areas. The overlay will help protect these areas from further harm by imposing specific policies and rules.

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

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

36. 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.

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

38. 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).

39. 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.

40. 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.

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

Maximum trading hours

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

Table 5. Proposed maximum trading hours

Licence	Proposed hours
Off-licences	9am to 10pm
On-licences	· Broad Area A: 9am to 3am · Broad Area B: 9am to 1am · Priority Overlay: Same as underlying broad area.
Club licences	9am to 1am
Special licences	Case by case, with consideration for location and nature of event/risks associated with event

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

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

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

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

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

Trial extensions of hours for on-licences

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

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

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

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

· No extensions will be allowed in the priority areas.

Additional discretionary conditions

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

Table 6. Discretionary conditions

Conditions recommended for all licences	Conditions which can be applied on a case-by-case basis	Where in draft LAP
Includes: · an onsite incident register · host responsibility policies for club and on-licences · prohibition on single unit sales for off-licences	Includes: · Restrictions on drinks prior to closing · Clean public areas outside · Certified manager to be onsite at BYO and club licences (already required for on- and off-licences) · CCTV · Monitoring of outdoor areas for late-trading premises (on-licences).	Part B: Sections 4 to 7

Conditions recommended for all licences

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

Where in draft LAP

Includes:

· an onsite incident register

· host responsibility policies for club and on-licences

· prohibition on single unit sales for off-licences

Includes:

· Restrictions on drinks prior to closing

· Clean public areas outside

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

· CCTV

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

Part B: Sections 4 to 7

Summary of on-licence provisions

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

· reduce alcohol-related harm by:

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

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

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

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

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

Policy lever	Policy tool	Risk profile	Broad Area A	Broad Area B			Priority Areas
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 C.

Summary of off-licence provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy lever	Policy tool	Risk profile	Broad Area A		Broad Area B		Priority Areas
			First 24 months	After 24 months	At all times policy in force		First 24 months	After 24 months
					Neigh- bourhood centres	Rest of Broad Area B
Location / density	ECIA	Very High	Temporary freeze	ECIA required Presumption against approval	ECIA required Presumption against approval	ECIA required DLC to “take into account”	Temporary freeze	ECIA required Presumption against approval
		High
		Medium
		Low
		Very Low				NA
Proximity to sensitive sites	ECIA	Risk profile is one of the triggers	DLC & ARLA directed to consider proximity to sensitive sites as part of ECIA
Hours	Reduced hours	-	9am to 10pm regional maximum
			6am to 10pm remote sales by off-licence (e.g. online sales) (Note: transaction can occur at any time but delivery times restricted)
Condition	-	-	Range of conditions

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

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.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

51. The table below outlines the feedback received from the Great Barrier Local Board and provides a response from officers to show how the feedback has informed the draft LAP, or if not, why this is the case.

Table 9. Great Barrier Local Board feedback

Topic

Local Board feedback

Officer response

Location

· That the Great Barrier Local Board supports Great Barrier Island being categorised as Broad Area Five: Rural and Coastal Villages and Waiheke Island (excluding Onetangi)

· The draft LAP retains the broad areas approach as well as some variation based on Unitary Plan zoning and the town centre hierarchy.

· However, the approach has been simplified so that the draft LAP now only includes three broad areas. This change was made in response feedback from other boards, councillors and many stakeholders that six areas was too complicated.

· The three areas are: Broad Area A, which includes the city centre, Ponsonby and Newton; Broad Area B, which covers the rest of Auckland (including Great Barrier Island); and the Priority Overlay, which includes areas that across the region that require special controls.

· Many of the provisions included within the draft LAP direct the DLC to have regard to the surrounding area before making its decisions. This will ensure that the rural and coastal nature of Great Barrier Island will inform the decision-making process.

Maori impact statement

Research and data on Maori and alcohol

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. 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.

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

56. 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

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

58. 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	Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2014: Statement of Proposal (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting May 2014 - Resolutions on draft Local Alcohol Policy (Under Separate Cover)
c View	A3 Copies of Tables 7 and 8 from report (Under Separate Cover)
d View	Key Topics for Feedback from Local Boards (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Great Barrier Local Board

09 July 2014

Auckland Transport Report – 09 July 2014 – Great Barrier Island

File No.: CP2014/14020

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to respond to local board requests on transport–related matters and to provide information to elected members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities in the local board area.

Executive summary

2. This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Great Barrier Local Board and it’s community, matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector, and relevant Auckland Transport media releases for the information of the board and community.

3. In particular, this report provides and update on;

· Local Board Transport Capital Fund

· Public Transport Funding

· Wharf Operations

· Recent Auckland Transport Media

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) receives the Auckland Transport Report – 09 July 2014 – Great Barrier Island.

Comments

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

4. At the Local Board meeting on the 12 March 2014 the Board were provided with a list of potential Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects.

5. The below table outlines an up-date as to decisions by the Board and on the progress of the projects.

Table 1: Great Barrier Local Board project update for Board approval:

Resolution # GBI/2013/234 (2013)

Resolution # GBI/2014/20 (April 2014)

ID#	Project Description	Progress/Current Status
221	Mulberry Grove School Footpath Shoal Bay Rd · ROC estimated Option A at $83,000 · ROC estimated Option B at $64,000	There are two options as there is a boundary issue along the school frontage. · Option “A” is to build a path that would encroach onto the school property, requiring easement from Ministry of Ed · Option “B” is a new footpath within the road reserve of which would require widening on the north side Board has requested this project is put on hold due to School project. However project Engineer to discuss with AT safety team re the possibility of speed calming device’s either side of the school and to obtain costing for such.
220	Aotea Play Centre Carpark Kaitoke Lane · ROC estimated at $8,700	Metal existing grass area Board approved construction of this project 12 March 2014
211	Hector Sanderson Road Broken the 1.7km into sections, “A” to “K” · “A” ROC estimated at $24,000 · “B” ROC estimated at $6,000 · “C” ROC estimated at $41,000 · “D” ROC estimated at $63,000 · “E” ROC estimated at $4,700 · “F” ROC estimated at $36,000 · “G”ROC estimated at $3,500 · “H”ROC estimated at $58,000 · “I” ROC estimated at $13,000 · “J” ROC estimated at $59,000 · “K”ROC estimated at $53,000 Total ROC for project estimated at $361,200	1.7km stretch of Footpaths The ROC does not include; · Resource, tree and building consent costs · Cost fluctuations · Land Purchase/lease agreements Board approved in principle, working with SLIP’s and frame Group on design. Resolution GBI/2014/63 (15 May 2014) “The design element of the project will be led by the Local Parks and SLIP’s project team”
222	Fitzroy Wharf parking · ROC – Unable to determine at present	Auckland Transport is still looking at options, every option investigated to date suggests huge costs for the benefit of a few cars. This is still a work in progress Board working with principle Engineer Reg Cuthers.

	Kaiaraara Bay Road Footpath Resolution GBI/2014/63 (d)(15 May 2014) Project submitted to AT for consideration	Auckland Transport looking in to feasibility of this project

Note: ROC = rough order of costs; FEC = firm estimate of cost)

Public Transport Funding

Resolution # GBI/2014/62 (15 May 2014)

6. At the Local Board meeting on the 15 May 2014, the Board made a resolution in that, “it request that Auckland Transport consider airline and ferry services to Great Barrier being made part of the wider Public Transport system which is considered to be included in the public transport operating model (PTOM), with these services being included in subsidies similar to those afforded to passengers on the isthmus, to address the prohibitive costs of travel for island residents”.

7. This request is with The Public Transport Team to investigate fully and to report back once a decision has been made.

8. Decision pending.

Wharf Operations

9. Paul Hancock, Infrastructure and Facilities Manager – ferry, will present a verbal up-date to the Board regarding wharf maintenance and current developments regarding wharf usage and future plans.

Media

Public Transport fare changes from 6 July

10. Auckland Transport has completed its Annual Fare Review which sees ticket prices on buses, trains and ferries change from 6 July 2014.

11. From that date adults who use the AT HOP card for their travel will received a 20% discount off the single trip adult cash fare (excluding NiteRider, Airbus Express and Waiheke ferry services).

12. Child and tertiary AT HOP users will continue to receive discounts on most services, when compared to the equivalent cash fares.

13. In contrast most cash fares for bus and train and some cash fares for ferry will increase (some AT HOP fares for ferries will also increase).

14. The annual review takes into account operator cost increases (e.g fuel and wages), revenue and patronage movements.

15. Auckland Transport is also undertaking a strategic review of all public transport costs and pricing and this is due to be completed towards the end of the year.

16. Auckland Transport believes that Public transport must be seen as a visible alternative to the car, if Auckland is to even begin to resolve its transport problems and by making travel even more attractive on the AT HOP card it is hoped that more people will switch to public transport.

17. In addition to an increased discount on AT HOP Auckland Transport will remove the 25 cent top-up fee and reduce the minimum top-up amount on the card from $10 to $5, both from 6 July.

18. The card itself will also remain at $5 until at least 31 January 2015.

19. From 6 July when the new fares are implemented, cash fares will be in 50 cent multiples which will reduce cash handling on buses in particular (with exception of the City LINK child cash fare, which will remain at 30 cents).

20. Auckland Transport is hoping to move to implementing an exact fare/no change given policy in the future and will investigate the potential of removing cash fares altogether, as has recently been introduced in Sydney.

Auckland Transport re-tendering public transport contracts

21. Auckland Transport has begun a two-year-long process of seeking operators interested in tendering for Auckland’s rail, bus and ferry services, when current contracts expire.

22. Auckland Transport is extending an invitation to interested public transport service providers from around the world, to attend a market soundings event to be held in Auckland on 2 July 2014.

23. Auckland Transport is conducting soundings across all three public Transport modes at one time, even though their respective agreements expire at different times. It’s doing this because it is much more effective to hold one event, rather than three, and it ensures that Auckland Transport’s processes are going forward together and potentially adding value to each other.

24. “Re-tendering out contracts to a competitive market ensures Auckland ratepayers are receiving the best value for money for public transport services’.

25. This process is part of a wider Auckland Transport objective to enhance public transport operations in Auckland, as proposed in the Auckland’s Regional Public Transport Plan.

26. It is being planned to ensure that the transition between old and new agreements is seamless and the successful tenders are able to start operations without affecting either customers or the service.

Parking Strategy consultation

27. Following on from cluster workshops which were attended by local board members in early-mid May, Auckland Transport has now distributed copies of the Parking Strategy discussion document to elected members and key stakeholder groups, including community organisations.

28. The discussion document is the first to comprehensively review issues associated with parking region-wide. Key elements of the discussion document include an analysis of issues associated with the city center, the city fringe, metropolitan and town center’s and residential streets across the region.

29. There is a clear link to the region’s public transport strategy through consideration of the role of park and rides, and the needs of the forthcoming (bus) Frequent Transport network, and the possibility that the AT HOP card may be able to be used for payment for parking, in some situations.

30. The discussion document was made publicly available on-line on the 31 May 2014 for public feedback up the 31 July 2014. Submissions are expected to be considered during July and August and then a report to the September meeting of the Auckland Transport Board.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

31. The board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Maori impact statement

32. No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement are triggered by this report.

General

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Ivan Trethowen – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Great Barrier Local Board

09 July 2014

Great Barrier community facilities infrastructure funding process

File No.: CP2014/13202

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Great Barrier Local Board to setting up a separate community grants process to fund community facilities infrastructure projects.

Executive summary

2. Over the last three years the Great Barrier Local Board has handed out significant amounts in community grants to on island community facility operators to fund capital works associated with their facilities.

3. Funding has been applied for and processed through the community grants process even though this process is specifically designed for small grants with minimum levels of accountability and reporting associated with it.

4. It is proposed that for 2014/2015 a more robust process which better reflects the amounts granted and the appropriate accountability around that, be established.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) Confirms that for the 2014/2015 financial year it will operate a separate contestable funding process to fund community group capital infrastructure projects to be funded from the board’s capital grants budget.

b) Notes that there will be only one funding round which will open on 11 August 2014 and close on 19 September 2014 to coincide with round one of the community grants process.

c) Agrees specific criteria, guidelines and accountability processes for applicants in recognition that the scale and amount potentially funded is significant and noting that applicants may be required to enter into an appropriate contract as part of funding approval.

d) Notes that it will specifically promote the proposed process to potential applicants ahead of the opening of the funding round.

Comments

5. In the three financial years ending 30 June 2014 (2011/12 – 2013/14), the Great Barrier Local Board allocated around $900,000 through its community grants process to fund community infrastructure projects on non-council land. This amounts to 47 percent of the board’s total discretionary budget.

6. “Community infrastructure projects” are generally where the board grants money to a community group which owns or manages a facility which is available for use by the public for works to maintain or improve that facility. Examples include new or upgraded alternative power supply systems, building works (e.g. new roofs, carpark sealing, or interior upgrades), and club equipment. Any amount can be granted and over the three years two applicants received over $50,000, four received over $40,000 and five received over $20,000.

7. Most island groups which own or manage community facilities received some funding over this period. These included the GBI Community Health Trust, the Aotea Family Support Group, the Tryphena Community Hall Society, the Barrier Social Club, the GBI Sports and Social Club, the North Barrier Residents and Ratepayers Association, Rural Women NZ Awana Branch, the GBI Community Heritage and Arts Village Trust, the GBI Golf Club, Motairehe Marae and te Taurahere o Aotea.

8. Capital infrastructure grants were also made to other groups or for different types of assets including Mulberry Grove & Okiwi Schools, the Aotea Family Support Group for a new 4WD van, the Rescue Helicopter Trust, St John Ambulance Society, the Aotea Community Radio Trust, Aotea Island Play Centre and the Sea Education Charitable Trust.

9. To date the same application, approval and accountability process has applied to large capital grants as it has to small operational grants such as $2,500 to support the maths and science club and $500 for coastal clean-up materials. Applicants for larger scale capital grants have shown over time that their ability to manage and complete processes around more complex projects varies.

10. It is considered that a more robust process is needed for larger grants in the interests of transparency and accountability and that additional support from Auckland Council may be needed to ensure projects are successfully delivered in a manner which would stand up to scrutiny and audit.

11. It is proposed that a separate funding round for capital infrastructure projects be operated and that this occur once a year only, at the start of the financial year. Applications for such projects would not be accepted in any of the other standard community grant funding rounds. That way the board has a better idea early on where it’s funding is being spent and this will assist it in overall in making decisions. Aligning this process with the first community grants funding round also makes sense from a Council administration perspective.

12. In anticipation of this approach and as part of confirming its 2014-2015 budgets the board agreed to move $250,000 from its SLIPs capex budget to a new line entitled capital grants. The amount chosen took into account the historical annual spend on capital grants noted in this report, the board’s total budget and other priorities the board has for funding in the coming financial year. Capital grants allocated may be more or less than this amount and if more, will come from the remaining SLIPs capex budget.

13. It is also proposed that a specific application form, supported by dedicated guidelines be developed around this process to assist both applicants and Council. Guidelines would indicate the types of capital infrastructure the board would consider funding and it is suggested these be linked to the priorities in the draft Great Barrier Local Board Plan. For example in support of that plan’s outcome of increasing reliance on alternative energy sources, an application for a new diesel generator would probably be considered less favourably than an application to install solar panels. A proposed set of guidelines will be tabled at the 9 July meeting for the board’s consideration.

14. In addition, officers with relevant skills in relation to these applications would consider applications and provide recommendations to the board to assist it in decision making. At the moment applications come directly to the board with minimal officer input as the board is more familiar with its community and group needs than officers. However with more complex proposals, officers should be in a position to pick up things and advise the board.

15. Where applications are at the upper end in terms of complexity and cost, it might be that officers would recommend that an amount to cover project management support be included in the application. This is a reflection of the limited resources some groups might have at their disposal and that some much needed projects might not be applied for due to these limitations.

16. It is also considered that for projects above a pre-agreed amount (say $10,000), a contract should be entered into between the successful applicant and council. The form of the contract might vary according to the complexity and scale of the project and would assist clarity for all parties in terms of expectations and deliverables.

17. In addition, there should be an expectation that the larger the grant applied for, the greater the contribution by the applicant to the project. Contributions will need to be specified and could be in cash, labour or materials.

18. All these matters will be included in the guidelines where relevant. The fund would operate for the 2014/2015 (1 July 2014-) financial year only in recognition that a region-wide community grants policy is being developed for introduction from the 2015-2016 year. The proposed approach should provide useful insights into how such a policy might work on Great Barrier noting that the island’s requirements differ from pretty much any other local board area. In particular significant local board capital funding of community groups providing public services is limited elsewhere, as these tend to be provided by Auckland Council.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

19. This report is to the Great Barrier Local Board which has decision making authority over this matter as funding is from the board’s discretionary budgets.

Maori impact statement

20. Maori are not specifically impacted by this proposal to a greater or lesser extent than other groups on Great Barrier Island. Both Motairehe and Kawa marae would be eligible for funding under this process.

Implementation

21. If approved, applications to the community facilities infrastructure funding process would open on 11 August 2014 and close on 19 September 2014, the same dates as round one of the community grants process. If the process and applications prove more complex than anticipated the board may need to seek to extend the round in agreement with the community funding team that will administer the process. In addition, reporting may not coincide with reporting on the community grants process if assessments take longer due to complexity.

22. Officers would assemble a team consisting of representatives from finance, community funding, property and others as required, supported by the board’s relationship manager and team, to consider applications.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Chairperson	Izzy Fordham
Deputy Chairperson	Susan Daly
Members	Jeff Cleave
	Judy Gilbert
	Christina Spence

No.	Title	Page
a View	Chairperson's letter of support to the Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea's NEXT Foundation Expression of Interest	89
b View	Letter from GBI Community Health Trust - retrofit home insulation	91
c View	Cover letter from the Chairperson - Great Barrier Local Board Engagement with off island ratepayers	95
d View	Email of 26 June 2014 from John Nash re Establishment of Great Barrier off island ratepayer forum	97