Agenda of Kaipātiki Local Board

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 July 2014

Local and Sports Park Work Programme 2014/2015

File No.: CP2014/10681

Purpose

1. To present the 2014/2015 parks capital works programme and proposed small local improvements projects (SLIPs) for endorsement and approval by the Kaipatiki Local Board.

Executive summary

2. Key staff involved in preparation of the proposed 2014/2015 parks capital works programme (see Attachment A) have attended workshops with the local board on 21 May and 18 June 2014, as well as a reprioritisation workshop on 2 April 2014. These meetings, as well as referencing the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (LTP), have enabled discussion and development of the proposed capital works programme.

3. The current 2014/2015 budget was approved by the Kaipatiki Local Board on 11 June 2014. Savings and changes in scope to projects have identified $452,426 that can be reallocated to projects that have already been planned as part of the 2013/14 work programme. The proposed work programme presented is based on the current LTP budget information and excludes deferrals from the financial year 2013/2014.

4. The proposed list of SLIPs comes to a total of $214,000, which leaves $274,000 to be allocated once proposed projects have been investigated further.

5. This report also seeks flexibility in project scoping for the renewals work programme by acknowledging that asset conditions are dynamic and subject to change. Officers require the ability to amend the priorities for asset renewals to accommodate unforeseen circumstances, effectively deliver the renewals programme and militate against unforeseen health and safety issues. Should priorities change from those identified in this report, updates will be given as part of the monthly report and discussed with the parks portfolio holders.

6. It is also recommended that the parks portfolio holders continue to have delegated authority to approve changes in priorities to the renewals programme during the year to ensure a responsive approach to address health and safety and other unforeseen issues. Design of major renewal projects will follow the development programme approach to consultation and approval.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the 2014/2015 parks capital work programme as detailed in Attachment A

b) approve the proposed list of 2014/15 SLIPs projects as detailed in Attachment B

c) delegate approval of concept and final design of new capital works projects in 2014/15 to the parks portfolio holders

d) delegate reprioritisation of the renewals work programme to the parks portfolio holders

Comments

7. Table 1 outlines the approved budgets for FY15, the estimated costs of the projects and the difference that is available to be reallocated. A total of $452,426 is available for other development projects that have been planned during the 2013/2014 financial year and can be completed once funding becomes available.

Table 1

DESCRIPTION	FY15 APPROVED BUDGET	FY15 ESTIMATE	DIFFERENCE TO BE REALLOCATED
Foundation infrastructure	$452,311	$452,311	$0
Walkway (Onepoto)	$20,460	$20,460	$0
Birkenhead War Memorial Park - Playground	$137,707	$27,707	$110,000
Birkenhead War Memorial Park - Public Convenience	$272,199	$250,000	$22,199
Toilet (Lynn Reserve)	$98,740	$0	$98,740
BWMP No 2 Sportsfield Extension	$5,115	$5,115	$0
BWMP Carpark	$10,230	$10,230	$0
Youth Facility in Parks	$5,115	$5,115	$0
BWMP - BMX cycling track	$221,301	$221,301	$0
Volleyball Court (BWMP)	$5,115	$0	$5,115
Greenslade Reserve Public Convenience	$406,372	$190,000	$216,372
Kaipatiki Connections Network Plan	$150,324	$150,324	$0
Sports Playing Surfaces and Facilities Upgrades	$451,961	$451,961	$0
Cycle and Walking Track (Greenway)	$60,807	$60,807	$0
TOTAL	$2,297,757	$1,845,331	$452,426

8. Table 2 provides officers’ recommendations for additional development projects that can be delivered in financial year 2014/2015. Information on the original and reduced designs for Jacaranda Reserve and Diana Reserve are detailed in Attachment C, as requested by the local board during the work programme workshops.

Table 2

2014/2015 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS	2014/15 RECCOMENDED PROJECTS	DESCRIPTION
Zion Hill Reserve Development	$100,000	FY15 funding for public artwork and landscaping. Design to be developed with stakeholders.
Jacaranda Reserve Development	$88,000	FY15 funding for reserve development. Original design $131,000 but large slide has been removed (see Attachment B)
Diana Reserve Development	$77,000	FY15 funding for reserve development. Original design $95,000 but second loop and some seating has been removed (see Attachment B)
Little Shoal Bay Furniture	$8,000	Two options presented estimated at a cost of $16,000 and $57,000. Funding allocated to two seats beside the playground with the remaining upgrades to be deferred.
Fernglen Reserve Development	$100,000	Removal of residence, planning, consents and development of site to assist education programme. Further funding required in 2015/16 depending on outcome of planning.
Kaipatiki Connections Plan	$79,426	Funding transferred from 2014/2015 SLIPs programme. Implementation of next phase of Connections Plan, in addition to Kaipātiki Connections Plan budget and track renewals budgets
Normanton Reserve Lighting	$0	Estimate for implementing stages 1&2 is $140,000 or Stage 1 is $90,000. Funding deferred until 2015/2016 to allow further investigation and possible transport funding.

Le Roys Bush - Connection from Plaza	$0	$70,000 funding for planning and consent for track from Plaza to Le Roys Bush originally proposed, but connection not required at present.
TOTAL	$452,426

9. Attachment B lists the recommended SLIPs projects for 2014/15. These are projects that have been identified and scoped by officers for implementation in the next financial year. The total estimate for these is $214,000, which leaves $274,000 remaining to be allocated to other projects. A number of additional candidate projects on reserves were put forward at the June workshop, but these have not yet been assessed by officers to confirm feasibility, timeframes and estimated budgets.

10. The full local board is included in the consultation phase for individual projects, and the process for keeping the board up to date on projects has recently been improved with reports on the full programme (development, renewals and SLIPs) being circulated sent out to all members on a monthly basis.

11. In addition, it is recommended that parks portfolio holders are informed if any significant change occurs post final design sign off e.g. through the consenting process or health and safety requirements. Information on the progress of the work programme will continue to be reported in monthly updates to the local board.

12. It is further recommended that the current delegations to parks portfolio holders that allow approval of reprioritisation and design continue in 2014/15.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. Workshops were held with the local board on 21 May and 18 June 2014 to discuss the work programme.

Maori impact statement

14. The impacts on Maori from each project will be assessed during the consultation phases and reported back to the local board.

Implementation

15. There are no implementation issues identified with these recommendations.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Kaipatiki 2014/2015 Master Programme	31
b View	Kaipatiki Proposed 2014/2015 SLIPs Projects	35
c View	Jacaranda and Diana Reserves Plans	37

Signatories

Authors

Adi James - Parks Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 July 2014

Auckland Transport Update on Issues Raised in June 2014 for the Kaipātiki Local Board

File No.: CP2014/13702

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on transport related issues raised by local board members during June 2014. It also includes general information about matters of interest to the local board and presents schedule of issues raised in June 2014 as Attachment A.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Update on Issues Raised in June 2014 for the Kaipātiki Local Board.

Comments

Auckland Transport News

Public Transport Fare Changes from July 6

2. Auckland Transport has completed its Annual Fare Review which sees ticket prices on buses, trains and ferries change from July 6. From that date, adults who use the AT HOP card for their travel will receive a 20% discount off the single trip adult cash fare (excluding NiteRider, Airbus Express and Waiheke ferry services). Child and tertiary AT HOP users will also continue to receive discounts on most services, when compared to the equivalent cash fares. 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).

3. The annual review takes into account operator cost increases (e.g. fuel and wages), revenue and patronage movements. Auckland Transport is also undertaking a strategic review of all public transport costs and pricing, due to be completed towards the end of the year.

4. Public transport must be seen as a viable alternative to the car if Auckland is to begin to resolve its transport problems, by making travel even more attractive on the AT HOP card and to encourage more people to switch to public transport.

5. In March, there was a jump in the number of people using public transport in Auckland with 7.3 million trips, an increase of 3.9% on March last year. The financial year to March also saw strong growth overall, with just over 71 million trips.

6. 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 July 6. The card itself will also remain at $5 until at least 31 January 2015.

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

Background

Example of annual savings

8. The table below indicates annual savings for an adult taking 2 trips a day on a train or bus across 220 weekdays a year. Actual savings depend on personal circumstances, so actual savings may vary. The savings figures do not take into account the cost of buying an AT HOP card:

Adult	Fares		Annual Savings
Adult	Cash	HOP	Annual Savings
1 stage	$2.00	$1.60	$176.00
2 stage	$4.00	$2.95	$462.00
3 stage	$5.00	$4.00	$440.00
4 stage	$6.00	$4.80	$528.00
5 stage	$7.50	$6.00	$660.00
6 stage	$8.50	$6.80	$748.00
7 stage	$9.50	$7.60	$836.00
8 stage	$10.50	$8.40	$924.00

Terms and conditions for the $5 AT HOP card offer

9. Terms and conditions apply. Auckland Transport reserves the right to limit the $5 card offer to one card per customer, and to extend the duration of the offer. The purchase price is non-refundable. The $5 card offer is available until 31 January 2015. Cards must be topped up before use and must be topped up at the time of purchase when purchased from train and ferry Ticket Offices, Customer Service Centres or retail outlets. From 6 July, the minimum top up is $5.

10. You can read the full terms of use of the AT HOP cards, the registered prospectus relating to the AT HOP cards and other information regarding the AT HOP cards on the Auckland Transport website or at the Transport Information Centre, Britomart.

Have your say on improved ferry services to Gulf Harbour

11. Good news for residents and visitors to Gulf Harbour, the number of ferry sailings each day between Gulf Harbour and Auckland is increasing to 12.

12. During peak times sailings will increase from two to three with another two sailings each way in the middle of the day, which should appeal to workers and students alike. There are now shopping and visiting options for those not needing to travel at peak times.

13. Auckland Transport wants the community to get involved and for people to have their say on the proposed timetable.

14. Auckland Transport Group Manager Public Transport Services has advised this draft timetable is the result of feedback AT has received about improving services to Gulf Harbour.

15. A survey undertaken last year showed huge demand for increased ferry services and showed people are very keen to get involved and have their say. These additional sailings should make a huge difference to Whangaparaoa peninsula commuters working in the CBD.

16. As part of the process ferry operator 360 Discovery Cruises will be handing out information flyers to existing ferry passengers, and thousands of questionnaires will be mail dropped over the next week with the objective of canvassing both bus and car commuters.

17. 360 Discovery Cruises advise strong growth in passenger numbers has already been experienced due to increasing congestion on the motorway system as it is only 50 minutes by ferry from Gulf Harbour to the city, which is less than the driving time from many suburbs.

18. The new timetable could start next month subject to consultation. Consultation closed on Sunday 29 June.

Local board views and implications

19. This report is for the local board’s information.

Maori impact statement

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

General

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

Implementation

22. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of Issues raised in June 2014	55

Signatories

Authors	Marilyn Nicholls, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon, Team Manager Elected Member Relationships, Auckland Transport

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 July 2014

Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback

File No.: CP2014/13487

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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) provide 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.

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

· improve 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 Kaipātiki Local Board in 2013 on the Issues and Options paper and/or the Staff Position Paper and provides a response from officers to show how the feedback has informed the draft LAP, or if not, why this is the case.

Table 9. Kaipātiki Local Board feedback

Topic	Local Board feedback	Officer response
Policy objectives	· Requests more clarity in the final policy on the outcomes to be achieved through the Local Alcohol Policy, in terms of both community health and wellbeing and economic development, and how the various policy levers available will support achievement of these outcomes across the Auckland region.	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. An introductory section is included in the statement of proposal; the draft policy itself opens with a statement regarding the purpose of the policy; and the third section in the statement of proposal explicates the reasoning for each of the policy provisions and how these aim to achieve positive outcomes in Auckland.
General	· Supports differentiation between different kinds of licences in the policy.	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. All policy mechanisms are applied differently for different types of licences.
Location	· Supports the approach of having a regional policy with local variation, balancing regional consistency and coordination with the need for local rules based on local circumstances; and supports the designation of Highbury, Glenfield and Northcote as Town Centres and Beach Haven as a Local Centre.	· The draft LAP incorporates this feedback. Two broad areas identified in the LAP are based on the areas classified from the Unitary Plan, and have been simplified for consistency and based on feedback received from stakeholders. · A third Priority Overlay captures areas which experience high levels of alcohol-related harms and which will benefit from additional controls. · In the draft LAP, Highbury, Glenfield, Northcote and Beach Haven are all a part of Broad Area B.
Location and Proximity	· Proposes further investigation prior to finalising the policy into the possible benefits of proximity controls for schools and other local community services.	· The draft LAP addresses this feedback; proximity will be considered as a part of the Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment. · Direct proximity controls have not been used widely overseas and thus there are not many studies on their effectiveness. However, one study found that the “buffer zones” examined were ineffective. · To reduce the visibility of licensed premises to children to these premises, the draft LAP also recommends that off-licence hours be restricted to a 9am opening time (i.e. after school begins).
Hours	· Support the proposed maximum trading hours of 8am – 1am for our town and local centres for on-licences.	· The draft LAP incorporates this feedback. Hours for on-licences in Broad Area B (the local board’s area) are 9am – 1am (the opening time has been moved to 9am in line with other licence types). Trial extensions of up to two hours may be available for best practice premises but these are preferred in metropolitan centres and will be refused in residential areas.
Hours	· Support region wide maximum trading hours of 9am –10pm for off-licences.	· The draft LAP incorporates this feedback. Hours for off-licences have remained as recommended at 9am – 10pm across the region.
Density	· Support the use of the density policy lever to restrict certain types of on-licences (but not where it restricts some clustering of on-licences where this has demonstrated economic benefits).	· The draft LAP addresses this feedback. The requirement for an Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment is triggered by the location of a premise and its risk rating. The requirement is less strict in Broad Area A and the metropolitan centres than in the rest of the region to encourage licences to establish in these places, and it is stricter in neighbourhood centres to deflect premises away from these zones. · This approach allows for flexibility and ensures that premises are operating in areas of Auckland that are suitable and practical.
Density	· Supports regulating the location of off-licences in neighbourhood and local centres.	· The draft LAP directly responds to this feedback. As well as requiring an Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment for nearly all off-licences across the region, there is a rebuttable presumption against the granting of new off-licences in neighbourhood centres (Unitary Plan zoning). This means new off-licences will only be able to establish in neighbourhood centres in very limited circumstances at the DLC’s discretion.
Discretionary conditions	· Supports prohibiting the sale of single serves.	· The draft LAP directly incorporates this feedback. Single serve restrictions have been recommended as a discretionary condition that the DLC should impose on all off-licences in the region. The condition states that single units of mainstream beer, cider or RTDs in less than 445ml packaging must not be sold; there is an exception for boutique and handcrafted beer and cider.

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	73
c View	A3 Copies of Tables 7 and 8 from report	75
d View	Key Topics for Feedback from Local Boards	77

Signatories

Authors

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 July 2014

Local Board Services Quarterly Report - Kaipātiki Local Board

File No.: CP2014/14044

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to update the board on various council and Council-controlled organisation activities impacting Kaipātiki.

Executive summary

2. This is the quarterly report for the third quarter of the financial year 2013/2014.

3. This report provides an update on various council and council-controlled organisation activities impacting Kaipātiki.

4. The strategic updates in this report are:

· Town Centre transformation projects

· Community development

· Kaipātiki connections and parks and sportsfield upgrades

· Economic development

· Transport

· Unitary Plan

· Strategic planning and finance.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) Request the Community Development, Arts and Culture department investigate the allocation of $30,000 per annum to facilitate the transfer of the whole first floor of the Norman King building to the community portfolio

b) Identify discretionary budget for 2014/2015 to meet the $30,000 funding gap for the Norman King for an interim period

c) Request officers progress the transfer of the whole first floor of the Norman King building once funding is identified for 2014/2015, including leasing and other operational issues

d) Provides feedback on the draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan

Comments

Board Workshops

5. The board workshop on 18 June dealt with the following issues:

a) Local Alcohol Policy

b) Northcote Safe Cycle Route Project

c) Birkenhead Transformation Project

d) Parks Work Programme 2014/2015

6. The board workshop on the 25 June dealt with the following issues:

a) Review of decision making allocation

b) Glenfield Community Centre

c) Norman King Building

d) CDAC 2014/2015 work programme planning

e) Year 4 Ultrafast Broadband (UFB) Briefing

7. The following cluster/regional workshops took place in June:

a) Civil defence and emergency management Briefing – 5 June

b) Standing orders and meeting processes – 16 June

c) Māori responsiveness training for elected members – 17 June

d) Family, Whanau and Sexual Violence Strategic Action Plan briefing – 23 June

e) Urban Design Champions quarterly meeting – 26 June

f) Community Facilities Network Plan and Draft Community Grants Policy – 30 June

Strategic Updates

8. ██ Town Centre transformation projects

9. The City Transformation team continues to lead the work on the town centre transformation projects. Monthly portfolio meetings are now being held alongside regular workshop sessions and business meeting items as key developments proceed.

10. Birkenhead

11. Moller Architects has been testing early ideas/thoughts about how best to achieve an activated, integrated and connected public open space for the Bush Gateway.

12. Both the design teams for the Bush Gateway and Mainstreet projects have been working with the appointed quantity surveyor to start determining costs, which will inform elements recommended to the board for taking forward.

13. The board’s 23 July workshop is being targeted to share the outcome of this work and the integrated programme.

14. Northcote

15. The Lake Road car park project has been handed over to AT who are preparing a scheme assessment report, which will identify costs and benefits of the project and generate a detailed concept plan for consultation.

16. Resource consent for the new public toilets in the town centre has been granted, with construction scheduled for late 2014.

17. The Northcote Business Association has hosted a workshop and is set to approve final signage/wayfinding concept before this is brought to the board for a decision.

18. CCTV relocation to the library has been completed, with an operational agreement drafted and with the business association for comment.

19. Beach Haven

20. Detailed design work is underway (almost complete) for the community space now that resource consent has been granted. Costings are being reviewed and will be reported to the Built Environment Portfolio Holders meeting once complete with final sign off on costings at a forthcoming business meeting of the board. Discussions are about to commence with the Heart of Beach Haven placemaking group on the partnership approach for the maintenance of the space once complete, including the roles and responsibilities of both parties.

21. ██ Community Development

22. Work programme

23. The Community Development, Art and Culture (CDAC) work programme for 2014/2015 is attached to another report on this agenda. This work programme sets out the key activities for the next twelve months and will form the basis for reporting going forward.

24. Work is underway on the Funding Agreements for 2014/2015 which will set out the activities to be delivered by the board’s community partners over the next twelve months, linked to the work programme.

25. Community co-ordinator review

26. On 2 July a joint workshop was held between the local board, the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust Board, the Community Co-ordinators and council staff. This workshop was an outcome of the Community Co-ordinator review. At the time of writing the outcomes and next steps from this workshop were not known.

27. Norman King building

28. At the workshop on 25 June the board discussed the Norman King building in response to board resolution KAI/2014/16 ‘to seek an urgent report on the transfer of the remaining commercial tenancy at the Norman King building to Raeburn House at a community rate.’

29. The discussion focused on:

· The first floor being the priority for the transfer from commercial to community use;

· The need to establish a community lease for the whole first floor, utilising the community occupancy guidelines; and

· The need to identify $30,000 to offset the current rent collected for the commercial tenancy.

30. The board discussed the possibility that funds be found within CDAC budgets to enable this change to community use in the long term and informally requested that officers investigate this possibility.

31. The board also discussed identifying the first year’s $30,000 from within local board discretionary budgets to enable the transfer as soon as possible. This funding could be identified from the board’s discretionary opex budget or from other budgets which the board has discretion over (e.g. events).

32. Glenfield Community Centre

33. At the workshop on 25 June the board also discussed the Glenfield Community Centre’s weather tightness issues and possible next steps. It was agreed that further discussion would take place with the Glenfield Community Centre, and that a formal report outlining the various options to the centre and council be presented at the August business meeting.

34. ██ Kaipātiki connections and parks and sportsfields upgrades

35. All members are now receiving a full monthly update on the parks work programme which provides current information on project status for all capital development, renewals and SLIPs projects. Some 2013/2014 development projects (particularly connections) are being deferred to 2014/2015 due to delays in resource consenting.

36. Members are requested to refer to this information regularly and are welcome to request additional information if not available in this document.

37. Another report on this agenda outlines the proposed parks work programme for 2014/2015.

38. The Onepoto Walkways will be opened on 12 July with a fun family event to accompany the opening.

39. ██ Economic development

40. The Economic Development Action Plan for Kaipātiki was approved by the board at its meeting on 11 June. The year one actions will be discussed at a workshop and subsequent business meeting with the board in the first quarter of this financial year.

41. ██ Transport

42. Transport issues are covered in another report on this agenda.

43. At the 11 June meeting, a number of projects were approved for scoping for the Auckland Transport Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund.

44. ██ Unitary Plan

45. Auckland Council received more than 9400 submissions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) during the five-month notification period which closed on 28 February 2014.

46. The submissions have been carefully summarised by council planners to capture all of the changes requested.

47. Each unique request, and the details of who made it, has been collated into the Summary of Decisions Requested (SDR) report. In total, there are more than 93,600 unique requests, represented in the SDR as summary points.

48. The SDR report was notified by Auckland Council on 11 June. This date marks the start of the further submissions phase. People can make further submissions in support of or in opposition to each decision requested in the submissions. No new points can be raised during the further submission process.

49. The deadline for further submissions is 5pm on 22 July.

50. ██ Strategic Planning and Finance

51. The board approved the Local Board Agreement for 2014/2015 on 11 June.

52. The board also approved the draft Local Board Plan 2014 for consultation on 11 June. The consultation period commenced on 7 July and closes on 6 August.

53. Chairperson Kay McIntyre and members Danielle Grant and Grant Gillon approved the board’s engagement plan for the special consultative procedure in April. This plan has now been developed into a full programme for July including town centre events, library drop-ins and a special community forum meeting on 23 July.

General updates

54. Regional Pest Management Plan review – issues and options paper

55. At the 11 June meeting the board delegated providing feedback on the Regional Pest Management Plan review – issues and options paper to Members G Gillon, Grant and McIntyre. The feedback prepared and submitted is attached at Attachment A.

56. Auckland Transport Draft Parking Discussion Document

57. At the 11 June meeting the board delegated providing feedback on the Auckland Transport Parking Discussion Document to Members Hills, Waugh and McIntyre. The deadline for feedback has been extended to 31 July (from 30 June) so the board’s feedback has not yet been confirmed.

58. Draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan

59. Public consultation on Auckland Council’s draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan opened on 23 June 2014 and closes on 24 July 2014. The board may wish to consider submitting on this plan. A summary is attached at Attachment B.

60. 136 Birkdale Road consultation

61. Planning has commenced for initial public consultation on the future of 136 Birkdale Road. Key stakeholders have been identified and an initial planning meeting held with them on 13 June. The group included local residents, Beach Haven Birkdale Community Project, Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust and the principals of both Birkdale Primary and Birkenhead College.

62. The initial consultation will take the form of a two-day open day at the property, where residents and local groups and organisations will be invited to drop in and share their ideas for how the space could be used. Key stakeholders are supportive of the proposed approach, and have volunteered to support over the two days, including an offer from the schools to ensure students get involved.

63. It has been agreed to publicise the open days via local neighbourhood networks and school newsletters and noticeboards, as well as an advert in the North Shore Times and signage outside the property itself.

64. The board will be aware that there are certain constraints around the future of the property, including limitations on funding available and the intention for the property to include open space. These realities will be communicated to the public through the consultation to ensure honest conversations are undertaken with the community.

65. Members are also advised that the principals of both Birkdale Primary and Birkenhead College have requested that their boards also meet with the local board separately to discuss the property. The Chair has suggested that these meetings should take place following the initial consultation period.

66. Dates for the consultation are Friday 1 and Saturday 2 August from 10.00 – 4.00pm on both days. Members and are encouraged to come along on either or both of the days to listen to the views coming from the community on the future use of the property.

Action Item reports

67. Attached to this report (at Attachments C, D, E and F) are action items from previous meetings of the local board, reported on in the following categories:

· Pending (yet to be completed)

· Completed (actions completed)

· Watching brief (actions requiring oversight but not yet due for completion)

· Future (actions not yet requiring oversight/action).

68. Any actions marked as completed will be moved from the current schedule on receipt of this report by the board.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

69. Local board views are sought via this report.

Maori impact statement

70. There are no specific impacts on Māori arising from this report.

Implementation

71. There are no implementation issues identified in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Regional Pest Management Plan Review Issues and Options Paper Feedback	85
b View	Draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan (Under Separate Cover)
c View	Action Item Report - Pending	87
d View	Action Item Report - Completed	95
e View	Action Item Report - Watching Brief	111
f View	Action Item Report - Future	117

Signatories

Authors	Sarah Broad - Senior Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Kay McIntyre, QSM
Deputy Chairperson	Ann Hartley, JP
Members	Dr Grant Gillon
	John Gillon
	Danielle Grant
	Richard Hills
	Lorene Pigg
	Lindsay Waugh

	Kay McIntyre QSM Chairperson Ph 09 484 8383 DDI 09 484 8987 Mobile 021 287 8844 kay.mcintyre@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Finance – lead · Planning, policy and governance – lead · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – alternate		Ann Hartley JP Deputy Chairperson Mob 027 490 6909 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 483 7572 ann.hartley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Community Development and Facilities – lead · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – lead · Parks, reserves and playgrounds (passive) – alternate · Planning, policy and governance – alternate · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – alternate
	Danielle Grant Local Board Member Mob 021 835 724 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 442 1271 danielle.grant@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Arts, culture and events services – lead · Economic development – lead · Natural environment – alternate		Grant Gillon MPP, PhD Local Board Member Mob 027 476 4679 Office 09 484 8383 grant.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Natural environment – lead · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – lead · Libraries – alternate
	John Gillon Local Board Member Mob 021 286 2288 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 443 1683 john.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Libraries – lead · Parks, reserves and playgrounds (passive) – lead · Civil defence and emergency management – alternate		Lindsay Waugh Local Board Member Mob 021 287 1155 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 418 1620 lindsay.waugh@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – lead · Arts, culture and events services – alternate · Transport and infrastructure – alternate
	Lorene Pigg Local Board Member Mob 021 839 375 Office 09 484 8383 lorene.pigg@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Civil defence and emergency management – lead · Finance – alternate · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – alternate		Richard Hills Local Board Member Mob 021 286 4411 Office 09 484 8383 richard.hills@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Transport and infrastructure – lead · Community Development and Facilities – alternate · Economic development – alternate

Report Title	Referred by	Item	Date of Meeting	Date Received
Social Enterprise Update	Community Development and Safety Committee	17	14 May 2014	12 June 2014
Funding Assistance Rates	Infrastructure Committee	11	4 June 2014	18 June 2014

Authors	Bianca Wildish - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Authors	Alastair Child – Principal Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager