Agenda of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

15 July 2014

Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback

File No.: CP2014/13492

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 Attachment 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

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

Comments

Legislative framework

Background: law reform

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

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

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

Scope of LAPs

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

· location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

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

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

· maximum trading hours

· the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions

· one-way door restrictions.

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

Effect of LAPs

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

Table 1. Application of a LAP in licensing decisions

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

Statutory process for developing LAPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auckland Council’s Local Alcohol Policy Project

Council’s decision to develop a LAP

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

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

Project plan: key steps for developing council’s LAP

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

Table 2. Project plan overview

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

20. 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).

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

Table 3. Key consultation dates

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

Background to draft LAP: stakeholder feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-licence density

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

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

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

On-licence density

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

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

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

Off-licence opening times

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

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

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

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

On-licence closing times

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

· The Police argued strongly for 3am closing in the Central City with 1am closing 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4. Summary of local board feedback

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

Summary of draft LAP content

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

· are evidence-based

· align with the object of the Act

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

Purpose (section 1 of draft LAP)

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

· is appropriate to the Auckland Council region

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

· is consistent with the object of the Act.

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

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

· controlling where new licences are allowed

· controlling how many new licences are allowed

· reducing the hours that licensed premises can sell alcohol

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

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

Location and density of licences

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

Table 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.

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

Temporary freeze:

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

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

Environmental and Cumulative Impacts Assessment Process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

· That the licence should be issued

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

· That the licence should not be issued.

Rebuttable presumption:

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

Maximum trading hours

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

Table 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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial extensions of hours for on-licences

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

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

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

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

· No extensions will be allowed in the priority areas.

Additional discretionary conditions

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

Table 6. Discretionary conditions

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

Conditions recommended for all licences

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

Where in draft LAP

Includes:

· an onsite incident register

· host responsibility policies for club and on-licences

· prohibition on single unit sales for off-licences

Includes:

· Restrictions on drinks prior to closing

· Clean public areas outside

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

· CCTV

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

Part B: Sections 4 to 7

Summary of on-licence provisions

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

· reduce alcohol-related harm by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special licences

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

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

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

Other options considered

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

50. The table below outlines the feedback received from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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. Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board feedback

Topic	Local Board Feedback	Officer response
Location	· Requested further information on high stress/high risk areas, specifically in relation to how these areas would be identified and defined.	· The high risk/high stress areas included in the draft LAP (now called Priority Overlay areas) were identified based on the following information: o Police data and maps showing areas with high incidence of alcohol-related crime o Current licence density data · Staff also considered wider factors such as the level of deprivation in the area and the demographic profile of local population groups.
Location	· Would like to see an on-going review process for these high stress/high risk areas.	· Staff acknowledge there would be benefits with having a regular review process for priority areas to ensure that: o Emerging ‘priority areas’ could be identified o Existing priority areas that no longer require the ‘priority status’ could be updated. · Unfortunately, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 is drafted in a way that if the council wishes to amend any part of its LAP, it would need to follow the full statutory process set out in the Act. This would involve a review of the relevant research, the statutory consultation process and the appeals process. · Further to this, as the DLC can only refuse new licences if they are inconsistent with the policy and not take away existing licences, it is anticipated that the policy provisions will take time to effect change. It is unlikely that the licensing environment in Broad Area A and the Priority Overlay will change radically within a few years.
Location	· Requested that a new broad area category be introduced to include areas with the proposed “residential/neighbourhood zone” (BA 4) that experience localised alcohol-related harm due to high density of off-licences. These areas require targeted intervention but are not currently captured by the high stress/high risk areas (e.g. Pt England or Oranga).	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. It proposes that the high stress/high risk concept be applied as an overlay (the “Priority Overlay”). The overlay identifies areas across the region that require targeted intervention and specific policy rules. These rules will apply regardless of the underlying broad area.
Density	*Note*: the Board stated that more information on the cumulative impact assessment is required before the board can comment in full. However, based on the information available, the board gave the following feedback: · Expects that the assessment would consider factors such as patron capacity, trading hours, proximity to other licensed premises, surrounding land uses, socio-economic factors, demographic characteristics of the area as well as health, safety and crime statistics, among others.	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. The Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment will consider: existing premises in the area, their risk ratings, patron capacity and hours; surrounding land uses, including whether there are any sensitive sites in the area; existing levels of alcohol-related harm; and the applicants’ proposals. · This approach allows for flexibility and ensures that premises are only operating in areas of Auckland that are suitable and practical, causing the least harm to communities.
Density	· Requested further information about how this tool would work in practice, how it measures impacts, and what process for review of its effectiveness would be put in place.	· Dedicated council staff would be responsible for preparing the ECIA report. The report would be provided to the District Licensing Committee to support the decision-making process. The LAP would direct the DLC to take the matters outlined in the report into account before making its decision. · The scope of the LAP Project includes the development of a monitoring and evaluation framework. This document will guide future policy reviews. The policy must be reviewed within six years of its adoption.

Maori impact statement

Research and data on Maori and alcohol

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2014: Statement of Proposal	47
b View	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting May 2014 - Resolutions on draft Local Alcohol Policy	163
c View	A3 Copies of Tables 7 and 8 from report	165
d View	Key Topics for Feedback from Local Boards	167

Signatories

Authors

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

15 July 2014

Glen Innes Music and Arts Centre: Programming & Operations Model

File No.: CP2014/13581

Purpose

1. To provide information to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on potential models for programming and operations of the Glen Innes Music and Arts Centre for Youth. With this information, the board can make an informed decision about the Centre’s programming and management.

Executive summary

2. At a workshop with the local board held on Tuesday 17 June, staff outlined four potential programming and management options available for the centre along with advantages and disadvantages.

3. The four programming and operational models drew on examples from across the Auckland region. These options comprise:

· 1A fully council run

· 1B council run with funding agreements

· 1C fully run via funding agreements

· 2 fully outsourced.

4. Each option has implications on the board’s ability to ensure alignment of programming and operations with the facility charter, as well as current and future local board plans.

5. Staff consider that a council run centre in the short to mid-term is the preferred mode of operating, as it can provide the board and its future Centre committee with:

· the greatest ability to ensure alignment with relevant plans and documents, including the centre’s charter

· the greatest ability to determine, manage and balance the level of user charges and paid hire with priority community usage

· minimised risk associated with a new facility

· appropriate checks for on track delivery to meet community expectations.

There are also significant advantages of having an external partner(s) provide specific programmes.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) approves Glen Innes Music and Arts Centre for Youth being operated and programmed fully by council

b) delegates staff to investigate potential programme delivery partners and report to the arts portfolio holder interest, alignment and appropriate value models for any potential partners.

c) notes that staff will work with the local board financial adviser to adjust the centre’s revenue targets in alignment with fees and charges for similar facilities in the board area, to achieve an operating model for the centre that is within its current allocated budget.

Comments

Background:

6. The Glen Innes Music and Arts Centre for Youth is scheduled to open in March 2014. The Centre is a purpose built facility that will contain a number of creative and multi-purpose spaces. These include a performance/rehearsal space, a dance studio, soundproofed practice rooms and visual art studios. Multiple entry and egress points to the building will dictate minimum staffing levels on site during opening hours.

7. The board endorsed a charter in December 2013 that outlines the vision, focus areas and goals for the centre. A key purpose of developing the charter was to provide the centre with a clear sense of identity to assist with future decision-making, including programming.

8. To achieve an operating model for the centre that is within its allocated budget, the options for programming and management at the centre need to include the capacity to increase or decrease paid hire and user charges.

9. All options discussed in this paper will deliver an operating model for the centre that is within its current allocated budget.

10. The advantages, disadvantages, risks and budget estimates for each of the four options are outlined below.

Option 1A - Fully Council Run

11. In this model, the centre is staffed and programmed by council staff. This model is used across arts and culture council facilities in south Auckland.

12. Mangere Arts Centre is an example of an arts facility that is managed and programmed by council staff. It has a combination of paid hire and programmed activity.

Advantages

Disadvantages

High level of control in setting the agenda for operations, delivery and quality

Can support procured services, as well as direct programming and sustain a wide variety of activity from signature events, through to weekly programming

Well integrated with Arts and Culture regional programming such as Matariki and Southside Arts Festival.

Caters well to diverse audiences and will achieve revenue goals

The ability for the local board to influence programming is very high

Higher likelihood of alignment with facility charter and local board plans

The model could sustain revenue generation (through ticket sales, tutoring charges etc) in addition to venue hire

A service delivery model that creates the expectation of ongoing council subsidy

Little or no ability to secure outside funding as it is a council owned/operated facility

13. Key issues and risks associated with this option are as follows:

· highly reliant on effective recruitment of key individuals: getting the right people is critical

14. The projected expenditure identified in this option is $77,930 more than the allocated budget, however will be managed to a neutral bottom line impact with the introduction of revenue targets that were not previously planned. Staff consider the revenue estimates, applied here, as conservative.

BUDGET (excludes property costs)
Staff	310,000
Programming	135,000
Other	32,415
Total Expenditure	477,415
Venue hire	- 54,538
Classes/Tutors	- 23,392
Total Revenue	- 77,930
Net Expenditure	399,485
Current Budget Available	399,485
Variance	0

Option 1B - Council Run with Funding Agreements

15. This model uses the expertise of council staff, including technical support, to operate the centre. Programming is delivered by council staff and key funding partners who will deliver well-aligned programmes. These partnerships typically operate via funding agreements where KPIs are reviewed on an annual basis.

16. Ōtara Music and Arts Centre is an example of a facility that is managed and programmed by council staff in combination with key partners (MAINZ and Sistema/APO). It also draws revenue from paid hire. The funding partnerships draw on technical expertise of council staff.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Can support social enterprise activity

Some basic operating hours of facility work could be devolved to funding partners, leaving council funding to be targeted to high need/peak times

Can support procured services, as well as direct programming and sustain a wide variety of activity, from signature events through to weekly programming

The ability for the local board to influence programming is high

Reasonably high chance of alignment with facility charter and local board plan

Venue-based partners can secure outside funding

The model could achieve revenue generation (through ticket sales, tutoring charges etc) in addition to venue hire

Partially reliant on available funding partner or tenant to cater to diverse audience needs

In relation to funding partners, KPIs are the only mechanism to monitor production, quality and outputs of programme

Venue hire delivers minimal controls in regards to production, quality and outputs

Tends to form long-term proprietary relationships (which can be very positive) that can be hard to extricate from”

17. Key issues and risks associated with this option are as follows:

· highly reliant on effective recruitment of key individuals: getting the right people is critical

· vulnerable to the departure of a key partner

18. The main budget difference between options 1A and 1B is the reduction of staff costs and that $90,000 of the $167,500 programming costs are assumed to be paid to partners/tenants. As with Option 1A, the projected expenditure is $77,930 more than the allocated budget, however will be managed to a neutral bottom line impact with the introduction of revenue targets that were not previously planned. Staff consider these revenue estimates as conservative.

BUDGET (excludes property costs)
Staff	277,500
Programming	167,500
Other	32,415
Total Expenditure	477,415
Venue hire	- 54,538
Classes/Tutors	- 23,392
Total Revenue	- 77,930
Net Expenditure	399,485
Current Budget Available	399,485
Variance	0

Option 1C - Fully Run via Funding Agreements

19. In this model, the centre is staffed by a council facility manager, with the arts and culture activity delivered either through:

a) council managing multiple funding agreements and/or tenancies OR

b) a funding agreement with a third party entity, who then manages multiple funding agreements and/or tenancies.

20. Lopdell Precinct (currently being redeveloped) is a comparable facility where council employs a facility manager who looks after the precinct management and operations and manages the individual leases as well as the relationships between a range of arts and community tenants. Each of the tenants has their own paid/volunteer staff operating from within the precinct and has an individual funding agreement, complete with KPIs, with council.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Can support social enterprise activity

Council overhead is reduced with key responsibility being for the maintenance of the asset/building

Potentially reduces the complexity of operations for council to that of a landlord – tenant relationship and contractual management

Tenants have autonomy and can secure outside funding

Tends to form long-term proprietary relationships (which can be very positive) that can be hard to extricate

Tenancy relationship has relatively weak controls over the production, quality and outputs

The ability of the local board to influence programming is low

Alignment with facility charter and/or local board plans cannot be guaranteed

There is little or no ability for council to collect revenue from venue hire outside tenancy arrangements

Vulnerable to departure of tenant(s)

21. Key issues and risks associated with this option are as follows:

· highly vulnerable to the departure of tenant, community or sector partner(s)

· utilisation of spaces may be somewhat limited as dependent on the tenants’ capacity and capability

· entirely reliant on tenants to deliver programming outcomes

· reliant on there being obvious tenants and having a facility that meets tenants’ needs

22. The main budget difference between this option and 1A and 1B is that the staff costs are significantly reduced and all programming costs match the budget available. Opportunities for revenue generation with this model are limited to venue hire/rental, which will be subject to availability of shared spaces within the facility.

BUDGET (excludes property costs)
Staff	80,000
Programming	297,908
Other	32,485
Total Expenditure	410,393
Venue hire	- 10,908
Classes/Tutors	-
Revenue	- 10,908
Net Expenditure	399,485
Budget Available	399,485
Variance	0

Option 2 - Fully Outsourced

23. In this model, council is the landlord with delivery of programming and facility operations the responsibility of a tenant typically by way of a funding agreement, which the tenant can leverage to do their own independent fundraising.

24. A comparable example of this type of arrangement is Zeal Youth, Henderson; a youth focused facility in west Auckland. Zeal is a national charitable trust whose focus is on youth development through the creative arts. Zeal leases the building in Henderson from council and also operates out of facilities located in Hamilton and Wellington.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Simple contractual and relationship management for council

(Potentially) the low cost option as the tenant will have to secure outside funding

Highly vulnerable to the departure of the tenant

The ability of the local board to influence programming is very low

Council will not be able to collect revenue

Alignment with facility charter and/or local board plans is not guaranteed

Assumes the external party will find another $250,000 and this cannot be guaranteed

25. Key issues and risks associated with this option are as follows:

· the number of organisations who could run such a facility is likely to be limited. The selection process will require significant previous expertise in running similar facilities

· there is currently no obvious partner identified

· if the tenant cannot raise additional funding, council may need to increase its financial contribution or risk reducing service levels

· highly vulnerable to the departure of the tenant

· utilisation of spaces may be limited as dependent on the tenants’ capacity and capability

· if the facility is managed by a trust, it may create an additional level of complexity between the governance (i.e. board and its future centre committee) and management functions

26. As council’s role is limited to that of landlord and contract manager, available funds are provided to the external party. It is critical to note that this option assumes the external party will find another $250,000 (in addition to the $399,485 funding received from council) to pay for property maintenance costs as well as additional staff costs. No revenue can be planned under this option.

BUDGET (excludes property costs)
Staff	-
Programming	397,070
Other	2,415
Total Expenditure	399,485
Venue hire	-
Classes/Tutors	-
Revenue	-
Net Expenditure	399,485
Budget Available	399,485
Variance	0

Conclusion

27. A council run centre in the short to mid-term minimises various risks associated with a new facility and provides the board and its future centre committee with the ability to best meet community expectations.

28. There are also significant advantages to having an external partner(s) providing specific programmes. Having a limited number of partners in the mid-term may provide additional benefit to the centre, subject to availability and suitability of such partners.

29. Option 1A is the recommended option for the centre while keeping the option of having limited number of external parties contributing to the programming of the centre via funding agreements open.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. The information contained in this report was discussed in a workshop with the board on 17 June 2014. This report is informed by that discussion.

Maori impact statement

31. The target area for the centre (Glen Innes, Pt England and Panmure) has a relatively high percentage of Māori residents (24%) compared to the rest of Auckland (11%). By carrying out the local objectives identified in the facility charter, the centre is expected to have positive impacts on the area’s Māori population, particularly for youth.

32. Māori outcomes are measured and reported on by the Arts and Culture Unit in the evaluation of its programmes.

33. The charter also has two specific objectives that refer to Māori including:

· 2e. The importance of Mana Whenua iwi to the local area is acknowledged through their involvement in the centre and;

· 3c. A diverse range of creative cultural expression is celebrated, including Māori and Pacific contemporary and traditional arts and celebrations.

Implementation

34. Any fees and charges for venue hire will be in alignment with similar facilities in the local board area and are to be agreed with the board.

35. For any potential programme delivery partners further work is required to gauge interest, alignment and appropriate value models.

36. Recruitment of staff needs to occur prior to the facility opening, to ensure sufficient development time for programing and operations of the facility. The budgeting for the facility reflects in-time recruitment.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Hanna Scott – Manager Arts and Culture Programming

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

15 July 2014

Onehunga Foreshore Project Progress Update June 2014

File No.: CP2014/14623

Purpose

1. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board is constructing a 6.8Ha park in the Manukau Harbour. This $28 million project is funded by the NZ Transport Agency ($18 million) and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board ($10 million). The local board is the project owner and governs the project.

The purpose of this report is to provide the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board the progress position of the Onehunga Foreshore project as at the end of June 2014.

Executive summary

2. The report provides information on physical progress, project budget and cost, NZTA funding support, Kaitiaki Working Group activities, Onehunga Foreshore Working Group activities, investigation and improvement of existing storm water quality, Puhinui Reserve coastal bird mitigation, Orpheus Drive, and workshops with the local board.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) receives the report for information.

Discussion

Progress

Physical Progress

3. The project contractual and official completion date is 10 July 2015. The NZDA requirement to install anti throw screens has delayed completion of the project physical works to May 2015. The current plan is to lift the bridge trusses in October 2014. Construction physical progress is 66% complete.

4. A total of 333,000М³ of fill is required with 303,000М³ placed by June 2014. The remaining fill is topsoil, headland rock and beach material. The overall filling operation is 91% complete. Construction emphasis is turning to headlands, drainage, paths and the bridge.

5. The bridge structural supports are complete, and bridge trusses are fabricated and in the paint shop. The bridge cladding brackets attached to the trusses have been increased in size to carry the additional weight of the anti-throw screen support arms.

The Transpower tower 39 foundation protective works in area A4 are on track to be completed in July 2014.

By months end work had commenced on installation of the triple culvert extension in area A4.

Budget and Cost

6. Separable portion 1:

a) SP 1 budget of $5.23 million made up of:

· $3.07 million for Fulton Hogan

· $1.06 million for consultants

· $1.10 million for preliminary costs.

b) SP1 actual cost is $5.79 million made up of:

· $3.63 million for Fulton Hogan (includes $0.56 million additional work effort to achieve a consent )

· $1.06 million for consultants

· $1.10 million for preliminary costs

7. Separable portion 2:

a) SP 2 current budget of $22.21 million made up of:

· $19.93 million for construction

· $0.84 million for consultants and administration.

· $1.44 million (additional work complying with consent conditions $1.06 million. This includes projected contract recoveries of $0.49 million leaving an unallocated contingency $0.38 million)

The Fulton Hogan SP 2 cost to end of June 2014 is $12.17 million.

8. There have been four items of work within the construction budget that needed pricing to be agreed with Fulton Hogan. Of these items park furniture and footpaths are agreed. The designs for the other two being car park and toilet are complete and Fulton Hogan are seeking subcontractor prices for these. The project team has been fully committed on this work to find acceptable solutions within the construction budget. It is too early to predict if project contingency will be affected.

$2.0 million project contingency drawdown.

a) $0.56 million to achieve successful outcome for SP1

b) $1.55 million to comply with consent conditions.

c) -$0.49 million projected contract recoveries/savings.

d) $0.38 million unallocated contingency will be reviewed when tenders for the toilet and car park are received.

The provision for disabled access to one of the swimming beaches is currently an item outside the Fulton Hogan responsibility that will require funding from other sources.

NZTA funding support

9. The project budget of $28 million includes a construction only contribution of $18 million from NZTA. However, on 9 May 2014 NZTA advised the project that a safety assessment of the walking and cycling bridge and its environment provided an outcome that required the inclusion of anti-throw screens. NZTA has advised it will fund this work. The requirement for the screens has delayed the completion of the bridge but not the overall project.

Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Working Group

10. The group has held five official meetings, one unofficial meeting and two workshops this calendar year. The group has responded well to the urgency to address the matters of significance to mana whenua to ensure no delay to the project programme. Each meeting receives an update on design and physical works progress and an opportunity to walk the site to receive commentary on matters of interest/significance. Minutes of the meeting held on 11 June are attached as Attachment A.

11. The December 2013 meeting raised the subject of iwi historical interpretation of the site area. This sparked considerable interest and debate. Over the last two meetings and one workshop the group has moved from individual interpretive signs (as proposed by Te Kawerau a Maki in December 2012) to a wayfinder disc and individual pous to a single pou that will represent all five iwi in a more general way. The group is now entering a process to select an artist to carve the pou. A suggested pou format tabled at the June 2014 meeting is attached as Attachment B.

12. Matters of significance addressed so far include.

1. Sourcing of filling material and construction monitoring.

2. Archeological Protection Procedure discovery protocol.

3. Preparation of a heritage map of the project area.

4. Water quality of existing storm water discharges.

5. Storm water collection and dispersal on the new reclamation.

6. The selection of an artist to assist in bridge artwork.

7. The bridge artist’s brief.

8. Agreement to appoint a consultant to assist the architect with vegetation selection and location.

9. Park furniture selection and location.

10. Iwi interpretive signage.

11. Change from corten steel to timber lattice on east façade of bridge.

12. Bridge anti-throw screens.

13. Involvement in mitigation plan for loss of trees on Orpheus Drive.

Onehunga Foreshore Working Group (OFWG)

13. In the last quarter the OFGW Working Group has met once. The meeting held on 12 June 2014 received a briefing on design and construction progress, the NZTA requirement for anti-throw screens and the achievements of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Working Group. Minutes of the 12 June 2014 meeting are attached as Attachment C.

Water Quality

14. Infrastructure and Environmental Services (I and ES) responded to the Local Board resolution in May 2014 seeking an update on water quality. A memo from I and ES dated12 May 2014 has been presented to the Local Board and is attached as Attachment D. It is encouraging to note that a considerable amount of investigative work has been undertaken and that this work is ongoing. The 12 May 2014 memo has been tabled at the June Kaitiaki Working Group meeting.

Orpheus Drive

15. Auckland Transport has decided to future-proof Orpheus Drive to provide for a 3 metre wide dedicated walking and cycle track. At a total cost of $92,587 the existing trees have been removed, drainage re-designed and mitigation in the form of replacement trees to be added to the park. The area between the park drainage swale and existing road seal will be left for Auckland Transport to construct.

With over 90% of fill delivered to site Fulton Hogan are considering the early removal of the road closure.

Puhinui Reserve.

16. In March 2014 work was carried out on vegetation control and mangrove removal. The Biosecurity maintenance report attached as Attachment E provides an update on the last maintenance check for the season.

Festival Lawn Park

17. A small amount of bulk earthworks has been undertaken in area A1 and Festival Lawn area. The track to provide access for the bridge building crane and materials has been built.

Public Engagement

18. Local media continue to take an interest in the project. There have been queries about the SLIPS funding for the design of beach access for disabled swimmers, the bridge design, the cycle and pedestrian path on Orpheus Drive, dog rules, as well as construction progress generally. A localized letter box drop was carried out in the Hillsborough cliffs/Seacliffe Rd area ahead of the bridge pier lifts and motorway closures so residents were aware of night time activity and vehicular movements on site.

The requirement to provide anti-throw screens to the bridge and late completion of footpaths has effectively put an end to on-site open days until the park is complete. The public will continue to have access to Orpheus Drive to view project progress.

Project Risks

19 The majority of project risks recognised throughout the early days and during the development and execution of SP1 have now been addressed and removed from the register. An earlier outstanding risk concerning iwi aspirations has been addressed through the Kaitiaki Working Group.

The extent of oyster beds and soft silts typical of Manukau Harbour beaches is to be addressed by appropriate cautionary signage.

The requirement to install anti-throw screens is not considered a project risk. NZTA are to fund the work and the additional work will be completed within the project time-frame.

Consideration

Local Board Views

20. TheMaungakiekie- Tāmaki Local Board may wish to provide a copy of this report to the Puketapapa and Mangere-Otahuhu Local Boards for their information.

Local Board Workshops

21. The following matters have ben canvassed with the Local Board at workshops held on 18 March, 29 April, and 27 May 2014.

18 March 2014

1. Park footpath materials-advice for reasons for choice

2. Park footpath width-report to Local Board 18 March 2014

3. Bridge cladding-designer to check gaps and safety of balustrade top

4. NZTA motorway signs on bridge-NZTA operational matter

5. Park furniture-standard parks furniture. Accepted by Mana Whenua

6. Park toilet-information on size, style, progress

7. Orpheus Drive-information regarding Auckland Transport position

8. Mana Whenua park interpretive signage-information on type and progress

9. Early project completion-information that project completion is planned for April 2015

10. Park breakout areas-non to be provided

11. Disabled swimming access-outside project scope. Contractor to provide price

29 April 2014

1. Park path extension around seating-small hoggin area around each seat

2. Disabled swimming access-report to local Board requesting funding for design

3. Bridge progress public safety-refer to NZTA bridge manual

4. TOES boat ramp issue-TOES expectations cannot be met in currency of FH contract.

5. Iwi way finder disc and pou-alternative to story boards

27 May 2014

1. Orpheus Drive-AT to fund removal of trees and mitigate loss

2. Park signage-proposed main park signage be placed in two locations only

3. Park name-develop selection process

4. NZTA motorway signs- with exception of Neilson Street all signs off the bridge

5. Bridge anti-throw screens-NZTA has given green light to concept. Consult with Mana Whenua and TOES-done

6. Toilet façade-preferred picture selected

7. Oyster hazard-post hazard signage for swimmers

Maori impact statement

22. Parks and Heritage is of fundamental importance to tangata whenua, their culture and traditions. Sites of significance to tangata whenua are an important part of their heritage, established through whakapapa. The activities identified in the report will have significant impact upon Maori and the project team are engaging with Maori on a range of specific matters through the project’s Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Working Group as outlined in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	MWKWG Minutes of 11 June 2014 Meeting	189
b View	Wayfinder Pou format	193
c View	OFWG minutes for 12 June 2014 meeting	195
d View	I & ES report dated 12 May 2014	197
e View	March 2014 Biosecurity maintenance report	199

Signatories

Authors

Neill Forgie, Project Manager (Contract)

Authorisers

Julie Pickering – Manager Asset Development and Business Support

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

15 July 2014

Auckland Transport Monthly Update Report July 2014

File No.: CP2014/11571

Purpose

1. The purpose of the 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 since the last transport report.

Executive Summary

2. A meeting with the Transport Portfolio leader and deputy took place on 16 June, these matters were discussed:

· Transport capital projects

· Auckland Transport’s draft Parking Strategy discussion document

· Consultations

· Matters raised for Auckland Transport to investigate

3. Auckland Transport attended a Local Board workshop in June to update the Maungakiekie--Tāmaki Local Board on the AMETI construction in the Panmure area and the next stages of the AMETI project.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) receives the report.

b) approves the $28,000 overspend on Transport Capital Works projects comprising of small overspends on the Paynes Lane and Glen Innes Underpass projects and an underspend on the Onehunga Mall to Upper Municipal Place Walkway, taking into account the contribution from the Orakei Local Board.

Reporting Back

Consultation Report

4. Consultations forwarded to the Local Board for comment are attached for board members’ information (Attachment A).

Local Board Capital Projects

5. Auckland Transport welcomes any opportunity to work with the Local Board to identify future improvement projects. An update on the projects currently under development is below.

Glen Innes Underpass

6. The works undertaken by Auckland Transport on the Local Board’s behalf is now completed. Further enhancement of the area with murals is being investigated by the SLIPs team.

Approved budget:	162,000
Design, Consultation, CPTED report, construction	208,000
Final physical works outstanding	2,000
Expected Final Cost	210,000
Less contribution from Orakei LB	35,000
Balance for M-T LB to fund	175,000
	13,000	Over budget

Paynes Lane

7. A contract is being developed for this project in conjunction with the Mall to Upper Municipal Place Walkway improvement and a July start is anticipated.

Approved budget:	105,000
Design, Consultation	14,000
Remaining design cost	3,000
Walkway Lighting	7,000
Balance left for construction	88,000
Construction tender with contingency	111,000
	23,000	Over budget

Onehunga Mall to Upper Municipal Place

8. A contract is being developed for this project in conjunction with the Paynes Lane improvement and a July start is anticipated.

Approved budget:	105,000
Design, Consultation	15,000
Remaining design cost	4,000
Walkway Lighting	7,000
Balance left for construction	79,000
Construction tender with contingency	71,000
	8,000	Under budget

Princes Street Pedestrian Enhancements

9. Auckland Transport noted the Local Board’s endorsement of this project at the 15 April Local Board meeting and approvals for roading changes are now being sought from Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee. This project is anticipated to start in late July 2014.

Tetra Trap Installation

10. Work is continuing on the installation of the tetra traps in the nominated catchments. Most of this work will be completed by 30 June 2014.

11. However there are about ten catchpits of non-standard size that require one-off sized tetratraps to be made, and another six catchpits that require maintenance before the tetratraps can be installed. These have all been left to the end of the contract and will be completed in July 2014.

AMETI

12. Auckland Transport conducted some research recently with East Auckland residents to gauge awareness of the AMETI project. Generally there was a greater awareness of the infrastructure under construction or completed (Stage 1) with the highest awareness being of the new station in Panmure.

13. Residents also showed a pleasing awareness to planned changes in Stage Two, specifically the upgrade of Panmure roundabout to a signalised intersection, the Reeves Road flyover and the plans for the busway to Botany. In the wider area, 77% of residents supported the replacement of the Panmure roundabout

Panmure Construction

14. Construction work in Panmure is beginning to wind down with the Link Road (Te Horeta) due to open by September 2014 and the works in the Panmure area due to be completed by the end of September 2014. There will be a public event organised for the opening of Te Horeta Road and details of this will be available closer to the time.

Panmure to Pakuranga

15. This work involves upgrading the Panmure roundabout to a signalised intersection, the first stage of the southeastern busway, a new Panmure Bridge and new walking and cycling paths. A new flyover at Reeves Road provide a direct Pakuranga Road and Southeastern Highway connection.

16. The Notice of Requirement (NoR) and consents application for a final preferred scheme for Stage 2a of the AMETI works is now expected to be lodged in April 2015. This will allow further time for consultation with people near the project, particularly in Pakuranga, before the NoR is lodged.

17. Construction of Stage 2a is due to begin in the third quarter of 2017, and will start with the beginning of the construction of the Reeves Road flyover. The specimen design for the flyover is developing and consultation with potentially affected parties will occur in the next few months.

18. It is necessary to get this work underway first so that the required traffic diversions can be better managed before construction on the other parts of Stage 2a begin.

19. Stage 2a is anticipated to be completed by 2021 on current funding plans.

Pakuranga to Botany

20. This work is to provide pedestrian and cycle improvements and extend the busway from Pakuranga to Botany.

21. Planning work on the Pakuranga to Botany section will not progress any further until 2015. This is to allow the AMETI project team to focus on the Panmure to Pakuranga section.

East West Connections

22. Auckland Transport and NZTA have agreed on a programme name change from East West Link to East West Connections. This is to better reflect that the programme will be made up of different projects to improve the transport network across the area. The word link implied that the programme was one project on a single road.

23. The public communications and engagement on the East West Connections programme will be carried out between 11 July and 1 August this year. The aim of the engagement is to communicate to the wider public the aim of the East West Connections programme and make sure transport issues in the area are fully understood before work is done on options.

24. The engagement will include:

· Information in local media and on NZTA and AT websites

· Online feedback and telephone and focus group research

· A facilitated workshop with those who have strong local knowledge and represent business and community interests in this area. Local board representatives will receive an invite to this in early July.

· Three community days next month at Mangere, Onehunga and Sylvia Park to get feedback on the transport issues and the priorities identified.

Auckland Transport Parking Strategy Discussion Document

25. This 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 centre, the city fringe, metropolitan and town centres and residential streets across the region. 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.

26. The discussion document is now publicly available on-line and the period of public consultation has been extended until 31 July.

Infrastructure Delivery Projects Update

Tawa Road/ Rawhiti Road

27. A raised intersection scheme to slow traffic in this area.

28. This project was delayed as Watercare have planned works in this area. Not currently included in next year’s programme.

Lower Pearce Street

29. Narrowing of the carriageway planned with the addition of traffic islands to make a chicane effect to slow traffic.

30. Works have been completed.

Mays Road/Mt Smart Road

31. A design has been progressed to improve safety at this intersection. The design consists of a number of improvements such as improved pedestrian facilities, splitter islands and kerb build outs.

32. Plans are currently being finalised and a consultation package should be ready for the Local Board’s comment in July.

Panmure Bridge School and Panmure Town Centre Raised Crossings

33. A series of speed tables and raised zebra crossings through the town centre. Also includes an off road footpath between Dunkirk Road and the school.

34. All crossings have been installed. The red coloured surfacing will be installed over the new asphalt speed tables over the next few weeks as the asphalt needs time to cure prior to the application of the coloured treatment.

Grey Street/Selwyn Street Intersection

35. Safety issues were reported here with vehicles not stopping at the stop sign. Plans include installation of a splitter island to reinforce the stop sign and intersection awareness.

36. Works have commenced and are due to be completed before the end of July.

Great South Road /Bell Avenue

37. Project to signalise the intersection and widen Great South Road to provide a safe exit for trucks and service vehicles from Bell Avenue.

38. All civic works are complete and the signals await commissioning.

Barrack Road/Bertrand Street

39. Investigation into installing a small roundabout at this location to improve safety.

40. This is in redesign at the moment as the original design required significant pavement construction works as a result of correcting the camber. Cost effective solutions are being investigated to address issues at this intersection. No timeframe as yet for consultation.

Barrack Road/Boak Street

41. Proposal is to install a roundabout at this intersection to improve safety. Some road pavement repairs are necessary as the road is on a slope at this location.

42. Consultation was completed with residents supporting the changes but with some reservations about the length of the no stopping lines. It was not possible to shorten these due to safety concerns. This project is due to start at the end of June 2014.

Onehunga Train Station Wayfinding Signage Update

43. Way finding signage has been installed on the platforms at Onehunga, Te Papapa and Penrose (Platform 3) train stations. At Ellerslie Train Station way finding signage has been installed in the underground tunnel and in the noticeboard on the platform.

44. The new way finding signage includes:

· A diagrammatic platform map, including entrances, exits, location of park and ride facilities;

· Local area maps;

· Icons showing key local amenities and services;

· You Are Here guides, with indicative walking distances to key locations.

45. Based on the work that Bridget Graham and Andrew Stevenson contributed - an interpretative signage concept has been developed for presenting ‘local transport stories’.

46. After consultation with Auckland Transport’s Maori Policy and Engagement unit, the scope of interpretative signage is to be widened to ‘Connecting Communities’ to allow for different variations – transport history, location history and relevance of station name.

47. Further work is being done on developing some frameworks and a kete (toolkit) for presenting Māori local area history aligned with Auckland Council’s intent to identify projects that celebrate Auckland’s Māori culture and heritage.

Bike Parking Facilities

48. Designs for cycle parking at the new Panmure Station could be wheeled out across the region. Auckland Transport wants feedback on its designs for safe, dry and secure bike parking at Panmure (Attachment B).

49. The design is a simple functional structure that provides cyclists with secure and sheltered bike parking, and it’s important to find out if this structure is one that people will want to use.

50. Cycle Action Auckland support this survey and hope that AT can develop a practical template for installing bike parking facilities across Auckland.

51. Visit www.at.govt.nz/panmurebikepark to view the designs and give feedback.

Auckland Transport News

Auckland Transport re-tendering public transport contracts

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. 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 efficient to hold one event, rather than three, and it enables operators to consider tendering for more than one of the services. It also ensures that Auckland Transport’s processes are going forward together and potentially adding value to each other.

55. Re-tendering out contracts to a competitive market will ensure Auckland ratepayers receive the best value for money for public transport services. 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.

56. 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.

Public transport fare changes from 6 July

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

58. 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 and this is due to be completed towards the end of the year.

59. Auckland Transport believes that Public transport must be seen as a viable 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.

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

61. 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 the exception of the City LINK child cash fare which will remain at 30 cents). 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.

Wiri Depot wins award

62. The Wiri Electric Train Maintenance and Stabling Facility (Wiri Depot) building was entered for the Warren and Mahoney Special Purpose Property Award and received an ‘Excellence’ Award in that category. Auckland Transport was presented with the award at New Zealand's prestigious Property Industry awards on Friday.

63. Evaluation criteria included economic and financial factors, project vision and innovation (including degree of difficulty), design and construction, owner and user satisfaction, sustainability and efficiency of operation.

64. The Wiri Depot is considered a state of the art facility and one of the very best anywhere in the world. It was delivered on time and on budget.

New Bus Shelters for Auckland

65. Three new bus shelter designs have been unveiled in the central city (Attachment C) for public consultation. Local Board members have been invited for site visits in July to provide their feedback.The three shelters being built on Symonds St are prototypes which Auckland Transport will use to gather feedback from the public. The new designs will then be adapted for most bus stop locations and gradually be rolled out across the region.

66. Before a final design or designs is chosen, Auckland Transport want to make sure that the shelter is enjoyable and functional from a customer perspective. It also needs to look good and be cost effective. Auckland Transport is also looking at how cycle parking, retail kiosks, and technology might be incorporated into new shelter designs.

67. Two of the Symonds St shelters are complete and the third will be completed in the first week of July. From 7 July 2014 the public will be able to input into the final design by going to http://www.at.govt.nz/busshelter

68. There will also be “ambassadors” on site during the consultation period answering questions and handing out information and feedback forms. Feedback closes on 22 August 2014.

Manukau MIT Campus Opens

69. The public opening of the new $100 million Manukau Institute of Technology Campus in June show cased another step forward in transport improvements. Since the railway station opened in 2012, comuters have been using a temporary entrance AS the MIT Tertiary Hub wa completed.

70. The railway line to Manukau was specially built by Kiwirail and approaches the station in a trench up to seven metres below ground level. It was the first new rail connection to be built in Auckland in 82 years and is ready for the introduction of electric trains.

71. Commuters and students can now access the station through an atrium the size of a rugby field with soaring views through six floors of the education facility above.

72. The Manukau Station and Hub complex will be complemented with a bus interchange, parking improvements and access to the Manukau City Centre. Apartment buildings and shops are being built near the new building and changes to the surrounding parks and car parks have been made to accommodate the expected surge in commuters. The university will attract around 120 staff and 6000 students, many of them will use public transport to bring them to the door.

73. A 250 seat auditorium and theatre in the complex will also be available for community activity. These will boost use of the transport interchange and the businesses on the ground floor of the building. Estimates of passenger numbers suggest that the Manukau Station and bus interchange will grow to be one of the busiest in Auckland.

Travelwise Awards

74. The annual Travelwise awards ceremony was held recently at Eden park where participating schools were presented with certificates by Mayor Len Brown. This programme aims to encourage schools and students to travel more actively, safely and sustainably to and from school. It aims to raise road safety awareness and to improve the overall health and well being of the school community.

75. Since last year’s awards, 75 new schools have joined Travelwise bringing the total number of participating schools in Auckland to 400. School travel plans have helped:

· Reduce car travel by taking 12,736 car trips off the road in the morning peak.

· Save 2,596 kms in car travel, about $20.35m a year on congestion, and about 150,000 litres of fuel.

· Reduce CO2 emissions by 735 tonnes each year.

· Improve safety around Auckland schools – crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists aged 5-13 have reduced by 58% at Safe School Travel Plans.

· To date, more than $132 million has been spent on safety infrastructure such as pedestrian crossings and cycle lanes around schools.

76. A total of 241 awards were presented to schools, including 13 special awards. The ultimate Travelwise WOW school award was won by Hillsborough School.

Issues Raised through/by Board Members

Location or Name of Issue	Description	AT Response
Gavin Street	Residents of Gavin Street appeared at the May LB meeting and presented information regarding the difficulties residents have with heavy traffic in their street. They are requesting that the street be divided off into two halves with no thoroughfare between Penrose Rd and the E-P highway.	Recently an Auckland Transport engineer visited the site and undertook an initial review of the issues raised. Further detailed investigation now needs to be undertaken to ensure a comprehensive review of the matter. This investigation has been prioritised and programmed for review, with an expected completion date of late September
Waitangi Road, Oranga	Request for traffic calming on Waitangi Road	This issue has been logged for investigation.
Berm damage Banks Road, Mt Wellington	Constituent has noted that the contractor planting new trees in the berm damaged the berm when driving on it. Inquiry as to how the berm can be remedied.	Auckland Council contractors ground out some stumps on Banks Road and planted kowhai trees to replace oleanders. They will mulch the trees in the next week. A thin layer of topsoil was added to the stump area and grass seed laid. This has now been topped up by the contractor. Any further queries on this should be directed to AC arborists.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A, Consultation on roading and parking changes	211
b View	Attachment B, Bike parking facilities	213
c View	Attachment C, New bus shelters	215

Signatories

Authors	Lorna Stewart – Elected Member Relationship Manager (Auckland Transport)
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

15 July 2014

Local Board Role in Alcohol Licence Applications – Issues and Options

Introduction

The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Alcohol Act) establishes processes for alcohol licence applications. Some local boards wish to have input into the application process, due to concerns about alcohol-related harm within some Auckland communities. This issues paper considers the options available for local board input for discussion.

Roles of the governing body and local boards

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

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

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

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

Local boards provide input into the development by the governing body of the local alcohol policy. Local board members can also be appointed to sit on District Licensing Committees. Under current Auckland Council policy, they cannot hear applications relating to their local board area.

Local boards do not currently have the power to object to licence applications. Local boards receive their powers from the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act in three different ways:

· Statutory powers – these include providing input into governing body strategies and policies (such as the local alcohol policy), developing local board plans, and agreeing local board agreements with the governing body. The Auckland Council Act does not provide local boards with the statutory power to make objections on licence applications.

· Allocated powers – local boards are allocated non-regulatory decision-making powers for a wide range of local activities. This allocation is set out in the Long-term Plan. It does not include the power to make objections on licence applications.

· Delegated powers – the governing body can delegate powers to local boards. While it has done this for certain matters (such as swimming pool fencing), it has not delegated power to make objections on alcohol licence applications.

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

Local boards are in many ways the face of local government in their communities. They play an important role in understanding, representing and advocating for community priorities and preferences. This includes providing the “community voice” on social issues. While local boards cannot speak for all members of their communities, they have gained, through consultation on their local board plans, local board agreements, and other engagement activities, a good understanding of the significant community issues.

Concern about alcohol related harm is one such issue which has been raised in a number of local board areas, with harm minimisation a consistent strategic priority in a number of local board plans. This is in many ways consistent with the alcohol reforms, as reflected in the Alcohol Act. These reforms aim to improve New Zealand's drinking culture and reduce the harm caused by excessive drinking. In doing so, the Alcohol Act also seeks to increase the ability of communities to have a say on local alcohol licensing matters, as well as providing for local-level decision-making for licence applications, through District Licensing Committees.

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

Licence application process

The applicant for a licence is required to attach notice of the application to a conspicuous place on or adjacent to the site to which the application relates and give public notice of the application. A person may object to the grant of a licence only if he or she has a greater interest in the application for it than the public generally. An objection must be in writing and filed with the licensing committee within 15 working days after the first publication of the public notice of the making of the application.

Once an application is made, an inspector makes inquiries and files a report with the District Licensing Committee. The police and medical officer of health for the area also file a report if either has any opposition to the application. Local board members receive a weekly list of applications for their local area, which is downloaded by democracy advisors from the Auckland Council intranet.

The District Licensing Committee determines whether a hearing will be convened. If there are any objections to the application, a public hearing is required unless the objection is considered vexatious or outside the scope of the Alcohol Act, the objector does not require a public hearing, or the application is withdrawn. If no objection is received, then the District Licensing Committee can consider the application based on the papers, without requiring a public meeting.

The Alcohol Act sets out the criteria to be considered by the District Licensing Committee when considering a licence application. Any objection to an application must also relate to these criteria, otherwise it will be outside the scope of the Alcohol Act. A copy of the relevant section is attached. As well as considering objections, a District Licensing Committee can seek views from other parties on a licence application (including local boards), if it is of the opinion that the information may assist it to deal with the application. The Alcohol Act also provides for an appeal process to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority.

Options for local board involvement

1. Local board input into the development of the local alcohol policy

Local boards have had significant early engagement on the draft local alcohol policy and will now be providing formal feedback to the governing body. Policy development is a key governance role and sets the framework for subsequent operational decision-making. The local alcohol policy is the appropriate place to address the broader concerns about alcohol-related harm and put in place measures to manage the impact on specific communities, through for example, more stringent controls for specific areas. A well developed policy arguably avoids the need for political involvement in specific licence applications.

2. Local board views are provided to the District Licensing Committee

District Licensing Committees have broad powers to seek information on licence applications. A committee can receive a local board’s views on a licence application if it is of the opinion that the information may assist it to deal with the application. There is no statutory obligation on a District Licensing Committee to seek out or to receive and take into account local board views. However, there has been an openness on the part of District Licensing Committees to obtain local board views.

One way to achieve this is to attach local board views on particular licence applications to the inspector’s report to the District Licensing Committee. This is similar to the resource consent application process, where any local board views are appended to the officer’s report. It is then up to the District Licensing Committee to determine whether it takes into account the local board views and the weight given to it. This approach can lead to a situation where an inspector’s report attaches a contrary local board view, but it does provide an avenue for local boards to express a view on particular licence applications without the requirement for a specific allocated or delegated power from the governing body.

3. Local board are either allocated or delegated the power to object

The governing body could either allocate or delegate to local boards the power to object to licence applications. While an express power contained in the allocation provides clarity and certainty to local boards and their communities, it is time consuming and requires the use of the special consultative procedure. The allocation is reviewed as part of the long-term plan, meaning that local boards would not receive this power until 1 July 2015. Alternatively, the governing body could delegate the power to object to licence applications to local boards. A delegation can be put in place at any time by governing body resolution, but it can also be revoked at any time.

The resourcing implications for the Auckland Council organisation is an important consideration when weighing up the pros and cons of providing local boards with the power to object to licence applications. From 18 December 2013, there have been over 3,800 licence applications across the Auckland region and 26 hearings. Of these licence applications, 119 were for off-licences, 387 for on-licences, and 1158 for special licences (with most of the remainder relating to managers certificates). During this period only three local boards have sought to object to licence applications under the Alcohol Act (representing five objections in total). While this small number of objections is unlikely to pose any significant resourcing issues for the organisation, this would change if there was a major increase in local board objections. Local boards will need to be resourced to prepare objections with appropriate supporting evidence. Local board members will also need to prepare for and attend hearings. Depending on the number of local board objections, this could require considerable officer and local board member time.

Another issue is the reputational implication for council if a local board inappropriately objects to licence applications. This is likely to be an issue if a local board decides, as a matter of principle, to object to all licence applications, without appropriate evidence to demonstrate that the objection falls within the scope of matters that can be raised under the Alcohol Act. Reputational issues also arise if local boards seek to appeal a decision by the District Licensing Committee, as effectively one arm of Auckland Council (the local board) is objecting to decisions made by another arm of Auckland Council (the District Licensing Committee).

The Alcohol Act establishes a new regime, which is in its early stages of development in Auckland. The local alcohol policy is not yet in place and the District Licensing Committee structure will be reviewed after its first year of operation. If local boards were to be given the power to object to licensing applications, a delegation may be the better short-term option as it enables the implications to be tested alongside the monitoring and review of the District Licensing Committee structure. A longer term approach can then be considered within the broader context of the alcohol management regime. Issues associated with appeal rights could also be considered at that time.

4. Local boards supporting community involvement in licensing process

The Alcohol Act seeks to bring communities closer to decision-making around alcohol licensing. The licensing processes need to be accessible to communities. Currently there is little support available to empower communities to take an interest or participate in the process. Further work is needed to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications. Local boards could focus on supporting and building the capability of community groups to object to licence applications, where appropriate, and to present to District Licensing Committees at hearings. This can be done alongside any of the options raised above for local board involvement in the licensing process.

Discussion questions:

Should the role of local boards extend beyond providing input into the development of the local alcohol policy by the governing body? If so, in what circumstances and why?

If local boards are to have a greater role, should they

(a) provide views for consideration by the District Licensing Committee or

(b) have the power to object to licence applications?

If local boards were to have the power to object to licence applications, should this be through a delegation from the governing body or through an amendment to the decision-making allocation?

What support do your communities need to enhance accessibility to the licensing processes?

To what extent does the current draft local alcohol policy provide you with confidence that it sets a robust framework to guide District Licensing Committee decisions on licence applications that affect your local communities? Are there any specific controls that would better guide licence applications within your local board area and if these were in place, would this avoid the need for local board involvement in specific licence applications?

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

Section 105 - Criteria for issue of licences

(1) In deciding whether to issue a licence, the licensing authority or the licensing committee concerned must have regard to the following matters:

(a) the object of this Act:

(b) the suitability of the applicant:

(d) the days on which and the hours during which the applicant proposes to sell alcohol:

(e) the design and layout of any proposed premises:

(f) whether the applicant is engaged in, or proposes on the premises to engage in, the sale of goods other than alcohol, low-alcohol refreshments, non-alcoholic refreshments, and food, and if so, which goods:

(g) whether the applicant is engaged in, or proposes on the premises to engage in, the provision of services other than those directly related to the sale of alcohol, low-alcohol refreshments, non-alcoholic refreshments, and food, and if so, which services:

(h) whether (in its opinion) the amenity and good order of the locality would be likely to be reduced, to more than a minor extent, by the effects of the issue of the licence:

(i) whether (in its opinion) the amenity and good order of the locality are already so badly affected by the effects of the issue of existing licences that—

(i) they would be unlikely to be reduced further (or would be likely to be reduced further to only a minor extent) by the effects of the issue of the licence; but

(ii) it is nevertheless desirable not to issue any further licences:

(j) whether the applicant has appropriate systems, staff, and training to comply with the law:

(k) any matters dealt with in any report from the Police, an inspector, or a Medical Officer of Health made under section 103.

(2) The authority or committee must not take into account any prejudicial effect that the issue of the licence may have on the business conducted pursuant to any other licence.

Chairperson	Simon Randall
Deputy Chairperson	Chris Makoare
Members	Josephine Bartley
	Brett Clark
	Bridget Graham, QSM
	Obed Unasa
	Alan Verrall

Community facility renewals				Budget amount:	214,058	268,870	228,191
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki				Amount remaining:	$7,308	($1,130)	$178,191
Facility / Site	Project name	Project description	CF Prioritisation score	Property Prioritisation score	Identified 2014-15 CAPEX	Identified 2015-16 CAPEX	Identified 2016-17 CAPEX	Notes
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	Electrical system upgrade	Rewire and replace fused switchboards if required	70.0	0.80	0	200,000	50,000
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	Fire system upgrade	Upgrade Fire System and panels	70.0	1.30	100,000	70,000		Recommended FY15 project
Panmure Hall	Hall heating upgrade	Replace existing heating			45,000			Recommended FY15 project
Panmure Hall	Drainage upgrade				25,000			Recommended FY15 project
Panmure CAB	Exit door	Installing an additional exit door			10,000			Recommended FY15 project
Onehunga Community Centre	Redesign & replace roof gutter and downpipes	Improve the flashing and gutterings to stop water egress.	70.0	0.80	18,750			Recommended FY15 project
Oranga Community Centre	Install Heat Pump	Install Heat Pump	76.0	0.50	8,000			Recommended FY15 project
					$206,750	$270,000	$50,000

1.0	Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Board
	Relationship workshop .
	Officers present: Victoria Villaraza, Philippa Hillman

2.0	City Transformation Projects: Tāmaki Redevelopment Company
	Monthly update from project team.
	Officers present: Adam Johnstone

3.0	Extreme weather storm damage budget
	To discuss the report appearing on the business meeting Agenda 17 June.
	Jane Aickin

4.0	Tāmaki Estuary Coastal Edge Report
	To discuss the findings of the Coastal Erosion report
	Steve Owens, Paul Klinac, Bruce Tupp

1.0	Riverside Community Centre
	To discuss the activities at the centre.
	Officers present: Jenny McKay, Jess Kelly, Victoria Villaraza, Philippa Hillman

2.0	Dunkirk Activity Centre
	To discuss the activities at the centre.
	Officers present: Jenny McKay, Jess Kelly, Victoria Villaraza, Philippa Hillman

3.0	SLIPs
	To go through the 2013-14 programme.
	Officers present: Vandna Kirmani


4.0	Auckland Transport AMETI
	To provide an update on the project.
	Officers present: Lorna Stewart, Peter King, Daryl McIntosh, Kathy Bebelman, Steve Owens

Authors	Alastair Child – Principal Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Authors	Philippa Hillman - Democracy Advisor, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

1.0	Local Alcohol Policy
	Presentation to progress next phase of the Local Alcohol Policy.
	Officers present: Belinda Hansen

2.0	The role of local boards in liquor license applications
	Presentation to discuss role of local boards in liquor license applications
	Officers present: Beverly Fletcher, Victoria Villaraza

3.0	Glen Innes Music and Arts Centre
	To update the Board on project.
	Officers present: Kathy O’Connor, Sarp Egene, Kaye Glamuzina, Hanna Scott

4.0	Auckland Council Investments Ltd
	To update the Local Board on performance.
	Officers present: Gary Swift

1.0	Ten Year Development Plan
	To discuss the parks ten year development plan.
	Officers present: Steve Owens

2.0	SLIPs
	To discuss the the SLIPs 2013-14 programme
	Officers present: Vandna Kirmani

9 June	Maori Responsiveness training for elected members
10 June	Maungakiekie/Tāmaki Local Board workshops
11 June	Meeting with Council officers and Panmure Historic society to discuss the way forward with Loombs Hotel Meeting with owners of Loombs Hotel to discuss the same.
13 June	Training session for commissioners regarding Special Housing Areas.
16 June	Standing Orders and Processes training session
17 June	Maungakiekie/Tāmaki Local Board Workshops
24 June	Local Board workshops
28 June	Site visit 163 – 167 Queen’s Road Panmure
1 July	Local Board workshops.

3 June	Local Board workshop day
5 June	Stakeholder lunch with Housing New Zealand
9 June	Maori Responsiveness training for Elected Members
10 June	Local Board workshop day
11 June	Meetings with key stakeholders regarding Loombs hotel
11 June	Meeting regarding Cornwall Park 100 year masterplan
13 June	Special Housing Areas Training Session on Hearing and Decision Making Process
17 June	Local Board workshop day
17 June	Business Meeting
18 June	Meeting of the Airport Noise Community Consultative Group
19 June	Monthly update on Community Development
19 June	Quarterly meeting with local CAB managers
23 June	Family, Whanau and Sexual Violence Strategic Action Plan Briefing
24 June	Local Board workshop day
25 June	Youth Panel Meeting
26 June	Youth Connections Steering Group meeting
1 July	Local Board workshop day
1 July	Inaugural Royal Oak Intermediate Art Trail