Agenda of Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

28 July 2014

Establishment of a hearings panel on the granting of six motorsport leases/licence to occupy at Colin Dale Park

File No.: CP2014/10231

Purpose

1. To seek delegation from the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board to establish an independent hearings panel under the Reserves Act 1977 to hear submissions on the proposed motorsport leases/licence to occupy at Colin Dale Park, and subsequently provide recommendations to the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board on granting the leases/licence.

Executive summary

2. Counties Manukau Off Road Racing Club, Kartsport Manukau, Papakura City BMX Club, Auckland Radio Controlled Car Club, and Main Jet Events (motocross) are seeking leases on Colin Dale Park. Coggan and Williams Limited (family jet sprint) is seeking a licence to occupy.

3. The process to grant leases/licences under the Reserves Act is:

(a) the lease/licence to occupy intent are publicly advertised as required under the Act;

(b) local iwi are consulted as required under section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987;

(d) the local board makes a decision on each lease/licence agreement; and

(e) the consent of the Minister of Conservation (or approved delegate) is sought.

4. Council advertised for submissions on the proposed six leases/licence at Colin Dale Park on the 6^th May 2014. The closing date for submissions was on the 6^th June 2014.

5. There were 87 submissions received (including 2 late submissions), and 13 submitters have confirmed they wish to be heard at a hearing.

6. A workshop was held with the local board to outline the process for the hearings on the 13 June 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) Appoint a panel of three independent commissioners from the list of approved names (attached as appendix A), and three alternatives in case of unavailability, to hear any submissions and make recommendations to the local board on the grant of six motorsport leases/licence at Colin Dale Park.

b) Appoint a Chair of the Hearings Panel and delegate authority to the chair to make replacement appointments in the event that any of the appointed Commissioners become unavailable.

c) Receive and consider the recommendations report from the Hearings Panel on whether to issue the leases/licence and/or other relevant matters relating to its implementation.

d) Notes that the Minister of Conservation (or approved delegate) will need to provide consent for the granting of the leases/licence, as required under the Reserves Act.

Comments

7. In accordance with section 119 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) of the Reserves Act 1977 the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board lodged a notice in the New Zealand Herald and Manukau Courier on 6^th May 2014 outlining the intent to grant leases/licence to occupy agreements to motorsport groups and sought public submissions. The six proposed groups and their activities and facilities are detailed in the table below.

User group	Main activities	Main facilities
Counties Manukau Off Road Racing Club Incorporated	Off-road training and racing	Compacted dirt track, equipment/tools storage shed, perimeter bunds, pits.
Kartsport Manukau Incorporated	Go-kart training and racing	Go-kart track, with common facility including public toilets, control tower, two ancillary buildings, perimeter bunds and pits.
Papakura City BMX Club Incorporated	BMX bike training and racing	BMX track with 5m high start ramp, building for canteen/meeting room/storage and toilets, commentary tower, points hut.
Auckland Radio Controlled Car Club Incorporated	Miniature radio controlled car racing	On-road and off-road tracks; possible future indoor electric car track; race control building, tower and driver stands.
Main Jet Events (MJE Motocross)	Motocross bike training and racing	Dirt track, control building, perimeter bunds, pits area.
Coggan and Williams Limited (Family Jet Sprint)	Mini jet boat training and racing	Mini-lake with launch

8. Submissions closed on the 6^th June 2014. To date, there have been 87 submissions received (including 2 late submissions), with 13 confirming they wish to speak to their submission. Copies of the public notices are included in Attachment B, along with a summary of the submissions received in Attachment C.

Reserves Act provisions

9. Section 40 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977 provides that the administering body is charged with the duty of administering, managing and controlling the reserve , so as to ensure its use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection, and preservation for the purposes of its classification, as the case may require and within the means at its disposal. In this context, Auckland Council is the administering body of Colin Dale Park, and the local board has been allocated decision-making responsibility for the park. This includes the power to grant leases under s54 of the Act (subject to Minister of Conservation approval/or delegate).

10. The areas proposed to be leased are all on land classified under the Act as recreation reserve. The proposed leases have to follow the prescribed process under s54 of the Act including s119 and s120 of the Act which outlines the public consultation process. This process may influence the final composition of any lease. However, all leases of recreation reserves must include the basic recreation reserve provisions prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Act. These provisions include what activities, development or use may be able to be undertaken (Attachment D).

11. In general, a lease allows for an ongoing exclusive use of a reserve/facility for a specific group/activity over a term no longer than 33 years for land under the Reserves Act.

Auckland Council community occupancy guidelines

12. For community occupancy to commence, the starting point is a preliminary agreement to lease being entered into for a period of up to 2 years. Subject to the lessee meeting the conditions of the agreement, formal leases can be issued for a period defined by Auckland Council community occupancy guidelines 2012.

13. The community occupancy guidelines currently provide for leases to be for a term of five years, with a further five year right of renewal. The local board could vary the length of term to ten years with a further ten year right of renewal. The Reserves Act provides for a maximum term of lease for 33 years. In the context of a licence to occupy, the community occupancy guidelines indicate either five years with a further five year right of renewal or one year standard with a further one year right of renewal. Coggan and Williams Limited (Family Jet Sprint) are seeking a licence to occupy.

14. A lease outlines the provisions of how the facility and/or land is to be used and can be tailored to certain groups and/or activities. The terms of the lease determine the daily management and specific operations of activities on a reserve. If the land is not being used for the purpose outlined in the lease, the lessor has the option to terminate the lease.

Hearings panel

15. At least half a day to 1 day is required for the public hearing on submissions. Site visits and on-going meetings with potential lessees/licensee and council representatives will also be required before a recommendations report will be submitted to the Local Board on the proposed leases/licence.

16. The motorsport activities are a new development/use for the site. Due to the complexity of matters to consider, the members of the hearings panel will need a good understanding of the Reserves Act and Resource Management Act, and kaupapa Maori.

17. The Hearings Panel could include independent commissioners and/or local board members. A list of the approved hearings commissioners are attached as Appendix A. The Local Board may appoint members from this list based on their relevant expertise. Officers will make further recommendations on suitable commissioners at the local board meeting.

18. Some of the matters the hearings panel may be assessing and/or making recommendations on include (but are not limited to):

· consultation with mana whenua/public to date

· the impact on the existing agreement to lease with Ngati Te Ata, and any other implications of neighbouring land use/development/future growth in the area

· the development of a Reserve Management Plan/operation plan for Puhinui Reserve and Colin Dale Park

· terms and conditions of each lease/licence to occupy

19. A workshop was held with the local board on the 13 June 2014 to outline the hearings process.

20. The local board indicated that they will not undertake any physical works on site for motorsport development until the lease/licence to occupy agreements for a majority of the proposed lessees have been finalised.

21. The report outlining the recommendations of the Hearings Panel will be provided to the local board at the conclusion of the hearings process. The local board will ultimately make the decision on the granting of the leases and licence to occupy, including the conditions, prior to seeking the consent of the Minister of Conservation (or approved delegate).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. A workshop was held with the local board on the 13 June 2014 to outline the hearings process.

23. The local board indicated that they will not undertake any physical works on site for motorsport development until the lease/licence to occupy agreements for a majority of the proposed lessees have been finalised.

24. The report outlining the recommendations of the Hearings Panel will be provided to the local board at the conclusion of the hearings process. The local board will ultimately make the decision on the granting of the leases and licence to occupy, including the conditions, prior to seeking the consent of the Minister of Conservation (or approved delegate).

Maori impact statement

25. There are ten mana whenua-iwi groups identified by Council with interests in the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area. These groups are: Ngati Maru; Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust; Ngati Te Ata – Waiohua; Te Aakitai Waiohua; Ngati Paoa; Ngati Tamaoho; Te Kawerau a Maki; Ngati Whanaunga; Ngato Tamatera; and Waikato-Tainui.

26. Iwi consultation requirements are set down in Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 which is the "umbrella" Act for the Reserves Act. Section 4 of the Conservation Act states that the Act is to be interpreted and administered so as to give effect of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

27. Emails on the submission process were sent on the 11^th April 2014 to all of the above mana whenua representatives. There have been one-on-one meetings with Ngati Te Ata, and a collective meeting held in May 2014 with Te Aakitai Waiohua and Ngati Tamaoho.

28. Of the ten mana whenua contacted in relation to the lease process, three mana whenua representatives have been involved in dialogue with council - Ngati Te Ata; Te Aakitai and Ngati Tamaoho. Formal submissions on the leases/licence to occupy and development of Colin Dale Park have also been received from each of these iwi groups.

29. Ngati Maru and Ngai Tai ki Tamaki responded, and in the case of Colin Dale Park, they will delegate this to other mana whenua kaitiaki representatives.

Implementation

30. The costs of the hearings will be met from within existing budgets.

31. The final terms and conditions of any lease will need approval from both the local board and the Minister of Conservation (or delegate).

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	List of Independent Commissioners	17
b View	Public notices	21
c View	Summary of submissions received (under separate cover)	23
d View	Reserves Act 1977 Schedule 1	25

Signatories

Authors

Sarah Mossman - Principal Policy Analyst

Kim Isaac - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

28 July 2014

Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback

File No.: CP2014/13517

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

· location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

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

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

· maximum trading hours

· the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions.

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

7. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board members considered the draft policy at workshops on 27 June and 4 July 2014 and developed the draft feedback in Attachment E. This needs to be confirmed as the board’s formal feedback to go to the Local Alcohol Policy Project Hearings Panel. The board’s resolutions will be included in the officers’ report to the Hearings Panel. It would be useful also to indicate support for continued board input into the development of the policy.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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.

b) Confirms its feedback on the draft Local Alcohol Policy as contained in Attachment E.

c) Requests that local boards have continued input into the development of the Local Alcohol Policy.

Comments

Legislative framework

Background: law reform

8. 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.

9. 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”).

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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).

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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).

19. 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.

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

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

Table 2. 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

22. 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).

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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).

29. 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

30. 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)

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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

34. 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.

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

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

37. 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.

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

39. 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).

40. 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.

41. 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.

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

Maximum trading hours

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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.

51. 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

52. The table below outlines the feedback received from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board feedback

Topic	Local Board feedback	Officer response
General	· Notes with concern the timing gap between establishment and operation of District Licensing Committees and implementation of the Local Alcohol Plan, and the risk that decisions in the interim may not align with local board views on granting licenses in high stress/high risk communities in the local board area.	Officers acknowledge that the policy development process has been lengthy, but emphasise the following points · In order to develop an effective and evidence based Local Alcohol Policy that can withstand public scrutiny and meet the legal tests required by the Act (i.e. appeals against the reasonableness), it is important that the council follows a robust policy development process. Moreover, the Act has required officers to review a range of evidence and undertake pre-consultation engagement with statutory stakeholders before developing a draft policy. · Due to the significant changes to the Political Working Party following the election, staff were directed by the Alcohol Programme Executive Steering Group to arrange three additional workshops to ensure that the draft LAP reflected the views of the new elected members. · Moreover, the first appeals are not scheduled to begin until August 2014.
Density	· Supports giving a greater say to communities on alcohol and licensing matters and to require cumulative impact assessment reports · Supports proximity and density recommendations in particular off-licenses in the local board’s broad areas 3 and 4 (town, local and neighbourhood centres and residential areas), in the interim period before the Local Alcohol Plan is adopted in 2014. · Requests that further consideration be given to including in the Local Alcohol Plan a sinking lid on licenses in high stress/high risk communities in the local board area.	· Officers received advice that it would be problematic to require a cumulative impact assessment on the basis that an objection has been raised as objections are only received after the application process has commenced. Thus the draft LAP requires an Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment for nearly all off-licence applications. · Proximity of sensitive sites and other licences, as well as the number and type of existing licences in the area, will be considered as a part of the Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment approach. · A sinking lid has not been recommended as it is a blunt and arbitrary tool which requires the definition of target densities of licences and other such parameters, which are very difficult to establish from the existing evidence basis, and therefore not a practical and effective tool for Auckland. · However, the Priority Overlay (formerly “high stress”) areas have a two-year freeze on the issue of new off-licences, and then a presumption against new off-licences when the freeze expires. This will function similarly to a sinking lid in practice but without preventing possible positive developments.
Hours	· Suggest limiting hours to 11am – 8pm Monday to Saturday and closed Sunday in all of the local board’s area for off-licenses.	· The draft LAP provides for maximum off-licence trading hours of 9am to 10pm region wide, largely based on feedback from stakeholders. · Staff sympathise with the Board’s desire to reduce availability of off-licence alcohol. However, as the Act requires the LAP controls to be “reasonable” in light of the object of the Act, it would likely be very difficult to support hours so drastically reduced from national default hours if appealed.

Maori impact statement

Research and data on Maori and alcohol

53. 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.

54. 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.

55. 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.

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

57. 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

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2014: Statement of Proposal (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting May 2014 - Resolutions on draft Local Alcohol Policy (Under Separate Cover)
c View	A3 Copies of Tables 7 and 8 from report (Under Separate Cover)
d View	Key Topics for Feedback from Local Boards (Under Separate Cover)
e View	Draft Feedback from Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board	67

Signatories

Authors

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Provision

Feedback and reasons

Action sought

Overview

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board supports the draft LAP in principle. The LAP is needed to ensure broad community concerns are considered when decisions are made on alcohol sales licences. The contents of the draft LAP are in line with a recent public survey conducted by Auckland Regional Public Health Service, which showed majority support for policies that restrict trading hours, reduce the number of on and off-licences, and keeps those outlets away from schools.

Confirm draft LAP, subject to detail changes.

Text colour

The presentation of the LAP in black text and blue text is confusing to readers, and disempowering to those with impaired colour eyesight or who have a black and white photocopy. A better presentation should be adopted. Much of the blue text is repetitious and could be removed. Any remaining blue text should be explained, numbered for ease of reference, and presented more distinctively.

Remove blue text that is not essential to interpret the LAP. Any remaining blue text should be suitably explained, numbered and placed in distinctive text boxes under a heading such as “Explanatory note.”

2.2

Broad Areas – the board supports the division of Auckland into Broad Areas A and B as set out in the draft LAP. It is appropriate that the issues of the Auckland CBD/ Ponsonby (Area A) are decoupled from the rest of Auckland in the draft LAP. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area falls into Broad Area B, which the board considers is a sound approach.

Retain division of Auckland into Broad Areas A and B as set out in the draft LAP, with Ōtara-Papatoetoe in Broad Area B.

2.3

Priority Overlay – the board supports the priority overlays in principle. The board asks that an additional priority overlay be added to the LAP for Hunters Corner shopping centre, as shown on the attachment map “A”. The board asks for changes to the priority overlay for Manukau, as shown in attachment map “B.” The reasons for these changes are that Hunters Corner has similar issues to Old Papatoetoe and Ōtara town centres, and should be managed the same. For Manukau, off-licence liquor premises are better within the Metropolitan Centre than outside it. The draft LAP map will have the effect of encouraging licences to set up outside the Metropolitan Centre.

Retain the priority overlays in the draft LAP with the following change: add a priority overlay for Hunters Corner shopping centre, as shown in appendix map “A”.

3.1

Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessments (ECIA) process – the board supports this process in principle and wishes to see it retained in the LAP. However, the board is concerned that the process will require significant resourcing to ensure it is implemented, and asks Auckland Council to ensure that this is provided. While the board understands that applicants will meet the direct costs of applications, including the costs of producing ECIA reports, the board is concerned that there will be indirect costs (for example maintaining databases and staff training) for which additional council resources need to be allocated.

Retain the proposed ECIA reporting system in para 3.1, but ensure the costs to council, including indirect costs are adequately resourced.

3.1

ECIA process – the board supports the ECIA process in principle, but seeks wording changes. The draft LAP lacks any policy that puts a duty on the DLC and ARLA to consider and take into account the contents of the ECIA. A policy to this effect should be added. While that may be the assumed intention of the LAP, the board considers the duty of the DLC to consider the report needs to be put beyond argument.

Add a new policy to para 3.1 to read:

“3.1.5 The council’s policy is that the DLC and ARLA must take into account the contents of the ECIA report, including any recommendations in the report.”

3.1

Sensitive sites policy – there is no policy statement in the draft LAP to the effect that new licensed premises should not be established within a certain distance of sensitive sites. The board considers that there should be a clear policy in the LAP that no further on or off-licences should be issued within 100m of a sensitive site, and that any new or existing licences within 100m of schools, ECE, and places of worship should close between 3 and 4 pm. This approach is consistent with the opinion of 73-83% of respondents to the recent Auckland Regional Public Health Service survey, who opposed bars and off-licences near schools.

Add a new policy to para 3.1 to the effect that that no further on or off-licences should be issued within 100m of a sensitive site, and that any new or existing licences within 100m of schools, ECE, and places of worship, should close between 3pm and 4pm.

3.1.1

Sensitive sites list – para 3.1.1 requires the ECIA to list sensitive sites with 500m of the application site. Sensitive sites named are ECE, schools, addiction treatment facilities and other “relevant” facilities. The board considers that places of worship should be added to the list of sensitive sites.

Add places of worship to the list of sensitive sites under 3.1.1(b).

3.1.2

Content of report – para 3.1.2 does not state that the report can contain evaluation and recommendations. These should be made clear in the text. This will ensure that the report plays a strong role in the application process and is not simply an information gathering exercise, as implied in the blue text after para 3.1.1 (b)(i).

Amend 3.2.1 by adding at the end, “including evaluation of the overall risk profile and recommendations.”

4.3.2

Maximum hours for on-licenses Area B – the board supports the maximum hours proposed of 9am to 1am, Monday to Sunday. Reason – it is important to support the proposed closing time in Area B, which is appropriate to the suburban character of Area B. (It is important that these hours are not extended to match Area A (9am-3am). This approach is consistent with the maximum hours favoured by the majority of respondents to the recent Auckland Regional Public Health Service survey.

Retain the maximum on-licence hours proposed in para 4.3.2 of 9am to 1am, Monday to Sunday, for Area B.

5.1.2

Temporary freeze – the board supports the proposed temporary (2 year) freeze on the issue of new off-licences in the Priority Overlays. Reason – this will allow a breathing space to consider how current issues of alcohol harm can best be resolved.

Retain the temporary (2 year) freeze on the issue of new off-licences in the Priority Overlays, under para 5.1.2.

5.1.4

Presumption – the board supports the proposed rebuttable presumption against the issuing of new off-licences in the Priority Overlays after the freeze ends. Reason – the Priority Overlays are areas identified with high alcohol related harm at present, and further licences should be restricted in these areas.

Retain the rebuttable presumption against the issuing of new off-licences in the Priority Overlays after the freeze ends, under para 5.1.4.

5.2.2

Neighbourhood Centres – the board supports the proposed rebuttable presumption against the issuing of new off-licences in Neighbourhood Centres. Reason – the Neighbourhood Centres (such as Dawson Rd shops and Station Rd shops) are close to residential areas, where there is a high risk of contributing to alcohol related harm, and further licences should be restricted in these areas. It is undesirable for there to be an increased density of liquor outlets in these areas. This approach is consistent with the opinion of 91-95% of respondents to the recent Auckland Regional Public Health Service survey, who opposed any increase in off-licences.

Retain the rebuttable presumption against the issuing of new off-licences in Neighbourhood Centres, under 5.2.2.

5..2

New provision for Residential Zones – the draft LAP says nothing about off-licences establishing in residential zones. There are scattered dairies and other existing retail premises in residential zones that could readily be converted to liquor stores. The Draft LAP is silent on this possibility and restrictions on other zones may encourage licence applications into residential zones. There should be a rebuttable presumption similar to neighbourhood centres.

Add a new provision after 5.2.3 creating a rebuttable presumption against the issue of new off-licences in residential zones.

5.4.2

Maximum hours for off-licenses Area B – the board wishes to reduce the maximum hours proposed of 9am to 10pm, Monday to Sunday, so that the earliest opening time is 10am. Reason – the 10pm closing time will help to reduce pre and side loading. The later 10am opening time will lengthen the time period each day when alcohol is unavailable, thus reducing alcohol harm. This approach is consistent with the maximum hours favoured by the majority of respondents to the recent Auckland Regional Public Health Service survey.

Change the maximum off-licence hours in Area B to 10am to 10pm, Monday to Sunday, under para 5.4.2.

5.5 and 5.6

Conditions on off-licences – the board supports the proposed conditions as these promote host responsibility. Restrictions on serving intoxicated persons and minors will have a direct effect of reducing alcohol harm. The board considers that a stronger presumption against single unit sales will reduce pre and side loading, thereby reducing alcohol harm. An incident register will enable monitoring of the operation of premises and facilitate improved systems and better management responsiveness and accountability.

Retain the discretionary conditions applied to off-licences under para 5.5 and 5.6.

Strengthen the discretionary condition banning single unit sales, by adding a rebuttable presumption that this condition will be imposed on every off-licence.

Sinking lid

The board considers that there should be a sinking lid on the number of liquor licences in identified high risk areas including priority overlays and neighbourhood centres. The board considers that a sinking lid will directly reduce alcohol related harm.

Add a policy to the LAP to the effect that there should be a sinking lid on the number of liquor licences in identified high risk areas including priority overlays and neighbourhood centres.

Signs bylaw

The board would like to see more controls on outdoor liquor advertising. The board recognises that this may be outside the scope of the LAP, but asks the Hearing Panel to consider the alcohol harm that arises from outdoor liquor advertising, and to recommend to the Governing Body that advertising signs bylaws be developed to control liquor advertising.

The Hearing Panel is asked to consider the alcohol harm that arises from outdoor liquor advertising, and to recommend to the Governing Body that advertising signs bylaws be developed to control liquor advertising.

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

28 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.

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.

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

28 July 2014

Supporting Community in Liquor Licence Process

File No.: CP2014/15866

Purpose

1. This report proposes that the local board considers allocation of funds to enable greater community involvement in liquor licencing processes.

Executive summary

2. The local board has aspirations in its local board plan to minimise the impact of alcohol-related harm in local communities.

3. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) aims to improve New Zealand’s drinking culture and reduce the harm caused by excessive drinking. One of the key features of this legislation is to increase the ability of communities to have a say on local alcohol licencing matters.

4. This local board has had input into liquor licensing processes and has also started to consider how it might enable local communities to have greater input, due to wider community concerns about alcohol-related harm within some Auckland communities.

5. At the moment, there appear to be some barriers to community participation in liquor licensing processes including variable knowledge, resources, time or capacity to engage.

6. The local board does not currently have the delegation from the governing body to enable it to object to liquor licences, and therefore, future community input may rely on the involvement of individuals - including local board members in a personal capacity and community members.

7. The involvement of individuals will realistically require support to remove barriers and ensure effective input. Support might include compilation of a resource kit, use of Council’s website, use of Facebook and local media, development of a network of advocates and provision of advice to prepare objections and hearings material.

8. The local board had a recent workshop presentation outlining options for improving liquor licence information, supporting and strengthening communities’ role in this.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) Encourage the direct involvement of local communities in liquor licencing processes, by providing community groups with relevant information about the processes and empowering them to lodge objections and give evidence.

b) Approves the engagement of relevant expertise to facilitate improved and proactive information provision to local communities on liquor licencing processes.

c) Approves the engagement of relevant expertise to facilitate ongoing liquor licence objections (on a case by case basis) made by the local board, members of the local board as individuals or community advocates.

d) Allocates funding from 2014/15 Community Response (opex) budget for this purpose:

Table 1: Costs
Informing our community
Communications support for a resource kit for local board members, community advocates, and council staff.	$2,500.00
Supporting our community
Policy advice and support for liquor licence objections (on a case by case basis), Hearings, negotiations and appeals.	Provisional sum to be tabled and considered at the meeting
Equipping our community
Develop and maintain a calendar of upcoming licence renewals, and design a range of templates for use by community advocates.	$1,200.00
Total	$To be tabled at the meeting

e) Requests that the Chief Executive be instructed to review the council’s processes to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence applications.

General

9. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Plan 2011 asserts that the board will “strongly advocate for sinking lid policies” on liquor licences in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe area (p. 25). As such, the local board has objected to several liquor licences in the past on a case by case basis.

10. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 aims to reduce the harm caused by excessive drinking. The Act makes provision for each territorial authority to develop a local alcohol policy (LAP) providing localised guidelines around licence locations and density of premises, trading hours and other trading restrictions. Auckland Council’s LAP is in the process of development, and is reported on separately in this agenda.

11. At the moment, barriers to community participation in liquor licensing processes are identified by the local board as follows:

· People in the community do not necessarily have the knowledge, resources, time or capacity to participate in the process

· There isn’t a simple process to actively notify affected communities when applications are lodged. Local boards have an internal council website but it only has limited information, so community members have to manually find applications in the newspaper and then go to a council service centre to inspect the detailed application.

· Each application requires a tailored objection, specific to that case

· Much of the process uses quite technical language, which can be a difficulty

· The Hearing process can appear quite adversarial and legalistic, involving robust questioning of objectors, which may put people off and means not everyone feels able to participate

12. The local board has expressed its interest in continuing to object to some liquor licences, on a case by case basis, where there are community concerns. The local board has lodged several objections to liquor licences this year.

13. In a recent workshop, the local board was presented with options for improving information and support for the community regarding liquor licence processes. This included the possibility of developing further communications support as outlined in Table 1.

14. Separately, the board has been considering its response to liquor licence applications. The board resolved on 16 June that it:

“requests the Governing Body to delegate to local boards the power to lodge objections against granting of licences under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, because local board objections will reflect the wide variety of local circumstances and preferences, which will provide greater benefit than a single approach across Auckland.” (OP/2014/106)

15. It is understood that this request will be considered by the Governing Body in late August, along with similar requests from other local boards. Other boards are considering additional points in this context, which might also be considered by Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board.

16. The first additional point relates to the difficulty for the community of accessing information about current liquor licence applications. This has been recognised by board members as a barrier to community involvement in the licensing process. Access could be improved in various ways, for example by making them available online, other boards have asked the Chief Executive to review this.

17. Secondly, some local boards are supporting a process (as an alternative to lodging an objection) where the boards would put forward their views on particular licence applications directly to the District Licencing Committee through a separate report, or attached to the licencing inspector’s report.

18. Local board members need to consider if attaching board views to the inspector’s report is likely to be efficient and effective in some or all cases, and whether this process should be in addition to, or instead of, the power to object.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

19. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has expressed interest in continuing to object or to support individuals or organisations within its communities to object to liquor license applications (on a case by case basis), at least until the LAP is in place.

20. The local board has given feedback to the governing body requesting that it delegate powers to local boards to object to liquor licences.

Maori impact statement

21. Research published in The New Zealand Medical Journal (2005) indicates that Māori are disproportionately impacted by the negative effects of alcohol abuse. Māori might therefore stand to benefit from the continued opposition of liquor licenses (on a case by case basis).

22. Urban marae and other mataawaka organisations might share the local board’s objectives regarding the reduction in supply of alcohol. The provision of local board support services will extend to known Māori organisations, thereby further enabling them to address such objectives.

Implementation

23. Where possible, it is intended that services and material will be provided by Auckland Council staff.

24. It is envisaged that external support of individual community members and community organisations will be required to implement the operational plan discussed at the local board’s workshop as described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Thomas Murray - Local Board Engagement Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

28 July 2014

Decision Making Allocation Review

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Feedback

Draft 14 July 2014

The changes proposed below refer to the text of the “Allocation Of Decision-Making Responsibility” in Attachment A.

#	Issue (Briefly set out the issues and which part of the allocation table it is related to)	Background (Please provide some context and analysis for the issue identified. Provide specific examples where relevant)	Requested change to the allocation table (Please note what change is proposed to resolve the issue)
1	Asset renewals	The board supports retaining asset renewals as a board allocated responsibility. The current allocation to local boards is limited to maintaining the service capacity and integrity of local assets. This does not allow a board to reassess community needs at the time of the renewal. E.g. a board cannot move, or change the configuration or service level of children’s play equipment in a park, even though the equipment as previously configured may not be meeting current needs, or would be better in a new location for place making or other reasons. These considerations and decisions are not appropriate for the Governing Body. Equally, it would be good for staff exercising delegations to consult with boards on these matters before renewals are commissioned.	Retain asset renewals as a board allocated responsibility. Amend the text in the local board column by adding: “In the course of renewal, reconfigure or reposition an asset, and alter service levels, where this will better respond to community needs, or place-making opportunities.”
2	Economic development	The board supports retaining local economic development as a board allocated responsibility, and opposes this being allocated to the GB or ATEED. LBs hold the relationships with local communities and business associations and therefore are better placed than GB to decide on place shaping and implementing the local board plan. It is acknowledged that GB and CCOs should continue to decide on major events, transformation programmes and capital works (e.g. bus stations, road works.) The branding and marketing of metropolitan centres outside the central city should be mentioned as a LB responsibility, with Governing Body support where regional interests are identified.	Retain local economic development as a LB function. Amend the text in the local board column by adding: “The branding and marketing of metropolitan centres outside the central city.” Amend the text in the governing body column by adding: “Support for local board initiatives in metropolitan centres outside the central city, where regional interests are identified.”
3	Parks services	The board supports retaining local parks services as a board allocated responsibility. The allocation needs to be supported by regular review of parks identified as local and regional. Factors to consider in deciding if a park is local or regional should include area covered by the park, presence of volcanic cones or other geological features, archaeological sites, degree of use by people from outside the LB area, the role of the park in relation to other local or regional programmes, and the matters in the LGAC Act s17(2).	Retain local parks services as a board allocated responsibility. Add explanatory note: The allocation will be supported by regular review of parks identified as local and regional, having regard to the area covered by the park, presence of volcanic cones or other geological features, archaeological sites, sites of significance to Māori, degree of use by people from outside the LB area, the role of the park in relation to other local or regional programmes, and the matters in the LGAC Act s17(2).
4	Procurement	The board supports retaining local procurement as a board allocated responsibility. The board would like to see the GB function of deciding major service delivery contract (such as security and cleaning contracts) for Auckland-wide assets to be qualified by consideration of the effects on local job opportunities where a large Auckland-wide contract is awarded and local small contractors are excluded from consideration.	Retain local procurement as a board allocated responsibility. Add to the explanatory note: When the governing body considers the award of large Auckland-wide service delivery contracts, it should take into account the effects on local job opportunities if local small contractors are excluded.
5	Submissions and objections	There should be an allocation of powers between GB and to LBs in regard to making submissions and objections in the context of public engagement processes. Public engagement of various kinds is regularly sought by a wide variety of agencies in many contexts, for example: · Parliamentary Bills · commissions of Inquiry · Government agencies’ draft policies and projects · Waitangi Tribunal hearings · Iwi and hapu plans · district health board issues · private inquiries such as the inquiry into family violence sponsored by Glenn Family Foundation · Local Government Commission reorganisation proposals · policies and plans of neighbouring councils · Auckland Council strategies policies, plans and bylaws · resource consent applications · liquor licence applications · more. There are too many to list. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board asks that a new section be added to the Allocation schedule, dealing specifically with the most common current cases, and providing a general framework for managing other cases not specifically covered. The specific allocations should be given for: · Auckland Council policies, plans and bylaws · Liquor licence applications · Parliamentary Bills The power to communicate the interests and preferences of people local board areas in relation to the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Auckland Council are already covered by LB statutory powers (LGACA s16.) However, doubts were raised about the power of LBs to submit on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan in 2014. To avoid the same doubts arising in future (e.g. on PAUP plan changes), the power of LBs to submit should be included in the Allocation of powers document. Liquor licence applications have been specifically raised as an issue in recent weeks. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has asked for delegated power to lodge objections, and asks that this also be allocated to LBs, not GB. The reason is that individual liquor licences never have regional significance, but can be of high local significance. LBs have exercised this power for several years, and have done so responsibly, acting as a moderating influence and voice for local communities with some success. The power to appeal DLC decisions also needs to be allocated. OPLB sees no reason why the power to appeal should not also be allocated to LBs, although appeals are likely to be rare, for financial reasons. Parliamentary Bills raise wider policy questions. Bills usually have regional more than local significance. The allocation of powers to submit on Bills should be given to GB rather than LBs, because of the need for Auckland to speak with one voice at the national level. However, LBs may have important perspectives on a Bill and a clear internal process of engaging LBs in the formulation of Auckland Council submissions should be included with the GB’s power. A LB that is specially affected by a Bill should be able to participate in the Auckland Council presentation team. For the wide variety of other submissions and objections processes, no exhaustive list can be given but LBs should have a general power to make submissions according to broad criteria, i.e. where GB is not making a submission, where there is more local than regional significance, and the submission is made in the name of the local board, not representing Auckland Council.	Add a new section to allocate powers to make submissions and objections on public engagement processes, as indicated in the Appendix below.
6	Other activities of Auckland Council	This catchall clause says the Governing Body has power over anything else not listed. This should be reversed, so that local boards take on the “anything else” functions in preference to the governing body. The reasons are that local boards are closer to the community on most issues, and this approach would free the governing body to focus its attention on a narrower range truly regional and transformational functions. This would follow the principle of subsidiarity that, “a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.” (Oxford Dictionary.) Adequate funding for local boards would need to be provided to cover any additional activities.	Amend the clause ”Other activities of Auckland Council” by adding words to the local board column to read: All other non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council. Delete the words in the Governing Body column. Adjust LTP funding for local boards to cover this change.

Appendix

New section allocating powers between GB and to LBs to make submissions and objections in the context of formal public engagement processes.

Activity	Local Board non-regulatory responsibilities	Governing body non-regulatory responsibilities
Submissions and objections	Submissions on Auckland Council strategies, policies, plans and bylaws, in the context of formal public engagement processes, to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of the people in local board areas. (This includes submissions and further submissions on plans and policies notified under the Resource Management Act.)	Submissions on Auckland Council strategies, policies, plans and bylaws, to advance regional interests and issues, and to correct errors and omissions.
	Objections and submissions on liquor licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. Support community groups lodging objections and submissions. Appeals from District Licensing Committee decisions on liquor licence applications.	Appeals from District Licensing Committee decisions on liquor licence applications, involving issues of regional significance.
	Parliamentary Bills and proposed Government regulation where the Bill or Regulation specially affects the board area, differently from the region as a whole, and the Governing Body has not notified local boards that it intends to submit or engage on behalf of Auckland Council.	Parliamentary Bills and proposed Government regulation.
	Participation in other public engagement processes where: · the outcome of the process has little regional significance, but will affect the local board’s communities, and · the engagement is made in the name of the local board, and not represented as an Auckland Council position, and · the Governing Body has not notified local boards that it intends to submit or engage on behalf of Auckland Council.	Participation in other public engagement processes where the outcome of the process has regional significance, and the Governing Body has notified local boards that it intends to submit or engage on behalf of Auckland Council.
	Explanatory notes: Local board powers to make formal submissions in the context of public engagement on Auckland Council strategies, policies, plans and bylaws are included to avoid any doubt arising from interpretation of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act. The power to submit on Bills and Regulations will usually be exercised by the Governing Body rather than local boards because of the need for Auckland Council to speak with one voice at the national level. However a board may make its own submission where the Bill or Regulation affects only its board area. The Governing Body will engage boards in the formulation of Auckland Council submissions, and invite a board that is specially affected by a Bill or Regulation to participate in the Auckland Council presentation. Participation in other public engagement processes include a wide variety of contexts, including commissions of inquiry, Waitangi Tribunal hearings, Government agencies’ draft policies, district health board issues, private inquiries, Local Government Commission reorganisation proposals, policies and plans of neighbouring councils, resource consent applications and many others. Generic rules are stated to allocate powers to engage in any public engagement process that arises in future.

Item

Presenter

Purpose

Place making: Otara Lake and Water ways

Sam Noon, Unitec Tutor Susannah Kitching and students Oraphanh Chanthaphanh, Kevin Zhu and Brendan Clemens

UNITEC provided a recap of the project master plan. 7 groups of students had each produced a package of drawings for construction level designs. The students presented their work and the tutor presented on behalf of those unable to attend. Priority now to pick some parts of the projects that can be done in stages with a focus on restoration and local youth employment.

Action: the students present to be invited to the event launch.

Community Development and Safety

Rosetta Reti Simanu

The Board was provided with an overview of the role of Maori Wardens. The current system is working well. Suggested if a new group is to be established, the focus should be on other areas outside the town centre areas.

Community Centre on Aorere Park

John Robson, Peter Kukulsky and Rebecca Davies from Watercare

Allan Christensen

Watercare presented to the Board on the Otara Diversion Sewer project. The project includes a sewer line upgrade and pump station at 205R East Tamaki Road (Otara Creek Reserve). The project will in the long term reduce the overflow going into Otara Lake.

Action – A Water care representative be part of the Otara Lake Waterway steering group

The Board was updated on the Vaka Manu’Kau Niue Community Trust application for land owner approval to occupy part of Aorere Park in Mangere to establish a multipurpose community centre. A formal report is included on the 16 June meeting agenda.

Local Board Plan engagement

Thomas Murray

The Board was updated on the special consultative procedure process for the Local Board Plan – formal engagement.

Te Papa Museum for the Future, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa

Evan Williams, Te Papa Board Chairman

Karen Mason Associate Director,

David Robinson. Associate Director, Museum Operations & Services

Council managers also in attendance: Bruce Harland (senior project leader, city transformation) and John McEnteer (Southern Initiative).

The Board was updated on the project concept for a National Centre, which will define fresh ways to work across museums and places of learning in Manukau, Auckland-Tamaki Makaurau and on a national scale. It is proposed for diverse cultures to invest in South Auckland in a manner never been done before. The concept is to let the people here in Manukau dream it up and include kids experience with hands-on to generate interest for children. Southern Initiative has offered office space on level 2 of the Manukau Civic building. The practical elements of the project were outlined including the regulatory process and the challenges that may arise with a large building with expected visitor numbers up to 500,000 per year. The building must be fit or purpose. The Local board will be kept informed.

Manukau Heritage item assistance fund applications

Fran Hayton and Sonia Parra Beltran

The Board reviewed the Manukau Heritage application to be considered at the 16 June Business meeting.

Item

Presenter

Purpose

Auckland Transport parking discussion document

Melanie Dale

The Auckland Transport (AT) Parking Discussion process was explained. AT’s long term strategy is to move people into public transport. The board noted the following: No parking charge at the Otara, Old Papatoetoe and Hunters Corner town centres and at council facilities in the local board area, including libraries, swimming pools, halls, gyms, and community centres. Support free Park and Ride facilities. Integrate cost when commuters park at Park and Ride facilities and use public transport. Parking Strategy is implemented when public transport has improved including, on-time performances, and integrated ticketing. Concession parking for students. Supports parking permits for residents. AT to scope other successful parking strategies to assist in developing the Parking Strategy. AT to measure itself on best practice principles that includes: public engagement, efficient services and cost effective. AT to provide rail to the southern regions from Manukau city centre and provide rail to Auckland airport. AT to implement urban design on future road and parking infrastructure developments around town centres for better parking spaces AT to consider the board’s outcomes and initiatives in its draft local board plan. The Board was also provided with an update on AT’s projects in the area.

Colin Dale Park Update

Sarah Mossman, Kim Issac and Rangi Maihi

Greg Lowe

The Board was updated on the submissions received in relation to the intent to issue leases and a licence to occupy.

Action: A report to the July meeting recommending the options for the hearing panel.

Further discussion was held on the parks capital works and renewals programme for 2014/15.

Quarterly Report

Faithe Smith, Greg Lowe, Gill Pannell

The Board received an update on the progress towards their objectives by way of the Quarterly Performance Report for the period ending 31 March 2014.

Of note: Libraries reported a downturn in numbers at Tupu Youth library was a concern. It was suggested programmes be developed using the outside area of the park next door and the stage area. For example Spoken word in conjunction with the South Auckland Poets collective.

Parks – Dialogue with AUT and their use of the park and car parking possibilities. Renewal of leases suggested involving AUT in these discussions. The James Watson park consultation was excellent.

An additional report from Treasury has been included in the report.

Sutton Corner

Sarah Mossman, Martin Devoy, Greg Lowe

The Board was updated on this legacy project (Papatoetoe Recreation Ground) and the properties on the corner of Sutton Crescent and Great South Road, Papatoetoe.

Action: further workshop to be held in October 2014.

Item

Presenter

Purpose

Ngati Otara Multi-sport and Cultural Precinct

Sam Noon, Ken Maplesden

The board was updated on the Ngati Otara Multi-sport and Cultural Precinct project including the proposed LTP funding and possible governance structure model options.

Action: A report to the August business meeting.

Empowerment of communities in the liquor licence objections process

Carol McKenzie-Rex, Neil Taylor and Daniel Poe

Local boards were advised that they do not currently have the power to object to liquor licences under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act. The new alcohol legislation 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 in or participate in the process. The board considered ways to make it easier for the community to access information and receive advice and support on alcohol licence objections.

Environment Strategic Action Plan

Varsha Belwalkar and Batiri Hughes. Don Austin, Dave Marshall, Nick Waipara, Holly Cox and Jane Sparkes

The Environment Strategic Action Plan (ESAP) was introduced to the Board for feedback. The draft plan will be bought back to the board for formal feedback later in the year.

The Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan review was outlined to the board. Feedback was requested prior to the discussion document being released for a public comment period. The formal submission process will take place in mid-2015.

Auckland Council Property Limited

Letitia McColl, Marion Webb, Mike Bush

The Board discussed a property identified to go through the ACPL rationalisation process.

Action: A report to the August business meeting.

Item

Presenter

Purpose

Draft Local Alcohol Policy (LAP)

Carol McKenzie-Rex, Neil Taylor, Daniel Poe

The board provided their feedback on the draft Local Alcohol Policy (LAP). Key issues relevant to the Otara Papatoetoe Local Board area were noted. The overall effect of the LAP on Manukau becoming a metropolitan centre was considered. Submissions close on 16 July 2014.

Action: draft submission to be sent to Board members for comment.

Decision making allocation review

Carol McKenzie-Rex, Neil Taylor, Daniel Poe

The board discussed whether the decision-making split between governing body and local boards is working well now. They identified areas that could be considered for change such as: local parks becoming regional parks, local business access to procurement contracts and the opportunity to make submissions.

Local and Sports park

Greg Lowe

An updated spread sheet outlining the local and sports parks operational budget was tabled and discussed.

Action: Report to the August business meeting for adoption of the Local and Sports park work plan.

Local Economic Development Action Plan Draft

Trudi Fava, Janet Schofield

The board provided their feedback on the development of the draft local economic development action plan. The action plan will be sent to stakeholders for comment and reported back to the Board in September.

Portfolio role

Examples of actions by portfolio holder

Undertaking roles specified in officer delegation protocols

· Landowner consents; and proposed asset renewal works: The portfolio-holder can either decide the issue or ask officers to refer it to the full local board for a decision

· Providing feedback on resource consent applications

Sharing the workload between local board members

· Speaking at external meetings on local board matters e.g. at sports clubs – to gather their views, and represent the views of the local board

· Supporting the Chair and other local board members in speaking to governing body committees or at public meetings on portfolio topics

· Keeping alternate portfolio-holders informed, so they can assist the portfolio-holder where needed

Gathering knowledge

· Receiving officer progress updates on projects already agreed by the local board, noting that work programmes are approved by the full local board

· Engaging and maintaining relationships with stakeholders

· Reading background reports relevant to the portfolio

Acting as a sounding-board and advising officers

· Meeting with officers to give the local board view of issues

· Where there is no known local board view, the portfolio-holder gathers the views of all local board members and formulates the local board position. (Contentious issues are best referred to a local board workshop)

· Helping to shape details of departmental annual work programmes before presentation to the local board, to secure local board plan outcomes

· Commenting on proposed design details and other issues arising from local board projects

· Enabling officers to test possible local board interest in a proposal

· Helping officers to define preferred options or approaches before reporting to the local board

· Encouraging officers, especially through difficult decisions

Monitoring action against the Local Board Plan

· Asking officers for progress updates

· Advising officers and local board when projects need response or attention

Leading local board projects as a convenor of the relevant steering group or working party

Various, but currently include:

· Aorere Park joint steering group

· Otara Lake and waterways steering group

· Youth Connections project

Providing regular updates on portfolio activity to the local board

· At board business meetings: portfolio-holders can report back at this agenda item

· Portfolio-holders lead board discussion on officer reports relevant to their portfolio

· Emails to all local board members, when information needs to be timely

Chairperson	Fa'anana Efeso Collins
Deputy Chairperson	Ross Robertson, MP
Members	Lotu Fuli
	Stephen Grey
	Mary Gush
	Donna Lee
	John McCracken

17	Social Enterprise Update
	Billy Matheson, Principal Advisor Social Entrepreneurship, Community and cultural Strategy; Joel Umali, Community Development Project Leader, Community Development, Arts and Culture; Ta’ala Shane Ta’ala, Senior Advisor, Te Waka Angamua; Anita Totha, Community Facilities; Yehuala Aboye, WISE Collective, were in attendance to address the Community Development and Safety Committee regarding social Enterprise. A PowerPoint presentation was tabled in support of the report. A copy of the tabled presentation has been placed on the official copy of these minutes and can be viewed on the Auckland Council website.
	Jobs and Enterprise portfolio holder, Cr A Anae, made opening remarks at the start of this item.
	Resolution number COM/2014/1 MOVED by Cr AJ Anae, seconded by Chairperson CM Casey: *That the Community Development and Safety Committee:* *a) champion social enterprise across the council organization.* *b) request staff to undertake a feasibility study exploring a rates- neutral credit facility, to support the growth of social enterprises in Auckland.* c) note the creation of the Young Social Entrepreneurs Fund with the Auckland Communities Foundation and the development of a partnership with the Hikurangi Foundation, to support the development of social enterprise. *d) forward this report and presentation to all local boards for their information.* CARRIED
	Attachments a Community Development, Arts and Culture - Supporting Social Enterprise

No.	Title	Page
a View	6 June Workshop Notes	149
b View	13 June Workshop Notes	151
c View	4 July Workshop Notes	153
d View	27 June Workshop Notes	155

Portfolio	Lead	Alternate
Planning, Regulatory, bylaws and compliance	Efeso Collins	Ross Robertson
Arts, Culture and Events	Donna Lee	Lotu Fuli
Community Services and Libraries	Mary Gush and Donna Lee (co-portfolio leaders)
Youth Development	Lotu Fuli	Efeso Collins
Recreation Services	Ross Robertson	Stephen Grey
Parks and Reserves	John McCracken	Ross Robertson
Built and Natural Environment, Heritage and Housing	Stephen Grey	Donna Lee
Economic Development, Business and Town Centre revitalisation	Stephen Grey	Mary Gush
Transport	Efeso Collins	John McCracken

Authors	Daniel Poe - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Authors	Neil Taylor - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Authors	Carol McGarry - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager