Agenda of Orākei Local Board

Orākei Local Board

03 July 2014

Agenda

What: Orakei Basin Advisory Group

Why: Advisory group made up of Auckland Council and community to work together to advocate on matters in and around Orakei Basin

Where: Orakei Local Board Office, Meadowbank Shopping Centre,

35 St Johns Road, Meadowbank

When: Wednesday 4 December 2013, 3.30pm – 4.30pm

Who: Chairperson Desley Simpson, - Orakei Local Board Chair,

Cameron Brewer, Orakei Councillor

Kit Parkinson, Orakei Local Board, Parks spokesperson

Anthony Lewis, Local Board Advisor

Lynda Lucas, Team Leader, Park Liaison and Development

Pippa Somerville - Parks Advisor, Auckland

John May – Orakei Sea Scouts, Chair
Stephen Taylor, Akarana Young Mariners

Chris Shaw – Auckland Waterski Club,

John Robb, Orakei Yacht Club

Malcolm Paterson Ngati Whatua Orakei

Peter Bircham, Orakei Sea Scouts

Lynley Olsen, Orakei Basin Protection Group

Coralie Beckham, Meadowbank Matters resident group

John Robb, Orakei Yacht Club

Jeff Wingrove, Auckland Waterski Club

Brian Halstead, Resident representative

Guests:

Decisions and action points	By whom	Due
Welcome and apologies:
1. OBAG Terms of reference and Code of conduct	Lynda Ant
2. Project Update · see attached table below · There will be a seperate project meeting arranged to share the technical design of the access road with technical experts and the park advisor.	Pippa
3. Issues arising from previous minutes · Update on claret ash trees by Sea Scouts building · Weight restrictions on the access road · AWSC – retaining wall	Lynda
4. Priority one actions from the Management Plan · Prepare an Orakei Basin Action Plan which records and prioritises works, is reviewed annually, records what has been achieved , resets priorities for the coming year in response to available budgets and resources. · Requests for additional assets: i. Seat at the Meadowbank entrance ii. Toilets · Set up a Friends of Orakei Basin Group · Upgrade existing tracks around the Basin · Community buildings at West reserve to Orakei Road · Access path from Upland Road · Steps from Lucerne Road to Waterski Club Building · Develop a comprehensive weed and pest management and revegetation plan which includes ongoing monitoring to assess the success of the plan.	Lynda
5. User Group reports
Orakei Sea Scouts - Peter Bircham: -
Orakei Yacht Club – John Robb
Auckland Waterski Club – Jeff Wingrove -
Orakei Basin Protection Group – Lynley Olsen -
Meadowbank Matters – Coralie Beckham -
Ngati Whatua – Malcolm Paterson -
6. Issues and risks · Deteriation of the access road has resulted in weight restrictions for users until road renewal is completed in 2014. · Youthtown container has been resited but does not have landowner approval to be on the site. An application has to be completed.
7. Any other business ·

Next meeting: TBA
Orakei Basin Project update

Project name	Funding	Update
Orakei Basin Walkway	CAPEX
Rip rap armouring	Deferral	Delivery –13/14. Riley Consultants advised that access road not suitable for heavy tricks so work will have to take place following access road renewal.
Development of Orakei Basin Open Space	CAPEX
Install new model boat pontoon	Deferral	Completed Sept 2013
Boardwalk platform (alternate safety access from rail boardwalk)	New	Design and consents completed for one platform in centre of boardwalk. Delivery 13/14.
Improvements to ski club step area	New	Preliminary investigations underway. Riley Consultants have completed a Geotech report on the wall and water pipe behind Ski Club. Two options, one to be identified to be scoped and funded.
Local Parks Walkway and cycle renewals	Renewal
Orakei Basin East reserve – aggregate path Orakei Basin West Reserve – concrete path	Deferral	Stage 1 – Aggregate track renewal and associated rip rap to address safety issues will commence Nov/Dec 2013. Stage 2 - Concrete footpath and associated drainage work expected to commence following access road renewal.
Orakei Basin Access Road renewal and upgrade	Renewal SLIPs	Initial costs identified as $625,000 but this may change dependent on the timing and any additional scope changes. Further funding may need to sourced to complete project.
Local and sports parks coastal structure renewals
Jetty renewal	Deferral	Completed Sept 2013. Some minor modifications requested to enable the dinghy's to tie up to the jetty and prevent damaging their rubbing strips and agreed by user groups will commence in December.
OPEX projects
Orakei Basin Wayfinder signage	SLIPs	Completed Sept 2013
Ecological restoration	OPEX	Bush restoration work in November. Seedbank control - dealing with emerging weed species from a historic seed source or those carried by birds or spreading from private properties. Seedbank control was undertaken in the following areas: · Macpherson Street Reserve · Orakei Basin - particular focus on boundaries and on the western end of the new plantings between the railway and the boardwalk. Contractor will be using vegetation control spray to assist with the removal of pest plants that cannot be hand pulled.
Volunteer Planting	OPEX	None planned

Orākei Local Board

03 July 2014

Minutes

What: Orakei Basin Advisory Group

Why: Advisory group made up of Auckland Council and community representatives to work together to prioritise actions.

Where: Orakei Local Board Office, Meadowbank Shopping Centre,
35 St Johns Road, Meadowbank

When: 3.30- 5.00pm – Wednesday 4 December 2013

Who: Desley Simpson, Orakei Local Board, Chair

John May, Orakei Sea Scouts

John Robb, Orakei Yacht Club

Jeff Wingrove, Auckland Waterski Club

Lynley Olsen, Orakei Basin Protection Group

Coralie Beckham, resident representative

Stephen Taylor, Akarana Young Mariners

Lynda Lucas, Team Leader, Park Liaison and Development

Pippa Sommerville, Parks Advisor, Local and sports parks

Anthony Lewis, Local Board Advisor

Public Forum: Mr Roy Champtaloup

Decisions and action points

By whom

Due

Welcome and apologies

Cameron, Kit, Brian, Peter and Malcolm.

Public Forum

Mr Roy Champtaloup spoke on behalf of property owners of 76L Lucerne Road residents seeking to remove privet from their property and neighbouring Council Reserve.

While arborists support such removal, the proposed Basin planting plan advises that understory planting should occur prior to limit erosion and sedimentation in the Basin.

PSR advice is that the owners should remove privet up to the boundary, but removal from Council reserve should be deferred until the planting plan is operative.

1. Confirmation of previous minutes and scene setting

Discussions regarding OBAG’s role in assisting governance of the Basin as a regional asset. This is unusual, as the Basin would normally sit under Governing Body delegation.

The Basin Management Plan sets out purpose of OBAG, including key responsibilities of prioritising work plan and leading establishment of community group; ’Friends of the basin’.

Discussion around key contacts in Parks and sharing of workload and for user groups to be lead contacts for projects and the primary point of contact between Council.

User group key contacts for projects.

Project name	Key contact
Orakei Basin Walkway
Rip rap armouring	Lynley/Jeff
Development of Orakei Basin Open Space
Install new model boat pontoon	John Robb
Boardwalk platform (alternate safety access from rail boardwalk)	Coralie/John Robb
Improvements to ski club step area	Jeff
Local Parks Walkway and cycle renewals
Orakei Basin East reserve – aggregate path Orakei Basin West Reserve – concrete path	Lynley/Coralie Lynley/Coralie
Orakei Basin Access Road renewal and upgrade	John May
Local and sports parks coastal structure renewals
Jetty renewal	Stephen
OPEX projects
Orakei Basin Wayfinder signage
Ecological restoration
Volunteer Planting

Also noted, that moving forward, any changes to minutes should be made directly via email after they have been circulated, rather than discussed at the next meeting. The minutes are a fluid document and all members are able to add amendments subject to agreement by OBAG.

2. Project updates

The access road works do not include the bottom car park in the current scope, this is a possible option, but will cost an additional $220,000 to $250,000 and will push out timeframes due to consenting process. Recommendation is to undertake this as a staged project, noting there is currently no extra funding budgeted.

Additional funding could come from the 2014/15 Annual Plan process or through the 2015-18 Local Board Plan process (note. This was featured at the informal February 2014 Local Board Plan expos, but there was little feedback. Can be followed up again when the formal SCP Local Board Plan consultation is underway.

It is possible to bundle the consents for both the road works and car park, but again will entail additional costs currently not budgeted for.

It should be noted that the final design for the access road is not complete.

Action. The notes from the onsite meeting with John May and Lynley will be sent through to Desley.

Pippa

3. Issues arising from previous minutes

Some pruning or dead wooding of the trees was scheduled for November/December.

Action A follow up inspection is to occur in December, with a report back to the next OBAG meeting.

OBAG requests that both John May and Stephen attend the meeting.

As a way forward, a compromise solution could be looked at, after the report from arborist

The issues of heavy vehicles using the road due to the lack of a dedicated bus park at the top of the road still exists. However Riley advise that there is no risk of catastrophic failure of the road. Instead of replacing the mission/damaged road cones form the road edge, dazzle spray can be used instead.

User groups have advised their members of the heavy vehicle ban already.

As mentioned, the access road design is not final.

Ngati Whatua Orakei advise that they are happy for archaeologist Russell Foster to advise on heritage related issues.

Lynley raised concerns over stormwater consideration being included in the design.

It should be noted the stormwater elements will be for this section of the road only, not the whole effected slope. So technically this does fully address the Scout building issues.

There is currently $36,000in the budget for the retaining wall for the Ski Club steps area, if this project is prioritised to include all the erosion issues, then additional funding will be required from the Orakei Basin Open Space budget.

The Ski Club want a solution now, with a retaining wall including stormwater and debris mitigation.

Lynley raised issue of spraying around the steps causing erosion.

Pippa

4. Priority one actions form the Management Plan

OBAG confirmed works programme priorities for the 14/15 financial year.

1. Develop a comprehensive weed and pest management and re-vegetation plan which includes ongoing monitoring to assess the success of the plan

2. Upgrade existing tracks around the Basin – specifically the access path from Lucerne Road to Water Ski Club building

3. Request for new assets – specifically public toilets

Discussion on aggregate path issues. Specifically:

Stormwater issues, lack of drainage, as outlined in the SKM report

Actions. Officers to confirm in writing stormwater organic matter control and design

Action. Lynley to forward SKM report text

Note, some repairs are being made to slips and aggregate is being replaced. Some drainage issues are being addressed, OBAG request assurances

Action. Site meeting with all data available on drainage, aggregate and rip-rap armouring etc.

Pippa

Lynley

Pippa

5. User group reports

For future meetings, OBAG agree to also feature news stories, as the minutes will be going to a wider audience.

Orakei Sea Scouts

No update

Water Ski Club

Upcoming open day, invites to be sent

Training days have been well supported, summer season planning underway

Basin Protection Group

Will look at updating the new Meadowbank-St John Residents Association on OBAG vision, with a possibility of involving the association more.

Meadowbank Matters

Neighbourhood group update

Purposed Pourewa Valley walkway

Volunteer planting (not on the Basin)

Telecom clean-up

Young Mariners

Facility space issues, lack of. Undertaking growth analysis to assess options.

Parks Officers.

Building and community usage. The Youthtown container issue is still to be resolved, as the container is not currently permitted and unlicensed. All groups have grown and so have their needs. Council’s Community Lease Advisor can sit down with all groups to discuss further.

A review of how all groups can be accommodated in 5-10 years’ time in a proposed new building is something to progress through Local Board Plan or Long Term Plan process.

Action tracker. Now that user group members are lead contacts on projects, this is something to be developed for the future.

Action. Parks will get track report and schedule for works for the coming summer season to Lynley.

Pippa

Date of next meeting: 4.00 – 5.00pm, Wednesday 30 April 2014

Decisions and action points
Welcome and apologies:
1. Project Update · To be provided at meeting.	Pippa
2. Issues arising from previous minutes · Reply from Stormwater Department to OBAG resolutions from August 2013 regarding stormwater works programme in relation to Basin Management Plan. Please see attached memo.	Ant/Pippa
3. Implementation of Management Plan Priorities · At the last meeting, OBAG reviewed and prioritised the works programme priorities for the 14/15 financial year.	Lynda
4. Discussion to identify new projects for 2014/15.	Pippa
5. User Group reports
Orakei Sea Scouts – John May -
Orakei Yacht Club – John Robb
Auckland Waterski Club – Jeff Wingrove -
Ngati Whatua – Hana Maihi -
6. Issues and risks ·
7. Any other business · OBAG recommendations to Orakei Local Board. Confirmation of process in regards to OBAG endorsement and Local Board confirmation of budget allocations.	Ant

Orākei Local Board

03 July 2014

Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback

File No.: CP2014/13527

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

· location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

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

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

· maximum trading hours

· the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

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

Comments

Legislative framework

Background: law reform

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

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

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

Scope of LAPs

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

· location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

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

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

· maximum trading hours

· the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions

· one-way door restrictions.

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

Effect of LAPs

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

Table 1. Application of a LAP in licensing decisions

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

Statutory process for developing LAPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auckland Council’s Local Alcohol Policy Project

Council’s decision to develop a LAP

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Project plan overview

Step	Description	Timeframe
1. Project organisation / governance	· Established stakeholder reference groups and Joint Political Working Party	Complete
2. Issues analysis	· Reviewed, updated and analysed information gathered as part of Local Alcohol Policy Research Project in accordance with statutory requirements	Complete
3. Options analysis	· Identified assessed options available, within the parameters of the Act, to the council for addressing the issues identified at step 2. · Develop an issues and options paper with input from political working party and stakeholder reference group	Complete
4. Initial engagement period	· Initial engagement with internal, external and political stakeholders on issues and options paper	Complete
5. Engagement on staff position	· Developed a position paper with staff recommendations based on issues and options analysis, and feedback received through initial engagement period · Reported position back to internal, external and political stakeholders involved in the initial engagement period for further feedback	Complete
6. Develop and gain approval of draft policy	· Analysed outcomes of steps 2 to 5, completed detailed impact assessment, completed final engagement with elected members and developed draft policy · Present draft policy to the Committee for approval · Publicly notify draft policy	Complete
7. Special consultative procedure	· Follow special consultative procedure as set out in the Local Government Act 2002, which includes receiving written submissions, holding hearings and deliberating in public (i.e. full public consultation) · Parallel process for local boards and council advisory panels to provide feedback on the draft LAP	Current – September 2014
8. Provisional policy	· Work with Hearings Panel to report back to Governing Body with Provisional LAP · If the Governing Body endorses the provisional policy, give public notice of: o the provisional policy o rights of appeal against it o the ground on which an appeal may be made.	October / November 2014
9. Appeals	· Appeals will be dealt with in accordance with the Act	TBC
10. Adopt final policy	· Adopt final policy in accordance with the Act · Timing will depend on whether appeals have been lodged and if so, when they are resolved.	TBC
11. Implementation	· Work with officers from Licensing and Compliance and other relevant areas of council on the implementation of the policy. Officers will also develop a monitoring and evaluation framework.	TBC

Auckland Council’s draft Local Alcohol Policy

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

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

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

Table 3. Key consultation dates

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

Background to draft LAP: stakeholder feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-licence density

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

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

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

On-licence density

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

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

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

Off-licence opening times

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

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

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

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

On-licence closing times

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

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

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

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

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

One-way door policy

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

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

o Increased drinking in public places

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

Background to draft LAP: local board feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4. Summary of local board feedback

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

Summary of draft LAP content

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

· are evidence-based

· align with the object of the Act

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

Purpose (section 1 of draft LAP)

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

· is appropriate to the Auckland Council region

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

· is consistent with the object of the Act.

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

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

· controlling where new licences are allowed

· controlling how many new licences are allowed

· reducing the hours that licensed premises can sell alcohol

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

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

Location and density of licences

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

Table 5. Policy areas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· That the licence should be issued

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

· That the licence should not be issued.

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

Maximum trading hours

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

Table 5. Proposed maximum trading hours

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial extensions of hours for on-licences

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

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

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

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

· No extensions will be allowed in the priority areas.

Additional discretionary conditions

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

Table 6. Discretionary conditions

Conditions recommended for all licences

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

Where in draft LAP

Includes:

· an onsite incident register

· host responsibility policies for club and on-licences

· prohibition on single unit sales for off-licences

Includes:

· Restrictions on drinks prior to closing

· Clean public areas outside

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

· CCTV

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

Part B: Sections 4 to 7

Summary of on-licence provisions

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

· reduce alcohol-related harm by:

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

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

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

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

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

Policy lever	Policy tool	Risk profile	Broad Area A	Broad Area B			Priority Areas
Policy lever	Policy tool	Risk profile	Broad Area A	Metro Centres	Neigh- bourhood centres	Rest of Broad Area B	Priority Areas
Location / density	ECIA	Very High	Required	Required	Required	Required	Required
		High	Required	Required	Required	Required	Required
		Medium	NA	NA	Required	Required	Required
		Low	NA	NA	Required	NA	Required
		Very Low	NA	NA	NA	NA	Required
Proximity to sensitive sites	ECIA	Risk profile is one of the triggers	DLC & ARLA directed to consider proximity to sensitive sites as part of ECIA
Hours	Standard maximum hours	-	9am- 3am	9am - 1am			· Hours to align with underlying area · LAP encourages even more restrictive hours
Hours	Trial extension for best practice operators	Risk is a factor in considering applications for extensions	Up to 2 hours Morning or evening (not both)	Preferred over other parts of Broad Area B	Directs DLC not to grant extensions in these areas	Up to 2 hours Morning or evening (not both) Centres preferred	Directs DLC not to grant extensions in these areas
Conditions	-	-	Range of conditions

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

Summary of off-licence provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special licences

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

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

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

Other options considered

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Table 9. Orākei Local Board feedback

Topic	Local Board feedback	Officer response
Location	· Use zoning in Auckland Plan or Unitary Plan · Noted the current zoning rules are working well for Orākei	· The draft LAP incorporates this feedback. · Broad areas identified in the LAP are based on the areas classified from the Unitary Plan, and have been simplified for consistency and based on feedback received from stakeholders. · Unitary Plan zoning is also used in the policy as follows: trial extensions in Broad Area B are preferred in Metropolitan centres and generally to be refused in residential areas; and there is a presumption against new off-licences in Neighbourhood centres.
Density	· Policy should apply on a case by case basis	· The draft LAP incorporates this feedback. · The policy sets parameters within which the DLC can use its discretion to evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis. For example, hours can be extended on a case-by-case basis, how nearby sensitive sites and existing licences affect the outcome of an application is at the DLC’s discretion, and many of the conditions which can be applied to licences are decided on a case-by-case basis.
Density	· Supports use of cumulative impact assessment to determine conditions of a licence	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. It proposes an “Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment” (ECIA) process to assess certain licence applications, depending on the location and risk of the proposed premises. · The draft LAP directs the DLC refer to the ECIA report to: o Assist in determining the outcome of an application (i.e. to grant, not grant, or grant with conditions) o Assist in determining what conditions may be appropriate for the licence.

Maori impact statement

Research and data on Maori and alcohol

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2014: Statement of Proposal	87
b View	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting May 2014 - Resolutions on draft Local Alcohol Policy	203
c View	A3 Copies of Tables 7 and 8 from report	205
d View	Key Topics for Feedback from Local Boards	207

Signatories

Authors

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Orākei Local Board

03 July 2014

Smoke-free Policy Implementation

File No.: CP2014/12172

Purpose

1. This report is to provide the Orakei Local Board (‘the Board’) with recommendations on the implementation of the Auckland Council Smoke-free Policy 2013 (‘the Policy’) in their local board area.

Executive summary

2. The Policy sets out a regional position on smoke-free public places and events. The exact detail of the implementation will be a matter for local board discretion, as local boards have been allocated non-regulatory decision making responsibilities for local activities.

3. Local Boards can:

· choose to progress the implementation of smoke-free public places wider and faster than identified in the Policy

· determine the exact signage requirements for promoting local smoke-free public places and any additional budget allocation for this

· decide on promotion and communication activities for smoke-free public places in their local area

· determine the extent of smoke-free messaging and promotion at local board events.

4. To assist local boards progress the implementation of the Policy, staff have made recommendations pertaining to the extent of smoke-free public places, signage requirements, promotion activities and other matters.

5. In terms of signage for smoke-free public places, staff do not recommend smoke-free signage in all areas affected by the Policy. Instead, placing additional smoke-free signs in certain ‘high priority sites’ will bear greater benefits in promoting smoke-free public places.

6. In May 2014, a workshop with the Orakei Local Board was held to confirm high priority sites for the installation of additional smoke-free signage. At this workshop, 13 high priority sites were confirmed. Staff recommend additional budget be allocated for smoke-free signs in these sites. The cost of additional signage is estimated at $4,000-6,300. These values vary depending on actual number of signs required, signage size and installation.

7. In order to promote the smoke-free status of these sites, staff recommend that the Board publicises smoke-free public places in their local board area as the Board deems appropriate.

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a) allocate budget for printing and installation of additional smoke-free signs in 10 high priority sites which include:

i) Glover Park

ii) Crossfield Reserve

iii) Colin Maiden Park

iv) Ellerslie Domain

v) Liston Park

vi) Madill’s Farm Recreation Reserve

vii) Martyn Wilson Sports Park

viii) Michaels Avenue Reserve

ix) Orakei Domain B

x) Orakei Community Centre and Kupu Reserve

xi) Roberta Reserve

xii) Selwyn Reserve

xiii) St Heliers Reserve

xiv) Thomas Bloodworth Park

b) promotes the smoke-free status of smoke-free public places in Orakei as the Board deems appropriate.

Comments

8. The Auckland Council Smoke Free Policy 2013 (‘the Policy’) sets out council’s position on smoke-free public places, events, tobacco control advocacy and workplace smoking cessation.

9. As local boards have been allocated non-regulatory decision making responsibilities for local activities, the implementation of the Policy at a local level is a matter for local board discretion.

10. Local boards can:

· choose to progress the implementation of smoke-free public places wider and faster than identified in the Policy

· determine the exact signage requirements for promoting local smoke-free public places and any additional budget allocation for this

· decide on promotion and communication activities for smoke-free public places in their local area

· determine the extent of smoke-free messaging and promotion at local board events.

11. According to the 2013 census, Orakei Local Board (‘the Board) area has a seven percent smoking rate (13 percent for the region). The youth smoking rate (15-24 years) in the Board area is 2.6 percent, which is roughly in line with the regional smoking rate (2.3 percent).

12. The Auckland Plan and the Policy has a goal of a Smoke-free Auckland by 2025. This is a five percent smoking rate in the region by 2025.

Policy Implementation

Smoke-free Public Places

13. Smoke-free in public places aims to discourage the community from smoking in certain public outdoor areas to de-normalise smoking behaviour. As the Policy is non-regulatory, compliance is voluntary and relies on the public being well informed about these smoke-free areas. As such smoke-free signs need to communicate the smoke-free status of a space.

14. However, the cost of installing smoke-free signage in all public places identified in the Policy outweighs its benefit. Therefore, staff recommend placing smoke-free signs in certain areas where the smoke-free message will have the greatest impact.

15. In order to identify these sites, staff developed a criteria based on the objectives and principles of the Policy. The criteria focused on:

· areas that are frequented by children and youth

· council-owned facilities

· areas that are well used and popular within their community

· sites where several smoke-free public places are clustered in close proximity.

16. Based on scores against the criteria, sites were then divided into four categories. Smoke-free signage implementation varies according to the categories. Sites that are scored highly are ‘Category A sites’ or high priority sites, where there is an opportunity for a higher level of smoke-free signage installation. Table one summarises these categories and smoke-free signage installation.

Table 1 Site priority and level of signage installation

Category		Level of smoke-free signage installation
A	High priority sites	· additional smoke-free signs + · temporary smoke-free stickers to be installed on existing signs, until signage replacement or upgrades occurs
B	Medium priority sites	· temporary smoke-free stickers to be installed on existing signs, until signage replacement or upgrades
C	Low priority sites	· smoke-free logo incorporated onto signs as they are replaced or upgraded
D	No priority sites	· no smoke-free signage installation

High priority smoke-free sites

17. Staff had prepared recommendations on the high priority (Category A) and medium priority (Category B) sites within the Orakei local board area. In May 2014 a workshop with the Board was held to gather feedback and confirm these high priority sites.

Table two outlines the high priority smoke-free sites in the Orakei local board area.

Table 2 High priority smoke-free sites for Orakei local board area

Site Name

Rationale

Estimate signage & cost

Colin Maiden Park

· Large sports field complex

· Used by range of sports codes and user groups

· Approx. 5-10 (wall mount)

· Est. cost $615-$1000

Crossfield Reserve

· Large sports field used by variety of codes- e.g. cricket, soccer etc. The sports field contains bleaches for spectators

· Site contains skate park, playground and community centre

· Well used site in eastern suburbs

· Approx. 5-6 (wall mount)

· Est. cost $615-$740

Ellerslie Domain

· High profile sports field with hard courts

· Well used by variety of users

· Approx. 4 (wall mount)

· Est. cost $500

Glover Park

· Sports field contains a playground and several fields

· Used by several sports codes

· Approx. 2-3 (wall mount)

· Est. cost $250-$370

Liston Park

· Large sports park with sports facility

· Approx. 4 (wall mount)

· Est. cost $500

Madill’s Farm Recreation Reserve

· Large recreation reserve with large playground and space for active and passive recreation

· Popular with sports field in eastern suburbs and used for dog walking

· Approx. 3-4 (wall mount)

· Est. $370-$500

Martyn Wilson Reserve

· Well used sports field

· Approx. 4 (wall mount)

· Est. cost $500

Michaels Avenue Reserve

· Passive reserve, playground, wetland, play centre and sports field

· Approx. 4 (wall mount)

· Est. cost $500

Orakei Domain B

· Well used sports field and large passive reserve

· Approx. 1 stand alone or 2 wall mounted

· Est: cost $328

Roberta Reserve

· Park used for passive and active recreation and dog walking

· Approx. 1 (wall mount)

· Est. $123

Selwyn Reserve

· Playground, fountain and passive reserve

· Focus signs on entrances and playground

· Destination park, well used by families

· Approx. 4 (wall mount)

· Est. cost $500

St Heliers Reserve

· Playground and passive recreation site

· Popular reserve area

· Approx.3- 5 (wall mount)

· Est. cost $340-$615

Thomas Bloodworth Park

· Well used community centre with diverse health & sport classes

· Hard courts at Kupu Reserve

· Approx. 3-5 (wall mount)

· Est. cost $340-$615

NB: these cost estimates are based on (300x150mm and 300x400mm) sizes from one supplier (Panda Visuals)

Smoke-free signage installation in other areas

18. Sites that have scored moderately against the criteria, or ‘medium priority’ (Category B) sites will have temporary smoke-free sticker logo attached onto existing signs (in accordance with the council’s signage manual). As signs are replaced and upgraded, the signs will incorporate the permanent smoke-free logo.

19. For the Orakei local board area, the medium priority sites are:

1. Bluestone Park

2. Bonnie Brae Reserve

3. Kupe North Reserve

4. Little Rangitoto Reserve

5. Orakei Community Centre

6. Remuera Library

7. Rutherford Reserve

8. St Heliers Library

9. Wairua Reserve

10. Waiatarua Reserve

20. ‘Low priority’ (Category C) sites will have the smoke-free logo incorporated onto signs as they due for upgrades or replacement. ‘No priority’ (Category D) sites are areas that do not currently have any signage installed.

Smoke-free public places promotion

21. As the Policy is non-regulatory, raising public awareness around the smoke-free behaviour and the council’s position on achieving a smoke-free Auckland is important.

22. To assist the Board in the promotion of the Policy staff suggest the following for consideration:

· an article in the local paper or magazine when majority of the smoke-free signs have been installed

· a launch event at one of the high priority sites when majority of the smoke-free signs have been installed

· raise awareness through social media (i.e. local board Facebook page or a website)

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23. Staff consulted with the Board throughout the development of the Policy in 2012-2013.

24. In May 2014, staff attended a workshop with the Board to discuss an approach to the implementation of the Policy. The Board provided feedback on staff recommendations of high and medium priority sites within its area.

25. The Board was also provided with an indicative cost of introducing additional signage in the identified high priority sites.

26. At the workshop, the Board had made the following comments:

· it would like to focus smoke-free messaging on sports fields and playgrounds

· it would like to add sports fields to the Category A list, such as Crossfield Reserve, Ellerslie Domain, Glover Park, Liston Park, Madill’s Farm Recreation Reserve, Martyn Wilson sports fields, Roberta Reserve and Thomas Bloodworth.

· it clarified that additional signage in the Orakei Domain (where the playground is located) is a matter for the Tamaki Collective and Regional Parks team at council

· it questions the effectiveness of a non-regulatory smoke-free policy and therefore the effectiveness of smoke-free signage.

Maori impact statement

27. The New Zealand Tobacco Use Survey (2009) found that the smoking rate amongst Maori (44 percent) is significantly higher than that of the non-Maori population (18 percent).

28. Through the development of the Policy, many stakeholders highlighted the disparity between Maori and non-Maori smoking rates within the region as a cause for disproportionate health outcomes for Maori.

29. The Policy aims to address Maori smoking rates through:

· the creation of smoke-free public places

· smoke-free signs to contain awareness based messages in Maori

· focus on the Southern Initiative smoke-free work stream

Implementation

30. There will be additional costs to the local board relating to the printing and installation of smoke-free signage in the high priority sites identified in the report.

31. Staff recommend wall- mounted smoke-free signage as these are hard wearing, have a longer life span and minimises signage pollution.

32. The approximate cost of additional smoke-free signs in the 13 identified sites (Table two) in Phase one is $4,000-6,300. The exact costs will vary depending on:

· the exact number of smoke-free signs required on each site

· if there are many smoke-free messages (e.g. mass printing of one message is more cost effective)

· the positioning and installation of the smoke-free signs

33. These estimated costs are one off costs. Any ongoing costs will be covered within signage maintenance and renewal budgets.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Team Leader, Regionwide Social Policy

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Orākei Local Board

03 July 2014

Auckland Transport Update - Orakei Local Board: June 2014

File No.: CP2014/14001

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Board on a range of transport related issues in Orakei area during June 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a) receives the June report from Auckland Transport.

b) requests Auckland Transport to provide a Rough Order of Costs to install parking bays within Stonefields.

c) allocates $90,000 from the Transport Capital Fund to upgrade the entrance to the Landing.

d) approves a fixed cost estimate of $20,000 from the Transport Capital Fund to improve the pedestrian crossings by applying texured paint at the intersections of Victoria Avenue, Remuera Road and Clonbern Road.

Implementation – Monthly Overview

Orakei Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

The process for LBTCF projects

2. Either a Rough Order of Cost (ROC) will be provided to the Orakei Local Board for projects, or if a project does not meet the listed criteria it will be declined. When the Rough Order of Cost is provided the Orakei Local Board must formally authorise the next step in the delivery of these projects, which is detailed investigation, design, and a firm estimate. The Board then approves or not, the project for construction. The costs incurred for detailed investigation, design, consultation and construction of these projects will be deducted from Orakei Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund. Please see commentary on the progress of current ROC’s also for further updates see attachment A.

i. Remuera Village Upgrade (REVup), sub-project 2.3: Remuera Road entrance to Village Green – Footpath upgrade
The ROC previously reported of $45,000 has been increased to $50,000 to allow for more input to the design of the paving and selection of the appropriate stone sets. This is currently in design phase and it is expected it can be completed by end of October 2014.

ii. Remuera Village Upgrade (REVup), sub-project 2.5: Lane upgrade with a design incorporating coloured concrete at a likely ROC of $108,000
There has been an additional estimate for the design cost for the artwork in the concrete paving of approximately $12,000 bringing the ROC up to $120,000.This is currently in design phase and it is expected to be completed by end of October 2014.

iii. Remuera Village Upgrade (REVup), sub-project 2.7: Lane wall: wall panels of perforated metal screens
The initial ROC estimate was $25,000. There was concern from the architect that this was too low. The ROC has therefore been increased to $40,000. This is currently in design phase and it is expected to be completed by end of October 2014.

iv. Summerhill Footpath Project
This project is waiting for the implementation by the new footpaths team. It is expected to be completed early in the new financial year

v. Remuera Intersection Upgrade
The intersections of Victoria Aveune, Remuera Road and Clonbern Street are offset and can create confusion for pedestrains in Remuera. The proposal is to improve these intersection by putting textured paint at all five crossing points of this intersection. This work would be completed in conjunction with the other REVup projects.

Mission Bay Streetscape

3. This project has progressed over the last month. Auckland Transport have met with board Member Baguely and the Mission Bay property owners, this was to establish agreement on how it is planned to move forward. Currently design and final costing are being progressed, it is expected that these will be confirmed towards the end of June, beginning of July. It will be then that Auckland Transport will be in a position to confirm the fixed order of cost for the Transport Capital Fund.

Tamaki Drive to Glen Innes Cycleway

4. The Transport Agency has confirmed a budget of $13m to complete the stages of this project that begin at the Glen Innes train and continues to Tamaki Drive. This has been widely publicised in the media and it is a great opportunity for the community of the Orakei Local Board to have a wonderful active transport asset created in their backyard.

Tamaki Drive/Ngapipi Road

5. This project is currently in detailed design and undergoing internal review process, this will look to start construction towards the middle of 2015, this will be influenced by key event and visitor numbers. Auckland Transport will look to avoid disruption as much as possible, given this is a significant intersection for the people of Orakei.

Parking Strategy

6. At the time of this report Auckland Transport have agreed to attend 4 workshops hosted by the Orakei Local Board and the business and residents assocations of the Orakei Ward. Auckland Transport is grateful for the support from the board in providing opportunities for their stakeholders to engage in this process. Due to the high level of interest in this document, the timeframe to receive feedback has been extended to 31 July 2014.

Remuera

7. Following the crash on Lillington Road, injuring two school children, Auckland Transport have investigated the possiblility of implementing a formal zebra crossing . At this stage there is only need for it between 3pm and 3:10pm, this is not significant enough for a zebra crossing. There have been tube counts done to establish if there is a speed issue which may warrant speed calming or other pedestrian interventions.

Stonefields

8. The installation of road safety infrastructure around Stonefields School has changed the intention of the on road use within the community. A meeting will be scheduled to discuss options available to manage the on road issues in Stonefields. A possible solution is for the board to use their Transport Capital Fund to install additional parking bays.

Ellerslie

9. The update for Ellerslie includes Gavin Street and Ladies Mile, which are both outlined below.

i. Gavin Street
Recently an Auckland Transport engineer visited the site and undertook an initial review of the issues raised. The speed count done on the residential end of Gavin Street indicated that the average speed is 29km, further detailed investigation now needs to be undertaken to ensure a comprehensive review of the matter. This investigation has been prioritised with an expected completion date of late September 2014.

ii. Ladies Mile

Following consultation from Morrin Street to Marua Road, Auckland Transport needs to review the proposal and provide additional solutions. The transport portfolio holder will be consulted before options are presented in the next report.

Implementation Issues

Table1 Implementation issues and future action

AT Ref #	TPL Ref #	Issue	Discussion	Action
AT2012/007954	9.8	Suggestions for new Pedestrian Crossing layouts in Ellerslie Town Centre	Auckland Council Urban Design staff have suggested options for improving pedestrian crossings in this town centre.	June 2014 - The road safety team are currently reviewing the implementation of pedestrian crossings suggested by the operations team.
	9.99	Shore Road Median Strip	A number of safety concerns have been raised about Shore Road, particularly in the area near Bloodworth Park and the Shore Road Reserve.	This project is on the programme; however, it is unlikely to be delivered until the 2016/2017 financial year. If the board would like to have this refuge delivered before then, it could consider prioritising this as a Transport Capital Fund project. Auckland Transport is looking to provide a pedestrian link from the new walkway across Shore Road, by the entrance to Martyn Wilson Reserve.
N/A	N/A	Stonefields Parking	It has been reported that the high density housing units that are currently being built only have one car park for each three bedroom unit and there are no parking bays on the streets. Many of the new units are used as rental properties and have multiple vehicles at each residence. This is resulting in the streets having cars parked down both sides, some partly on the berms and reducing the road width (at times) to one lane only.	History: This issue was discussed at the May 2013, Orakei Local Board Meeting. Auckland Transport was asked to comment on a memo from Auckland Council. Auckland Transport has provided comment and has asked for this matter to be removed from the ‘Issues Register’. At the July 2013 Orakei Local Board meeting members requested that this item remain on the register. March 2014, a meeting with Auckland Transport and the Stonefields Residents association is scheduled for. June 2014. Road Safety have implemented broken yellow lines around the school as part of their school travel plan, however, this decision changes the intention of parking in this community. There are limited options available, and AT will need to meet with the Stonefields community to discuss these. It is possible for the Board to fund additional parking bays as part of their Transport Capital Fund.
N/A	9.98	‘The Landing’ Entrance	The Orakei Local Board has raised safety concerns around the entrance to ‘The Landing’.	June 2014, a ROC was requested for funding the entrance way in conjunction with Auckland Council. This is still being considered to ensure it meets the requirements under the Transport Capital Fund criteria.
CAS-53331-Q7N6T6		Broken Yellow Lines St Johns Road and Gowing Drive	Broken yellow lines have been installed around the St Johns Road and Gowing Drive intersection. A Board member has requested that they be extended further. This is because cars are still allowed to park on St Johns Road at the top of the T-intersection with Gowing Drive, creating a very tight turn, with little room between traffic turning right from St Johns Road onto Gowing Drive and traffic continuing on St Johns Road towards College Road.	History: This is currently in investigation design and will be implemented by end of March 2014. This has been completed and will be removed from this schedule.
N/A		Support Orakei Local Board urban design initiatives	Auckland Transport has been requested to work with Auckland Council’s Urban Design Team on the following issues: 1. Creating a boulevard effect by planting further oak trees on the north side of Remuera Rd around the Victoria Ave shops; and 2. Issues relating to the Village Green project in respect of aspects where Auckland Transport has a role.	Auckland Transport continues to work with Auckland Council to support development of the Village Green ReVup plan on an as required basis. There is no intention for AT to undertake further involvement, other than as a support and advocate for the Board to deliver these projects.

10.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund Funancial Update	261
b View	Paved Entrance Strip - The Landing	263

Signatories

Authors	Georgina Morgan - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Chairperson	Desley Simpson, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Mark Thomas
Members	Ken Baguley
	Troy Churton
	Kate Cooke
	Colin Davis, JP
	Kit Parkinson

Authors	Kris Munday – Senior Advisor – Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Authors	Anthony Lewis - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Authors	Alastair Child – Principal Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards