|
Resolution number PKTPP/2014/133
MOVED
by Member NJ Turnbull, seconded by Member DA Holm:
That the Puketāpapa
Local Board:
a) thank Belinda Hansen for her
attendance.
b) provides the following
feedback on the Draft Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy:
i
Proposed
broad areas
The board agrees with the approach
of having two general broad areas within the proposed policy. However, the
board suggests there be further consideration given to including areas on the
fringe of Area A, such as Newmarket and Parnell, in Area A.
ii
Priority
overlays
That the priority overlays are a
sensible mechanism and need to be accompanied by clear review mechanisms and
processes for removing or adding to these areas should any change be needed.
iii
Temporary
freeze in the priority overlay areas
a.
That
there be a temporary freeze on licence applications in the priority overlay
areas to limit the further proliferation of licences and to minimise
alcohol-related harm.
b.
That the
freeze last as long as it takes to see a significant reduction in
alcohol-related harm in the affected area and that before the freeze is
lifted there should be a review that includes all available evidence, input
from the local board and a specific decision by the governing body.
iv Rebuttable
presumption
That the “rebuttable presumption”
approach is an excellent safeguard for neighbourhood centres which are prone
to the proliferation of liquor outlets, often because of deteriorating
economic conditions, and notes that there needs to be a high threshold for
decisions to grant a licence where the rebuttable presumption applies. We
would like to see the rebuttable presumption expanded to cover local centres.
v Environmental
and Cumulative Impact Assessments
a.
That it
strongly supports the supports the introduction of Environmental and
cumulative impact assessments, and in particular supports the sensitive site
assessments.
b.
That the
proposed list of sites to be considered sensitive is adequate.
c.
That the
introduction of this tool needs to be supported with good advice on its use.
It is important that it does not deteriorate into a tool for drafting
mitigating conditions and that it is used to actually support a yes/no
decision on a licence application;
d.
We
suggest that training be developed and put in place to ensure the proper use
and understanding of this tool.
e.
There
also needs to be a programme of review and a timetable for the assessment of
this tool as it is the most experimental element of the proposed policy;
vi The Maximum
hours of operation for off-licences
The local board supports the
proposed opening hours with a commencement of no earlier than 9.00 a.m. and a
closing time of 10.00 p.m. This will help move people to making a considered
decision to purchase alcohol.
vii On-licences,
club and special licences
We are in agreement with the
provisions for on-licences, and support shorter opening hours in Area B than
in Area A.
viii Applications for
extensions
a.
We support the provisions regarding
applications for extended opening hours as long as there is a rigorous
process to ensure that only good practice operators are granted extensions.
b.
We agree that best practice on-licence
holders should be able to apply for trial extended hours to a maximum of two
hours and ask that evidence of best practice could include the provision of
affordable transport to a safe place for patrons who could be at risk or be a
risk to the public, at times when public transport is no longer available.
ix Discretionary
conditions
The local board
supports the proposed discretionary conditions although we consider the
proposed conditions about stopping serving particular types of drinks (e.g.,
clause 4.5.2) may be too complex for licensees to apply.
CARRIED
|
