I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Papakura Local Board will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Wednesday, 16 July 2014 4.30pm Local Board
Chambers |
Papakura Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Bill McEntee |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Michael Turner |
|
Members |
Stuart Britnell |
|
|
Brent Catchpole |
|
|
Graham Purdy |
|
|
Katrina Winn |
|
(Quorum 3 members)
|
|
Trish Wayper Local Board Democracy Advisor
10 July 2014
Contact Telephone: (09) 295 1331 Email: Patricia.Wayper@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Papakura Local Board 16 July 2014 |
|
1 Welcome 5
2 Apologies 5
3 Declaration of Interest 5
4 Confirmation of Minutes 5
5 Leave of Absence 5
6 Acknowledgements 5
7 Petitions 5
8 Deputations 5
9 Public Forum 5
10 Extraordinary Business 5
11 Notices of Motion 6
12 Councillors' Update 7
13 Papakura Local Event Support Fund - Round 1 2014/2015 9
14 Massey Park Pool and Papakura Recreation Centre Management Contract 61
15 Community Group Funding - The Youth Spaces Charitable Trust - Request or Change of Grant Use to that Previously Approved 63
16 Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback 65
17 Local Board Role in Alcohol Licence Applications 203
18 Auckland Transport Update - July 2014 211
19 Draft Allocation of Decision Making Review 221
20 Urgent Decisions: Papakura Local Board-Discretionary Budgets 263
21 Reports Requested - Pending - Issues 267
22 Papakura Local Board Achievements Register 2013-2016 Electoral Term 277
23 Papakura Local Board Workshop Notes 283
24 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
25 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 295
1 Welcome
A Board Member will lead the meeting in prayer.
2 Apologies
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
3 Declaration of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
4 Confirmation of Minutes
That the Papakura Local Board: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 18 June 2014, as a true and correct record.
|
5 Leave of Absence
At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
6 Acknowledgements
At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.
7 Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
8 Deputations
At the close of the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.
9 Public Forum
A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.
10 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
11 Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Papakura Local Board 16 July 2014 |
|
File No.: CP2014/15147
Purpose
1. An opportunity is provided for Councillors’ Calum Penrose and Sir John Walker to update the Board on Governing Body issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.
Executive Summary
2. Nil.
a) That the Councillors’ update be received.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Trish Wayper - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
Papakura Local Board 16 July 2014 |
|
Papakura Local Event Support Fund - Round 1 2014/2015
File No.: CP2014/10771
Purpose
1. To present a summary of applications received in round one of the contestable local event support fund for 2014-2015 for the Papakura Local Board. The Papakura Local Board is requested to either fund, partially fund or decline the applications.
Executive Summary
2. A local events support fund of $109,231 is available to the Papakura Local Board for distribution for community events in 2014-2015.
3. The Papakura Local Board allocated $103,000 for events in the 2014-2015 CDAC Work Programme, adopted on 18 June 2014 (PPK/2014/108).
4. A balance of $6,231 remains available to the Papakura Local Board for contestable event funding to be distributed in two funding rounds.
5. Seven applications totalling $28,000 have been received for round one. Summary coversheets of these applications are provided in Attachment A.
6. A workshop was held with the Papakura Local Board on 2 July 2014 to consider the applications for round one. Indicative levels of funding were proposed, to be formally agreed.
That the Papakura Local Board: a) Agree to either fund, partially fund or decline the applications for round one 2014/2015 Local Event Support Fund as follows:
|
Comments
7. A local events support fund of $109,231 is available to the Papakura Local Board for distribution for community events in 2014-2015 in the 2014/2015 financial year.
8. The local event support fund provides the opportunity for the Papakura Local Board to work in partnership with local event organisers to develop an events programme that reflects the aspirations of the community and supports the local board plan.
9. The Papakura Local Board agreed to support the following events, with the adoption of the Community Development Arts and Culture 2014/2015 Work Programme, presented on 18 June (PPK/2014/108):
NZRL Secondary School Competition 2014 (3Yr of 3Yr Contract) |
$25,000 |
Papakura Fireworks Spectacular |
$22,000 |
Papakura Carols in the Park |
$25,000 |
Papakura Santa Parade |
$15,000 |
PIPS Canoe Day |
$2,500 |
Papakura Waitangi Day |
$3,000 |
Armistice Day |
$2,500 |
Movies in the Park |
$8,000 |
Total |
$103,000 |
10. The local events support fund has a balance of $6,231 remaining to be distributed in two funding rounds, which close at specified times during the 2014-2015 financial year, as follows:
Round |
Applications Close |
Assessment |
Decision Making |
1 |
31 May 2014 |
June 2014 |
July/August 2014 |
2 |
31 October 2014 |
November 2014 |
December 2014/February 2015 |
11. Round one of the 2014-15 local event support fund received seven applications totalling $28,000. Summary coversheets of these applications are provided in Attachment A.
12. Local event support funding criteria guidelines for 2014/2015 have been established to assist applicants in understanding the focus of this fund and to guide decision-making. The applications have been assessed in accordance with the local event support fund guidelines.
13. The Papakura Local Board has the opportunity to refer applications to another fund or to allocate funding from its local event fund.
Consideration
14. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board event funding including the local event support fund. The Papakura Local Board has identified key priorities for the local area within its local board plan, some of which could be achieved through events.
15. The Papakura Local Board seeks to engage with their diverse communities and provide for their social and cultural needs. Supporting local community events, especially youth and water-based events, assists in building a strong sense of community and ensures that each community maintains its own identity.
Local Board Views and Implications
16. A local board workshop was held on 2 July 2014 to consider the applications to the local event support fund round one. This report reflects the views of local board members expressed at the workshop.
Maori Impact Statement
17. This fund does not specifically target Maori groups, however Maori communities are likely to benefit from the events supported by the local board, alongside other groups in the community.
18. The decisions sought within this report fall within the local board delegations.
19. The decisions sought do not invoke the Auckland Council Significance Policy.
Implementation
20. Once the Papakura Local Board has resolved the funding applications, staff will contact all applicants to notify them of the outcome, and commence contracting and payment.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Funding Application Cover Sheets |
13 |
Signatories
Authors |
Sharon McGinity - Team Leader, Event Facilitation South |
Authorisers |
Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
16 July 2014 |
|
Massey Park Pool and Papakura Recreation Centre Management Contract
File No.: CP2014/12881
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to advise the Papakura Local Board that the two recreation facility management contracts currently in place for Massey Park Pool and Papakura Recreation Centre come to an end June 2015 and the new contracts, when awarded will be aligned to the Auckland Plan and Papakura Local Board outcomes.
Executive summary
In June 2013 the Regional Development and Operations Committee approved the commencement of a process to procure management contracts for council owned pools and leisure centres whose contracts expired June 2014, including Massey Park Pool.
Following a briefing on the procurement approach Papakura Local Board agreed to extend the management contract of the Massey Park Pool by one year to align with Papakura Recreation Centre management contract coming to an end June 2015.
Massey Park Pool and Papakura Recreation Centre management contracts now come to an end June 2015.
On 4 June 2014 Council Staff attended a workshop with Papakura Local Board where the procurement timeline was discussed and the following items were agreed to in principle;
· Assurance of continuity dialogue throughout the terms of the new contracts.
· Local Board objectives previously agreed to; health and fitness, sports development and leagues, community hub, fundamental movement, targeted local communities and targeted outreach programmes.
· Local Board engagement plan
· Duel branding of uniforms
· Accurate and live reporting
· Success indicators
· Priority for youth and elderly
· Priority for long term user groups
That the Papakura Local Board: a) Confirms their support for Massey Park pool and Papakura Recreation Centre management contracts are included in the current procurement process for recreation facility management contracts. b) Confirms their support of the new facility management contract outcomes listed above.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Judy Tipping - Contract Relationships Manager |
Authorisers |
Rob McGee - Manager Leisure – Parks, Sports and Recreation Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
Papakura Local Board 16 July 2014 |
|
Community Group Funding - The Youth Spaces Charitable Trust - Request or Change of Grant Use to that Previously Approved
File No.: CP2014/13130
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Papakura Local Board for a change of use for the community funding grant allocated to the Youth Spaces Charitable Trust.
Executive summary
2. On 18 September 2013, The Youth Spaces Charitable Trust was granted $2,260 from the Papakura Local Board Community Grants fund towards the purchase of two portable Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) electronic scoreboards. These were to be used by the junior and youth participants of the Papakura Junior Basketball programme as well as Papakura community groups.
3. On 9 May 2014, an email was received from the secretary/treasurer of this group advising that since receiving the grant, two portable LCD electronic scoreboards have been donated from a family who are supportive of the work of the trust.
4. The donated scoreboards will be used by the junior and youth participants of the Papakura Junior Basketball programme as well as Papakura community groups.
5. The Youth Spaces Charitable Trust is requesting approval from the board to change the use of the approved community funding grant and use the $2,260 towards the hireage of the Papakura Recreation and Fitness Centre stadium and for the purchase of playing uniform tops for the junior and youth participants of the Papakura Junior Basketball programme.
6. The Board’s approval is now sought for a change of use for the community grant funding to The Youth Spaces Charitable Trust.
That the Papakura Local Board: a) approves the request from The Youth Spaces Charitable Trust to change the agreed use of the 2013/2014 Round One Papakura Local Board Community Grant of $2,260, and reallocate the funding towards hireage of the Papakura Recreation and Fitness Centre stadium and to purchase playing uniform tops for the junior and youth participants of the Papakura Junior Basketball programme. |
Comments
7. A request was received, by email, on 9 May 2014 from the secretary/treasurer of The Youth Spaces Charitable Trust advising that a grant of $2,260 was approved by the Papakura Local Board on 28 September 2013, to purchase two portable LCD electronic scoreboards (Resolution Number PPK/2013/248). Consequently, two portable electronic scoreboards have been donated by a family who are supportive of the work of this trust.
8. The Youth Spaces Charitable Trust is requesting the board’s approval to reallocate the use of the approved community funding grant and use this grant towards the hireage of the Papakura Recreation and Fitness Centre stadium and to purchase playing uniform tops for the junior and youth participants of the Papakura Junior Basketball programme. Quotes have been provided for the uniforms and venue hire.
Local board views and implications
9. The Papakura Local Board is being requested to approve a change in allocation for a community funding grant.
Maori impact statement
10. The proposed programme will benefit Maori along with other community members in the Papakura Local Board area.
Implementation
11. The funding advisors within the Regional Strategic Community Initiatives team of Community Development and Safety South will confirm, in writing, the decision of the board to The Youth Space Charitable Trust.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Jan Perkins - Community Funding Co-ordinator South |
Authorisers |
Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
Papakura Local Board 16 July 2014 |
|
Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback
File No.: CP2014/13514
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.
That the Papakura 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.
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 |
||
Metro Centres |
Neigh- bourhood centres |
Rest of Broad Area B |
|||||
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 |
||
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 Papakura 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. Papakura Local Board Feedback
Topic |
Local Board feedback |
Officer response |
Location and proximity |
· The policy should provide for local boards to be responsible for where on and off sales are located, such as sensitive areas like schools, early childhood education centres; the density both throughout Papakura and individual neighbourhoods and the hours of operating as circumstances vary per local board area |
· Given that the Act only allows the council to develop one regional alcohol policy, the delegation to adopt the Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy sits with the Governing Body. · However, local boards have an important role to play in shaping the final LAP. To support this role, officers have developed a process for local boards to provide feedback directly to Hearings Panel (see section 1.2 of this pack for further detail). |
Density |
· Who is going to be responsible for supplying the Cumulative Impact Assessment required under the policy?
|
· The Environmental Cumulative Impact Assessment would be completed by the council officers · The assessment would review existing premises in the area, risk ratings of those premises, patron capacity of those current licences, hours as well as surrounding land uses, socio economic, demographic and alcohol-related harm indicators for the surrounding area. · The DLC or ARLA will then be provided with this information to inform their decision-making. |
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.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2014: Statement of Proposal |
81 |
bView |
Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting May 2014 - Resolutions on draft Local Alcohol Policy |
197 |
cView |
A3 Copies of Tables 7 and 8 from report |
199 |
dView |
Key Topics for Feedback from Local Boards |
201 |
Signatories
Authors |
Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst |
Authorisers |
Penny Pirrit - Regional and Local Planning Manager Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
16 July 2014 |
|
Key topics for local board feedback
1. Proposed broad areas
2. Priority Overlay
3. Temporary Freeze in Broad Area A
4. Temporary Freeze in the Priority Overlay
5. Presumption against new off-licences in neighbourhood centres and in former freeze areas after two years
6. Use of the Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment (ECIA) tool based on location and risk of premises
7. Matters to be covered within the ECIA
8. Proposed maximum hours for off-licences
9. Proposed maximum hours for club licences
10. Proposed maximum standard hours for on-licences
11. Ability for best practice on-licences to apply for trial extended hours
12. Assessment process for trial extended hours
13. Proposed discretionary conditions for on, off and club licences
14. Proposal for special licence hours to be determined on a case by case basis
15. Proposed discretionary conditions for special licences
16 July 2014 |
|
Local Board Role in Alcohol Licence Applications
File No.: CP2014/15061
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to seek local board feedback on the role local boards could play in alcohol licence applications, a process that was established by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.
Executive summary
2. 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.
3. To inform the discussion about the role of local boards in alcohol licence applications, Local Board Services has drafted an issues paper for consideration by local boards. Local boards’ formal feedback is being sought on this issue. This formal feedback will inform a report to the governing body on this issue. The report will seek the governing body’s decision on the preferred option for local boards to provide input into alcohol licence applications.
That the Papakura Local Board: a) Provide feedback on the preferred option for local boards to provide input into alcohol licence applications.
|
Comments
4. The Alcohol Act establishes processes for alcohol licence applications.
5. 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 (DLCs), 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).
6. 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 DLCs. 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
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. To inform the discussion about the role of local boards in alcohol licence applications, Local Board Services has drafted an issues paper which is attached at Attachment A. The issues paper sets out the role the governing body and local boards currently have under the Alcohol Act, the process for licence applications under the Alcohol Act and options for local board involvement in these.
10. Feedback from local boards is being sought on the preferred option for local boards to provide input into alcohol licence applications. This formal feedback will inform a report to the governing body on this issue. The report will seek the governing body’s decision on the preferred option for local boards to provide input into alcohol licence applications. All formal local board feedback will be compiled into a report and included as an appendix to the governing body report.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
11. Local board views are being sought via this report. An outcome of this process could see local boards playing a different role in alcohol licence applications to what they presently do.
Maori impact statement
12. Māori are likely to be interested in and impacted by DLC decisions on alcohol licence applications. This is an issue for the DLCs when considering alcohol licence applications.
Implementation
13. Local board feedback will be analysed and will inform a report to the governing body. This report will seek a decision from the governing body on their preferred role of local boards in alcohol licence applications.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Local Board Role in Alcohol Licence Applications - Issues and Options |
205 |
Signatories
Authors |
Christine Gulik – Policy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
Papakura Local Board 16 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:
(c) any relevant local alcohol policy:
(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.
16 July 2014 |
|
Auckland Transport Update - July 2014
File No.: CP2014/15209
Purpose
1. The purpose of the report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to Elected Members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities in the local board area.
Executive summary
2. This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Papakura Local Board and its community; matters of general interest relating to AT activities or the transport sector; and AT media releases for the information of the Board and community.
That the Papakura Local Board: a) Receives this report. b) Gives detailed design approval (under the Local Board Transport Capital Fund) for $110,000 to refresh the signage in Papakura as outlined in Attachment A
|
Discussion
Local Board Transport Capital Fund:
3. The Papakura Local Board is allocated $306,184 per annum from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF). These funds can be used annually or rolled together to use the full three years’ of funding i.e. $918,552 for larger projects.
4. The Board has asked Auckland Transport to investigate using the LBCTF allocation to undertake the following projects:
Project |
Description |
Status |
Projected Cost |
Refresh of signage in Papakrua |
refresh of navigation and directional signage, identification of parking buildings and areas of significance/interest (Maraes, galleries) |
AT Traffic Operations will roll out a number of signs in the 14/15 financial year on the Great South Road Route including the heavy vehicle bypass of Papakura.
The remaining signage and Rough Order of Cost are as follows: Supply and Install (Attachment A) - $75,000 Traffic Management - $15,000 Design / checking of services / consultation - $15,000 AT Staff time for programme management/contract management - $5,000
Total for Board approval = $110,000
|
$110,000 |
Connection of Railway Station and Town Centre: |
Working with the urban design team, lead, Auckland Transport will look at ways of linking the town centre with the Railway station (ie: a covered pedestrian walkway).
|
Potential projects are being discussed with Transport leads to bring to the August Board meeting |
|
All weather over bridge |
Investigate placing a cover on the walkway that connects east and west across the Papakura Train Station. |
In June, the Board approved $10,000 to commission a draft design outlining the suite of options available. This will include a full project budget estimate and is expected to be discussed at the September Board meeting.
|
Approximate costs are:
$160k to cover the main span of the bridge and about $50k for each set of stairs.
This is based on a very rough unit cost of $900/Sq m for a Structureflex type canopy. |
Cycle lanes: |
Auckland Transport is working on a Rough Order of Cost for the following three areas: Connecting Great South Road to the Papakura railway station (down Chapel and up Railways Street West), connecting Grove Road with Bruce Pullman Park and the inland straight of Conifer Grove (along the motorway).
|
Ongoing |
|
5. The local board transport portfolio members will continue to work closely with Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager to develop project plans in the priority areas stated above.
Walters Road Update
6. The commencement of work has been delayed due to the weather. Works will commence as soon as the weather clears.
7. The objective is to provide kerb and channel along the southern side of Walters Road, between the railway and Porchester Road. The northern side and part of the southern side of the road are kerbed as part of the intersection signalisation for the Warehouse development.
Mill Road Corridor Project Update
8. All expert reports and plans are being completed ready for the lodgment of the Notices of Requirement (NoR) in September 2014. Additional cycling and pedestrian provisions have been added to the scheme.
Board Consultations
Bus Layover – Papakura Town Centre
9. Auckland Transport provided the Board a copy of the consultation package for proposed bus stop and bus layover changes in the Papakura Town Centre. The Local Board are not supportive of the proposal and have sent a letter to AT Senior Management asking AT to consider removal of bus services and associated bus stop infrastructure from Great South Road in central Papakura and focus bus services solely on the Papakura Interchange. Discussion on this issue is ongoing.
Walters Road – Kerb and Chennel
10. Auckland Transport consulted with the Board to provide kerb and channel along the southern side of Walters Road between the railway and Porchester Road. The Board is supportive of this proposal.
General Information Items:
Extension of Consultation Period for Draft Parking Discussion Document
11. Due to the level of interest in its draft Parking Discussion Document, Auckland Transport has now extended the public consultation period to 31 July.
12. For the first time in decades, there is an opportunity to look at parking requirements and principles right across the region and Auckland Transport is seeking input on what the public and stakeholders think of its proposed approach.
13. Taking action on a new set of parking principles will bring benefits to residents and businesses. It occasionally means trade-offs, but will result in better outcomes for everyone and assist in Auckland Transport’s contribution to economic growth in our region.
14. Auckland Transport is seeking high level views at this stage with an opportunity for more localised, detailed and specific feedback following later.
15. The process will be:
· 31 July – submissions close
· August/September – submissions to be collated and grouped. Proposed responses will be developed by Auckland Transport’s Strategic Planning Group working with Auckland Council
· September/October – recommendations will be put before the Auckland Transport Board to make a decision on key principles to form a Parking Strategy for the Auckland region
· November/December – the Parking Strategy will be finalised
· 2015 – detailed, localised public consultations begin on each parking principle, with implementation timeframes depending on the scale of each principle. Some may be sooner; some may be phased in over a period of years.
16. The main issues and themes coming through in submissions so far include:
· Conflicts between business and residential parking requirements
· Competing demands between residents and commuters over limited parking spaces, particularly in the city centre and fringe
· Removal of on-street parking on arterial roads or use of extended clearways to enable faster public transport journeys
· Long stay commuter parking and short stay parking impacting on local businesses
· Insufficient Park and Ride supply to assist public transport growth
· A desire for improved public transport to limit the use of private vehicles to help manage congestion
· Effective parking management and public transport supply for industrial park areas.
17. Auckland Transport is keen to get wide views on a range of suggested approaches to improve Auckland’s parking, but specifically those relating to:
· The city centre, metropolitan and town centres
· Residential streets
· Off-street parking facilities (parking buildings)
· On-street parking restrictions
· Parking permits
· Park and rides.
18. For more information and to have a say on improving Auckland’s parking, please visit https://at.govt.nz/parkingfeedback to find more details about possible solutions, as well as an online feedback form to fill in by 31 July.
Public Transport Fare Changes from July 6, 2014
19. Auckland Transport has completed its Annual Fare Review which will see ticket prices on buses, trains and ferries change from 6 July 2014.
20. From that day, adults who use the AT HOP card for their travel will receive a 20% discount off the single trip adult cash fare (excluding NiteRider, Airbus Express and Waiheke ferry services). Child and tertiary AT HOP users will also continue to receive discounts on most services, when compared to the equivalent cash fares. In contrast, most cash fares for bus and train and some cash fares for ferry will increase, though some AT HOP fares for ferries will also increase.
21. The annual fare review takes into account operator cost increases (e.g. fuel and wages), revenue and patronage movements. Auckland Transport is also undertaking a strategic review of all public transport costs and pricing, which is due to be completed towards the end of the year.
22. By making travel even more attractive on the AT HOP card, Auckland Transport is hoping even more people will switch to using public transport. In March there was a jump in the number of people using public transport in Auckland with 7.3 million trips, an increase of 3.9% on March last year. The financial year to March also saw strong growth overall with just over 71 million trips.
23. In addition to an increased discount on AT HOP, from 6 July Auckland Transport will also remove the 25 cent top-up fee and reduce the minimum top-up amount on the card from $10 to $5. The card itself will also remain at $5 until at least 31 January 2015.
24. From 6 July, cash fares will be priced in 50 cent multiples to reduce cash handling on particularly buses, with the exception of the City LINK child cash fare which will remain at 30 cents. Auckland Transport also hopes to move to implementing an exact fare/no change given policy in the future and will investigate the potential of removing cash fares altogether, as has recently been introduced in Sydney.
25. For more information on AT HOP, visit www.at.govt.nz
Media Releases
Land Transport Amendment Bill Report
26. Parliament's Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has reported back on the Land Transport Amendment Bill and recommended that it be passed with amendments proposed by the Committee. If passed into law as recommended, the changes will come into force on 1 December 2014.
27. The Land Transport Amendment Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998, to address the problem of alcohol-impaired driving. The bill seeks to:
· lower the adult legal alcohol limits from 80 to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and from 400 to 250 micrograms per litre of breath
· create an infringement regime for adult drivers who return an evidential breath test result in the range of 251 to 400 mcg per litre, with proposed penalties of an infringement fee of $200 and 50 demerit points (There would be no right to request a blood test in these circumstances.)
· set a higher infringement fee of $500 plus 50 demerit points, plus the costs of the blood test, for adult drivers who fail or refuse to undergo the breath test, and whose blood test results are in the infringement range (51 to 80 mg per 100 ml), and
· address a loophole in the Act regarding drivers who cannot give blood samples for medical or physical reasons, by allowing prosecution of a driver for refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken on a subsequent occasion, if a required blood specimen again cannot be taken for physical or medical reasons.
Davies Avenue Boulevard Opens
28. A dawn blessing led by local iwi was held in Manukau in June to mark the completion of Davies Avenue Boulevard. The blessing was attended by Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board members, Auckland Transport, Auckland Council and project contractors.
29. The redeveloped Davies Avenue Boulevard connects the train station, the planned new bus interchange, the Manukau Institute of Technology (MIT) campus, the surrounding residential and commercial area and the car park at the northern end of Davies Avenue. The project also enhances the integration of Hayman Park with MIT and the commercial areas of Manukau city centre.
30. The Davies Avenue Boulevard incorporates new seating, lighting, landscaping and a wide shared path for cyclists and pedestrians along the park’s edge. The Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board wanted to create a pedestrian friendly environment by bringing Hayman Park closer to the town centre and rejuvenating the park’s edge to encourage more people to use and enjoy the park and surrounds.
31. Within the avenue’s plaza, Puriri trees are planted and abstracted Puriri tree leaf motifs have been created in the pavement. The Puriri motifs together with the planting reflect the strong Maori culture in Manukau and celebrate the native flora of the area. The plaza area will also provide opportunity for community markets, festivals and events.
32. Davies Avenue has been changed to a single road with one traffic lane in each direction. This will improve road safety with the reduced speed limit and makes better use of the land for pedestrians, cyclists and park users. The realignment of the road and new lighting allows for better surveillance of the area.
33. The project was jointly funded by the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board, Auckland Transport, Auckland Council Economic Development and Auckland Council Parks.
Wiri Depot Wins Award
34. At New Zealand's prestigious Property Industry awards on 13 June, Auckland Transport’s Wiri Electric Train Maintenance and Stabling Facility (Wiri Depot) building was entered for the Warren and Mahoney Special Purpose Property Award and received an ‘Excellence’ Award in that category.
35. Evaluation criteria included economic and financial factors, project vision and innovation (including degree of difficulty), design and construction, owner and user satisfaction, sustainability and efficiency of operation.
36. The Wiri Depot is considered a state of the art facility and one of the very best anywhere in the world. It was delivered on time and on budget in 2013.
Save Money and Help the Environment by Carpooling
37. Carpooling is a great way to reduce daily transportation costs, and the more people included in the carpool, the more money can be saved. In Auckland, commuters could save around $10 per day when sharing a car between two.
38. To calculate your savings, use the cost calculator on the Let’s Carpool website – www.letscarpool.govt.nz
39. The website also enables visitors to find people living and working near them who are looking to join a carpool, or talk to friends and colleagues about setting up their own carpool.
40. As well as cost savings, carpooling also reduces the number of cars on the road, easing congestion and making it a faster trip for everyone. Having another person in the car also makes journeys more enjoyable and interesting. Another benefit of having two people in the car is the ability to use T2 transit lanes.
41. There are just under 5000 people registered in Auckland for Let’s Carpool, so there’s a good chance of a suitable match.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Signage List |
219 |
Signatories
Authors |
Felicity Merrington – Elected Member Relationship Manager (South), Auckland Transport |
Authorisers |
Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
Papakura Local Board 16 July 2014 |
|
60 |
SETTLEMENT / HUNUA RD |
TR-5 |
Hunua Falls |
$600.00 |
2 |
$1,200.00 |
|
$1,200.00 |
61 |
GSR / SETTLEMENT / OPAHEKE RD |
TR-6 |
Tourist Drive, Hunua Falls |
$1,710.86 |
1 |
$1,710.86 |
|
$1,710.86 |
62 |
GSR/ BEACH RD |
- |
Existing Drury, Redhill, Motorway AD-4 |
$0.00 |
|
$0.00 |
|
$0.00 |
63 |
BEACH/ GSR/ SETTLEMENT RD |
ID-1 |
Town Centre / Clevedon |
$717.76 |
2 |
$1,435.52 |
|
$1,435.52 |
64 |
BEACH/ GSR/ SETTLEMENT RD |
IG-5 |
Heavy Bypass |
$300.00 |
2 |
$600.00 |
|
$600.00 |
65 |
BEACH/ GSR/ SETTLEMENT RD |
IG-12 |
Pukekiwiriki/ Transport/ Equestrian/ Marae/ Civil Defence |
$301.83 |
10 |
$3,018.30 |
|
$3,018.30 |
66 |
BEACH/ GSR/ SETTLEMENT RD |
PN-1 |
Clevedon/ Hunua |
$517.88 |
4 |
$2,071.52 |
$2,071.52 |
$0.00 |
67 |
GSR/ BUTTERWORTH AVE |
AD-4 |
Pap Cleve Ard Conifer |
$7,482.55 |
1 |
$7,482.55 |
|
$7,482.55 |
68 |
HUNUA/ BOUNDARY RD |
TR-1 |
Tourist Drive |
$400.00 |
2 |
$800.00 |
|
$800.00 |
69 |
HUNUA/ DOMINION RD |
TR-1 |
Tourist Drive |
$400.00 |
2 |
$800.00 |
|
$800.00 |
70 |
HUNUA ROAD |
TR-1 |
Tourist Drive |
$400.00 |
1 |
$400.00 |
|
$400.00 |
71 |
BEACH/ ELLIOT/ CHICHESTER DR |
ID-1 |
Town Centre / Clevedon |
$717.76 |
2 |
$1,435.52 |
|
$1,435.52 |
72 |
BEACH/ ELLIOT/ CHICHESTER DR |
TR-6 |
Ardmore airport |
$1,710.86 |
1 |
$1,710.86 |
|
$1,710.86 |
73 |
BEACH/ ELLIOT/ CHICHESTER DR |
IG-12 |
Hawkins/ Transport Hub |
$301.83 |
4 |
$1,207.32 |
|
$1,207.32 |
74 |
BEACH RD/ MOTORWAY |
- |
Existing Papakura sign |
$0.00 |
|
$0.00 |
|
$0.00 |
75 |
GSR/ PARK ESTATE RD |
- |
Existing sign |
$0.00 |
|
$0.00 |
|
$0.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTALS |
|
159 |
$101,822.79 |
$27,590.45 |
$74,232.34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 July 2014 |
|
Draft Allocation of Decision Making Review
File No.: CP2014/15282
Purpose
1. The purpose of the report is to seek local board input to a review of the non-regulatory allocation of decision making as part of the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan (LTP).
Executive summary
2. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (Act) sets out the functions and powers of the governing body and local boards.
3. The governing body is reviewing the non-regulatory decision-making allocation as part of the development of the 2015-2025 LTP. The review is based on the current allocation, with amendments proposed “by exception” where governance experience has demonstrated a need to amend the allocation.
4. To inform the review, Local Board Services has drafted an issues paper for consideration by local boards. The issues paper will be updated to include formal feedback from local boards and reported to the Budget Committee in August 2014.
That the Papakura Local Board: a) provides feedback on the allocation of decision making review issues paper and identify any additional issues relevant to the scope of the review.
|
Comments
5. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (Act) sets out the functions and powers of the governing body and local boards. Local boards functions and powers come from three sources:
i. those directly conferred by the Act;
ii. non-regulatory activities allocated by the governing body to local boards;
iii. Regulatory or non-regulatory functions and powers delegated by the governing body or Auckland Transport to the local boards.
6. The initial decision-making allocation to local boards was made by the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA). The current decision-making allocation was determined as part of the 2012-2022 Long-term Plan (LTP) and was adopted by the governing body. These were both robust and extensive processes. A copy of the current allocation table is Appendix A of this report’s Attachment A.
7. The governing body is reviewing the non-regulatory decision-making allocation as part of the development of the 2015-2025 LTP. This review is based on the current allocation, with amendments proposed “by exception” where governance experience has demonstrated a need to amend the allocation.
8. To inform the review, Local Board Services has drafted an issues paper which is attached at Attachment A. The issues paper sets out the approach and scope of the review and includes issues identified for consideration and feedback from local boards.
9. Local board feedback is not limited to these issues, but should focus on governance rather than operational issues as the latter are out of scope of the review.
10. The issues paper will be updated to include formal feedback from local boards and reported to the Budget Committee in August 2014. Changes to the allocation table will be part of the public consultation on the draft 2015-2025 LTP and any changes to the allocation will not come into effect until 1 July 2015.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
11. Local board views are being sought via this report. Changes to the allocation of non-regulatory decisions could have implications for local board decision-making and budgets.
12. There are no particular impacts on Maori in relation to this report, which are different from other population groups in Auckland.
Maori impact statement
13. Local board feedback will be analysed and reported to the Budget Committee on 13 August 2014. Changes to the allocation table will be part of public consultation on the draft 2015-2025 LTP and any changes to the allocation would come into effect on 1 July 2015.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Allocation of Non-Regulatory Decision-Making Responsibilities - Issues Paper - Local Boards |
223 |
Signatories
Author |
Alastair Child – Principal Local Board Advisor |
Authoriser |
Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
16 July 2014 |
|
Urgent Decisions: Papakura Local Board-Discretionary Budgets
File No.: CP2014/15134
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is for the Papakura Local Board to approve the allocation of discretionary operational budgets to identified projects.
Executive Summary
2. Papakura Local Board had a remaining $15,000 in its 2013/2014 operational fund towards improvements to Papakura Museum. In order to utilise some of the remaining 2013/2014 operational funds, funding was allocated to a project under urgent decision provisions.
3. The local board’s total 2014/2015 discretionary operational budget is $307,533. A project has been identified which could be funded by the discretionary operational budget.
That the Papakura Local Board: a) allocates $930.00 from its Papakura Museum 2013/2014 operational budget for the purchase and installation of a display case for the Papakura District Council mayoral robe and chains; b) allocates $7,800 from its discretionary 2014/2015 operational budget towards the provision of a WW1 centennial commemorative panel at Papakura Museum. |
Discussion
Display of the Papakura District Council Mayoral Robe and Chains
4. Papakura Local Board had a discretionary operational budget for improvements to Papakura Museum in its 2013/2014 budget.
5. Since its formation in 2011, Papakura Local Board has been advocating for the return of the mayoral robe and chains from their current location in Auckland CBD. Return of the items has now been negotiated and a quote received for the provision of a display case at Papakura Museum to house the artefacts.
6. The cost of the display case was $930.00 plus GST. In order to utilise some of the remaining 2013/2014 operational funds, allocation of funding was made under urgent decision provisions (see Attachment A).
World War One Centennial Commemorative Panel
7. The Papakura Local Board discretionary operational budget for 2014/2015 is $307,533.
8. Papakura Museum has commissioned a commemorative panel as part of the commemorations and programme of events recognising the 100 year anniversary of the start of World War One. The panel would be placed on the East Street (rear) external wall of 209 Great South Road and lettering will be placed alongside indicating the presence of the Museum and Library. This will not only commemorate the centennial but will highlight the location of the museum and library for those travelling along East Street who might not otherwise be aware of it.
9. The projected cost of the work is $7,800, inclusive of GST. The work includes the panel, its installation (including a scissor lift) and white dimensional letters to indicate the Museum and Library. Ideally the panel would be in place by August to tie in with that month’s museum programme content. In order that the project can be given the go ahead and a funding agreement completed with the Papakura Museum, allocation of funding was made under urgent decision provisions (see Attachment B).
Consideration
Local Board Views
10. The local board is the decision maker.
Maori Impact Statement
11. No specific impacts on Maori have been identified by any of the projects.
Implementation Issues
12. None.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Urgent Decision - display case for PDC mayoral robe and chains |
265 |
Signatories
Authors |
Karen Gadomski - Senior Local Board Advisor Papakura |
Authorisers |
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
16 July 2014 |
|
Reports Requested - Pending - Issues
File No.: CP2014/15148
Purpose
1. Providing an update on reports requested and issues raised at previous meetings.
Executive Summary
2. Nil
a) That the report entitled “reports requested – pending-issues” by the Democracy Advisor be received.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
July Report |
269 |
Signatories
Authors |
Trish Wayper - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
Papakura Local Board 16 July 2014 |
|
Reports Requested/Pending/Issues JUNE 2014
Row No. |
Date of Resolution |
Group reporting |
Issue |
Resolution/Description |
Officer Item Referred to |
COMMENTS |
1 |
20 June 2012 |
Local and Sports Parks |
Prince Edward Park |
Resolution number PPK/2014/34 That whilst the Papakura Local Board appreciates there has been delays in progress for the design work at Prince Edward Park it is critical that the lighting works be completed by 24 March 2014.
Resolution number PPK/2012/1 That the Papakura Sea Eagles Rugby League Club be thanked for their presentation and that the proposal be referred to parks staff for consideration and report back to the Papakura Local Board.
|
Andrew Moor |
The project is still experiencing delays with consenting and delivery of components. With the change in weather and ground conditions on the fields the parks Advisor is compiling a number of options for the timing and execution of the project. This will be discussed with Board members and the League Club in an attempt to achieve the best outcome for the development of the park
The detailed design has now been completed, ready to be submitted for consenting. The lighting components have been selected. The suppliers have been asked to provide a timeframe of when these will be ready for installation. Once this is received an update and more accurate proposed completion date will be provided to the Board and Rugby League Club.
The Project Team are currently working with the Lighting Designer to fast track the project. This will include the pre ordering of poles and light fixtures and shortening of the physical works tendering process. Staff will provide the Board and Rugby League Club with an updated time table as soon as it has been confirmed.
Ongoing There has been delays with progress on the detailed design waiting for survey work to be undertaken. However, the project is now running again but the designer has flagged that the timeframe has now moved back. The Development Team are working with the designer to progress consents and get physical works underway as soon as possible.
Have initial design and capacity work done for lighting based on feedback from clubs. Detailed design and pricing underway. Meeting with clubs again to feedback progress and decide on how the work will be staged over two years.
Have agreed that irrigation and lighting are the next priorities for the park. LSP team have provided some options for possible lighting layouts. League Club to meet 14/08/13 and will feedback preference.
Staff have met with the users and have developed a concept plan. Agreed that first stage of this would be irrigating the sportsfields and lighting one field. Work programmed for 2013/14 financial year.
Meeting with user groups arranged for early April. Design work to proceed after this meeting.
LSPS staff and Board Parks Portfolio members held a meeting with softball and rugby league clubs. Both clubs are open to working together to develop the reserve. They have provided staff with a breakdown of works they would like to see undertaken on Prince Edward. Staff to ascertain how these works can be fitted into current and future years budgets and then work with clubs and Board to prioritise and programme these.
LSPS staff to make contact with Softball Club advising them of intention to develop master plan. Call meeting of softball and league and establish a user group committee for the reserve. Develop draft concept plan with users. Workshop with the Board – October 2012. |
2 |
8 July 2012 |
Community and Cultural Policy |
Takanini Community Centre Development |
Resolution number PPK/2012/2 That the Papakura Local Board notes that a region wide community facilities review is scheduled to get underway this year to assist the Governing Body to consider and prioritise community facility provision across Auckland. That the Papakura Local Board directs officers to urgently investigate the need and feasibility of including a community facility as part of planning for the Takanini Library development. |
Dena Gilmore |
Ongoing
Presentation to be made to 29 July 2013 Workshop
Presentation to be made to 11 July 2013 Workshop
Ongoing Officers are exploring options for funding of feasibility report as it is not currently funded. |
3 |
20 February 2013 |
ATEED |
Electronic Visual Display Unit |
b) That the Papakura Local Board received advice as to the provision of an electronic visual display unit being installed at the Papakura Train Station to enable weekly calendar of events and areas of interest to be viewed by visitors.
|
|
Workshop – Local Economic Development Action Plan
Economic Report on August Agenda
Scoping report would have to be undertaken. Would need further discussion with the Board. |
4 |
19 June 2013 |
Property CDAC |
Papakura Museum - void |
Resolution number PPK/2013/3 That the Papakura Local Board: a) Approves the allocation of $40,560 of operational funding from the current financial year 2012/2013 to the Papakura and Districts Historical Society, to increase the curator hours for the Papakura Museum over the two year period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015. b) Requests that the Papakura and Districts Historical Society report monthly on the number of visitors, activities and programmes at the Papakura Museum, as a condition of funding. c) Requests a workshop on the issue of the development of the void space in the Papakura Museum including the costs and requirements with the appropriate council staff attending. d) Requests officers provide the board with a report outlining the specifications and design work required for the void space in the Papakura Museum.
|
Alison Farrell Leilani Unasa |
Ongoing
The Board sent a letter of support to the Historic Places Society Consultation being undertaken as part of the Papakura Local Board Agreement
Report to September 2013 meeting
Being workshopped on 11 July 2013 followed by report to August business meeting. |
5 |
19 March 2014 |
Infrastructure and Environmental Services |
Pahurehure inlet – stormwater and water quality |
Resolution Number PPK/2014/49 That the Papakura Local Board: a) Notes the information in the Infrastructure and Environmental Services update report. b) requests infrastructure and environmental services to report back to the Board on; i) a survey of all stormwater outlets in the Pahurehure inlet, ii) water quality tests of all the outlets in the Pahurehure inlet.
|
VARSHA Belwalkar |
Ongoing
“The Papakura Local Board requested, via resolution, that the infrastructure and environmental services department [specifically stormwater] report back to the Board on; i) a survey of all stormwater outlets in the Pahurehure inlet, ii) water quality tests of all the outlets in the Pahurehure inlet.
In terms of outfall surveys we have a regional survey of outfalls is currently being undertaken (starting in the north) in a prioritised manner. At this stage we do not have a timeframe for surveying the outlets around the inlet as we are in the early stages of the data collection. Note that we may have already existing information on some of the outfalls so all may not need to be resurveyed. However, we are working in a prioritised manner and do not have the capacity or budget to survey outfalls in an ad hoc manner.
However if there is some reason or urgency on surveying the inlets and there is local board budget available for such we are happy to advise further on options in conjunction with Council’s RIMU team.
In regards to water quality data, there is some data already around but is potentially held in different departments e.g. RIMU and Stormwater, so it is difficult to get a handle on what is around in a short space of time. In terms of commenting further it would be helpful to understand what the water quality concerns may be as it may not be a stormwater issue as this could be rural land issue, future growth issue (regulatory) or Pollution control issue. “
|
16 July 2014 |
|
Papakura Local Board Achievements Register 2013-2016 Electoral Term
File No.: CP2014/15149
Purpose
1. Providing a register of achievements of the Papakura Local Board for the 2013-2016 Electoral Term.
Executive Summary
2. Nil.
a) That the report entitled “Papakura Local Board Achievements Register 2013-2016 Electoral Term” be received subject to the following additions: i. ii.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Achievements Register |
279 |
Signatories
Authors |
Trish Wayper - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
Papakura Local Board 16 July 2014 |
|
PAPAKURA LOCAL BOARD
ACHIEVEMENTS REGISTER 2013-2016 ELECTORAL TERM
Date |
ACHIEVEMENT |
7 November 2013 |
Inaugural Meeting - Election of Chair, Bill McEntee and - Deputy Chair, Michael Turner |
8 November 2013 |
Fireworks Spectacular |
9 November 2013 |
Spring Clean |
19 November 2013 |
Citizenship Ceremony |
28 November 2013 |
Appointment of Board Members to Outside Organisations |
28 November 2013 |
Appointment of Portfolio Allocations, Urban Design Champion, Business Improvement District (BID) Executive Committee and Resource Consent Public Notifications. |
30 November 2013 |
Supported the Papakura Santa Parade |
11 December 2013 |
Board agrees to release of Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 including the draft Papakura Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 for public consultation |
13 December 2013 |
Supported the Papakura Carols in the Park |
29 January 2014 |
Appointment of Board Youth Portfolio Lead to the Papakura Youth Connections Steering Group |
29 January 2014 |
Formal establishment of the Pukekiwiriki Paa Joint Management Committee |
29 January 2014 |
Position Paper on Draft Psychoactive Substances approved |
29 January 2014 |
Approved position statement to the Auckland Council submission on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan |
11 February 2014 |
Papakura Local Board Public Engagement – Local Board Plan – Papakura Library |
15 February 2014 |
Papakura Local Board Public Engagement – Local Board Plan – Smiths Avenue and Papakura Library |
18 February 2014 |
Papakura Local Board Public Engagement – Local Board Plan – Takanini Stores |
27 February 2014 |
Papakura Local Board Public Engagement – Workshop – Local Board Chambers |
1 March 2014 |
Movies in the Park |
2 March 2014 |
PIPs Canoe Day |
8 March 2014 |
Southern Regional Hui – Local Board Plans |
8 March 2014 |
Rosehill Family Fun Day |
18 March 2014 |
Citizenship Ceremony |
19 March 2014 |
Papakura Local Board Psychoactive Substances Regulations Submission feedback to form part of the Governing Body Submission to the Ministry of Health |
19 March 2014 |
Papakura Local Board Objection to Liquor Licence Application – Harpreet Kaur Limited |
29 March 2014 |
Papakura East Neighbourhood Policing Team Day |
30 March 2014 |
Takaanini Reserve Neighbourhood Event |
5 April 2014 |
Joint Papakura and Manurewa Elderly and Disability Engagement Session in collaboration with Counties Manukau DHB |
16 April 2014 |
Approved the Papakura Local Economic Development Plan and Commerce and Industry Programme |
25 April 2014 |
Attended ANZAC Day Services at Papakura and Drury |
29 April 2014 |
Advocacy presentation to the Governing Body |
|
Council Controlled Organisations feedback submitted |
|
Funding Policy Review feedback submitted |
30 April 2014 |
Inaugural Meeting Pukekiwiriki Paa Joint Management Committee |
21 May 2014 |
Community Group Funding of $80,364.00 awarded in funding Round 2 of the 2013/14 financial year |
23 May 2014 |
Members attended Liquor Licencing Hearing - BottleO |
29 May 2014 |
Dawn blessing of Takaanini Reserve and Ihaka Takaanini Plinths |
|
Advocacy from the Board on the Takanini Interchange and motorway upgrade |
|
Advocacy from the Board on Psychoactive substances leading to the temporary withdrawal from the market. |
18 June 2014 |
Approved the Papakura Local Board Community Development, Arts and Culture Work Programme 2014/2015 |
18 June 2014 |
Adopted the local content for the Annual Plan 2014/2015 including the Papakura Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 |
18 June 2014 |
Approved the Draft Local Board Plan 2014 for consultation |
18 June 2014 |
Support for a joint scoping study with Southern Local Boards for the establishment of community recycling centres in the south. |
18 June 2014 |
Approval of $15,000 funding to establish an annual Papakura Sports Awards |
26 June 2014 |
Papakura Careers Expo |
1 July 2014 |
Local Alcohol Policy Information Event - Stall |
|
Active promotion of Auckland Transport Parking Strategy consultation |
|
Active promotion of Long Term Plan youth engagement ‘My Vote Rule’ |
5 July 2014 |
Papakura Draft Local Board Plan Engagement Drop-in Session – Papakura Library |
8 July 2014 |
Papakura Draft Local Board Plan Engagement Drop-in Session – Papakura Library |
8 July 2014 |
Rosehill Residents Group – Consultation on Local Board Plan |
8 July 2014 |
Conifer Grove Residents Association - Consultation on Local Board Plan |
9 July 2014 |
Papakura Draft Local Board Plan Engagement Drop-in Session – Papakura Library |
16 July 2014 |
|
Papakura Local Board Workshop Notes
File No.: CP2014/15150
Purpose
1. Attached is a copy of the notes taken at the Papakura Local Board Workshops dated 14 May, 2 April, 11 June 2014 and the Papakura/Manurewa Joint Workshop dated 25 June 2014.
2.
Executive Summary
3. Nil
That the Papakura Local Board: a) receive the workshop notes for the meetings held 14 May, 2 April, 11 June 2014 and the Papakura/Manurewa Joint Workshop dated 25 June 2014.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Workshop Notes - 14 May 2014 |
285 |
bView |
Workshop Notes - 2 April 2014 |
287 |
cView |
Workshop Notes 11 June 2014 |
289 |
dView |
Joint Workshop Notes - 25 June 2014 |
291 |
Signatories
Authors |
Trish Wayper - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager |
Papakura Local Board 16 July 2014 |
|
What: Papakura Local Board Workshop
Where: Council Chambers, Papakura Service Centre, 35 Coles Crescent, Papakura
When: 1.00 pm Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Present: Bill McEntee, Michael Turner, Brent Catchpole, Graham Purdy, Stuart Britnell, Katrina Winn
Apologies:
Staff: Karen Gadomski, Raewyn Curran and Trish Wayper
Item |
1. Finance
Staff: Debbie Pinfold and Carolina Gonzalez-Urena
Debbie and Carolina presented an overview and answered questions on the Finance Quarterly Report.
The following clarifications were sort:
- Library - Local Community Services – Youth Forum? Finance to contact Chantelle Whaiapu for clarification - Local Parks – underspend – Andrew assured finance that this would be spent by year end. - $15K discretionary budget – to be spent by year end
|
2. Community Development, Arts and Culture Work Programme 2014/15
Staff: Leora Hirsh, Leilani Unasa, Martin Brown and Sharon McGinity
The following feedback was given by the board:
- Requested costing per art exhibitions – Leilani was to supply this information to the board. - Investigate community garden at Hingaia – Leora to liaise with Andrew Moor as this is a reserve - Neighbourhood watch – Leora to ascertain active members and report back to the board. - Drury Hall – Board has not viewed final plans for mobility access. The access problem was to the hall not just the toilets. - Smiths Avenue – proposed upgrade of kitchen. Investigate whether this is feasible at this time. Also to be discussed at the Smiths Avenue Working Party meeting. - Takanini Hall – Questioned whether the upgrade was feasible at this time. - General custodian duties for all council venues – questioned who was responsible to undertake general custodial duties for all venues in Papakura |
3. Smiths Avenue
Staff: Raewyn Curran
Tabled Attachment 3A
Raewyn gave an overview of what process they were following and who was working on the issues being experienced with Smiths Avenue. A working party of several staff had been organised to try and progress the situation in a co-ordinated manner.
|
4. Local Board Plan
Staff: Karen Gadomski
Tabled Attachment 4A
Karen distributed a copy of the Local Board Plan and requested members to provide feedback by Friday.
|
The workshop closed at 4.05 p.m. |
16 July 2014 |
|
What: Papakura Local Board Workshop
Where: Council Chambers, Papakura Service Centre, 35 Coles Crescent, Papakura
When: 1.00 p.m. Wednesday, 2 April 2014
Present: Bill McEntee, Michael Turner, Brent Catchpole, Graham Purdy
Apologies: (for lateness) Stuart Britnell, Katrina Winn
Staff: Karen Gadomski, Debbie Pinfold and Trish Wayper
Item |
1. Prioritisation Workshop
Attachment 1A was tabled
The following were to be made or clarified: - Pool development Papakura – is this the outside pool - Allocation of funding for Papakura Museum void space development could be reallocated from community facility growth budget line. - Support community youth needed to be increased by $24,000 as there was an error noted in the 2014/2015 budget line. This could be reallocated from the local community initiatives budget line - $50,000 opex funding was allocated to cover costs for Massey Park Stadium - Local Events contestable fund was increased by $19,000 as there was an error noted in the 2014/2015 budget line - $1.3 million budget line for CLM – clarification if this is on top of contract fee - Local Board Discretionary Fund created from Central Park Management fund of $206,600 plus $50,000 from Parks Plan budget line - Museum Curator - increased by $10,000 for 2014/2015 - Advocate for regional funding from Governance Committee for World Ward 1 commemorations – Leilani and Raewyn - Papakura City Brass – funding extended to cover 2017 to 2022 - Bruce Pulman Park – Renewals funding to be considered as part of LTP process
Key Advocacy Priorities
These were discussed and refined down from last year’s list (attachment 1B)
Local Board Plan Initiatives
Concentrate on the following: - Town Centre - Development of jobs and skill base - Transport - Environment - Community Wellbeing - Sports Excellence
Possible projects for costing: - Takanini – Library/community facility - Cycleways and footpaths - Economic Development Initiatives - Recycling centre eg food composting, community gardens - Sports Upgrades including facilities and sports clubs - Youth initiatives – improve young children and youth facilities - Improve Maori culture initiatives - Elderly - Town Centre Masterplan – Avenue of culture - Pahurehure/Manukau Harbour - Area Plan – Great South Road Corridor and Centres
|
The workshop closed at 5.10 p.m. |
16 July 2014 |
|
What: Papakura Local Board Workshop
Where: Council Chambers, Papakura Service Centre, 35 Coles Crescent, Papakura
When: 1.00 pm Wednesday, 11 June 2014
Present: Bill McEntee, Michael Turner, Brent Catchpole, Graham Purdy, Stuart Britnell.
Apologies: Katrina Winn
Staff: Rex Hewitt, Karen Gadomski, and Trish Wayper
Item |
1. Environment Strategic Action Plan
Staff: Lauren Lawrence, James Cheng and Varsha Belwalkar
Lauren gave an overview of the Environment Strategic Action Plan and requested the board to provide feedback on the following:
1. Local priorities and action for the environment and flagship projects; 2. Desire for and role in green growth; and 3. Role in the delivery and implementation of ESAP
1. Feedback on local priorities and action for the environment and flagship projects:
- Community gardens eg Tongan garden and wider community benefits - Composting and food waste collection. - Pips planting in Pahurehure inlet - Children’s Forest Initiative - Pukekiwiriki Paa - Kirks Bush - Margans Bush
2. Desire for and role in green growth
- Community gardens and rollout to new locations - Pahurehure Inlet planting and public access - Children’s Forest
3. Role in the delivery and implementation of ESAP
The board expressed that they wanted to be fully involved in the development and the delivery of the ESAP.
Officers were to take back that the Board would prefer the ability to use exotic species where necessary rather than only native plants.
|
2. Artillery Drive Stormwater Tunnel
Staff: Konrad Heinemann, Navin Weeraratne, Lucy Ferris, Alex Jepsen and Varsha Belwalkar
Powerpoint presentation – Attachment 2A
Board members expressed that they were generally happy with the project as proposed and that any shorter term disruption would be outweighed by the longer term benefits. One suggestion was to build a boat ramp/canoe launch point on the western (less steep) side of the stormwater outlet structure at Katavic Park. It was agreed that more significant planting should be done on the eastern, steeper side to discourage access
|
3. Town Centre Urban Design – initial ideas
Staff: Tim Fitzpatrick, Robert Lipka, Felicity Merrington
Tim and Robert shared some thoughts they had gained from a recent walk around the town centre and that they were aware of members’ ideas, such as the “avenue of culture” and the possible projects coming through discussions on the capital transport grant. There was scope to look at some small improvements that could be quick wins and develop a vision/framework for what could happen through master planning and development in the longer term.
Members then went on a walk around the town centre and rail station, accompanied by Tim and Robert, to talk through some of their issues and ideas.
|
The workshop closed at 2.45 p.m. and was immediately followed by the town centre walk around. |
Joint Papakura and Manurewa Local Board Workshop Notes
Where: Council Chambers, Papakura Service Centre, 35 Coles Crescent, Papakura
When: Wednesday, 25 June 2014 commencing at 3.00 pm
Present: Papakura Local Board
Bill McEntee (Chair), Stuart Britnell, Brent Catchpole, Graham Purdy and
Michael Turner
Manurewa Local Board
Angela Dalton (from 3.08 pm), George Hawkins, Michael Bailey,
Danella McCormack, Darryl Wrightson (from 3.17 pm), Ken Penney and
Simeon Brown (from 3.47 pm)
Local Board Staff:
Rex Hewitt, Karen Gadomski, David Hopkins and Trish Wayper
Apologies: Katrina Winn (Absence) and Angela Dalton (Lateness)
Item |
1. Auckland Transport Parking Strategy
Attendees: Alok Vahista, Stuart Knarston and Felicity Merrington – Auckland Transport
Attachment 1A – Powerpoint presentation
The following issues were discussed: · Park and Ride – none at Te Mahia Station. · Glenora Station – Rail station and park and ride required. · How much input had been sought from disabled groups prior to the strategy being drafted? · Multi storey housing developments – are AT encouraging underground parking being included as part of RC applications? · Angle parking in main streets · Congestion parking being considered? · Mobility Parking – increase times in park and ride – three hours not enough to attend hospital appointments etc and get back.
|
2. Southern Corridor Scheme Design Briefing
Attendees: Jim Sephton and Lucie Mairs (NZTA) Felicity Merrington – Auckland Transport Liaison Officer Christine Perrins – Manager Rail Strategy, Auckland Transport
Jim Sephton displayed a large map which outlined the proposal for the upgrade as it stands at present. Discussion was held and feedback was given by Councillors and board members prior to it going out to public consultation.
Particular issues raised included: - The need for a tidal gate in the causeway crossing Pahurehure Inlet - The closure of Spartan Road as part of the Takanini interchange upgrade - Support for grade separation of rail crossings in Takanini - The need for a public open day session to be held in Papakura as part of the planned consultation in late July.
|
3. Auckland Transport Hop Card Issues
Attendees: Craig Inger, and Felicity Merrington (AT) James Bralisford (KiwiRail) Area Commander, Inspector Jim Searle, NZ Police Area Commander, Inspector Julia Lynch, NZ Police Inspector Alan Shearer, NZ Police Senior Sergeant Sarah Leyland, NZ Police Sergeant Phil Patterson, NZ Police Wendy Dunn, Manurewa Town Centre Manager Tracey Shackleton, Papakura Town Centre Manager Nicki Haylow (BID Partnership Advisor)
Safety Concerns
The following points were discussed: - on-going safety concerns - mostly with youth - intimidation of ticketing officers - knifes being carried on trains - patrons being harassed for money - Manurewa CCTV sites – black spots on Auckland Transport and KiwiRail land - frequent and costly vandalism on stations
The following options were discussed: - making it impossible to get onto a platform without a ticket - staff presence on platforms - Police presence - targeting of stations that have issues - safety zone – which includes CCTV coverage to emergency centre, panic button and cameras linked to police station - locking of stations after hours - introducing fines – legislation being considered to determine whether photos can be used to identify and then fine individuals who do not pay - whole security review being undertaken by Auckland Transport.
HOP Card Issues - frequent ticket machine breakdowns - limited locations where patrons can buy HOP cards - ticket printers – plastic cover being trialled - technicians having to have security guard with them to empty and fix machines - tag bollards not reading tickets.
|
The meeting concluded at 5.59 pm |
Papakura Local Board 16 July 2014 |
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
That the Papakura Local Board:
a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:
C1 Confidential - Special Housing Areas: Tranche 4
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest. In particular, the report contains information which, if released, would potentially prejudice or disadvantage commercial activities.. |
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |