Agenda of Rodney Local Board

Rodney Local Board

14 July 2014

Auckland Transport Update to Rodney Local Board, July 2014

File No.: CP2014/14070

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to elected members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities.

Executive summary

2. The report provides an update on transport matters for the information of the Rodney Local Board and a register of transport issues in the local board’s area, as collated by Auckland Transport’s Elected Member Relationship Manager North.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Update to the Rodney Local Board for July 2014.

b) confirm the allocation of $2,000 from its Local Board Transport Capital Fund for the installation of a seat on Alexander Road, Algies Bay, as discussed at the local board’s Transport Portfolio meeting on 10 July 2014.

Comments

Alnwick Street, Warkworth

3. At its meeting on 9 June 2014 the Rodney Local Board resolved (RD/2014/130):

b) …..that Auckland Transport progresses the connection of the two sections of Alnwick Street, Warkworth to enhance connectivity within the town.

4. In response to similar requests received from the local board in December 2011 and January 2014, members were advised that:

· though joining the two sections of Alnwick Street was likely in future, this depended on subdivision of the privately owned property.

· no funding for purchase of the privately owned property has been identified in the Council’s Long Term Plan and the request can therefore not be progressed. In addition, AT’s engineers note that there is adequate access/egress for properties in the two separate portions of Alnwick Street via Coquette Street and Southgate Road and that, because of this, the cost of designating and forming the road would not be justified.

5. In response to the request made at the local board’s June meeting, AT’s Manager Strategic Transport Integration confirms that the connection of the two sections of Alnwick Street will deliver very little benefit to the road network and would not justify the effort and expense to pursue. Further, even if the investigation and design work necessary was carried out, funding of the land purchase and construction would not feature as a priority, given the current constrained financial circumstance. The connection could however be achieved as part of the subdivision of the intervening property, with the developer paying the cost for this, not Auckland Council/AT. The Council’s district plans show an indicative road along this alignment and the site is zoned residential, which supports this position. If AT was to construct the road, it would in effect be building a road that should be built and paid for by the developer of this land. The request to progress the connection is therefore declined.

Extension of consultation period for Draft Parking Discussion Document

6. Due to the level of interest in Auckland’s Draft Parking Discussion Document, Auckland Transport (AT) has extended the public consultation period to 31 July.

7. To briefly recap, AT is looking at parking requirements and principles across the region and proposing a new set of parking principles which will bring benefits to residents and businesses and assist AT’s contribution to economic growth in the region. Residents are being asked what they think of the proposed approach, with AT seeking high level views at this stage and signalling an opportunity for more localised, detailed and specific feedback later.

8. Residents have been asked to comment on a range of suggested approaches, but specifically on those relating to the city centre, metropolitan and town centres, residential streets, off-street parking facilities (parking buildings), on-street parking restrictions, parking permits and park and rides.

9. The timeline for the process is:

· 31 July - Submissions close.

· August/September - Submissions are collated and grouped, then proposed responses are developed by AT’s Strategic Planning Group working with Auckland Council.

· September/October - Recommendations are considered by the AT Board and a decision on key principles which will form the Parking Strategy for the Auckland region made.

· November/December – The document is finalised.

· 2015 - Detailed, localised public consultations begin on each parking principle. Implementation timeframes will be dependent on the scale of each principle - some may be sooner, while others may be phased in over a period of years.

10. The main issues and themes coming through the submissions received 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.

11. Further information, including details about possible solutions and an online feedback form, are available at: https://at.govt.nz/parkingfeedback. Alternatively, information packs are available from AT’s customer response team on 09 355 3553.

Public transport fare changes from 6 July

12. AT has completed its annual fare review in accordance with its service contract obligations with transport operators. The annual review takes into account operator cost increases (e.g. fuel and wages), revenue and patronage movements. AT is also undertaking a strategic review of all public transport costs and pricing, due to be completed towards the end of the year.

13. As a result of the review, ticket prices on buses, trains and ferries change from 6 July. 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 ferries will increase (some AT HOP fares for ferries will also increase).

14. AT believes that public transport must be seen as a viable alternative to the car if Auckland is to resolve its transport problems. By making travel even more attractive on the AT HOP card, it is hoped that more people will switch to public transport.

15. In addition to an increased discount on AT HOP, AT will remove the 25 cent top-up fee and reduce the minimum top-up amount on the card from $10 to $5, both from 6 July. The cost of the card itself will also remain at $5 until at least 31 January 2015.

16. From 6 July when the new fares are implemented, cash fares will be in 50 cent multiples which will reduce cash handling on buses in particular (with the exception of the City LINK child cash fare which will remain at 30 cents). AT is hoping to move to implementing an exact fare/no change given policy in the future and will investigate the potential of removing cash fares altogether, as has recently been introduced in Sydney.

Update on Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

17. Construction of the following projects has been completed:

· Mountable kerb outside 336 Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach (Project 118);

· Footpath extension on Fordyce Road, Parakai (Project 174);

· Extending the loose metal bridle trail on the northern side of Coatesville-Riverhead Highway from east of Glenmore Road to 264 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway (Project 179).

· New footpath on Mahoenui Valley Road opposite the school to its intersection with Coatesville-Riverhead Highway (Project 180);

· New footpath on Rodney Street, Wellsford (Project 190).

18. The construction of Project 177, a new footpath on the eastern side of Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Elliot Street to the bridge, is almost complete. The remainder of the new footpath will be completed when AT’s Road Corridor Maintenance Team has finished constructing a small section of retaining wall very close to the bridge abutment.

19. The local board has confirmed construction of the following projects based on the allocation of funds shown:

· Project 116, Puhoi Pedestrian Bridge - $170,000. The design for the bridge and the contract schedule are now being finalised and it is expected the project will be tendered in September.

· Project 163, a 1.8m wide footpath on the western side of Oaia Road from Waitea Road to the distance that $95,000 will allow (estimated at 225m). The extent and design of this new path will be investigated in July/August and the physical works will then be tendered.

· Project 205, Point Wells Road, a 1.8m wide footpath on the berm from Waimanu Place to approximately No. 30/32 Point Wells Road - $53,000 (subject to consultation with affected residents by the Rodney Local Board). Detailed design and a contract schedule will be completed early in July. Physical works will be tendered on receipt of consultation feedback.

20. Construction of a footpath on the eastern side of Puhoi Road from Puhoi Library to Krippner Road Bridge (Project 162) will be carried out in conjunction with construction of the Puhoi Pedestrian Bridge (Project 116), commencing at the beginning of the 2014/2015 summer construction period.

21. Construction of local access road improvements, 338 – 382 Main Road, Huapai (Project 175) is proceeding, with the drainage component expected to be completed by the end of June.

22. AT staff are now giving consideration to an alternative option for construction of a safe metal path on Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach, from Arabella Lane to the existing footpath (Project 116). Details and costings will be provided to the local board’s Transport Portfolio Leads when these become available.

23. The local board requested a detailed design and a firm cost estimate for a new 200m long footpath on Waitoki Road, Waitoki, from the corner of Kahikatea Flat Road (Project 161). The design work for this has been postponed pending release of decisions as to which footpaths will be funded through AT’s Community Transport New Footpaths’ budget 2014/2015, expected by the end of July/early August.

24. Following a request from Member Garner, a seat has been made available from AT’s surplus stock for installation on Alexander Road, Algies Bay (Project 294), with the local board providing the installation cost of $2,000 from its LBTCF. The project will be discussed at the local board’s Transport Portfolio meeting on 10 July and confirmation has been requested (recommendation b) above) at this meeting.

Issues Update

25. The following Issues Update comprises issues raised by Elected Members and Local Board Services staff to 25 June 2014:

		Location		Issue	Status
1		Riverhead Road, Kumeu	Request for speed calming on Riverhead Road, Kumeu.		Cr Webster's PA forwarded a request from the resident of 42 Riverhead Road, Kumeu, for traffic calming in the 50km/h area of Riverhead Road where traffic and vehicle speeds had increased with the recent intensified development. With Road Corridor Operations for detailed investigation.
2		Riverhead General	Requests from the Riverhead Residents' and Ratepayers' Association.		Member Garner forwarded a letter from the Riverhead Residents' and Ratepayers' Association on 8 April 2014 which asked that investigation be carried out into the provision of footpaths along Great North Road, Kaipara Portage Road and within the township generally; a cycle path or shared pedestrian crossing on Coatesville Riverhead Highway from SH16 to the village and beyond; improved safety for drivers and pedestrians along Coatesville Riverhead Highway, particularly through the township; the provision of public transport; improved maintenance of all roads with an assessment of the quality and a timeframe for repairs; and addressing parking at War Memorial Reserve. A response to the public transport issues was sent to the local board’s TPLs on 25 May and detail provided in the June update to the local board. On 9 June the local board’s TPLs were advised that a crash reduction study of Coatesville-Riverhead highway had been completed by Auckland Transport in April 2014. The study included an analysis of all crashes over a five year period, 2008-2013, along the Highway, including the intersections of Dairy Flat Highway and SH16; traffic and pedestrian counts at various locations, such as the Riverhead Kea Crossing and at the Dairy Flat Highway/Coatesville-Riverhead intersection; and a risk assessment to identify the required potential safety intervention measures at high risk locations. As a result, AT has identified potential safety improvement measures for the entire route. These include investigation into a reduction of the speed limit through the local town centres, the results for which will be available in August 2014. AT will be carrying out a ‘SLOW DOWN’ campaign around Helensville, Huapai, Kumeu, Riverhead and Coatesville, starting in August 2014 and involving the installation of ‘friendly signage’ around the main highways. In addition, AT is proposing to upgrade existing gateway treatments and place name signage at the entrance to Riverhead and Coatesville town centres, remarking and upgrading existing road markings and signage to advise motorists of the slower speed environments. All these proposed works will be prioritised for implementation in the 2014/2015 financial year, subject to the outcome of consultations with key stakeholders and the local communities. With regard to installation of a permanent pedestrian crossing point at the existing kea crossing facility, AT implemented a 40km/h School Speed Zone on Coatesville-Riverhead Highway encompassing Riverhead School in June 2013 and carried out traffic and pedestrian counts in April 2014, noting that the kea crossing operates well and the facility is generally well used by schoolchildren. However, outside of the kea crossing facility operating hours, very few schoolchildren crossed at this location and the number of pedestrians crossing generally was not significant. Based on these pedestrian and traffic volumes, the NZTA warrant for the installation of a zebra crossing would not be met and the request therefore cannot be granted. It is acknowledged that there are new developments proposed in the area and that there will be a subsequent increase in the pedestrian crossing demand at this crossing so AT is happy to carry out further investigation in the future. With regard to the SH16/Coatesville-Riverhead Highway intersection, as part of the crash reduction study completed, AT identified that the existing intersection layout is adequate for current traffic demand and turning manoeuvres. However, an upgrade of the signage and road markings to improve its safety performance is proposed. The Dairy Flat highway/Coatesville-Riverhead Highway intersection was however identified as a high-risk rural intersection that will need a significant upgrade to accommodate existing and future traffic demand. AT is therefore currently investigating options for this intersection and will provide a further update in August 2014. Further queries under investigation by Road Corridor Operations, Community Transport and Road Corridor Maintenance staff.
3		Kahikatea Flat Road, Waitoki	Request for statistics in relation to speed limit changes, and road noise concerns on Kahikatea Flat Road, Waitoki.		Board staff forwarded a request from the owner of the property at 1187 Kahikatea Flat Road, Waitoki, for statistics in support of the speed change to 50km/h and response to suggestions to mitigate the road noise experienced at this location, on 10 April 2014. Referred to Road Corridor Operations staff and response expected end of June/July.
4		Pukapuka Road, Mahurangi West	Presentation to Rodney Local Board by resident of Pukapuka Road, Mahurangi West.		A resident made a presentation to the Rodney Local Board on 28 April 2014 seeking a cost share arrangement for the sealing of Pukapuka Road, Mahurangi West. The Board subsequently resolved to provide a contribution of $20,000 towards the cost of the project and more recently asked whether AT would be prepared to cover the cost of a peer review of the design referred to at the local board meeting. On 23 June the local board's TPLs were advised that the resident was prompted to make his presentation to the Board by AT engineers who had met with him and other Pukapuka Road residents on site on 26 March. At that site meeting the resident advised that he had been given a lump sum quote by ‘one of New Zealand’s largest roading contractors’ of $600,000 for sealing the carriageway, and that residents had agreed in principle to contributing this sum to achieve the road seal. It would appear therefore that there is no design as such available to be peer reviewed. Details of the lump sum quote are unclear, however it is understood that the $600,000 includes sealing of the existing carriageway only and excludes drainage, shoulder treatment, pavement widening, earthwork structures and other ancillary items that may be required by the Resource Management Act (RMA), such as stormwater management. The residents were advised subsequent to the site visit that this quote represents a significant shortfall in the funding required to undertake the works and be compliant with the relevant standards and legislation. They were also advised that until some preliminary design is undertaken, the extent of the works cannot be reliably defined or quantified. Because there is no funding available from AT’s seal extension programme for the project, it was suggested to the residents that they approach the local board for the provision of funding for the investigation and design phases, which could possibly cost as much as $200,000-250,000. The updating of AT’s seal extension guidelines to include reference to cost share proposals has not yet been completed. Current thinking however is that all designs for seal extension projects will need to comply with AT’s Code of Practice (ATCOP) and therefore of necessity include features such as the drainage, shoulder treatment, pavement widening, earthworks structures and the other RMA requirements mentioned above. Any departures from ATCOP will need to be approved by the Group Manager Roading or his nominated representative, and this will only happen in exceptional circumstances. All seal extension work will also be managed by an AT representative. Based on the above, it is clear that contributions by residents to seal a road will only be considered if this covers the full cost of AT designing and constructing the road to ATCOP standards.
5		Falls Road, Warkworth	Request for signage and maintenance repairs on Falls Road, Warkworth.		Cr Webster requested on 9 May 2014 that recent damage from heavy vehicles in the vicinity of Falls Road bridge, Warkworth, be investigated and addressed. Cr Webster also asked that signage indicating that the road/bridge is not suitable for trucks and/or trailers be installed to prevent the risk of further damage and accidents. On 6 June Cr Webster was advised that an investigation into remedial options for maintaining the section of Falls Road between Woodcocks Road and the ford will be carried out, the options to include both retaining the existing slope or relocating the road away from drop into the river. These investigations should be completed by the end of June/early July, with physical works dependent on the outcome of what’s decided. Signage request referred to Road Corridor Operations.
6		Kauri Crescent, Riverhead	Request for more appropriate signage for Kauri Crescent, Riverhead.		Board staff requested information on the maintenance of unformed legal roads, the seal extension guidelines and priority list, and requested more appropriate signage be installed on Kauri Crescent, Riverhead, on 16 May 2014. On 19 May they were provided with links to relevant information on Auckland Transport's website relating to paper roads and seal extension work, and advised that the request for larger signage for both Kauri Crescent East and West, to better inform drivers that there is no through road link from one to the other, will be investigated by Road Corridor Operations staff.
	7	Baddeleys Beach Road, Tawharanui	Request for speed reduction on Baddeleys Beach Road, Tawharanui.		Member Garner asked that a reduction in the speed limit on the northern end of Baddeleys Beach Road, Tawharanui, to 80km/h or 70km/h, to improve safety for pedestrians, be investigated on 4 June 2014. On 18 June the local board's TPLs were advised that the current speed limit meets the requirements of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003, the central government regulation governing how speed limits are set to achieve a consistent approach across the country. While the speed limit rule does consider a large number of factors, the outcome is largely driven by the level of roadside development and in the case of Baddeleys Beach Road, there is very little development beyond the existing 50km/h sign. Consequently the road currently does not meet the criteria for a lower limit than the rural open road speed limit of 100km/h.
	8	Valley Road, Kaukapakapa	Request for enhancement of barrier preventing vehicles access the paper road portion of Valley Road, Kaukapakapa.		Member McLean asked on 6 June 2014 for the implementation of additional measures, such as heavy duty lockable gates, concrete barriers and/or signage, to prevent vehicles access to the paper road portion of Valley Road, Kaukapakapa. Referred to Road Corridor Maintenance.
	9	Kauri Crescent, Waimauku	Creation/upgrade of a walkway over the paper road section of Kauri Crescent, Waimauku.		Following a presentation to the Rodney Local Board at its meeting on 9 June 2014 from residents of Kauri Crescent, Waimauku, the Board requested the creation/upgrade of a walkway over the paper road section extending for 200m between the properties at 161 and 145 Kauri Crescent, to facilitate access to a 15ha Kauri forest known as Huapai Reserve. Specific requests included improvements to the track surface and accessibility; provision of dual pedestrian and horse paths; weed clearing and removal of wasp nests; and ‘Reserve’ signs at each end of the track. Referred to Road Corridor Operations.
	10	Kauri Crescent, Waimauku	Maintenance on Kauri Crescent, Waimauku.		At the Rodney Local Board meeting on 9 June residents of Kauri Crescent, Warkworth, made a presentation during which they requested an improved standard of maintenance on Kauri Crescent East and West. They requested specifically that consideration be given to improving turning at both ends of Kauri Crescent and, until the roads can be sealed, both ends of Kauri Crescent and the drains are maintained regularly. Referred to Road Corridor Maintenance.
11		Valley Road, Kaukapakapa	Request for gates, signage and turnaround area on Valley Road, Kaukapakapa.		Member McLean forwarded a request from the owner of 214 Valley Road, Kaukapakapa, on 6 June 2014 for the installation of gates and signs warning of hazards and construction of a turnaround area at the top end of Valley Road (as at the bottom end of Valley Road), to limit access to the paper road and preclude further damage. Referred to Road Corridor Operations.
12		Stoney Creek Road, Kaukapakapa	Complaints regarding recent maintenance work on Stoney Creek Road, Kaukapakapa.		The Mayor's Office requested follow up on complaints from a Stoney Creek Road resident who claimed course grade gravel had been dumped on the road on 5 June, but that residents were told that it would not be spread and rolled until 10 June, causing inconvenience to residents and damage to vehicles when drivers were forced to negotiate the area. On 17 June the Mayor's Office was advised that the aggregate spread was required to replenish and strengthen the pavement layer and provide a smooth riding surface prior to the winter. It is common practice to spread aggregate on roads prior to the arrival of the grader, roller and water carts to ensure that the aggregate is in sufficient quantities to achieve the desired outcomes both for stakeholders and road users. The aggregate spread on the road was a combination of Gap40 (top end size of 40mm down) and Gap25 (top end of 25mm down) which is specified in the contract as maintenance aggregate. The Gap 40 was spread on the flat sections of the road, with Gap 25 spread over the top in some areas and Gap 25 on the hill sections of the road. The spreading of aggregate on unsealed roads days prior to grading has been the practice on Stoney Creek and surrounding roads for many years, with no complaints in the past regarding the time lapse between spreading and grading. The road was in fact graded, rolled to a bound surface on Monday 9 June 2014, taking just one day. With regard to the comment about insufficient resource to action the concern immediately when raised, this did not come from Downer, which currently has four grader and roller crews working across the network on unsealed roads, together with additional external truck and trailers spreading the aggregate in front of the grading operations. The metaling of the road was still being carried out at the time that the concerns were raised. With regard to the damage allegedly caused by the aggregate, no complaints related to tyre damage from the use of the aggregate sourced out of Flat Top Quarry operated by Winston Aggregates, which provides a soft material type aggregate, have been received in the past. Stone chips can only be attributed to speed, so at the 5 - 10k km/h that the vehicles were travelling, there should have been no stones flicking up. It should be noted too that this work is measured against the contract specifications. With regard to the frequency of grading, Stoney Creek is graded a minimum of four times each year, and when required if the road falls out of the contract specifications mentioned in the previous paragraph. The road is also routinely patrolled and potholes found are manually patched by the patrol men using a mix of lime rock40mm and Gap25mm. The road was inspected on receipt of the email and is in a good condition, except for a few small potholes which have developed due to the wet weather and logging truck movements; these will be patched by the close of business today. It should also be noted that there is a logging operation at the end of the road which puts further stress on the road pavement and the road users.
13		Hill Street, Warkworth	Safety concerns outside Warkworth Primary School, Hill Street, Warkworth.		Member Houlbrooke raised concerns relating to safety for children and congestion at Warkworth Primary School on 23 June 2014. Referred to Road Corridor Operations and Community Transport for comment.
14		Oraha Road, Huapai - Damage to Vehicle	Request for installation of NSAAT restrictions and cautionary signage on the corner of Oraha and Main Road, Huapai.		Member Pirrie requested investigation into the installation of NSAAT restrictions and cautionary signage on the corner of Oraha and Main Roads, Huapai, where narrow roads, parked cars, overgrown vegetation and sun strike compromise the safety of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, on 25 June 2014. Referred to Road Corridor Operations for investigation.
15		Old North Road, Kumeu	Request for confirmation about reinstatement work carried out on Old North Road, Kumeu, in 2013.		On 25 June 2014 Member Pirrie asked for confirmation that Old North Road will/has been inspected and that, where contractors have not completed work or have done so to a poor standard, it will be reinstated to an acceptable standard; what the time frame for reinstatement or repair work will be; that ratepayers will not have to pay twice for the work to be done to an acceptable standard; and that Old North Road will be reinstated to an acceptable standard overall given the amount of traffic that now uses it as a bypass road. Referred to Road Corridor Access for investigation.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

26. This report is for the local board’s information.

Maori impact statement

27. No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement are triggered by this report.

Implementation

28. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy, all programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the council’s Annual Plan and LTP documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Ellen Barrett – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Rodney Local Board

14 July 2014

Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback

File No.: CP2014/13490

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 (a copy will be available at the meeting and it can also be viewed on the Auckland Council website), which includes the draft Auckland Council LAP, for public consultation (resolution number REG/2014/60(a). Following this decision, the council commenced public consultation (using the special consultative procedure), on 16 June 2014.

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

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

· location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

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

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

· maximum trading hours

· the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) provide 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, 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 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 B.

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 5a. 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 5b. 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

Conditions recommended for all licences

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

Where in draft LAP

Includes:

· an onsite incident register

· host responsibility policies for club and on-licences

· prohibition on single unit sales for off-licences

Includes:

· Restrictions on drinks prior to closing

· Clean public areas outside

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

· CCTV

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

Part B: Sections 4 to 7

Summary of on-licence provisions

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

· reduce alcohol-related harm by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 B.

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 Rodney 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. Rodney Local Board feedback

Topic	Local Board feedback	Officer response
General	· Supported the proposal to differentiate between the different kinds of licences (i.e. on, off, club and special) in the LAP, particularly in terms of the density of licences and hours of operation.	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. All policy mechanisms within the draft LAP are applied differently for different kinds of licences.
Location and proximity	· Supported the proposed targeted approach for the LAP, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach across the entire region. · Supports the proposed six Broad Areas as appropriate groupings for consideration of applications under the LAP.	· The draft LAP retains key aspects of the targeted approach suggested in the position paper (i.e. recommending different rules for different kinds of areas), but simplifies this by reducing the number of broad areas to three. · The draft proposes that there be three ‘formal’ broad area categories: o Broad Area A – Central City o Broad Area B – Rest of Auckland o Priority Overlay. · However, it also proposes that within Broad Area B, the following should be recognised by the District Licensing Committee: o Neighbourhood centres o Metropolitan centres o Residential areas · The council received strong feedback from multiple stakeholder groups and other local boards that six areas was unnecessarily complicated and too difficult for the public and applicants to understand.
Location and proximity	· Supported the proposed criteria for identifying high stress/high risk zones under Appendix 3 of the LAP preferred position paper.	· The criteria used to identify high stress/high risk areas (now called Priority Overlay areas) builds on the criteria suggested in the position paper. · The areas were identified based on the following information: o Police data and maps showing areas with high incidence of alcohol-related crime o Current licence density data · Staff also considered wider factors such as the level of deprivation in the area and the demographic profile of local population groups in determining if the Priority Overlay rules would help effect change in these areas.
Location and proximity	· Support the proposal to include additional or more specific requirements for the notification of licence applications for on-licences and off-licences in Broad Areas 4 to 6.	· The DLC secretary recently adopted a policy regarding notification requirements (using his powers under the Act). It is not necessary to replicate this policy in the draft LAP.
Location and proximity	· Considered that the location-proximity recommendations do not go far enough to meet the objectives of the SSAA. · Supported the resolution of the Community Safety Forum CS/2013/1 point (e) which states seek a 100-metre buffer zone around schools and other sensitive sites for new off-licences. Also request that day care centres and marae be considered sensitive sites.	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. It proposes that, for all licence applications required to undergo the “Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment” process, the council will prepare a report (including maps) which identifies for the District Licensing Committee whether there are any “sensitive sites” within 500 metres of the proposed premises. The draft LAP then explicitly directs the DLC to take any such sensitive sites into account when making a decision about whether to issue a licence. · Sensitive sites are defined as early childhood centres, childcare facilities or similar, schools, including primary and secondary, addiction treatment facilities and any other facility relevant to the objectives of the policy.
Density	· Supported the proposal to allow the community and statutory stakeholders to have a greater say over the appropriate density of on-licences in Broad Areas 3, 5 and 6 through the provision of a cumulative impact assessment for opposed applications. · Consider that the requirement for a cumulative impact assessment for all new on-licence application in Broad Area 4 should be extended to include Broad Area 6 being High risk/high stress areas.	· Staff received legal advice that location and risk were more appropriate triggers for the requirement for an Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment. However, to ensure that applications which communities may have objections to are captured in the process, the assessment requirement has been extended further than in the position paper. · The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. The Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment is required for all new on-licence applications in the Priority Overlay (the renamed Broad Area 6).
Density	· Support the proposal to require a cumulative impact assessment for all new off-licence applications in Broad Areas 3 to 5 and request that this is extended to include Broad Area 6 being High risk/high stress areas to address the situation once the proposed 2 year freeze is lifted.	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. The Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment is required for all new off-licence applications in the Priority Overlay (the renamed Broad Area 6), as well as all applications for off-licences across the rest of the region except cellar doors at vineyards. · Further to this, the draft LAP incorporates the board’s feedback that there needs to be measures in place once the temporary freeze has been lifted, and that a cumulative impact assessment tool could be used here. The presumption against new off-licences, in place after the freeze expires, aims to ensure no harmful off-licences are established once the freeze is lifted and the Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment will be used to assess whether the presumption should be rebutted and the licence granted or not.
Density	· Support the proposal for a temporary freeze on the issuing of new off-licences in Broad Area 1 (Central City) and 6 (High risk/high stress areas).	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. A temporary freeze has been recommended for off-licences in Broad Area A and the Priority Overlay as these areas have a much higher density than others and/or experience disproportionate levels of alcohol-related harm.
Hours	· Support the proposed trading hours for on-licences being 8am – 4am for Broad Area 1, 8am – 3am for Broad Area 2 and 8am – 1am for Broad Areas 3 to 6. · Support the resolution of the Community Safety Forum CS/2013/1 point (d) which refers to there being no extended closing hours trial period for Broad Areas 1 and 2.	· The draft LAP incorporates this feedback, though the recommendations are somewhat different to in the Position Paper. Hours for on licences have been recommended as follows: o CBD (Broad Area A) – 9am – 3am with trial extensions of up to two hours available for best practice on-licences. o Rest of Auckland (Broad Area B) 9am – 1am with trial extensions of up to 2 hours available for best practice on-licences. · Trial extensions of hours for on-licences have been recommended for best practice premises only. An extra two hours maximum can be obtained on a trial basis by a small number of operators, who will need to apply, go through the Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment process and meet other criteria and tests. The trial extension will also be reviewed regularly. · Having limited premises operating extended hours on a trial basis has been demonstrated to mitigate the problem of all patrons leaving at one time, and to encourage compliance from licensees.
Hours	· Support the proposed maximum trading hours for off-licences of 9am 10pm across all off-licences with the exceptions proposed.	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. Hours for off-licences have remained as recommended at 9am – 10pm across the region.
Hours	· Support the proposed trading hours for club licences of 8am 1am across the region.	· The draft LAP incorporates this feedback; hours for club licences have been recommended as 9am – 1am across the region, in line with other licence types.
Discretionary conditions	· Support all of the proposed possible conditions outlined as being suitable for consideration of applications.	· The draft LAP incorporates this feedback; most of the discretionary conditions included in the position paper have continued to be recommended in the Draft LAP. Please see section 7.2 for further details.

Maori impact statement

Research and data on Maori and alcohol

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting May 2014 - Resolutions on draft Local Alcohol Policy	107
b View	Copy of Tables 7 and 8 from report	109
c View	Key Topics for Feedback from Local Boards	111

Signatories

Authors

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

14 July 2014

Local Board Role in Alcohol Licence Applications – Issues and Options

Introduction

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

Roles of the governing body and local boards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Licence application process

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

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

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

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

Options for local board involvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Local boards supporting community involvement in licensing process

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

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

Section 105 - Criteria for issue of licences

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

(a) the object of this Act:

(b) the suitability of the applicant:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rodney Local Board

14 July 2014

Smoke-free Policy Implementation- Rodney Local Board

File No.: CP2014/14177

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

3. Local boards can:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. In June 2014, a workshop with the Rodney Local Board was held to identify high priority sites for the immediate installation of additional smoke-free signage. At this workshop, 20 high priority sites were identified. Staff recommend additional budget be allocated for the printing and installation of smoke-free signs in these sites. The cost of additional signage is estimated at $4,000-$6,000. These values are high estimates and actual cost will vary depending on signage printing, size and installation.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) allocate budget (from the local board Parks budget) for printing and installation of additional smoke-free signs in 19 high priority sites which include:

i) Bourne Dean Recreation Reserve

ii) Helensville Library, War Memorial Hall and Community Centre site

iii) Huapai Recreation Reserve

iv) Puhoi Pioneers Memorial Park Domain

v) Rautawhiri Park

vi) Riverhead War Memorial Park and Community Hall

vii) Shoesmith Domain Recreation Reserve

viii) Playground at Helensville Civic Centre site

ix) Kumeu Library

x) Lucy Moore Memorial Park

xi) Warkworth Showgrounds

xii) Wellsford Library

xiii) Algies Bay Reserve

xiv) Goodall Reserve

xv) Helensville River Reserve

xvi) Matheson Bay Reserve

xvii) Omaha Boat launching and wharf area

xviii) Port Albert Recreation Reserve

xix) Wellsford War Memorial Park and Wellsford Centennial Park

b) promotes the smoke-free status of smoke-free public places in Rodney as the local board deems appropriate.

Comments

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. According to the 2013 census, the Rodney Local Board area has a smoking rate of 12.1 percent which is similar to the regional smoking rate (13 percent for the region). The Auckland Plan and the policy has a goal of a Smoke-free Auckland by 2025. This is a five percent smoking rate in the region by 2025.

Policy Implementation

Smoke-free Public Places

11. Smoke-free in public places aims to discourage the community from smoking in certain public outdoor areas to de-normalise smoking behaviour.

12. As the policy is non-regulatory, compliance is voluntary and relies on the public being well informed about these smoke-free areas. As such smoke-free signs need to communicate the smoke-free status of a space.

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

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

· areas that are frequented by children and youth

· council-owned facilities

· areas that are well used and popular within their community

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

15. Based on scores against the criteria, sites were then divided into four categories. Smoke-free signage implementation varies according to the categories.

16. Sites that are scored highly are ‘Category A sites’ or high priority sites, where there is an opportunity for a higher level of smoke-free signage installation.

17. Table one summarises these categories and smoke-free signage installation.

Table 1 Site priority and level of signage installation

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

High priority smoke-free sites

18. Staff had prepared recommendations on the high priority (Category A) and medium priority (Category B) sites within the Rodney Local Board area.

19. In June 2014, a workshop with the board was held to gather feedback and confirm these high priority sites.

20. Table two outlines the high priority smoke-free sites in the Rodney Local Board area.

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

Site Name

Rationale

Est sign cost

Bourne Dean Recreational Reserve

· Popular and well used sports park and recreation centre space

· Est. 3 wall mounted

· Est. cost $370

Helensville Library, War Memorial Hall and Community Centre

· Site contains several key smoke-free areas -park and forecourt, customer service centre, hall and meeting room

· Libraries are important areas to publicise smoke-free status of public places

· Est. 3 wall mounted

· Est. cost $370

Huapai Recreation Reserve

· Well used sports field and recreation space, particularly among youth

· Est. 2 wall mounted

· Est. $250

Parakai Recreation Domain (note this is a decision for Parakai Recreation Reserve Board)

· Large recreation reserve site with pool, playground, park for active and passive recreation

· Diversity of user groups

· Est. 4 signs

· Est. cost $500

Puhoi Pioneers Memorial Park Domain

· Large bush land with walks

· Site contains playground and hard court

· Opportunity for variety of messaging

· Est. 2 signs

· Est. $250

Rautawhiri Park

· Large recreation space for active recreation- playgrounds and hard courts

· Well used recreation space

· Est. 3 signs

· Est. $370

Riverhead War Memorial Park & Community Hall

· Large well used sports fields.

· Site contains sports fields, hard courts and community hall

· Est. 3 wall mounted

· Est. cost $370

Shoesmith Domain Recreation Reserve

· Site contains playground, hall, recreation space and hard courts

· Large recreation reserve with range of user groups

· Next to primary school- smoke-free messaging

· Est. 5 signs

· Est. $615

Playground at Helensville Civic Centre grounds

· Playgrounds close to civic centre- well used by families

· Est. 1 wall mounted

· Est. cost $123

Kumeu Library

· Libraries are important areas to publicise smoke-free status of public places

· Standardise across libraries in Rodney

· Est. 1 wall mounted

· Est. cost $123

Lucy Moore Memorial Park

· Large reserve area extends to Warkworth town

· Esplanade area, large park area and skate park

· Opportunity for targeted messaging (e.g. litter, fire risks)

· Est. 4 wall mounted signs

· Est. $500

Warkworth Show grounds

· Large, high profile grounds in Warkworth

· Patrons stand in close proximity when events are on

· Est. 2-3 wall mounted signs

· Est. cost $250-$370

Wellsford Library

· Libraries are important areas to publicise smoke-free status of public places

· Standardise across libraries in Rodney

· Est. 1 wall mounted

· Est. cost $123

Algies Bay Reserve

· Well used reserve space- dog walking and passive recreation

· Est 3 wall mounted

· Est. cost $370

Goodall Reserve

· Site contains sport park, park for passive recreation and hard courts

· Popular sports park in the area

· Est 2-3 wall mounted

· Est. $250-$370

Helensville River Reserve

· Popular passive recreation space close to boat club

· Opportunity for targeted smoke-free messaging

· Est. 3 wall mounted signs

· Est $370

Matheson Bay Reserve

· Playground on site, access to beach and bush land

· Opportunity for various smoke-free messaging

· Est. 3 signs

· Est. cost $370

Omaha Boat launching & wharf area

· Omaha beach- very popular and high profile site

· Boat launching and wharf area main site of congregation- well used by families

· Est. 2 signs

· Est. cost $250

Port Albert Recreation Reserve

· Well used sports park space

· Est. 2 signs

· Est. $250

Wellsford War Memorial Park and Wellsford Centennial Park

· Large park areas adjacent to each other

· Important sports park and high profile passive reserve land

· Est. 4 wall mounted

· Est. $500

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

Smoke-free signage installation in other areas

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

22. As signs are replaced and upgraded, the signs will incorporate the permanent smoke-free logo.

23. For the Rodney Local Board area, the medium priority sites are:

a. Kaukapakapa Memorial Hall

b. Point Wells Hall

c. South Head Hall

d. Waimauku War Memorial Hall

e. Wainui Hall

f. Warkworth Masonic Hall

g. Airiki Reserve

h. Baddeleys Beach Reserve

i. Campbells Beach Reserve

j. Church Hill Reserve

k. Excelsior Way Reserve

l. Harry James Reserve

m. Highland Garden and Glade Reserve

n. Muriwai Beach Reserve (in conjunction with Regional Parks team)

o. Pukemateko Reserve

p. Sinclair Park

q. Sunburst Reserve

r. Sunrise Boulevard

s. Te Hana Reserve and Hall

t. Te Moau Reserve

u. Tuna Place Reserve

v. Whangateau Harbour Esplanade Reserve

w. William Fraser Reserve

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

Smoke-free public places promotion

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

26. To assist the board in the promotion of the policy staff suggest the following for consideration:

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

27. Staff consulted with the board throughout the development of the policy in 2012-2013.

28. In June 2014, staff attended a workshop with the board to confirm the high and medium priority sites for the implementation of the policy. The board was also provided with an indicative cost of introducing additional signage in the identified high priority sites.

29. At the workshop, the board had made the following comments:

· it is supportive of the policy and smoke-free behaviour, as smoking behaviour presents a large cost to society

· it supports all identified high priority sites (20 sites) in principle. However, it would like parks staff to develop a programme for the installation of smoke-free signs and relevant costing, rather than installing smoke-free signs in all 20 sites at the same time

· it would like smoke-free signage incorporated into community halls as the community halls are renovated or upgraded

· it would like to see alignment with the regional parks. As the Rodney Local Board area contains regional parks, it would like to see the smoke-free message promoted in these areas too.

· it had concerns that the logos may not be effective in communicating the smoke-free status of the area.

· it had concerns regarding the potential for signage clutter.

Maori impact statement

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

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

32. The policy aims to address Maori smoking rates through:

· the creation of smoke-free public places

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

· focus on the Southern Initiative smoke-free work stream

Implementation

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

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

35. The approximate cost of additional smoke-free signs in the 20 identified sites (Table two) in Phase one is between $4,000 to $6,000. The exact costs will vary depending on:

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

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

· the positioning and installation of the smoke-free signs.

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Team Leader, Regionwide Social Policy

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Brenda Steele
Deputy Chairperson	Steven Garner
Members	James Colville
	Warren Flaunty, QSM
	Thomas Grace
	Beth Houlbrooke
	John McLean
	Phelan Pirrie
	Greg Sayers

Authors	Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Authors	Alaistair Child – Principal Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager