Agenda of Waiheke Local Board

Waiheke Local Board

24 July 2014

Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback

File No.: CP2014/13520

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

· location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

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

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

· maximum trading hours

· the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

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

Comments

Legislative framework

Background: law reform

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

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

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

Scope of LAPs

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

· location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

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

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

· maximum trading hours

· the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions

· one-way door restrictions.

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

Effect of LAPs

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

Table 1. Application of a LAP in licensing decisions

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

Statutory process for developing LAPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auckland Council’s Local Alcohol Policy Project

Council’s decision to develop a LAP

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Project plan overview

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

Auckland Council’s draft Local Alcohol Policy

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

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

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

Table 3. Key consultation dates

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

Background to draft LAP: stakeholder feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-licence density

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

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

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

On-licence density

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

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

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

Off-licence opening times

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

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

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

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

On-licence closing times

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

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

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

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

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

One-way door policy

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

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

o Increased drinking in public places

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

Background to draft LAP: local board feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4. Summary of local board feedback

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

Summary of draft LAP content

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

· are evidence-based

· align with the object of the Act

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

Purpose (section 1 of draft LAP)

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

· is appropriate to the Auckland Council region

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

· is consistent with the object of the Act.

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

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

· controlling where new licences are allowed

· controlling how many new licences are allowed

· reducing the hours that licensed premises can sell alcohol

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

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

Location and density of licences

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

Table 5. Policy areas

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

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

· 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.

· 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.

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

35. 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).

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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

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

Table 5. Proposed maximum trading hours

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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

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

· reduce alcohol-related harm by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of off-licence provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special licences

45. 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

46. 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.

47. 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

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

Table 9. Waiheke Local Board feedback

Topic	Local Board feedback	Officer response
Location	· Supportive of a high stress/high risk overlay	· The draft LAP directly incorporates this feedback. The high stress/high risk concept has been retained, though it has been renamed the “Priority Overlay” to address concerns that the name was stigmatising and to highlight the council’s aim to prioritise these areas for reducing alcohol-related harm.
Density	· Supportive of cumulative impact assessment at an area based level	· The Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment will consider existing premises in the area, risk ratings of those premises, patron capacity of those current licences, hours as well as surrounding land uses, socio economic, demographic and alcohol-related harm indicators for the surrounding area. Council will prepare a report with all this information and the applicant will have the chance to view and provide comments on this report also. This is expanded in more detail in sections 3.1.1 – 3.1.4 of the draft LAP. Please see section 4.1.3 of the draft LAP for details of which broad areas the ECIA applies. · The DLC or ARLA will then be provided with all this information to inform their decision.
Density	· Support temporary freeze for off licences only · Don’t agree with regional cap or sinking lid options due to the population increases over time, this wouldn’t work	· The draft LAP directly incorporates this feedback. A temporary freeze has been recommended for off-licences in some areas as opposed to a sinking lid or cap because of the issues with determining and implementing this, as highlighted by the board.
Hours	· Suggested 1.30am close for on-licences and hours of 10am – 8pm for off-licences for Waiheke Island	· Hours for off licences have remained as recommended at 9am – 10pm across the region. · Hours for on-licences in Broad Area B (which includes Waiheke) are 9am – 1am with trial extensions of up to 2 hours available for best practice premises. · Hours for club licences has been recommended as 9am – 1am across the region. · Decisions were largely based on the recommendations and feedback from the Staff Position Paper.

Maori impact statement

Research and data on Maori and alcohol

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. 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 mataawaka to discuss both the LAP Project and the Alcohol Control (Liquor Ban) Bylaw Project.

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

53. 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

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2014: Statement of Proposal	25
b View	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting May 2014 - Resolutions on draft Local Alcohol Policy	141
c View	A3 Copies of Tables 7 and 8 from report	143
d View	Key Topics for Feedback from Local Boards	145

Signatories

Authors

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waiheke Local Board

24 July 2014

Waiheke Contestable Local Event Support Fund - 2014/2015

File No.: CP2014/14551

Purpose

1. To present the process for a contestable local event support fund 2014-2015, for the Waiheke Local Board to approve.

Executive summary

2. A local events support fund of $47,757 is available to the Waiheke Local Board for distribution for community events in 2014-2015. This fund is to be allocated via two contestable funding rounds:

a) Round one opening 4 August 2014, closing 22 August 2014

b) Round two (if unallocated funds remain) opening 1 September 2014 to 31 October 2014

3. Applications from event organisers will be submitted via an online web management system called Smartygrants. This application process will be coordinated by the Community Development, Arts and Culture (CDAC) events funding coordinator and the event facilitation central team leader.

4. At the close of the round all applications received will be collated from the online system. At the next possible meeting, following the close of the round, the applications will then be submitted to the board for the allocation of funds.

5. The event facilitation central team leader will manage the funding agreements and payments to the event organiser and relevant accountability for each successful application.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Approves the process for the Waiheke Contestable Local Event Support Fund 2014-2015.

Comments

6. A local events support fund of $47,757 is available to the Waiheke Local Board for distribution for community events in 2014-2015 in the 2014-2015 financial year.

7. The local event support fund provides the opportunity for the Waiheke Local Board to work in partnership with local event organisers to develop an events programme that reflects the aspirations of the community and supports the local board plan.

8. The contestable local events support fund has two scheduled rounds during which event organisers can apply for funding. These dates are applied across the region and are as follows:

Round	Applications Close	Assessment	Decision Making
1	31 May 2014	June 2014	July/August 2014
2	31 October 2014	November 2014	December 2014/February 2015

9. The Waiheke Local Board considered the CDAC Work Programme presented on Thursday 10 July 2014. At this stage the board confirmed their intention to fund local events through the contestable process.

10. The scheduled date for the round one of the contestable local event support fund has passed so an “interim” round of funding has been created, the dates for these are as follows:

Round	Applications Open	Workshop	Decision Making
Interim 1	4 – 22 August 2014	September 2014	25 September 2014
2	1 September - 31 October 2014	November 2014	December 2014-February 2015

11. Please note the interim round one will be open for a shortened period of 18 days. We will look to engage potential applicants through local board services’ access to on-island networks and through our database of previously funded events to ensure that all potential applicants are aware of the reduced application period and associated timeframes.

12. Following the close of the each round the following process will be implemented:

a) members will receive a copy of all applications for their consideration

b) the events unit will submit a report including details of all applications for formal consideration and decision-making at the local board meeting (timeframes are indicated above). Members will include any specific conditions (such as the funds being used to provide for a zero waste event or traffic management costs), associated with the allocation of the fund, in the resolution.

c) following the board’s funding allocation, funding agreements will be sent to event organisers, along with the accountability template. The funding agreement will include any specific conditions as identified in the resolution.

d) the events unit will arrange payment, once signed copies of the relevant agreement or contract has been received

e) following the payment and execution of the event, the accountability template is to be submitted by the event organiser. The event accountability template is designed to enable the CDAC events funding coordinator to confirm that the funds granted were used according to the funding regulations. This also provides the board with information on the attendance and highlights of the event. See Attachment B.

f) All accountability information will be circulated to board members for their information.

13. Local event support funding criteria guidelines for 2014-2015 have been established to assist applicants in understanding the focus of this fund and to guide local boards in their decision-making. The applications have been assessed in accordance with the local event support fund guidelines. See Attachment A.

14. Waiheke specific event support funding criteria guidelines are currently in the final stages of sign off by the local board event portfolio holders. Once this has been confirmed the document will be available with the general local event support funding criteria on the Auckland Council website. This document will form the basis of officer recommendations, which will be presented to board members at a workshop.

15. The Waiheke Local Board has the opportunity to refer applications to another fund or to allocate funding from within its local event fund.

16. The intention for 2015-2016 is for the Waiheke Local Board events fund to align with the regional contestable event funding rounds and dates. The “interim round one” contestable funding is for the 2014-2015 year only.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board event funding including the local event support fund. The Waiheke Local Board has identified key priorities for the local area within its local board plan, some of which could be achieved through events.

Maori impact statement

18. This fund does not specifically target Maori groups, however Maori communities are likely to benefit from the events supported by the local board, alongside other groups in the community.

19. The decisions sought within this report fall within the local board delegations.

20. The decisions sought do not invoke the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Implementation

21. Following the Waiheke Local Board consideration and allocation of the events funding, council staff will implement the process, as detailed in section 12 (c-f) above.

22. During the regional round one funding (closed 31 May 2014) a total of three applications were received for Waiheke Local Board. These applications will be considered as part of the interim round one workshop in September 2014 and have been notified of this timeframe.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A - Local event Support Fund Guidelines	161
b View	Attachment B - Accountability Template	169

Signatories

Authors

Carrie Doust - Team Leader Event Facilitation Central

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waiheke Local Board

24 July 2014

Auckland Transport Report - July 2014

File No.: CP2014/15667

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to Elected Members about Auckland Transport activities in the local board area.

Executive summary

2. This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Waiheke Local Board and its community; matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector; and Auckland Transport media releases for the information of the board and community.

3. In particular, this report provides an update on:

· Local Board Transport Capital Fund;

· The Esplanade decision;

· Road Sealing Projects response; and

· Scooter Parking Matiatia.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Receives the report.

b) Notes the request for additional scooter parking at Matiatia and provides feedback on this request.

Comments

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

4. On the 2 August 2012, the Strategy and Finance Committee resolved that $10 million per annum of Auckland Transport capital funding be allocated to Local Boards on the basis of the population of their respective board areas.

5. The exception was Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards, whose allocation was determined to be 1% and 2% of the annual fund respectively, as allocating on a pure population basis, would have resulted in a negligible level of funding for these boards.

6. The funds can be used for any local transport capital works project as long as it is technically deliverable, meets transport safety criteria, does not compromise the transport network and is not part of an asset renewal programme.

7. The Local Board can bundle capital works projects, by carrying budget over to later years, or by bring budget forward from future years provided;

A) It can be managed by Auckland Transport within its annual budget

B) It is within the same electoral term

8. Waiheke’s board allocation is $200,000.00 per annum.

9. Waiheke Local Board requested Auckland Transport to provide a list of safety projects for their consideration. Resolution # WHK/2014/110 (b)&(c) 24 April 2014.

10. A list of potential project was furnished last month, this list was rejected in principal and the Board moved the following resolution;

Resolution # WHK/2014/164

b) Requests further information on possible local Board Capital Fund options for the Local Board to allocate the Local Board Capital Fund (in conjunction with the footpath programme review), noting the board’s priority to be footpaths that address safety issues, access to schools and areas identified as obstacles to active transport.

11. Auckland Transport is undertaking further investigations in order to compile a further list.

The Esplanade

12. In December 2010 a section of The Esplanade between Lannan Road and Kiwi Street was closed (on a trial basis) to all traffic except pedestrians and cyclists.

13. It was intended that this closure would be reviewed by Auckland Transport after it has been in place for one year.

14. The reasoning at the time for the trial closure was firstly Police concerns regarding the number of vehicle crashes occurring on this stretch of road.

15. Secondly there was a perception that the road, with it’s existing controls, was unsafe for vulnerable road users, (pedestrians and cyclists) due to the lack of dedicated footpath or cycle lane.

16. In addition, public consultation regarding the closure indicated that residents on Waiheke Island were evenly divided on whether the road should remain open for all vehicular traffic.

17. As reported to the Local Board in December 2011, the condition of The Esplanade deteriorated significantly during the trial closure and Auckland Transport was unable to safety reopen the road to vehicular traffic, after the trial period in December 2011.

18. Auckland Transport investigated several options for the future operation of The Esplanade, these options were reported to the Local Board in June 2012. Appendix “A” attached.

19. Auckland Transports, preferred option was to re-open The Esplanade to two-way traffic and create a ‘shared environment’.

20. After discussion the Local Board supported this option and resolved (resolution number WHK/2012/162):

c) That the Waiheke Local Board convenes a working party of all available Local Board members: Auckland transport officers, including Community Transport officers, two Cycle Action Waiheke (CAW) representatives and a representative from both the Waiheke Pony Club and the Waiheke Riding Club to look at suitable designs for a ‘shared environment/space on The Esplanade

d) That the Waiheke Local Board notes that a ‘shared environment’ would be reinforced by methods such as appropriate signage, a lower speed environment and traffic calming devices at appropriate locations.

Following consultation with key stakeholders, traffic calming measures were designed.

21. These measures were installed and The Esplanade was subsequently re-opened, as a shared environment.

22. On the Friday the 13 June 2014, Randhir Karma, Manager Road Corridor Operations, Auckland Transport, met with the Chair of the Local Board Paul Walden and the Transport Portfolio holder Shirin Brown to discuss Auckland transports position and subsequent decision on the future use of The Esplanade.

23. This meeting was followed up with a letter to the Chair of the Waiheke Local Board, outlining Auckland Transport’s position on the current state of the Esplanade. Letter attached appendix “B”.

24. The letter summarises that Auckland Transport has reviewed the Action Waiheke Esplanade survey and acknowledges that the Waiheke Local Board’s request to close The Esplanade is supported by a number or residents.

25. However, recent site surveys, (copy of survey attached Appendix “C”) general observations and discussions with Emergency Services, indicate that the re-opening of The Esplanade has not significantly reduced pedestrian and cyclist amenity and safety.

26. This shows the road is still well used by pedestrians and cyclists and is operating in a safe manner. (Pedestrian and cyclist numbers appear to be greater than when surveyed while the road was still closed to motorised traffic.)

27. Traffic volumes and speeds were observed to be low with good motorist behaviour.

28. Auckland Transport therefore considers that The Esplanade should remain open to all users and the usage will be reviewed regularly.

Road Sealing

29. At the Local Board’s public meeting on 12 June 2014 the Waiheke Local Board received a presentation from Karyn and Ian Johnston regarding a request to seal Marine View Road, after this presentation the Local Board resolved (resolution number WHK/2014/145):

a) Requests Auckland transport report back on the status and priority for all sealing projects identified for Waiheke.

30. Subsequently the Johnston’s contacted Auckland Transport via the Customer Service Line, (response attached) appendix D.

31. The majority of unsealed roads are in the former Rodney District (78%), with the reminder in the Gulf Islands, west and south Auckland. The Auckland Region has approximately 850 kilometres of unsealed roads.

32. Auckland Council has approved $14 million funding, over ten years (1.4M per year) for sealing unsealed roads and has developed Seal extension guidelines to prioritise identified unsealed roads.

33. New seal on a straightforward road with no drainage or other issues, costs approximately $500,000 per kilometre.

34. Seal extensions are distinguished from “road resealing” (the renewal of the seal on an existing sealed road), which is funded from depreciation and does not add to the rates burden. Seal extensions require new capital expenditure.

35. The guidelines use a weighted scoring system that includes;

· The number of cars and heavy vehicles using the road;

· The number of properties and amenities close to or on the road

· The steepness of the road and number of accidents that have occurred on it

· Regional and local priority (through routes, access, environmental, growth, tourism etc)

36. The outcome of this prioritisation process is a ranking of all unsealed roads compared to the available budget in the Auckland Council long Term Plan.

37. The 2013/14 high priority list ranks the 30 highest priority roads using the seal extension guidelines. While these roads have been identified as high priority, there isn’t the necessary funding to seal them all in the next 10 years. Appendix E.

38. A banded priority list of all the unsealed roads in Auckland has also been produced. This groups roads by priority band, from A-G, which indicates when a road might be sealed under current funding levels. Appendix F

39. This list identifies approximately 43 unsealed roads on Waiheke as follows;

Band A, 1 to 30

Nil

Band B, 31 to 100

Te Makiri Rd, Bella Vista Rd, Garratt Rd, Hillside Rd, Nelson Rd, Quelch Rd, Shelly Beach Rd ext.

Band C, 101 to 200

Scotts Tce, Waiua Rd ext, The Esplanade (Huruhi Bay), Anzac Ave, Dickson Rd, Man “O” War Bay Rd, Cowes Bay Rd, Makora Ave, Taraire St, Beach Pde, Nepean Ave, Marine View Rd, Mitchell Rd, Pah Rd, Wairua Rd.

Band D, 201 to 300

Empire Ave, Gordans Rd, Palm Rd ext, McMillan Rd, Muritai Rd, Shelly Beach Rd, Huruhi Rd, Great Barrier Rd, Trig Hill Rd.

Band E, 301 to 400

Bryan Rd, Le Roy Rd, Brown Rd, Burrell ext/Ocean View Way, Burrell ext/Esplanade Walkway,

Band F, 401 to 500

Totara Rd, Man O War Bay Rd (North).

Band G, 500 plus

Awaawaroa Rd, Pohutukawa Ave, Woodside Bay Rd, Waimangu Rd, Fisher Rd.

Scooter Parking Matiatia

40. On the 11 April 2014 a member of the public wrote to the Chair of the Waiheke Local Board to request the Board’s support to put in more scooter parking in the Matiatia parking area.

41. This request was subsequently forwarded on to Auckland Transport Parking team to investigate.

42. The parking team have responded that the previous Board requested more scooter parking at Matiatia, , resulting in car-parks being made into scooter/motorbike parks, however this resulted in numerous residents complaining to the local Board and subsequently back to Auckland Transport.

43. Due to the nature and number of complaints the scooter parking was reverted back to car-parks.

44. Auckland Transport is happy to again convert several car-parks into scooter parking, however require the support of the Local Board to do so.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

45. The board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Maori impact statement

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

General

47. 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.

Implementation

48. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	The Esplanade Future Used Options	177
b View	Letter to Chair Waiheke Local Board	185
c View	The Esplanade Monitoring Surveys Report	189
d View	Response to the Johnstons	209
e View	Seal High Priority List	211
f View	Seal extensions banded list	213
g View	Auckland Transport Issues Register	227