|
Waitākere
Ranges Local Board
10 July 2014
|
|
Local Alcohol
Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback
File No.: CP2014/13521
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 Waitākere Ranges
Local Board:
a) Provides
formal feedback (by passing resolutions) on the draft Auckland Council Local
Alcohol Policy, noting that the resolutions will be included in the officers’
report to the Local Alcohol Policy Project Hearings Panel.
|
Comments
Legislative framework
Background: law reform
7. In
December 2012, Parliament enacted the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the
Act). The Act introduced a new national framework for regulating the sale and
supply of alcohol.
8. One of the
key policy drivers behind the new legislation was an increased focus on local
decision-making. In line with this, the Act removed the
ability for council staff to consider alcohol licence applications under
delegation and instead established new, strengthened local
decision-making bodies (district licensing committees; “DLCs”). The Act also
introduced the ability for local authorities to tailor some of the new national
provisions (such as maximum trading hours) to their own local circumstances and
to create additional regulations (such as the regulation of licence density)
through the development of local alcohol policies (“LAPs”).
9. Whilst LAPs
are not mandatory, the Act specifically empowers local authorities to develop
them. The Act also explicitly requires licensing decision-makers, including
DLCs and the new appellate body, the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority
(“ARLA”), to have regard to the content of LAPs when making decisions under the
Act. This statutory recognition represents a significant change from the
previous system and allows local authorities, in consultation with their
communities and stakeholders, to have greater influence over their local
licensing environments.
Scope of LAPs
10. The Act
restricts the scope of LAPs to the following licensing matters (section 77 of
the Act):
· location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas
· location of licensed premises by reference to proximity to premises
or facilities of a particular kind or kinds
· whether further licences (or licences of a particular kind or kinds)
should be issued for premises in the district concerned or any stated part of
the district
· maximum trading hours
· the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions
· one-way door
restrictions.
11. Rules
relating to each of these matters can be applied to: on-licences (e.g. bars,
restaurants, taverns); off-licences (e.g. bottle stores or supermarkets) and
club licences (e.g. sports clubs, RSAs) through the LAP. For special licences,
a LAP can only include rules on hours, discretionary conditions and one-way
door restrictions.
Effect of
LAPs
12. The
Act specifies when a LAP must be considered by licensing decision-makers (i.e.
the DLC and ARLA). It also stipulates the effect that LAPs can have on the
outcomes of different types of applications. The provisions of the Act
relevant to these matters are summarised in the table below.
Table 1.
Application of a LAP in licensing decisions
|
|
Summary
|
|
When LAP to be considered
|
· The Act requires the DLC and ARLA to “have
regard to” the LAP when deciding whether to issue or renew a licence.
|
|
Effect of LAP on applications for
new licences
|
· The Act provides that where issuing a new
licence would be inconsistent with the LAP, the DLC and ARLA may refuse to
issue the licence (section 108)
· Alternatively, the DLC or ARLA may issue the
licence subject to particular conditions to address the inconsistencies with
the LAP (section 109)
|
|
Effect of LAP on existing licences
|
· For applications to renew a licence, the DLC
and ARLA cannot refuse to issue the licence on the grounds that it is
inconsistent with the LAP. They can however, impose conditions on the
licence to reduce the inconsistency (section 133).
o The main implication of this is that
location and density policies contained within a LAP will not apply to
existing licences, meaning it will take time to give effect to the intention
of location and density policies.
· Provisions of a LAP relating to maximum hours
and one-way door policies will apply to all licensees at the time that those
provisions come into force (section 45).
o This cannot be less than three months
after public notice of adoption of the LAP, providing all appeals have been
resolved.
o The effect of this is that licensees
with longer hours will have to revert to the maximum trading hours stated in
the LAP, while licensees with shorter hours will not be affected.
|
Statutory process for developing LAPs
13. The
Act prescribes the process for developing a LAP. In particular, it:
· outlines the matters that local authorities must have regard to when
developing a LAP (section 78(2))
· requires local authorities to consult with the Police, inspectors
and Medical Officers of Health before producing a draft LAP (section 78(4))
· requires local authorities to develop a draft LAP (section 78(1)),
to give public notice of the draft LAP and to use the special consultative
procedure to consult with the public (section 79(1)). (The draft policy then
becomes the provisional policy.)
· requires local
authorities to publicly notify the provisional policy and to allow submitters
to appeal against the provisional policy (section 80).
14. The
Act also sets out an appeal process and states that:
· only those who have made a submission on the draft LAP may appeal
· the only ground on
which an appeal can be lodged is that the provisional LAP (or a part thereof)
is unreasonable in light of the object of the Act.
15. The
object of the Act (section 4) is that:
a) the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol
should be undertaken safely and responsibly; and
b) the
harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be
minimised.
16. The Statement
of Proposal (Attachment A), as well as the sections below, provide information
on the process Auckland Council has followed in developing its draft LAP, in
line with the statutory requirements.
Auckland
Council’s Local Alcohol Policy Project
Council’s decision
to develop a LAP
17. In
2012, in anticipation of the new Act, Auckland Council completed the LAP
Research Project, which focused on gathering and analysing information to
support the development of a LAP. In May 2012, staff presented the Regional
Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) with a copy of a research report,
which was structured around the information requirements as set out in the then
Alcohol Reform Bill (and that were later carried through into the final
legislation).
18. After
considering the research report, the RDOC approved the development of an
Auckland Council LAP, subject to the passing of the Bill (resolution number
RDO/2012/78(d)). This decision was later confirmed by the Governing Body in
January 2013, after the new Act received Royal assent on 18 December 2012.
19. Project
plan: key steps for developing council’s LAP
20. Auckland
Council has followed an extensive process in preparing its draft LAP. The key
steps are outlined in the table below. (Step 8 onwards will occur after the
consultation process).
Table 2.
Project plan overview
|
Step
|
Description
|
Timeframe
|
|
1. Project
organisation / governance
|
· Established stakeholder reference groups and Joint
Political Working Party
|
Complete
|
|
2. Issues
analysis
|
· Reviewed, updated and analysed
information gathered as part of Local Alcohol Policy Research Project in
accordance with statutory requirements
|
Complete
|
|
3. Options
analysis
|
· Identified assessed options available,
within the parameters of the Act, to the council for addressing the issues
identified at step 2.
· Develop an issues and options paper with input
from political working party and stakeholder reference group
|
Complete
|
|
4. Initial
engagement period
|
· Initial engagement with internal,
external and political stakeholders on issues and options paper
|
Complete
|
|
5. Engagement
on staff position
|
· Developed a position paper with staff
recommendations based on issues and options analysis, and feedback received
through initial engagement period
· Reported position back to internal,
external and political stakeholders involved in the initial engagement period
for further feedback
|
Complete
|
|
6. Develop
and gain approval of draft policy
|
· Analysed outcomes of steps 2 to 5,
completed detailed impact assessment, completed final engagement with elected
members and developed draft policy
· Present draft policy to the Committee for
approval
· Publicly notify draft policy
|
Complete
|
|
7. Special
consultative procedure
|
· Follow special consultative procedure as
set out in the Local Government Act 2002, which includes receiving written
submissions, holding hearings and deliberating in public (i.e. full public
consultation)
· Parallel process for local boards and
council advisory panels to provide feedback on the draft LAP
|
Current – September 2014
|
|
8. Provisional
policy
|
· Work with Hearings Panel to report back
to Governing Body with Provisional LAP
· If the Governing Body endorses the
provisional policy, give public notice of:
o the provisional policy
o rights of appeal against it
o the ground on which an appeal may be
made.
|
October / November 2014
|
|
9. Appeals
|
· Appeals will be dealt with in accordance
with the Act
|
TBC
|
|
10. Adopt
final policy
|
· Adopt final policy in accordance with the
Act
· Timing will depend on whether appeals
have been lodged and if so, when they are resolved.
|
TBC
|
|
11. Implementation
|
· Work with officers from Licensing and
Compliance and other relevant areas of council on the implementation of the
policy. Officers will also develop a monitoring and evaluation framework.
|
TBC
|
Auckland
Council’s draft Local Alcohol Policy
Council’s decision to adopt the draft
Auckland Council LAP for public consultation
21. On 13 May
2014, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopted the Local Alcohol
Policy Project: Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), which includes the draft
Auckland Council LAP, for public consultation (resolution number REG/2014/60(a);
a full copy of the resolutions is provided in Attachment B of this report).
22. Following this
decision, the council commenced the public consultation process (using the
special consultative procedure), on 16 June 2014. The key consultation dates
are summarised in the table below:
Table 3. Key consultation
dates
|
Date
|
Milestone
|
|
16 June 2014
|
Written
submission period opened
|
|
16 July 2014
|
Written
submission period closes
|
|
July/August 2014
|
· Officers will review and analyse all
submissions and report to Hearings Panel.
· This report will include all resolutions
passed by the local boards and council advisory panels with feedback on the
draft policy.
|
|
Late August/
September 2014
|
· Public hearings will be held
· Local Boards will be invited to attend a
meeting with the Hearings Panel.
|
|
October 2014
|
Hearings Panel
will report back to Governing Body with a provisional LAP
|
Background to draft LAP: stakeholder
feedback
23. The
following paragraphs provide an overview of the feedback received on the key
issues associated with the project. A detailed summary of the feedback
received from different feedback groups on the specific policy levers and
proposals outlined in the staff position paper is provided in Attachment C.
24. There
was a reasonable level of agreement across the different feedback groups on the
following matters:
· Variation by
licence – That the draft LAP needs to set
different rules for different kinds of licences (i.e. on-licences,
off-licences, club licences and special licences).
· Local
variation – That
given the size and diversity of the Auckland region, the draft LAP should
provide a degree of local variation. Most agreed that at least the Central
City should be treated differently, particularly in relation to on-licence
hours.
· Club licences – Staff received very little feedback on how the LAP should
regulate club licences, at both the issues and options stage and in response to
the position paper. Of those that did comment, most agreed that issues with
club licences are typically related to the operation and management of the
premises, rather than location or density. Feedback also focused on wider
issues beyond the scope of the LAP, such as the interrelationship between
alcohol and sport.
· Discretionary conditions
– There was strong support for the LAP to specify a
range of discretionary conditions, even from industry groups, provided the
conditions are clear (both in terms of compliance and the rationale), practical
and reasonable.
25. Feedback
varied across the different groups on most other matters, particularly the
following:
Off-licence density
· Most agreed that the
proliferation of off-licence premises across Auckland is one of the most
pressing issues to be addressed through the LAP. Statutory stakeholders,
public health sector stakeholders, community groups, residents and local boards
(especially the southern boards) were all particularly concerned with this
issue and wanted to see strict density controls through the LAP. The on-licence
industry also expressed concern about clusters of off-licences within close
proximity to on-licences and the issues this can create with pre- and
side-loading.
· The off-licence
industry however, opposed the use of density controls. Supermarkets in
particular, argued that whilst density and clustering of premises may be an
issue for other types of off-licences, it is not a concern for supermarkets.
· Other off-licensees
(such as bottle stores), as well as umbrella organisations representing
different retailers (e.g. business associations) acknowledged that there are
issues with off-licence density in some parts of Auckland, but suggested that
blanket rules would not be appropriate. These groups argued that the issues
associated with off-licence clusters would be better managed through policy
approaches designed to improve compliance combined with greater monitoring and
enforcement of the Act. The main concern here was that blanket (‘umbrella’)
rules penalise ‘good’ operators rather than targeting those with poor
compliance.
On-licence density
· By contrast, most
feedback groups seemed supportive of on-licence clustering, although comments
tended to focus on positive notions of vibrancy and economic development
associated with clusters of restaurants and cafes.
· Statutory
stakeholders expressed concerns that the clustering of other types of
on-licences (particularly late night bars) can have negative amenity effects
and cumulative impacts on an area, ultimately leading to increased
alcohol-related harm. The Police and Medical Officer of Health advocated for
strong regulation of on-licence density.
· Licence inspectors
acknowledged there can be issues with on-licence clusters but also suggested
concentrating on-licences in certain areas can allow for easier enforcement.
Off-licence opening times
· Most stakeholders,
community groups and residents were supportive of the LAP reducing off-licences
hours across the region. Statutory stakeholders and public health sector
stakeholders were particularly supportive, and some wanted to see trading hours
even further restricted than those recommended by staff.
· The off-licence
industry (with the exception of supermarkets) were also generally supportive of
reduced trading hours for off-licences, provided that all types of premises
were treated the same (i.e. that restrictions should be applied to bottle
stores and supermarkets).
· Representatives for
the supermarkets were strongly opposed to any restrictions on off-licence hours
provided under the Act. They were especially opposed to the proposed opening
time of 9am. The supermarkets argued that alcohol sales between 7am and 9am
are minor and that this would inconvenience their shoppers.
· Other stakeholders,
members of the community and elected members had mixed views on whether
supermarkets should be treated separately.
On-licence closing times
· The topic of
on-licence closing times has been the most contentious issue throughout the policy
development process. Almost all groups (except the hospitality industry) were
supportive of the shift away from 24 hour licensing that the Act has provided.
However, in terms of ‘which parts of Auckland should close when’, the feedback
was very mixed.
· The Police argued
strongly for 3am closing in the Central City with 1am closing everywhere else.
The Medical Officer of Health also shared these views, although on occasion
suggested even more restrictive hours.
· Public health sector
stakeholders were mixed. Some supported the Police recommendations, others
suggested very strict closing times and others still, supported the staff
position paper recommendations.
· The on-licence
industry’s feedback was that ideally the LAP would override the 4am default
position set in the Act, but if not, then no further restrictions to the
default hours are required. The on-licence industry was also opposed to the
idea of restrictions based solely on location as this fails to take account for
the quality of individual operators (in terms of host responsibility etc).
· Community views were
very mixed. Staff met with some community groups that wanted to see certain
types of premises open late, whereas other groups were comfortable with 3am or
4am closing.
One-way door policy
· Throughout the
initial engagement period, there was some support for the use of the one-way
door policy. However, other stakeholders raised concerns about the
practicality of this tool and the potential for other unintended consequences
such as:
o Risks to
individual safety (e.g. if an individual is separated from their group of
friends)
o Increased drinking
in public places
o Higher risk of
conflicts for security staff (e.g. large queues just before one-way door
commences, issues with outside smoking etc.)
Background to draft
LAP: local board feedback
26. Throughout the
development of the draft LAP, staff regularly engaged with, and considered the
views and preferences of local boards. In particular, staff:
· reported to the Alcohol
Programme Political Working Party, which included local board membership
· provided local boards
with individualised research summaries on alcohol-related issues within their
local board areas
· held workshops with
local boards on the issues and options paper
· reported to local boards to gather
feedback on the position paper.
27. Table 4 below
summarises the feedback received from local boards on the position paper, which
was released prior to the development of the draft LAP. (Note: This summary
represents an overview of the feedback received. Some individual boards may
not have agreed with the majority views).
28. Feedback
received specifically from this local board is included, along with a response
from officers, in the “Local board views and implications” section of this
report (below).
Table 4. Summary of local board feedback
|
Position
paper proposal
|
Summary of
Feedback
|
|
Policy lever
1 – Location: Broad Areas
|
|
Establish six broad policy areas; five based on
zoning in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and a sixth “high stress/high
risk” overlay.
|
Mixed views.
· Some supported in principle
· Others preferred a regional approach
· Some suggested that some areas needed to be shifted
between areas 2 and 3 (e.g. Devonport/Takapuna re-categorised as Area 3)
· Some wanted local boards to be able to make rules in
their area.
|
|
Use of a high stress overlay to identify problem
areas or vulnerable communities
|
Mostly very supportive.
|
|
Policy lever 2 – Location: Proximity
|
|
Indirectly regulate the location of off-licences in
relation to schools:
· through the cumulative impact process
· by delaying off-licence opening times until 9am
· by regulating advertising through the signage bylaw
|
Mixed views.
· Most supported the cumulative
impact assessment including this as a consideration.
· Southern boards supportive of
buffer zone, others happy to rely on discretionary conditions
· Concern around advertising
|
|
Policy lever 3 – Density
|
|
Allow clustering of
on-licences in urbanised/ business focused areas (Broad Areas A and B)
|
Unclear.
· General agreement that there
is a case to treat the CBD differently, less certain on metropolitan centres
· Some local boards considered
that clusters of on-licences (e.g. restaurants) could be beneficial from an
economic perspective and in terms of creating vibrancy etc.
|
|
Temporary freeze on off-licences in the CBD
and high stress areas
|
Mostly supportive.
· Mostly concerned with density
of off-licences
· Support for combination of
cumulative impact approach and area based temporary freezes
· A minority did not like this
approach
|
|
The use of cumulative impact
assessments to limit the establishment of new licences in other areas
|
Mostly supportive.
· Many supported in principle
but requested more information
· Some suggested this should be
required across the whole region.
· Others wanted stronger
density controls such as a sinking lid or cap
|
|
Policy lever
4 – Maximum trading hours
|
|
Maximum hours of 9am to 10pm for
off-licences across the region
|
Supportive
· Some boards, especially Southern boards, would
prefer even greater restrictions
· The rest were generally supportive of the proposed
regional approach
|
|
Maximum hours of 8am to 1am
for club licences across the region
|
Negligible feedback on club
hours.
|
|
Maximum on-licence hours
varied across the region:
· CBD: 8am to4am
· Metro centres:8am to 3am
· Rest of Auckland (including
high-stress areas):8am to 1am
|
Mixed views.
· Some were happy with the
hours proposed
· Some Southern boards wanted
earlier closing but would be happy if this was picked up through the high
stress overlay
· There was reasonable support
for having localised entertainment hubs (i.e. metropolitan centres) to reduce
migration to CBD
|
|
Trial extensions for
operators in Broad Area A and Broad Area B
|
Mixed.
· Some supported extended hours
based on good behaviour.
|
|
Policy lever 5 – One-way door
|
|
No one-way door
|
Very mixed.
|
|
Policy lever 6 – Discretionary conditions
|
|
A range of discretionary
conditions based on licence type
|
Supportive.
· General support for a range
of conditions, especially those that support good host responsibility
|
Summary of
draft LAP content
29. This
section of the report summarises the proposals contained within the draft LAP.
The proposals:
· are evidence-based
· align with the object of the Act
· as far as possible,
respond to feedback and concerns from elected members and stakeholders.
Purpose (section 1
of draft LAP)
30. The
purpose of the draft LAP is to provide guidance to the DLC and ARLA on alcohol
licensing matters in a manner that:
· is appropriate to the Auckland Council region
· reflects the views and preferences of Auckland’s communities and
stakeholders
· is consistent with the
object of the Act.
31. Overall,
the draft LAP aims to reduce Auckland’s issues with alcohol-related harm by:
· prioritising areas
where the LAP can have the greatest impact on harm reduction
· controlling where new
licences are allowed
· controlling how many
new licences are allowed
· reducing the hours that
licensed premises can sell alcohol
· identifying additional
conditions that the DLC can apply to licences to help improve the consistency
of standards across Auckland’s premises.
32. This
purpose aligns with the object of the Act, the requirement for the LAP to be
reasonable in light of this object and the policy intent of the Act to provide
greater local input into licensing decisions.
Location and density of licences
33. Auckland’s
differing communities and areas means a blanket approach to policy provisions
is not suitable. The draft LAP categorises the Auckland region into three broad
areas each of which has different rules (reference to draft policy: Part B:
Section 2 and appendices).
Table 5. Policy areas
|
Area
|
Overview
|
|
Broad Area A (City Centre,
Ponsonby, Newton)
|
The three centres included in this
broad area function as the region’s main entertainment hub. However, these
areas also experience high levels of alcohol-related harm, including crime
and anti-social behaviour.
|
|
Broad Area B (rest of the region)
|
The intended outcomes across the
region are relatively consistent and therefore can be achieved through
consistent policy tools.
|
|
A priority overlay which provides
additional rules.
|
The priority overlay identifies
areas that have high numbers of existing licences and communities that
experience higher levels of alcohol-related harm. These are termed priority
areas. The overlay will help protect these areas from further harm by
imposing specific policies and rules.
|
34. The
draft LAP also proposes the following policy tools to manage location and
density issues.
35. Temporary freeze: The distribution of off-licences across Auckland is uneven and some
areas have much higher licence density than others (e.g. the City Centre and
many centres captured by the Priority Areas Overlay). Evidence shows that
these areas also tend to experience disproportionate levels of alcohol-related
harm. The draft LAP therefore, proposes that the DLC and ARLA should refuse to
issue new off-licences in these specific areas for a period of 24 months from
when the policy is adopted.
36. International
case studies show that the temporary freeze is a useful policy tool, not only
to allow time for saturated areas to recover but it can also lead to improved
compliance. These are both important in achieving the object of the Act.
37. Environmental
and Cumulative Impacts Assessment Process: Staff are proposing that
certain applications for new licences would need to undergo an Environmental
and Cumulative Impacts Assessment (ECIA) to help the DLC or ARLA in determining
a licence application. Whether an ECIA is required would depend on the
location of the proposed site and the risk profile of the premises under the
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013.
38. The
process would build on the decision-making criteria under the Act to provide a
more comprehensive framework for the assessment of new licence applications.
In particular, it would ensure that following matters were fully considered, in
order to better manage location (including proximity to sensitive sites) and
density issues arising from applications for new licences:
· The risks associated with the location (including external and
environmental risks such as the existing licence environment and the current
levels of alcohol-related crime); and
· The individual
risks associated with the proposed licence (such as the type of premises, the
risk profile etc).
39. A
key advantage with this approach is that rather than requiring absolute policy
provisions (which would be very difficult to apply in an area as vast as
Auckland), it allows the DLC and ARLA to exercise discretion and consider
applications in the Auckland context, yet in a consistent and transparent
manner.
40. The
ECIA process is applied in the draft LAP in different ways, depending on the
kind of licence and the location, but ultimately the process would assist the
DLC and ARLA to determine which of the following outcomes is most appropriate:
· That the licence should be issued
· That the licences should be issued subject to certain discretionary
conditions
· That the licence
should not be issued.
41. Rebuttable
presumption: The rebuttable presumption is the most restrictive way
that the ECIA process is applied through the draft LAP. Staff have recommended
that it be used in specific parts of the region where there is evidence that
the alcohol licensing environment has a negative cumulative impact on the area
(e.g. to restrict the establishment of new off-licences in neighbourhood
centres). The effect of the rebuttable presumption would be that applications
for new off-licences would generally be refused, unless the DLC or ARLA was
satisfied that the operation of the premises would not unreasonably add to the
environmental and cumulative impacts of alcohol on the area.
Maximum trading hours
42. The draft LAP
proposes regional hours for club and off-licences, and hours based on location
for on-licences. The hours proposed are as follows (reference to draft policy:
Part B: Section 3.4; and sections 4 to 7):
Table 5.
Proposed maximum trading hours
|
Licence
|
Proposed hours
|
|
Off-licences
|
9am to 10pm
|
|
On-licences
|
· Broad Area A: 9am to 3am
· Broad Area B: 9am to 1am
· Priority Overlay: Same as underlying broad area.
|
|
Club licences
|
9am to 1am
|
|
Special licences
|
Case by case, with consideration for location and
nature of event/risks associated with event
|
43. Restricting
the hours that alcohol is available can help to decrease alcohol-related harm.
The licensed hours proposed in the draft LAP:
· represent a reduction
from the national default hours (implemented in December 2013)
· reflect the views of
the statutory stakeholders (Police, medical officers of health and licence
inspectors)
· accommodate a majority
of club and on-licence premises’ existing licensed hours
· will help to decrease
inappropriate consumption (e.g. “side-loading” – leaving a bar to purchase
cheaper alcohol from an off-licence before returning to the bar).
Trial extensions
of hours for on-licences
44. The
draft policy allows for on-licences (except those in the priority overlay) to
apply for a two-hour maximum trial extension of hours.
· These will be granted
on a trial basis, at the DLC’s discretion and following the completion of an
environmental and cumulative impact assessment.
· Applicants will have a
history of best-practice operation, and will need to continue to demonstrate
high levels of compliance to keep the extension.
· Trial extensions will
be preferred in the city centre for Broad Area A and in the metropolitan
centres for Broad Area B.
· No extensions will be
allowed in the priority areas.
Additional
discretionary conditions
45. The
draft LAP recommends a range of discretionary conditions for the DLC to apply.
These conditions strengthen provisions already in the Act, and will help
minimise harm to individuals and the community from inappropriate and excessive
drinking.
Table 6. Discretionary conditions
|
Conditions recommended
for all licences
|
Conditions which can be
applied on a case-by-case basis
|
Where in draft LAP
|
|
Includes:
· an onsite incident register
· host responsibility policies for club and on-licences
· prohibition on single unit sales for off-licences
|
Includes:
· Restrictions on drinks prior to closing
· Clean public areas outside
· Certified manager to be onsite at BYO and club licences (already
required for on- and off-licences)
· CCTV
· Monitoring of outdoor areas for late-trading premises (on-licences).
|
Part B: Sections 4 to 7
|
Summary of
on-licence provisions
46. The
table below demonstrates how the policy tools described above are applied to
on-licences within the draft LAP. This on-licence policy package is designed
to:
· reduce alcohol-related harm by:
o requiring greater scrutiny of new on-licence applications, taking
into account not only the applicant’s proposals but also the surrounding
environment and existing licences.
o significantly reducing licence hours from the previous 24-hour
licensing regime, and only allowing best practice on-licence operators to trade
later. These operators will also be subject to higher standards.
· provide targeted policy interventions and additional protection for
vulnerable communities from alcohol-related harm in Priority Areas
· improved practices
amongst the off-licence industry through a range of discretionary conditions.
Table 7. Summary of draft LAP provisions
for on-licences
|
Policy lever
|
Policy tool
|
Risk profile
|
Broad Area A
|
Broad Area B
|
Priority Areas
|
|
Metro Centres
|
Neigh-
bourhood centres
|
Rest of Broad Area B
|
|
Location / density
|
ECIA
|
Very High
|
Required
|
Required
|
Required
|
Required
|
Required
|
|
High
|
Required
|
Required
|
Required
|
Required
|
Required
|
|
Medium
|
NA
|
NA
|
Required
|
Required
|
Required
|
|
Low
|
NA
|
NA
|
Required
|
NA
|
Required
|
|
Very Low
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
Required
|
|
Proximity to sensitive sites
|
ECIA
|
Risk profile is one of the triggers
|
DLC & ARLA directed to consider
proximity to sensitive sites as part of ECIA
|
|
Hours
|
Standard maximum hours
|
-
|
9am- 3am
|
9am - 1am
|
· Hours to align with underlying area
· LAP encourages even more restrictive hours
|
|
Trial extension for best practice
operators
|
Risk is a factor in considering
applications for extensions
|
Up to 2 hours
Morning or evening (not both)
|
Preferred over other parts of Broad Area B
|
Directs DLC not to grant extensions in
these areas
|
Up to 2 hours
Morning or evening (not both)
Centres preferred
|
Directs DLC not to grant extensions in
these areas
|
|
Conditions
|
-
|
-
|
Range of conditions
|
Note: An A3 version of this table
is provided in Attachment C.
Summary of
off-licence provisions
47. The
table below demonstrates how the policy tools are applied to off-licences
within the draft LAP. This off-licence policy package recommended is designed
to achieve the following:
· Enable the direct consideration of proximity issues by ensuring that
the DLC and ARLA are made aware of any sensitive sites and existing premises
relevant to an application, allowing them to make an informed decision as to
what is appropriate
· Reduced access to alcohol from off-licences and reduced issues with
pre and side-loading, especially in the Central City
· Strong regulation of off-licence density in areas with the greatest
density and greatest levels of alcohol-related harm (e.g. the Central City and
Priority Areas) and in neighbourhood centres, to align with feedback that
‘bottle stores on every corner’ are not appropriate or desirable
· Improved practices
amongst the off-licence industry through a range of discretionary conditions.
Table 8. Summary of draft LAP provisions
for off-licences
|
Policy lever
|
Policy tool
|
Risk profile
|
Broad Area A
|
Broad Area B
|
Priority Areas
|
|
First 24 months
|
After 24 months
|
At all times policy in force
|
First 24 months
|
After 24 months
|
|
Neigh-
bourhood centres
|
Rest of Broad Area B
|
|
Location / density
|
ECIA
|
Very High
|
Temporary freeze
|
ECIA required
Presumption against approval
|
ECIA required
Presumption against approval
|
ECIA required
DLC to “take into account”
|
Temporary freeze
|
ECIA required
Presumption against approval
|
|
High
|
|
Medium
|
|
Low
|
|
Very Low
|
NA
|
|
Proximity to sensitive sites
|
ECIA
|
Risk profile is one of the triggers
|
DLC & ARLA directed to consider
proximity to sensitive sites as part of ECIA
|
|
Hours
|
Reduced hours
|
-
|
9am to 10pm regional maximum
|
|
6am to 10pm remote sales by off-licence
(e.g. online sales)
(Note: transaction can occur at any time
but delivery times restricted)
|
|
Condition
|
-
|
-
|
Range of conditions
|
Note: An A3 version of this table
is provided in Attachment C.
Special licences
48. The
draft LAP proposes the following for special licences:
· Maximum hours should be determined on a case-by-case basis but
should generally be in accordance with the policies that would apply to the
Broad Area within which the event will be held
· A range of
discretionary conditions designed to improve host responsibility and to reduce
the overall alcohol-related harm associated with events.
Other options
considered
49. Staff have not recommended the use
of the one-way door policy, as overall, there is insufficient evidence to show
its effectiveness in reducing alcohol-related harm. Key points from the
research are summarised as follows:
· Some studies report displacement of patrons from area to area as an
unintended consequence of the one-way door policy. This could result in
increased drink driving if patrons then travelled across the city.
· When looking at case study examples, staff found that Melbourne has
experienced issues with two ‘swills’ due to the one-way door approach: one as
people leave one area to get to another area with longer hours before the
one-way door commences; and then a second at closing time. Other research has even
shown that the one-way door approach may increase some types of alcohol related
harm such as damage to licensed premises, and vehicle-related offences.
· In areas where there
was a decline in harm following the implementation of a one-way door, this
tended to be for a short period before behaviours adjusted and incidence of
harm returned to previous levels or increased.
50. Staff
considered a range of other options throughout the development of the draft
LAP. These are detailed in the attached Statement of Proposal.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
51. The table
below outlines the feedback received from the Waitākere Ranges 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. Waitākere Ranges Local Board feedback
|
Topic
|
Local Board feedback
|
Officer response
|
|
General
|
· No real issues in this local board
area due to the trusts
|
Staff acknowledge that
licence density is lower in West Auckland than in other parts of the region
but raise the following points in response to the board’s feedback:
· Throughout the policy development
process, staff met with different West Auckland based community groups and
held public meetings in the West where residents raised concerns about
alcohol-related harm in their local communities. Many of the workshop
participants saw the LAP as an important ‘back stop’ in case the trusts were
resolved.
· Recent Police data shows that some
parts of West Auckland are currently experiencing significant issues with
alcohol-related harm. As a result, staff are recommending the use of a
Priority Overlay as part of the draft LAP to implemented stricter controls in
areas that are most in need. Glen Eden is one of the recommended Priority
Overlay areas.
|
|
Location and proximity
|
· Not supportive of high stress or
high risk zones; labelling is inappropriate
|
· Staff have taken this feedback on
board and have renamed the overlay “Priority Overlay”, which is a term with
positive connotations and that highlights Auckland Council’s commitment to
addressing alcohol-related harm in these areas in particular.
|
|
Location and proximity
|
· Acknowledge issues with buffer
zones for proximity rules – however are still concerned with premises close
to schools
|
· The draft LAP directly addresses
this feedback. Sensitive sites such as schools and rehabilitation centres
will be considered as part of the Environmental and Cumulative Impact
Assessment process, which looks at an assessment area of 500 metres in all
directions from the proposed premises.
· In line with the board’s feedback
and to reduce the visibility of licensed premises to children, the draft LAP
also recommends that licensed premises should not open until 9am (i.e. after
school begins).
|
|
Discretionary
conditions
|
· Supports conditions for all licence
types – would like to see a list for the DLC to select from
|
· This feedback has been directly
incorporated into the draft LAP.
· The draft policy recommends certain
discretionary conditions for certain licence kinds, and recommends that some
are appropriate for all new licences and some are appropriate for the DLC to
consider on a case-by-case basis. The conditions are drafted in full so that
the DLC can apply them as it sees fit.
|
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
|
|
aView
|
Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2014: Statement of Proposal
|
3
|
|
bView
|
Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting May
2014 - Resolutions on draft Local Alcohol Policy
|
3
|
|
cView
|
A3 Copies of Tables 7 and 8 from report
|
3
|
|
dView
|
Key Topics for Feedback from Local Boards
|
3
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager
Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey,
Waitakere Ranges, Whau
|
|
Waitākere
Ranges Local Board
10 July 2014
|
|
Portfolio update: Member Neil Henderson
File No.:
CP2014/14995
Purpose
1. This
report provides an opportunity for Member Neil Henderson to give an update with
regards to activity within his portfolio areas.
2. Portfolio
holders are responsible for leading policy development in their portfolio area,
proposing and developing project concepts, overseeing agreed projects within
budgets, being active advocates, accessing and providing information and
advice.
3. Member
Henderson has lead for the portfolios of Waitakere Ranges Heritage area
including walkways and Greenways.
Executive Summary
The Foothills Walkway Update
4. The
following are notes taken from a recent letter sent out to residents and other
affected parties.
5. The
Waitakere Ranges Local Board is working on the planning for a walkway through
the Swanson Foothills .It will connect the Swanson Railway Station with
Henderson Valley Road via Candia, Coulter and Perris Roads, Seibel Reserve and
Seibel and Vineyard Roads. See the general overview map attached. This is the
first stage in a long term walkway project which will eventually traverse the
length of the Waitakere Ranges Foothills from the Swanson Railway Station in the
north to the Arataki Visitor Centre and Titirangi in the south. Capital funding
to complete the initial foothills walkways project has been set aside in the
Waitakere Ranges Local Board budgets over coming years.
6. The
ground survey along the route of the Swanson Foothills Walkway has now been
completed and more detailed plans of the walkway route developed. These were
made available at the Open Day held on 2nd February at Swanson.
7. The
present focus is now on sections of the walkway route that need particular
attention - especially the south end of Perris Road (safety and visual privacy
issues) and the corner of Candia and Coulter Roads (where detailed stormwater
design and boardwalks are required, subject to Auckland Transport approval).It
is of note that the speed limit at the Northern end of Candia Rd has now been
reduced to 50 kph,which will help mitigate some of the present safety issues
for pedestrians along this stretch of road. Council is seeking to have more
discussion with adjoining landowners in these areas.
8. In
addition, we are developing detailed design of those parts of the walkway
alongside Coulter Road where retaining walls or boardwalks will be needed.
9. This
winter, we’re looking to capture all the information required to apply for the
resource consents for the walkway, and to lodge the application. With this in
mind, a lizard study has recently been completed to ascertain whether lizard
colonies are present which need to be accommodated. None were found.
10. This
winter planting season we will be establishing some of the native planting to
screen residential properties from the walkway route, as agreed with the
landowners. The intention is to plant trees and shrubs of a good size, so that
the screening will get a head start. Other native planting along the walkway
route will be undertaken once the walkway is constructed. The remnants of the
old scout den in Seibel Reserve, which was a safety hazard, has been removed.
11. Finally, the Te Kawerau a Maki Deed of
Settlement, signed on 22 February 2014, identifies the tribe’s interest in
several areas along the route of the Swanson Foothills Walkway, particularly
Seibel Reserve and ‘Opareira’ – the reserve on the corner of Candia and
Vineyard Roads. Council will be seeking a meeting with Te Kawerau a Maki to
discuss issues related to the walkway in these areas.
Bats
out West
Results of the
Auckland Region Bat report
12. Earlier
this year I attended a New Zealand bat Conference in the Marlbourough Sounds
and although I was not there in my capacity as a local board member, the
material presented and discussed was of particular relevance to the WRLB as we
appear to have been getting significant reports of bat sightings and detection
in the Waitakere Ranges over the last couple of years.
13. As
a result of this activity and responding to the keen interest of the public, an
Auckland Regional Bat report was commissioned for this year. It is of note that
the Waitakere Ranges Local Board already provides funding and support for the
“bat inclined” via the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area programme.
14. The
Regional long-tailed bat monitoring was completed in March-April this year and
the report on the findings of 29 recording locations across the Auckland region
has now been finalized. (For the full report, please contact
ben.paris@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.)
A summary of this report is:
· No bat activity
detected on Waiheke Island, or Woodhill Forest.
· Low presence of bat
activity in West Rodney (Kaukapakapa and Makarau), and Hunua edge/Southern
Regional Parks (Ponga Rd, Tapapakanga and Waharau).
· Medium presence of bat
activity in Te Henga (Matuku, & Lake Wainamu and Kawaupaka).
· High presence of bat
activity in the Kokako Management Area (KMA) and buffer (910 bat passes/10
nights – the highest rate ever recorded by Council).
This has highlighted some important points:
· Small relict bat
populations persisting in forest fragments in the north and south, showing the
benefit of ecological corridors along planted riparian margins.
· Importance of wetland
and stream habitat for bats in the Waitakere Ranges, requiring further study of
eastern/western bat movements throughout the ranges.
· Possible signs of
secondary benefits of pest control for a large population of long-tailed bats
in the KMA.
· Further research and
monitoring in the KMA to investigate how future tree-specific pest control
could protect large populated roosts.
15. Just
going off these brief results, it is clear that the Te Henga wetlands and the
Waitakere Stream are vital ecosystems, not just for birdlife but also our local
bat populations. As for the Kokako Management Area, it seems to be a regular
bat city. It is also clear that much more research is needed and this is
something the WRLB will be looking into over the coming months.
16. One
last thing of note around the subject of bats that came out of the Bat
Conference earlier this year. Currently we do not have any populations of short
tailed bats in the Waitakere Ranges and in fact this species is in very serious
decline throughout the country. One of the possible options for protecting this
species is relocation from colonies outside the Auckland Region and the Ark in
The Park site would be a likely choice if this was considered feasible or
desirable. Short tail bats are associated with the strange and unusual
parasitic ground dwelling plant Dactylanthus taylorii, one of our weirdest
natives. Once wide spread throughout New Zealand forests, including the
Waitakere Ranges, Dactylanthus is also in very serious decline .If we one day take
the steps to relocate short tail bats out West ,it is a sure thing that we
would want to re-introduce colonies of Dactylanthus to provide a food source
for them. As they say: Watch this Bat space.
Bethells Local
Area Plan Update
17. There
was an excellent attendance at the first LAP workshop at Waitakere primary
School on the 4th of June. A special thanks to Colleen Pilcher, Mary Woodward,
Trude Bethell and John Sumich for sharing their stories and knowledge of the
area with us. Also thanks to Edward Ashby for attending and speaking as
representative for Te Kawerau A Maki.
18. The
Local Board is now ready to take the discussion further to gradually develop a
practical plan of action, based on a consensus around a long term (30 year)
vision for the area. We are organising the first batch of a series of Topic
Group meetings and these are outlined in the attached PDFs with resource
consent requirements were considered.
Update on
Living Cell Technologies Animal Ethics Committee
19. I
am currently the Auckland Council Representative on the Living Cell
Technologies Animal Ethics Committee.
20. Living Cell Technologies
Limited, a cell implant company, develops living cell products for the
treatment of diabetes and neurological diseases primarily in New Zealand. The
company’s technology, IMMUPEL, coats cells with protective capsules that
prevent them from attack by the patient’s immune system. Its product pipeline
includes DIABECELL, a porcine insulin-producing cell product for the treatment
of type 1 diabetes; and NTCELL, a choroid plexus cell product to treat
Parkinson's disease and other disorders, such as stroke, Huntington's disease,
and hearing loss, as well as wound hearing. Living Cell Technologies Limited
was founded in 1987 and is based in Auckland, New Zealand.
21. At
our last meeting in May, we were informed that LCT underwent a re-structure in
that most of its staff were transferred to Diatranz Otsuka Limited (DOL),a
subsidiary of Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company.(Established in 1921, the names
“Otsuka” and “Otsuka’s Intravenous Solutions” are widely recognized, and their
products are highly trusted in Japan and other countries as a leading brand of
intravenous solutions.)
22. As
a result of this the current approved code of ethical conduct will be transferred
to Diatranz Otsuka Limited.L CT will still continue to receive Animal Ethics
Committee services from DOL under this new arrangement.
23. LCT
is presently due to have its five yearly Animal Ethics audit and I am
anticipating being part of a compliance visit to their animal facilities in
early July. In addition I have recently been asked to complete a National
survey on Training and Support for Animal Ethics Committee members.
|
Recommendation
That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:
a) Receives the
portfolio update from Member Neil Henderson.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Consultation Map Swanson Walkway
|
3
|
|
bView
|
Waitakere LAP Newsletter_no2
|
3
|
|
cView
|
Photo of Neil capturing bats
|
3
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Tua Viliamu – Democracy Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey,
Waitakere Ranges, Whau
|
