Agenda of Waitematā Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

08 July 2014

Smoke-free Policy Implementation- Waitemata Local Board

File No.: CP2014/10458

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

Local Boards can:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In May 2014, a workshop with the Board was held to confirm high priority sites for the installation of additional smoke-free signage. At this workshop, 15 high priority sites were confirmed. Staff recommend additional budget be allocated for the printing and installation of smoke-free signs in these sites. The cost of additional smoke-free signage is estimated at $5,800-$6,000. The actual cost of smoke-free signage is dependent on the confirmed number and nature of the signs required.

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

Recommendations

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Allocate budget for the printing and installation of additional smoke-free signs in 15 high priority sites which include:

i) the grounds of the Central Library

ii) Parnell Library grounds (Jubilee Building)

iii) Leys Institute and Centre grounds

iv) Grey Lynn Library grounds

v) Grey Lynn Community Centre grounds

vi) Freemans Bay Community Centre grounds

vii) Grey Lynn Paddling Pool (subject to consultation with pool operators)

viii) Parnell Baths (subject to consultation with pool operators)

ix) Pt Erin Pool and Park (subject to consultation with pool operators)

x) Parnell Rose Gardens

xi) Gladstone Park

xii) Grey Lynn Park

xiii) Myers Park

xiv) Victoria Park

xv) Western Springs

xvi) Western Park

b) Promote the smoke-free status of smoke-free public places in Waitemata as the Board deems appropriate

Comments

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

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

Local boards can:

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

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

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

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

According to the 2013 census, Waitemata Local Board (‘the Board) area has a smoking rate of 11.4 percent (12.9 percent for the region). The smoking rate for those aged 15-24 years in the Board area is 7.3 percent which is the fifth highest in the region (2.25 percent for the region).

Prior to the adoption of the Policy, the Board supported New Zealand’s Smoke-free 2025 vision by making a commitment, in its local board plan (2011-2013), towards smoke-free playgrounds, sports fields, parks, beaches and events in its area. The Board has already made the majority of its playgrounds and sports fields smoke-free.

Policy Implementation

Smoke-free Public Places

Smoke-free in public places aims to discourage the community from smoking in certain public outdoor areas to de-normalise smoking behaviour. As the Policy is non-regulatory, compliance is voluntary and relies on the public being well informed about these smoke-free areas. As such smoke-free signs need to communicate the smoke-free status of a space.

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

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

· areas that are frequented by children and youth

· council-owned facilities

· areas that are well used and popular within their community

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

Based on scores against the criteria, sites were then divided into four categories. Smoke-free signage implementation varies according to the categories. Sites that are scored highly are ‘Category A sites’ or high priority sites, where there is an opportunity for a higher level of smoke-free signage installation. Table one summarises these categories and smoke-free signage installation.

Table 1 Site priority and level of signage installation

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

High priority smoke-free sites

Staff had prepared recommendations on the high priority (Category A) and medium priority (Category B) sites within the Waitemata local board area. In May 2014, a workshop with the Board was held to gather feedback and confirm these high priority sites. The Board clarified that as the community centres and libraries identified are already smoke free it is the gounds that Waitemata Local Board intends to prioritise as smoke-free.

Table two outlines the high priority smoke-free sites in the Waitemata local board area.

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

· Est. cost $123

· Est. cost $250

· Est. cost $400

· Est. $250

· Est. $400

· Est. $250

Site Name	Rationale	Est. signage cost
Central library	· Central library is a high profile site, attracts large number of users · Important site to build awareness around smoke-free public places · Has issues with smokers at present	· Approx. 4-5 signs · Est. $500
Freemans Bay Community Centre	· Site contains community centre, a playground and a small park · Community centre is a well-used asset · There are smoke-free signs near playground, consider more signs near the community centre building	· Existing 1 at playground
Freemans Bay Community Centre		· Consider approx. 1 sign for building
Grey Lynn Library and Community Centre	· Site contains community centre and markets held on Saturday. Well used community facility · Has issues with smokers at present	· Approx. 5 signs · Est. cost $615
Grey Lynn Paddling Pool (Grey Lynn Park)	· Outdoor pool next to playground is located within Grey Lynn Park · Park has existing smoke-free signs · Consider placement of signs near playground and outdoor pool area	· Existing: 5 (basketball court, playground, 3 rugby rooms)
Grey Lynn Paddling Pool (Grey Lynn Park)		· Consider approx.2 in paddling pool area
Grey Lynn Park	· Several key smoke-free areas – i.e. playground, sports fields, passive recreation (dog walking) · Very popular, well used urban park. Used frequently for events · Consider additional smoke-free signs for coverage (e.g. near sports fields) and directed smoke-free messages	· Existing: 5 (basketball court, playground, 3 rugby rooms)
Grey Lynn Park		· Consider approx. 3 signs
Gladstone Park	· Several smoke-free public places are located on park- sports fields, playgrounds · Frequented by children and young people · Existing smoke-free signs in park, consider additional signs to boost coverage (e.g. near sports fields). · Also, investigate directed messages smoke-free messages	· Existing: 2 signs (entrance of Gladstone and car park)
Gladstone Park		· Consider approx. 2 signs
Jubilee Building (Parnell Library)	· Character building that is adjacent to Domain · Libraries are important site to promote smoke-free behaviour – diversity of users, strongly associated with council · Good complement to Domain SF initiative · Owned by Royal Foundation for the Blind	· Approx. 4 signs · Est. $500
Leys Institute & Centre (Ponsonby)	· Libraries are important site to promote smoke-free behaviour – diversity of users, strongly associated with council · Site contains the library, a hire space and a small park	· Approx. 4 signs · Est. $500
Myers Park	· High profile park space with playground and trail · Site will be upgraded and consider smoke-free signs when this occurs	· Approx. 3 signs · Est. $400
Pt Erin Pool and Park	· Located within Pt Erin Park · Close to schools and well used park for events · Well used by school, children and families · There are smoke-free signs at present. Consider additional signs around the park	· Existing 1 (playground)
Pt Erin Pool and Park		· Consider approx. 3 signs
Parnell Baths	· Outdoor pool not covered under the Smoke-free Environments Act · High profile, well used asset, used by children and families	· Approx. 4 · Est. $500
Parnell Rose Garden	· Prominent park space. Attracts visitors from around the region · Events held at the Rose Garden are smoke-free	· Approx. 4 signs · Est. $500
Victoria Park	· Well used, prominent urban park · Has smoke-free signs near playground and skate park · Investigate some signs near sports fields and club area	· Existing 2 (skate park and playground)
Victoria Park		· Consider approx. 2 additional
Western Park	· Large parkland used for events. Schools located in vicinity · Park has playground and sports fields · Has signs near playground, investigate signs near sport fields and other areas	· Existing 1 (playground)
Western Park		· Approx. 1-2 signs
Western Springs	· Well used park, large events based in this park	· Approx. 3 signs · Est. $400

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

Smoke-free signage installation in other areas

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

For the Waitemata local board area, the medium priority sites are:

1. Cox’s Bay Reserve

2. Newmarket Park

3. Outhwaite Park and Hall

4. Seddon Fields

5. Ponsonby Community Centre

6. Tepid Baths

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

Smoke-free public places promotion

As the Policy is non-regulatory, raising public awareness around these smoke-free public places and the council’s position on achieving a smoke-free Auckland is important.

To assist the Board in the promotion of the Policy staff suggest the following for consideration:

· an article in the local paper or magazine when majority of the smoke-free signs are installed

· a launch event at one of the high priority sites when majority of the smoke-free signs are installed

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

Staff consulted with the Board throughout the development of the Policy in 2012-2013.

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

At the workshop, the Board had made the following comments:

· the Board has concerns over the effect of the regional policy, on local board decision making delegations in relation to smoke-free public places (i.e. local parks, sports fields etc.)

· that the Board is supportive of smoke-free behaviour and has been proactive in the creation of smoke-free public places within its area

· Board would continue to be proactive in its smoke-free commitments, as evidenced in its draft 2014-2016 local board plan.

· The draft local board plan (2014-2016) proposes to include parks and reserves, transport areas, beaches, shared spaces, plazas, sports clubs and al fresco dining areas as smoke-free public places

· it will consider including public areas associated with libraries and community centres as smoke-free public places in its draft local board plan (2014-2016)

· any smoke-free signage installed in Category A areas is subject to appropriate consultation with property owners and management (e.g. consult with the relevant operators for Parnell Baths and Grey Lynn Paddling Pools)

Maori impact statement

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

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

The Policy aims to address Maori smoking rates through:

· the creation of smoke-free public places

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

· focus on the Southern Initiative smoke-free work stream

Implementation

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

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

The approximate cost of additional smoke-free signs in the 15 identified sites (Table two) in Phase one is between $5,800-$6,000. The exact costs will vary depending on:

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

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

· the positioning and installation of the smoke-free signs

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Team Leader, Regionwide Social Policy

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waitematā Local Board

08 July 2014

Local Alcohol Policy Project - Draft Policy for Local Board Feedback

File No.: CP2014/13351

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

That the Waitematā Local Board:

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

Comments

Legislative framework

Background: law reform

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

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

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

Scope of LAPs

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

· location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas

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

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

· maximum trading hours

· the issue of licences, subject to discretionary conditions

· one-way door restrictions.

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

Effect of LAPs

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

Table 1. Application of a LAP in licensing decisions

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

Statutory process for developing LAPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. The Statement of Proposal (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
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

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 Waitemata 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. Waitematā Local Board feedback

Topic	Local Board feedback	Officers response
Broad areas	· Case to treat CBD differently · Use of Unitary Plan zoning in drawing boundaries	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. The Central City, Ponsonby and Newton are a separate broad area (Broad Area A) to the rest of the region (Broad Area B). Broad areas identified in the LAP are based on the areas classified from the Unitary Plan, and have been simplified for consistency and based on feedback received from stakeholders. · Unitary Plan zoning is also used in the policy as follows: trial extensions in Broad Area B are preferred in Metropolitan centres and generally to be refused in residential areas; and there is a presumption against new off-licences in Neighbourhood centres.
Broad areas	· Support the city fringe and metropolitan areas being treated separately	· The draft LAP incorporates this this feedback. Metro areas have now been recommended as part of Broad Area B with the rest of Auckland. · Each suburb in the city fringe zone was examined separately, and the types of premises, the hours they operate, and the character of the area were used in determining whether the suburb was more suitable for inclusion with the City Centre or the rest of the region.
Proximity	· Supports the recommendation not to use mandatory buffer zones around sensitive sites	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. Sensitive sites in proximity of a proposed premises will be considered as a part of the Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment approach. · To reduce the visibility of licensed premises to children to these premises, the draft LAP also recommends that off-licence hours be restricted to a 9am opening time (i.e. after school begins).
Density	· On-licences should have no density restrictions or controls	· The draft LAP incorporates this feedback; there are no direct density restrictions. However, there is an Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment required for some on-licence applications, depending on their location and risk. The density controls for on-licences allow the DLC to exercise their discretion in determining an application rather than using blanket density controls. Please see section 3.1 for more information.
Density	· Support temporary freeze as long as sale of business is unaffected	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. A temporary freeze has been recommended on new off-licences in Broad Area A and the Priority Overlay. The policy defines “new licences” as premises which have not been licensed within the last 12 months, to allow for the sale of businesses.
Density	· Support the cumulative impact assessment	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. Note that the tool has widened in scope to incorporate the environment around the proposed premises (e.g. land use, sensitive sites etc.) as well as solely other licences in the area.
Density	· Would like to see a “three strikes” rule implemented if licensees do not comply with the Act or their licence conditions.	· This type of issue relates to enforcement, and so is not within the scope of what can be achieved with the LAP. · However, ARLA has stated that three negative holdings incurred within a three year period will result in an application to the Authority for cancellation of the licence. · In addition, while taking a licence off an operator altogether can be difficult, the section of the policy outlining how trial extensions will work includes a process for revoking the trial extension of hours added to a licence.
Hours	· Do not support off licences opening past 9pm · Support off-licences opening at 9am at the earliest	· Hours for off-licences have remained as recommended in the Position Paper (9am – 10pm across the region). There has been insufficient political appetite to reduce off-licence hours further from the hours recommended in the Position Paper, and even some desire to see the hours relaxed further.
Hours	· Support on-licence rules with local variation, later hours in the city centre but also incentives for young people to go out in their own area · Support extensions for good operators · Support the need for an active night life · City fringe should be slightly more restrictive than CBD	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. Local variation in hours for on-licences will be achieved as follows: · CBD (Broad Area A) - 9am – 3am with trial extensions of up to 2 hours available for best practice premises · Rest of Auckland (Broad area B) 9am – 1am with trial extensions of up to 2 hours available for best practice premises. These extensions will be preferred in metro centres to encourage these centres’ development as sub-regional entertainment hubs. · Note that in Parnell, Grafton and Devonport there are few licensees that trade after 1am, hence why these areas have been included in Broad Area B. Trial extensions granted in Broad Area A will be preferred in the city centre over Ponsonby and Newton. These policies work together to give an overall earlier closing time in the city fringe than in the city centre.
Hours	· Tentatively support one way door	· Officers have not recommended the use of a one-way door due to a lack of evidence to support the approach and the potential for unintended consequences.
Discretionary conditions	· Support single sales restriction	· The draft LAP directly addresses this feedback. Single serve restrictions have been recommended as a discretionary condition that the DLC should impose on all off-licences in the region. The condition states that single units of mainstream beer, cider or RTDs in less than 445ml packaging must not be sold; there is an exception for boutique and handcrafted beer and cider.

Maori impact statement

Research and data on Maori and alcohol

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2014: Statement of Proposal	141
b View	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting May 2014 - Resolutions on draft Local Alcohol Policy	251
c View	A3 Copies of Tables 7 and 8 from report	253
d View	Key Topics for Feedback from Local Boards	255

Signatories

Authors

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waitematā Local Board

08 July 2014

Public Feedback Summary Report on the draft Newton and Karangahape Road Plans

File No.: CP2014/13800

Purpose

3. The purpose of this report is to provide the Waitemata Local Board with a summary of public feedback received for the Newton and Karangahape Road (‘K’Road’) Plans.

Executive Summary

4. In April 2014, the Waitemata Local Board approved the release of the draft K’Road and Newton Plans for community engagement. Community engagement ran for a period of four weeks, from 12 April to 14 May 2014.

5. The engagement phase resulted in a significant amount of feedback being received, particularly in relation to the Draft K’Road Plan. A total of 51 written responses were received in relation to the Draft Newton Plan and a total of 215 written responses were received in relation to the Draft K’Road Plan. This included feedback from individuals, businesses, community-based interest groups and key stakeholders. Feedback on the Draft K’Road Plan also included a petition with over 2417 signatures and multiple individual submissions, organised and facilitated by the advocacy group Generation Zero.

6. On completion of the community engagement, the feedback received was reviewed, grouped into themes and summarised. This report offers an overview of the key themes of the feedback summary are provided on both draft plans in Attachments A-B.

7. The full set of feedback on the two draft plans has been presented to the whole Waitemata Local Board. The public feedback has been analysed and has informed officer recommendations on the content of the final version of the Newton and K’Road plans. These recommendations will be reported at a subsequent Waitemata Local Board meeting with final version of the two plans.

Recommendations

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Receive the report on the feedback summary for the draft K’Road and Newton plans.

b) Notes that the feedback is available for public release and viewing on the Local Board’s website page.

Comments

Background

8. The draft plans outline how the Newton and K’Road areas are envisioned to change over the next 30 years. The plans set out the key outcomes, key moves and supporting actions for Newton and K’Road to contribute to the vision for Auckland to be the world’s most liveable city.

9. In June 2013, the Waitemata Local Board (‘the board’) endorsed the planning process of the draft Newton and K’Road plans. The draft plans were informed through several internal workshops with subject matter experts (SME’s), two public ideas evenings and four targeted stakeholder workshops.

10. A report on Māori heritage values and opportunities was commissioned to better engage with relevant Iwi for the project area which also informed the development of the draft plans.

11. Council officers liaised with key stakeholders, Mana Whenua, infrastructure providers and community groups during the preparation of the draft plans.

12. On 10 April 2014, the Waitemata Local Board endorsed the draft plans for public engagement.

Community Engagement on the Draft Newton & K’Road Plans

13. From 10 April to 14 May 2014, a public engagement process was undertaken on the draft Newton and K’Road Plans to give the public and key stakeholders an opportunity to provide written feedback on the draft plans. This engagement process involved:

· A flier drop to businesses and community organisations within the Newton and K’Road areas informing them of the draft precinct plans, directing them to the full plans on the website and to online feedback questionnaire forms that asked a number of questions on the draft plans and precinct areas.

· Advertising the drop in sessions in the April edition of Our Auckland and on the Waitemata Local Board Facebook page and Auckland Council website ‘Have your say’ page.

· Four combined community drop in sessions were held for the Plans throughout April and May 2014 at the Dalmatian Hall on New North Road, St Kevins Arcade on K’Road and the Methodist Church on Pitt Street.

Feedback Received

14. A total of 51 written responses were received in relation to the draft Newton Plan and a total of 215 written responses were received in relation to the draft K’Road Plan.

15. The majority of the feedback for the draft Newton Plan originated from individuals and local businesses, with the balance received from community-based interest groups.

16. For the draft K’Road Plan, a large amount of the feedback was generated by Generation Zero through a petition with over 2417 signatures and through multiple individual submissions that were organised and facilitated by this group.

17. In respect to standard questions posed by the feedback forms, the majority of responses received for Newton and K’Road were on the proposed 30-year vision and key outcomes, key moves and projects in the areas that respondents would like to see prioritised.

18. On completion of the community engagement period, all feedback received was reviewed, grouped into themes and summarised.

19. A summary of the feedback received on the draft Newton Plan is provided in Attachment A to the relevant sections of the draft Newton Plan.

20. A summary of the feedback received on the draft K’Road Plan is provided in Attachment B to the relevant sections of the draft K’Road Plan.

Local board views and implications

21. Board Chair Chambers and Board Member Tava have represented the Waitemata Local Board through the process of developing the draft K’Road Plan. The project team has met with them on a regular basis to discuss the development of the K’Road Plan and address any issues that have arisen. Both have also attended the public events during community engagement.

22. Board Members Dempsey and Thomas have represented the Waitemata Local Board through the process of developing the draft Newton Plan. The project team has met with them on a regular basis to discuss the development of the Draft Newton Plan and address any issues that have arisen. Both have also attended the public events during community engagement.

23. The full set of feedback on the two draft plans has been presented to the whole Waitemata Local Board. The public feedback has been analysed and has informed officer recommendations on the content of the final version of the Newton and K’Road plans. These recommendations will be reported at a subsequent Waitemata Local Board meeting.

24. The Waitemata Local Board are the primary decision-makers on the content of the two plans and will be signing off on the final plans for adoption in September / October 2014. The Albert-Eden Local Board will also have a review and sign-off role for the Newton Plan as part of the study area for that plan sits within the jurisdiction of the Albert-Eden Local Board.

25. Council officers have met with Albert-Eden Local Board Members, Peter Haynes and Graeme Easte on the draft Newton Plan, prior to releasing the draft plan for public consultation, and will be meeting the representatives shortly to discuss feedback received.

Maori impact statement

26. An invitation to participate and contribute knowledge to the development of the two draft plans was sent to all of the iwi, which registered an interest in the Waitemata Local Board area with Council’s Te Waka Angamua – Māori Strategy and Relations department. The following iwi were invited:

§ Ngāti Whātua O Orākei

§ Te Kawerau a Maki

§ Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki

§ Ngati Te Ata

§ Ngati Maru

§ Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua

§ Ngāti Whātua Nga Rima o Kaipara

§ Te Akitai Waiohua

§ Ngati Paoa

§ Ngati Whanaunga

§ Ngati Tamatera

27. Through the planning process, it was agreed that a Maori Heritage Report would be commissioned on both plan areas to inform the development of the draft plans. The Council with the agreement of iwi representatives commissioned Independent Consultant, Mr Ngarimu Blair to develop and collate the Maori Heritage report. The report focuses on Maori stories, relationships, aspirations and opportunities and how they can inform contemporary design and place-making initiatives in both plan areas.

28. An initial hui was held on Tuesday 10 June 2014 between officers, the Waitemata, Albert-Eden, and Puketapapa Local Boards and iwi representatives. The following four iwi attended the hui: Ngāti Whātua O Orākei, Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngati Maru and Te Akitai Waiohua.

29. All iwi have been sent an invitation to participate and contribute to the development of the final plans. Council officers are awaiting responses from iwi on their involvement and interest in the plans. A copy of the draft plans and draft Maori Heritage Report has been circulated to the above iwi listed for feedback and comments. Council officers will be working with iwi that express an interest on their feedback on the draft plans, development of the final plans and finalisation of the Maori Heritage report.

Implementation

30. The work of area spatial planning, both at a local / place based or precinct level, and at the area-wide level, is the responsibility of teams in the Regional and Local Planning Department in collaboration with other parts of the Council and Council Controlled Organisations. This will require ongoing resource and staff commitment to integrate planning approaches and project management to coordinate activities. This work is only partly budgeted for in the Regional and Local Planning Department budget. Thus far, targeted use of external resources for purposes of community engagement, options development or research has been sourced from allocated budgets within the Regional and Local Planning Department.

31. Out of each plan will fall a range of actions contained in an implementation / action plan that will need to be considered for funding as part of future Long Term Plan and Local Board Planning processes.

32. The planning and delivery of the plans’ actions will require agreements with delivery partners to ensure the timely implementation of each action. Advocacy will also be critical with delivery partners and infrastructure providers in their long-term budget allocations and prioritisation planning to achieve the outcomes of the two plans.

33. A full version of the implementation / action plan will be developed post engagement for each plan and be presented to the Local Board for adoption with the final plans in September/ October 2014.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Newton Plan - Feedback Summary	303
b View	Draft Karangahape Road Plan - Feedback Summary	307

Signatories

Authors

Gurv Singh - Planner

Hannah Thompson - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waitematā Local Board

08 July 2014

Draft K’Road Plan – Summary of Feedback Received

Vision and Key Outcome

1. The feedback received generally supported the vision and key outcome for K’Road. Respondents support improvements and intensification, which would greatly help businesses and improve safety and vibrancy of the area. They consider that K’Road is an amazing place and would like it to be recognised as one of Auckland’s and New Zealand’s most iconic streets.

2. One respondent felt that the key outcome should be amended to ‘protect’ its distinctive historical and cultural heritage as well as celebrating it. Some respondents identified the need to include and recognise improvements to foot-traffic and cycling, retain the diverse make-up and character of the community, protect heritage, and stitch K’Road to the Newton and wider City Centre area.

3. Some respondents felt that an explanation and description needs to be provided that articulates the key outcome, what it means, who it will benefit, what the benefits of achieving this key outcome in the area are and how will it be realised over the next 30 years.

Key Move 1 - Revitalise and enhance the K’Road area as the creative, edgy fringe of the city centre

4. The feedback received generally supports this key move. Respondents supported maintaining and enhancing the creative and edgy fringe of this area of the city centre, and to a degree, supported that revitalisation is required in the area. Respondents indicated they would like to see K’Road retain its edginess, vibrancy and uniqueness which sets it apart from other areas in the city centre.

5. Respondents indicated that they would also like to see K’Road enhance its name as a desired destination within Auckland, building on its history, strength, unique atmosphere, nightlife activities and entertainment.

6. Many respondents raised concerns that any redevelopment in K’Road will influence the creative, edgy character of the area that could potentially lead to an increase in rent prices, creative practitioners leaving the area for cheaper rent prices elsewhere, sex-workers and adult entertainment being pushed out and that an increase in ‘sterilise, concrete’ buildings, could affect the desired key outcome of retaining the “edgy and gritty urban character” and “creative fringe of the City Centre” in the area.

7. Respondents are interested in actions that will ensure the ‘edgy, creative’ character and associated businesses will remain post the City Rail Link development. They want to understand the rationale for ‘revitalisation’ and want to know how the plan will ensure the character remains and associated creative businesses continue to operate in the area, now and in the future.

8. One respondent proposed that the Local Board introduce some form of funding mechanism or ‘accommodation’ grant for creative businesses and artists to compensate their rents and allow them to remain in the area to ensure K’Road continues to be a creative hub.

9. Other respondents commented that the key move and actions are too focused on "business activity", the plan needs to promote public investment and respondents would like to know what kind of “night-life activities” will be “allowed for” and how this differs from what currently occurs.

10. Respondents considered that the actions are not prescriptive enough. They would like to know exactly what is planned, rather than just identifying a partnership and considered that the actions should be prescriptive, measurable and set out with clear timeframes and deliverables.

11. Some respondents suggested additional actions such as: wanting to see under-utilised buildings along K’Road opened up and used, shared space and traffic calming initiatives introduced into K’Road, more public art, an art/music venue social housing development, and the west and east part of the K’Road more “connected”; the street "vibe" dissipates as one carries on walking down K’Road, between the east and west part of the K’Road area.

Key Move 2 – Protect, enhance and celebrate K’Road’s historic and cultural heritage, vibrancy and people.

12. The feedback received generally supports this key move. Most submissions emphasise that there is a need to maintain aspects of how K’Road is now – the inclusiveness and openness, the unique atmosphere, the eclectic mix. Emphasis on ‘place’ function is encouraged over the ‘movement’ function. And that K’Road is also seen as a natural home to public art.

13. Heritage was the second most common theme. Some respondents emphasised that nothing should be done or changed, however other submissions are open to some level of redevelopment in the area provided it is sensitive to what is already there, and with protection of existing heritage in a holistic and integrated manner. A number of respondents referred to a need for more detail around heritage/earthquake strengthening.

14. Both of these themes are also seen through the Generation Zero submission, which asked for support on the following point: Ensure K Road’s special character and heritage is retained into the future. 121 out of 138 respondents supported this statement.

Key Move 3 – Develop an integrated network of open and public spaces

15. The feedback received generally supports this key move. A number of submissions refer to the importance of facilitating movement within parks and between parks, including way-finding, through and into parks.

16. Respondents support greater provision of cycling infrastructure such as cycle parking, especially for Beresford Square relating to the CRL development and for Myers Park including cycle gutters on stairs. Some respondents are in favour of delaying Beresford Square upgrades until after the CRL work is completed.

17. Improvements to the pedestrian environment are highlighted to provide a link between many of the parks and public spaces in the area. The street/pavement environment is also seen as having potential as a public space for events, cafes, and in making the area more child friendly. There is a desire for child friendly spaces.

18. There is some support for pedestrian only facilities incorporating parts of K’Road and side streets. Respondents support the investigation of new entrances into Myers Park.

19. Two comments are in support of deciduous planting and/or native trees.

Key Move 4 – Provide safe and convenient connections in the area

20. The feedback received generally supports this key move. Respondents would like to see improvements to the street and pedestrian environment through reducing traffic to one lane each way, reducing the speed limit, increasing pedestrian priority at intersections and improving the quality of side streets. Improving public transport is further seen as a method of reducing traffic flow along the street.

21. Cycling features in a majority of the submissions and this often includes wider issues around safety. Respondents would like to see connections with neighbouring suburbs to ensure K’Road is the spine of a wider inner city cycling network.

22. There is a strong call for separated cycle lanes especially given K’Road’s role as a flat and direct route for cyclists and the importance as a cycling connector between proposed parts of the cycle network. The Generation Zero submission has further detailed this as the installation of separated [dedicated] cycle lanes the full length of Karangahape Road within 3 years and a trial of a section of the cycle lanes within 6 months and backed this up with a 2400+ signature petition.

Key Move 5 – Create a safe and enjoyable environment to live, work and play in

23. The feedback received generally supports this key move. Majority of the respondents want K’Road to be a safe and enjoyable environment for “all its users”. The “all” should be inclusive of homeless people, commercial sex workers, local residents, businesses, cyclists, disabled and elderly people, children and young people that travel through the area, and visitors.

24. Safety, security and cleanliness are issues currently not being addressed satisfactorily and respondents support improvements to the area. It has been acknowledged by a number of respondents that the balance between ‘edgy’ and safe is a difficult one to maintain and manage in this area. Sometimes strategies to ensure safety can flatten out the interesting aspects of an area and in K’Road they don’t want the “grittiness” and “edginess” to disappear. The perception of what is safety and who do we refer to was raised a number of times and acknowledged that it varies among all, both to users and visitors.

25. K’Road needs to be mixed and multi-functional to ensure that its vibrancy continues, while supporting improvements to safety and to the local amenities. Late night activities are an important component of our economy and the source of many jobs in Auckland.

26. A few respondents would like to see the removal of adult store, commercial sex workers and adult entertainment from the precinct. However, others indicated that they would not like to see them pushed out of the area as they are recognised as part of the character and identity of K’Road, and many respondents do not want this to change.

27. Safety is of concern to commercial sex workers. Many commented on the need to better manage, and provide support and amenities that will allow them to continue their activity in a safe and non-violent manner.

28. Many respondents also commented on the number of homeless people in the area and the need to provide better support and amenities for them in the area.

29. A number of respondents commented on noise in the area and support Auckland Council's proposed restrictions on liquor licensing and bar opening times, while others do not want too much regulations – this might make the area ‘sterile’ and unattractive for visitors. It is really important that K’Road keeps its edge and vibrancy - but not at the cost of the safety and comfort of its residents and business owners.

30. A number of respondents support shifting the balance from car dominance to pedestrian dominance that will in turn improve the liveability of K’Road, and increase the informal ‘surveillance’ provided by passing pedestrians.

31. Many believe there is a greater need for more public toilets in the area.

32. A number of additional actions were recommended, these were:

· Safety and lighting improvements on side streets (e.g. Hopetoun, Gundry, Cross St) and under all of the awnings, especially between Pitt St and Queen St

· Want to see regular street washing and clean-up in the area, especially side-streets

· Work with the NZ Police to get some regular local beat cops who have a connected presence in the area, like community constables do in the suburbs. Continue the work with K’Road Security around improved communication

· Work with organisations to help those who are homeless to get into housing should they want to, and to make addiction treatment more accessible. Work with local churches to set-up a community ‘kitchen’ in the area

· Install more CCTV

· Provide more public toilets

· Provide more resources to night shelters

· Contact Auckland Drug Information Outreach (ADIO) to arrange the installation of needle return bins in appropriate areas

· Undertake a mapping of social infrastructure in K’Road to understand the community assets available to support safety, vibrancy, and cultural heritage with social infrastructure providers (include Splice and Lifewise).

General comments – on the document and implementation

33. Many respondents commended on the plan for K’Road, a great discussion document and thanked for the opportunity to comment.

34. A number of respondents recommend that the final plans should recognise and acknowledge legacy work and planning undertaken in previous years by legacy councils, and that Council should be aware of the readability when using big words such as ‘transformative’, ‘growth’, ‘transformation’ in the document. Explain what are key moves, what do they mean and how do they work in this plan and in implementation.

35. A number of respondents also want to see more recognition of the resident population, in terms of communication and involvement in decision-making along with the business community. These respondents also commented that it would be useful to include a list of stakeholders, and outline the process of consultation and engagement held with the community, Mana Whenua, private landowners and Council partners.

36. Overall, respondents on the Karangahape Road Plan highlighted the need for separated cycle lanes; improved cycle access to and through the area; better access into Myers Park; reducing traffic lanes; heritage and architectural preservation; improvements bus stops/motorway bridge, including restoration of the view, and the inclusion of retail; and use of the Nelson St off-ramp as a park/pedestrian/cycle route to the city.

37. A number of respondents want to see more concrete proposal and detail to the actions including timeframes, and funding. Be clear of funding constraints and other regional priorities or committed projects to manage public expectations.

Generation Zero petition and submissions

38. Generation Zero is a national organisation launched in June 2011, with over 10,000 supporters, mostly between the ages of 18 and 30. It is not aligned with any political parties and is 100 percent independent in its views. Its vision is for a thriving, zero carbon Aotearoa before 2050.

39. Generation Zero ran a comprehensive campaign around the potential for separated cycle lanes in the weeks leading up to the close of submission on the K’Road plan. It gathered over 2417 signatures to the following petition: “To the Waitemata Local Board, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport. Please work together to develop, fund and implement a plan to install separated cycle lanes along the length of Karangahape Road. Please ensure this is prioritised to happen over the next 3 years.”

40. Generation Zero gathered widespread public support for separated cycle lanes on K’Road, and want this to be actioned within the next three years. Generation Zero also engaged with many businesses on K’Road, and received extensive support for separated cycle lanes, gathering over 100 signatures from 50 individual businesses. It expressed that businesses in K’Road recognise that cycle lanes would help increase accessibility of K’Road from around town, and give it another exciting point of difference.

41. It also gathered 138 Individual submissions for the draft K’Road Plan.

42. See Attachment E on the comments received.

43. Generation Zero asked respondents if they agree/disagree on six key items related to the K’Road Plan and provide any comments on the overall plan. The six key themes were:

· Install separated cycle lanes the full length of Karangahape Road within three years;

· Conduct a trial of a section of the cycle lanes within six months;

· Work on cycle connections with neighbouring suburbs to ensure that K’Road is the spine of a wider inner city cycling network;

· Implement measures to make the area safer and more friendly for pedestrians;

· Ensure K’Road’s special character and heritage is retained into the future; and

· Plan for increased accessibility and thus foot traffic that the City Rail Link Station will bring.

Waitematā Local Board

08 July 2014

Deputy Chairperson's Report

File No.: CP2014/14112

Executive summary

This report covers my Waitematā Local Board activities during June 2014 as Deputy Chair, lead for the Community and Transport portfolios, Chair of the Grants Committee, Deputy Chair of the Central Joint Funding Committee and with positions on the Ponsonby Business Association and Ponsonby Community Centre Committee.

From 14 June 2014 until 7 July 2014 I have also been acting Chair.

Recommendation

That the Waitematā Local Board:

(a) That the Deputy Chair’s Report be received.

Comments

Local Board Plan

During June I have been part of the Local Board team organising the Pecha Kucha event that will launch our draft Local Board Plan on 16 July at the Town Hall. We have a great line up of fantastic presenters who all in some way shape the beating heart of Tāmaki Makarau. This is the first time the Pecha Kucha format has been used for an engagement event by local government in New Zealand.

We’ve also planned a series of drop in sessions across Waitematā to answer questions on the draft Local Board Plan. Consultation starts on 7 July.

Community Engagement

In addition to the Local Board Plan there is an overwhelming number of engagement processes underway or about to start. This is putting a lot of pressure on our local volunteer community groups who are understandably feeling very stretched:

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – until 22 July

Local Alcohol Policy – until 16 July

Auckland Transport Parking discussion – until 31 July

Community Grant Policy – 14 July until 10 August

The Auckland Council website Shape Auckland is the online hub for all consultations.

Ponsonby Road Plan

At our June meeting we adopted the final of the Ponsonby Road Plan that sets a framework for the development of Ponsonby Road over the next 30 years. The process to draft a Plan got under way with my Notice of Motion in October 2012. I am really delighted to have reached this point and thank all those who contributed, in particular, the members of the working group, all those who took the time to submit on the draft, Rebecca Sanders, Auckland Planner who put all the work in behind the scenes and Tricia Reade who brought her considerable enthusiasm to the project last term.

The Ponsonby Road Plan establishes five desired outcomes including recognising the area as a vibrant centre, protecting historic and cultural heritage and making the road safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

The plan can be found on the Council website under “Council Strategies and Plans”

Urban Regeneration and Renewal

At the Auckland conversation in June, Dr Tim Williams - CEO Committee for Sydney gave a beginners guide on Urban Regeneration and Renewal. Some highlights from his presentation that focused on “convergence” -how to achieve the best results through equalising disadvantaged parts of city with wealthier parts.

- A mixed community is more important than clever financing, delivery vehicles and social projects in addressing inequality

- The best city leaders do three things well:

o Achieve smart growth

o Do more for less

o Win support for change

- You can’t reduce cost of housing by building more because the price is determined by 90% of current stock.

- To keep things the same you have to change

- Building more roads creates sprawl. Sprawl creates poverty. Sprawl may be killing social mobility

Reveal of Studio One

As acting Chair I had the good fortune to represent the Board at an event to reveal the new name for Art Station. My speech notes and a media release to announce Studio One are attached (ATTACHMENTS A and B)

Portfolio Reports: Community

Central Joint Funding Committee Meeting

The Committee with representatives of all the Central Local Boards (Chaired by Desley Simpson) met on 20 June to consider applications for grants from the Auckland City Cultural Heritage Fund (a legacy Auckland City Council fund for the purpose of conserving, restoring and protected valued historic heritage items).

A total of $23,326 was allocated from the second round of the 14/15 fund to 11 applicants (from a total of 18) with 7 grants made in the Waitematā Local Board area. Details of the successful applications are available on the Council website.

Kelmarna Organic Gardens

On 22 May 2014, the Board office was made aware of an incident at Hukanui Reserve, which is occupied by Kelmarna Organic Gardens in Grey Lynn. Ashes from a recently deceased client were scattered over parts of the garden.

The gardens are on land that has been leased from the council to the Kelmarna Community Garden Trust for the last 32 years. The Trust has a licence with Framework Trust to operate the gardens. Framework Trust provides staff for the gardens as part of their ongoing rehabilitation programmes. All staff were withdrawn from the site following the incident, while the Kelmarna Community Garden Trust, Framework Trust and Auckland Council staff from Te Waka Angamua (Maori Strategy and Relations) decided how to proceed.

I attended a blessing on site on 3 June which allowed normal activities to resume and a follow- up meeting to discuss next steps with all those involved. I’ve been really impressed with the sensitive way the issue has been handled and the commitment to ensure the gardens continue to flourish.

The Board is considering the application for a new lease at Hukanui Reserve at our July meeting (refer meeting agenda). If the Board agrees the granting of a new lease this will be advertised for submissions and officers will commence iwi consultation.

Youth

Congratulations to Isabella Lenihan- Iken who was elected to the Youth Advisory Panel as the Waitematā representative during June. The details are attached in the youth update (ATTACHMENT C). Isabella’s induction to the Panel will be held on 28 July.

Myers Park Centenary meeting

There was a large turnout for the community meeting to discuss centenary celebrations for Myers Park next year.

Notes from the meeting are attached (ATTACHMENT D)

Other issues relevant to the Community portfolio

A range of meetings were attended during June relevant to the Community portfolio – these are listed below.

Portfolio reports: Transport

City Centre Route Optimisation

At our June meeting Auckland Transport reported on a number of small but important changes that have been underway in the City Centre aimed at improving the pedestrian experience. These are part of the route optimisation programme that is not just aimed at vehicle efficiency. For example:

· removal of the slip lane on Lower Albert Street (next to the new pocket park on Quay Street in the photo right)

· Installation of a Barnes dance on the intersection of Quay St and Hobson St

These positive changes were covered by Transport Blog in more detail on 10 June.

Auckland Transport Parking Discussion Document

At our June Board meeting we requested Auckland Transport extend the consultation period on the parking discussion document.

Due to the high level of interest on the issues raised by the discussion document the public consultation period has been extended to 31 July.

During June I attended meetings organised by the Freemans Bay Residents Association to discuss the parking approaches proposed by Auckland Transport to manage parking on residential streets.

After the storm

The June storm that brought down many trees in our area (including a large gum tree in Grey Lynn Park) also dumped lots of debris on our roads providing a unique opportunity to see how much road space is unused. Streetfilms has coined the expression “sneakdown” for this phenomenon when it occurs after heavy snowfall (a shorter way of saying snowy neckdown and a neckdown is another name for a kerb extension).

On Franklin Road we have the perfect amount of room for a cycle lane!

June resolutions in response to Auckland Transport’s Report

Resolution number WTM/2014/82

MOVED by Deputy Chairperson PJ Coom, seconded by Member CP Dempsey:

a) That the Auckland Transport Report – June 2014 be received.

b) That the Waitemata Local Board:

i) Approves the design for the Upper Queen Street Bridge connecting the

Grafton Gully cycleway to the North Western cycleway subject to

intersection light phasing that prioritises walking and cycling.

ii) Approves funding a drinking fountain on the corner of Ian McKinnon Drive

and Upper Queen Street as part of the Upper Queen Street Bridge

cycleway design to the budget sum of $15,000 from the Waitemata Local

Board Transport Capex Fund 12/13.

iii) Requests that Auckland Transport installs route way-finding signage

along the entire Grafton Gully cycle way route and connection to the

North-Western cycleway in time for the opening of the Upper Queen Street

Bridge in September 2014.

iv) Requests that Auckland Transport investigate options for quickly

providing a cycleway connection from the Upper Queen Street Bridge to

Karangahape Road.

c) That officers investigate the beautification of the bridge as a gateway feature

into the city centre, to be included in the scope of the project and reported back

to the Waitemata Local Board, as this endorses the City Centre Master Plan.

d) That Priscilla Steel, Elected Members Liaison Manager (Auckland Transport)

and Matthew Ah Mu, Engineer - Investigation & Design (Auckland Transport) be

thanked for their attendance.25/08

CARRIED

Monthly transport update

A monthly update with Auckland Transport took place on 25 June. Current issues are reported back monthly by Auckland Transport on our public agenda including the details of the consultation undertaken with the Transport portfolio on behalf of the Board.

Workshops and meetings

In the period 1 June – 30 June I attended:

· Local Board workshop on 2 June

· Kelmarna Garden’s blessing on 3 June

· Community Development portfolio monthly catch up on 5 June

· Maori responsiveness training for elected representatives – a 2 part forum for elected representatives wishing to raise their awareness of the Māori fabric of Tāmaki Makaurau/Auckland, deepen their understanding of Councils commitments to Māori, and discuss ways of establishing and strengthening relationships with the communities, hapu, iwi and leaders within Maoridom. Content was delivered by subject matter experts from Te Waka Angamua Māori Strategy & Relations Department

· Ponsonby Business Association strategy meeting

· Te Kakano 1 (Te reo Māori ) Exam at AUT

· Waitemata Local Board business meeting at Grey Lynn Community Centre on 10 June

· Meeting with Kelmarna Gardens Trustees, Framework and Council advisers on 11 June

· Waitemata Local Board workshop on 12 June

· Briefing from Gerard Linstrom of Chorus re Ultra-Fast Broad Band rollout in Waitemata

· Standing Orders and meetings processes. A seminar to provide a comprehensive and interactive experience on the "ins and outs" of Standing Orders for Local Government meetings involving elected representative facilitated by Steve McDowell and Vern Walsh, of Meeting and Governance Solutions

· Freemans Bay Residents Association meetings on the Auckland Transport’s Parking Discussion Document on 12 June and 16 June

· Local Board workshop on 13 June

· Chair’s weekly update with Relationship Manager on 16 June

· St Luke’s notice of requirement meeting with Auckland Council legal team

· Myers Park Centenary meeting on 17 June (see meeting notes Attachment E)

· Waterfront Auckland Forum at the Voyager museum on 18 June Waterfront Auckland Chairman, Sir Bob Harvey and Chief Executive, John Dalzell spoke about the next stage of this development and how Waterfront Auckland will be progressing a comprehensive plan for the waterfront.

· Meeting with Freemans Park Body Corporate representatives to discuss overland flow path issues

· CDAC Work Programme discussion with Community Portfolio to review the 2014/2015 CDAC work programme for reporting to the July business meeting.

· Meeting with Central Library Manager to discuss CAB arrangements

· Central Joint Funding Committee Meeting - Auckland City Cultural Heritage Fund applications on 19 June

· Standing Orders Political Working Party meeting (as alternate to the Chair who is the Board’s rep on the working party) – photo right with members of the working party (Photo Credit: Cathy Casey)

· Chair’s weekly update with Relationship Manager on 23 June

· Local Board Chairs Forum meeting on 23 June

· Community meeting organised by the Grey Lynn Business Association to discuss the development application at 367-375 Great North Road

· Local Board Workshop on 24 June

· Meeting of PBA members to discuss the Local Alcohol Policy at the Longroom on Ponsonby Road on 24 June

· Ponsonby Community Centre committee meeting on 24 June

· Communications catch up on 25 June

· Monthly Transport portfolio catch up on 25 June

· Meeting with Ernst Zollner, NZTA Director Auckland & Northland and Director Road Safety: to discuss NZTA projects in the Waitematā area

· Community Development portfolio monthly catch up on 26 June

· Meeting on 27 June with Freemans Bay Residents Association to discuss feedback on the Parking Discussion Document

· Meeting with Tony Skelton, Chair, St Marys Bay Association

Events and functions

In the period 1 June – 30 June I attended:

· Auckland Museum Solar Launch on 4 June (photo right)

· Pecha Kucha at Q Theatre on 4 June

· Cycle Action Auckland’s Associates Breakfast at the Auckland Art Gallery on 5 June

· POP Projects 02: Bee Jam at Art Station on 6 June

· Generation Zero Art Auction at Fizzy Vibes Gallery on 11 June

· Grey Lynn Business Association Networking drinks at the Grey Lynn RSC on 11 June

· Auckland Conversations: Urban Regeneration and Renewal: A beginners guide with Dr Tim Williams - CEO Committee for Sydney on 12 June at the Aotea Centre

· Annie at the Civic on 13 June

· Campaign for better transport AGM at the Grey Lynn Community Centre on 20 June

· POP project 06 , Hikoi at Western Springs on 21 June with Prince Davis (photo below)

· ATC production of Once on Chunuk Bair at the Maidment Theatre (at the invitation of ATC)

· New Zealand Opera - a special concert to announce five newly appointed Freemasons Dame Malvina Major Emerging Artists at the Aotea Centre

· Tuesdays with Morrie at the Factory Theatre, Newmarket (at the invitation of the Newmarket Stage Company)

· Studio One Reveal on 27 June - The new name and identity for Artstation (Refer ATTACHMENTS A and B)

· Travelwise celebration hosted by Auckland Transport at Eden Park on 26 June

· Charandas Chor – the Honest Thief at TAPAC on 26 June (at the invitation of Prayas Theatre and TAPAC)

· Sunday Roast at Q Theatre on 27 June

· Matariki Dawn Karakia on 28 June at the Cloud to herald in the Maori New Year and commence the Matariki Festival (on until 28 July)

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Speech for the Reveal of Studio One	325
b View	Sudio One Media Release	327
c View	Youth Update	329
d View	Myers Park Community Meeting Notes	333

Signatories

Authors

Pippa Coom, Deputy Chairperson

[1] Framework will provide monthly reports to KCGT Secretary

[2] Framework will provide 6 monthly reports to KCGT Secretary

[3] Defn: garden visits are by people who are not Framework clients. Framework will include this in their monthly report to KCGT Secretary

N.B. This plan is agreed on the basis Framework continues to sub-lease approx 5000sqm of gardens from the Kelmarna Community Gardens Trust. Should Framework depart Kelmarna, then KCGT will renegotiate performance measures and targets with Council.

Chairperson	Shale Chambers
Deputy Chairperson	Pippa Coom
Members	Christopher Dempsey
	Greg Moyle
	Vernon Tava
	Rob Thomas
	Deborah Yates

Event	Amount per annum for three years
Festival Italiano	$15,000
Art Week Auckland	$10,000
Art in the Dark	$30,000 (reducing by $5,000 each year)
Grey Lynn Park Festival	$25,000
Total	$80,000

Event	Amount
Playing in the Street	$3,000
West End Cup	$9,000
Franklin Road Christmas Lights (Top up to Christmas Fund to provide for waste management costs. See also funding allocation from the Christmas event fund. Please note this has been rounded to the nearest $100 at the request of the chair)	$3,000
Auckland Fringe Festival	$10,000
Total	$25,000

Event	Amount
Franklin Road Christmas Lights	$5,050
Total	$5,050

Item	Topic	Lead officer	Notes
1.	WW1 Centenary Programme	Kaye Oliver (Senior Advisor – Special Projects), Beverley Rogers (Team Leader Event Delivery Civic), Jane Wild (Research Centres Manager), Andrew Greg (Auckland Museum), Otene Reweti (Senior Advisor), Bobby Newson (Senior Advisor)	Officers informed the Board of plans to commemorate the centenary of the First World War. August this year is the commencement of the 5 year commemoration of WW1 centenary.
2.	Psychoactive Substances Policy	Callum Thorpe (Principle Policy Analyst)	Officers provided an update to the Board on the timetable for the Psychoactive substances and policy and discussed the 3 options currently being considered
3	Auckland Transport Update	Priscilla Steel (Elected Members Liaison Manager), Arash Barzin (AT), Emma Taylor (AT), Nick Seymour (AT), Adrian Price (AT)	Officers provided an update on the Beach Road Cycleway and the Route Optimisation project

Authors	Desiree Tukutama - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Authors	Alastair Child - Principal Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Judith Webster - Relationship Manager