|
Resolution number OP/2015/67
MOVED
by Member SC Grey, seconded by Member MA Gush:
That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board provide feedback on the District Licensing Committee
structure review as set out in Attachments A:
Feedback from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara Papatoetoe
Local Boards, Attachment B: Community Feedback, Attachment C: Observations of
Off-Licence Decisions, including these points:
a)
The review should consider whether DLC decisions have
resulted in worse outcomes than if ARLA had remained the decision maker, in
failing to produce safer and more responsible sale, supply and consumption of
alcohol, or to minimise harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol.
b)
The
review should consider whether DLC decisions have sufficient regard to the
overriding purpose of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. Further training
and development for DLC members is suggested on the overriding purpose of the
Act and the evidence-base of the Auckland Council draft Local Alcohol Policy
(LAP).
c)
More
information should be provided by council to inform the public of how to
object and what to object about. This could be achieved through an improved
council website.
d)
Hearing
processes should be changed to remove barriers to public participation,
including by reducing formality and intimidation of community objectors, by
holding weekend hearings, and by allowing objectors to leave after giving
their evidence (not having to stay all day).
e)
The room
used for hearings at Manukau is inaccessible and generally unsuitable, and a
better room should be found.
f)
Decisions
should be written in plain English, and include a summary of the main points.
g)
DLC
members should be more representative of local communities. No local DLC
member has been included in the panel in some local hearings, contrary to a
Governing Body resolution. This should change in future and the local board
prefers a localised approach to DLC membership.
h)
The
structure of the DLC should be changed to establish a localised model to
operate in southern urban local board areas, replacing the existing regional
DLC model.
i)
There is
insufficient consistency between DLC panels, in their approaches to hearings,
decision-making and their knowledge of local area and alcohol-related issues.
j)
An
independent senior legal practitioner should be asked to review all DLC
decisions and recommend how to improve consistency and that precedents are
followed.
k)
The
review should consider if resourcing is an issue for DLCs, and the need for a
top-up from general rates (justified by public good) to implement review
outcomes.
l)
The
review should address an apparent conflict between the regulatory role of
inspectors (working regularly with applicants) and the role of inspectors as
professional experts reporting on the applications.
m) The review
should consider how to ensure adequate follow-up of DLC decisions and
applicant undertakings, and to ensure enforcement, if necessary.
CARRIED
|
