Agenda of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

13 May 2015

Hearings Panel's recommendations for the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy

File No.: CP2015/06117

Purpose

1. To seek adoption of the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy as proposed by the Local Alcohol Policy Hearings Panel.

Executive Summary

2. This report has been prepared on behalf of the Local Alcohol Policy Hearings Panel (“the Panel”). It presents the Panel’s proposed Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy (“LAP”) to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (“the Committee”) for approval and adoption (see Attachment A).

3. The Panel was appointed in May 2014 by the council’s Hearings Committee to hear oral submissions on the Draft LAP, deliberate, and make recommendations to the Governing Body, including a proposed Provisional LAP, if appropriate. The Panel comprises Councillors Bill Cashmore (Chair), Denise Krum, Calum Penrose, George Wood and Member Glenn Wilcox of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

4. The proposed Provisional LAP has been prepared in accordance with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (“the Act”). Specifically, the council has:

· had regard to matters such as Auckland’s existing licensing environments and the nature and severity of alcohol-related harm experienced throughout the region, as required by section 78(2) of the Act

· consulted the Police, alcohol licensing inspectors and Medical Officers of Health, as required by section 78(4) of the Act.

5. The council has also followed the full special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002 to consult the public on a draft LAP, as required by section 79 of the Act. This process commenced in May 2014, when the Committee adopted the Local Alcohol Policy Project Statement of Proposal, which contained the Draft LAP (resolution no. REG/2014/60).

6. The council publicly notified the Draft LAP on 16 June 2014 and accepted written submissions until 16 July 2014. The council received 2693 public submissions on the Draft LAP, all of which have been considered by the Panel. The Panel also heard 108 oral submissions over nine days between August and November 2014, and held deliberations in March 2015.

7. The proposed Provisional LAP, contained in Attachment A, consolidates each of the Panel’s specific recommendations into one document. This report requests that the Committee accepts each of these recommendations by passing a resolution to adopt the proposed Provisional LAP in full.

8. To assist the Committee, the remainder of this report details the matters the Panel considered in developing its specific recommendations both generally, and then in relation to each deliberation topic. For each topic, the report summarises:

· the proposal as notified in the Draft LAP

· the key feedback themes from public submissions and hearings, and where applicable, from council group stakeholders

· the details and rationale for the Panel’s recommendations.

9. If the Committee does not accept the proposed Provisional LAP and requests any substantive changes, the matter will be returned to the Panel for reconsideration.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) adopt the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy, contained in Attachment A, pursuant to sections 75 and 79 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

b) approve the Explanatory Document for Auckland Council’s Provisional Local Alcohol Policy, contained in Attachment B, which summarises Auckland Council’s reasons for the content of the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy.

c) authorise the Chair of the Committee, Cr Wood, and the Chair of the Hearings Panel, Cr Cashmore, in consultation with the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws, to make any minor edits or amendments to the Auckland Council Provisional Local Alcohol Policy or the Explanatory Document for Auckland Council’s Provisional Local Alcohol Policy to correct any identified errors.

d) direct staff to give public notice of the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy in accordance with section 80 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

e) recommend to the Governing Body that, once the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy ceases to be provisional and is deemed “adopted” under section 87 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, the Governing Body:

i) directs staff to give public notice of the adoption of the Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy in accordance with section 90(1)(b) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

ii) specifies by resolution the day that the adopted policy will be brought into force, in accordance with section 90 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

iii) confirms that that the Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy supersedes any alcohol licensing policies developed by any of the former Auckland-based ‘legacy’ councils.

f) note that a monitoring and evaluation framework and a guidance document may be useful as part of the implementation of the Local Alcohol Policy.

Comments

BACKGROUND

10. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (“the Act”) empowers councils to develop local alcohol policies (“LAPs”) relating to the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol within their districts.

11. A LAP can only include policy positions relating to the following licensing matters:

· 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.

12. Where a LAP is in place, the relevant district licensing committee (“DLC”) and the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (“ARLA”) will be required to have regard to it when issuing and renewing alcohol licences in the area.

Auckland Council’s decision to develop a LAP

13. It is not mandatory for councils to develop a LAP. However, where a council opts to do so, it must comply with the parameters and processes prescribed by the Act.

14. To support the council in determining whether to develop a LAP, in 2012, council staff completed a research project, which examined Auckland’s licensing environments, and the nature and severity of alcohol-related harm experienced throughout the region. This research was structured around the mandatory considerations for developing a LAP, as set out in the then Alcohol Reform Bill (and that were later confirmed in the Act).

15. In May 2012, after considering the research findings, the Regional Development and Operations Committee approved the development of an Auckland Council LAP, subject to the passing of the Alcohol Reform Bill (resolution number RDO/2012/78(d)). This decision was confirmed by the Governing Body in January 2013, after the new Act received Royal assent.

Preparing and consulting on the Draft LAP

16. The Act also specifies the following minimum consultation requirements:

· consult the Police, alcohol licensing inspectors and Medical Officers of Health

· develop a draft LAP and follow the special consultative procedure to consult the public on the draft.

17. Auckland Council has now fulfilled these requirements:

· throughout 2013, council staff conducted two rounds of informal stakeholder consultation and engagement, including direct consultation with the Police, inspectors and the Medical Officers of Health. Note: Staff reported to the Committee in May 2014 with specific detail on these engagement activities.

· as detailed in the paragraphs below, the special consultative procedure commenced in June 2014 and is now complete.

Public submissions

18. In May 2014, the Committee adopted the Local Alcohol Policy Project Statement of Proposal (which contained the Draft LAP) for the purposes of public consultation (resolution no. REG/2014/60).

19. The council publicly notified the Draft LAP on 16 June 2014 and called for written submissions until 16 July 2014. The council received 2,693 public submissions, including 12 late submissions.

20. Nearly half of the submissions (1,352) were made using the council’s online form, and a third (897) through the Alcohol Healthwatch pro-forma postcards. The postcards comprised a series of statements that submitters could tick if they agreed.

21. Some submitters worked together on their submissions and provided similar or in some cases identical comments. Examples include Progressive Enterprises Ltd, which in addition to its own submission provided the same submissions from each of its 49 stores and proponents of the dance music scene who connected through the “Dance till Dawn” campaign.

22. Approximately 88 per cent of submitters were individuals and almost nine per cent were members of the alcohol industry such as licensees, producers, industry or organisations. Further information on the submitters is provided in Attachment C.

23. The Panel considered all written submissions received. Key points from the submissions, and comments that resulted in changes to the proposed LAP, are summarised below.

Council stakeholder feedback

24. In addition to consulting with the public, throughout June and July 2014, council staff ran a separate process to gather feedback on the Draft LAP from stakeholders within the wider Auckland Council group. Stakeholders that provided written feedback included:

· all local boards

· Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development Ltd

· the Seniors, Disability Strategic, Youth and Pacific Peoples advisory panels

· the Papakura; Albert-Eden; Manurewa; Howick and West Auckland youth councils

· and the Auckland Council Alcohol Licensing Inspectorate.

25. Key points from this feedback are also summarised below under each topic.

Hearings

26. In May 2014, the council’s Hearings Committee established the LAP Hearings Panel (“the Panel”) to hear oral submissions on the Draft LAP, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body (including any proposals for a Provisional LAP). The Panel comprises Councillors Bill Cashmore (as Chair), Denise Krum, Calum Penrose, George Wood and Member Glenn Wilcox of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

27. Hearings took place over eight days between August and November 2014. The Panel heard from 108 submitters, including a range of individuals, licensees, industry groups, public health sector groups, business and residents associations and other special interest groups. Seventeen council stakeholders also gave oral submissions.

Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority test cases

28. At the conclusion of the hearings on 24 November 2014, the Panel resolved to defer its deliberations until early 2015 to allow more time to work through the feedback received on the draft LAP. This also provided the Panel with the opportunity to wait and consider ARLA’s test case decision on the appeals against the Wellington City Council Provisional LAP, which at that time was still pending release.

29. The Wellington decision, along with the judgement on the Tasman District Council Provisional LAP (released in mid-November) was treated as a test case and provided important guidance on the appeals process, interpreting the ground for appeal and ARLA’s expectations for LAPs in general. The Panel has considered this guidance in making its recommendations for the proposed Provisional LAP.

DELIBERATIONS

30. The Panel reconvened over 19 and 20 March 2015 to complete its deliberations and confirm its recommendations for the Provisional LAP. The Panel deliberated over the topics outlined in the table below, and made specific recommendations in relation to each.

Table 1. List of Deliberation Topics

	Topic	Item no. at deliberations	Draft LAP clause reference
1	Purpose and Scope	1.	1.
-	Policy Areas
2	General approach	3.	2.2.
3	Definition of Broad Area A	3.	2.1.
4	Priority Overlay	3.	2.3.
-	Policies relating to Off-licences
5	Location and Density: Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment – Policy Tool	4.	3.1.
6	Location and Density: Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment – Application to Off-licences	4.	5.2.
7	Location and Density: Temporary Freeze – Policy Tool and Application to Off-licences	4.	3.3. and 5.1.
8	Location and Density: Rebuttable Presumption – Policy Tool and Application to Off-licences	4.	3.2. and 5.1.
9	Location and Density: Setting Conditions on Renewal	4.	5.3.
10	Maximum Trading Hours: Policy Tool and Specific Off-licence Hours	4.	3.4. and 5.4.
11	Discretionary Conditions: Policy Tool	4.	3.6.
12	Discretionary Conditions: Specific Off-licence Conditions	4.	5.5. to 5.7.
-	Policies relating to On-licences
13	Location and Density: Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment – Policy Tool	5.	3.1.
14	Location and Density: Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment – Application to On-licences	5.	4.1.
15	Location and Density: Setting Conditions on Renewal	5.	4.2.
16	Maximum Trading Hours and Trial Extensions: Policy Tool	5.	3.4. and 3.5.
17	Maximum Trading Hours: Specific On-licence Hours	5.	4.3.
18	Maximum Trading Hours: One-way Door	5.	-
19	Discretionary Conditions: Policy Tool	5.	3.6.
20	Discretionary Conditions: Specific On-licence Conditions	5.	4.4. to 4.6.
-	Policies relating to Club Licences
21	Maximum Trading Hours: Policy Tool and Specific Club Licence Hours	6.	3.4. and 6.1.
22	Discretionary Conditions: Policy Tool	6.	3.6.
23	Discretionary Conditions: Specific Club Licence Conditions	6.	6.2. to 6.4.
-	Policies relating to Special Licences
24	Maximum Trading Hours: Policy Tool and Special Licence Hours	7.	3.4. and 7.1.
25	Discretionary Conditions: Policy Tool	7.	3.6.
26	Discretionary Conditions: Specific Special Licence Conditions	7.	7.2. and 7.3.

31. Given the interdependencies between the various policy decisions to be made at the meeting, the Panel first made preliminary recommendations on each of the above topics (in the order listed). The meeting was then adjourned whilst staff incorporated the Panel’s recommendations into the proposed Provisional LAP. The Panel then reconvened and completed a clause-by-clause check of the policy document and confirmed its final recommendations for each clause.

THE PANEL’S PROPOSED PROVISIONAL LAP

Overview

32. The proposed Provisional LAP, contained in Attachment A, consolidates the Panel’s specific recommendations into one document. This report requests that the Committee accepts all of these recommendations by passing a resolution to adopt the proposed Provisional LAP in full (as per recommendation (a)).

Considerations

· General decision-making considerations

33. In making its recommendations, the Panel has considered:

Table 2: Matters considered by the Panel

Consideration	Overview
Object of the Act	· The object of the Act was a primary consideration. Specifically, the Panel considered whether a proposal would help to minimise harm from excessive and inappropriate consumption and whether it would allow for the safe and responsible sale, supply and consumption of alcohol.
Statutory considerations	· mandatory considerations specified at section 78(2) of the Act: o the objectives and policies of its district plan o the number of licences of each kind held for premises in its district, and the location and opening hours of each of the premises o any areas in which bylaws prohibiting alcohol in public places are in force o the demography of the district’s residents o the demography of people who visit the district as tourists or holidaymakers o the overall health indicators of the district’s residents o the nature and severity of the alcohol-related problems arising in the district.
Evidence	· strength of evidence to support each proposal, including both local evidence and literature.
Practicality	· how easy or difficult each proposal would be to implement and whether there would be any unintended consequences.
Feedback	· levels of support from public submitters, stakeholders, and internal Council groups for each proposal.
Reasonableness	· whether a proposal is likely to be considered reasonable, in alignment with section 81(4) of the Act. As part of this, the Panel noted ARLA’s guidance from test cases that a proposal is likely to be considered unreasonable if the proposed measures: o constitute a disproportionate or excessive response to the perceived problems; or o are partial or unequal in their operation between license holders; or o are an oppressive or gratuitous inference with the rights of those affected; o are manifestly unjust or disclose bad faith.
General	· what impact a proposal may have on moderate drinkers · the benefits and costs associated with a proposal · the efficiency and effectiveness of a proposal · staff comments/recommendations.

34. The Panel has also been mindful of the following:

· the suite of controls provided by the new Act, noting in particular the ‘three strikes’ policy, where a licence or manager’s certificate can be cancelled (and barred for five years) if they breach certain provisions of the Act three times within three years

· the increased focus on local decision-making provided by the new Act, and the wider powers and discretion afforded to the DLC

· the controlled nature of on-licence environments and the success of initiatives such as the Super City Host Charter.

Considering the feedback received

35. The feedback summaries below are intended to provide an overview of the most prevalent themes under each topic. However, comments that resulted in changes to the proposal are also included.

36. Feedback was analysed using the council’s submission form as a framework. The submission form included closed questions where submitters could indicate a position on a proposal (i.e. support, do not support, no view) and open questions where submitters could provide comments. For the former, results are reported as numbers of submitters, and for the latter, results are reported as key themes (number of comments).

37. For submissions that did not use the submission form, positions on a proposal were inferred from the text and recorded along with the closed question results. Comments were treated the same way as the open questions in the submission form.

Topic 1 – Purpose and Scope

Proposal as publicly notified

38. As notified, the Draft LAP included introductory text on the purpose of the Act, the policy drivers behind the Act and the effect of LAPs. It also included a purpose statement. The Draft LAP emphasised the focus of the new Act on minimising alcohol-related harm.

Summary of feedback

39. This was not a prominent theme in the submissions.

Deliberations

40. At the deliberations, the Panel adopted the following amendments in response to case law issued by ARLA:

· add new headings to distinguish explanatory notes from policy positions (clauses 1.1 and 1.2)

· amend the purpose clause to align more strictly with section 77 of the Act, which sets out the permitted content of LAPs

· reduce the amount of commentary to align with ARLA’s position that LAPs should be brief and focus only on section 77 of the Act.

41. Throughout the deliberations, the Panel acknowledged the shift in focus of the new Act away from simply establishing a licensing regime to actively minimising alcohol-related harm.

Panel’s recommendations

42. The Panel recommends that the Provisional LAP should outline the purpose and scope of the policy, as in clauses 1.1. and 1.2. (see Attachment A).

Topic 2 – Policy Areas: General Approach

Proposal as publicly notified

43. Section 75(2)(a) of the Act allows a LAP to “provide differently for different parts of its district”. This enables councils to tailor their LAPs to account for local variation and to ensure alignment with other relevant local regulations such as district plans.

44. The Draft LAP proposed to categorise the Auckland region into three main areas, where different policy provisions would apply. Analysis of the mandatory considerations under section 78(2) of the Act showed the level of policy intervention required for different communities varied across the region and that one set of policy provisions would not be appropriate for the large area covered by Auckland Council’s jurisdiction.

45. The areas proposed in the Draft LAP were:

· Broad Area A – encompassing the City Centre between the two motorways, as well as the Ponsonby Road frontage and the main business zones in Newton.

· Broad Area B – which would cover the rest of the region, and in some instances provide special rules based on Unitary Plan zoning (e.g. for Metropolitan Centres or Neighbourhood Centres).

· Priority Overlay – an overlay of streets and areas experiencing greater levels of alcohol-related harm where stronger rules would be applied.

Summary of feedback

46. Feedback on the proposed policy areas was one of the most prominent themes throughout the submissions. Submitters commented on both the general approach and the definition of the individual areas.

47. Of the 1,667 submitters that stated a position on the general approach, approximately 40 per cent supported the proposal, whilst approximately 45 per cent did not. The remainder explicitly indicated they had no view on the matter.

48. 422 submitters also provided more detailed comments on the proposal. Comments in support tended to appreciate the simplicity of the draft LAP approach and agreed that a regional-only approach would not be effective at responding to the varying needs of Auckland’s divergent communities.

49. Almost all of the local boards and council stakeholders that gave feedback supported the proposal. Many local boards particularly acknowledged and appreciated that their feedback on the Staff Position Paper had been incorporated into the Draft LAP.

50. Those opposed to the general approach could largely be grouped into two categories: those who wanted to see finer grain variation (74 comments); and those who preferred one set of regional rules (120 comments, 50 of which were raised by Progressive Enterprises Ltd.). Ultimately, both groups were concerned that the proposal placed too much emphasis on the City Centre to the detriment of other areas.

51. Submitters in favour of more variation considered the proposal failed to adequately recognise established business centres/licences outside the central city (e.g. in Metropolitan Centres). Many licensees from such centres attended the hearings to discuss this further with the Panel. Some submitters in this group were also concerned about unintended consequences such as increased migration to and from the city late at night.

52. Proponents of a regional approach mostly considered that location-based rules were either unnecessary, due to existing planning rules and market self-regulation, or unfair.

Deliberations

53. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain the general approach of categorising Auckland into three main areas, although with minor amendments to the specific areas (see below).

Panel’s recommendations

54. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should specify general policy positions for the Auckland region but provide differently for specific areas, as outlined in clause 2.1 (Attachment A).

Topic 3 – Policy Areas: Definition of Broad Area A

Proposal as publicly notified

55. The Draft LAP defined Broad Area A as including the City Centre between the two motorways, as well as the Ponsonby Road frontage and the main business zones in Newton. These areas comprise the region’s main entertainment hub, but also experience relatively high levels of alcohol-related harm. The Draft LAP distinguished these areas from the rest of the region so that a specific set of provisions could be tailored towards these particular characteristics.

Summary of feedback

56. Most submitters agreed that the central city is unique when compared to the rest of the region and that it therefore warrants its own special category. However, feedback on how this uniqueness should be addressed varied. Some submitters wanted the area to be recognised as a high stress environment and to be given Priority Overlay status, while others wanted more relaxed rules but tended to raise arguments beyond the permitted focus of LAPs, such as encouraging vibrancy and economic development.

57. There were 60 submissions that requested a larger Broad Area A. In particular, submitters wanted Parnell (40 comments) and Newmarket (38 comments) to be added, mostly to align with Ponsonby. People wanting Ponsonby, Parnell and Newmarket to be included in Broad Area A generally considered that these areas should be allowed to trade until 3am.

58. A small number of requests were also received in relation to other areas, including: the western-side of Newton Road; Takapuna; Mt Eden; and Kingsland.

59. Some submitters requested that Broad Area A be refined to focus only on the City Centre (15 comments).

Deliberations

60. In recognition of the contentious nature of defining Broad Area A, at the deliberations the Panel determined that the main focus should be on the area between State Highway 1 and State Highway 16. The Panel considered that this enabled better alignment with the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Panel’s recommendations

61. The Panel’s recommendations are that the Provisional LAP should:

· Rename Broad Area A as the “City Centre”

· Define the City Centre as the area between State Highways 1 and 16, in alignment with the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

· Identify the City Centre as one of the areas that the policy provides differently for (see clause 2.1.1(a) in Attachment A).

Topic 4 – Policy Areas: Priority Overlay

Proposal as publicly notified

62. Pursuant to section 75(2)(a) of the Act, the Draft LAP identified a number of centres across the region for inclusion in a Priority Overlay, to which special rules would apply.

63. The Priority Overlay areas were identified through a data driven process, based on a number of factors, including incidence of recorded alcohol-related offences, Police calls for service, and concentrations of population groups that research suggests are at greater risk of alcohol-related harm.

64. To define these areas, the Draft LAP identified Priority Streets where Police data indicated alcohol-related offending was most prevalent. The Priority Overlay area then applied to the areas within 250 metres of the Priority Streets. (Note that this Police data was provided on a confidential basis.)

Summary of feedback

General approach

65. Of the 1,665 submitters that stated a position on the Draft LAP proposal to use a Priority Overlay to identify areas where there should be stronger licensing controls, 52 per cent supported the proposal, and 41 per cent did not.

66. Specific comments on the Priority Overlay were made by 1026 submitters (1782 comments).

67. Twenty-eight comments directly supported the Priority Overlay approach, stating that it was a positive tool that could be targeted to benefit specific areas and communities as needed.

68. Almost two-thirds of the local boards and council stakeholders commented on the Priority Overlay proposal, and all of these indicated support for the approach.

69. A total of 204 comments showed general support for the Priority Overlay concept but requested amendments such as:

· different boundaries

· exemption to any Priority Overlay rules for supermarkets (including the 50 Progressive Enterprises submissions)

· not applying the Priority Overlay to areas within the City Centre

· a wider application of the Priority Overlay, for example to all areas of high deprivation

· a review process for the Priority Overlay before the six-yearly policy review.

70. Comments that did not support the Priority Overlay (106 comments) considered it would:

· stigmatise certain areas

· cause displacement (particularly in the central city)

· unreasonably impact on personal freedom

· punish businesses (particularly well-run on-licences) in the area because of other issues.

71. Submitters raising these types of comments generally considered that licences should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Specific areas

72. A total of 824 comments noted support for applying the Priority Overlay to certain areas identified in the Draft LAP, in particular, Ōtara (180 submissions), Manurewa (124 submissions), Māngere (118 submissions) and Papatoetoe (93 submissions).

73. A mix of both industry and health-focussed submitters (33 submitters), requested the Priority Streets within Broad Area A (a section of Queen Street and the corner of Fort Street/Fort Lane) be removed from the Priority Overlay, considering the areas would be too limited to have any impact.

74. Other comments (446 comments, from 279 submissions) requested that new areas be added to the Priority Overlay, including:

· the entirety of South Auckland (100 comments)

· Takapuna (43 comments)

· all of Broad Area A (21 comments)

· Takanini (12 comments)

· Wiri (5 comments)

· Hunters Corner (5 comments)

· Point England (4 comments)

· Helensville (3 comments).

75. Local boards also requested additional areas to be added to the Priority Overlay as follows:

· Point England (requested by Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board),

· Hunters Corner (requested by Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board)

· Waiuku (requested by Franklin Local Board).

76. Many submitters from areas included in the Priority Overlay who presented orally to the Panel spoke of their concerns about the proliferation of off-licence premises in their communities.

Deliberations

77. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain the Priority Overlay approach, with a minor amendment to simplify how each area is defined.

78. The Panel also reviewed the list of Priority Overlay areas notified in the Draft LAP and new areas requested through submissions. The Panel agreed that the following areas notified in the Draft LAP should be deleted:

· CBD streets

· Point Chevalier

· Onehunga.

79. A preliminary analysis of levels of alcohol-related harm was completed for all Priority Overlay areas requested through submissions. Those that displayed the highest levels of harm were then investigated in more detail, which involved identifying levels of at-risk populations in the area and existing numbers of off-licence outlets. The areas proposed for inclusion in the Priority Overlay in the Draft LAP were also re-examined using updated data made available since the Draft LAP was written (updated Police data and 2014 Deprivation Index figures). This means that submitter comments in support of a new Priority Overlay area determined which areas were investigated but was not the ultimate determinant of whether the Panel decided to include an area.

Panel’s recommendations

80. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should include a Priority Overlay, comprised of the following areas:

Table 3: Centres recommended for inclusion in Provisional LAP Priority Overlay

Category	Description	Areas to be included in Provisional LAP
Retain	Areas from the Draft LAP that the Panel recommends should be retained in the Provisional LAP	· Avondale · Glen Eden · Glen Innes · Henderson · Māngere · Māngere East · Manukau · Manurewa · Mt Wellington	· Oranga · Ōtāhuhu · Ōtara · Panmure · Papakura · Papatoetoe · Pukekohe · Weymouth/Clendon
Amend	Areas from the Draft LAP that the Panel recommends should be amended for inclusion in the Provisional LAP	· Wellsford and Te Hana
Add	New areas that the Panel recommends should be included in the Provisional LAP	· Point England · Helensville and Parakai · Hunters Corner · Takanini · Wiri

81. The Panel’s recommendation (above) means that the Priority Streets in Broad Area A, Onehunga and Point Chevalier (notified in the Draft LAP) would be removed from the Priority Overlay for the Provisional LAP.

82. The Panel also recommends that, rather than including areas within 250 metres of particular priority streets, each Priority Overlay area should be defined by applying a 200 metre radius from the boundary of the main Business Centre zone(s) relevant to each area (as identified in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan).

POLICIES RELATING TO OFF-LICENCES

Topic 5 – Location and Density: Environmental and Cumulative Impacts Assessment – Policy tool

Proposal as publicly notified

83. Section 77(1)(d) of the Act allows the LAP to include policy positions on whether further licences should be issued in the district or any part of the district. Pursuant to this, the Draft LAP proposed that to assist the DLC or ARLA in determining whether to issue new licences, certain applications should undergo an Environmental and Cumulative Impacts Assessment (“ECIA”).

84. The ECIA would ensure the following matters were fully considered as part of the licensing process, in order to manage location and density issues arising from the issuing of new licences in certain areas:

· the risks associated with the location of the proposed premises, including external and environmental risks such as the existing licence environment, the location of any sensitive sites in proximity to the proposed premises, and the current levels of alcohol-related crime

· the individual risks associated with the proposed licence (such as the type of premises, the risk profile etc.).

85. Other details of the proposal are summarised as follows:

· the requirement for an ECIA would be triggered by the location of the proposed premises and the risk profile of the premises under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013 (“the Regulations”)

· ECIA reports would be prepared by the council

· the area assessed as part of the ECIA would be the areas within a 500 metre radius of the proposed site boundaries

· the sensitive sites to be identified would be: early childhood centres and childcare facilities, schools, addiction treatment centres and any other facility relevant to the purpose of the LAP.

Summary of feedback

86. Of those submitters that indicated a position on whether the ECIA tool should be used for considering certain applications, the majority were in support. Those in favour of the approach included both the public health sector and some industry stakeholders whereas those against were generally industry submitters.

87. More detailed feedback on the mechanics of the ECIA policy tool can be broadly categorised into two themes: comments on the content of the assessments; and comments regarding the ECIA process.

Content of ECIA reports

88. Forty-seven comments were made in support of the ECIA as proposed in the Draft LAP, particularly the reporting of existing outlets and other types of facilities and land uses in the area.

89. The treatment of sensitive sites received the most comments (925 comments).

· Heath-based submitters (including 848 Alcohol Healthwatch postcards) wanted to see additional and more direct controls in the LAP to protect sensitive sites, although these comments were not explicitly in relation to the ECIA.

· Progressive Enterprises Ltd. provided 50 submissions in opposition to the proposal regarding certain sensitive sites. A small number of other industry submitters raised similar comments.

· A few submitters suggested that the list of sites should be extended to include, for example, marae, churches, and community centres that youth frequent.

90. Other feedback on the content of the ECIA reports showed concern that the report would double up with existing processes and considerations under the Act (63 comments, including 50 from Progressive Enterprises Ltd.). Comments included:

· that the proposal to report on amenity levels would double up with the criteria under the Act for issuing a licence

· that the content of the report would duplicate the information included in the alcohol licensing inspector’s reports that are required under the Act

· that the Act already provides criteria to enable the DLC to decline an application.

ECIA process

91. Comments on the ECIA process largely focussed on the proposal for the council to complete the reports. This proposal received cross-sector support with the Health Promotion Agency, Salvation Army, NZ Medical Association, Auckland Regional Public Health Service and Lion Nathan submitting in favour.

92. Most local boards supported the proposed ECIA process but some commented that as this would be a new process for the council, thorough implementation planning would be required.

93. A small number of submissions (from larger stakeholders) raised technical queries about the ECIA process, including matters such as access to the document, hearings and the status of the content.

Deliberations

94. At the deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain the ECIA process as a policy tool for regulating location and density of new off-licences, but with the following amendments:

· rename as “Local Impacts Report”

· deleting requirement to assess existing amenity levels and otherwise refine the criteria to remove any unnecessary overlap with the Act

· amend the definition of “sensitive sites” to include marae but remove the catch all phrase “any other facility relevant to the purpose of the Policy” to mitigate uncertainty for applicants

· clarify that Local Impacts Reports would be completed by the Alcohol Licensing Inspectorate

· remove the provisions relating to when hearings are required

· clarify that applicants should have sufficient time to prepare for a hearing, where they need to respond to a Local Impacts Report.

Panel’s recommendations

95. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should include the Local Impacts Report process as outlined at clauses 3.1.1 to 3.1.5 (see Attachment A).

Topic 6 – Location and Density: Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment – Application to Off-licences

Proposal as publicly notified

96. The Draft LAP proposed that the ECIA process would be required for certain off-licence applications, depending on the location of the proposed site, and the risk profile of the premises under the Regulations. The specific proposals were that all applications for Low, Medium, High and Very High Risk off-licences in all parts of Broad Area B, except Neighbourhood Centres, would be required to go through the ECIA. Off licences in other parts of the region would be covered by a temporary freeze and the rebuttable presumption.

Summary of feedback

97. Of those submitters that indicated a position on this topic, 1,102 submitters supported the proposal (66 per cent), and 359 did not (22 per cent). The remainder either explicitly stated they had no view (148 submitters, 9 per cent) or indicated partial support (52 submitters, 3 per cent).

98. In terms of the more detailed feedback, 67 comments, including 50 from Progressive Enterprises Ltd, specifically opposed the Draft LAP proposal to consider sensitive sites when determining off-licence applications. These comments suggested that existing processes would be sufficient to address any issues associated with the location or density of off-licences. In particular, comments referenced:

· the objections process under the Act

· the requirement for the Medical Officer of Health, Police and alcohol licensing inspectors to report on applications

· planning and resource consent processes.

99. Other comments requested an exemption from the ECIA process for remote sellers (i.e. sales for delivery). This was further discussed as part of the hearings process when representatives from the remote seller industry, such as Chrisco Ltd, gave their oral submissions.

Deliberations

100. At the deliberations, the Panel agreed that the Local Impacts Report (amended version of ECIA) should be required for all off-licence applications except those deemed Very Low Risk under the Regulations or those affected by more specific policies.

101. The Panel also accepted the staff recommendations to exempt remote sellers from the Local Impacts Report process.

Panel’s recommendations

102. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should apply the Local Impacts Report policy tool as per clause 4.1.1 but remote sellers should be exempt (see Attachment A).

Topic 7 – Location and Density: Temporary Freeze – Policy Tool and Application to Off-licences

Proposal as publicly notified

103. The Draft LAP proposed a temporary freeze on new off-licences in Broad Area A and the Priority Overlay. That is, the LAP would recommend 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 LAP is brought into force. This proposal was based on evidence that shows the City Centre and Priority Overlay areas are experiencing disproportionate levels of alcohol-related harm compared to other parts of the region.

104. The Draft LAP included a definition for the term “new licence” so that only those premises not licensed within the previous 12 months would be captured by this provision.

Summary of feedback

105. Of the 1697 submitters that indicated a position on the proposed freeze, 892 supported the policy tool (53 per cent); 645 did not (38 per cent).

106. Comments on the proposal included both general comments on the policy tool and more specific comments about its application.

107. Approximately 40 comments indicated general support for the temporary freeze concept and raised concerns about the proliferation of alcohol outlets in certain areas, particularly areas of high deprivation and/or areas with large populations of young people. Some of these comments included support for a freeze in specific areas, for example, Ōtara and Manurewa.

108. An additional 50 comments were identified that expressed partial support for the freeze, but suggested that the freeze should apply for a longer duration (e.g. 3, 5 and 6 years were suggested). Three local boards shared this position and suggested that the freeze should apply until a decision is made to lift it.

109. In contrast, 38 comments against the policy tool were identified and these generally considered the tool to be too restrictive. Specifically these comments suggested:

· the tool would be too blunt

· licences should be assessed on a case-by-case basis

· the freeze would create a monopoly for existing businesses

· the freeze would restrict economic development.

110. In terms of the application of the policy tool, 54 comments suggested the freeze should not apply to supermarkets, considering that planning and resource consenting for a new supermarket is already a long and involved process. These comments were made by Progressive Enterprises Ltd. (50 comments), Foodstuffs (Auckland) Ltd., NZ Property Council, and two individual submitters. These submitters generally did not oppose the use of the freeze for other types of off-licences.

111. Six submitters commented on the definition of “new licences”, some considering that it was confusing and others that it should also specify that the type of licence needs to be the same.

Deliberations

112. At the deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain the temporary freeze on off-licences.

113. In light of submissions requesting that the definition of a “new off-licence” be clarified, the Panel also agreed that:

· the timeframe should be amended to six months and should relate to a premises’ trading, as opposed to the expiration of its licence

· the definition should specify that in order for an application to be considered an application for a “new licence”, it should relate to the same kind of licence (i.e. not previously trading as an on-licence and applying for an off-licence)

· the definition should apply in terms of the freeze and rebuttable presumption but not the Local Impacts Report.

Panel’s recommendations

114. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should include a temporary freeze (see Attachment A). That is, the DLC or ARLA should refuse to issue any new off-licences for the first 24 months of the LAP being in force in the City Centre and Priority Overlay.

Topic 8 – Location and Density: Rebuttable Presumption – Policy Tool and Application to Off-licences

Proposal as publicly notified

115. The Draft LAP proposed that there should be a presumption against the issuing of new off-licences in:

· Broad Area A and the Priority Overlay areas following the expiry of the temporary freeze

· Neighbourhood Centres in Broad Area B, from the date the policy comes into force.

116. 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. To help the DLC or ARLA determine whether to override the presumption, the council would prepare an ECIA report.

Summary of feedback

117. Of those submitters that indicated a position on the proposed rebuttable presumption, overall more supported it than did not. The results were as follows:

· in response to the proposed rebuttable presumption for Broad Area A and the Priority Overlay, 826 submitters (50 per cent) supported the proposal and 656 submitters (39 per cent) did not.

· in response to proposed rebuttable presumption Neighbourhood Centres, 905 submitters (57 per cent) supported the proposal and 516 (32 per cent) did not.

· in both cases, the remainder specifically indicated they had no view.

118. The key points from the feedback received were:

· There were 37 comments indicating general support and many of these suggested the proposal should be extended to other licence applications. Others considered that the rebuttable presumption should apply from the commencement of policy in place of the temporary freeze (e.g. Brewers Association, some local boards).

· Comments against the proposal (22 comments) generally suggested it would be too strict and that the Act would provide sufficient regulation on its own. Others, mostly larger stakeholders, raised technical queries and suggested that the criteria and process for overriding the presumption purported to create new criteria over and above the Act. The comments against the proposal were raised by 18 industry submitters and one non-industry submitter.

· There were 48 comments specifically identified in relation to the proposed rebuttable presumption in Neighbourhood Centres. Forty of these explicitly supported the proposal and eight disagreed with the proposal for similar reasons to those above.

Deliberations

119. At the deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain an amended version of the rebuttable presumption, but rather than specifying criteria for the DLC or ARLA to determine that the presumption should be rebutted, the onus should be on the applicant. The Panel also agreed that:

· the rebuttable presumption should be applied in the same areas as proposed in the Draft LAP

· where an application is received to establish a new off-licence in any of these areas, the council would prepare a Local Impacts Report.

Panel’s recommendations

120. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should include the rebuttable presumption as a policy tool for managing the location and density of off-licences in the City Centre, Priority Overlay Areas and Neighbourhood Centres, as proposed in 3.3.1 to 3.3.4 and section 4 of the Policy.

Topic 9 – Location and Density: Setting Conditions on Renewal

Proposal as publicly notified

121. The Draft LAP as notified did not include any particular location or density policies relating to licence renewals. The Act states that, in considering whether to renew a licence, the DLC and ARLA must not take into account any inconsistency between the LAP and renewing the licence (i.e. the LAP cannot be grounds for refusing to renew the licence). However, the DLC and ARLA can impose particular conditions on the licence if they consider that the renewal of the licence without those conditions imposed would be inconsistent with the Policy.

Summary of feedback

122. This was not a prominent theme in the submissions. However, a few submitters suggested that location and density factors should be considered when setting conditions for licence renewals.

Deliberations and Panel’s recommendations

123. At the deliberations, the Panel agreed to an amendment that would direct the DLC and ARLA to consider a Local Impacts Report when setting conditions for applications to renew an off-licence rated Medium, High and Very High Risk under the Regulations that is located in the Priority Overlay.

Topic 10 – Maximum Trading Hours: Policy Tool and Specific Off-licence Hours

· Proposal as publicly notified

124. Pursuant to section 77(1)(e) of the Act, the Draft LAP proposed maximum trading hours of 9am to 10pm, Monday to Sunday, for off-licences that are public facing, for example, bottle stores and supermarkets.

125. Remote sales by off-licences could occur at any time, as stated at section 49 of the Act, but the Draft LAP proposed that delivery of alcohol sold by a remote seller would be allowed from 6am to 10pm to allow for courier schedules in the morning.

126. Reductions in hours have been correlated with a reduction in alcohol-related harm. The Draft LAP represents a reduction from the national default hours, and was proposed in response to the evidence of high levels of alcohol-related harm and the prevalence of youth drinking in many parts of Auckland.

Summary of feedback

General approach

127. Of the 2,394 submitters that stated a position on the Draft LAP proposal that all types of off-licences should have the same maximum hours, 71 per cent supported the approach, 23 per cent did not.

128. Ninety-three comments were made requesting an exemption for supermarkets from any hours provisions, including the 50 Progressive Enterprises Ltd. submissions. A further 66 comments supported the Council’s position of not including any exemption from maximum hours for supermarkets. The Auckland Council Licensing Inspectorate considered that there was no reason to grant exemptions to off-licences such as supermarkets.

129. Few comments were made in relation to remote sellers, though this was discussed at hearings.

Feedback on specific hours

130. 2412 submitters stated their position on maximum hours for off-licences, with the majority (64 per cent) indicating they did not support hours of 9am to 10pm. Thirty-two per cent of submitters supported the proposal.

131. A total of 1,405 comments on the proposed off-licence hours were identified from 1,166 submitters. The key feedback points are summarised as follows:

· Fifty-three comments supported the proposed hours of 9am to 10pm, with submitters considering this would: be an “improvement” on the national default hours; help to address “pre-loading”, “side-loading”, and domestic violence; and not negatively impact organised buyers.

· Ninety-one comments requested an earlier opening hour for off-licences, including the 50 Progressive Enterprises Ltd. submitters. Mostly, these comments suggested the national default hour of 7am should be retained as alcohol-related harm is not prevalent between 7am to 9am. Many also considered the proposed hours would be inconvenient to those who do grocery shops in the morning.

· 799 comments requested a later opening for off-licences. A large majority of these submitters, including 726 Alcohol Healthwatch postcard submitters, requested a 10am start time; although 11am, 12pm and even later, were all requested. Many of these submitters wanted to ensure that school children were not exposed to alcohol retailers before school.

· 805 comments requested an earlier closing time for off-licences. A large majority, including 725 Alcohol Healthwatch postcard submitters, requested a 9pm close time, though 6pm, 7pm and 8pm were also requested. Many of these submitters considered that this would particularly help to address problems in areas experiencing high levels of alcohol-related harm.

· 134 comments were received requesting later closing. The majority of these submitters, including the 50 Progressive Enterprises Ltd. submitters, requested that the national default time of 11pm be retained, although 12am was also requested. Submitters considered that market forces will dictate appropriate hours.

132. More than half of the local boards commented on the proposed off-licence hours as well as some of the advisory panels, mostly in support. Five council stakeholders, particularly for south Auckland, requested later opening times, and four requested earlier closing times. The Auckland Council Licensing Inspectorate also supported the hours, considering that earlier opening hours for supermarkets only was not appropriate or necessary.

133. Earlier closing times for off-licences was a strong theme in the oral submissions made to the Panel, particularly from submitters who wanted to see less alcohol available in their communities and from some on-licence industry submitters, who considered that “pre-loading” was a large problem for their establishment.

Deliberations

134. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to apply maximum hours to off-licences, and that these hours should be the same for all types of off-licences but with an allowance for morning courier hours. The Panel agreed to retain the opening time of 9am for all off licences, except remote sellers which can deliver from 6am, and to amend the closing time to 9pm.

135. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should include regional maximum trading hours of 9am to 9pm, Monday to Sunday. It should also include hours of 6am to 9pm for all remote sellers.

Topic 11 – Discretionary Conditions: Policy Tool

Proposal as publicly notified

136. Section 77(1)(f) of the Act states that LAPs can recommend certain conditions to be applied to licences at the discretion of the DLC and ARLA. Accordingly, for off-, on- and club licences, the Draft LAP proposed:

· specific conditions to be applied to every licence

· conditions to be applied to licences as appropriate

· matters for the DLC and ARLA to consider addressing through the use of discretionary conditions, particularly for High or Very High risk premises, and/or in the Priority Overlay.

Summary of feedback

137. Whilst some submitters made general comments in support of the proposed approach of urging the DLC and ARLA to apply the recommended conditions widely, a few of the larger industry submitters (e.g. SkyCity, Brewers Association) raised legal arguments in opposition to the approach. These submitters suggested that the proposed provisions go beyond the powers afforded to the council by the Act and would undermine the DLC and ARLA’s discretion.

Deliberations

138. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain the ‘tiered approach’ to off-licence discretionary conditions, but with a minor amendment to clarify that conditions recommended under Tier A are not intended to fetter the discretion of the DLC or ARLA.

Panel’s recommendations

139. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should include off-licence discretionary conditions: some of which are to be applied to licences unless there is a good reason not to do so; and some of which are additional matters to be considered for discretionary conditions.

Topic 12 – Discretionary Conditions: Specific Off-licence Conditions

140. For each of the discretionary conditions proposed for off-licences in the Draft, the table below provides a count of the comments received and the Panel’s recommendation to the Committee regarding each condition.

141. Note that the relevant tier is denoted in the table, as follows:

A Specific conditions to be applied to every licence

B Conditions to be applied to licences as appropriate; and

C Matters for the DLC and ARLA to consider addressing through the use of discretionary conditions, particularly for High or Very High risk premises, and/or in the Priority Overlay.

142. Where significant changes to the Draft LAP are recommended, and/or notable feedback was received, further commentary is provided below.

Table 4: Draft LAP discretionary conditions for off-licences

Discretionary conditions as publicly notified	Tier	Count of comments	Panel’s recommendation
Prohibited persons	A	27	Retain
Single unit sales	A	97	Substantive amendment
Register of alcohol-related incidents	A	100	Minor amendment
Clean public areas	B	28	Delete
CCTV	C	69	Minor amendment
Requirements relating to exterior lighting	C	13	Minor amendment

Condition restricting single unit sales

Proposal as publicly notified

143. The Draft LAP included a Tier A condition to the effect that an off-licence with this condition could not sell single units of mainstream beer, cider or RTDs in less than 445ml packaging. Boutique and handcrafted beer and cider were exempt from the provision.

144. This condition was included to address sales of single units of low-cost beer and RTDs and limit the availability of cheap alcohol to those with alcohol dependencies and those in alcohol ban areas.

Summary of feedback

145. Ninety-seven submitters commented on the “restrictions on single unit sales” proposal. The clear majority of comments were in opposition to this proposal. Submitters’ main concerns were the difficulties defining a single unit and “boutique and hand crafted beer.”

Deliberations and Panel’s recommendations

146. The Panel agreed to amend this condition significantly by moving it from Tier A to C of the discretionary conditions and making it less prescriptive.

147. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should include a recommendation to the DLC or ARLA to consider a condition relating to single sales in the Tier C “Additional matters to be considered for discretionary conditions for off-licences” category.

Condition requiring licensees to clean public areas

Proposal as publicly notified

148. The Draft LAP included a Tier B condition to the effect that a licensee with this condition would be required to clean up any litter around the premises related to its operation.

Summary of feedback

149. Twenty-eight submitters commented on the “clean public areas” proposal. Some individual or health submitters supported the proposal or wanted it extended, though most comments opposed the proposal, considering that it would be too difficult to enforce and that it is not a licensing matter.

Deliberations and Panel’s recommendations:

150. The Panel agreed to delete this condition.

151. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should not include a condition relating to clean public areas.

Additional conditions requested through submissions

Summary of feedback

152. The following additional conditions were requested for inclusion in the LAP through the submission process:

· Host responsibility/LCQ training for all off-licence staff

· Condition requiring off-licences to be closed between 3pm and 4pm near schools

· Conditions requiring enhanced notification of sensitive sites

· Limit on off-licences advertising, including reducing visual impact of advertising near schools; limit on area of window covered by advertising

· Limits on the sale of dangerous products

· Limits on floor area dedicated to RTDs.

Deliberations and Panel’s recommendations

153. The Panel agreed to include the request for a condition relating to afternoon closing of premises near schools in the Tier C of discretionary conditions.

154. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should include a recommendation to the DLC or ARLA to consider a condition relating to afternoon closing of premises near Education Facilities in the Tier C “Additional matters to be considered for discretionary conditions for off-licences” category, for High or Very High risk premises, and/or in the Priority Overlay.

POLICIES RELATING TO ON-LICENCES

Topic 13 – Location and Density: Environmental and Cumulative Impacts Assessment – Policy Tool

Proposal as publicly notified

155. The Draft LAP proposed that certain applications for new on-licences would need to undergo an Environmental and Cumulative Impacts Assessment (“ECIA”) to help the DLC or ARLA in determining a licence application. The content of, and process for, these reports is discussed under Topic 5 above.

Summary of feedback

156. 1586 submitters gave their views on the use of the ECIA tool in relation to on-licences. Nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) of those submitters supported assessing the surrounding environment and existing licences in deciding applications for higher-risk on-licences; 30 per cent did not agree and seven per cent stated that they had no view.

157. For general comments relating to the ECIA policy tool, see Topic 5 above.

Deliberations

158. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain the ECIA process as a tool for managing the location and density of on-licence premises, with minor amendments as outlined at Topic 5 above, including renaming to the Local Impacts Report.

Panel’s recommendations

159. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should include a Local Impacts Report, required for specified on-licence applications.

Topic 14 – Location and Density: Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment – Application to On-licences

Proposal as publicly notified

160. The Draft LAP proposed that an ECIA would be required for certain on-licence applications, depending on the location of the proposed site, and the risk profile of the premises under the Regulations. The specific proposals were as follows:

· High and Very High Risk on-licences in Broad Area A and Broad Area B Metropolitan Centres

· Medium, High and Very High Risk on-licences in Broad Area B, except Metropolitan Centres

· Low Risk on-licences in Broad Area B Neighbourhood Centres

· all on-licences in the Priority Overlay.

161. The proposal would aim to direct on-licence premises, particularly higher-risk premises, to business centres and away from residential areas.

Summary of feedback

162. Eighty-one comments were made on the use of the ECIA report to inform on-licence applications; twenty-four of these comments were in support. The main themes across these comments was that submitters agreed with the proposal to consider the surrounding environment, transport/travel options, and proximity to sensitive sites, especially schools, in deciding on-licence applications.

163. Of the 18 comments disagreeing with the use of the ECIA in relation to on-licences, the most prominent theme was a view that density considerations are not appropriate for on-licences, as they generally trade in close proximity of each other. There was some concern this would lead to centres being stifled. There was also some concern that this report could be a double-up with requirements already in the Act, or represent an additional cost to the licensing process.

164. Thirty-seven other comments were received which expressed partial or tentative support for the proposal outlined in the Draft LAP. These mostly wanted the ECIA to apply to more, or all, on-licence applications; or expressed concern around cost or limiting hospitality businesses in a business zone.

Deliberations and Panel’s recommendations

165. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to apply the Local Impacts Report to on-licences with the risk ratings and locations as notified in the Draft LAP, with a minor amendment to also exempt premises in the City Centre Fringe, in light of the amended definition of the City Centre.

166. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should include a requirement for the Local Impacts Report to be completed in the following instances, as per clauses 5.1.1. to 5.1.5. (see Attachment A):

· High and Very High Risk on-licence applications in the City Centre, City Centre Fringe, and Metropolitan Centres

· Medium, High and Very High Risk on-licence applications in the rest of the region

· Low Risk on-licence applications in Neighbourhood Centres

· All on-licence applications in the Priority Overlay.

Topic 15 – Location and Density: Setting Conditions on Renewal

Proposal as publicly notified

167. The Draft LAP as notified did not include any particular location or density policies relating to licence renewals. See topic 9 above.

Summary of feedback

168. This topic was not a prominent theme in submissions, with only three comments referencing on-licence renewals, though comments did suggest that location and density factors should be considered when setting conditions for licence renewals.

Deliberations and Panel’s recommendations

169. At the deliberations, the Panel agreed to an amendment that would direct the DLC and ARLA to consider a Local Impacts Report when setting conditions for applications to renew an on-licence rated High or Very High Risk under the Regulations that is located in the Priority Overlay.

Topic 16 – Maximum Trading Hours and Trial Extensions: Policy Tool

Proposal as publicly notified

Maximum hours

170. The policy approach for managing the maximum trading hours of premises through the LAP is discussed under Topic 10 above.

Trial extended maximum hours

171. As well as setting “standard maximum hours”, the Draft LAP contained specific provisions relating to “extended maximum hours” for best practice on-licence operators. As proposed, these extensions would be allowed for up to two hours, issued on a trial basis in the first instance, and would only be issued to best practice operators with a proven track record of compliance.

Summary of feedback

172. 2384 submitters gave their views on proposals relating to maximum hours for on-licences. Overall, all proposals relating to hours were strongly opposed by submitters.

173. The specific maximum hours proposed in the Draft LAP are discussed at Topic 17 “application to on-licences” below.

174. 2326 submitters stated a position on whether some best practice on-licences should be able to apply for trial extensions of up to two hours more than standard operating hours. Over half (55 per cent) did not support the trial extension tool. Forty per cent of submitters supported the tool, and five per cent stated that they had no view.

175. 1575 submitters stated a position on the Draft LAP proposal that on-licences in the Priority Overlay should be ineligible for trial extensions. Thirty-three per cent of submitters supported the proposal, and 16 per cent stated that they had no view.

176. 265 comments relating to trial extensions were made by 223 submitters. 103 comments were made in support, including 36 submitters associated with the Dance Till Dawn campaign, and the main themes related to: the tool allowing patrons in the central city to leave at different times rather than all at once; allowing a safe environment for those who wish to stay out late; trial extensions being vital to the music scene, especially with a 3am close; and discussion of the DJ/dance music scene generally.

177. Those who did not support the trial extension tool can be divided into two groups. The majority of comments opposing trial extensions (77 comments from 64 submitters) considered that premises should not be allowed to trade so late, and that increased hours would cause alcohol-related harm, even if only given to best-practice premises. There were also 22 comments received that did not support the extension tool because they considered that the process was too onerous and unfair on those currently trading late successfully; these submitters considered that later hours should be allowed by right and hours could be reduced where a premises is not operating safely and responsibly.

178. There were also 87 comments made by 77 submitters that indicated partial support for the trial extension tool but outlined concerns with aspects of the criteria or process.

179. Local boards that commented on the trial extensions for best practice operators were generally in support of the proposal.

· Orākei Local Board proposed that, to encourage responsible owners, operators should be able to apply for any reasonable number of additional hours they require for their business as long as they continue to demonstrate best practice.

· Puketāpapa Local Board suggested additional criteria for the trial extensions of hours, namely the provision of affordable transport to a safe place for patrons who could be at risk or be a risk to the public, at times when public transport is no longer available.

· Waitematā Local Board requested that extensions be available for two hours in the morning or evening or any combination thereof.

180. The Seniors Advisory Panel and the Youth Advisory Panel did not support trial extensions.

181. The Auckland Council Licensing Inspectorate raised issues with the practicalities of the process and were generally opposed to the trial extensions.

Deliberations and Panel’s recommendations

182. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to apply maximum hours to on-licences, and to delete the Extended Maximum Hours tool.

183. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should include maximum hours for on-licences.

Topic 17 – Maximum Trading Hours: Specific On-licence Hours

Proposal as publicly notified

184. The Draft LAP proposed “standard maximum hours” as follows, in conjunction with the ability to apply for a trial extension of hours of up to two hours:

· standard maximum hours for Broad Area A: 9am to 3am

· standard maximum hours for Broad Area B: 9am to 1am

· maximum hours for Priority Overlay: same as underlying Broad Area, DLC requested to consider more restrictive hours, particularly for priority streets.

Summary of feedback

185. 2380 submitters gave their view on the specific maximum hours proposed in the Draft LAP, outlined in the table below:

Table 5: Count of submitter responses relating to on-licence hours

Response	Broad Area A	Broad Area B	Priority Overlay
Support	22%	20%	39%
Do not support	75%	77%	55%
No view	2%	3%	6%
*Total count*	*2304*	*2300*	*1564*

186. 1425 comments were made in submissions regarding maximum hours for on-licensed premises. The comments demonstrate that submitters’ reasons for not supporting the proposal were varied, and that the “do not support” category comprises both submitters who felt that the hours proposed were too permissive and those that felt they were too restrictive.

187. Many submitters proposed alternative hours and many also outlined their reasons for not supporting the hours proposed in the Draft LAP. The main comments received advocating for different hours are summarised in the table below:

Table 6: Summary of comments requesting different on-licence hours

Theme	Description
Opening time hours proposed	· More restrictive: 848 comments, including the Alcohol Healthwatch postcards, requested later opening hours, mostly 10am. A few submitters suggested even later opening hours. Some submissions stated a desire to see opening times later than when school starts to limit children’s exposure to alcohol advertising. · More permissive: 26 comments were received from industry and individual submitters requesting earlier opening hours than those proposed. These requested 7am or 8am opening for on-licences, with concerns about celebratory breakfasts, and that a trial extension of hours should not be required to trade for these types of events.
Do not support Broad Area A closing time proposed	· More restrictive: 785 comments requested a more restrictive closing time, including 692 Alcohol Healthwatch postcards. A large majority of these comments requested a 2am close, but 1am, 1am plus extensions to 3am, 12am and 11pm were also requested. o Those advocating for earlier closing hours were concerned about late-night drinking. Some submissions included discussion around the evidence relating to the availability theory, and that larger reductions in hours can be expected to give larger reductions in alcohol-related harm, thus a closing time more restrictive than 3am could be anticipated to have more of an impact on alcohol-related harm. o Some submitters also discussed the impact of on-licence hours on residents of the City Centre. · More permissive: 537 comments requested more permissive hours, including 43 Dance Till Dawn submitters. Of those that suggested specific hours, a majority wanted the standard maximum hour to remain at the current default national hour of 4am (this includes both those who did and did not support extensions), and approximately half thought the hours should be more liberal than the default national hour, requesting 5am, 6am, 7am and a return to 24-hour licensing. o Comments made about more permissive hours can be grouped as follows: § Closing time problems: submitters were concerned about blanket closing times, and that increased numbers of patrons on the street at 3am would contribute to alcohol-related harm. § Economic impacts: the potential loss of income for businesses was raised by many submitters, and the viability of late-night premises was called into question. § Music: many submitters were concerned that the proposal will negatively impact Auckland’s music scenes. Many submitters wrote that they had observed a decline in Auckland’s music scenes since the introduction of the national default hours, and were concerned about the sustainability of music venues and events. § Controlled environment: many submitters raised that on-licence premises are controlled environments. Many also considered that if premises closed at 3am many patrons would move to private (unmonitored) parties and create nuisance or otherwise hang about on the street. § Competitive city: many submitters compared Auckland to other cities, both nationally and internationally. Comments talked about the potential impacts of the proposal on Auckland nightlife, tourist experiences, and the experience of young people. The "show never stops" campaign was referenced. § Personal freedoms: many submitters considered the proposal would penalise them for a small minority’s actions. A number of submissions also talked about personal responsibility, and people’s rights to enjoy themselves and socialise when they see fit. Shift workers’ and hospitality workers’ hours were also discussed. Some submissions also discussed a business’ right to operate, and some felt that case-by-case decisions would be more appropriate. § Mitigating harm and possible unintended consequences: many submitters discussed harmful drinking practices, in particular pre- and side-loading, and the availability of cheap off-licence alcohol, as being the main contributor to alcohol-related harms in and near on-licence premises and wanted a stronger focus on off-licences. Some submitters also felt that the proposal would lead to unintended consequences, for example, encouraging “swills”; domestic violence may increase when people drink at home instead of at licensed premises, and an increased risk of drink driving. § Casino: some submitters raised concerns that those that did not want to go home would go to the casino, as the only premises to which the LAP hours do not apply, and that this may lead to an increase in problem gambling.
Do not support Broad Area B closing time proposed	· More restrictive: 730 comments, including 681 Alcohol Healthwatch postcards, advocated for more restrictive hours for Broad Area B. Of the comments received requesting more restrictive hours, midnight was the most commonly suggested closing time. · More permissive: 369 comments were made advocating for later hours for Broad Area B. The majority of these comments requested a 3am close, though 2am, 4am and later were also requested. o Of those submissions that advocated for more permissive hours for Broad Area B, the most common theme related to Auckland’s sub-regional centres. Comments discussed: § wanting to be able to go out locally; it was deemed unfair for only the City Centre to trade late, that bars and patrons are being punished because of their location, and that other cities in New Zealand, smaller than Metropolitan Centre catchments, allow licensing later than 1am § safety concerns around migration to the central city and to private parties/unsupervised locations late at night if there are no local on-licence options § economic impacts on suburban licensees, including concerns that patrons will no longer frequent the premises at all and instead begin their night in the City Centre if they know they will need to move on later, and that a one-way door in the city will not prevent this § Metropolitan centres and other established entertainment areas, for example Kingsland, with the view that these areas should automatically be allowed to trade to 3am and not have to apply for extensions.
Priority Overlay	· Four comments were received requesting more restrictive hours for the Priority Overlay and nine comments requested later hours for the Priority Overlay. Note that 19 comments were made relating to the Draft LAP’s proposal to exclude premises in the Priority Overlay from applying for trial extensions of hours, all of which opposed the proposal and considered that Priority Overlay on-licence premises should also be allowed the opportunity to trade late.
Regional rules for different types of licences	· Twenty-nine comments (particularly health-based submitters) requested a 12am close for restaurants, cafes, function centres and wineries, regardless of location. · Two comments related to caterers/conveyances, requesting more permissive hours of 7am to 3am. · Three comments were made relating to accommodation premises, supporting the Draft LAP’s proposal to not apply maximum hours to accommodation premises when serving lodgers.

188. All local boards that commented on the standard maximum hours were in support of the proposal (including the use of trial extensions of maximum hours). Additional comments were:

· Kaipātiki Local Board noted concern that the 3am standard maximum close for Broad Area A may increase patronage of SkyCity, which is not included in any hours restrictions, and potentially lead to an increase in gambling related harm.

· Upper Harbour Local Board generally supported the maximum trading hours proposed, but considered that hours in Metropolitan Centres and the City Centre should be aligned to encourage people to stay locally and prevent migration.

189. The Auckland Council Licensing Inspectorate proposed 4am in Broad Area A with no extensions, and a 1am close in Broad Area B, with extensions to 3am to allow for existing premises, considering that the difference in hours would be likely to lead to migration.

Deliberations

190. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to adopt an opening time of 8am, in light of the deletion of the trial extended hours tool. The Panel also agreed on regional maximum closing hours of 3am, and a 4am closing time in the Central City.

191. The Panel also agreed that in lieu of any requirement for premises granted extended maximum hours to go through the Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment, as proposed in the Draft LAP, the DLC should have regard to the Local Impacts Report in considering whether to grant the maximum hours.

Panel’s recommendations

192. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should include regional maximum trading hours of 8am to 3am the following day, Monday to Sunday, and special maximum trading hours for the Central City of 8am to 4am the following day, Monday to Sunday.

Topic 18 – Maximum Trading Hours: One-way Door

· Proposal as publicly notified

193. The Draft LAP did not include a mandatory one-way door policy.

194. Note that one-way door restrictions may still be imposed as conditions on a case-by-case basis by the DLC or ARLA.

Summary of feedback

195. 825 comments were received relating to a one-way door.

196. Fifty-four submitters supported the Draft LAP not including a one-way door policy, citing overseas examples where the one-way door has not been demonstrated to be successful in reducing alcohol-related harm, and the negative impact they can have on smaller or suburban premises.

197. Six submitters recommended a one-way door which started later on in the evening; 2am to 5am were suggested as start times for a one-way door.

198. The remainder of comments supported a one-way door. The majority supported the NZ Police view that a 1am one-way door should be compulsory, or else requested a 12am one-way door. 666 Alcohol Healthwatch postcards and the 50 Progressive Enterprises Ltd. submissions proposed the implementation of a one-way door.

199. A small number of council stakeholders and local boards gave feedback on one-way door policies as follows:

· Devonport-Takapuna Local Board was in support of the council’s proposal not to include a one-way door policy

· Kaipātiki Local Board resolved that it would like to see the inclusion of a one way door policy in the central city as a discretionary condition, to be applied on a case-by-case basis

· Manurewa and Papakura local boards advocated for the inclusion of a one-way door policy for on-licences.

Deliberations

200. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain the Draft LAP proposal of not including a one-way door policy in the LAP.

Panel’s recommendations

201. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should not include a mandatory one-way door policy, noting that this does not affect the DLC’s discretion to apply a one-way door policy as it sees fit under the Act.

Topic 19 – Discretionary Conditions: Policy Tool

Proposal as publicly notified and summary of feedback

202. The proposed approach to discretionary conditions and feedback on this approach is outlined under Topic 11 above.

Deliberations and Panel’s recommendations

203. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain the tiered approach to on-licence discretionary conditions, but with a minor amendment to clarify that conditions recommended under Tier A are not intended to fetter the discretion of the DLC or ARLA.

204. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should include on-licence discretionary conditions: some of which are to be applied to licences unless there is a good reason not to do so; some of which are to be applied on a case-by-case basis if relevant and appropriate; and some of which are additional matters to be considered when setting conditions.

Topic 20 – Discretionary Conditions: Specific On-licence Conditions

205. The discretionary conditions proposed for on-licence premises in the Draft LAP are outlined in the table below, as well as a count of comments received on each condition and the Panel’s recommendation to the Committee regarding each condition.

206. Note that the relevant tier is denoted in the table, as follows:

A Specific conditions to be applied to every licence;

B Conditions to be applied to licences as appropriate; and

C Matters for the DLC and ARLA to consider addressing through the use of discretionary conditions, particularly for High or Very High Risk premises, and/or in the Priority Overlay.

207. Where significant changes to the proposal in the Draft LAP are recommended, and/or notable feedback was received, further commentary is provided below.

Table 7: Draft LAP discretionary conditions for on-licences

Discretionary conditions as publicly notified	Tier	Count of comments	Panel’s recommendation
Prohibited persons	A	Discussed under off-licences above	Retain
Host responsibility	A	92	Minor amendment
Register of alcohol-related incident	A	Discussed under off-licences above	Minor amendment
Display of information about safe transport	A	14	Minor amendment
Designation	A	5	Minor amendment
Restrictions on drinks prior to closing	B	111	Delete
Queue management	B	6	Retain
Security staff	B	9	Delete
Manager for BYO restaurant	B	2	Minor amendment
Clean public areas	B	Discussed under off-licences above	Delete
Designation of taverns	B	5	Retain
CCTV	C	Discussed under off-licences above	Minor amendment
Minimum numbers of security staff	C	32	Delete
Minimum number of qualified managers	C	5	Minor amendment
Requirements relating to exterior lighting	C	Discussed under off-licences above	Minor amendment
Monitoring of outdoor areas for late-trading premises	C	3	Minor amendment

Restrictions on drinks prior to closing

Proposal as publicly notified

208. The Draft LAP included a Tier B condition to the effect that a licensee with this condition would not be able to sell high-strength drinks later at night.

Summary of feedback

209. 111 submitters commented on the condition restricting the sale of on high-strength beverages prior to closing. A clear majority did not support the proposal, considering it to be overly prescriptive and unequal in its definitions of high-strength beverages.

Deliberations and Panel’s recommendations

210. The Panel agreed to delete this condition.

211. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should not include a condition relating to restrictions on drinks prior to closing.

Additional conditions requested through submissions

Summary of feedback

212. The following additional conditions were requested for inclusion in the LAP through the submission process:

· Condition requiring use of ID scanners

· Banning order condition - where patron has been removed from one premises, ban from all premises for 24 hours

· Condition limiting noise - requiring a noise management plan, exit management strategy, shutting outdoor areas early, etc.

· Condition requiring signage encouraging responsible drinking

· Condition requiring consideration of any gambling venues on-site

· Condition requiring a safety response plan

· Condition requiring membership in bar watch/Supercity Host Charter scheme.

Deliberations and Panel’s recommendations

213. The Panel agreed to include the request for a condition which would require the display of signage encouraging responsible drinking in the third tier of discretionary conditions.

214. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should include a recommendation to the DLC or ARLA to consider a condition relating to the display of signage encouraging responsible drinking in the Tier C “Additional matters to be considered for discretionary conditions for on-licences” category, for High or Very High Risk premises, and/or in the Priority Overlay.

POLICIES RELATING TO CLUB LICENCES

Topic 21 – Maximum Trading Hours: Policy Tool and Specific Club Licence Hours

Proposal as publicly notified

215. Managing the maximum hours of premises through the LAP is discussed under Topic 10 above.

216. The Draft LAP proposed that the maximum hours for club licences should be 9am to 1am the following day, Monday to Sunday. It also proposed that in determining the appropriate hours for each club licence (within these maximums), the DLC and ARLA should have regard to: the days and hours of operation of the club; and the types of activities undertaken by the club.

217. These hours allow for the vast majority of club licence trading hours in the Auckland region.

Summary of feedback

218. 1613 submitters gave their views on proposals relating to maximum hours for club licences. Forty-four per cent did not support the proposed maximum hours for club licences, 37 per cent supported the proposal, and 20 per cent stated that they had no view.

219. Note that it was apparent from accompanying comments that some submitters had confused club licences for nightclubs.

220. 281 comments were received in relation to maximum hours for club licences. Notable comments include: six submissions which requested earlier opening for RSAs on ANZAC Day; 55 comments requesting earlier closing, mostly a 12am close time; and 34 comments requesting a later close time, considering that patrons may migrate after 1am.

221. The Auckland Council Licensing Inspectorate also proposed an exemption for RSAs to trade from 5am on ANZAC Day.

Deliberations

222. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to apply maximum hours to club licences, and to retain those hours proposed in the Draft LAP, but with a minor amendment to allow RSAs to open earlier on ANZAC Day.

Panel’s recommendations

223. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should include maximum hours for club licences of 9am to 1am the following day, Monday to Sunday, with allowance for Returned Service Association club premises to be granted trading hours from 5am on ANZAC Day.

Topic 22 – Discretionary Conditions: Policy Tool

Proposal as publicly notified and summary of feedback

224. The proposed approach to discretionary conditions and feedback on this approach is outlined under Topic 11 above.

Deliberations

225. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain the tiered approach to club licence discretionary conditions, but with a minor amendment to clarify that this is not intended to fetter the discretion of the DLC or ARLA.

Panel’s recommendations

226. The Panel’s recommendation to the Committee is that the Provisional LAP should include club licence discretionary conditions: some of which are to be applied to licences unless there is a good reason not to do so; some of which are to be applied on a case-by-case basis if relevant and appropriate; and some of which are additional matters to be considered for discretionary conditions.

Topic 23 – Discretionary Conditions: Specific Club Licence Conditions

227. The discretionary conditions proposed for club licence premises in the Draft LAP are outlined in the table below, as well as a count of comments received on each condition and the Panel’s recommendation to the Committee regarding each condition.

228. Note that the relevant tier is indicated in the table, as follows:

A Specific conditions to be applied to every licence

B Conditions to be applied to licences as appropriate

C Matters for the DLC and ARLA to consider addressing through the use of discretionary conditions, particularly for premises in the Priority Overlay.

Table 8: Draft LAP discretionary conditions for club licences

Discretionary conditions as publicly notified	Tier	Count of comments	Panel’s recommendation
Prohibited persons	A	Discussed above	Retain
Host responsibility	A	Discussed above	Minor amendment
Register of alcohol-related incidents	A	Discussed above	Minor amendment
Display of information about safe transport	A	Discussed above	Minor amendment
Certified manager to be onsite	A	9	Minor amendment
Designation	A	Discussed above	Minor amendment
Restrictions on drinks prior to closing	B	Discussed above	Delete
Clean public areas	B	Discussed above	Delete
CCTV	C	Discussed above	Minor amendment

Additional conditions requested through submissions

Summary of feedback

229. A number of additional conditions were requested for inclusion in the LAP through the submission process.

230. Deliberations and Panel’s recommendations

231. The Panel agreed to include the request for a condition which would require the display of signage encouraging responsible drinking in the third tier of discretionary conditions for club licences

· Condition requiring signage encouraging responsible drinking

· Condition requiring consideration of any gambling venues on-site

· Condition requiring security in club licensed premises

· Condition preventing patrons in club licensed premises from partaking in hazardous drinking e.g. sculling competitions.

232. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should include a recommendation to the DLC or ARLA to consider a condition relating to the display of signage encouraging responsible drinking in the Tier C “Additional matters to be considered for discretionary conditions for club licences” category, for premises in the Priority Overlay.

POLICIES RELATING TO SPECIAL LICENCES

Topic 24 – Maximum Trading Hours: Policy Tool and Special Licence Hours

Proposal as publicly notified

233. The Draft LAP proposed that special licence hours should be determined on a case-by-case basis, but that the hours granted should generally be consistent with:

· the maximum hours specified for the broad area in which the event is being held; or

· the maximum hours specified on the licence for the premises where the event is being held.

234. However, the DLC or ARLA may grant longer hours where satisfied that the risks of alcohol-related harm associated with the proposed event are considered acceptable. The Draft LAP specified the matters to be considered when determining the risks (e.g. nature of the event, target audience, number of patrons etc.).

Summary of feedback

235. 1600 submitters gave their views on proposals relating to the proposal to determine special licence hours on a case-by-case basis, with reference to underlying broad area hours. Sixty-one per cent of submitters supported the proposal, while 26 per cent did not, and 13 per cent stated that they had no view.

236. 221 comments were received in relation to the hours proposals for special licences. Notable comments include: 44 submitters generally in support of the approach, and in agreement with decisions on a case-by-case basis; 43 comments requesting a fixed closing time, mostly 1am, though 2am, 3am (NZ Police) and 4am also referenced; and 39 submitters requesting no that restrictions on hours for special licences be included in the LAP at all, that is, that the reference to underlying broad area or licensed hours be deleted. A few submitters also considered the criteria for determining the risk of an event doubled-up with the Act.

Deliberations

237. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain a case-by-case approach to special licence hours, and delete the reference to a licensed premises existing licensed hours in setting special licence hours.

Panel’s recommendations

238. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should allow the DLC to set hours for special licences on a case-by-case basis, with regard to the underlying hours for licensed premises in the area.

Topic 25 – Discretionary Conditions: Policy Tool

Proposal as publicly notified and summary of feedback

239. Pursuant to section 77(1)(f) of the Act, the Draft LAP recommended:

· specific conditions to be applied to every licence; and

· matters for the DLC and ARLA to consider addressing through the use of discretionary conditions, depending on the class (size) of the event.

Deliberations

240. At deliberations, the Panel agreed to retain the tiered approach to special licence discretionary conditions, but with a minor amendment to clarify that this is not intended to fetter the discretion of the DLC or ARLA.

Panel’s recommendations

241. The Panel’s recommendation is that the Provisional LAP should include special licence discretionary conditions: some of which are to be applied to licences unless there is a good reason not to do so; and some of which are additional matters to be considered for discretionary conditions, depending on the class of the event.

Topic 26 – Discretionary Conditions: Specific Special Licence Conditions

242. The discretionary conditions proposed for on-site special licence premises in the Draft LAP are outlined in the table below, as well as a count of comments received on each condition and the Panel’s recommendation to the Committee regarding each condition.

243. Note that the relevant tier is denoted in the table, as follows:

A Specific conditions to be applied to every licence;

B1 Matters for the DLC and ARLA to consider addressing through the use of discretionary conditions, particularly for class 1 events only.

B2 Matters for the DLC and ARLA to consider addressing through the use of discretionary conditions, particularly for class 1 and 2 events.

B3 Matters for the DLC and ARLA to consider addressing through the use of discretionary conditions, particularly for class 1, 2 and 3 events only.

Table 9: Draft LAP discretionary conditions for special licences

Discretionary conditions as publicly notified	Tier	Count of comments	Panel’s recommendation
Prohibited persons	A	See above	Retain
Host responsibility	A	See above	Minor amendment
Number of events permitted	A	4	Delete
Restrictions on the size and strength of alcoholic beverages that can sold or supplied	B3	25	Delete
Restrictions on the number of alcoholic beverages that can be sold or supplied per patron per transaction	B3	11	Retain
Restrictions on the use of outdoor audio equipment	B3	2	Delete
Requirements for certain staff to wear high visibility vests	B2	3	Delete
Restrictions on the types of vessels that alcohol can be sold or supplied in	B2	10	Minor amendment
Requirements for certain planning and risk management documents to be developed	B2	5	Delete
Queue management	B2	1	Retain
Progressive closing times	B1	7	Retain
The steps to be taken by the licensee to engage with the Police, Medical Officer of Health and Licensing Inspectors before, during and after the event	B1	7	Minor amendment
Minimum requirements for security staff	B1	1	Retain
The provision of on-site emergency services	B1	1	Retain
The provision of dry areas or safe zones	B1	2	Delete
Requirements for certain areas to be designated as restricted	B1	1	Delete

244. The Draft LAP also recommends that some of these conditions may be appropriate for off-site special licences (that is, a licence to sell alcohol for takeaway from an otherwise unlicensed premises). This was retained by the Panel, with a minor amendment to clarify that these are only to be applied when appropriate.

ADOPTING THE PROVISIONAL LAP RECOMMENDED BY THE PANEL

245. Auckland Council has now completed the necessary requirements to allow the adoption of a provisional LAP. The Provisional LAP recommended by the Panel for the Committee’s adoption is contained in Attachment A.

Next steps

246. If the Committee does not accept the proposed Provisional LAP and requests any substantive changes, the matter will be returned to the Panel for reconsideration.

247. If the Committee chooses to adopt the Provisional LAP, the council must give public notice of its decision. Submitters will then have 30 days to lodge an appeal to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority if they consider that an element of the policy is unreasonable in light of the object of the Act (this is the only ground for appeal).

248. Any appeals will need to be heard by ARLA and hearing dates will be set by the Ministry of Justice. ARLA has the jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal or, where it considers an element of the Provisional LAP to be unreasonable in light of the object of the Act, to ask the council to reconsider the element (section 83). If ARLA asks the council to reconsider an element of the Provisional LAP, the council must do one of the following (section 84):

· resubmit the policy to ARLA with the element deleted

· resubmit the policy to ARLA with the element replaced with a new or amended element

· appeal to the High Court against the licensing authority's finding that the element is unreasonable in the light of the object of this Act

· abandon the Provisional LAP.

249. As per recommendation (c), once the Provisional LAP ceases to be provisional and is deemed “adopted” under section 87 of the Act, staff will report to the Governing Body requesting that the Auckland Council LAP be brought into force. The Governing Body will need to specify the relevant date by resolution, in accordance with the Act.

250. The Provisional LAP will cease to be provisional and be deemed adopted if no appeals are lodged, or if appeals are lodged, once these have been resolved.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

251. Local boards have been engaged with regularly and their views and preferences have been considered throughout the policy development process. In particular:

· the Alcohol Programme Political Working Party included local board membership

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

· workshops were held on the issues and options paper

· feedback was sought on the Staff Position Paper and on the Draft LAP.

252. Local boards were also given the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft LAP both in writing and as part of the hearings process. The Panel has considered this feedback and the key points are summarised under each of the deliberations topics above.

Māori impact statement

253. The Provisional LAP seeks to improve the health of Māori, in alignment with the issues of significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau, as identified by the Independent Māori Statutory Board. In particular, the Provisional LAP supports the council action identified in the document at 18.2: “Develop policies that ensure the best health outcomes for Māori”.

Engagement with Māori informing the development of the Draft LAP

254. Throughout the informal engagement phases of the project, staff worked with Te Waka Angamua, policy advisors at the Independent Māori Statutory Board and Hapai Te Hauora Tapui Ltd to deliver a program for engaging with Māori on alcohol issues.

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

Māori involvement in the Special Consultative Procedure

256. Staff worked with Te Waka Angamua and the IMSB to notify Māori networks about the Draft LAP. This included contacting Māori stakeholders involved in previous stages of engagement as well as new contacts. Te Waka Angamua also assisted with a mihi for the notification email.

257. Staff also worked with a third-party contractor that employed multi-lingual staff, visiting various markets and community centres to reach minority populations, including Māori, that are often under-represented in statutory consultation processes.

258. Seven submitters were identified as being Māori organisations or iwi. However, the number of Māori that submitted on an individual basis is not known as ethnicity information was not collected on the submission form.

Implementation

259. Social Policy and Bylaws staff will continue to work with staff from Alcohol Licensing to prepare for the implementation of the LAP, with particular focus on ensuring business readiness for the Local Impacts Report process recommended by the Panel. Analysis to date shows that this can be met from within existing budgets.

260. The Principal Advisor – Hearings will also have a role in supporting the implementation of the LAP for the District Licensing Committee.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Proposed Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy	45
b View	Explanatory Document for Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy	107
c View	Overview of submissions received on the Draft Local Alcohol Policy	127
d View	Diagram of Provisional Local Alcohol Policy changes from Draft Local Alcohol Policy	129

Signatories

Author

Councillor Bill Cashmore – Chair, Local Alcohol Policy Hearings Panel

Authorisers

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Chairperson	Cr George Wood, CNZM
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Members	Cr Cameron Brewer	Cr Mike Lee
	Mayor Len Brown, JP	Mr Kris MacDonald
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr John Watson
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Penny Webster
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse	Mr Glenn Wilcox
	Cr Denise Krum

Authors	Barbara Watson - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

No.	Title	Page
a View	Part Allotment 532, Parish of Waiwera, adjacent to 18 Pine Road, Orewa	141
b View	237R James Fletcher Drive, Ōtāhuhu	145