Agenda of Regulatory Committee

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

The committee is responsible for regulatory hearings (required by relevant legislation) on behalf of the council. The committee is responsible for appointing independent commissioners to carry out the council’s functions or delegating the appointment power (as set out in the committee’s policy). The committee is responsible for regulatory policy and bylaws. Where the committee’s powers are recommendatory, the committee or the appointee will provide recommendations to the relevant decision-maker.

The committee’s key responsibilities include:

· decision-making (including through a hearings process) under the Resource Management Act 1991 and related legislation

· hearing and determining objections under the Dog Control Act 1996

· decision-making under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

· hearing and determining matters regarding drainage and works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002 (this cannot be sub-delegated)

· hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws

· receiving recommendations from officers and appointing independent hearings commissioners to a pool of commissioners who will be available to make decisions on matters as directed by the Regulatory Committee

· receiving recommendations from officers and deciding who should make a decision on any particular matter including who should sit as hearings commissioners in any particular hearing

· monitoring the performance of regulatory decision-making

· where decisions are appealed or where the committee decides that the council itself should appeal a decision, directing the conduct of any such appeals

· considering and making recommendations to the Governing Body regarding the regulatory and bylaw delegations (including to Local Boards)

· regulatory fees and charges

· recommend bylaws to Governing Body for consultation and adoption

· appointing hearings panels for bylaw matters

· review local board and Auckland water organisation proposed bylaws and recommend to Governing Body

· set regulatory policy and controls, including performing the delegations made by the Governing Body to the former Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 in relation to dogs and GB/2014/121 in relation to alcohol.

· engage with local boards on bylaw development and review

· adopting or amending a policy or policies and making any necessary sub-delegations relating to any of the above areas of responsibility to provide guidance and transparency to those involved.

Not all decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 and other enactments require a hearing to be held and the term “decision-making” is used to encompass a range of decision-making processes including through a hearing. “Decision-making” includes, but is not limited to, decisions in relation to applications for resource consent, plan changes, notices of requirement, objections, existing use right certificates and certificates of compliance and also includes all necessary related decision-making.

In adopting a policy or policies and making any sub-delegations, the committee must ensure that it retains oversight of decision-making under the Resource Management Act 1991 and that it provides for councillors to be involved in decision-making in appropriate circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt, these delegations confirm the existing delegations (contained in the chief executive’s Delegations Register) to hearings commissioners and staff relating to decision-making under the RMA and other enactments mentioned below but limits those delegations by requiring them to be exercised as directed by the Regulatory Committee.

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:

All Bylaws

Biosecurity Act 1993
Building Act 2004
Dog Control Act 1996
Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987
Gambling Act 2003;Land Transport Act 1998

Health Act 1956
Local Government Act 1974
Local Government Act 2002
Local Government (Auckland Council Act) 2009
Resource Management Act 1991
Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
Waste Minimisation Act 2008

Maritime Transport Act 1994
Related Regulations

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only.

(ii) Power to establish subcommittees.

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

Regulatory Committee

15 June 2017

Appointment of independent hearings commissioners 2017-2020

File No.: CP2017/06167

Purpose

1. To note the selection process for the appointment of independent hearings commissioners for 2017-2020.

Executive summary

2. The Governing Body approved a recruitment process for a new pool of independent hearings commissioners at its meeting of 23 February 2017 (GB/2017/12). Independent hearings commissioners are contracted by Auckland Council for a three-year term and are responsible for hearing and making decisions under delegated authority on a range of resource management matters.

3. A selection panel finalised selection criteria, shortlisted and interviewed candidates from March to May 2017. The panel comprised councillors Linda Cooper and Dick Quax, Independent Māori Statutory Board members David Taipari and Liane Ngamane and six senior members of staff including the General Manager Democracy Services, General Manager Resource Consents, Manager Planning – Central/South, Manager Planning – Auckland wide, Head of Legal and Governance Support Manager.

4. The selection panel received 111 applications and conducted 65 interviews. The panel has agreed a final list of candidates, which will be recommended to the Regulatory Committee for appointment in confidence.

5. The cost of independent hearings commissioner recruitment included staff and elected and appointed members’ time, plus $1930.53 for advertising the vacancies. This cost was met from within existing budgets.

6. The contract term for council’s existing 52 commissioners will expire on 30 June 2017. New contracts must be in place by 1 July 2017 to ensure continuity of service.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) note the selection process for independent hearings commissioner appointments for 2017-2020

b) note that it will consider recommendations for independent hearings commissioner appointments after the public has been excluded.

Comments

The Governing Body approved the recruitment process and selection panel for independent hearings commissioners

7. On 23 February 2017, the Governing Body approved a process for recruiting approximately 52 independent hearings commissioners, to form a new pool of commissioners to sit on hearings and make decisions under delegated authority for a range of resource management matters (GB/2017/12).

8. The Governing Body also appointed a selection panel to finalise selection criteria, shortlist and interview candidates and provide a recommended list to the Regulatory Committee for approval.

9. The initial selection panel comprised councillors Linda Cooper and Dick Quax, Independent Māori Statutory Board members David Taipari and Liane Ngamane and six senior members of staff, including the General Manager Democracy Services, General Manager Resource Consents, General Manager Plans and Places, Head of Legal, Governance Support Manager and Executive Officer - Operations.

10. The Governing Body delegated authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Regulatory Committee to approve any additional or alternate selection panel members. Two substitutions were made to the staff members on the selection panel due to conflicting work priorities. The Manager Planning – Central/South and Manager Planning – Auckland wide replaced the General Manager Plans and Places and Executive Officer - Operations.

Application process and shortlisting

11. The independent hearings commissioner vacancies were advertised for three weeks from 6-26 March 2017, through the following channels:

· Auckland Council Careers website

· Seek

· TradeMe

· NZ Planning Institute

· Resource Management Law Association

· NZ Institute of Landscape Architects

· NZ Institute of Architects

· Urban Design Forum

· NZ Law Society website

· Institute of Professional Engineers NZ

· Mahi website

12. Staff also circulated the advertisements within the council and among elected members, encouraging distribution through council’s networks.

13. Staff received applications from 111 candidates within the application period, including 47 existing commissioners and 64 new candidates.

14. The selection panel agreed a set of criteria for shortlisting applications, which included experience and expertise in specialist areas, understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi in relation to resource management, and evidence of skills and experience relevant to independent commissioner work. Panel members scored each applicant against the criteria. Staff then facilitated a workshop with panel members who used the combined scores to decide which candidates would be shortlisted and progress to the interview stage.

15. The selection panel shortlisted 65 candidates across a range of generalist and specialist fields.

16. Candidates who were not shortlisted were informed by email in early April 2017.

Selection of final independent hearings commissioner candidates

17. Selection panel members worked with staff to develop and finalise interview questions. Each question was assigned a score to enable comparison across candidates when selection panel members met after interviews were complete.

18. The selection panel members split into two groups to conduct 65 interviews over approximately six weeks in April and May 2017. Staff ensured that each group interviewed candidates from the same areas of expertise, so that members could easily compare candidates when considering their final recommendation.

19. On 12 May 2017, staff facilitated a final workshop with selection panel members, who reviewed the interview results and agreed a list of candidates to recommend to the Regulatory Committee for appointment.

20. Selection panel members conducted referee checks for new candidates before confirming their final recommendation.

Makeup of commissioner pool

21. In the report to the governing body on 23 February 2017, staff recommended that Auckland Council maintained the current number and mix of specialists in its pool of independent hearings commissioners. The selection panel was mindful of this decision throughout the selection process. Staff split candidates by area of expertise and the selection panel assessed candidates directly against others within the same fields of expertise.

22. The fields of expertise include:

· planning

· law

· Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga Māori

· engineering

· science

· landscape/urban design/heritage

· community.

23. The panel’s final recommendation ensures a similar distribution of commissioners to the current pool, noting that some commissioners are specialists in more than one field of expertise.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

24. Local board members are not directly affected by the recruitment of independent hearings commissioners, therefore staff did not seek local board views on the recruitment process. However, local boards hold important relationships and networks with their communities and were advised when the application period opened and encouraged to share information about commissioner recruitment among their networks.

Māori impact statement

25. All independent hearings commissioners are expected to have grounding in matters of importance to Māori and an understanding of tikanga relating to hearings. This expectation was built into the recruitment process through the position description, shortlisting criteria and interview questions.

26. The selection panel for independent hearings commissioner recruitment included two members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, who played a key role in finalising the selection criteria and testing candidates’ understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga Māori.

27. The council also deliberately sought independent hearings commissioner candidates who are experts in the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Ao Māori, to ensure better decision-making by, and for, Māori. This aligns with Auckland Council’s statutory responsibilities and priorities under the Māori Responsiveness Framework.

Implementation

Recruitment costs

28. The cost of independent hearings commissioner recruitment included staff and elected and appointed members’ time, plus $1930.53 for advertising the vacancies.

29. Costs were met through existing operational budgets.

Next steps

30. Staff are presenting a report with a list of the proposed candidates to the Regulatory Committee when the public have been excluded. The report including the names of successful candidates will be made public after the Regulatory Committee makes its appointments and the successful candidates confirm their acceptance of the appointment.

31. The contract term for council’s existing 52 commissioners will expire on 30 June 2017. New contracts must be in place by 1 July 2017 to ensure continuity of service.

32. The new independent hearings commissioner contract term will be effective from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2020.

33. A welcome and induction for independent hearings commissioners will be held in late July 2017.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth McKenzie - Principal Advisor Hearings

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

15 June 2017

Appointment of District Licensing Committee chairs and members 2017-2020

File No.: CP2017/10315

Purpose

1. To note the selection process for District Licensing Committee chair and member appointments for 2017-2020

Executive summary

2. The Governing Body approved the selection process for District Licensing Committee (DLC) recruitment on 23 February 2017 (GB/2017/12).

3. DLC positions were advertised from 6 to 26 March 2017. Staff received 37 applications for approximately 15 chair and member positions.

4. The selection process included finalising criteria for shortlisting, developing interview questions, conducting interviews and agreeing final candidates. Staff included feedback from local boards in the development of shortlisting criteria and interview questions.

5. A selection panel comprising councillors Daniel Newman and Richard Hills, Independent Māori Statutory Board member Glenn Wilcox, independent selection panel member Sara Brown and four members of staff including the General Manager Democracy Services, General Manager Licensing and Compliance, Head of Legal and Manager Public Law, has completed the selection process and agreed a final list of candidates to recommend to the Regulatory Committee for appointment.

6. The Regulatory Committee will consider a separate report that lists the recommended candidates after the public has been excluded.

7. The cost of DLC recruitment included staff and selection panel members’ time, plus $526.28 for advertising the vacancies. This cost was met from within existing budgets.

8. The contract term for council’s existing DLC chairs and members will expire on 30 June 2017. New contracts must be in place by 1 July 2017 to ensure continuity of service.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) note the selection process for District Licensing Committee chair and member appointments for 2017-2020

b) note that it will consider recommendations for District Licensing Committee chair and member appointments after the public has been excluded.

Comments

The governing body approved the selection process for District Licensing Committee recruitment

9. On 23 February 2017 the Governing Body approved the selection process for recruiting approximately 15 District Licensing Committee (DLC) chairs and members for a three-year period from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2020 (GB/2017/12).

10. The Governing Body also appointed a selection panel to review applications, shortlist and interview candidates and agree a final recommendation to present to the Regulatory Committee for appointment.

11. The selection panel was made up of councillors Daniel Newman, Richard Hills, Independent Māori Statutory Board member Glenn Wilcox and four senior members of staff, including the General Manager Democracy Services, Manager Public Law, General Manager Licensing and Compliance and Head of Legal.

12. Councillor Wayne Walker, Deputy Chairperson of the Regulatory Committee, approved under delegated authority the appointment of an independent selection panel member, Sara Brown, to assist with conducting interviews for applicants who are local board members.

Application process and shortlisting

13. The DLC positions were advertised for three weeks from 6-26 March 2017 through the following channels:

· Auckland Council Careers website

· Seek

· TradeMe

· Mahi website

· New Zealand Law Society.

14. Staff also advised Local Board Services when the positions were advertised and encouraged the distribution of the advertisements throughout their networks.

15. Staff received 37 applications before the close of the application period. Of the 37 applications, 22 candidates were existing DLC members and 15 were new candidates.

16. The selection panel members worked with staff to finalise the selection criteria and interview questions for candidates. Previous feedback from local boards was considered and used throughout this process. Selection panel members reviewed every application and allocated scores based on the shortlisting criteria. At the close of the application period, the selection panel met to review the scores and agree a shortlist for interview.

17. Applicants needed to demonstrate experience relevant to alcohol licensing matters, an understanding of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and have good standing in the community. They needed to show an awareness of diverse community views in relation to alcohol licensing and a willingness to moderate the hearings environment to be more welcoming for diverse communities. Applicants were also expected to demonstrate an understanding of tikanga Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Selection of final candidates

18. In total, 24 applicants were selected for interview. The selection panel split into two groups to conduct the interviews during April and May 2017, with Councillor Daniel Newman and Independent Māori Statutory Board member Glenn Wilcox joining both interview panels.

19. Independent selection panel member Sara Brown, a DLC commissioner for Hamilton City Council, joined the councillors and Glenn Wilcox to conduct interviews for candidates who are local board members.

20. The selection panel members scored candidates according to interview responses and met again on 12 May to review the scores and agree a list of candidates to recommend for appointment.

21. Selection panel members conducted referee checks for new candidates before finalising their recommendation.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. Local boards have an interest in the appointment of DLC members and the impact of their decisions on the sale and supply of alcohol in local communities. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local boards are particularly concerned about the high levels of alcohol related-harm in their communities.

23. Local boards have provided feedback on DLC matters and the recruitment process to staff, the Governing Body and its committees throughout the DLC’s term. Staff used this feedback to develop recruitment and selection materials including selection criteria and interview questions. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board chairpersons Lotu Fuli and Lemauga Lydia Sosene also made a presentation to staff and selection panel members in May 2017 on the issues facing their communities in relation to alcohol licensing and DLC processes.

24. The current DLC pool includes six local board members. Local board members were also able to apply for the new DLC positions. If local board members are appointed to the new DLC pool, staff will manage any perceptions of conflict or bias by ensuring that they do not sit on hearings for applications within their own local board area.

Māori impact statement

25. DLC chairs and members are expected to have grounding in matters of importance to Māori and an understanding of tikanga relating to hearings. This expectation was built into the recruitment process through the position description, shortlisting criteria and interview questions.

26. The selection panel for DLC recruitment included Independent Māori Statutory Board member Glenn Wilcox, who played a key role in finalising selection criteria and testing candidates’ understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga Māori.

27. Staff also deliberately advertised the DLC positions through the Mahi website (which specialises in Māori-focussed career opportunities) seeking candidates who can ensure better decision-making by, and for, Māori. This aligns with Auckland Council’s statutory responsibilities and priorities under the Māori Responsiveness Framework.

Implementation

Next steps

28. Staff are presenting a report with a list of the proposed candidates to the Regulatory Committee. The report will remain in confidence until the Regulatory Committee endorses the recommendations and the successful candidates confirm their acceptance of the appointment.

29. If any candidates are not elected members and are recommended by the Regulatory Committee to be DLC Chairpersons, the recommendation will be forwarded to Chief Executive Stephen Town to make the final appointment.

30. The contract term for council’s existing DLC chairs and members will expire on 30 June 2017. The new DLC contract term will be in effect from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2020 to ensure continuity of service.

31. An induction for DLC chairs and members will be held in late July 2017.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth McKenzie - Principal Advisor Hearings

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

15 June 2017

Statutory review of Auckland Council's gambling venue policies

File No.: CP2017/05088

Purpose

1. To seek decisions on how to respond to the findings of the review of Auckland Council’s gambling venue policies.

Executive summary

2. Gambling in New Zealand is regulated by the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Act 2003.

3. The legislation requires Auckland Council (“the council”) to adopt policies in relation to the following types of gambling venues:

· class 4 gambling venues – venues with non-casino electronic gaming machines, commonly known as pokies (“class 4 pokie venues”)

· New Zealand Racing Board TAB venues – stand-alone venues that are owned and operated by the New Zealand Racing Board, a statutory monopoly established under the Racing Act 2003 (“TAB venues”).

4. In 2013, Auckland Council adopted the following:

· Class 4 Gambling (Pokie) Venue Policy – which includes a ‘sinking lid’ policy for venues and gaming machines. The policy does not allow existing pokie venues to relocate

· New Zealand Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy – under this policy, venues can move within Auckland, but the total number of venues cannot exceed 43. Within the capped number, new or relocated venues cannot establish within 50 metres of certain sensitive sites.

5. The legislation requires the council to review these policies every three years. For the current review, the council is also required to consider whether to adopt a relocation policy for class 4 pokie venues.

6. Staff have now reviewed both policies.

7. The review findings are presented in the attached findings report (Attachment A) and are summarised as follows:

· the Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy has been generally effective at:

o controlling the growth of gambling. The number of class 4 pokie venues and machines decreased by more than 10 per cent between 2012 and 2017

o minimising gambling-related harm.

· in considering a relocation policy for class 4 pokie venues, staff found there is a high level of uncertainty about the potential impacts of this approach. Staff are concerned a relocation policy may reduce the overall effectiveness of the sinking lid policy

· the TAB Venue Policy has been generally effective in controlling the growth of gambling; the number of TAB venues has decreased by eight since 2012. This reduction has been countered by an expansion in automated self-service facilities in Auckland bars and clubs – these are outside the control of the council’s policy.

8. Staff have identified the following options to respond to the review findings:

· retain both policies with no changes

· consult with the public on amending one or both policies. This would require formal consultation using the special consultative procedure.

9. Staff recommend retaining both policies with no changes for the following reasons:

· both policies are generally achieving their stated objectives

· it is uncertain whether amendments would more effectively address the social impacts from gambling

· central government is currently undertaking a review of the class 4 gambling sector.

10. If the Regulatory Committee chooses to amend one or both policies, staff will undertake the additional research required (as resource allows). Staff will then develop a draft statement of proposal and seek the committee’s approval to consult with the public.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) note that staff have now completed a review of the Class 4 Gambling Pokie Venue Policy, which included consideration of whether to adopt a relocation policy, as required by the Gambling Act 2003.

b) note that staff have now completed a review of the New Zealand Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy, as required by the Racing Act 2003.

Auckland Council Class 4 Gambling Pokie Venue Policy

c) agree that its response to the review of the Class 4 Gambling Pokie Venue Policy is to:

EITHER

(i) Option A1: Agree to retain the existing Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy, with no changes, as recommended by staff.

(ii) Option A2: Investigate and consult the public on amendments to the Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy.

Auckland Council New Zealand Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy

d) agree that its response to the review of the Auckland Council New Zealand Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy is to:

i) Option B1: Agree to retain the New Zealand Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy, with no changes, as recommended by staff.

ii) Option B2: Investigate and consult the public on amendments to the New Zealand Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy.

Comments

Background

11. Gambling activity in New Zealand is regulated by the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Act 2003. The legislation is primarily enforced at a national level by the Department of Internal Affairs. Local government has a small regulatory role for gambling venues:

· class 4 venues: non-casino venues with electronic gaming machines, commonly referred to as pokies (“class 4 pokie venues”)

· New Zealand Racing Board TAB venues (“TAB venues”).

Requirement for councils to adopt gambling venue policies

12. Under the legislation, councils must have a class 4 pokie venues policy and a TAB venues policy.

13. These policies determine the circumstances in which a council will give consent for a new venue. Council consent is required before the Department of Internal Affairs will license any new class 4 pokie venue or TAB venue.

Auckland Council’s existing gambling venue policies

14. In July 2013, Auckland Council adopted the:

· Class 4 Gambling Pokie Venue Policy (“the Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy”) – resolution number RDO/2013/117

· New Zealand Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy (“the TAB Venue Policy”) – resolution number RDO/2013/118.

15. Both policies share the following objectives:

· objective one: to control the growth of gambling in Auckland

· objective two: to minimise the harm caused by gambling in Auckland.

16. Table 1 below provides an overview of the council’s existing policies.

Table 1 Summary of Auckland Council’s existing gambling venue policies

	Summary of TAB Venue Policy		Summary of Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy
Whether new venues may establish	Cap	· The maximum number of venues is 43^{^[1]}. The council will not give consent to more · This was the total number of venues operating in Auckland before the policy’s adoption · The NZ Racing Board may move but not increase its stand-alone venues.	Sinking lid	· The council will not give consent for another class 4 pokie venue to be established · This policy has no effect on gaming machines in casinos · Over time, this will lead to a decrease in the number of venues and machines.
Where new venues may establish	Proximity rule	· No TAB venue may be established within 50 metres of a place of worship, school, early childhood education facility or marae.	No relocations; limited mergers	· Club venues may merge under certain conditions, provided the number of machines in the merged club venue is no more than 5/6ths of the sum of machines for both venues at the time consent is sought · Does not allow relocations^{^[2]}.
How many gaming machines a venue can have	Out of Scope If a TAB has gaming machine these are regulated by the Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy. TAB self-service machines are not regulated by the council.		Sinking lid	· A venue cannot increase its number of gaming machines · If a venue chooses to reduce the number of machines it operates, it will not be able to resume operating its previous number of machines at a later date · Over time, this will lead to a decrease in the number of machines.

Review of existing policies

17. The legislation requires the council to review its gambling venue policies every three years.

18. For the current review, the council is also required to consider whether to adopt a relocation policy for class 4 pokie venues. This is a new requirement for councils to incorporate into their first scheduled review after September 2013. The Gambling Act 2003 defines a relocation policy as a policy that sets out if, and under what circumstances, a council will grant consent for a venue to move.

19. A relocation policy allows the council to set conditions about when a corporate society can apply to shift its gaming machines from one venue to another. The relocation policy cannot have the effect of reducing gaming machine numbers.

20. Staff have completed a review of both policies, including consideration of a relocation policy in accordance with statutory requirements. The review findings are contained in Attachment A.

Purpose of the review

21. The purpose of the review is to evaluate the effectiveness of the council’s Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy and TAB Venue Policy in achieving their stated objectives, particularly:

· the social impact of gambling in high-deprivation communities

· how a class 4 gambling pokie relocation policy might impact Auckland.

Review methodology

22. Staff used both quantitative and qualitative approaches to review the policies, including:

· conducting literature-based research

· assessing quantitative data from a number of sources, including the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Health, The Problem Gambling Foundation and the New Zealand Racing Board

· seeking insights from key informants and stakeholders, including local board members, industry representatives, community groups and public health organisations

· analysis against two key indicators for the class 4 pokie venue policy:

o gambling expenditure as a measure of policy impact

o problem gambling by ward.

23. The council’s policies only relate to the control of class 4 pokie venues and TAB venues. Gambling behaviour is influenced by a number of factors outside the council’s control, for example the:

· emergence of on-line gambling

· 230 additional gaming machines.

24. The review has limitations regarding the attribution of outcomes to the council’s gambling policies and matters outside the council’s control.

25. The review has not included a full impact analysis. There is insufficient data available for staff to conduct such a review.

Decisions for the Regulatory Committee

26. In response to the review, the Regulatory Committee can determine whether to:

· retain the existing policies, with the next scheduled review in 2020

· investigate amending one or both of the existing policies.

27. The council would need to use the special consultative procedure to consult with the public on any changes to the policies.

28. This report provides options for the Regulatory Committee to consider in relation to each of these decisions.

Review findings

29. The review findings and conclusions are detailed in the attached findings report (Attachment A), and are summarised below.

30. The general findings of the review are that:

· New Zealand is ranked fourth highest internationally in terms of gambling expenditure per adult on a per capita basis (see Figure 3 in Attachment A)

· Māori and Pacific Island communities have higher rates of problem gambling than other ethnic groups

· some communities are more affected than others, due to venues and gaming machines being more likely to be located in areas of high deprivation.

31. The key findings in relation to the Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy are that:

· the policy has been generally effective in controlling the growth of class 4 pokie venues and gaming machines, in line with policy objective one. Between 2012 and 2017, the number of class 4 pokie venues across the region decreased by 37 (12 per cent), and the number of class 4 pokie machines by 458 (11 per cent)

· this reduction has been inconsistent across local board areas:

o the following local boards had the largest reductions in machine numbers: Waitematā (135), Maungakiekie-Tāmaki (52), Devonport-Takapuna (46), Ōtara-Papatoetoe (40) and Hibiscus and Bays (31) local boards^{^[3]}

o there was no change in the number of gaming machines for the following local board areas: Manurewa, Henderson-Massey, Waiheke and Great Barrier.

· the policy has been effective in minimising gambling-related harm, as per policy objective two. The indicators show:

o Waitematā Local Board benefited the most from the policy through a significant reduction in venues and gaming machines

o the Whau, Hibiscus and Bays, Upper Harbour and Devonport-Takapuna local boards can also be said to have benefited from the sinking lid

o the remaining local boards show mixed results in the indicators, when considering the high numbers of people seeking support for problem gambling across all modes of gambling in those areas

o it is highly probable that harm would have been greater if new venues and gaming machines had been allowed to establish within Auckland.

· although the overall availability of class 4 pokie venues and gaming machines has decreased since 2012, takings from class 4 pokie venues in Auckland were $266.7 million for the 2016 fiscal year. This represents an increase of 9.2 per cent ($24.8 million) since the policy was adopted in 2013

· it is difficult to measure the impacts of the policy on this trend as there are a range of broader economic factors to consider such as inflation, population growth and increases in disposable income

· between 2012 and 2016, the total spend on gaming machines was highest in the local boards that have the highest deprivation index: Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, and Manurewa.

32. The key findings in relation to the consideration of a relocation policy for class 4 pokie venues are that the potential impacts of a relocation policy are uncertain. Such a policy could:

· reduce the effectiveness of the sinking lid policy

· expose the receiving community to problem gambling risk factors

· lead to unintended consequences, such as substitution for modes of gambling outside the council’s control or increased expenditure in venues with higher risk factors.

33. The key findings in relation to the TAB Venue Policy are that:

· the policy has been generally effective in controlling the growth of gambling through capping the number of venues to 43

· the number of TAB venues has decreased by eight since 2012

· the reduction in venues has been countered by an expansion in automated self-service facilities in Auckland bars and clubs – these are outside the control of the council’s policy.

Options in relation to the Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy

34. Staff have identified the following two options for the committee’s consideration in response to the review of the Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy:

· option A1: Agree to retain the existing Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy, with no changes – the council would continue to apply a sinking lid to class 4 pokie venues and gaming machines

· option A2: Investigate and consult the public on amendments to the Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy – staff would investigate how the policy could be improved to manage the social impacts of gambling. This would include further analysis of how a relocation policy can support the objectives of the policy. The council would consult with the public on any proposed changes.

Option A1: Agree to retain the existing Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy, with no changes

35. Under this option, the council retains its sinking lid approach to class 4 pokie venues and gaming machines. The policy would continue to apply for a maximum of three years, until the next statutory review. During this period:

· the number of class 4 pokie venues and machines would continue to decline

· certain club venues will continue to be allowed to merge, where the merged venue has fewer gaming machines than the sum of the existing venues.

36. Under this option, the council would not adopt a relocation policy.

37. This option does not preclude the council from considering amendments to the policy before the next scheduled review. This process could be triggered at any time, particularly in response to any government changes to the class 4 pokie sector, or new information about the social impacts of gambling.

38. Table 2 provides further analysis of the option.

Table 2 Analysis of Option A1

	Analysis
Advantages	· the current policy is effectively controlling the number of venues and gaming machines accessible to the community · public health organisations and community groups, generally support the sinking lid policy · avoids the risk that net gambling harm is not increased as a result of unintended consequences from a relocation policy · allows the council to reassess its approach at any time.
Disadvantages	· does not respond to feedback from industry groups, who prefer a cap · no relocation policy allowing venues to relocate in areas more resilient to gambling harm.
Implementation and costs	· no policy development or consultation costs · on-going research and monitoring would be met within existing baselines.
Impacts	· overall gambling expenditure may continue to grow · gaming machine concentration in high deprivation communities will continue.

Option A2: Investigate amending the Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy

39. Under this option, staff would identify changes to the Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy that would improve the council’s ability to manage the social impacts of gambling.

40. Some further analysis would be required, particularly to help determine whether a relocation policy would help to support the council’s statutory obligations. Potential areas for investigation include:

· changes in the gambling market place that may impact the council’s ability to minimise gambling harm and to manage the social impacts of gambling from pokies by controlling growth

· improving policy effectiveness by accelerating changes to the density of pokies in high deprivation areas through a relocation policy

· identify opportunities to align the objectives of the policy to promote operator best practice that improve the social impacts from gambling

· understand the comparative harms associated with different gambling products and ways for the council to minimise gambling harm.

41. The council would consult with the public on the proposed changes using the special consultative procedure, as required by the legislation.

42. Table 3 provides further analysis of the option.

Table 3 Analysis of Option A2

	Analysis
Advantages	· potential to improve performance of individual venues by developing incentives to improve best practice adoption · opportunity to reduce the concentration of gambling machines in high deprivation areas.
Disadvantages	· insufficient evidence currently available to justify introducing a relocation policy · negative perception that council is trying to move gambling impacts into affluent communities.
Implementation and costs	· costs associated with policy development, documentation and formal consultation · potential high cost to build a new evidence base (costs difficult to assess).
Impacts	· potential to displace impacts from individuals in some community groups to individuals in other communities. This may not result in a net reduction of gambling harm · overall gambling expenditure may still continue to grow · may reduce current gaming machine concentration in high deprivation communities .

Summary for Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy

43. Staff consider that the Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy has been effective. Improving the policy through the use of a relocation policy is uncertain. Despite reductions in gaming machine numbers the total amount spent on gaming machines continues to grow in many local board areas.

44. The lack of neighbourhood-level and primary gambling mode data for problem gambling statistics makes it difficult to differentiate effects from gambler behaviours and broader economic conditions, i.e. increased disposable incomes, and employment levels.

45. There are a number of risk factors related to amending the policy:

· emerging products and issues that influence gambling behaviours over time, including, for example, the impact of additional gaming machines at Sky City in the future

· high levels of uncertainty with the current access to data about problem gambling statistics

· work by central government to improve the performance of the pokie sector around community outcomes, including new regulations to:

o achieve greater equity in the distribution of the net proceeds of gambling

o increase best-practice using a three-year licensing incentive.

46. Staff recommend option A1: to retain the existing Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy, with no changes. This option is timely and cost-effective given the government’s indications to review gambling laws. This option also provides the council an opportunity to improve its ability to make evidence-based regulatory decisions by advocating for enhancements in data sharing and collaboration around indicators of the social impacts from gambling.

Options in relation to the TAB Venue Policy

47. Staff have identified the following two options for the committee’s consideration in response to the review of the TAB Venue Policy:

· option B1: Agree to retain the TAB Venue Policy, with no changes – the council would continue to cap the number of TAB venues at 43

· option B2: Investigate and consult the public on amendments to the TAB Venue Policy – staff would investigate how the policy could be improved to manage the social impacts of gambling. The council would consult with the public on any proposed changes.

Option B1: Agree to retain the TAB Venue Policy, with no changes

48. Under this option, the council would leave the existing cap of 43 venues in place and maintain the proximity rule.

49. Under this option:

· the number of TAB venues could increase by up to nine

· TAB venues could establish in areas within close proximity to community facilities not covered in the existing proximity rule.

50. Table 4 provides further analysis of the option.

Table 4 Analysis of Option B1

	Analysis
Advantages	· the council will save money by maintaining the status quo and not undertaking further investigation and engagement with the community · there would be certainty for the sector and businesses located near TAB venues · regardless of the current policy, the reduction in TAB venues is more likely a result of market drivers and decisions by the New Zealand Racing Board to invest in gambling technology such as on-line gambling and self-service facilities.
Disadvantages	· lost opportunity to bank the reduction in numbers that has already occurred (e.g. by introducing a sinking lid or resetting the cap at the new status quo) · lost opportunity to enhance sensitive sites rules. For example, by increasing buffer zones around existing sensitive sites and/or expanding the list of sensitive sites.
Implementation and costs	· no additional consultation costs to the council; on-going research and monitoring could be met from within existing baselines.
Impacts	· potential for TAB venue numbers to increase by up to nine venues · potential for new TAB venues to establish in growth areas, where social and affordable housing is likely to be established.

Option B2: Investigate amending the TAB Venue Policy

51. Under this option, staff would investigate how the TAB Venue Policy could be improved to manage the social impacts of gambling.

52. Table 5 provides further analysis of the option.

Table 5 Analysis of Option B2

	Analysis
Advantages	· the council can investigate other methods to reduce gambling growth in light of emerging technologies and changes in the market place relating to TAB products, including the role of self-service facilities and other products beyond the control of the council · improvements may be identified in relation to whether and under what conditions new venues may be established in Auckland – this could include a focus on new growth areas identified in Auckland’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.
Disadvantages	· the benefits of amending the policy may not justify intervention given that natural attrition has occurred under the current policy · A more restrictive policy may result in TAB customers substituting TAB venue gambling for other products that are more harmful, such as Class 4 pokies.
Implementation and costs	· staff would give notice to the NZ Racing Board and organisations representing Māori in Auckland, as required by legislation · the information requirements will require working with the Department of Internal Affairs and collaboration with various government departments and other organisations, including the NZ Racing Board and community groups before analysis can commence · developing an evidence-based model would require new research and collaboration with central government (costs difficult to assess).
Impacts	· adopting a more restrictive policy may incentivise the New Zealand Racing Board to increase its focus on other forms of gambling outside the council’s control (e.g. on-line and self-service products).

Summary for TAB Venue Policy

53. Lowering the cap may accelerate plans by the NZ Racing Board to invest in other products where harms may be greater and that may have adverse impacts.

54. Staff recommend option B1: to retain the existing TAB Venue Policy, with no changes for the following reasons:

o this option is cost-effective compared to option B2

o it is uncertain that any amendment to the existing policy would have an impact on gambling harm associated with TAB venues. A key reason for this is the trend towards on-line and self-service TAB gambling.

55. The on-line and self-service sector is outside the council’s span of regulatory control. This limits the council’s ability to manage social impacts of gambling through its TAB Venue Policy.

Next steps

56. If the Regulatory Committee chooses to retain both policies with no changes, staff will continue to monitor policy effectiveness.

57. If the Regulatory Committee chooses to amend one or both policies, staff will undertake the additional research required (as resource allows). Staff will then develop a draft statement of proposal and seek the Committee’s approval to consult with the public.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

58. Nine local boards have specifically identified addressing gambling harm as a priority in their local board plans for 2014/15 – 2016/17 (see Attachment B).

59. At local board cluster workshops, local boards provided their views on how the implementation of the Class 4 Pokie Venue policy and TAB Venue Policy has impacted their local board areas. Local boards also provided their views on relocation policies at a range of briefing sessions between February and April 2016.

60. Key themes from this informal feedback include:

o community groups relying on grant funding from gambling activities was not ideal, however some local board members expressed concern that on-line gambling may be impacting grant funding

o the sinking lid policy in combination with gentrification would lead to a reduction in pokie venue and gaming machine numbers

o the mobility of gamblers and the incentives for corporate societies to relocate venues were important considerations in forming a relocation policy.

Māori impact statement

61. Reducing the problem gambling prevalence rates for Māori is a goal highlighted in the Auckland Plan. High-deprivation areas throughout Auckland have the biggest concentration of gambling venues and pokie machines (Auckland Plan, Directive 1.7).

62. Māori are more likely than other ethnicities to engage in gambling activities associated with problem gambling. The New Zealand 2012 National Gambling Study (2014) estimated that problem gambling prevalence rate is the highest (2.3 per cent) for Māori compared to 1.6 per cent for Pacific Island communities and 0.7 per cent for Asian communities (see Table 5 in Attachment A).

63. Māori communities often bear additional costs as a result of problem gambling, including erosion of whānau values, the negligence of care giving responsibilities, and the loss of cultural capital.

64. The disproportionate prevalence of Māori in problem gambling is linked to higher levels of deprivation. The Ministry of Health (2009) established that people living in the most deprived areas are more likely to become problem gamblers and are five times more likely to become problem gamblers than those living in the least deprived communities.

65. During the review, staff conducted key informant interviews with Māori health providers to ensure Māori views were incorporated into the findings.

Implementation

66. An overview of the implementation and cost requirements associated with each option are outlined in the options analysis section above. Further detail is provided in the table below.

67. The costs are estimates only based on the costs associated with similar projects.

Table 6 Estimated costs per option

	No change to policies: Options A1 and B1	Investigate and consult on changes to one or both policies: Options A2 and B2
Process costs
· Monitoring policy effectiveness	$5,000	Unable to assess the costs of building a new evidence base*
· Consultation costs	Nil	$30,000
Staff resources	0.05 FTE: ongoing until next review	1.5 FTE: 1 year
Total known costs	$5,000	$30,000

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Review of gambling venue policies: findings report	31
b ⇩	Gambling in local board plans	77

Signatories

Authors

Belinda Hansen - Team Leader Social Policy and Bylaws

Dmitry Mitenkov - Policy Analyst

Daniel Pouwels - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

15 June 2017

Boarding Houses Inspection update

File No.: CP2017/08388

Purpose

1. To provide an update on the Auckland proactive boarding houses inspections programme.

Executive summary

2. The third annual inspection of boarding houses was conducted on 10 properties in West Auckland, extending on the previous work undertaken in South Auckland.

3. The inspections focused on building and fire safety, environmental health and sanitation, and Auckland Unitary Plan requirements.

4. This year, the operation was supported with staff from the recently established Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Unit of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), who assessed compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The New Zealand Fire Service also assisted.

5. The majority of boarding houses inspected were in breach of at least one of the following:

· Building Act 2004 and Building Code 1992

· Health Act 1956 and Housing Improvement Regulations 1947

· Resource Management Act & Auckland Unitary Plan

· Residential Tenancies Act 1986

6. The breaches identified included unauthorised changes to use of buildings, unauthorised building work, fire safety issues, lack of cleanliness, pest infestation, lack of living areas and laundry facilities and cooking appliances located inside bedrooms.

7. The proactive inspections programme will increase from one operation per year to a minimum of three per year from commencement of the 2017/18 financial year, undertaken in collaboration with the MBIE.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) receive this update on the proactive boarding house inspections in West Auckland.

b) note the increase in proactive inspections from one to a minimum of three per year commencing 2017/18, in collaboration with the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment.

Discussion

Background

8. It is estimated there are approximately 160 boarding houses across Auckland. This figure is revised based on information obtained from proactive inspections and other sources such as government departments and external agencies.

9. Auckland council is responsible for ensuring that boarding houses comply with building safety, environmental health, sanitation and resource management regulations.

10. The regulatory standards are provided by the Building Act 2004 and the Building Code 1992, the Health Act 1956 and the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

11. To enable compliance, Council has the power to enter, inspect, issue cleansing orders or notices to fix, abate nuisances, prosecute, and take other enforcement action deemed proportionate to the degree of harm and attitude to compliance.

Methodology

12. A list of target boarding houses was determined based on intelligence held by Auckland Council and MBIE.

13. Identified boarding houses were sent notification letters with 5-10 day notice advising of pending inspections. A contingency plan was established in the event that a boarding house would require immediate closure due to extremely unsafe conditions.

14. On-site inspections were carried out jointly by compliance staff in Council’s resource consent, building control and licensing and compliance departments, the New Zealand Fire Service and Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Unit of MBIE.

15. Officers completed inspections by following a prepared checklist based on relevant legislation and regulations. Officers inspected all communal areas, a selection of private bedrooms and the exterior of the buildings.

16. Following onsite inspections officers completed file notes and identified issues that needed to be rectified. Notification letters and applicable notices were then prepared and sent to building owners and boarding house managers.

Inter-agency Collaboration

17. Safe, sanitary boarding houses that protect the rights of tenants is of mutual interest to Council and MBIE’s Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Unit. Both organisations agreed that working closely together provides a comprehensive compliance regime for boarding houses, to the benefits of the tenants.

18. Auckland Council’s Environmental Health Officers are warranted under the Health Act 1956 to enter properties for the purpose of inspection. Warranted officers have the ability to invite other compliance agencies to assist with inspections, which was the means by which MBIE compliance staff participated.

Results

19. Ten properties were inspected between April and May 2017. All were non-compliant to varying degrees.

20. Six properties breached environmental health requirements. Non-compliance included the lack of cleanliness, pest infestation, lack of laundry facilities, lack of living areas and cooking appliances inside bedrooms.

21. Five properties were non-complaint with the building code, which resulted in four “Notice’s to Fix” being issued under the Building Act 2004. The issues were specific to unauthorised change of use of a building or unauthorised building work.

22. Four properties breached the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Unitary Plan requirements. Non-compliance related to “outlook space”, “living space” and “daylight” requirements.

23. The New Zealand Fire Service and the Tenancy and Compliance Investigations Unit also observed breaches, which were addressed separately from Auckland Council.

24. Council staff are working with boarding house owners to remedy the breaches. Re-inspections will be undertaken to ensure that full compliance is achieved.

25. This is the third annual inspection of boarding houses, building on previous operations in South Auckland. The rate of non-compliance noted in this operation is consistent with that of the previous two years. However the severity of non-compliance is less than previously observed. Non-compliance was assessed on the risk of significant harm to tenants, with landlords required to immediately address shortcomings. Failure to do so would have resulted in strict enforcement action. Compliance has been achieved to date through issuance of statutory notices rather than prosecution. The latter however will remain an option in the event of wilful non-compliance.

26. Staff have previously advised of the adequacy of the existing regulatory regime to address the conditions of boarding houses in Auckland. The third annual inspection reinforces this advice of adequate regulatory tools. This position is further strengthened with the collaboration of MBIEs Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Unit and the New Zealand Fire Service.

Implementation

27. Working collaboratively with MBIE was of benefit to both organisations. There is agreement that further proactive inspections will include MBIE compliance staff.

28. Given the high rates of non-compliance observed, inspections will increase to at least three times per year, with boarding houses to be inspected based on intelligence held by council and other agencies.

Local board views and implications

29. The Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board has been a persistent advocate of improved boarding house conditions in their rohe. The Chair presented the Board’s concern to numerous council committees on the condition of boarding houses located within Mangere-Otahuhu. The Board has called for greater regulatory powers and for a register of boarding houses, amongst other things.

30. The Whau Local Board will be provided with the results of the latest inspections.

Maori impact statement

31. This proactive compliance programme aims to improve living conditions and protect the rights of tenants. Maori and Pasifika tend to be over-represented tenants of boarding houses. Ensuring greater compliance with relevant statutes and regulations will improve living conditions in boarding houses and thus enhance the rights of tenants, including Maori and Pasifika.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Mervyn Chetty - Manager Environmental Health

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

15 June 2017

Freyberg Place

File No.: CP2017/11209

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Regulatory Committee for the traffic control provisions of 2 Freyberg Place, Auckland for the purpose of legally managing vehicles through the council- controlled portion of Freyberg Place.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is undertaking an upgrade of the Pioneer Women’s and Ellen Melville Hall (Ellen Melville Centre) and Freyberg Place in central Auckland.

3. The Ellen Melville Centre property at 2 Freyberg Place, Auckland is an Auckland Council asset (community centre) being:

- Part Allotments 4 and 5, Section 4 Town of Auckland, contained in NA720/108; and

- Lots 3 and 4 DP 19507, contained in NA718/169 and NA455/121.

4. Part of this title is a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977, having originally been granted as such in about 1879. It is not a park.

5. On 16 December 2015 the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board (“ACCAB”) resolved that Freyberg Place would retain vehicular access in the short term allowing managed vehicle access through the square, moving from open access towards closed access.

6. The new access way for vehicles falls on both reserve land/council owned land, with a small section to the east that is “legal road”. (Refer to attachment A). This is a different alignment to the existing access way as it falls further north within the council owned area.

7. It is Council’s long term intention to ‘stop’ the road through a public consultation process so that Council has the ability to unlock the benefits of having a community centre that connects directly out on to an open public square.

8. In the meantime, traffic controls need to be put in place to manage traffic on this road. The Regulatory Committee has responsibility for setting controls pursuant to the Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015 (other than off-street parking controls, which have been delegated to Auckland Transport).

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) pursuant to clause 7 of the Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015, makes the council-controlled portion of Freyberg Place (as shown in Attachment D) a one-way road whereby a driver must travel only in an eastbound direction (from High Street to Courthouse Lane); and

b) pursuant to clause 8(1)(a) of the Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015, prohibits the stopping or standing of any vehicle on the council-controlled portion of Freyberg Place (as shown in Attachment D) at all times; and

c) pursuant to clause 8(1)(d) of the Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015, prohibits heavy vehicles from being driven on the council-controlled portion of Freyberg Place (as shown in Attachment D) at all times; and

d) revoke any previous resolutions made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in (a) and (b) and (c); and

e) note that the traffic controls in (a) and (b) and (c) will take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions are in place; and

f) note that enforcement of the traffic controls in (a) and (b) and (c) will be delegated to Auckland Transport; and

g) note that the Auckland Transport Traffic Control Committee will consider equivalent traffic controls for the portion of Freyberg Place that is legal road (as shown in Attachment D).

Comments

9. Council received 337 pieces of feedback on the Pioneer Women’s and Ellen Melville Hall and Freyberg Place upgrade with strong support being expressed overall for both elements of the project. Removing traffic through Freyberg Place was supported by the majority of participants (84%). Many felt that removing traffic from the square would facilitate a safe environment and help create a sense of community by connecting the building to the square.

10. In response to this formal feedback and workshops (with local retailers, Heart of the City and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board) the design was revised to include the vehicle access through Freyberg Place. Those who disagreed with this proposal emphasised its potential impact on traffic and congestion. Furthermore, a few participants highlighted the importance of creating spaces where people and cars can coexist.

11. The final design (see attachment C) incorporates all the viable changes that could be made to the consulted concept design as agreed at the 16 December 2015 ACCAB meeting.

Consideration

12. The controls that need to be imposed on Freyberg Place will allow vehicles to travel one way only (entering from High Street and exiting on to Courthouse Lane in the east). This reinstates the existing one-way flow with vehicles moving from west to east.

13. No stopping controls will ensure that no vehicles can stop or park on any part of Freyberg Place, as this section of land is not a ‘shared space’ area.

14. The footprint of the upgraded road proposal (see attachment A) has moved from the existing road (see attachment B) and there is no record of previous resolutions having been made, meaning new resolutions are required to legally manage vehicles through Freyberg Place.

15. Auckland Transport has the authority under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to manage and control the Auckland transport system, which includes “road” under the Local Government Act 1974, or ‘legal roads’. Other public places are considered “roads” under the Land Transport Act, but not under the Local Government Act 1974. They are controlled by the council, under the Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015.

16. Auckland Transport has been delegated the authority to make decisions under the council’s Traffic Bylaw only in relation to off-street parking. Delegation of the remainder of the functions under this Bylaw to Auckland Transport may be considered in the future, but in order to complete this project to programme, a decision of the Regulatory Committee is required.

17. Auckland Council intends to delegate enforcement of the rules on Freyberg Place to Auckland Transport by way of officer delegation, as Auckland Transport has officers who are trained to enforce rules of this nature.

Local board views and implications

18. The Waitemata Local Board has been updated through workshops and business meetings on the Ellen Melville Centre and Freyberg Place project.

19. To date the project team has received general support for the final design from the Waitemata Local Board (noting their strong opposition to Freyberg Place being open to vehicles at all) including the work to extend Courthouse Lane and the Metropolis connection which they believe is fundamental to the success of the square.

Māori impact statement

20. Engagement with iwi has occurred through the City Centre Integration and then later Infrastructure and Environmental Services mana whenua monthly hui. An iwi artist collaborated with project artist John Reynolds to develop narratives for the terraced area. The area of consideration was predominantly the water feature.

21. Mana whenua representatives from the City Centre Integration and Infrastructure and Environmental Services hui expressed support for the general design which has been driven by the Te Aranga Design principles.

Implementation

22. The upgraded Freyberg Place project is estimated for completion at the end of June 2017 (subject to construction delays). All resolutions need to be in place before the area can be opened back up to the public and vehicles can enter Freyberg Place through the designed vehicle route.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site Plan: Proposed	99
b ⇩	Site Plan: Existing Survey	101
c ⇩	Final Design Layout	103
d ⇩	Council-controlled portion of Freyberg Place	105

Signatories

Author

Lisa Spasic - Senior Project Leader

Authorisers

Shelley Wharton – Manger Development Programmes

Andre Lipa – Head of Development Programmes

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

[1] As at 2012, the number of venues was 42.

[2] This was considered during policy development in 2013 but decided against as the legislation had not yet been amended to confirm that relocation policies are allowed.

[3] Due to licensing technicalities outside the policy’s control, the number of machines increased in the following local board areas: Howick (18), Kaipātiki (7), Papakura (4).

Chairperson	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Wayne Walker
Members	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins
	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	IMSB Chair David Taipari
	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox

Ex-officio	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
	Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

Author	Tam White - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services