standard report template - temp.aucklandcouncil.govt.nzconsulted under the lta. ... recommends that...

Report Name: Background Report for the Hearing of Submissions to the Review of the Trading and Events in Public Places bylaws

File No.:

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to provide background information to assist the joint hearingspanel with the consideration of written submissions and the hearing of oral submissions. Atthe close of the submission period on 4 September 2014, 1409 submissions had beenreceived with a further three submissions obtained after the submission period had closed. Itshould be noted that one submission (964) is from Waterfront Auckland which, although insupport of the bylaw, is considered invalid as it is a staff comment. Of the submissionsreceived, 74 submitters indicated that they wish to speak to their submission at the hearings.

Executive Summary

2. In order to prepare this summary, the matters raised in these submissions have beencategorised into 17 topic areas. For each of these topics this report briefly summarisescomments made by the submitters where appropriate, brief comments from staff for the jointhearings panel to consider. Staff comments are not a response to submissions nor intendedto represent any position of the hearings panel.

3. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport propose to make separate but complementarybylaws on trading and events in public places. This is because the legal responsibility for themaking of bylaws is split between the two organisations on the basis of whether the bylawapplies to the Auckland transport system and is transport related. If it does apply to thetransport system, the issue will be within Auckland Transport’s jurisdiction, whereas other‘public places’ such as parks and beaches are within Auckland Council’s jurisdiction.

4. The statement of proposal and proposed bylaws as publicly notified and the copies ofsubmissions have been prepared for the hearings panel in separate documents. Thesedocuments are also available on the Auckland Council website.

5. This report has been set out in the order of the table below.

Table 1: Report contentsSection Page Executive Summary 1 Recommendations 2 Background 2 Consideration 3 Submission topic 1: Preliminary provisions 9 Submission topic 2: General 11 Submission topic 3: Approvals and other administrative matters 12 Submission topic 4: Markets and stalls 18 Submission topic 5: Mobile shops 19 Submission topic 6: Outdoor dining 21

32

Submission topic 7: Fundraising 24 Submission topic 8: Offering commercial services 25 Submission topic 9: Distribution of promotional material 27 Submission topic 10: Street performances and pavement artists 28 Submission topic 11: Events and filming 30 Submission topic 12: Outdoor display of goods 31 Submission topic 13: Trading activities in parks and reserves 32 Submission topic 14: Enforcement powers, offence and penalties 32 Submission topic 15: Smokefree outdoor dining (and other public places) 33 Submission topic 16: Other matters:

• Shared spaces• Operational policy manual / guidelines

34

Submission topic 17: Out of scope 35

Recommendations

a) That the report be received.b) That the hearings panel accepts the submissions received after the close of the submission

period on 4 September 2014, and consider those submissions in the same manner as if theywere received before the close of the submission period.

Background

6. Sections 145, 146 and 149 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and section 22AB of theLand Transport Act 1998 (LTA) to enables Auckland Council and Auckland Transport respectivelyto make bylaws that:• protect the public from nuisance – Auckland Council and Auckland Transport• protect, promote and maintain public health and safety – Auckland Council• regulate trading in public places – Auckland Council• minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places – Auckland Council• regulate road related activities, including safety and environmental protection – Auckland

Transport

7. Following the amalgamation of the seven former territorial authorities and the Auckland RegionalCouncil on 1 November 2010, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport inherited eight legacybylaws that address trading in public places (also known as ‘street trading’) that includes local andregional parks and beaches. These bylaws operated effectively for the legacy areas, using arange of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches for particular issues. Additionally, two legacycouncils regulated events in public places – including filming – by requiring organisers to obtainapproval.

8. Trading activities covered by the proposed bylaws include:• markets and stalls• mobile shops• outdoor dining• fundraising (including soliciting or collection of subscriptions or donations)• offering commercial services• distribution of promotional material and /or goods• street performances and pavement art

33

• requirement to obtain approval for events or filming in a public place• trading activities in parks and reserves – requirement for approval• outdoor display of goods• exemptions from the requirement to obtain an approval.

Events and filming are also included in the proposed bylaw.

9. Both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have produced complementary bylaws as thelegal responsibility for the making of bylaws is split between the two organisations on the basis ofwhether the bylaw applies to the Auckland transport system and is transport related. If it doesapply to the transport system, the issue will be within Auckland Transport’s jurisdiction, whereasother ‘public places’ such as parks and beaches are within Auckland Council’s jurisdiction.

10. The proposed bylaws have been prepared on the basis of those activities considered appropriatefor regulation. The issues relating to trading and events in public places have been identifiedthrough a review of the legacy bylaws and pre-consultation with political, internal and externalstakeholders. In analysing those problems, staff identified the appropriate mechanism available toAuckland Council and Auckland Transport to address each problem. This included recommendingcomplementary bylaws to continue to regulate the majority of issues covered by the legacy bylaws.

11. Trading and events in public places are proposed to be controlled by:

• Continuing to require approval to undertake the activities listed in paragraph 8. Approvalconditions may relate to the nature of the activity (location, size, and number), payment of feesor occupation charge or bond, hours, duration of permit, rubbish, public liability insurance, andtraffic management.

• Allowing relatively benign forms of activities such as outdoor business displays, withoutrequiring an approval, provided the activity complies with any specific conditions or standards.

12. Auckland Council’s Regulatory and Bylaws Committee considered these matters at its meeting of20 May 2014 (RBC/2014/20) and recommended that a bylaw is the most appropriate way ofaddressing trading and events in public places.

13. Auckland Transport’s Board of Directors considered these matters at its meeting of 29 July 2014(refer agenda item 10(iii)) and recommended that a bylaw is the most appropriate way ofaddressing trading and events in public places.

Consideration

Role of the hearings panel

14. The hearings panel has been appointed to hear submissions, deliberate and makerecommendations to the governing body of Auckland Council on the proposed Trading and Eventsin Public Places Bylaw (resolution no. RBC/2014/21) and to the Board of Directors of AucklandTransport on the proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw.

15. In making decisions like this, sections 82 and 83 of the LGA provide that:

(a) Affected and interested persons should be given an opportunity to present their views to thecouncil, and to receive relevant information;

(b) Auckland Council must receive the views presented by submitters with an open mind and give them due consideration;

(c) The Auckland Council can consider or request comment or advice from staff or any other person to assist them in making a decision;

34

(d) Submitters should receive information on the decisions made and reasons;

(e) Meetings to hear and deliberate on submissions are to be open to the public except as provided by Part VII of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

16. In addition to the above specific criteria, the hearings panel must ensure that it complies with the general principles of decision making pursuant to section 76 of the LGA and the decision-making requirements set out in the rest of that subpart of the LGA.

17. In addition to the criteria in the LGA, the LTA requires that a bylaw that is made by Auckland

Transport provides that submissions can be made by specific persons who are required to be consulted under the LTA.

18. These requirements cover:

• identifying and assessing options • considering the views and preferences of affected or interested people • identifying and explaining any decisions inconsistent with any council policy or plan • providing Māori with the opportunity to contribute • ensuring compliance with the principles of consultation • the nature and significance of the decision.

Public consultation

19. The proposal was publicly notified with a submission period of 4 August 2014 to 4 September 2014. Public notification included notices, advertisements and articles in the New Zealand Herald and in 15 suburban newspapers. Translated advertisements were placed in the following ethnic community newspapers - Chinese Herald, Taimi O Tonga, Samoan Observer, NZ Pacific and Gooday NZ (Korean) and Indian Newslink. The council also made use of Twitter and Facebook to advertise the proposal and invite submissions.

20. A summary (available in English and Te Reo) and a link to the full statement of proposal, including the proposed bylaws, was sent directly to all stakeholders previously consulted in the development of the proposal. This included business associations, disability groups and the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association.

21. All relevant documents, including the statement of proposal, summaries, and freepost submission

forms were made available on the council’s website and at libraries and service centres across Auckland. A media release was also issued at the commencement of the consultation period.

22. Over 1400 letters were sent to Auckland Council licensed trading (?) operators and emails were sent to key industry stakeholders including the Hospitality Industry, Restaurant Association, Mr Whippy, The Coffee Guy, and New Zealand Retailers Association inviting them to submit.

23. As this is a joint project between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, section 22AD of the LTA requires specified persons such as the Police Commissioner, New Zealand Transport Agency and adjacent territorial authorities (Waikato and Kaipara Districts) to be notified of Auckland Transport’s intention to make a bylaw.

Overview of submissions

24. At the close of the submission period on 4 September 2014, 1409 submissions were received with

a further three submissions (1287, 1289, 1291) obtained after the submission period had closed. It should be noted that one submission (964) is from Waterfront Auckland which, although in support of the bylaw, is considered invalid as it is a staff comment. Of the submissions received, 74 submitters indicated that they wish to speak to their submission at the hearings.

35

25. Submissions were generally made on the Auckland Council proposed bylaw rather than on both as Auckland Transport’s bylaw duplicates the Auckland Council proposed bylaw. Submissions received for the Auckland Council proposed bylaw have been treated as submissions to both bylaws.

26. The majority of submitters made submissions, either supporting or opposing specific parts and clauses of the proposed bylaw as shown in Table 2. There were several submissions supporting the whole of the proposed bylaw. A number of submissions commented on the statement of proposal document as well as the proposed bylaw. Submitters who generally supported the whole bylaw were: 3, 16, 210, 715, 723, 731, 816, 862, 1026, 1027, 1056 (Manurewa Local Board) and 1291. The Auckland Branch of the Blinds Citizen NZ (862) supported the bylaw in full, and acknowledged the background work done to date in the preparation of the bylaw, including a hui that was held in 2013. Heart of the City (1037) generally supported what was proposed as long as it: • does not impact or compromise a fixed business activity • does not impact on the enjoyment, accessibility and flexibility of a public place • contributes to a vibrant and exciting environment.

27. The submission from the Blind Foundation (1291) supports the consolidation into one bylaw but

recommends that more design specifications be included such as in a footpath management policy.

28. While there were no submissions that opposed the whole of the proposed bylaw, one submission

(238) commented that a region-wide bylaw should not apply in all areas, particularly rural areas such as Wellsford, which has character different to the city. Submission 836 stated that the proposed bylaw was ambiguous and left rules (?) too open to interpretation by council staff.

29. One submission (839) would like to see all trading, offering of commercial services and the distribution of promotional material banned from all beaches due to the impact it has on visitors and tourists. One submission (953) supported all parts of the proposed bylaw except for the references on noise, glare and light on the grounds that at Christmas time there should be no restrictions on activities that may generate noise and so forth.

30. Enforcement of the bylaws and ensuring that there are adequate resources was a key theme in a

number of submissions (478, 733, 814). One submission recommended that business improvement district (BID) managers be given the ability to enforce certain sections of bylaws and pass on any information on to Auckland Council in order to improve response times.

31. One submission (478) commented on the exclusion of religious groups in the proposed bylaw. The submitter acknowledges that while these groups are entitled to freedom of speech, the main concern is the impact on other users of the public place – including business operators and customers. The submitter recommends that ‘soap box’ areas would be an effective way for providing for this activity as long as there are some controls in place.

32. 1354 submissions were received on smokefree outdoor dining areas and other public places. Of these 1354, 1349 were pro-forma submissions. This issue was not explicitly mentioned in the proposed bylaw – although references were made to smokefree in the accompanying statement of proposal. The only reference to smokefree in the proposed bylaw is the following clause: 10 Deciding an application

(2) In deciding to grant or decline an application for approval the council may consider the

following matters: (f) whether the activity is consistent with Auckland Council policies and plans, including

but not limited to, the Auckland Plan, Smokefree Policy , local alcohol policy and gambling policies.

36

33. Comments relating to smokefree are discussed under submission topic number 14 rather than under outdoor dining (submission topic number 6).

Table 2: Submission received by clause1

Submission topic Clause/s Description Number of Submissions

Part 1 – Preliminary provisions 5 Interpretation 21 Part 2 – General provisions 6

Requirement to hold an approval 4

7

Exemptions to holding an approval 7

8 Designated public places 3 Part 3 – Approvals and other administrative matters 9

Application for approval

3 10 Deciding an application 11 11 Approval conditions 12 12 Fees 19 14 Review of an approval 1

Part 4 – Trading and events in public places 15 Markets and stalls 15

16 Mobile shops 24

17 Outdoor dining – comment on bylaw provisions 24

18 Fundraising 29 19 Offering commercial services 8

20 Distribution of promotional good and materials 12

21 Street performance / busking 18 22 Pavement artists 2 23 Events (and filming) 14 24 Outdoor display of goods 12

Parts 5, 6 – Enforcement powers, offence and penalties 25 – 30

Non-compliance with conditions of approval and bylaw breaches 2

Smokefree outdoor dining areas N/A

Proformas 1349 Non-proformas 5

Other matters

N/A

Shared spaces 3

Operational policy manual 4 N/A Out of scope 2

34. One submission (542) included comments considered out-of-scope as they form part of another

bylaw review project, are addressed through other initiatives, or relate to matters where there is no role for Auckland Council or Auckland Transport. Parts of a submission (1276) also commented on several matters that are out of scope.

35. Table 3 outlines the number of submissions by submitter type, and Table 4 identifies the various organisations, associations, businesses and trader.

1 Bolded text indicates a substantial number of submissions

37

Table 3: Submissions by submitter type Submitter Type Submissions Community Group / clubs 2 Organisation2 5 Charity organisation 15 Government Agency 1 National Organisation 5 Business3 10 Business association 12 Residents and ratepayers association 1 Individual 10 Local Board 1 Pro forma submission (individual) 1349 Total 1411

Table 4: List of organisations, clubs, businesses and traders4 Organisation, club, businesses and groups Submission number Devonport Pharmacy 3 North Shore Cricket Club Inc 4 The Fundraising People 5 Ministry Of Business Innovation and Employment 16 Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc 17 Mobile vendor 42 Korowai Aroha Health Centre 169 Panmure Business Association 210 Cigana Limited 290 Auckland Regional Public Health - Pacific Quit Smoking Service 352 Waiuku Business and Development Association 414 Glen Innes Citizens Advice Bureau 415 Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS) 416 Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA) 417 Red Cross 418 Save the Children NZ 476 Save Animals From Exploitation (SAFE) 477 Onehunga Business Association 478 World Animal Protection 481 Red Door Studios Art & Design 711 Uptown Business Association 715 World Vision New Zealand 719 Dominion Road Business Association 723 Pukekohe Business Association 727 Glen Innes Business Association 731 Mangere Town Centre 733 Parnell Incorporated 814 Mobile vendor 816 Federated Farmers of New Zealand 818 Howick Ratepayers and Residents Association 832 Waitakere Indian Association 834 Adventure Capital 836 Experiential Marketing Association of NZ (EMANZ) 842

2 This includes Auckland Regional Public Health Service. 3 Includes two mobile trading operators 4 Bolded text indicates late submitters

38

Organisation, club, businesses and groups Submission number Engage 846 Heart Foundation 848 Blind Foundation 857 Blind Citizens New Zealand 862 SPCA Auckland 927 The Fred Hollows Foundation NZ 940 Karaka Lakes Xmas Lights 953 Waterfront Auckland 964 Te Ara Hā Ora: The National Māori Tobacco Control Service 1026 Heart of the City Limited 1037 SKYCITY Auckland Limited 1046 Ponsonby Business Association 1049 New Zealand Red Cross 1052 Manurewa Local Board 1056 Fitness Evolved 1087 UNICEF NZ 1190 St Heliers Village Association Incorporated 1193 Neighbourhood Support – Grey Lynn 1276 Cancer Society: Auckland Division 1277 West Auckland Trust Services Limited 1278 Greenwoods Corner Business Association 1287 Hospitality Association of New Zealand 1289 Blind Foundation 1291

36. Submissions were received from individuals, organisations, businesses across Auckland.

Submissions were also received outside of the Auckland Council area – including six from overseas. The majority of submissions did not identify a local board area and this is as a result of proforma submissions formulated by the Cancer Society. Table 5 shows the number (and percentage) of submissions received by local board area.

Table 5: Submissions by local board

Local Board

Number of submissions

% of total submissions

Albert-Eden 3 0.21 Devonport-Takapuna 2 0.14 Franklin 3 0.21 Great Barrier 0 0.00 Henderson-Massey 2 0.14 Hibiscus and Bays 2 0.14 Howick 3 0.21 Kaipātiki 0 0.00 Mangere-Otahuhu 2 0.14 Manurewa 15 0.07 Maungakiekie-Tamaki 4 0.28 Orākei 5 0.35 Otara-Papatoetoe 0 0.00 Papakura 1 0.07 Puketāpapa 2 0.14 Rodney 1 0.07 Upper Harbour 0 0.00 Waiheke 0 0.00 Waitakere Ranges 0 0.00

5 Manurewa Local Board made a submission (1056)

39

Local Board


% of total submissions

Waitematā 8 0.64 Whau 1 0.07 Regional 13 0.92 Outside Auckland 1 0.07 Did not identify local board 1351 95.68 N/A6 6 0.42 Total 1411 100.00%

37. In order to prepare this summary, the matters raised in these submissions have been classified

into 17 topic areas, based on the statement of proposal, as follows. The tables give a description of the issues raised in the submissions and also show the total number of submissions received.

6 Six submissions were “N/A” as they were from overseas.

40

Submission Topic 1: Preliminary provisions

Matters raised in submissions

Number of Submissions

Submission number

Clause 4 - Purpose 3 836, 1277, 1287 Clause 5 - Interpretation - Definition of ‘ commercial services’ 3 733,836,1049 - Definition of ‘event’ 2 4, 1276 - Definition of ‘filming’ 2 2, 1276 - Definition of ‘mobile shop’ 2 733, 1049 - Definition of ‘outdoor business display’ 2 733,1049 - Definition of ‘public place’ 1 818 - Definition of ‘street furniture’ 1 1037, - Definition of ‘trading in public place’ 1 4 - Definition of ‘vehicle’ 1 832 - Add additional definitions 3 1046, 1277, 1291

38. Clause 4(1) – Purpose

• Submission 836 opposes references to “Auckland Transport or other council controlled organisation” and that it should be removed on the grounds that it indicates intent for the proposed bylaw to be used by all council controlled organisations. Recommends that the term “council” be replaced with “Auckland Council”.

• The Cancer Society’s submission (1277) recommended that an additional clause be inserted recognising the Smokefree Policy 2013.

• The submission from the Greenwoods Corner Business Association (1287) supports the

clause relating to the purpose of the proposed bylaw in setting specific and general conditions for trading and events however queries the insertion of the word “controlled” under ‘council controlled organisations’ and expresses some concern about setting of fees.

39. Clause 5 – Interpretation

The following definitions as currently included in the proposed were commented on in the submissions:

• commercial services – Mangere Town Centre (733) and Ponsonby (1049) Business

Associations stated that the definition is too broad and may capture unintended activities such as breakdown assistance services (for example ‘Automobile Association’).

Submission 836 also commented on the definition citing that it is too broad and needs to be refined as currently it only specifies two activities.

• event – North Shore Cricket Club’s submission (4) commented that the definition is too broad.

The inclusion of the terms “organised temporary activity including an organised gathering” and “organised sport and recreation as part of a competition” could have potential impacts on the club. It would like to see the definition amended and in addition, explicitly state that “all sports practice / training, regardless of whether it is located indoors or outdoors”, is excluded.

Submission 1276 also commented on the definition of event, stating that whilst they agree with the wording, the term “protest” should not be included for freedom of expression reasons.

41

• filming – Submissions 2 and 1276 queried the definition of, and rules associated with, filming stating that it is too broad and has the potential to capture people taking personal photos, tourists and photography groups.

• mobile shop – Mangere Town Centre (733) and Ponsonby (1049) Business Associations stated that the definition is too broad and may capture unintended activities such as breakdown assistance services ( for example the ‘Automobile Association’).

• outdoor business display – Mangere Town Centre (733) and Ponsonby (1049) Business

Associations queried what an outdoor display of ‘services’ would cover and whether its inclusion in the definition is required. Also cited that there is no reference in clause 7 (Exemptions) regarding requirement to comply with clause 24 (Outdoor Business Displays).

• public place – submission 818 generally supported the definition but expressed some concern over the exemptions clause (clause 7 of the proposed bylaw) with particular reference to the clause on ‘goods and services delivered to private premises’ and, the ‘sale of goods (e.g produce)….from private premises’.

• street furniture – Submission 1037 recommends that the definition of ‘street furniture’ be amended to include “table, barrier, blind, heater” to distinguish those items relating to outdoor dining, or if not add “other" to ensure that these are not excluded.

• trading in public place – the North Shore Cricket Club’s submission (4) considers the

definition of ‘trading in a public place’ is too broad and is likely unenforceable.

• vehicle – Submission 832 queried why definition of ‘vehicle’ omits mobility scooter / electric wheelchair.

In addition to comments on the definitions that are currently in the proposed bylaw, three submissions recommended inserting additional definitions:

• continuous accessible path of travel – Submission 1291 recommends adding the definition

of “continuous accessible path of travel (CAPT) and the preference for this to be located on the building line.

• shared space – SKYCITY’s submission (1046) recommended adding a definition of this – as well as a separate clause for managing trading and events in these spaces.

• smoke, smokefree and, smokefree signage – the Cancer Society’s submission(1277)

recommending adding these definitions.

40. Staff comment Staff support improvement of words / terms used in the interpretations where appropriate. However, it is recommended that modifications and additional terms are best considered after any decisions are made to amend / add relevant clauses. Regarding submission 832 and why mobility scooters are omitted from ‘vehicle’, the definition is taken from the Land Transport Act 1998, where wheelchairs are not included. In regards to submission 1287, on the issue of referring to council-controlled organisations (under ‘Purpose’), Auckland Transport also has the jurisdiction to make bylaws. Both the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport bylaws apply to other council controlled organisations including ATEED and the Waterfront Auckland.

42

Submission Topic 2: General Provisions


Number of Submissions

Submission numbers

General comments 4 1, 960, 1277, 1287

41. Clause 6 – Requirement to hold an approval The following comments were made regarding requirement to hold an approval:

• Submission 1 opposes requirement to obtain approval for small activities, casual street performances or one-off fundraising, while submission 960 opposes the requirement to obtain approval for activities.

• Submission 1277 supports requirement to hold approval.

• Submission 1287 supports the provisions under Part 2 of the bylaw but would like clarity around the mandatory requirement to hold approval.

42. Staff comment The requirement to hold approval for most trading activities and events (and filming) was a standard requirement in most of the legacy bylaws. In most cases small-scale activities are exempted from having to obtain written approval however there may be a requirement to contact the council for reasons of ‘space management’ and to ensure that appropriate safety measures have been undertaken.

43. Clause 7 – Exemptions to holding an approval


Number of

Submissions Submission numbers

General comments 7 478, 733, 818, 1049, 1056, 1277, 1291

The following comments were made regarding exemptions to hold an approval:

• Submission 478 does not support exemptions for some trading outside a person’s home as

this can have an impact on a local business especially if it is undertaken on a regular occurrence. The submitter’s main comments were that anyone undertaking an activity outside of what is normal offered in a town centre should obtain a licence in order to minimise duplication.

• Submissions 733 and 1049 stated that they do not understand the exemption in clause 7(1)(d) regarding the sale of goods from a private place and should be either removed or re-worded.

• Submission 818 recommended that, given the definition of public place, the clause relating to the sale of goods (such as produce) from private premises be amended to the following:

the sale of produce from a produce stall, as that term is defined in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

• Manurewa Local Board (1056) supports exemptions for community groups and community

events for approvals and fees.

• Submission 1277 accepts exemptions for certain activities but requests that the clause on the sale of goods from private premises not be extended to include garage sales.

43

• Submission 1291 recommends that reconsideration be given to areas, such as the central business district (CBD), where there is additional clutter to be navigated.

44. Staff comment

Most of the legacy bylaws had exemptions for certain activities, in particular, small-scale activities, or one-off trading activities undertaken as part of a council-approved event. Staff supports improvement of words / terms used in the interpretations where appropriate. However, it is recommended that modifications and additional terms are best considered after any decisions are made to amend / add relevant clauses.

45. Clause 8 – Designated public places Matters raised in submissions

Number of

Submissions Submission numbers

General comments 3 733, 1049, 1276

The following comments were made regarding Auckland Council’s ability to designate a road or public place where trading activities are prohibited:

• Submissions 733 and 1049 queried whether the bylaw making powers of Auckland Council

and Auckland Transport can extend to prohibiting trading activities. Recommends that a clear time limitation is more appropriate

• Conversely, submission 1276 supported having designated public places and commented that community street parties in Grey Lynn should be allowed for community events without costly fees.

46. Staff comment

Some legacy councils allowed for the ability to designate an area where trading was prohibited, mainly for traffic safety reasons. Auckland Transport have added this clause in their bylaw for this reason and is hence duplicated in the Auckland Council bylaw.

44

Submission Topic 3: Approvals and other administrative matters

47. Clause 9 - Application for approval



Submission number

General comments 2 416, 1046, Addition to or amendments to clauses

1 1046

The following comments were made regarding applications for approvals: • General comments

- The submission from ARPHS (416) stated there should be minimum time period for when an application can be made as one that is made at the last minute could make it difficult to assess if all the correct details have been provided.

- SKYCITY’s submission (1046) also recommended that consideration should be given to a combined application process that addresses all the necessary approvals for an event, or series of events, or other activities in a public place.

• Addition or amendment to clauses

- Submission 1046 stated that the current wording gives council staff “unfettered discretion” in

determining approval and considered to be “inappropriate, unnecessarily wide, [and] provides no certainty to applicants”. They recommend the following: - amendment to clause 9(3): “and by reference to, and in accordance with the provisions

in clause 10, and any relevant guidelines”

48. Staff comment

Staff note the comments around the approval process which is more of a procedural matter rather than the subject of the bylaw. As part of preparing for the implementation of the bylaw, staff from across Auckland Council are looking at ways to improve, and simplify the application process. Staff support improvement of words / terms used in the interpretations where appropriate. However, it is recommended that modifications and additional terms are best considered after any decisions are made to amend / add relevant clauses

49. Clause 10 - Deciding an application



Submission number

General comments 8 478, 733, 836, 1037, 1046, 1049,1277

Addition or amendment to clauses 3 733,1046,1049

The following comments were made regarding applications for approvals:

• General comments

45

- Submission 478 recommends that local business associations should have an opportunity to assess approvals (especially for markets and stalls and mobile shops) as they are the ones that have to deal with the impact of the activity.

- Submissions 733 and 1049 generally supports requirement to obtain approval however are

concerned that there are no guidelines concerning decisions to be made about approvals (under clause 10(1)). The submitters are also concerned regarding the ability for the bylaw to give discretion on the types of furniture, structures, equipment and other items – clause 10(2)(b) is seen as too extensive.

- The same submitters also recommended that in the case of an applicant who wants to

appeal a decision (clause 10 (3)), an independent commissioner, rather than Auckland Council, should review the decision.

- Submission 836 states that the decision to grant or decline an application could lead to

subjective decision making by Auckland Council staff as no basis for assessing how the activity could cause a nuisance or a hazard.

- Submission 1277 supports references to Auckland Council policy in clause 10(2)(f). The

submitter also comments that to achieve consistency regarding approval conditions reference are made to compliance with the Smokefree Policy.

- Submission 1287 supported some provisions for deciding an application and in instances

where the application was declined cited that reasons should be provided.

• Addition or amendment to clauses - Submitters 733 and 1049 recommended the following:

- remove sentence in clause 10(2)(f) – “whether the activity is consistent with Auckland

Council policies and plans, including but not limited to, the Auckland Plan, Smokefree Policy, local alcohol policy and gambling policies” as it may not meet the requirements that the bylaw be reasonable, clear and certain.

- new clauses: recommend that the provision from clause 11(1)(a) – “ the designated

times of operation (hours and day) including any possible limitations on the hours of set up and pack down” – be included in clause 10.

- new sub-clause: recommend a new sub-clause be added that “the views of adjacent

land owners and occupiers’ be considered in deciding an application”

- SKYCITY’s submission (1046) supports having a clear set of matters for deciding an application however it opposes the reference in the clause to “guidelines” that Auckland Council may approve under the bylaw from time to time on the grounds that it may impact on how this is interpreted and implemented. The submitter recommends the following:

- amendment to clause 10(1): “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the council may grant a

dispensation from full compliance with any guideline where the council is of the opinion that full compliance would needlessly and injuriously affect any person or business, without a corresponding benefit to the public or any section of it.”

- amendment to clause 10(2) “In deciding to grant or decline an application for approval

the council may must consider the following matters:”

- new sub-clause: the positive community and commercial benefits that can be achieved through the proposed activity”

46

- amendment to clause 10(2)(c): “The impacts on the surrounding environment and land users as a result of noise, smell, glare, light spill or appearance or any other effects and whether such effects on the environment or potentially affected parties have been appropriately mitigated or are otherwise acceptable in terms of their nature, duration and extent.”

- amendment to sub-clause 10(2)(f): remove references to “local alcohol policy and

gambling policies” on the grounds that it is inappropriate for a bylaw to reference these as they are addressed in relevant legislation.

- amendment to clause 10(3): “Any person who has an application declined or revoked

by the council may apply in writing for a review of the decision and the council may must review it accordingly, and provide details and written reasons for its findings and determination.”

50. Staff comment

As part of preparing for the implementation of the bylaw, a policy manual is being developed to guide staff and customers on the application process. Staff support improvement of words / terms used in the interpretations where appropriate. However, it is recommended that modifications and additional terms are best considered after any decisions are made to amend / add relevant clauses

51. Clause 11 - Approval conditions


Number of

submissions Submission number

General comments 4 416, 836, 1037, 1287 Minimum unobstructed footpath width

6 733, 832, 836, 1046,1049, 1278

Addition or amendment to clauses 2 1046, 1291

The following comments were made regarding approval conditions:

• General comments - Submission 416 recommends that there is a specific requirement to name food types if

applying to sell food.

- Submission 836 supports adherence to health and safety guidelines however states that the clause needs to be revised to remove any ambiguity likely to have a negative impact on the operator as a result of subjective decision making by Auckland Council.

- Submission 1037 supports approval conditions are “not limited” to those set out in the bylaw.

- Submitter 1287 did not agree on one of the provisions (around location – clause 11(1) (c))

recommending that consideration of the scale of the operation may be required.

• Minimum unobstructed footpath width A number of submissions commented on the requirement in clause 11(2) for a minimum unobstructed footpath width of no less than 1.8 metres.

- Howick Ratepayers and Residents Association (832) support the 1.8 metre clearance as

there is considerable infringement in Howick and this provision needs to be observed and enforced.

47

- Both the Mangere Town Centre (733) and Ponsonby (1049) Business Associations also agree with this.

- Submission 836 queried the rationale for the requirement that footpaths must maintain a

minimum unobstructed footpath width of no less than 1.8 metres, and that this topic needs more debate.

- SKYCITY’s submission (1046) stated that this provision is not considered appropriate for

shared spaces and should not apply to these areas.

- West Auckland Trust Services Limited (1278) supports requirement for a minimum unobstructed footpath width of 1.8 metres.


- SKYCITY’s submission (1046) made the following comments on approvals and other administrative matters: - amendment to clause 11(1): “The conditions upon which an approval is granted may

include, but are not limited to, the following are limited to the following matters:”

- amend clause 11(1) (c): “The location of the activity including the minimum clear widths of footpaths required for pedestrian access and taking into account the surrounding land uses and street layout.”

- amend clause 11(1)(d): “A requirement that the activity is not located in a public place

(including near intersections, bus stops, vehicle crossing, accessways or service lanes) in a way that it is likely to cause an unreasonable nuisance, and/or obstruction or hazard to pedestrian and vehicle access.”

- Submission 1291 recommends that an amendment to clause 11 to include design

specifications for furniture and displays to ensure they do not present a hazard and are detectable both visually and with a long cane.

52. Staff comment

Staff support improvement of words / terms used in the interpretations where appropriate. However, it is recommended that modifications and additional terms are best considered after any decisions are made to amend / add relevant clauses. The minimum unobstructed footpath width of 1.8 metres is a standard measurement used by Auckland Transport. Staff note the implications this could have on shared spaces and recommends working with various stakeholders, both internally and externally, to develop a set of guidelines governing the use of shared spaces.

53. Clause 12 – Fees


Number of


General comments 7 3, 4, 290, 414,834, 960, 1287 No fee schedule in proposed bylaw 3 4, 478, 727 Region-wide versus local fees 5 727, 842, 733, 1049, 1056 Fee exemption for community groups / sports clubs / events

4 4, 416, 834, 1267

The submissions on fees commented on the following issues: • General comments

- Submission 3 stated that fees for outdoor displays should be removed. 48

- Submission 290 suggested that businesses be able to pay licensing fees in monthly

instalments due to the fact that there are a number of other fees and charges that are required to be paid for at the same time (this comment may be considered ‘out of scope’ as the bylaw does not deal with the process for paying fees).

- The Waiuku Business and Development Association (414) did not support a fee for outdoor dining as there was no charge by the legacy Papakura District Council. Commented that they would like to know what the proposed fee would be used for (such as whether it is for footpath cleaning) and whether it is charged on an annual or pro-rata basis. Also concerned that the fees may drive some businesses to remove outdoor dining opportunities.

- Submissions 834 and 960 oppose any charging of fees for gaining approval while submission 1287 opposes any fees on the grounds that applications should be processed as part of Auckland Council’s ordinary business

• No fee schedule in proposed bylaw

- Several submissions (4, 478, 727) commented on the absence of a fees schedule in the proposed bylaw. The submission from the North Shore Cricket Club (4) requests that the proposed bylaw be amended to specifically prevent the charging of fees for organisations whose purpose is to provide amateur organised sport and recreational activities. Submission 478 also commented on the absence of costs for events and outdoor dining in the proposed bylaw.

• Region-wide versus local fees

- Submission 727 strongly opposes a single fee that applies across all areas as each location (rural centres versus urban centres) is different. Also commented on what the fee is used for.

- Submission 842 stated that the fees should be appropriate to the location rather than

regionalised and should reflect the size, logistical access and popularity of the area. Manurewa Local Board (1056) opposes a blanket fee, and instead supports different activities having different fee structures, and that fees should be kept moderate so as not to dissuade people and businesses from applying for a permit.

- The submissions from the Mangere Town Centre (733) and Ponsonby (1049) Business

Associations agree that Auckland Council is able to prescribe fees however there is concern that there is no power for Auckland Council to set “charges for the period of the approval”. Comments that the fee must to provide for Auckland Council to recover more than the reasonable costs incurred for the matter for which the fee is charged. Suggests adding a clause to reflect this.

• Fee exemption for community groups / clubs / community events

- The submission from the North Shore Cricket Club (4) requested an amendment to the proposed bylaw to specifically prevent the charging of fees for organisations whose purpose is the provision of amateur organised sport and recreational activities.

- The submission from ARPHS (416) recommends that fees be kept to a minimum to cover administrative costs only and not used as a means to generate revenue. Fees should be waived for non-profit events as they add to improving communities. .

- Submissions 834 and 1267 also commented on the impact of fees and compliance costs on

community, or not-for-profit groups.

54. Staff comment The proposed bylaw only prescribes the ability for Auckland Council to set fees – the actual fee schedule forms part of the Long Term Plan (due to be public consulted on in early 2015). While

49

fundraising activities by large organisations are required to obtain approval there is no fee on the basis that charging a not-for-profit group is counter-productive to the purpose of this activity. There are different fees for each activity and it is proposed that fees will vary across the region depending on location.

55. Clause 13 – Display of approvals

• No submissions received on this matter.

56. Clause 14 – Review of approvals



Submission number

General comments 1 1046

• SKYCITY’s submission (1046) states that the following amendment be made to clause 14(1) (c) to include the following:

“the activity authorised in the approval is likely to impact on public health and safety or cause an unreasonable nuisance, and/or obstruction or unreasonable damage recognising the nature and scale of the activity.”

57. Staff comment

Staff support any amendments to the bylaw for reasons of clarity and ease of understanding. Staff recommend that amendments and / or additional clauses be decided on after the Hearings on the bylaw – and prior to formal adoption.

50

Submission Topic 4: Markets and stalls

58. Clause 15 – Markets and Stalls



Submission number

Requirement to have approval 6 715, 723, 731, 733, 1049, 1193

Approval conditions 2 733, 1276 Access to healthy food markets 1 416 Exemptions for one-off stalls 1 733 Proximity rule to limit stalls 2 478, 1056 Smokefree markets and stalls 2 414, 1277 Amendment to clauses 1 1287

The submissions on markets and stalls commented on the following issues:

• Requirement to have approval

- Submissions 715,723, 731 – supports continuation of the requirement to obtain approval. Recommends that where a market is proposed to be located within a business improvement district, permission be obtained from the relevant business association manager. The St Heliers Village Association (1193) also supports notification of approvals issued for markets and stalls and that applications be assessed with consideration of the impact on fixed businesses. Submissions 733 and 1049 also agrees with requirement for approval.

• Approval conditions

- In regards to the approval conditions the Mangere Town Centre Business Association (733) questions, whether it is a ‘double up’ to set food hygiene standards when these are regulated through separate Food Hygiene Regulations. Submission 1276 also stated that reference to compliance with food hygiene regulations is over-regulatory and adds to the costs for market and stall operators.

• Access to healthy food markets - The Auckland Regional Public Health Service’s submission (414) recommends that the

council looks at increasing access to healthy food markets and stalls, particularly in areas of deprivation. In the case of markets, clarification is sought on who is responsible for non-compliance (the market operator or the individual stall operator).

• Exemptions for one-off stalls

- The Mangere Town Centre Business Association (733) agrees that small, one- off ventures such as a business selling goods from an ‘honesty’ box outside their property should not have to get approval. Comments it appears that the bylaw does not provide for this exemption

• Proximity rule to limit stalls

- Submission 478 commented on the impact of stalls / mobile units providing coffee during work hours within an established business district on fixed business operators. Suggests that there should be a location restriction on mobile shops of at least one kilometre away from a business district. Manurewa Local Board (1056) also supports a proximity rule limiting the number of stalls at one location.

• Smokefree markets and stalls

51

- The submission from the Cancer Society (1277) and Auckland Regional Public Health Service (414) supports smokefree markets and stalls.

• Amendment to clauses

- Submission 1287 queried two of the approval conditions with particular reference to clauses 15 (1)(a) and (b) with a recommendation that the word “exact” be removed and that council should not be micro-managing locations.

59. Staff comment

Staff note the comments on issues such as having a proximity rule – which was done by at least three legacy councils. The main issue with setting a distance rule is that what may be an acceptable restriction ( for example, one kilometre) in a densely populated centre may be too restrictive in areas such as rural ones. On the matter of smokefree markets and stalls, this could be a condition of the approval. Notes comments on the exemption for honesty boxes which recommends a clause to cover this activity.

52

Submission Topic 5: Mobile shops

60. Clause 16 – Mobile Shops



Submission number

Requirement to have approval 3 733, 814, 1049, Approval conditions 1 416 Application for approval should not be granted to vendors near / in a town centre

3 210, 414, 727

Mobile vendors should not be located within a certain distance of a fixed business ( proximity rule)

6 478, 715, 723, 731, 1193

Mobile vendors offering financial services

2 208, 415

Mobile vendors should be encouraged

3 42, 816

Business associations should have pre-approval for mobile vendors

1 1037

Mobile food operators should detail food preparation

1 416

Addition or amendment to clauses 4 1037, 1046, 1277, 1287

The submissions on mobile shops commented on the following issues:

• Requirement to have approval - Submission 733 does not support approval for mobile shops operating in or near a town

centre. Elsewhere, the MTCBA (733) and Ponsonby Business Associations (1049) agrees that mobile traders must obtain approval from the Council under the new Bylaw and pay an annual fee. Both submitters agree that when giving approval, the Bylaw should give Council the ability to apply conditions such as exact location, types of goods and the days and hours to manage impact.

- Submission 814 – supports having a bylaw and would like to see opportunities for a street cart food festival without it being too difficult to obtain approval.


- Submitter 416 recommends that in the case of a mobile shop selling food, if it is prepared off-site there should be a requirement to detail where it is being prepared and how it is being transported to the mobile shop

• Application for approval should not be granted to vendors near / in a town centre

- A number of submitters spoke about the impact of mobile vendors on fixed businesses. The

Panmure Business Association (210) does not wish to see mobile trucks parking in town centres car parks for business. Similarly, the submitter is concerned of the impact mobile fruit and vegetable trucks are having on fixed businesses that also sell produce

- Submission 414 commented that licences for this activity should be abolished and they

either acquire space like a fixed business or, operate at a market or event where a fee is charged. Submitter comments that mobile traders should not be issued a licence on the grounds that it would minimise the costs to council to enforce as well as reduce the likelihood for substandard goods being offered. Local business operators should also be

53

able to have a say on who can operate and the type of displays. Mobile traders who do continue to operate must ensure they comply with the new bylaw.

- Submission 727 comments that mobile traders should be banned from the CBD on the

basis that they are offering services that are already provided for by fixed businesses who are already paying a number of overheads.

• Mobile vendors should not be located within a certain distance of a fixed business (

proximity rule) - Submission 478 recommends that mobile shops should not be located within a minimum of

one kilometre of a town centre / business areas. Queries what is an appropriate level of mobile trading when most areas are already well serviced by fixed businesses.

- Submissions 715,723, 731 support continuation of requirement for mobile operators to obtain approval. Recommends that mobile traders should not be permitted to operate within 500 metres of a town centre or a business improvement district (BID) boundary unless permission has been obtained from the relevant manager. The St Heliers Village Association (1193) also supports a proximity rule whereby a mobile ship cannot operate within a minimum of 500 metres of a town centre.

• Mobile vendors offering financial services

- Submissions 208 and 415 expressed concern about the effects some mobile shop operators who are offering a financial service and recommended that the clause on location (clause 19(a)) be amended to minimise the impact on the social and economic wellbeing of a local area as a result of these operators. The submitter also recommended an amendment to the wording on the quality and standard of services (clause 19(b)) being offered, to include a requirement that operators offering a financial service must be registered under the Financial Services Providers (Registration And Dispute Resolution) Act 2008.

• Mobile vendors should be encouraged

- Two submissions were from mobile traders. Submission 42 commented that they have been operating for two and a half years and that mobile traders add diversity to the community is a growing worldwide trend and concerned about any impact the bylaw would have on ability to trade.

- Submission 816 who has been selling Christmas trees for a number of years from a carpark

(adjacent to a park). Opposes any restrictions on mobile traders and would like to see short-term seasonal traders be given the opportunity to operate in spaces that are generally used by longer-term mobile operators. Recommends that one approach to managing the number of traders in a particular location would be to allow operators who are there nearly 6 months to all year round, to have some limits on trading over seasonal times such as Christmas and Guy Fawkes. Recommends an annual schedule of traders so that all operators are aware of who is trading and when.

• Business associations should have pre-approval for mobile vendors

- Submission 1037 commented, that while mobile vendors can add to vitality, there needs be consideration that they can have on fixed businesses. Supports having a clear process for determining where mobile shops can be located and they should only be enabled to trade in areas where they do not have a negative impact on the surrounding environment. Supports business associations having an opportunity to provide feedback on applications for mobile traders.


- Submitter 1037 recommends an amendment to clause 16(b) to include: “the location, hours or days that the mobile shop occupies a public place at any one time”.

54

- SKYCITY’s submission (1046) recommends adding an extra clause so that consideration is given to affected land users: 16(1)(e): where a mobile shop and any associated signs and displays are to be located adjacent to other retail outlets, whether any effects on surrounding land users, traffic and amenity have been considered and can be appropriately mitigated”.

- The Cancer Society’s submission (1277) recommends that an additional clause be added

that mobile shop operators should not smoke within or nearby the shop. No sales of any tobacco products should be permitted.

- Submission 1287 recommended that the word “exact” be removed from clause 16 (1)(a) as

the council should not be micro-managing locations.

61. Staff comment As per the above comments regarding proximity rules for markets and stalls, the same comment applies to mobile shops. Staff are aware of the concerns from fixed businesses about the impacts of mobile shops on operators who have overheads and other costs. There are also safety considerations as well (especially where the mobile vendor is located on a busy road). One potential solution is to allow for local business associations to work with council staff to identify areas where mobile traders may be restricted. Staff note the comments from two mobile vendors and the recommendation regarding time limits on mobile traders who occupy an area for more than 6 months of the year, especially during seasonal periods. Staff agree that an annual schedule of traders would be a good way to manage space allocation. The submissions on mobile traders offering financial services is noted as staff are becoming aware that this is an issue and there are currently no mechanisms for deterring or managing this activity. Note comments on recommended amendments to clauses.

55

Submission Topic 6: Outdoor dining Clause 17 – Outdoor dining



Submission number

General comments 6 478, 711, 1056, 1276, 1278, 1289,

Requirement to have approval 4 715, 723, 731, 1052 Approval conditions 1 733 Fees for outdoor dining 4 414,733,1049, 1193 Smokefree outdoor dining 2 733, 1049, Minimum unobstructed footpath width / clear accessway along building

4 733, 1049, 1278, 1289

Addition or amendment to clauses 3 1046, 1277, 1291

The submissions on outdoor dining commented on the following issues:

• General comments - Submission 478 agreed that there needs to be controls on outdoor dining to ensure that key

principles such as accessibility, loss of public space and vibrancy. Agrees that guidelines supporting the bylaw need to be in place but they should not a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Also commented that fees need to be ‘area specific’ to reflect differences.

- Submission 711 commented on the impact of outdoor tables and chairs from the adjacent premise on their trading operations, including obstructions and smoking. Proposal seems too general on tables and chairs.

- The submission from Grey Lynn Neighbourhood Support (1276) commented that while they supported the vibrancy created by outdoor dining, better management was needed so that café seating does not take over the public space and cause obstructions.

- Submission 814 opposes any restrictions on the ability to engage in outdoor dining.

- Manurewa Local Board (1056) supports the ability for people to be able to move freely past outdoor dining area.

- Both West Auckland Trust Services Limited (1278) and the Hospitality Association of New Zealand (1289) commented on a number of aspects of the proposal and in sum the main points were: - that outdoor dining does not contribute to clutter and cause obstructions as current

bylaws provide adequate provisions on size and style of furniture and structures. Additionally, licensed premises are also bound by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, which contains provisions that relate to the ‘amenity and good order’ of the locality, noise management and other conditions.

- does not agree that outdoor dining leads to loss of public space as the Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCOP) manual already sets out zones for pedestrian flow;

- acknowledges that furniture and structures associated with outdoor dining can have an impact on visual amenity however current bylaws require furniture to be in good condition and any further requirements are unnecessary

- clear examples of requirements for demarcation are contained in the Auckland City Council policy on outdoor dining

- generally of the view that there is sufficient legislation or other mechanisms to deal with noise, health and safety, and any further controls through a bylaw imposes unnecessary conditions on good operators.

56

- licensed premises are already subject to regulations on noise and disorderly behaviour. There is no support for reduced trading hours, further restrictions or a requirement for extra staff to be on duty in outdoor areas.

• Requirement to have approval

- Submissions 715,723,731 supports requirement to have approval.

- Submission 1052 supports requirement for a consistent approach for approvals and fees as well as furniture and other elements. Queries whether it is the council’s responsibility to delineate an approved area (or the approval holder) as well as approving the number of associated furniture.


- Submission 733 commented on what is meant by ‘clear visibility’ for awnings stating the clause should be amended to allow for opaque sides.

• Fees for outdoor dining - Submission 414 commented on fees for outdoor dining and the impact this would have on

areas where previously there had been no charge (refer to comments under Submission topic 2).

- Both the Mangere Town Centre (733) and Ponsonby Business Associations queried whether fees should be charged for rental of a public space. Fees need to be reasonable. The St Heliers Village Association (1193) also cited that costs should not be so arduous they become a deterrent to businesses.

• Smokefree outdoor dining

- Two submissions (733 and 1049) does not support the bylaw’s inclusion of any reference to outdoor smoking nor any reference that outdoor dining is a privatisation of public space. (Note that further comments on smokefree dining areas can be found under Submission topic 14).

• Minimum unobstructed footpath width / clear accessway along buildings

- Two submissions (733 and 1049) support the inclusion of a minimum unobstructed width of no less than 1.8 metres.

- West Auckland Trust Services Limited (1278) does not support the approach that a clear

accessway should be maintained against the building. Support requirement for a minimum unobstructed footpath width of 1.8 metres however this should be either against the building or kerbside. This was also the view of the Hospitality Association (1289) in terms of allowing flexibility to have outdoor dining areas located against the building frontage or at kerbside, or in some cases, both.

• Additional or amendment to clauses

- SKYCITY’s submission (1046) recommends amending clause 17(1)(d): “that any front and side awnings that have been given approval allow for clear visibility do not obstruct the visibility of road and footpath users or otherwise compromise the safety of users in a shared space”.

- Submission 836 recommends adding a clause restricting the use of signage, plants and

other street furniture used by the hospitality industry placing tables and chairs in the street. - The Cancer Society’s submission (1277) recommends adding a clause that outdoor dining

areas are smokefree and signs should be displayed.

57

- Submission 1291 recommends that clause 11 (Approval conditions) be amended to include design specifications for furniture and displays to ensure they do not present a hazard and are detectable both visually and with a long cane.

62. Staff comment

As per previous comments, the requirement to have approval, and keep a minimum unobstructed footpath width, as well as the placement of furniture, were provisions in legacy bylaws on outdoor dining. While the bylaw provides for the setting of fees, the actual fee plus the process for setting fees is beyond the scope of the bylaw. That is to be considered as part of the Long Term Plan. Regarding smokefree dining, the proposed bylaw’s only reference to smokefree is in clause 10(2) of the Auckland Council bylaw. As discussed under submission topic 15 (Smokefree outdoor dining), this matter is to be considered as part of a wider work programme on smokefree public places when a review under the Smokefree Policy 2013 as to whether a bylaw is needed, is undertaken.

58

Submission Topic 7: Fundraising

63. Clause 18 - Fundraising



Submission number

General comments 16 5, 17, 417, 418,476, 477, 719, 733, 848, 857, 927, 940,1049, 1052, 1056, 1088, 1190

Role of the PFRA 3 487, 1037, 1193 Impact on small fundraising operators for requirement to obtain approval

3 4, 238, 832

Requirement to obtain approval 4 715,723,731,1193 Addition to or amendment to clauses 3 417, 1037, 1287,

The submissions on fundraising commented on the following issues:


- Submissions 5, 17, 418,476, 477, 719, 848, 857, 927, 940,1052,1088,1190 are from charity organisations (refer to Table 4 of the report for the list) and all support fundraising continuing to be regulated by a bylaw. They also supported an exemption from the requirement to pay a fee.

- The submission from the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA) (417) supports continuing to work with the council to regulate direct dialogue fundraising.

- Submission 733 and 1049 supports that requirement that organisations obtain approval and that they are registered with the Department of Internal Affairs. Also supports conditions on location and times where they do not cause a nuisance and should be a specific condition set out in the bylaw.

- The Manurewa Local Board (submission 1056) commented that the people do not want to be approached for money all the time.

• Role of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA)

- Submission 487 supports ensuring that fundraisers are regulated, legitimate, not too

frequent, do not cause an obstruction or intimidate people and businesses. Acknowledges the role of the PFRA is managing those charitable organisations that are registered with them. Recommends that mechanisms are in place whereby licences are given to appropriate charities rather than a blanket licence as they create problems.

- Both submissions from the Heart of the City (1037) and , St Heliers Village Association’s

(1193) acknowledged the role of the PFRA in managing the fundraising process by ensuring that groups are legitimate and comply with the regulations in place. Commented that some fundraisers are often aggressive and the regularity with which they are fundraising can be problematic.

• Impact of bylaw on small scale fundraising activities

- The submission from the North Shore Cricket Club (4) was concerned that regulation of fundraising may have an impact on sports club who undertake these activities as a form of revenue generation. is The submitter cited that the various definitions in the bylaw including ‘trading in public places’ and ‘events’ and the impact these have on fundraising activities on

59

the club. (Refer to comments under paragraph 39, ‘Clause 5 – Interpretation’, regarding the definitions).

- Submission 238 does not wish to see small scale fundraising events undertaken by

students for school trips be required to obtain approval as it is impractical. Similarly, Submission 832 opposes any impact the bylaw would have school or similar (sports or culture) due to excessive regulation.

• Requirement to obtain approval

- Submissions 715,723,731 - supports continuation of requirement for organisations wanting to seek donations in a public place to obtain approval. Acknowledges the work of the PFRA in co-ordinating the roster of charity collectors and recommends that the approval states that collectors must comply with the directives of the PFRA.

- The St Heliers Village Association (1193) would like details on the applications approved

and, would like a clear directive from the council on the approval process for local groups whom the association would give preference too.

• Addition to or amendment to clauses

- Submission 417 recommends that clause 18(a) of the proposed bylaw be amended to the following: a requirement that the applicant is registered as a charity with the Department of Internal Affairs and/or be registered as having donee status with the Inland Revenue.

- Submission 1037 recommends the inclusion of an additional condition to clause 18 to the

following: 18(1) “(d) the location and hours of collections”

- Submission 1287 queried whether the term “requirement” (for clause 18(a)) be replaced with “recommended”.

64. Staff comment

Staff note the comments and in particular, the references to small-scale fundraisers. Staff recommend the addition of an explanatory note that the bylaw does not apply to fundraising activities undertaken as part of a club fundraising event. Staff also note the amendments to certain clauses and note that overall, submitters were generally supportive of the bylaw’s approach in addressing this activity.

60

Submission Topic 8: Offering commercial services

65. Clause 19 – Offering commercial services



Submission number

Requirement for approval 6 478,733,1037, 1049, 1276, 1087

Impact on local areas 2 1193, 1287 Amendment to clause 1 836

The submissions on offering commercial services commented on the following issues:

• Requirement for approval

- Submission 478 supports having some control on operators offering commercial services to minimise the impact on fixed businesses. Issues such as traffic safety, impacts on visual amenity and loss of public space (from storage on a public place by equipment hire operators). The submitter did support the role of some services (such as kayak hire or guided tour operators) in improving the users’ experience of a public place.

- The submissions from the Mangere Town Centre (733) and Ponsonby Business Association

(1049) support the requirement for approval and a fee for activities such recreational equipment hire and boot camps. Queries whether the bylaw’s intention to set conditions on location; quality and standard of services is too broad.

- Submission 1037 supports requirement to get approval for commercial activities carried out

in parks and beaches and agrees with the list of conditions attached.

Submission 1276 opposed approvals being granted to outdoor gym operators on the grounds they should not be allowed to monopolise public space.

- Two submissions (1037 and 1087) supported exemptions for boot camps from the requirement to obtain approval to carry out activities in a public place. Submission 1087 – who runs an outdoor fitness operation - does not support the requirement to obtain approval and pay a fee on the grounds that this would deter people from getting fit and healthy as the costs would be passed on members.

• Impact on local areas

- The submission from the St Heliers Village Association (1193) commented that some of the issues associated with mobile traders can also be attributed to this type of activity and, due to the size of St Heliers, there is no room for this activity. If an approval is granted it should be for an activity that is not already provided and the notification is given of the approval. The association do support recreational activities that enhance visitor experience such as kayak or bike hire.

- Submission 1287 supported the provision around the potential impact of the activity on local businesses querying whether information (on the application) would be provided at a local business level for comment.

• Amendment to clause

- Submission 836 recommended that the entire clause be amended and remove the words “quality” and “potential impact” as this is considered subjective and could disadvantage commercial operators.

66. Staff comment

61

This is a relatively new activity, with only the legacy North Shore, Auckland City and Auckland Regional Councils’ bylaws having any controls on activities such as hiring recreational equipment or guided walks. Notes that there are two views on whether boot camps and fitness camps should be required to get approval. Staff note that in conversations with council staff from the Parks, Sport and Recreation department, they are of the view an exemption for boot camp operators is preferred on the grounds that they are providing a community service. Fitness operators are already undertaking classes in some parks across Auckland and are not required to obtain approval – although they must comply with guidelines managing this activity. As part of the overall implementation of this bylaw staff are preparing guidelines to manage the offering of commercial services as it is becoming increasingly popular, especially during the summer months.

62

Submission Topic 9: Distribution of promotional goods and material

67. Clause 20 - Distribution of promotional goods and material



Submission number

Requirement for approval 7 478,715,723, 731, 846, 1037, 1193,

Approval conditions 3 733, 814, 1049, Regulation of the activity by bylaw 2 842, 1276

The submissions on the distribution of promotional goods and material commented on the following issues:


- Submissions 478 and 1193 supports controlling this activity by the proposed bylaw in order to minimise any potential impacts such as excessive littering and obstructions. The submitters recommend that the local business associations should have some input into the licence approval process, particularly on location. Compliance with other bylaws such as the [Solid] waste bylaw and Waste Management and Minimisation Plan should be a consideration.

- Submissions 715,723,731,846 and 1037 supports requirement to have approval. Submitter 846 stated that the permit for undertaking this activity is a ‘win win’ for both local businesses and promotion agencies.


- Submissions 733 and 1049 are concerned about the impact of the clause (20(1)(e)) - restricting ‘content’ of material - on freedom of expression stating that it is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. Also states that while the proposal outlines how small scale not-for-profit groups are exempt from requirement to obtain approval, the bylaw itself does not provide for this. Does not agree that there is sufficient justification for a bylaw to address one of the main issues associated with this activity. Submitter 1049 also contends that the bylaw may go too far and as the host of the ‘Pride Parade’ is concerned about the implications.

- Submission 814 supports having less stringent controls on this activity. Cites that currently it is the not-for-profit and charitable institutions that are dominating most areas. Agrees with the potential to charge a bond for cleaning the area although does not feel that the option of getting operators to out contact details on material is enforceable. Supports having large areas such as parks and squares an appropriate place for having these activities. Agrees that some of these activities are similar to a street performance or event and that any assessment of a request to undertake this activity include whether it has a positive or negative impact on the public. Request that if a business improvement district wishes to undertake this activity that the controls are less stringent.

• Regulation of the activity by bylaw

- Submission 842 represents the industry that is undertaking the activity. Their submission highlights that this is an emerging activity and support the bylaw’s proposal to regulate it. Some of the main points raised in their submission includes wanting to: - work with the council to advise on effective management of this situation and share

insights from working with other councils; - offer the council a code of conduct from relevant agencies that will mean the best

operators are working with the council and therefore avoid guerrilla or annoying/damaging activities occurring;

- advise the council on revenue generation

63

- provide case studies on how Auckland can be improved in experiential marketing - provide support and advice on commercial opportunities at major events in Auckland.

- The same submitter also commented that historically there has been a lack of clarity as to

which permits are required and locations have often been doubled booked. Some experiential campaigns have had short lead in times and this has been the issue when applying for permits.

- Submission 1276 opposed any impact the regulation of this activity would have on small

businesses that rely on leaflet drop-offs to generate business.

68. Staff comment Staff note the comments, particularly from EMANZ (Submission 842), whom staff have been working with in order to develop provisions in the bylaw to manage this activity. This is a new provision as the only legacy council that had any reference to promotional goods and materials was Auckland City Council. The purpose of the bylaw is to ensure that this activity is undertaken in a way that minimises the impact on the surrounding environment and that the activity is legitimate – without impacting on any Bill of Rights provision on freedom of speech and expression. The bylaw is aimed more at the large scale activities which generally similar to an event, rather than the small business operator handing out leaflets or free samples of food outside their premises. Compliance with other bylaws, in particular the Solid Waste Bylaw 2012 regarding littering, is a key matter and anybody undertaking this activity would be required to ensure that they comply with other controls.

64

Submission Topic 10: Street performances and pavement artists

69. Clauses 21 and 22 - Street performances and pavement artists



Submission number

Requirement for approval 5 478, 715, 723, 731, 814 Approval conditions 6 715, 723, 731,1037,1277, 1291 Role of town centre manager / business associations in approval.

5 210,733,1049,1056,1193,

Addition or amendment to clauses 2 1037, 1291 Pavement artists – freedom of expression

2 733, 1049

The submissions on the street performers and pavement artists commented on the following issues:


- Submission 478 supports controlling this activity by the proposed bylaw in order to minimise any potential impacts such as excessive littering and obstructions. The submitter supports having a temporary licence and if the street performers cannot perform then they are not issued with a full licence. Recommend that there should be a vetting process for street performers. Submissions 715, 723 and 731 also support requirement to have approval.

- Submission 814 supports the intended outcome of street performances and pavement artists and a streamlined process especially if the business improvement district is looking to undertake a particular event that involves busking.


- Submission 715,723,731 recommends that as a condition of any approval street performers be required to relocate if requested to do so by a business association manager due to them causing a nuisance for businesses.

- Submission 1037 would like to review the use of amplification as a default provision and would like to see this as a ‘by exemption’ and only in relevant locations in the city centre.

- The Cancer Society’s submission (1277) recommends a condition should be added that street performers and pavement artists must operate in a smokefree manner at all times.

• Role of town centre manager / business associations in approval.

- Submission 210 states that street performers must be made aware when issued a licence that their performance may have a potential impact of the local businesses and should move if asked by a business or by Business Association staff.

- Submissions 733 and 1049 commented on the role of town centre manager in issuing approval. Supported having a reference in the bylaw to the Street Performer’s Code of Conduct. Main concern for submitter is the quality of the performance and the length of time for playing.

- Submission 1193 also supported allowing business associations to have a role in the approval process and acknowledged that while good street performances can add to the vibrancy of an area, bad and arrogant ones can have a negative impact.

65

- Manurewa Local Board (1056) supports enabling business associations to have an opportunity to decide on allocating time and space for street performers and also commented that there are problems with buskers who are also begging.


- Submission 1037 would like to work with the council to identify sites where busking can take place and recommends the inclusion to clause 21 of the following: - (4) “The council may, from time to time, designate specific areas where street

performers are permitted or prohibited” - (5) “Street performers must follow the Street performers code of conduct”

- Submission 1291 recommends adding a clause that street performances should not be

located in such a way that it will impede the continuous accessible path of travel (CAPT) during performances or block access routes.

• Pavement artists – freedom of expression

- On pavement artists, submissions 733 and 1049 queried whether the prohibition on advertising in pavement art is a contravention of freedom of expression.

70. Staff comment

Staff note that generally submitters support the requirement for approval for street performances and that business associations should have a role in deciding an application. The comment on amplification has been raised as an issue by staff and the review of the street performers code of conduct gives the council a opportunity to re-assess how to deal with this issue. Additions or amendments to clauses will be considered after the Hearings. On the issue of pavement artists and freedom of expression, the condition prohibiting advertising, is in the Auckland City Council’s Code of Conduct for pavement artists.

66

Submission Topic 11: Events and filming

71. Clauses 23 – Events (and filming)



Submission number

General comments 4 414, 842, 1276, 1277 Requirement for approval 7 715, 723, 731, 733, 1037,

1049, 1276 Impact on person taking photos or making a short video

2 2, 727

Addition to or amendment to clauses 1 1046

• General comments - The submission from Auckland Regional Public Health Service (414) and the Cancer

Society (1277) supports smokefree events.

- Submission 842 commented that a clear and easily accessible calendar of events should be made available and managed appropriately.

- Submission 1276 supports the ability for the community to have street parties and street

markets.

• Requirement for approval for events and filming - Submissions 715, 723, 731, 733, 1037 and 1049 support continuing the requirement to

obtain approval to film in a public place and, that permission from the relevant business association is given if filming is to occur in a business improvement district boundary. Submitter 1049 supports continuing to regulate Ponsonby Market Days under the “Events’ section of the bylaw.

• Role of business associations in approval

- Submission 478 supported the requirement that the proposed bylaw would minimise the impact of events and filming on obstructions of public places, public safety, noise and litter but wants to avoid excessive regulation for small-scale events. Special consideration also needs to be given to the role of local business associations in providing events for their communities and this also needs to be reflected in the fees structure. Submission 1193 also commented on the role of business associations in facilitating events and more consultation is needed when a regional event is to take place.

- Submission 814 supports notification of a business improvement district in the case of an

application or approval of an event and would like to see this continue. Would like to see a more streamlined process for applying for events.

- Regarding filming, Submission 1193 commented that this activity in or around a town centre

can cause disruptions to businesses and would like to be included in early negotiations to avoid any clashes.

• Impact on person taking photos or making a short video

- Submission 2 was concerned about the impact the proposed rule on filming, and the requirement to obtain approval, would have on a person taking photographs or video for their own use. The exemptions from the requirement for approval are for private events and news activities not for tourists or a film club. The rule needs to be redefined.

- Submission 727 commented that the requirement to obtain approval for filming should only

be necessary if it will cause a disruption to the public. Commented that the bylaw is vague 67

in regards to whether approval would be needed for making a short video about the area. Also commented that the costs and fees associated with holding a community event are becoming a deterrent for organisers.

• Amendment to clauses

- SKYCITY’s submission (1046) recommended the following amendments: - clause 23(1)(b): “whether there will be significant disruption to traffic flows or public

passage and how any such adverse effects can be avoided, remedied and mitigated.” - new sub-clause 23(1)(d): “the extent to which the event (or series of events) is likely to

provide a positive contribution to the amenity and vibrancy of an area, and the likely economic benefits that may arise from the event (or series of events).”

72. Staff comment

Staff note the comments on wording and re-defining the clauses to remove any ambiguity, particularly in relation to filming. Notes the comments on having an events calendar, which was previously the topic of discussion during the development of the Auckland Council Events Policy.

68

Submission Topic 12: Outdoor display of goods (clause 24)

73. Clauses 24 – Outdoor display of goods



Submission number

Exemption from requirement to have approval

2 727, 1037

General comments 3 478,1276,1291 Additional or amendment to clause 5 733, 836, 1049, 1277, 1287 Enforcement 2 733, 1049

• Exemption from requirement to have approval

- Submission 727 commented that it was unfair that some businesses could have displays without gaining consent while others areas of hospitality have to obtain approval. Opposes any fee associated with this activity.

- Submission 1037 supports the rational for removing the requirement for approvals for

outdoor displays in association with adjacent businesses as it reduces administrative costs. The default position for the city centre is that no outdoor business displays are permitted. This is the current provision in the existing bylaw, and is especially applicable to the new shared space zones as any display adjacent to the building line impedes on the accessible zone.


- Submission 478 commented that each local area needs to have the ability to be able to define its local identity and outdoor displays can reinforce this. Individual town centres must be able to showcase their own unique style rather than conform to regional conditions. Displays may need to be customised to suit the spaces that they are occupying.

- The submission from Grey Lynn Neighbourhood Support (1276) commented on the impact

on other footpath users as a result of an outdoor business display occupying too much space. From their perspective this is a health and safety issue and also causes a nuisance for people with mobility issues or using prams. Also commented on sandwich boards and rubbish bins causing obstructions.

- Submission 1291 recommends that some form of design guidance on displays including

size and that displays should be located curb side.

• Additional or amendment to clause - On clause 24 (1) (f): “not be placed in a carriageway, driveway, footpath, crossing, grass

verge or traffic island”, the following comments were made: - Submissions 733 and 1049 - the term ‘footpath’ should be removed. Submission 727

also commented on ‘footpaths’. - Submission 836 – the term ‘driveway’ should be removed as most driveways are

privately owned hence beyond council jurisdiction. - Submission 1287 - the inclusion of the word “usually” to this clause.

- The Cancer Society’s submission (1277) recommended that an additional clause be

included that tobacco products should not be displayed or sold and smokefree signs are displayed.

• Enforcement

- Submissions 733 and 1049 questioned whether councils’ enforcement teams would assist the town centre manager in enforcing the conditions set for outdoor business displays.

69

74. Staff comment

Staff note the comments on exemptions from requirement to have approval, plus the comments on the use of the word ‘footpath’ and ‘driveway’. This clause will be amended following the Hearings and prior to formal adoption. Legacy councils varied in terms of whether this activity should be exempt, and the rationale for exempting it in the proposed bylaw is due to the administrative complexity of the approval process. Staff agrees that there should be some local variation in terms of the types of displays.

70

Submission Topic 13: Trading activities in parks and reserves (Clause 6(2))

75. Clause 6(2) - Trading activities in parks and reserves



Submission number

Requirement for approval for an activity in a park

3 478, 733, 1049

• Submitters 478, 733 and 1049 supported the provisions regulating trading activities in parks

and reserves.

76. Staff comment No general comments to make on this one. The purpose of the provision regarding the requirement to obtain approval for trading in a park or reserve is to formalise a process that is already in place in terms of having to obtain landowner approval as well as a trading permit.

71

Submission Topic 14: Enforcement powers, offence and penalties, savings, transitional provisions and revocations

77. Clause 25 (Non-compliance) and clause 28 ( bylaw breaches)



Submission number

Non-compliance with conditions of approval

1 1046

Bylaw breaches 1 16

• Non-compliance with conditions of approval - SKYCITY’s submission (1049) generally supported clauses 25 – 27 but commented an

additional condition under clause 25(2) should be that “no further action” is required.

• Bylaw breaches - The submission from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (16) suggested

that Auckland Council look at implementing systems to deal with traders who were breaching the bylaw, and the conditions of their licence, through unsatisfactory trading practices or malpractice. Cited that Scottish local authorities had found this a “useful ‘tool’ that could be used (with suitable checks and balances) to take swift and effective action in appropriate cases”. Cited that a multi-agency taskforce targeting the Counties Manukau area is looking at ways to reduce / eliminate malpractice and trading breaches.

78. Staff comment

No general staff comment. Note recommendation to add another condition. The comment on bylaw breaches is an operational issue that could be addressed via any approval conditions.

72

Submission Topic 15: Smokefree outdoor dining (and other areas)

79. Matters raised in submissions

• 1354 submissions were received on smokefree places, of which 1349 of them were pro-formas. The Cancer Society formulated an on-line submission form on its website inviting people to submit their support for smokefree outdoor dining places. There was also a hard copy submission form and a formal letter template. A number of the pro-formas contained comments on why they supported smokefree dining with the most common themes being: - health reasons - impact on non-smoking diners ( and the quality of the dining experience) and restaurant

staff - impact on other users of public places - litter

• There were five submissions that were non-proforma and the matters raised included the

following: • Auckland Regional Public Health Service (416) sees the proposed bylaw as the key

mechanism for progressing some of the recommendations of the Auckland Council Smokefree Policy 2013. It recommends a requirement that all markets and stalls, outdoor dining and events be 100% smokefree.

• The submission from the Heart Foundation (848) also called for smokefree outdoor dining areas, events on council land, and other relevant public places such as markets and stalls. They recommend that smokefree is stated explicitly in the bylaw and included as a condition of their licence for businesses or event organisers. That as a condition of a licence adequate signage is put in place. Submitter 1026 also supported this and recommended adding another condition regarding the sale of tobacco in outdoor public places.

• Submitter (852) supports banning smoking in outdoor dining areas using an example from overseas where there is a proximity rule for smoking near entrances and exits to buildings.

• The submission from the Auckland Division of the Cancer Society (1277) recommends that the wording in the bylaw should be amended in regards to smokefree outdoor dining and that it should also be extended to include events, markets and stalls and, signage. The main points of their submission have been discussed under the specific topic areas but summarised are that the bylaw should be amended to: - include more references to alignment with Smokefree Policy - include definitions of ‘smoke’, ‘smokefree’ and ‘smokefree signage’ - approval conditions for trading activities and events should be compliant with and give effect

to the Smokefree Policy. - The submitter give a number of reasons for supporting this outcome and are include on

pages 12 – 19 of their submission.

80. Staff comment As discussed earlier, the proposed bylaw, that was publicly consulted on makes no direct reference to smokefree public places, with the only reference being a mention, as part of a condition, compliance with the Smokefree Policy. Council staff note the volume of submissions in support of this however recommend that rather than amend the bylaw, reconsider bringing forward the review of the bylaw as part of the Smokefree Policy 2013. A key component of having a bylaw will be ensuring that adequate resources are in place for enforcement, including staff, signage and public notification.

73

Submission Topic 16: Other matters

81. Two matters that were also raised in submissions that were not explicitly mentioned in the proposed bylaw but are considered in scope of the proposal include the following:

(1) Shared spaces



Submission number

Adding references to “shared spaces” in the bylaw.

1 1046

Development of guidelines for shared spaces 2 1037, 1046

• SKYCITY’s submission (1046) commented on the lack of provision for “shared spaces” in the proposed bylaw, a concept which requires a different approach. Main points of the submission on shared spaces are: - the existing approach to street trading and outdoor dining licensing does not cater for

shared spaces - the minimum unobstructed footpath width of 1.8m is not appropriate for shared spaces and

should not apply to these areas - include definition of ‘shared space’ and a new clause for managing trading and events in

shared space - the appropriateness of the bylaw for shared spaces will depend including specific

provisions and assessment criteria for these areas - the development of specific shared space operational guidelines by Auckland Council,

Auckland Transport and relevant stakeholders to guide how these areas should be used. - the different nature of a shared space may result in consequential changes to the some of

the clauses in the bylaw ( especially for markets, events and outdoor dining).

• Heart of the City’s submission (1037) also noted the importance of developing site specific guidelines for shared spaces.

(2) Operational Policy Manual / guidelines


Number of


Development of an operational policy manual / guidelines

4 733, 1037, 1046, 1049

• Four submissions noted that there was a reference to guidelines in the proposed bylaw and

the main points were: - Submissions 733 and 1049 stated that it is difficult to make comment on bylaw in the

absence of referring to the “guidelines, standards and controls” mentioned in clause 7 of the proposed bylaw

- The submission from Skycity (1046) commented that the development of guidelines - or Operational Policy Manual - should be done in consultation with relevant stakeholders – or subject to public consultation.

- Submission 1037 commented that as part of the development of the Operations Policy Manual submitter wants to explore how to permanently reduce the number of locations available to fundraisers in the city centre.

82. Staff comment

Staff note the comments on ‘shared spaces’ and will amend the bylaw accordingly. As per an earlier comment on guidelines for shared spaces, and acknowledging the different requirements for these areas, staff in consultation with key stakeholders, will look at developing a set of

74

principles to guide how these spaces are managed. An Operation Policy Manual is currently being drafted and will be discussed with business associations and operators.

75

Submission Topic 17: Out of scope comments

Matters raised in submissions Submission number Alcohol and drug bans 542 Placement of bike racks 1276 Signage 1276

83. Staff comment

While the majority of the submission from Grey Lynn Neighbourhood Support (1276) wasaccepted, two comments on the placement of bike racks outside cafes and signage areconsidered out of scope of this proposal as they form part of either another bylaw review, policy orwork programme. Submission 542 was also considered to be out of scope as none of thecomments related to the proposal.

Attachments 84. The statement of proposal and proposed Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places

Bylaw 2014, proposed Auckland Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014, and copies of submissions have been prepared for review, separate to this report.

Signatories Authors Rebekah Stuart-Wilson - Principal Policy Analyst, Policies and Bylaws, Auckland

Council Authorisers Helgard Wagener - Manager, Policies and Bylaws, Auckland Council

Terry Sugrue – Manager, Regulations and Standards, Auckland Transport

76

ATTACHMENT A

STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL

Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaws

77

AUGUST 2014 Statement of Proposal - Draft Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw

1

Statement of Proposal

Trading and events in public places bylaw 2014

Te Ture ā-Rohe Te Mahi Tauhokohoko me nga

Takunetanga ki ngā Wāhi Marea 2014

August 2014

This Statement of Proposal includes: Summary of Information Statutory requirements Reasons for the proposal Current situation Perceived issues, outcomes sought, strategic framework Relevant bylaw determinations How the proposal achieves the outcomes sought Compliance and Enforcement New Zealand Bill of Rights Proposal to revoke legacy bylaw provisions Glossary Appendix one: Stakeholder Engagement Appendix two Comparison of Issues addressed in legacy councils’ bylaws and proposed region-wide Auckland Council bylaw

78


2

Contents

Summary of Information ........................................................................................................ 3

1.0 Statutory requirements .................................................................................................... 5

2.0 Reasons for proposal ...................................................................................................... 6

3.0 Current situation .............................................................................................................. 7

4.0 Outcomes sought ............................................................................................................. 7

5.0 Relevant bylaw determinations ....................................................................................... 8

6.0 Perceived issues and options for achieving outcomes sought .................................... 9

Issue 1: Markets and stalls .................................................................................................. 13

Issue 2: Mobile shops…....................................................................................................... 16

Issue 3: Outdoor dining ....................................................................................................... 21

Issue 4: Fundraising ............................................................................................................ 25

Issue 5: Offering commercial services ............................................................................... 29

Issue 6: Distribution of promotional goods and materials ................................................ 32

Issue 7: Street performances ( busking) and pavement art .............................................. 36

Issue 8: Events in public places .......................................................................................... 40

Issue 9: Filming in public places ......................................................................................... 44

Issue 10: Outdoor display of goods .................................................................................... 47

Issue 11: Trading activities in parks and reserves ............................................................ 52

Issue 12: Exemptions from requirement to have approval ............................................... 56

7.0 Compliance and enforcement ...................................................................................... 59

8.0 New Zealand Bill of Rights ............................................................................................ 59

9.0 Revocation of bylaws .................................................................................................... 60

10.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 61

11.0 Glossary ........................................................................................................................ 61

Appendix one: Stakeholder engagement ........................................................................... 63

Appendix two: Comparison of issues addressed in legacy councils’ bylaws and proposed region-wide Auckland Council bylaw ............................................................... 66

79


3

Summary of Information

Auckland Council and Auckland Transport acknowledge the contribution of commercial and not-for-profit trading activities to the economic, social and cultural vitality of the region. Trading in public places (more commonly known as ‘street trading’) is a valuable use of public place and the council encourages activities that enable variety and consumer choice, fosters local character and protects the economic viability of existing (and future) commercial operations while maintaining safe and accessible pedestrian and traffic movement for everyone in the community. This statement of proposal reviews the eight legacy ‘trading in public places’ (or ‘street trading’) and two events bylaws inherited by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport and proposes to replace these with a new region-wide trading and events in public places bylaw (hereafter ‘bylaw’)1. The proposed draft trading and events in public places bylaw has been produced by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport as the legal responsibility for making bylaws lies with both organisations. The bylaw deals exclusively with trading activities and events undertaken in public places that are owned, controlled or managed by the council, including council controlled organisations such as Auckland Transport, Regional Facilities Auckland and the Waterfront Development Agency. The bylaw has been developed following a review of current bylaws and pre-consultation with political, internal and external stakeholders (refer to Appendix one of the Statement of Proposal). Trading activities covered by the bylaw include:

• markets and stalls; • mobile shops; • outdoor dining; • fundraising (including soliciting or collection of subscriptions or donations); • offering commercial services; • distribution of promotional material and /or goods • street performances and pavement art; • requirement to obtain approval for events or filming in a public place; • trading activities in parks and reserves – requirement for approval • outdoor display of goods; • exemptions from the requirement to obtain an approval.

Events and filming are also included in the proposed bylaw. Trading activities and events in public places are proposed to be controlled by:

• continuing to require approval for certain forms of trading, including outdoor dining areas, markets and stalls, mobile shops and fundraising. Approval conditions may relate to the nature of the activity (location, size, and number), payment of fees or occupation charge or bond, hours, duration of permit, rubbish, public liability insurance, and traffic management.

• continuing to allow for relatively benign forms of such as outdoor business displays, without requiring an approval provided the activity complies with any specific conditions or standards.

1 While Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have produced duplicate trading and events in public places bylaws, unless

stated otherwise for the purposes of this report the term ‘bylaw’ rather than ‘bylaws’ is used.

80


4

• enabling the council to identify areas where particular activities cannot occur in order to ensure public safety, prevent nuisance, minimise obstructions or the damage or mis-use of public place.

Events and filming are activities covered by existing policies that provide guidance, such as the Auckland Film Protocol, the Major Events Strategy and Events Policy. Officers from council’s events teams and ATEED agree that the proposed trading and events in public places bylaw is the most appropriate way to provide regulatory support for those policies by requiring the organizer of an event or filming activity in public places to obtain approval from the council. Parks and reserves are public places with special characteristics and additional factors that need to be taken into account, such as the Reserves Act 1977, parks management plans and the approval process for any activity in a local or regional park. While parks and reserves are covered under the definition of ‘public place’ the bylaw acknowledges that any there is a dual application process for any trading activity in a park (i.e trading application plus landowner approval is required). The proposed trading and events in public places bylaw contains exemptions – outlining those activities that would not need to obtain approval, such as the outdoor display of goods, however are still required to meet conditions of the proposed bylaw and any other standards and guidelines that the council may develop. This would capture activities such as small-scale individual or community trading activities and ensure an appropriate level of regulation through the bylaw (not creating excessive or onerous requirements for activities or traders with minimal impact). A regional approach to managing trading activities and events will ensure that acceptable standards of convenience, safety, pedestrian and vehicle access and visual amenity are maintained for the well-being and enjoyment of Auckland’s citizens and visitors. The proposed bylaw is intended to complement other approaches, undertaken by the council and other agencies, for managing commercial and not-for-profit activities across the region. At this stage the new bylaw is proposed to be notified for public submission from early August until early September and it is intended that the new bylaw will be adopted by November 2014 after hearings of submission and deliberations. The proposal enables the council and Auckland Transport to meet its obligations under the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, the Local Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Act 1998.

81


5

1.0 Statutory requirements

1.1 Auckland Council is required to review the bylaws on trading in public places by 31 October 2015, after which time the bylaws are revoked by statute2. Auckland Council is undertaking the review in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. Auckland Transport must undertake its review in accordance with the requirements of the Land Transport Act 1998.

1.2 Sections 145,146 and 149 of the Local Government Act 2002 and section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 enable Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to make bylaws that:

• protect the public from nuisance (Auckland Council and Auckland Transport); • protect, promote and maintain public health and safety (Auckland Council); • regulating trading in public places (Auckland Council); • minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places (Auckland Council); • regulate road related activities, including safety and environmental protection

(Auckland Transport).

1.3 In making decisions on the review, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport must:

• define the problem and outcome sought (objective); • consider options and people’s views (including Māori), having regard to the

significance of the matter; • explain any inconsistency with existing policies or plans; • prepare and invite people to have their say on a Statement of Proposal; • hear and consider submissions to the Statement of Proposal before making a final

decision3.

1.4 The council is authorised to make the proposed bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002 (sections 145-156). The Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 also requires Auckland Council to follow the special consultative procedure when amending or revoking a bylaw or making a new bylaw. This statement of proposal has been prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in section 86 of the Local Government Act 2002 for the use of the special consultative procedure.

1.5 Section 63 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 also

requires the council to confirm, amend or revoke each bylaw before 31 October 2015. If nothing is done to confirm, amend or revoke then the existing bylaws will automatically be revoked on 31 October 2015. Section 61 of the same Act requires Auckland Transport to review the bylaws made by legacy councils that are about the Auckland transport system. The Auckland transport system includes the roads, public transport services and infrastructure under the control of Auckland Transport.

1.6 Section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires, before commencing the

process for making a bylaw, a determination as to whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.

1.7 Section 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 states that, it is determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, it must be determined, before making the bylaw, whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw.

2 Sections 62 and 63 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010. 3 Sections 76 -83A, 86, 155, 156, 158, 160 of the Local Government Act 2002

82


6

1.8 Section 155(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that no bylaw may be made which is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, notwithstanding section 4 of that Act.

1.9 Section 86 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Auckland Council to use the special consultative procedure in accordance with section 83, including the preparation of this statement of proposal, to make, amend or revoke a bylaw.

1.10 Section 22AD of the Land Transport Act 1998 requires Auckland Transport to give written notice of its intention to make a bylaw to specified persons and give them a reasonable time to make written submissions on the proposal. Because the review of the bylaws relating to trading and events in public places is a joint project between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, and because Auckland Council is required to undertake a special consultative procedure when making, amending or revoking a bylaw, Auckland Transport has also chosen to undertake a special consultative procedure. This is intended to ensure consistency in the final bylaws and avoid public confusion.

2.0 Reasons for proposal

2.1 The principal reason for the proposal is to meet the council’s obligations under the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 and Local Government Act 2002. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, which were established on 1 November 2010, inherited bylaws regulating trading activities in public places and parks and reserves from Auckland City Council, Franklin District Council, Manukau City Council, North Shore City Council, Rodney District Council, Waitakere City Council and Auckland Regional Council.

2.2 The Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 stipulates that bylaws in force on or before 1 November 2010 are deemed to have been made by Auckland Council. The same Act confirms that each of these bylaws remains in force, in the area to which it applied at the close of 31 October 2010, until 31 October 2015, when it is revoked unless:

• the Auckland Council confirms it, in which case the confirmed bylaw becomes a bylaw made by the Auckland Council

• the Auckland Council amends it, in which case the bylaw as amended becomes a bylaw made by the Auckland Council

• the Auckland Council revokes it.

2.3 The council must consider if a bylaw is an appropriate method for addressing the issues faced by the council. It must consider if other methods may be used in conjunction with the bylaw or on their own. If it determines that a bylaw is required, it must ensure that the form of the bylaw is appropriate and that there are no implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

2.4 Auckland Council must use the special consultative procedure before confirming, amending, or revoking a bylaw. Auckland Transport will also use the special consultative procedure, in addition to following the requirements for consultation under section 22AD of the Land Transport Act 1998.

2.5 The review has been undertaken having regard to the following:

• The purpose of a bylaw is to supplement (and not duplicate) the obligations of people under national legislation. Examples of national legislation include the Major Events Management Act 2007, Food and Hygiene Regulations 1974 and provisions under the Local Government Act 1974 which relate to mobile shops and the temporary closure of roads for markets or events.

• A bylaw is only one part of the overall approach to addressing a perceived problem. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport can also provide opportunities for people

83


7

to utilise and activate public places, and support businesses. A bylaw contributes to achieving wider community outcomes (e.g. an Auckland of prosperity and opportunity) and operational initiatives determine how a bylaw is communicated and administered. In some instances, alternatives may mean a bylaw is not required. A bylaw is not a strategy or policy, nor is it the best way to communicate with people about their obligations.

• Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have finite resources to administer and enforce bylaws.

• A clear, practical and efficient approach to enforcement is one of the fundamental bylaw review principles and there are a number of enforcement powers ranging from property seizure through to cost recovery for damage. Bylaws made under the Local Government Act 2002 give the council no power to issue infringement notices, which effectively reduces their effectiveness in dealing with certain activities.

3.0 Current situation

3.1 Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have inherited eight bylaws that deal with trading in public places (also known as ‘street trading’) which includes local and regional parks and beaches. These bylaws operate effectively for the legacy areas, using a range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches for particular issues. (Appendix two contains a summary of the key provisions of these bylaws). Additionally, two legacy councils regulated events in public places – including filming – by requiring organisers to obtain approval.

3.2 A number of councils had specific issues that were contained only in their bylaw, to address an activity unique to their area4. Discussions with the council’s Compliance staff have revealed that in some instances these provisions are no longer relevant, so no bylaw is required. There are some provisions however that have been retained and are included in the proposed bylaw.

3.3 The legacy bylaws were generally consistent in their definition of a ‘public place’ in that they include every place that is either owned, managed or under the control of the legacy councils. It includes council controlled reserves, parks, civic areas, beaches and roads (including footpaths and accessways), grass verges, berms, public gardens, wharves, and breakwaters.

4.0 Outcomes sought

4.1 One of the Auckland Plan’s strategic priorities is to ‘develop a creative, vibrant international city’5. Activities in public places such as trading, street performance (busking), events and filming can contribute to this while also adding to the character of local business areas, providing a service to local residents and income from visitors.

4.2 The review process has identified that there are a wide range of problems associated with trading in public places which if left uncontrolled can negatively impact public used and enjoyment. The use and occupation of the footpaths and other public places can impact on the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. Trading in public places also gives rise to particular effects on the health and safety of people and traffic, on the amenity and character of areas and other business activities.

4.3 The outcomes sought by the proposed draft bylaw are:

• to ensure safe access for pedestrians and other users of public places; • to maintain a quality environment, heritage and character for Auckland's public

places;

4 Such as the distribution of promotional material (ACC); the sale of fish by commercial fisherman ( RDC, MCC)

5 Strategic Priority 5; Chapter 6 (Auckland Economy) of the Auckland Plan 2012

84


8

• to ensure appropriate and effective regulation of trading activities and events including where necessary, an approval regime;

• to ensure there is an equitable balance in the allocation of space for appropriate trading activities;

• to encourage diversity of trading activities;

4.4 A bylaw is one part of an overall approach for addressing a number of issues (see Figure 1) and needs to be considered in the context of the resources available to the council to implement. Operational practices determine how a bylaw is communicated and administered and in many instances it is not used as a means for enforcement but to minimise the impact of the behaviours associated with an activity through voluntary compliance (i.e. graduated enforcement: information-education-enforcement).

4.5 A regional approach to managing trading and events in public places will also ensure that acceptable standards of convenience, safety, access and visual amenity are maintained for the well-being and enjoyment of Auckland’s citizens and visitors and reflect alignment with the objectives of other council policies and plans such as the Auckland Plan.

4.6 In providing region-wide bylaws the expected benefits to Auckland will be:

• consistency of approach; • heightened awareness about the general regulations for trading and events in public

places; • public acceptance of and satisfaction with solutions provided to the wider public.

Figure 1: Purpose of bylaw (strategic framework)

85


9

5.0 Relevant bylaw determinations

5.1 Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have considered the most appropriate way of addressing particular problems related to trading in public places as discussed in section 6. The council and Auckland Transport have considered the most appropriate way of managing trading and events (including filming) in public places in Section 6.0 of the Statement of Proposal. The analysis has considered the approaches used by the legacy councils, covering regulatory tools such as in their bylaws, and other non-regulatory tools such as public information.

5.2 The review has identified that it is necessary to make the bylaws more ‘user friendly’, easy to interpret and supported by guiding material such as brochures. Another issue identified during the review was to make the bylaw easily understood and enforceable by council staff.

5.3 An approval regime is considered to be the most appropriate method of managing some of the issues associated with the various trading activities, events and filming with the exception of some easily regulated and relatively benign trading operations such as the outdoor display of goods.

5.4 The bylaw enables the council to set parameters, by resolution, for trading activities including the ability to prohibit, restrict or control trading activities, the location or times for trading.

5.5 In determining the most appropriate form of the bylaw, the council has reviewed legacy bylaws, relevant national legislation, other bylaws, both nationally and internationally, undertaking an extensive literature review, conducted two surveys, and had an internal working party consisting of staff representatives from across the council and council controlled organisations. Staff have also presented to political representatives and spoken to industry representatives.

5.6 Following the analysis, Auckland Council considers that:

• a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address some of these problems, as identified in section 6 of this proposal;

• the Auckland Council bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw and should be notified for public submission;

• the Auckland Council bylaw does not give rise to and are not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990, as the controls are reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances as allowed for in section 5 of the Act.

6.0 Perceived issues and options for achieving outcomes sought

6.1 Trading in public places encapsulates a range of activities, which involve offering a good or service. These activities have been identified through a review of the legacy bylaws as well as pre-consultation engagement with internal and external stakeholders including surveys with members of the People’s Panel and business associations and include the following:

• markets and stalls; • mobile shops; • outdoor dining; • offering commercial services; • fundraising (including soliciting or collection of subscriptions or donations); • distribution of promotional material and /or goods • street performances and pavement art; • events and filming. • outdoor display of goods.

86


10

6.2 These activities give rise to different issues in public places, depending on the nature, scale and style of the operation and its location. The issues commonly generated by trading activities in public places, both positive and negative, are summarised below:

a) Traffic safety

Inappropriately located trading activities in public places can impact on traffic safety and flow, particularly on busy roads. Impacts from both mobile shops, outdoor displays, and other activities which occupy the public space can hinder access to entrances / exits, interfere with driver sight lines and cause driver distraction from associated trading items / goods and signage. Poorly located trading activities can cause unsafe vehicle movements and if insufficient parking is available traffic safety and flow can be impacted. Consideration also needs to be given to safe queue management processes (i.e the appropriate orientation of windows on mobile shops away from the flow of traffic. Trading from the boot of vehicles and the congregation of people at the rear of the vehicle can also place customers in potential traffic danger.

b) Nuisance

Inappropriate and assertive sales techniques from trading activities can impact on the enjoyment of public places. Certain public places such as parks and reserves are more susceptible to overt commercial activities rather than being undertaken in a limited and discrete manner. In other areas such as outdoor markets and stalls, loud and vibrant sales techniques are part of the atmosphere and are usually readily accepted and enjoyed by customers.

c) Amenity and character

Trading in public places can enhance, have no impact or change the amenity of an area. Outdoor dining, markets and stalls or the outdoor displays of retail goods have the potential to significantly enhance the amenity and character of town centres. This can be seen across the region where outdoor dining or shop displays help define an area and give it character. Left un-controlled, the amenity and character of a place can deteriorate, leaving the area with a temporary and disorganised feel – to the disadvantage of other businesses.

d) Accessibility and safety

Trading activities can have significant potential to obstruct pedestrian flow and give rise to difficulties for those with limited mobility or parents/caregivers with pushchairs; couriers with hand trucks and so forth. This is a particular problem where footpaths are narrow. Disability groups require consistency in the way public places are used and the space left for access. Outdoor trading activities such as dining and displays can also contribute to street “clutter”, particularly where there is existing street furniture. This cumulatively reduces the amount of space available to pedestrians. Particular attention needs to be given to displays in locations where visibility and access is particularly important, such as near intersections and bus stops.

e) Health and food safety

A large number of trading activities include the sale of food. Improperly prepared and un-hygienically stored food may pose a health risk to customers. As activities of a temporary or mobile nature, trading activities raise a particular set of health and food safety issues which can be regulated via a trading in public places bylaw in order to complement other approaches such as the Food Safety Bylaw 2013 and national food hygiene regulations.

f) Financial impacts on other trading operators

Trading in public places and in particular the temporary use of the public place, can directly complete with local fixed businesses. Unregulated use of public places for

87


11

trading activities can give such operators unfair advantage by providing what is effectively rent, rate and maintenance free commercial space.

6.3 Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have considered, for each of the issues, the outcomes sought and the appropriate mechanisms to help deliver these outcomes. The analysis has been undertaken with regard to the following:

• The purpose of a bylaw is to supplement (and not duplicate) the obligations of people under national legislation. Examples of national legislation include the Major Events Management Act 2007, Food and Hygiene Regulations 1974 and provisions under the Local Government Act 1974 which relate to mobile shops and the temporary closure of roads for markets or events.

• A bylaw is only one part of the overall approach to addressing a perceived problem. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport can also provide opportunities for people to utilise and activate public places, and support businesses. A bylaw contributes to achieving wider community outcomes (e.g. an Auckland of prosperity and opportunity) and operational initiatives determine how a bylaw is communicated and administered. In some instances, alternatives may mean a bylaw is not required. A bylaw is not a strategy or policy, nor is it the best way to communicate with people about their obligations.

• Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have finite resources to administer and enforce bylaws. A clear, practical and efficient approach to enforcement is one of the fundamental bylaw review principles and there are a number of enforcement powers ranging from property seizure through to cost recovery for damage. Bylaws made under the Local Government Act 2002 give the council no power to issue infringement notices, which effectively reduces their effectiveness in dealing with certain activities.

6.4 The proposed options for addressing the managing the trading activities mentioned above and their associated issues are:

Option A: Region-wide Bylaw

Regulation through an Auckland Council bylaw and an Auckland Transport bylaw.

Option B: Alternative tools

Use other approaches such as public information, education, signage and awareness campaigns or the Unitary Plan.

Option C: Do nothing

No role for Auckland Council or Auckland Transport in managing the activity through a regulatory approach, rely on existing legislation such as Local Government Act 1974 (Section 22AD) ; food regulations etc

6.5 The proposed bylaw has been prepared on the basis of those activities considered appropriate for regulation. Where regulatory approaches have been effective for the legacy councils they have generally been retained in the proposed new bylaw. This means that these approaches will be harmonised and extended across Auckland. The issues that are included in the proposed bylaw are contained in one or more of the existing bylaws.

6.6 There are two trading activities which were contained in a few legacy bylaws that have been included in the proposed draft bylaw in recognition of the fact that they are becoming increasingly popular. These are the offering of commercial services (such as hiring recreational equipment) and the distribution of promotional material or goods. As trading operators look to diversify and find more innovative means for promoting goods and services it is necessary to ensure that the bylaw ‘future proofs’ for these types of activities.

6.7 Additionally, a number of provisions that are in the current bylaws are not necessary to include in the proposed draft as they are covered in other bylaws ( for example, car

88


12

window washing which was treated as a trading activity by four legacy councils is now contained in the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013).

6.8 Where possible the proposed draft bylaw states what people can do, instead of what they cannot, as was the case for some of the legacy bylaws.

6.9 The proposed bylaw will also enable the council to specify areas where trading activities are prohibited, restricted or controlled.

6.10 Events and filming on public places are encouraged, however if left unregulated have the potential to impact on people’s use and enjoyment of the public place, and can give rise to effects on public safety and nuisance.

6.11 The following sections discuss the specific problems relating to the trading activities identified in Section 6.1.

89


13

Issue 1: Markets and stalls

What is the issue?

6.12 Markets and stalls have been grouped together in this report as they give rise to similar issues – although of different scales. Markets are a collection of stalls run by a single market operator, while the term ‘stall’ covers standalone operations. Markets and stalls can have a positive impact on an area, generating economic spin-offs for local businesses and benefits for local residents. Markets are a popular trading activity, cited by many in the surveys as an example of “good” public place trading. Key reasons are the access to good quality, affordable, local goods and the sense of community they can create. Additionally, markets and stalls can be a good fit for underused and vacant properties – using vacant land while the owner is waiting for the right time to develop. This has the added benefit of improving actual and perceived safety through passive surveillance.

6.13 Notwithstanding the benefits, enforcement staff are often called upon to deal with complaints about stallholders operating without the council’s approval. The bylaws review has determined that the effects of markets and stalls need to be assessed as part of the approval process to ensure the council can have regard to matters such as ensuring the public place is available for the public; that adequate public liability insurance has been taken out by the market or stall operator, that the structures used are appropriately sited and that the appropriate food hygiene requirements have been obtained.

6.14 The following problems have been identified with this form of trading

Issue

Comment

Accessibility Temporary activities can create obstructions on footpaths and other public places, making it difficult for other users to pass or gain access to adjacent premises.

Impacts on fixed businesses Preliminary discussions with some business owners have revealed that the presence of temporary activities such as markets and stalls can impact on fixed businesses and they would like greater controls over these operators. However this needs to be balanced by the desire for vibrant streets and town centres which offer a range of products and services and support for small businesses / entrepreneurship.

Impacts on visual amenity Markets and stalls have the potential to be visually unappealing.

Safety Stalls may also have structural issues that make them unsafe for customers or passers-by. Vision impaired stakeholders note the importance of temporary structures having a ground rail or board to enable the vision impaired person to avoid colliding with the structure.

Outcome sought

6.15 To provide for an appropriate level of market and stall activity offering a range of products and services, which contribute to vibrant public places while maintaining public safety and amenity.

90


14

What do we have now?

6.16 All the legacy council bylaws required markets and stalls to obtain approval from the council

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Requirement for approval to operate a market or stall.

� � � � � � �

What are the options for managing markets and stalls?

Option Pros Cons

Option A

Address this issue through Auckland Council and Auckland Transport trading and events in public places bylaw.

• Allows for operation of stalls and markets subject to reasonable controls.

• Supported by the council’s compliance staff.

• Bylaw provides regulatory support for policy.

• Compliance costs in managing markets and stalls.

• Limited enforcement powers under Local Government Act for the council and Auckland Transport to address any problems relating to fundraising activities.

Option B

Rely on alternative (primarily non-regulatory) tools such as public education, information and signage.

• Reduces amount of regulation and compliance costs to the council, Auckland Transport and trading operators.

• No other regulatory council tools currently exist to manage markets and stalls.

• Difficult to enforce if issues of non-compliance arise.

• Potential for inconsistency in managing this activity across the region in the absence of one universal regulatory approach for controlling markets and stalls.

Option C

No council or Auckland Transport involvement in addressing the activity.

• No compliance costs for businesses, the council.

• Less intervention and regulation by the council.

• Potential for community opposition to limited regulatory role.

• No ability for the council or Auckland Transport to regulate this activity.

91


15

What is the most appropriate means to manage markets and stalls?

Option A: Address this issue through region-wide Auckland Council and Auckland Transport bylaw. Clause 15 of the proposed draft bylaw.

Reason for this recommendation

6.17 The proposed bylaw ensures that appropriate controls on markets and stalls are in place while still guaranteeing that this does not affect their operations.

6.18 Requiring approval ensures that market and stalls operators are aware of the conditions under which they must operate. The approval would set out conditions such as minimum standards of materials used, visibility etc. Any approval would need to state that temporary stalls wishing to offer food must also meet the requirements of the Food Safety Bylaw 2013. There may also be signage implications for markets and stalls operators would be directed to comply with the proposed Signage Bylaw (rather than duplicating the information in the Trading and events in public places).Careful consideration needs to be given to the fee structure to ensure that operators are not overly burdened with council fees.

6.19 Additionally, while markets are a popular trading activity and can make a positive contribution to the community in which they operate, they can also have a potentially significant impact on the area in which they operate – taking up carparks, public squares and parkland – and the people who normally use that public place. Markets also cause litter and noise and add to traffic congestion. Requiring operators to obtain approval ensures that market operators are aware of the conditions under which they must operate and enables the council to intervene, if necessary.

6.20 Exemptions could be specified for small-scale, short term (such as a day) stalls (e.g. children selling fruit or lemonade on the verge outside their house).

92


16

Issue 2: Mobile shops

What is the issue?

6.21 Mobile shops generally means a vehicle located on a road or other public place offering or exposing goods for sale. Common goods provided by mobile shops include:

• ice cream vans

• coffee

• fruit and vegetables.

6.22 Classification of this kind of activity in legacy councils differed – for example in the legacy Waitakere City Council area, coffee vans are licensed as temporary stalls as they tend to trade in one place rather than move around during the day (compared to, for example, ice cream vans). The Waitakere City Council bylaw definition of mobile shop specifies that it does not remain in one place for more than 30 minutes (a similar requirement is outlined in North Shore City Council’s bylaw). Rodney District Council’s definition of mobile shop specifically excludes any vehicle used for the sale of food (this is consistent with the definition in the Land Transport Act 1998).

6.23 It is proposed that the definition of mobile shops used by any new bylaw be similar to the Waitakere City and North Shore City councils’ legacy ones – truly mobile, changing locations on a regular basis (the best example of this is ice cream vans). It is proposed that trading activities from vehicles that remain in one place for a longer period of time (e.g. coffee vans, fruit and vegetable sellers on the side of the road) are treated as temporary stalls.

6.24 Mobile traders provide services not offered by fixed businesses and meet demand for products that may be short-lived, transient or seasonal. They can be particularly valuable in rural or coastal areas where there is insufficient demand for that product/service on a permanent basis. Mobile traders can be a good fit for underused and vacant properties – temporarily using vacant land while the owner is waiting for the right time to develop. This has the added benefit of improving safety through passive surveillance.

6.25 Some local boards raised the issue of mobile shops selling clothing, household goods etc., often through credit arrangements (e.g. Home Direct). These operations work on an appointment basis and the transaction generally takes place inside the home of the customer – on private property. These operators are covered by the Door to Door Sales Act 1967 (along with other general consumer legislation) and are governed by the Direct Selling Association of New Zealand’s Code of Practice.

6.26 The following issues associated with this activity are:

Issue Discussion

Accessibility Mobile shops may block driveways, carparks and/or footpaths. Clear rules need to be put in place about where mobile shops can stop and sell their products. Disabled stakeholders emphasise the importance of queue management – queues blocking footpaths can have an impact on wheelchair users and vision impaired pedestrians in particular.

93


17

Issue Discussion

Loss of public space A key concern with mobile shops is that they use up space in popular or busy carparks. This could be mitigated by ensuring that mobile vendors wishing to use public carparks must follow the rules associated with that carpark (e.g. duration of stay) and pay any fee required of other users.

Noise Mobile shops often operate chimes or broadcast some sort of music to advertise their presence. North Shore City Council had rules for mobile shops which specified that chimes may only be used while the shop is moving, that they must not cause a nuisance or be used in certain locations (such as near hospitals or places of worship where a service is being conducted).

Unitary Plan impacts Unitary Plan rules around the scale of commercial activity in an area may have an impact on where mobile shops are allowed to operate.

Impacts on fixed businesses Preliminary discussions with business owners have revealed that the presence of mobile vendors can impact on fixed businesses and they would like greater controls over these operators. Their concerns are generally that they believe mobile traders are subject to much lower costs and therefore have an unfair advantage over fixed businesses. However this needs to be balanced by the desire for vibrant streets and town centres which offer a range of products and services and support for small businesses / entrepreneurship. In addition, each form of trading (from a fixed premises or a mobile vendor) has advantages and disadvantages that have to be considered by business owners.

Safety A number of mobile traders operate from high traffic / pedestrian volume areas such as main roads. They can create bottlenecks from cars slowing down to see what’s on offer or pull off the road to park and buy something, as well as limit visibility. They can also increase the risk of accidents, with vehicles manoeuvring in and out of a busy flow of traffic. This could be managed through Auckland Transport’s Traffic Bylaw 2012, which enables Auckland Transport to prohibit unsafe manoeuvres and enact parking controls in particular locations. A particular concern with mobile shops, especially ice cream vans, is the safety of children, given this product’s popularity and target market. Conversely, mobile trading can improve actual or perceived safety through passive surveillance.

94


18

Issue Discussion

Operations on private land but to which the public has access e.g. driveways, empty sections, carparks.

Due to the definition of public place in the legislation, the council does not have jurisdiction to make a bylaw to regulate the issue. While the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 uses a broader definition of public place to include anywhere the public has access, a trading in public places bylaw is more likely to use the Local Government Act02 definition which limits the bylaw to places the council owns or controls. It would be inappropriate for the council to regulate commercial activities on private land that do not affect public places or public safety. If the movement of vehicles accessing these sites becomes unsafe, Auckland Transport’s Traffic Bylaw can be used to put restrictions in place. These premises are also subject to national regulations and the council’s bylaws regarding health and hygiene.

Range of products or services available

Mobile traders provide services not offered by fixed businesses and meet demand for products that may be short-lived, transient or seasonal. They can be particularly valuable in rural or coastal areas where there is insufficient demand for that product/service on a permanent basis.

Productive use of otherwise empty spaces

Mobile traders can be a good fit for underused and vacant properties – temporarily using vacant land while the owner is waiting for the right time to develop. This has the added benefit of improving safety through passive surveillance.

Unformed legal roads in parks In some places, there is uncertainty as to the split between parks and Auckland Transport responsibility – some parks contain unformed legal roads. Consideration needs to be given to how this situation will be managed.

Outcome sought

6.27 To provide for an appropriate level of mobile trading activities and to ensure that they are carried out in a safe manner.


6.28 As discussed above, the definition of mobile shop varied between the legacy councils. North Shore City’s bylaw set out requirements relating to mobile shop operations, such as limitations on the use of chimes and the amount of time they could remain in one place. Auckland City specified certain types of mobile trading operations when setting fees (e.g. coffee vendors, pie carts, strawberry and vegetable vendors), while other councils tended to treat all mobile shops equally. In most of the legacy bylaws there is a distinction between mobile shops selling food and other forms of mobile shops. In some cases there is an additional fee for those selling food, while in others it is a completely separate category.

6.29 North Shore City and Waitakere City councils charged both a mobile shop trading permit and a mobile shop health licence (required if selling food) – both on an annual basis. Franklin District Council distinguishes between mobile food vehicles (annual fee) and mobile shops/roadside traders (monthly fee).\

6.30 The Food Safety Bylaw 2013 includes mobile shops in its definition of a food stall and requires operators to obtain a certificate of registration and display it in their mobile

95


19

shop. Standards/guidelines for food safety are outlined in a non-statutory schedule to the draft bylaw.

6.31 Auckland Transport’s Traffic Bylaw 2012 contains provisions that allow Auckland Transport to make resolutions prohibiting or restricting the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on any roads. This could be a possible solution to this issue, particularly if there are certain roads where there is a high volume of mobile traders.

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Requirement for approval to operate a mobile shop

~6 � � � � � � �

What are the options for managing mobile shops?

Option Pros Cons

Option A

Address this issue through Auckland Council and Auckland Transport trading and events in public places bylaw

• Allows for operation of mobile shops subject to reasonable controls.



• Compliance costs in dealing with mobile shop activities.


Option B




• Potential for inconsistency in managing this activity across the region in the absence of one universal regulatory approach for controlling mobile shops.

Option C


• No compliance costs for businesses, the council or Auckland Transport.

• Less intervention and regulation by the council or Auckland Transport



What is the most appropriate means to manage mobile shops?

Option A: Address this issue through a region-wide Auckland Council and Auckland Transport bylaw Clause 16 of the proposed draft bylaw.

6 Not specified, but presumably covered by requirement for approval to carry out any commercial or trading activity

96


20


6.32 The review of the trading bylaws presents an opportunity to develop appropriate controls on mobile traders, while maintaining public safety and accessibility and ensuring that this does not affect their operations. It is likely that any reference to mobile shops selling food would direct operators to comply with the Food Safety Bylaw 2013 in addition to any standard mobile shop requirements specified in the Trading and events in public places.

97


21

Issue 3: Outdoor dining

What is the issue?

6.33 Outdoor dining can enhance the character of a local area and help create attractive, vibrant and functional public places. Outdoor dining can contribute to actual and perceived pedestrian safety through passive surveillance – people feel safer when there are more people around.

6.34 However it can give rise to problems such as disorderly behaviour from outdoor licensed areas where alcohol is consumed. Permits are required for outdoor tables and chairs (although this was not enforced in parts of the former Rodney District Council area) and annual rents are charged in most areas. Enforcement staff did not identify as many complaints relating to outdoor dining compared to outdoor business displays.

6.35 Distinguishing between council-owned and private space was again raised as a problem by both customers and enforcement staff, although most outdoor dining areas are defined using footpath markers. Enforcement staff support retaining this approach as it provides clarity for enforcement and for the public.

6.36 The key issues associated with this activity are:

Issue Discussion

Obstruction of public places It is important to maintain a minimum clear accessway on all footpaths and public places. Auckland Transport’s Code of Practice (ATCOP) sets out “zones” on the footpath, with a minimum width of 2.4m for the “through route” on urban streets. Outdoor dining can take place in the “frontage zone” and/or the “street furniture zone” (where they exist) – up to 60cm and 1.5m respectively. Outdoor dining areas must be clearly defined and supervised to prevent diners moving furniture outside the permitted area. While this may not be significant in certain areas (where there are wide footpaths), it could be in places where space is more limited. Outdoor dining areas can also contribute to street “clutter”, particularly where there is existing street furniture. This cumulatively reduces the amount of space available to pedestrians.

98


22

Issue Discussion

Accessibility Clearly defined and well-managed outdoor dining areas are important for those public place users with greater accessibility needs, such as those in wheelchairs and mobility scooters, people with vision impairments or parents with prams. Particular attention needs to be given to outdoor dining in locations where visibility and access is particularly important, such as near intersections and bus stops. A consistent approach is also important to avoid confusion – i.e. that a clear accessway is maintained against the building (as in shared spaces), meaning that outdoor dining areas would be closer to the kerb. The ATCOP manual is intended to provide a consistent approach to the design of streetscapes across Auckland.

Loss of public space Careful consideration needs to be given to balancing the desire for vibrant, lively public places with the benefits to business owners through “privatisation” of the public place. By blocking off an area of the public place for the exclusive use of their patrons they are making private profit from an area that is funded, and intended to be used, by the general public.

Impacts on visual amenity The type of furniture or structures used in, or to demarcate outdoor dining areas, can have an impact on the visual amenity of the area.

Distinguishing between public and private space

Compliance staff advised that from the public’s perspective it is often difficult to distinguish between council- owned and privately-owned ‘public place’ and this was observed on site visits where there was no control on items on private spaces. Staff will provide clearer guidelines in any new bylaw and associated guidelines on outdoor dining and drinking areas.

Disorderly behaviour, noise Disorderly behaviour and excessive noise can be an issue in outdoor dining areas, particularly those where alcohol is served. This could be mitigated through conditions specifying that additional staff must be on duty in the outdoor area and responsible for managing the noise levels. It may be appropriate to implement this kind of control only in residential areas, where noise may be more of a concern for neighbouring residents. It can also be managed through the times for which the approval is issued – e.g. the outdoor dining area could be required to close earlier than the premises in general.

Vibrancy / street life Seeking to enliven Auckland’s public spaces as places where communities come together. If done well, outdoor dining areas can create active public places, making an area appear vibrant, exciting and attractive.

99


23

Issue Discussion

Health and safety In areas with on-street parking, it is important to maintain clear access to the street so that drivers can access their vehicles and passengers can enter and exit vehicles from the footpath side. The impact of pollution from vehicles should also be taken into account, for both diners’ health and the quality of their experience. The impact of smoking in outdoor dining areas and its associated issues (e.g. second-hand smoke, nuisance, odour, litter, unpleasant for other users of the space, both outdoors and inside) also needs to be taken in consideration. There are also implications for vision impaired and other disabled footpath users. Consistency in the way trading activities take place, particularly where they take place, is very important to them. Vision impaired stakeholders recommend that outdoor dining areas should have barriers around them with tap-rails (so that white canes can find them) – reducing the potential for vision impaired footpath users to knock into diners and e.g. spill a hot coffee on themselves or the diner.

Outcome sought

6.37 To provide for outdoor dining and drinking activity which:

• ensures safe access for pedestrians and other legitimate street users • maintains a quality street environment, heritage and street character • protects the safety of other users (e.g. smoke-free dining areas, sturdy furniture and

barriers).


6.38 Most of the legacy bylaws included a requirement for council approval to provide outdoor dining and/or drinking areas in a public place. Auckland City Council had an operative policy providing more information and detailed guidelines around outdoor dining and Papakura had a brief operative policy on alfresco dining. Most specified that the outdoor dining area must be on the existing business’ frontage, not extending beyond the edges of that business’ premises.

6.39 Five of the seven legacy city and district councils charged a specific fee for the use of public space for outdoor dining and/or drinking.

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Requirement for approval to provide outdoor dining and/or drinking areas in a public place

� � � � � � ~7

7 The RDC definition of trader includes a resident business occupying public footpaths adjoining their premises or other public

places, for business purposes. An exception for requirement for approval is provided when services are offered outside a resident business and they leave a minimum 1.5 metre clearance directly in front of the premises.

100


24

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

A fee may be charged for rental of the public space � � � ~8 � � ~9

What are the options for managing outdoor dining?

Option Pros Cons

Option A


• Allows for provision of outdoor dining, subject to reasonable controls.

• Enables the council and Auckland Transport to meet their regulatory objectives to control trading in public places activities as well as minimise nuisances and promote public safety.



• Compliance costs in dealing with non-complying outdoor dining activities.

• Limited enforcement powers under Local Government Act for the council and Auckland Transport to address any problems relating to outdoor dining.

• Costs for businesses to comply with requirements.

Option B




• Potential for inconsistency in managing this activity across the region in the absence of one universal regulatory approach for managing outdoor dining.

Option C






8 Not specified in the bylaw, but there is a line item relating to outdoor dining in fees and charges schedule for the former

Waitakere area 9 Not specified in the bylaw, but there is a line item relating to outdoor dining in the fees and charges schedule for the former

Rodney area

101


25

What is the most appropriate means to manage outdoor dining?



6.40 The review of the trading bylaws presents an opportunity to develop appropriate controls and guidelines defining the requirements for outdoor dining. This will ensure region-wide consistency and put in place a framework designed to maintain public safety and accessibility and provide attractive, vibrant and functional public places.

6.41 Requiring businesses to obtain approval ensures awareness of the rules and promotes efficient use of the available allocated space.

6.42 While outdoor dining is a big contributor to vibrancy in public places, business owners also receive potentially significant benefits from using that space. Charging for the use of the public space for private benefit recognises the loss of the space for public use. The level of the fee will be determined through the separate Long-term Plan process.

102


26

Issue 4: Fundraising

What is the issue?

6.43 Fundraising undertaken in public places includes requests for ongoing donations, street appeal collections, sausage sizzles and a variety of other methods such as text donation and charity product sales (alternative methods are increasing in popularity). It can be undertaken by national or international organisations using volunteer or paid fundraisers (e.g. UNICEF, Royal Foundation for the Blind) or local charitable or community groups using volunteers (e.g. hospice, local school, sports clubs).

6.44 The following problems have been identified with this form of trading

Issue

Comment

Legitimacy of fundraising organisations

It can be difficult for the general public to assess the legitimacy of organisations fundraising in Auckland’s public places. Determining which fundraisers are genuine operators can be managed by requiring operators to obtain an approval.

Locations for fundraisers Ensuring that there is an appropriate mix of operators throughout the city and that popular sites are regularly rested and not overused.

Frequency of fundraising operations.

There is a perception that there are too many groups operating in certain areas too frequently

Obstruction of public places This can be an issue in high pedestrian volume areas such as the CBD, especially if there are a number of fundraisers and they have associated trading items such as furniture.

Behaviour of fundraisers (intimidation / harassment)

Anecdotal evidence has indicated that some fundraisers can be intimidating, particularly for more vulnerable groups such as the elderly or disabled. Feedback from the People’s Panel survey indicated that many Aucklanders find some fundraisers to employ overly aggressive tactics.

Safety There are potential safety issues for the fundraisers as well as pedestrians and vehicles, particularly those operating at or near traffic intersections or on roads with high traffic volumes.

Relevance of fundraising organisations

Feedback through the review process has commented that local fundraising activities be given preference, as they have more relevance for the community (e.g. local hospice vs. a national/international organisation such as the Red Cross).


6.45 All of the existing bylaws have provisions relating to fundraising and/or the soliciting or collection of subscriptions or donations. Most bylaws specify that these activities require approval from the council, although Franklin District Council’s only required approval to ensure that it would not be undertaken in a way that could create a nuisance.

103


27

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Requirement for approval to carry out fundraising � � � �10

� ~11 �12

�13

6.46 The council works with the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA). The PFRA is a membership organisation which self-regulates direct dialogue (“face to face”) fundraising (soliciting for ongoing donations). Direct dialogue charities are required to register with the PFRA and are thereby bound by its Code of Conduct. In addition, registered charities agree to a roster system of times and locations for fundraising. A working relationship between Auckland Council and the PFRA ensures the number of direct dialogue charities is area managed. They currently manage these activities only in parts of Auckland, but are prepared to extend this role to cover the whole of the region and to include all fundraising activities – including street appeals and other fundraising methods.

6.47 This approach seeks to maintain a balance between a real or perceived ‘public nuisance’ and to help promote sustainable fundraising. Annual street appeal organisations or charities are licensed by Auckland Council to operate region-wide on specific dates of the appeal. Currently, the PFRA requests street appeal dates from the council and manages the overall number of charities in an area through a roster.

Outcome sought

6.48 To provide for appropriate levels of fundraising activities in public places and to ensure that they are carried out in a safe manner by legitimate charitable and community organisations.

What are the options for managing fundraising?

Option Pros Cons

Option A


• Potential to have a general clause in the bylaws addressing fundraising activities.



• Bylaw provides regulatory support for any policy on fundraising.

• Compliance costs in dealing with fundraising activities.


10

Requirement for permit may be waived at the council’s discretion 11

FDC Public Places bylaw specifies that these activities must obtain approval if they are undertaken in a way that creates or is likely to create a nuisance 12

In the legacy Public Places bylaw (vs. Trading in Public Places) 13

In the legacy Public Places bylaw (vs. Trading in Public Places)

104


28

Option Pros Cons

Option B



• No other council tools currently exist to manage fundraising.


• Potential for inconsistency in managing this activity across the region in the absence of one universal regulatory approach for controlling fundraising.

Option C






What is the most appropriate means to manage fundraising?



6.49 The council’s compliance staff confirms that the current bylaws are effective tools for managing fundraising activities and advise that the absence of any bylaw provisions would limit enforcement. The bylaw would continue to regulate fundraising through reasonable approval conditions. Requiring fundraising groups to obtain approval is a way to ensure that this activity is being undertaken by legitimate groups in a responsible way. It also allows the council to manage the location and frequency of fundraising activities.

6.50 The PFRA is prepared to continue its relationship with the council and expand it to cover all of Auckland. The PFRA supports the current approach for the areas where it already works with the council. This requires that face to face fundraisers must be members of the PFRA. This adds an additional layer of professional standards for fundraisers. The PFRA supports retaining the requirement for fundraisers to obtain approval. The implementation project14 should include ways to streamline this process.

6.51 As this activity is undertaken for charitable or not-for-profit purposes, it is not considered appropriate to charge an approval fee. The cost to the council of administering this activity is likely to be minimal if the current relationship with the PFRA is maintained and expanded to cover the whole region.

14

The implementation project involves the development of procedures and information for council staff, trading operators and the public to support the implementation and enforcement of the new bylaw (due to come into effect in July 2015).

105


29

Issue 5: Offering commercial services

What is the issue?

6.52 All legacy bylaws included services in some way (some more directly than others). Auckland City Council’s was the most detailed, including the following as one of the activities covered by the definition of street trading:

the provision of commercial services on a public place including shoe shine services, taking photographs, and the hire of recreational equipment

6.53 Washing vehicle windows in the road is considered a safety and nuisance issue, rather than a trading one, so is covered in the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013.

6.54 The hire of recreational equipment is one example of a current licensed service operating in public places. This activity can enhance people’s use and enjoyment of a public place. Currently licensed operators include the rental of watersports equipment and bike hire. This category will also cover the growing industry of “boot camp” fitness operators using public parks and beaches for paid fitness programmes.


Issue Discussion

Impacts on fixed businesses Similar issues arise with the provision of services as with mobile or temporary vendors. Preliminary discussions with some business owners have revealed that the presence of temporary traders can impact on resident businesses and they would like greater controls over these operators. However this needs to be balanced by the desire for vibrant streets and town centres which offer a range of products and services and support for small businesses / entrepreneurship.

Safety A number of traders offering services operate in high traffic / pedestrian volume areas such as main roads. They can create traffic congestion by cars slowing down to see what’s on offer or pull off the road to park and buy something, as well as limit visibility. Conversely, these trading activities can improve actual or perceived safety through passive surveillance.

Impacts on visual amenity

This is a particular concern with equipment hire operations – there is a potential for the equipment to be stored in a way that is visually unappealing. This can be managed through conditions attached to any approval required.

Loss of public space

Using public space to make private profit – e.g. storing recreational equipment on a park limits the area available for other users. This can be managed through conditions attached to any approval required.

106


30

Issue Discussion

Accessibility Some service-based trading activities can create obstructions on footpaths and other public places, making it difficult for other users to pass or gain access to adjacent premises. This is of particular concern to disabled users of public places. Requiring service providers to obtain approval for their activities will ensure that appropriate conditions can be put in place to ensure sufficient access and clearance is maintained.

Contributing to users’ experience

Some services can enhance users’ experience of a public place – for example hiring a kayak to explore more of the coastline than is accessible directly from a beach, hiring a bike from downtown Auckland to explore Tamaki Drive or paying for a guided walk around a park with particular heritage or natural attractions. The Reserves Act 1977 allows the council to grant licences for any trading activity, provided that “the trade, business, or occupation must be necessary to enable public to obtain the benefit and enjoyment of the reserve or for the convenience of persons using the reserve”. While this only applies to some parks and reserves, it provides a useful guideline for the commercial use of other public places.

Outcome sought

6.56 To provide for the provision of appropriate services in public places, while maintaining public safety and amenity.


6.57 All of the legacy bylaws included some reference to offering services as a trading activity – in some cases services were included in the definition of “goods” rather than specified throughout the bylaw, whereas others specifically referenced services in their definitions of trading.

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Requirement for approval to offer or provide services in a public place

� � ��15

��16

� � � �

15

Use of the road for the purposes of selling or offering goods or services of any kind is prohibited, but not specified in relation to other public places. 16

“Trading” definition includes offering goods and services, as well as selling.

107


31

What are the options for managing the offerings of commercial services?

Option Pros Cons

Option A

Address this issue through Auckland Council and Auckland Transport trading and events in public places bylaws

• Allows for provision of commercial services in public places subject to reasonable controls.



• Compliance costs in dealing with non-complying operators.

• Limited enforcement powers under Local Government Act for the council and Auckland Transport to address any problems relating to commercial services.


Option B




• Potential for inconsistency in managing this activity across the region in the absence of one universal regulatory approach for controlling commercial services.

Option C






What is the most appropriate means to manage the offering of commercial services?



6.58 The review of the trading bylaws presents an opportunity to develop appropriate controls on people offering services in public places, while maintaining public safety and accessibility.

6.59 Requiring most service providers to obtain approval ensures that traders offering services are aware of the conditions under which they must operate. It will also ensure the appropriate amount of control and provide for the appropriate use of special or vulnerable public places, such as regional parks and residential areas.

108


32

Issue 6: Distribution of promotional material

What is the issue?

6.60 One of the main issues relating to the distribution of pamphlets or promotional goods in a public place is that it can create problems with litter and general obstruction of footpaths (by those handing out items).

6.61 While the bylaws generally do not regulate the distribution of promotional materials, staff note that there has been an increase in this activity since these bylaws were approved. The scale of these activities has also increased, with advertising agencies coming up with more creative ways to promote their clients’ products and services. Enforcement staff noted that the public are often uncertain as to what, if any, are the controls on pamphlet or product distribution and they support the inclusion of these activities in a bylaw to provide clarity. Staff supports a distinction in the regulations for commercial and not-for-profit activities. Additionally, any promotional material that is being distributed will also need to comply with other regulations (such as flyers promoting happy hours etc. will need to be consistent with the controls set out in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012).

6.62 Staff have been contacted by the Experiential Marketing Association of New Zealand (EMANZ)17, who already have a working relationship with Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) through their involvement in events. They would like to have this activity addressed in the Trading and events in public places, as their ability to legally undertake promotional activities is very limited, particularly in the legacy Auckland City Council area. Their comments are much the same as many other stakeholders – they want a fair set of rules that allow them to operate under an equitable, easily understandable and applicable regime. They have offered to work with the council in a way similar to what the PFRA currently does in relation to fundraising – managing approval applications and rostering promotional activities on behalf of the council.


Issue Discussion

Visual amenity – litter People taking pamphlets/goods to be polite but discarding due to lack of interest. Or in the case of giving away free samples, people discarding wrappers, bottles/cans or other waste material generated by the product. Possible treatment – charge a bond as part of the approval to ensure that the site is properly cleaned. Alternatively, the council could require contact details to be put on all material so that the offender can be identified and charged for any cleaning required. Auckland Council has a number of documents which address the issue of litter – particularly the Solid Waste Bylaw and Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. The Litter Act 1979 would also apply.

17

The Experiential Marketing Association of New Zealand (EMANZ) is the industry association representing the interests of experiential marketing agencies and other agencies and organisations for whom experiential marketing is a substantial part of their business. Members include independent agencies and subsidiaries of multinational agency groups. More information is available on www.experientialmarketing.org.nz.

109


33

Issue Discussion

Obstruction of public places / accessibility

It is important to maintain a minimum clear accessway on all footpaths and public places. Promotional activities have the potential to create obstructions – either through the people handing out materials blocking the footpath or through popular promotional activities creating crowds. This is a particular concern for vision impaired and other disabled users of public places. A possible solution for the second issue is to specify places where those kinds of activities are permitted – e.g. in large open spaces such as squares or parks. Where this is associated with an event, it could be covered by traffic management planning.

Vibrancy / street life Distribution of printed material and goods can add value to the visitor experience, engage Aucklanders in an event experience and support successful event performance. Some promotional activities are closer to street performance or events and add to the vibrancy of an area. For example, in early 2013 Cadbury undertook a promotion in Aotea Square, where passers-by were encouraged to enter a “dairy”, where they would be given samples of new Cadbury product. This was very popular, with lines forming throughout the day. The location allowed people to choose whether they interacted with that activity. Assessment of requests to undertake this activity could include determining whether the general public would find it a positive or negative experience.

Distinction between events and promotional activities

Some promotional activities are closer to street performance or events and add to the vibrancy of an area. Careful consideration will need to be given to the definition of promotional activities and where the boundary is between promotional activities and events. This will have an impact on who is responsible for the permitting process.

Frequency / sites of operations As with fundraising, there is some concern about the frequency of promotional activities in high-use areas (particularly the CBD). A suggested solution is to vary the sites used to prevent regular users of the space (e.g. office workers and inner city residents) becoming fatigued by regular promotional activity.

Outcome sought

6.64 To provide for an appropriate level of promotional activities while maintaining public safety and amenity. Promotional activities that are engaging, appropriate to the location, add to the vibrancy of the area and are of benefit to users of the public place would be given preference.

110


34


6.65 Auckland City Council’s definition of street trading includes “the giving away of goods on a public place, including newspapers and magazines, to advertise any product, service or entertainment”. This activity is therefore captured under the requirement that all street trading activities require approval to operate (except for a few specified exemptions).

6.66 Auckland City was the only legacy council to specifically include this activity in its bylaw, but both Manukau City and North Shore City Councils’ had references to “offering” goods or services as well as selling them in their definitions of trading, which would capture this activity.

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Requirement for approval to distribute any posters, written or printed material or goods advertising any product, service or entertainment

��

What are the options for managing the distribution of promotional material?

Option Pros Cons

Option A


• Allows for the distribution of promotional material in public places subject to reasonable controls.





• Limited enforcement powers under Local Government Act for the council and Auckland Transport to address any problems relating to promotional material.


Option B




• Potential for inconsistency in managing this activity across the region in the absence of one universal regulatory approach for controlling the distribution of promotional material.

Option C






111


35

What is the most appropriate means to manage the distribution of promotional material?



6.67 The current review provides an opportunity to clearly define a consistent set of rules and criteria for undertaking promotional activities.

6.68 Requiring approval for larger promotional activities would ensure that organisations wanting to undertake promotional activities would be aware of the rules and impacts relating to those activities.

6.69 While the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1994 provides for the following rights that may be affected by a bylaw:

• Section 13: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

• Section 14: Freedom of expression

• Section 15: Manifestation of religion and belief

it does aim to ensure that the content of any material that is distributed is not likely to be of a nature that is insensitive or controversial.

6.70 However, a bylaw may provide measures to address issues arising from the exercise of these rights by not-for-profit promotional activities (e.g. religious groups handing out information flyers) such as obstruction of accessways and footpaths.

6.71 Staff supports charging a refundable bond to ensure that the site is properly cleaned following the activity, particularly for large promotional activities / events.

112


36

Issue 7: Street performance (busking) and pavement art

What is the issue?

6.72 Street performance / busking and pavement art can enhance the amenity and character of town centres, adding considerably to vibrancy. This is apparent across the region where street performers contribute to the overall appeal of an area. Approaches to managing street performers varied across the region: in some areas buskers were required to obtain a permit, while in others they were exempt from this requirement.

6.73 Enforcement staff’s advice is that most of the complaints about buskers related to noise and obstruction of public places. Some stakeholders have suggested that anyone applying for street performance approval should be required to demonstrate the ability to perform (although this would be difficult and time-consuming to implement).


Issue Discussion


It is important to maintain a minimum clear accessway on all footpaths and public places. Street performances have the potential to create obstructions – either through the act itself blocking the footpath or through popular promotional activities creating crowds. It may also be appropriate to identify specific busking sites in high-use areas (e.g. the CBD) – bylaws could provide for this by resolution.

Busking vs. begging Some stakeholders have argued that certain “buskers” are more like beggars, that they do not have the talent or repertoire to attract customers and are a nuisance. A possible solution to this is requiring buskers to audition for their permit, although this has implications for the time it takes to obtain a permit and the cost involved.

Disruption / harassment Street performance has the potential to cause disruption to adjacent business operators and audience members/public (through harassment for donations).

Noise Street performance has the potential to create noise – either through the act itself (e.g. music) or from the audience it draws. Auckland City Council’s code of conduct requires performers to comply with the Resource Management Act 1991 in relation to noise. The Unitary Plan is also expected to contain provisions relating to noise, and street performers would be required to comply with those. Guidance material can specify guidelines in relation to amplified performances.

Vibrancy / street life Studies have shown that musicians and entertainers draw people together and often elicit approval from their audiences. They provide novelty, surprise and opportunities for fun and spontaneity in everyday life. Quality street performance adds to the visitor experience and should be encouraged in areas likely to have high numbers of visitors.

113


37

Issue Discussion

Creative / artistic city The Auckland Plan has the objective to develop a creative, vibrant, international city – street performance supports this aim. The council’s support for busking is well established such as the Auckland International Buskers Festival.

Safety Some acts can use potentially dangerous materials (e.g. fire, swords). The Auckland City Council policy handbook set out special requirements for such performances, including specifying approved sites. People feel safer when there are a lot of people around (on the street etc.) – buskers and their audiences can help to provide passive surveillance.

High use areas Some stakeholders (particularly CCOs) would like to see a curatorial approach taken to managing busking (and other trading activities) in high use areas (e.g. the waterfront, Aotea Square).

Requirement for approval Staff have expressed some concern that an approval requirement would limit the ability to allow one-off street performers associated with an event. There is support for clearer guidelines for street performers and a review of Auckland City Council’s street performance policy is included as part of this project. It is expected that organisers of an event or market would specify the inclusion of buskers within their proposed activities, exempting individual performers from also having to obtain approval in those cases

Outcome sought

6.75 To provide for an appropriate level of street performance activity and pavement art, balancing the need to maintain public safety and accessibility with the benefits of encouraging artistic and cultural endeavours which contribute to a vibrant, liveable city.


6.76 Busking / street performance is addressed in all the legacy bylaws, with the exception of the ARC. Different approaches are taken – some councils required buskers to obtain a permit, while others exempted them from such a requirement.

6.77 Auckland City Council was the only council that had any provisions relating to pavement art whereby pavement artists are required to get a street performance licence and comply with a code of conduct.

6.78 Auckland City and North Shore City Councils had a provision in the bylaw allowing fees to be charged; in practice no fee relating to street performance is included. Auckland City Council’s bylaw did note:

Most street performance licences will be issued free of charge but may require a bond to ensure the site is cleaned after the event.

6.79 Auckland City Council developed a handbook for street performers (including pavement artists) explaining the rules under the bylaw, the street performers’ code of conduct and providing guidelines and suggestions. The handbook also provides details of special street performance permits (SSPPs) – required for performances involving dangerous materials, objects or animals, and with additional conditions (e.g. roping off a certain area, limited sites at which they can perform).

114


38

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Requirement for approval to undertake street performance

��

18 �� 19

Exemption from requirement for a permit to undertake street performance

��

A fee may be charged for a permit ��20 ��

21 ��

Requirement for approval to undertake pavement art

��

What are the options for managing street performances / busking and pavement art?

Option Pros Cons

Option A


• Allows for street performances in public places subject to reasonable controls.







Option B




• Potential for inconsistency in managing this activity across the region in the absence of one universal regulatory approach for controlling street performances.

Option C






18

No permit required if part of a council event. 19

In Public Places bylaw (vs Trading in Public Places bylaw) 20

Most street performance licences will be issued free of charge but may require a bond to ensure the site is cleaned after the event 21

Provision for a fee waiver at council’s discretion

115


39

What is the most appropriate means to manage street performances / busking and pavement art?

Recommended option for addressing this activity: Address this issue through region-wide Auckland Council and Auckland Transport bylaw. Clause 21 (street performances) and 22 ( pavement art) of the proposed draft bylaw


6.80 The review of the trading bylaws and current street performance policy (ACC) presents an opportunity to develop a comprehensive set of controls and guidelines for street performance. This will allow the council to create an environment that encourages vibrant streetscapes and town centres and creative / artistic expression, while establishing a consistent approach and ensuring public safety and accessibility.

6.81 Requiring buskers to obtain approval would give the council the ability to control the number and location of buskers and to ensure that buskers are aware of the conditions imposed on their activities.

6.82 It may still be necessary to require buskers to obtain formal approval for popular places – perhaps in the International City Centre (per the Auckland Plan).

6.83 Given the positive contribution street performance can make to the life and vibrancy of the city, it is not considered appropriate to charge a fee. Auckland City Council charged a refundable bond for certain types of performances that could result in litter or extra cleaning costs for the council – this approach could be retained.

116


40

Issue 8: Events in public places

What is the issue?

6.84 The definitions of ‘events’ in the bylaws were wide ranging to include anything from a wedding on a reserve through to a Christmas parade. Strict interpretation of this definition would mean that even small-scale activities would require an events permit (or approval). Determining whether a permit should be issued is a discretionary exercise undertaken by the council’s Events – Community Development, Arts and Culture department (subject to specified criteria). This relies on an ‘events booking’ system as a means for effectively managing public spaces.

6.85 Problems associated with events vary depending on the scale and type but are commonly related to traffic and parking, noise, litter, obstructions and potential damage to public property.

6.86 Other regulations apply to major events, such as the Solid Waste Bylaw (regarding waste minimisation plans) and the requirement for traffic management plans for any event taking place on the road (whether or not road closure is required)22.

6.87 Related policies include ATEED’s Major Events Strategy; the council’s Events Policy23 and proposed Smoke-free Policy. Any bylaw would support the outcomes stated in those documents.

6.88 An events approval would act as an “umbrella” approval – any other trading activities taking place as part of that event (e.g. busking, temporary stalls) could be exempted from having to obtain separate approval, as long as they were specified activities in the event application.

6.89 There are also likely to be times when major / special events may need to limit other trading activities in certain public places – to prevent ambush marketing; for safety, operational or event delivery reasons. This could be addressed in the conditions attached to any approval granted for all types of trading activities, and any proposed impacts of this type should be specified in any event permit application. If the event intends to sell or supply alcohol a special licence will still be required, regardless of the size of the event.

22

Per NZTA’s Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (national guidelines) 23

Regional Development and Operations Committee, 16 May 2013

117


41


Issue Discussion


Events may require closure of all or part of a public place for set up or break down. They may also restrict access to all or part of a public place during an event (e.g. Victoria Park during the Taste Festival). They may also block part of a road or footpath, which impacts on both road and footpath users and poses particular challenges for disabled users. The use of the Auckland Transport System (roads, footpaths etc) for events (traffic diversion and management) is generally regulated by Auckland Transport in accordance with the NZTA Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management.

Safety Events need to ensure the safety of both participants and other users of the public place. This can be achieved through the use of traffic management plans (which may include full or partial road closures) and conditions attached to event permits.

Noise Some events may create noise (e.g. music festivals or concerts) that disturbs other users of the public place or nearby residents / businesses. This impact can be mitigated through both application of the Resource Management Act 1991 (which sets out the requirement to ensure noise is kept to a reasonable level) and through conditions attached to event permits.

Litter Events of all types may create litter in a public place. Auckland Council’s Solid Waste Bylaw 2012 sets out the requirement for event organisers to obtain approval from the council of a waste management and minimisation plan for the event.

Vibrancy Events can enhance social cohesion and community spirit, strengthen identity and sense of place and attract creative and talented people and businesses – all of which contribute to the vibrancy of Auckland.

Freedom of association (Bill of Rights)

Including “assemblies or gatherings” in the definition of events could have Bill of Rights implications, particularly in respect to protests. Some stakeholders have argued that requiring approval for a gathering breaches the Bill of Rights.

Appropriate regulation Avoiding excessive regulation for small-scale events.

Public places controlled by CCOs

In some instances, events are permitted by ATEED or the council’s events teams on public places adjacent to Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) facilities (e.g. Western Springs park next to the stadium). RFA has concerns about this as they could impact on the facilities. This can be addressed through operational guidelines outlining consultation processes.

118


42

Outcome sought

6.91 To ensure appropriate regulation that enables events to take place while protecting public safety and amenity.


6.92 Two of the legacy bylaws made a specific reference to events in public places (Auckland City and Manukau City councils), while the remaining bylaws had general clauses referring to ‘assemblies or gatherings’. Five bylaws required organisers to get approval for gatherings, although for some that was only applied if it was likely to impede people or traffic in the proposed location.

6.93 Both Manukau City and Auckland City Council’s bylaws contained provisions requiring an event holder to obtain an ‘events permit’ (with some exceptions).

6.94 The Unitary Plan is addressing events under its ‘temporary activity’ category, in that a resource consent may also be required (in addition to an events permit). This would depend on the duration and scale of the event.

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Requirement for approval to hold an event in a public place

��

��

Requirement for approval to hold a gathering in a public place

��24 ��

25 ��26 ��

27 ��28

What are the options for managing events in public places?

Option Pros Cons

Option A


• Allows for street performances in public places subject to reasonable controls.







24

Approval required if the assembly would impede persons or traffic 25

Approval required to organise any gathering, approval required to participate in a gathering that may impede traffic or access 26

Approval required to organise any gathering that may impede traffic or access 27

Approval required to organise or participate in any gathering or parade that may impede traffic or access. This provision is in the general Public Places bylaw (vs Trading in Public Places bylaw) 28

Approval required to organise any gathering that may impede traffic or access

119


43

Option Pros Cons

Option B




• Potential for inconsistency in managing this activity across the region in the absence of one universal regulatory approach for controlling street performances.

Option C






What is the most appropriate means to manage events in public places?

Recommended option for addressing this activity: Option A: Regulate this issue through Auckland Council and Auckland Transport bylaw. Clause 6(1) (b) and 23 of the proposed draft bylaw. Policy guidance will be provided by other documents (i.e. Events Policy, Major Events Strategy)


6.95 The review of the bylaws on events is designed to align with the council’s Events Policy, as well as any Unitary Plan provisions on temporary activities and the Major Events Strategy. Discussions with the Events unit, Unitary Plan team, ATEED and the Waterfront Development Agency identified the need to retain some form of control through a bylaw, with some clearer definitions as to what type of events would be exempted from the requirement to have a permit. Any bylaw would be consistent with the council’s Events Policy and the Major Events Strategy.

6.96 Requiring people to obtain approval for smaller events, such as a wedding in a park, will in many cases be to ensure that certain public places are not overused or overcrowded. It will also give people the assurance that the space will not be used for other events at the same time. For larger events it will ensure compliance with requirements such as a traffic management plan or waste management and minimisation plan. For small events (e.g. wedding ceremony or school class picnic in a park), booking a space could be considered equivalent to approval.

6.97 The Events Policy discusses the establishment of an Events Portal. This would give customers one point of contact for events queries and bookings and channel enquiries to the appropriate department. This would be supported by a case management approach to support events facilitation and permitting. Having a single contact within the council will give customers a positive experience and clear direction.

120


44

Issue 9: Filming in public places

What is the issue?

6.98 Filming is a highly controlled activity that relies on the use of public places. Viewers recognise parks, beaches and streets that can’t be reproduced in studios and which can showcase Auckland in a positive light. Many filming projects operate under tight timeframes and require quick decision-making.

6.99 As with events, problems associated with filming vary depending on the scale and type but are commonly related to traffic and parking, noise, litter, obstructions and potential damage to public property.

6.100 ATEED has recently developed a Film Protocol, in consultation with relevant council departments29. This protocol outlines Auckland Council’s commitments to supporting the film industry, the processes for gaining film permits, and a code of conduct for filmmakers wishing to operate in Auckland. The Auckland Film Protocol makes the following commitment:

Auckland Council and members of the wider council organisation will say yes to the screen production industry unless there are compelling and demonstrable reasons not to30.

6.101 The Auckland Film Protocol includes a screen industry code of conduct. It states:

In order for the Auckland region to be truly film friendly, accommodating the needs of local residents, businesses and commuters is essential. Filming can create a buzz in

communities where locals are informed, engaged and sometimes even involved31.


Issue Discussion


Filming may require closure of all or part of a public place for set up, filming and/or break down. It may also block part of a road or footpath, which impacts on both road and footpath users and poses particular challenges for disabled users. The Screen Industry Code of Conduct contained in the Auckland Film Protocol states that “screen production companies must seek to limit inconvenience to neighbouring businesses and residents”. The use of the Auckland Transport System (roads, footpaths etc.) for filming is generally covered by regulations that enable traffic diversion and traffic management to be put in place.

Contribution to Auckland’s economy

The Economic Development Strategy identifies the screen and creative content sector as one of those with the greatest potential to contribute to productivity growth. In 2011, the screen production industry generated $2.2 billion gross revenues in the Auckland region32.

29

The Auckland Film Protocol was adopted at the Regional Development and Operations Committee meeting on 14 March 2013 (resolution number RDO/2013/27) 30

The Auckland Film Protocol, Core commitment 1.2 on page 4 31

The Auckland Film Protocol, Screen Industry Code of Conduct, page 14 32

Statistics New Zealand figures, cited in the Auckland Film Protocol

121


45

Issue Discussion

Safety Filming activities need to ensure the safety of both participants and other users of the public place. This can be achieved through the use of traffic management plans (which may include full or partial road closures) and conditions attached to filming permits. The code of conduct in the Auckland Film Protocol also sets out a number of requirements designed to ensure the safety of participants and the public.

Noise Some filming activities may create noise (through e.g. special effects or pyrotechnics) that disturbs other users of the public place or nearby residents / businesses. This impact can be mitigated through both application of the Resource Management Act 1991 (which sets out the requirement to ensure noise is kept to a reasonable level) and through conditions attached to any approval given for the filming activity.

Appropriate regulation Avoiding excessive regulation for low-impact filming activities. The Auckland Film Protocol states that the default response for filming activities should be approval, unless there are clear and compelling reasons.

Outcome sought

6.103 To ensure appropriate regulation that supports the film-friendly aspiration of the Auckland Film Protocol, while protecting public safety and amenity. Waitakere City Council’s district plan provided extensively for the control of filming activities.


6.104 Only two of the legacy bylaws included controls on filming. Auckland City and Manukau City councils’ legacy bylaws included filming in the definition of events.

6.105 Film permit applications are handled by Film Auckland, which is the film office for the Auckland region and operates as part of ATEED. This applies to all public places, including parks and reserves. The Auckland Film Protocol states that most film shoots can receive a permit within 3-5 working days (depending on impact and the sensitivity of the location).

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Requirement for approval to film in a public place ��33

��34

33

Definition of event includes filming 34

Definition of event includes filming

122


46

What are the options for managing filming in public places?

Option Pros Cons

Option A

Address this issue through Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Trading and events in public places bylaw.

• Allows filming activities to take place, subject to reasonable controls.

• Enables the council and Auckland Transport to meet their regulatory objectives to control activities in public places activities in order to minimise nuisances and promote public safety.

• Supported by the council’s Compliance officers and Film Auckland.

• Provides regulatory support for the Auckland Film Protocol.

• Compliance costs in dealing with non-complying filming.

• Limited enforcement powers under Local Government Act for the council, Auckland Transport and Film Auckland to address any problems relating to filming.

Option B


• Provides guidance but no regulatory role for the council or AT.

• No cost to businesses or individuals.

• Operations savings for the council and Auckland Transport and compliance cost savings.


• Potential for community and political opposition to limited regulatory role.

Option C






What is the most appropriate means to manage filming in public places?

Recommended option for addressing this activity: Option A: Regulate this issue through Auckland Council and Auckland Transport bylaw. Clause 6(1) (c) of the proposed draft bylaw. Policy guidance will be provided by other documents (i.e. The Auckland Film Protocol)


The review of the bylaws on filming activities is designed to align with ATEED’s Auckland Film Protocol as well as any Unitary Plan provisions on temporary activities. ATEED and Film Auckland support using a bylaw as a regulatory basis for permitting filming activities. Any bylaw would be consistent with the Auckland Film Protocol. Ensuring that Film Auckland continue to manage all requests for film permits will provide consistency for film industry stakeholders.

123


47

Issue 10: Outdoor display of goods

What is the issue?

6.106 Items displayed on footpaths or other public places can add to the vibrancy of an area as well as generate commercial gains for the operator. Left unregulated, some of the problems associated with outdoor displays include:

• obstruction of public places and the associated impacts on accessibility (particularly in areas where footpaths are narrow)

• loss of public space • impacts on visual amenity (limited/no control over the types of items on display or

the way they are displayed) • the potential for displays to become a public nuisance.

6.107 With the exception of the former Manukau City and Rodney District councils, businesses in the other legacy areas are required to obtain approval to display goods in a public place.

6.108 The council receives a number of complaints relating to outdoor displays. These are normally resolved by demarcating the areas available for displays or explaining the bylaws to business operators, but in some instances staff have to make a number of visits.

6.109 Enforcement staff advised that from the public’s perspective it is often difficult to distinguish between council owned and privately owned ‘public place’ and this was observed on site visits where there was no control on items on private spaces. Staff have identified the need for clearer guidelines in any new bylaw and policy on outdoor displays.


Issue Discussion

Obstruction of public places, accessibility and loss of public space

It is important to maintain a minimum clear accessway on all footpaths and public places. Displays outside shops can create obstructions, making it difficult for other users to pass, particularly those who have a disability or other accessibility requirement (e.g. parents with prams). This is a particular problem where footpaths are narrow. Disability groups require consistency in the way public places are used and the space left for access. Shop displays can also contribute to street “clutter”, particularly where there is existing street furniture. This cumulatively reduces the amount of space available to pedestrians. Particular attention needs to be given to displays in locations where visibility and access is particularly important, such as near intersections and bus stops.

124


48

Issue Discussion

Shared spaces A shared space is a multi-use space for pedestrians and/or traffic and activities such as outdoor dining. Two common types of shared spaces are shared zones and pedestrian malls. One of the design features of many shared zones is an accessible pathway (through route) for the disabled located directly adjacent to the building line. This provides safety and certainty for disabled (particularly vision impaired) users so that they are kept safe from vehicle traffic. It is likely that displays will not be permitted adjacent to a building in shared spaces. This approach is strongly supported by the council’s disability advisors.

Unitary Plan rules and the proposed signs bylaw

The Unitary Plan and the proposed signs bylaw propose rules requiring a certain percentage of clear glass for premises on the ground level of main centres, to promote pedestrian amenity and perceptions of safety. This has particular implications for the display of goods outside a resident business as displays have the potential to block part of the window.

Safety Shop displays can create safety concerns, particularly for people with visual impairments or other disabilities. Vision impaired pedestrians using a cane experience difficulties with unstable display units – they may get injured by colliding with obstructing or protruding displays or knock over displays that creates a hazard for all footpath users.

Distinguishing between public and private space

Advice from enforcement staff identified that, from the public’s perspective, it is often difficult to distinguish between council-owned and privately-owned ‘public place’. This was observed on site visits where there was no control over items on private spaces. Staff have identified the need for clearer guidelines in any new policy and bylaw on outdoor displays. While the proposed definition of public place would not give the council power to enforce bylaws on privately owned “public” space, the development of guidance materials and potential involvement by town centre managers as “champions” could help alleviate some of these issues.

125


49

Issue Discussion

Impacts on visual amenity There is a large variation in the type of displays on public places, including:

• fruit and vegetables • books • furniture (e.g. antique shops) • flowers • assorted small items (e.g. emporia, $2 shops).

Some displays can be attractive, providing interest and distinctiveness to public places, while others can be cluttered and lack a cohesive theme. The display of goods can add to the character of a location and some stakeholders assert that it should be enabled, where infrastructure such as footpath width allows, as it adds to Auckland’s visitor experience. The way in which the goods are displayed can also vary greatly and have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the site. The council works closely with town centres through the Economic Development department. Town centre representatives have expressed an interest in being involved in managing trading activities in their area. With this activity in particular, there is potential for the town centre managers to help the council achieve its objectives for visually attractive streets and town centres by encouraging their members to maintain attractive displays.

Outcome sought

6.111 To provide for an appropriate level of display of goods outside resident businesses, that maintains a quality street environment and ensures adequate access for pedestrians and other legitimate street users.


6.112 All of the legacy bylaws refer to the display of goods outside a resident business. Most require the business owner to obtain approval from the council (three set an associated fee), while the Manukau City and Rodney District councils only set standard conditions (such as maintaining a minimum clearway on the footpath), without the requirement to obtain approval from the council. The Papakura bylaw has a brief operative policy providing more information about the display of goods and/or services.

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

C

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Ability to display goods outside premises as of right (subject to standard conditions)

� �

Requirement for approval outdoor display of goods � � � � �

A fee may be charged � � � � �

126


50

What are the options for managing outdoor business displays?

Option Pros Cons

Option A

Address this issue through Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Trading and events in public places bylaw.

• Allows for provision of outdoor business displays, subject to reasonable controls.




• Compliance costs in dealing with non-complying outdoor dining activities.

• Limited enforcement powers under Local Government Act for the council and Auckland Transport to address any problems relating to outdoor dining.


Option B



• No other council tools currently exist to manage outdoor business displays.


• Potential for inconsistency in managing this activity across the region in the absence of one universal regulatory approach for controlling fundraising.

Option C






What is the most appropriate means to manage outdoor business displays?

Option A: Address this issue through region-wide Auckland Council and Auckland Transport bylaw. (NB: This activity is exempted from the requirement to obtain an approval however it must comply with the conditions set out in the bylaw) Clause 24 of the proposed draft bylaws.

127


51


6.113 Some of the legacy councils allowed shop displays (without approval) where there was sufficient space on the footpath, subject to standard conditions. This approach would reduce administration costs as licensing staff could concentrate on checking compliance rather than processing applications.

6.114 The main concern with this approach is the quality of displays and ensuring they leave sufficient clear space on the footpath. This could be managed by ensuring that shop owners are aware of the standard conditions for outdoor displays (e.g. minimum clear footpath space, maximum display depth, minimum quality of materials used for displays). Certain areas would not be suitable for shopfront displays, due to special character or high pedestrian use.

128


52

Issue 11: Trading / commercial activities in parks and reserves

What is the issue?

6.115 Parks and reserves (including some regional parks) are subject to additional legislative requirements under the Reserves Act 1977. While the Reserves Act does not apply to all parks, the procedures set out in that Act are used as a guide and for the sake of consistency.


Issue Discussion

Safety Temporary trading activities can improve actual or perceived safety through passive surveillance. This could be particularly valuable in some parks where people feel more isolated or vulnerable.

Appropriate activities – contributing to users’ experience

The Reserves Act 1977 states that trading may take place in parks and reserves if that activity is for the convenience of users or necessary to enable the public to enjoy the reserve. While the Reserves Act does not apply to all parks, the procedures set out in that Act are used as a guide and for the sake of consistency.

Landowner approval For local and sports parks, local boards have been delegated landowner approval. In most cases they have further delegated this to officers (see What do we have now? below for more information on this process). For regional parks, landowner approval is represented by parks advisors and regional park rangers.

Mixed responsibilities Auckland Council is responsible for approving trading activities in parks and reserves, and on beaches. Auckland Transport has responsibility for some parks that contain unformed legal roads (paper roads). A number of road reserves are intended to be designated back to open space (e.g. Freyberg Place, Lumsden Green), which may address this issue in some places. Complementary bylaws prepared by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, with enforcement for both delegated to council officers, will also address this issue. Responsibility for beaches is only clarified where they adjoin a park or reserve, but then only to the MHWS.

Outcome sought

To provide for appropriate trading activities in parks and reserves.

129


53


Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Requirement for approval to trade or hold an event in a park or reserve

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Specific mention of parks or reserves ��

6.117 None of the legacy trading bylaws makes specific reference to parks and reserves – with the exception of the ARC’s Parks Bylaw, which by its nature is restricted solely to regional parks. Parks and reserves are generally included in the definition of a public place in the other legacy bylaws.

6.118 There are differences in the way requests to undertake trading activities are dealt with in local and sports parks compared to regional parks. In local and sports parks, requests for events and commercial (still) photography are dealt with by event facilitators within the council, while trading activities are processed through the process outlined below. For regional parks, the rangers grant permits.

6.119 Local and Sports Parks and Licensing and Compliance have a separate process for assessing and approving requests for trading permits in local parks and reserves. Local boards have the status of landowner for local and sports parks, so they need to give approval for any trading activity taking place in their parks. Some boards have delegated this approval to officers, while others have not. While officers are currently operating under the different legacy bylaws, this approach provides an overlay to at least ensure the process is consistent.

6.120 The process is:

Step 2:

Inspector

assesses

application, if

complete,

forwards to

parks

advisor

Step 3:

Parks advisor

completes

landowner

approval

assessment and

prepares

recommendation)

Step 4:

Parks advisor

consults local

board parks

portfolio

holder

Step 5

If an application

is approved, the

bylaws inspector

will issue the

licence,

incorporating

any landowner

conditions

specified.

Step1:

Applications

(parks and

trading)

submitted to

Licensing and

Compliance

Services

Bylaws

inspectors

130


54

6.121 In Step 4 the parks advisor consults local board parks portfolio holder to determine whether officer delegation can be used (a decision can usually be providing within 20 working days) or if the local board wishes to decide on this application (which can take 2-3 months)

6.122 Commercial operations in regional parks are currently managed by concessions (instead of licences). There is an application fee and a concession fee – a percentage of gross revenue or a charge per head/per trip. A range of activities currently operate under this system – a large number are sightseeing tour operators, while others include canyoning, kayaking, fishing, mountain biking, abseiling, outdoor education and corporate teambuilding.

6.123 There is currently a lack of clarity on who is responsible for decisions on trading activities on beaches. Where beaches adjoin a reserve, generally the reserve only extends as far as the MHWS. A number of road reserves are intended to be designated as open space (e.g. Freyberg Place, Lumsden Green), which may address this issue in some places.

6.124 The Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 (RPMP) is the primary policy document for regional parks. It can only be amended by using the Special Consultative Procedure. The ARC Parks Bylaw was designed to enable rangers to enforce park visitor behaviour in relation to RPMP policies. Currently, park rangers are warranted to administer most bylaws in regional parks (with the exception of the dog bylaw) – and they support retaining this approach. Regional parks have a number of procedures in place to deal with trading, events and filming activities in regional parks. Rangers work closely with parks and recreation advisors, and regional parks staff emphasise the importance of their involvement as representatives of the “land owner” and those who know the environment and operations of the parks best.

What are the options?

Option Pros Cons

Option A

Address this issue through Auckland Council trading and events in public places bylaw only (no role for Auckland Transport).

• Allows for commercial activities in parks and beaches, subject to reasonable controls.

• Enables the council to meet its regulatory objectives to control activities in public places including parks and beaches activities in order to minimise nuisances and promote public safety

• Supported by the council’s Compliance and Parks officers.

• Provides regulatory support for other documents relating to activities in parks and beaches.

• Compliance costs in dealing with non-complying filming.

• Limited enforcement powers under Local Government Act for the council to address any problems relating to activities on parks and beaches.

131


55

Option Pros Cons

Option B


• Provides guidance but no regulatory role for the council.

• Operations savings for the council and compliance cost savings.

• No ability for the council to regulate this activity.

• Potential for community opposition to limited council regulatory role.

Option C

No council involvement in addressing the activity, as there is no evidence that there is a problem, or there are other ways to deal with the matter

• No compliance costs for businesses, the council.

• Less intervention and regulation by the council.


• No ability for the council to regulate this activity.

What is the most appropriate means to manage trading activities in parks and reserves?

Recommended option for addressing this activity: Option A: Regulate this issue through an Auckland Council bylaw only – no requirement for an Auckland Transport bylaw. Clause 6(2) of the proposed draft bylaw. Policy guidance will be provided by other documents (i.e. Regional Parks Management Plan)


6.125 Given the special character of parks and reserves, specific mention of this type of public space in the Trading and events in public places would help the public and potential operators understand the specific requirements for these particular public places.

6.126 Landowner consent for local and sports parks has been delegated by the governing body to local boards, with officer delegation as discussed above.

132


56

Issue 12: Exemptions from requirement to have approval

What is the issue?

6.127 Advice from compliance officers identified certain activities that have limited public interest, such as weddings in reserves or fundraising sausage sizzles, and as such should be exempted from the requirement to have a permit. From an operational consideration this is supported, as the bylaw would become impractical to enforce if all activities occurring in a public place, regardless of scale and type, were required to have a permit.

6.128 Multiple trading activities could be covered by a single permit for activities such as markets, events and filming (e.g. buskers, food stalls), removing the requirement for individual traders to obtain separate approval. The proposed additional trading activities would need to be specified in the application for the appropriate permit.

6.129 Many stakeholders also expressed the belief that charitable, not-for-profit or community activities should be exempt from certain conditions, and particularly any fees.


Issue Discussion

Safety and accessibility Need to ensure public safety and accessibility is maintained at all times.

Appropriate regulation Avoiding excessive regulation for small-scale events and activities with limited impact. This could include children undertaking small-scale fundraising or trading activities (such as selling fruit from a stall on the verge outside their house). Avoiding situations where multiple permits would be required for one group of activities (e.g. an event with buskers and food stalls). Not regulating activities that council can’t control or enforce.

Space management While formal approval may not be required for certain activities, it could be desirable to maintain some kind of advice / booking system for certain activities to ensure that there will not be, for example, two school groups having a picnic in the same small local park on the same day.

Outcome sought

6.131 To ensure that desirable activities of limited scale and impact can take place without incurring prohibitive costs or administrative requirements.


6.132 With the exception of the Auckland Regional Council, all bylaws exempted certain trading activities from having to obtain a permit35.

35

Waitakere City didn’t specify exemptions, but listed all trading activities that required a licence, so effectively created exemptions by omission.

133


57

Legacy bylaws

AR

C

AC

C

MC

C

NS

CC

WC

C

FD

C

PD

C

RD

C

Exemptions for art installed on public places by the council

��

Exemptions for street trading or performance activities approved as part of an event permitted by the council

��

Exemptions for delivery of goods or services to private land or premises

��

Exemptions for the selling or disposal by commercial fishers of a limited quantity of fish in the vicinity of a fishing vessel36

��

Exemptions for outdoor business displays ��

Exemptions for the sale of newspapers �� 37

What are the options for managing exemptions for certain trading activities?

36

Ref: section 191 of the Fisheries Act 1996 37

Includes delivery

Option Pros Cons

Option A


• Allows for appropriate activities to be exempted from the requirement to get a approval or pay fees.

• Enables the council and Auckland Transport to meet their regulatory objectives to control activities in public places activities in order to minimise nuisances and promote public safety.

• Supported by the council’s Compliance staff.

• Compliance costs in dealing with activities exempted from requirement to get a permit.

Option B


• Provides guidance but no regulatory role for the council or Auckland Transport.

• No cost to businesses or individuals.

• Operations savings for the council and Auckland Transport and compliance cost savings.


• Potential for community and political opposition to limited regulatory role.

134


58

What is the most appropriate means to manage exemptions for the requirement to obtain an approval?

Recommended option for addressing this activity: Option A: Regulate this issue through Auckland Council and Auckland Transport bylaw. Clause 7 of the proposed draft bylaw.


6.133 Council officers have identified the need to contain provisions within any new bylaw exempting certain activities (such as those that have a low impact or a low probability of causing a problem) from being required to obtain a trading or events permit. While discussed in detail under Issue 10 (Outdoor displays of goods), clauses 6.107 – 6.115, this activity is exempted from the requirement to obtain approval however must comply with the conditions relating to outdoor displays of goods as identified in clause 24 of the proposed draft bylaw.

6.134 Some activities may still be required to contact the council to advise of their activities – but for space management purposes rather than formal “approval”.

Option C






135


2

7.0 Compliance and enforcement

7.1 Compliance and enforcement for trading activities is undertaken by the council’s Licencing and Compliance Services staff. For activities in parks and reserves council’s parks staff and parks rangers. Enforcement is undertaken as the result of service requests or complaints received and investigated by the council. It is proposed that the council will enforce the proposed bylaw in the same manner.

7.2 Council staff will typically investigate any complaint, and where appropriate, identify the best course of action to remedy the situation. In the first instance compliance staff will talk to the non-complying person seeking that they voluntarily comply with the bylaw or rectify the situation within a specified timeframe. If sufficient progress is not made then staff will re-assess the situation and begin proceedings. If persons who fail to comply with any council notice that is issued council staff may take legal action. Persons in breach of the bylaw can be convicted for breaching the bylaw and are liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $20,000.

7.3 Staff can also undertake a number of other courses of action including works to prevent the breach from occurring, including the seizure and impounding of any property involved in the breach. As stated in clause 6.3, the council has finite resources to administer and enforce bylaws. Internal council policy review work is currently considering the impact of the council becoming more proactive in the enforcement of bylaws and legislative requirements.

8.0 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

8.1 The council and Auckland Transport have considered the most appropriate way of managing trading and events (including filming) in public places in Section 6.0 of the Statement of Proposal. The analysis has considered the approaches used by the legacy councils, covering regulatory tools such as in their bylaws, and other non-regulatory tools such as public information.

8.2 The review has identified that it is necessary to make the bylaws more ‘user friendly’, easy to interpret and supported by guiding material such as brochures. Another issue identified during the review was to make the bylaw easily understood and enforceable by council staff.

8.3 An approval regime is considered to be the most appropriate method of managing some of the issues associated with the various trading activities, events and filming with the exception of some easily regulated and relatively benign trading operations such as outdoor business display areas.

8.4 The bylaw enables the council to set parameters, by resolution, for trading activities including the ability to prohibit, restrict or control trading activities, the location or times for trading.

8.5 In determining the most appropriate form of the bylaw, the council has reviewed legacy bylaws, relevant national legislation, other bylaws, both nationally and internationally, undertaking an extensive literature review, conducted two surveys, and had an internal working party consisting of staff representatives from across the council and council controlled organisations. Staff have also presented to political representatives and spoken to industry representatives.

8.6 The proposed bylaws are not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights (NZBOR) Act 1990. The proposed controls are considered reasonable, as allowed for in Section 5 of the Act:

the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

136


3

8.7 It is concluded that the proposed draft bylaws are not inconsistent with the NZBOR including:

• freedom of expression (Section 14)

• freedom of peaceful assembly (Section 16)

• freedom of movement and residence (Section 18)

• freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (Section 21).

8.8 The proposed draft bylaws provide for freedom of movement through public places subject to reasonable controls on activities and behaviour in public places. Controls on safety and obstructions ensure that public places are safe and that nuisances to the users of public places are minimised.

9.0 . Revocation of legacy bylaws

9.1 The former councils adopted the following bylaws that relate trading in place. The council and Auckland Transport consider it appropriate to revoke either in full, or in part, these bylaws for the following reasons:

• they represent a variety of approaches across Auckland, and this variation is no longer appropriate or necessary

• the bylaws would require substantial amendment to bring them into alignment, and it is more convenient to all users to have a single bylaw in place

Legacy Council Bylaw

Clauses to be revoked

Auckland Regional Council Parks Bylaw ( 2007)

Part 2, and definition of “trading” and clause 6.1(f)

Auckland City Council No 20 - Public Places Bylaw (2008)

20.1.1 (definition of event’ , ‘street trading’ and ‘street performance ); 20.6;6; 20.6.1(a) – (c) 20.6.2 (a) – (d) 20.6.3; 20.6.4; 20.6.5 (a) , (b), 20.6.6 (a) - ,(c) ; 20.6.7; 20.6.8 (a) - (b) ; 20.6.9 (a) - (b) (i) , (ii) , (iii) ; 20.6.10; 20.6.11; 20.6.12; 20.6.13; 20.6.14;

Franklin District Council Trading in Public Places Bylaw (2007)

ALL CLAUSES

Manukau City Council Chapter 7- Events and Trading in Parks and Public Places

ALL CLAUSES

North Shore City Council Trading in Public Places Bylaw (2007)

ALL CLAUSES

Papakura District Council Trading in Public Places Bylaw (2008)

ALL CLAUSES

Rodney District Council Chapter 9 – Trading in Public Places

ALL CLAUSES

Waitakere City Council Public Places Bylaw (2010)

Clause 5 (d), (i), (k) – (m), (o), (p), (r), (s) and Part 5.

137


4

10.0 Conclusion

10.1 The Auckland Council and Auckland Transport bylaw has been determined to be the most appropriate mechanism to ensure that the use of public places, including parks and beaches for trading activities, events and filming, does not create a nuisance create an obstruction, cause damage or result in the mis-use of public property. The proposed draft is the most appropriate from of bylaw and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

11.0 Glossary

General bylaw terms Description amenity means the natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area

that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes.

approval means a licence, permit or other form of approval granted under this bylaw and includes all conditions to which the approval is subject.

commercial services means selling or hiring any goods or services which are offered or provided for in a public place in exchange for payment, reward or otherwise. This includes, but is not limited to, the production and sale of personal portraits, hiring recreational equipment or, any other service of any kind whatsoever.

event means an organised temporary activity that takes place on one or more days including an organised gathering, parade, protest, wedding, private function (which is independent of premises), festival, concert, celebration, multi-venue sports event of a significant scale, fun run, marathon, duathlon or triathlon. For the purposes of this bylaw a performance, private function, tasting and sampling activity, giveaway, market, sports practice or training that takes place indoors is not an event.

filming means the recording of images, moving or still, whether on film or by video tape, electronically or by any other means, but excludes the still or video recording of a wedding ceremony or other private celebration or event or the recording of current affairs or news for immediate release.

market means the whole of the place and the whole of the activity, where

more than one stall at a common location where goods and / or

services are offered for sale or hire, whether for commercial or

Council

ARC Auckland Regional Council

RDC Rodney District Council

NSCC North Shore City Council

ACC Auckland City Council

WCC Waitakere City Council

MCC Manukau City Council

PDC Papakura District Council

FDC Franklin District Council

138


5

General bylaw terms Description charitable purposes.

mobile shop

means a vehicle, whether self-propelled or not, standing on a road or other public place and from which: (a) goods are offered or exposed/displayed for sale; or (b) goods may be ordered (whether or not in pursuance of an

invitation to call with the goods); or (c) services are offered for sale; but does not include: (d) any vehicle used for the purpose of transporting and delivering

goods pursuant to a prior order being placed; or (e) a mobile library.

outdoor dining.

means a road or other public place used by an adjacent business premise for the purpose of providing food or drink

outdoor display of goods

means the display of goods and / or services in a road or other public place adjacent to business premises, and includes any display structure

trading goods

means all structures, items, furniture, screens, barriers, objects, stalls, signs, vehicles, and any other equipment associated with the trading activity.

trading in a public place

means an activity undertaken by any person or organisation

involving the sale of goods in a public place or the performance of a

service for payment, reward or otherwise, including but not limited

to:

(a) markets and stalls;

(b) mobile shops;

(c) outdoor dining;

(d) fundraising for a charitable cause, soliciting of any subscription

or collection of any one-off or on-going donation; offering

commercial services in a public place;

(e) distribution of promotional goods and materials;

(f) outdoor display of goods;

(g) street performance / busking and pavement art.

139


6

APPENDIX ONE: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 1. The project team has undertaken a number of engagement activities with a number of

stakeholders, both internally and externally during the review. These have included: • two rounds of local board workshops to discuss the review and obtain feedback on the

Issues and Options paper respectively. The majority of local boards supported the outlined approach – providing regulatory support for the various activities through the Trading and events in public places, requiring approval and charging a fee based on the type of activity.

• two workshops with the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee to discuss the project; • the development of an internal working party, made up of officers from a range of

departments around the council and CCOs whose work links to Trading and Events in Public Places in some way. This group has had the opportunity to discuss the issues addressed by this paper and contribute to its development;

• attending Business Improvement District quarterly network meetings (facilitated by Economic Development) to present the review project and obtain feedback. A web survey targeted at businesses operating from fixed premises was also undertaken with nearly 300 responses received;

• workshop with representatives from Auckland’s disability community; • attending meetings with industry representatives including Heart of the City; The Public

Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA) and Experiential Marketing Association of New Zealand (EMANZ);

• A People’s Panel survey which received over 3000 responses 2. Both surveys were undertaken during late February / early March 2013. Results from the

surveys that relate to each individual issue are discussed at the relevant point throughout this paper.

3. Key results from the People’s Panel survey include the following:

• In general, many people were positive about buskers, markets and outdoor dining as they made the area feel more colourful and alive. Charitable collections received mixed feedback with some saying this was an important way for non-profit groups to raise money and others expressing annoyance at aggressive tactics occasionally used by the collectors. On balance many people felt this was an appropriate outdoor activity provided it was limited and not too invasive.

• Participants could see the benefit of these types of activities in public places – both in terms of making Auckland a more colourful and interesting place and in terms of the financial benefit this can bring to small / independent businesses. However, participants want to see a balance between the needs of the traders and charities and the rights of people to be in a public place without being harassed. A number of people felt that any regulation and enforcement needed to be applied with common sense, and that the council should avoid over-regulating these activities and stifling community participation and enterprise.

• 90 per cent felt that at least some commercial activities should need approval from Auckland Council, particularly those that encroach on public accessibility, are large scale and that generate a profit.

• 62 per cent felt there should be a fee for commercial use of public spaces with many saying that since these activities were making a profit they should be asked to pay a ‘modest’ fee for the privilege of using the space, but that this should be proportional to the size of the operation.

• 25 per cent felt charitable collections in public places should not need approval from council, while 36 per cent felt they should. Many felt that larger scale activities and those with invasive techniques should need approval.

140


7

• 80 per cent felt non-profit activities should not be charged a fee, generally because they were raising money for the betterment of society and so if they were charged a fee that would mean less money could be used for their specific cause.

• Generally, participants were in favour of those activities that added interest, atmosphere and fun to the area, or that provided a public good in some way. Activities that caused an inconvenience in terms of restricting people’s movements or were overly intrusive were considered undesirable uses of public space.

4. Responses from businesses were along similar lines:

• The main trading activities undertaken by survey participants were markets (32 per cent), display of goods outside their business (30 per cent), distribution of promotional material (23 per cent) and temporary stalls (21 per cent). 28 per cent of respondents don’t undertake any trading activities in public places.

• 75 per cent of respondents felt that at least some commercial activities should need approval from the council.

• The proportion of respondents who felt there should be a fee for commercial use of a public place was lower in the business survey than the People’s Panel – 43 per cent (47 per cent said there should be no fee).

• 61 per cent of respondents stated that fundraisers should require council approval, but 78 per cent said they shouldn’t pay a fee.

• Business owners were asked to give examples of “good” and “bad” trading activities in their area. The most commonly noted “good” activities were markets, outdoor dining, busking, displays outside resident shops and market days (where local businesses put stalls outside their shops, often linked with community events such as Santa parades). The “bad” trading activities cited were fundraising (particularly when the fundraisers were aggressive or professionals paid to raise money), temporary stalls and busking (of poor quality).

In both surveys we asked people how important a number of values are in the way council deals with trading activities. They were asked to rank each value from 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important). The table below shows the results, with the rankings based on the percentage of people choosing 4 (important) or 5 (very important) for each value.

People’s Panel Business survey 1 Accessibility – ensuring there is a

clear way to get along the footpath, and into the neighbouring properties, for everyone, including those with limited mobility

90% 1 Amenity – how an area looks and feels

93%

2= Safety – ensuring trading activities in public places don’t endanger the safety of other users of the space

88% 2 Promoting local economic activity 89%

2= Fairness – having a set of rules that treat all users of public places fairly

88% 3 Choice – a range of goods and services are available to communities

87%

2= Amenity – how an area looks and feels

88% 4 Fairness – having a set of rules that treat all users of public places fairly

86%

5= Minimal obstruction of / disruption to foot traffic and other users of public places

81% 5= Convenience – relevant goods and services are readily available to communities

84%

141


8

People’s Panel Business survey 5= Vibrancy – a mix of users and

activities in public places that enrich daily life

81% 5= Safety – ensuring trading activities in public places don’t endanger the safety of other users of the space

84%

7= Protecting the character of local communities

79% 7= Accessibility – ensuring there is a clear way to get along the footpath, and into the neighbouring properties, for everyone, including those with limited mobility

83%

7= Community involvement in determining the uses of their public places

79% 7= Vibrancy – a mix of users and activities in public places that enrich daily life

83%

9 Promoting local economic activity 78% 9 Protecting the character of local communities

82%

10 Relationship between temporary use of the public place and local fixed businesses

76% 10 Relationship between temporary use of the public place and local fixed businesses

81%

11 Convenience – relevant goods and services are readily available to communities

74% 11 Community involvement in determining the uses of their public places

72%

12 Choice – a range of goods and services are available to communities

73% 12 Minimal obstruction of / disruption to foot traffic and other users of public places

71%

142


Draft Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014 9

APPENDIX TWO: ISSUES ADDRESSED IN LEGACY COUNCILS’ BYLAWS AND PROPOSED TO BE REGULATED IN A REGION-WIDE AUCKLAND COUNCIL BYLAW

ARC Auckland Manukau North Shore Waitakere Franklin Papakura Rodney Auckland Council

Title Auckland Regional Council Parks Bylaw 2007 (Part 2)

Auckland City Council Public Places Bylaw 2008 (clauses 20.6 – 20.7)

Manukau City Council Chapter 7 (Events and Trading in Parks and Public Places) of the Manukau City Consolidated Bylaw 2008

Part 3 (Trading in Public Places) of the North Shore City Council Bylaw 2000

Waitakere City Council Bylaw Public Places 2010 (Part 5)

Franklin District Council Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2008

Papakura District Council Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2008

Rodney District Chapter 5 – Trading in Public Places 2005

Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014 (draft)

Empowering Legislation

section 145 and 146, 149 of the Local Government Act 2002

section 145 and 146(b) (vi) of the Local Government Act 2002. Reserves Act 1977, Health Act 1956 and Litter Act 1979

section 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002






section 145 and 146, 149 of the Local Government Act 2002

ISSUES (ADDRESSED IN LEGACY COUNCILS’ BYLAWS AND PROPOSED REGION-WIDE AUCKLAND COUNCIL BYLAW)

Issue one: Markets and stalls

Requirement for approval to operate a market or stall

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Issue two: Mobile Shops

Requirement for approval to operate a mobile shop

~38

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Issue three: Outdoor dining

Requirement for approval to provide outdoor dining and/or drinking areas in a

- �� ~39

��

38

Not specified, but presumably covered by requirement for approval to carry out any commercial or trading activity 39

The RDC definition of trader includes a resident business occupying public footpaths adjoining their premises or other public places, for business purposes. An exception for requirement for approval is provided when services are offered outside a resident business and they leave a minimum 1.5 metre clearance directly in front of the premises.

143




public place

A fee may be charged for rental of the public space

- �� ~40 �� ~41

��

Issue four: Fundraising

Requirement for approval to carry out fundraising activities

�� 42 �� ~43 ��

44��

45 ��

Issue five: Offering commercial services

Requirement for approval to offer or provide commercial services in a public place

�� 46

��47

��

��

Issue six: Distribution of promotional material / goods

Requirement for approval to distribute any posters, written or printed material etc

��

Issue seven: Street performances and pavement artists

Requirement for approval to undertake street performance

��48

�� 49

��

40 Not specified in the bylaw, but there is a line item relating to outdoor dining in fees and charges schedule for the former Waitakere area 41 Not specified in the bylaw, but there is a line item relating to outdoor dining in the fees and charges schedule for the former Rodney area 42 Requirement for permit may be waived at the council’s discretion 43 FDC Public Places bylaw specifies that these activities must obtain approval if they are undertaken in a way that creates or is likely to create a nuisance 44 In the legacy Public Places bylaw (vs. Trading in Public Places) 45 In the legacy Public Places bylaw (vs. Trading in Public Places) 46 Use of the road for the purposes of selling or offering goods or services of any kind is prohibited, but not specified in relation to other public places. 47 “Trading” definition includes offering goods and services, as well as selling. 48 No permit required if part of a council event. 49 In Public Places bylaw (vs Trading in Public Places bylaw)

144




Exemption from requirement for a permit to undertake street performance

��

��

A fee may be charged for a street performance permit

��50

��51

��

Requirement for approval to undertake pavement art

��

Issue eight: Events in a public place

Requirement for approval to hold an event in a public place ��

��

Requirement for approval to hold a gathering in a public place

��52

��53

��54

��55

��56

��

Issue nine: Filming in a public place

Requirement for approval to film in a public place

��57

��58 ��

Issue ten: Outdoor display of goods

Ability to display goods outside premises as of right (subject to standard

��

50 Most street performance licences will be issued free of charge but may require a bond to ensure the site is cleaned after the event 51 Provision for a fee waiver at council’s discretion 52 Approval required if the assembly would impede persons or traffic 53 Approval required to organise any gathering, approval required to participate in a gathering that may impede traffic or access 54 Approval required to organise any gathering that may impede traffic or access 55 Approval required to organise or participate in any gathering or parade that may impede traffic or access. This provision is in the general Public Places bylaw (vs Trading in Public Places bylaw) 56 Approval required to organise any gathering that may impede traffic or access 57

Definition of event includes filming 58

Definition of event includes filming

145




conditions)

Requirement for approval to display goods outside premises

�� 59 ��

Exemption

A fee may be charged ��

60��

11�� N/A

Issue 11:Trading activities in parks and reserves

Requirement for approval to trade or hold an event in a park or reserve

��

��

Specific mention of parks or reserves ��

Issue 12:Exemptions from requirement to obtain approval

Exemptions for art installed on public places by the council ��

��

Exemptions for street trading or performance activities approved as part of an event permitted by the council

��

��

Exemptions for delivery of goods or services to private land or premises

��

��

Exemptions for the selling or disposal by commercial fishers of a limited quantity of

�� Removed

59 In Public Places bylaw as well as Trading in Public Places

60 Covered by general Trading in Public Places fee (vs. specific display fee)

146




fish in the vicinity of a fishing vessel61

Exemptions for outdoor business displays

��

Exemptions for the sale of newspapers ��

62 ��

61 Ref: section 191 of the Fisheries Act 1996

62 Includes delivery

147

ATTACHMENT B

SUBMISSIONS

Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaws

148

From: [email protected]: BylawCc: [email protected]: Trading and events in public places bylaw - submissionDate: Tuesday, 5 August 2014 11:47:57 a.m.

Thank you for your submission.

Once submissions close we will prepare a summary of submissions, and then hold hearings toconsider all submissions.

If you asked to be heard at a hearing then we will be in touch when hearings are scheduled.

If you have any questions, please contact us on 09 301 0101.

Proposed trading and events in public places bylaw

Contact details

First name: kelvinSurname: choiOrganisation: Email address: [email protected] address: Post code: Contact phone: 0212998537Preferred method of communication: By emailLocal board area: Howick local board Auckland wideDo you want to speak in person on your submission? No

Submission details

Q1. What parts of the proposed trading and events in public places bylaw do you support?Ability for people to use public space

Q2. What parts of the proposed trading and events in public places bylaw do you oppose?Pre-approval on everything is just creating bureaucracy. Council generally tend to declinerequests rather than approve for the sake of risk and responsibility. Which in terms discouragepeople to apply.

No people will throw a gathering at the park, or do a casual street performing if they have to gothough the hassle of applying approval and wait a month to found out it has been declined.

This will destroy the original vision of this proposal.

Q3. Do you have further comments on the proposal?Any casual small activities such as casual street performing, friends gathering party at the park,one-off fundraising should not require pre-approval. Otherwise you are just discouraging them.

Date of submission: 5 August 2014

Submission No 1

149

mailto:[email protected]



Submission No 1

150

1

From: [email protected]: Thursday, 7 August 2014 11:04 a.m.To: BylawCc: [email protected]: Trading and events in public places bylaw - submission


Once submissions close we will prepare a summary of submissions, and then hold hearings to consider all submissions.




Contact details

First name: David Surname: Rowland Organisation: Email address: [email protected] Postal address: PO Box 305303, Triton Plaza, Auckland, 0757 Post code: 0757 Contact phone: 0210 222 9773 Preferred method of communication: By email Local board area: Hibiscus and Bays local board Do you want to speak in person on your submission? No

Submission details

Q1. What parts of the proposed trading and events in public places bylaw do you support?

Q2. What parts of the proposed trading and events in public places bylaw do you oppose? Filming

Q3. Do you have further comments on the proposal? The proposed rule on filming does not permit a person to take photographs or video for their own use. The exemptions are for private events and news activities. A tourist wishing to film around Auckland whilst on holiday would need permission if I understand correctly, as would camera/film clubs and other individuals on non commercial activities. I understand need for permit for activities that might cause disruption but many individuals may wish to film and not cause disruption. This rule needs to be redefined.


Submission No 2

151

2

Submission No 3

152

2

Submission No 2

153

1

From: [email protected]: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 11:00 a.m.To: BylawCc: [email protected]: Trading and events in public places bylaw - submission






Contact details

First name: Zaid Surname: SULAIMAN Organisation: Devonport Pharmacy Email address: [email protected] Postal address: 33 Victoria Rd , Devonport , Auckland Post code: 0624 Contact phone: 027 261 3372 Preferred method of communication: By email Local board area: Devonport-Takapuna local board Do you want to speak in person on your submission? No

Submission details

Q1. What parts of the proposed trading and events in public places bylaw do you support? All parts

Q2. What parts of the proposed trading and events in public places bylaw do you oppose? Non

Q3. Do you have further comments on the proposal? Please remove currently paid fee for outside bins displays as these displays are attracting customers and visitors to use our service and hence boost NZ economy, why are we paying council fee more for our outside displays initiative, despite risking theft and we are already paying full Auckland Council Rates?


Submission No 3

154

1

From: [email protected]: Friday, 15 August 2014 2:33 p.m.To: BylawCc: [email protected]: Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014 - submissionAttachments: NSCC Submission - Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw.pdf





Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014

Contact details

First name: Cam Surname: Wallace Organisation: North Shore Cricket Club Inc. Email address: [email protected] Postal address: Post code: Contact phone: 0273520287 Preferred method of communication: By email Local board area: Devonport-Takapuna local board Do you want to speak in person on your submission? Yes

Submission details

Q1. What parts of the proposed bylaw do you support?

see attached

>Q2. What parts of the proposed bylaw do you oppose?

see attached

>Q3. Do you have further comments on the proposal?

see attached


Submission No 4

155

NORTH SHORE CRICKET CLUB INC. Devonport Domain, Cambridge Terrace, Devonport

Auckland, New Zealand. P.O. Box 32423, Devonport C.C. Dacre Pavilion Ph: 445 2483

Email: [email protected] www.northshorecricket.co.nz

Established 1864

To: Planning Technician, Central Business Services, Regional & Local Planning Private Bag 92300,

Auckland 1142

From: North Shore Cricket Club Inc. PO Box 32423 Devonport

Sent via email to: [email protected]

Submission on the Proposed Trading & Events in Public Places Bylaws 2014

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This is a submission on Auckland Council and Auckland Transport’s Proposed Trading & Events in Public Places Bylaws 2014 (“the Bylaw”) by North Shore Cricket Club (“NSCC” or “the Club”).

1.2 NSCC was founded in 1864 by English military personnel stationed in Devonport during the New Zealand Wars. NSCC is one of the oldest continually operating cricket clubs in New Zealand still in existence.

1.3 NSCC is based at Devonport Domain currently supports 9 senior men’s teams and 35 junior boys’ and girls’ teams which compete in various competitions across the Auckland region administered by the Auckland Cricket Association (“ACA”). In addition, for the past 20 years NSCC has organised and held an annual junior cricket tournament (the Junior World Series) in January for up to 270 children from across the Auckland region. Furthermore, the Club has regularly hosted multi-team tournaments featuring teams from across New Zealand and the world.

1.4 NSCC has played a key role in supporting the social and cultural wellbeing of Devonport and its residents over the past 150 years. Accordingly, NSCC has an interest in any plans, policies or bylaws which can support or adversely impact the Club on its delivery of organised sport and recreation on the Devonport Peninsula.

2.0 Interpretation

2.1 ‘Event’ is defined within the Bylaw as meaning:

“an organised temporary activity that takes place on one or more days including an organised gathering, parade, protest, wedding, private function (which is independent of premises), festival, concert, celebration, multi-venue sports event of a significant scale, fun run, marathon, duathlon or triathlon. For the purposes of this bylaw a performance, private function, tasting and sampling activity, giveaway, market, sports practice or training that takes place indoors is not an event.”

2.2 NSCC considers that the definition of ‘event’ is far too broad.

Submission No 4

156

2.3 The use of term “organised temporary activity including an organised gathering” could potentially capture many activities regularly undertaken by NSCC in and around its clubrooms at Devonport Domain. For example, the Club regularly holds mid-week Business House cricket competitions, and outdoor prizegivings and barbeques for Club members and visitors. These are all potentially captured by the definition of ‘event’ regardless of scale, intensity or effects. In addition, organised sport and recreation as part of a competition could also be captured by the definition of an ‘event’. Any bylaw which has the potential to limit or impact on the provision of active sport and recreation is considered to be inconsistent with Strategic Direction 5 of the Auckland Plan which seeks to “promote individual and community wellbeing through participation and excellence in recreation and sport”. For the avoidance of doubt, NSCC requests that all regular sporting activities carried out as part of a competition administered by a regional sporting body or club should be explicitly excluded from the definition of an ‘event’.

2.4 Furthermore, the inclusion of the term “sports practice or training that takes place indoors is not an event” (emphasis added) may be interpreted to imply that any sports practice or training that takes place outdoors in public reserves could be included within the definition of event. Accordingly, NSCC requests that the definition of event is amended to explicitly state that all sports practice/ training regardless of whether it is located indoors or outdoors is excluded.

2.5 The definition of ‘event’ also includes the term “multi-venue sports event of a significant scale”. NSCC believes this is ambiguous and would be more appropriately defined by setting specific thresholds (e.g. participants, spectators, number of venues, monetary value, etc.). This would provide increased certainty for sporting organisations as to when any approvals are required and reduce any unknown fees/ costs which could affect the viability of an event.

2.6 ‘Trading in a public place’ is defined within the Bylaw as meaning:

“an activity undertaken by any person or organisation involving the sale of goods in a public place or the offering of a commercial service for payment, reward or otherwise, including but not limited to: …

(d) fundraising for a charitable cause, soliciting any subscription or collection of any one off or on-going donation …”

2.7 NSCC considers that the definition of ‘trading in a public place’ is far too broad and is likely unenforceable.

2.8 NSCC regularly undertakes fundraising activities when members and visitors are in attendance at cricket matches at Devonport Domain throughout the cricket season. These activities includes the selling of raffles for prizes (e.g. meat packs) or the solicitation of donations from the community via our membership sponsorship scheme. In addition, members, or parents of members, regularly resolve to undertake small fundraising activities to support team specific causes (e.g. purchase of special playing shirts). The current wording of the Bylaw would mean that these activities are now controlled by Auckland Council and subject to their approval.

2.9 NSCC considers any attempt to control common fundraising activities by local amateur sporting organisations within public places, and specifically their home ground, to be wholly inappropriate. NSCC requests that the Bylaw be amended to explicitly exclude fundraising by an amateur sporting club/ organisation at their designated home ground(s) being subject to the Bylaw.

Submission No 4

157

3.0 Fees/ Costs

3.1 Section 12 of the Bylaw enables Council to prescribe fees for an approval, for processing an application, to review existing approvals etc. However, the Bylaw and supporting material provides no indication of these potential fees. Fees and costs associated with the Bylaw will arguably have the biggest potential impact on Aucklanders and organisations such as NSCC.

3.2 NSCC and many other sporting clubs’ operating and capital expenditure is largely derived from fundraising events, grants from various trusts and local board, and private donations from the community. In addition, the Club relies on thousands of hours of volunteer work from parents and members throughout any given year. This is necessary to ensure that cricket remains an attractive and affordable recreation for existing and potential members, NSCC ensures playing subscriptions are kept at sustainable levels.

3.3 NSCC considers that the Bylaw, as currently drafted, has the potential to significantly impact on fundraising events carried out by the Club at its home ground – Devonport Domain. Fundraising activities and events carried out by the Club serve a community purpose and are necessary to ensure the Club is able to provide the services, equipment and facilities to ensure its members are able to meaningfully engage and compete in various cricketing competitions within Auckland and across New Zealand. NSCC considers that any fees for approvals or processing of an application for organisations that provide for the social wellbeing, and health of Auckland and its communities is inappropriate as it reduces already scarce funds available to support these activities. Again, NSCC considers that the imposition of any fees or costs imposed on it for its role in delivering active sport and recreation on the Devonport Peninsula would be inconsistent with Strategic Direction 5 of the Auckland Plan. Accordingly, NSCC requests that the Bylaw be amended to specifically prevent the charging of fees for organisations whose purpose is the provision of amateur organised sport and recreational activities.

4.0 NSCC wishes to speak in support of its submission at a public hearing.

Cameron Wallace, Executive Board Member

Signed on behalf of North Shore Cricket Club Incorporated.

15 August 2014.

Address for Service: Attn: The Executive Board North Shore Cricket Club Inc. PO Box 32423

Devonport

[email protected]

Submission No 4

158

From: [email protected]: BylawCc: [email protected]: Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014 - submissionDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 2:39:50 p.m.






Contact details

First name: JennySurname: KearneyOrganisation: The Fundraising PeopleEmail address: [email protected] address: Po Box 68, Pyrmont NSW 2009 AustraliaPost code: Contact phone: +61280458459Preferred method of communication: By emailLocal board area: Auckland wideDo you want to speak in person on your submission? No

Submission details


The Fundraising People agrees with Option A for Issue 4 – Fundraising, and the relatedsuggestions noted on page 25 to 28 in the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport’s“Statement of Proposal for the Trading and events in public places bylaw 2014” (dated Aug2014). The Fundraising People agrees with Item 18 – Fundraising on page 11 of Auckland Council’s“Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014”.


This submission only refers to the item above, with which we agree.


The Fundraising People is a member of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA).The PFRA regulates, monitors and limits face to face fundraising in New Zealand, to raiseprofessional and regulatory standards, to ensure the long term sustainability of face to facefundraising.

Submission No 5

159




Our company values and adheres to the strict codes of conduct; the PFRA Standards of Face toFace Fundraising or the Standards for Charity Street Trading that are enforced by the PFRA.Penalties are imposed by the PFRA for any breaches of these codes and agreed rules.

We support the additional layer of rules and regulation put in place by the PFRA above theAuckland Council licensing conditions. We value that only PFRA members can face to facefundraise in the city, because we know that all PFRA members will adhere to strict rules andprofessional standards.

We value the work of the Auckland Council Bylaw and Enforcement teams and their excellentrelationship with the PFRA.

Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and the public can be confident that PFRA regulation ofdirect dialogue fundraising makes it one of the most highly regulated forms of fundraising in NewZealand.

PFRA charities have received over $150 million dollars over the last 4 years through the forms offace to face fundraising in New Zealand. Almost a quarter of a million new donors have signed upduring this same time period. The Fundraising People's charity partners rely on funds receivedthrough face to face fundraising to carry out their vital work.

In conclusion, we, The Fundraising People support of the Council’s recommendation for Option Aon the issue of fundraising. We value PFRA’s role as a watchdog and regulator for face to facefundraising and their relationship with Auckland Council. We support the Council’s role incontinued licensing of this fundraising method and their suggestion to continue licensing this at nocost.


Submission No 5

160

From: Letele TiseliTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 2:10:59 p.m.

Submissionto ProposedTrading andEvents inPublicPlacesBylaw:

To the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, I want all outdoordining areas to be Smokefree because: Smokefree outdoordining will make being outside at cafes and restaurants moreenjoyable and I would go more often; Smokefree outdoordining would protect my family and friends from second-handsmoke, help prevent children from starting to smoke andsupport those trying to quit; Smokefree outdoor dining willmean there is less cigarette butt litter on our streets and makeour city a better place to be. I urge you to include in this bylawa requirement that outdoor eating and drinking areas areSmokefree.

Name*: Letele Tiseli

Email*: [email protected]

Address*:136 Queens Road, Panmure. Auckland136 Queens RoadPanmure, Auckland New Zealand Auckland - 1072

Additionalcomments :

I totally support this petition, non smoker do not hath to put upwith people who smoke in any Public Area (outdoor dining.

Submission No 6

161




From: Yvonne WalshTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 2:06:26 p.m.



Name*: Yvonne Walsh


Address*:13Waterview RoadFavona, Auckland 2023

Submission No 7

162




From: Tekura TuakeuTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 2:04:59 p.m.



Name*: Tekura Tuakeu


Address*:136 Queens RoadPanmureAuckland, NZ 1741

Submission No 8

163




From: Shahn FitisemanuTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 1:57:55 p.m.



Name*: Shahn Fitisemanu


Address*:19 Normandy place Henderson

Henderson, Auckland 3072

Additionalcomments :

I would like to see This implemented to outdoor dining areas asI would not like the smell and taste of smoke around me while Iam trying enjoy my meal I have paid for. I think it would beconsiderate to other diners who are also sensitive to smoke /who may be asthmatic also.

I am sure someone could refrain from smoking for at least onehour / for ever how long they are out for dinner / lunch.

Submission No 9

164




From: Troydyn RaturagaTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 1:56:40 p.m.



Name*: Troydyn Raturaga


Address*:55 Rogan StreetMount RoskillAuckland, Auckland 1041

Submission No 10

165




From: Anna WrightTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 1:53:39 p.m.



Name*: Anna Wright


Address*:30 Westmere CresWestmereAuckland, 1022 Auckland

Submission No 11

166




From: akesa fifita-mafiTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 1:49:28 p.m.



Name*: akesa fifita-mafi


Address*:14 fairmallotara town centreauckland, otara 2159

Submission No 12

167




From: Fofoa PioTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 1:48:37 p.m.



Name*: Fofoa Pio


Address*:14 Fairmall Shop 9-12

Otara Shopping Centre, Otara Auckland

Submission No 13

168




From: Edward CowleyTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 1:40:48 p.m.



Name*: Edward Cowley


Address*:1/59 Portland RoadRemueraAuckland, State/Province 1050

Submission No 14

169




From: Lueyna BarnardTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 1:23:39 p.m.



Name*: Lueyna Barnard


Address*:13 Omana Road Papatoetoe

Auckland, Papatotoe 2025

Submission No 15

170




From: [email protected]: BylawCc: [email protected]: Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014 - submissionDate: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 1:00:00 p.m.






Contact details

First name: MartinSurname: RushtonOrganisation: Ministry of Business Innovation and EmploymentEmail address: [email protected] address: Martin Rushton, Trading Standards, Ministry of Business Innovation andEmployment, 15 Stout Street, WellingtonPost code: 6140Contact phone: 04 462 4222Preferred method of communication: By emailLocal board area: Out of AucklandDo you want to speak in person on your submission? No

Submission details


The proposal to introduce bylaws that enable Auckland Council to regulate trading activity atmarket stalls, mobile traders etc. engaged in business activities in public places


Nothing of note


This email is a submission in relation to the proposed Trading and Events in Public PlacesBylaws 2014.

Briefly by way of background, I work for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment(MBIE) in the Trading Standards Team. Our role centres on protecting New Zealand consumers.Trading Standards has three work areas: Legal Metrology (Legal Weights & Measures), FuelQuality Monitoring and Consumer Product Safety. We have also recently taken over responsibilityfor the registration of auctioneers and for motor vehicle dealers.

Submission No 16

171




MBIE is leading a multi-agency taskforce targeting the Counties Manukau area and at a recentinitial meeting relating to this Auckland Council was represented by Alison Hunt (Legal Services).Several regulatory and associated agencies were involved including MBIE, CommerceCommission, NZ Customs, Immigration, Police.

The main idea behind the initiative is to focus on a broad range of issues of interest and concernto regulators etc. in Counties Manukau and to ensure malpractice and legal breaches are reduced/ eliminated.

Key elements of the initiatives will include sharing of information and intelligence and jointenforcement activities.

With regard to the proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaws 2014, I have read thediscussion paper and I wanted to flag an opportunity to use the proposed bylaws as a anothermeans of addressing areas of potential trading malpractice.

I have been involved in this type of work for nearly 40 years and most of my career was inScotland. We had a similar regime in place to the proposed bylaws which created various typesof licensable trading activities including mobile traders, street traders etc.

This licensing regime enabled Scottish local authorities to consider suspending or revokinglicences held by traders when information came to light from various regulatory bodies thatshowed unsatisfactory trading practices or malpractice.

We found this a very useful ‘tool’ that could be used (with suitable checks and balances) to takeswift and effective action in appropriate cases.

So my suggestion is that Auckland Council may choose to give consideration to establishing asimilar provision within the proposed bylaws.

In essence it would introduce an element of 'fit and proper persons' into the regime. Anyone whodid not trade fairly and equitably could in effect be put out of business or at the very least havethe scope of their activities curtailed.

The suggested arrangement would compliment the various powers and provisions held byagencies. It would also help ensure a fair and equitable trading environment that would see 'roguetraders' facing a range of potential sanctions.

It may of course be that this has already been factored in and that being the case it would be ofinterest to be advised once the bylaws have taken effect to know how best to provide input intothe process.

I trust this of interest. Please feel free to get back in touch if you need any further information orinput at this stage.

Yours sincerely

Martin Rushton


Submission No 16

172

Submission: Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014

For your submission to be valid, you must include your full name, a postal address and/or email

address. Please also provide a contact number if you wish to speak at a hearing.

Do you wish to speak in support of your submission at a public hearing? No Is your submission on behalf of an organisation? Yes Name of organisation: Forest & Bird You can also attach additional pages to your submission. Your details: Auckland wide Local board area: First name: Adria Last name: Lopez Mackay Email: [email protected] Postal address: PO Box 631 Suburb: Wellington Postcode: 6011 Phone: 04 803 1011 Mobile: N/A Signature: Date: 19/8/2014

Q1. Forest & Bird agrees with Option A for Issue 4 – Fundraising, and the related suggestions noted

on page 25 to 28 in the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport’s “Statement of Proposal for the

Trading and events in public places bylaw 2014” (dated Aug 2014).

Q2. This submission only refers to the item above, with which we agree.

Q3. Forest & Bird is a member of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA). The PFRA

regulates, monitors and limits face to face fundraising in New Zealand, to raise professional and

regulatory standards, to ensure the long term sustainability of face to face fundraising.

Our charity values and adheres to the strict codes of conduct; the PFRA Standards of Face to Face

Fundraising or the Standards for Charity Street Trading that are enforced by the PFRA. Penalties are

imposed by the PFRA for any breaches of these codes and agreed rules.

We support the additional layer of rules and regulation put in place by the PFRA above the Auckland

Council licensing conditions. We value that only PFRA members can face to face fundraise in the city,

because we know that all PFRA members will adhere to strict rules and professional standards.

We value the work of the Auckland Council Bylaw and Enforcement teams and their excellent

relationship with the PFRA.

Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and the public can be confident that PFRA regulation of direct

dialogue fundraising makes it one of the most highly regulated forms of fundraising in New Zealand.

PFRA charities have received over $150 million dollars over the last 4 years through the forms of face

to face fundraising in New Zealand. Almost a quarter of a million new donors have signed up during

this same time period. Forest & Bird relies on funds received through face to face fundraising to

carry out our vital work.

Submission No 17

173

For example, we generate over 1/3 of our annual income from our loyal regular givers, many of

whom have come to us through face to face. They support our national projects, such as Ark in the

Park in the Waitakere Ranges, advocacy for threatened and endangered plants, animals, and

ecosystems, and our kids' club, which aims to instill a love of nature in future generations.

In conclusion, we, Forest & Bird support of the Council’s recommendation for Option A on the issue

of fundraising. We value PFRA’s role as a watchdog and regulator for face to face fundraising and

their relationship with Auckland Council. We support the Council’s role in continued licensing of this

fundraising method and their suggestion to continue licensing this at no cost.

Submission No 17

174

From: Suzanne BoekhoutTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Saturday, 16 August 2014 2:56:17 p.m.



Name*: Suzanne Boekhout


Address*:16 Cockle Bay RdHowickHowick, Auckland Auckland

Submission No 18

175




1

From: Aimee Boekhout <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 2:55 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw

Submission to Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw:

To the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, I want all outdoor dining areas to be Smokefree because: Smokefree outdoor dining will make being outside at cafes and restaurants more enjoyable and I would go more often; Smokefree outdoor dining would protect my family and friends from second-hand smoke, help prevent children from starting to smoke and support those trying to quit; Smokefree outdoor dining will mean there is less cigarette butt litter on our streets and make our city a better place to be. I urge you to include in this bylaw a requirement that outdoor eating and drinking areas are Smokefree.

Name*: Aimee Boekhout


Address*: 16 Cockle Bay Rd Howick Howick, Auckland Auckland

Submission No 19

176

1

From: Alex Chapman <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 1:12 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Alex Chapman


Address*: 26 Seaview Road

Piha, Waitakere Auckland

Additional comments :

Cos I don't want second hand smoke

Submission No 20

177

1

From: Daniel McWilliams <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 2:12 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Daniel McWilliams


Address*: 34 Third Ave

Auckland, Kingsland 1061

Oral submission: I wish to make an oral submission

Submission No 21

178

1

From: Makena Houston <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 12:49 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Makena Houston


Address*: 32 Aitken Terrace Kingsland Auckland, AKL 1021

Submission No 22

179

1

From: Lennie Galloway <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 12:36 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Lennie Galloway


Address*: 14/116 Wellington Street

Freemans Bay, Auckland Region 1011


I work in a bar with a open roof top where people are allowed to smoke. This means I am exposed to second hand smoke every time I work (along with the other non-smoking diners) but management won't do a thing about it as it brings in money letting people smoke and drink. Stupid stupid stupid.

Submission No 23

180

1

From: Stacey McLeod <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 12:08 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Stacey McLeod


Address*: 108 Everglade Drive

Manukau, Auckland 2105

Submission No 24

181

1

From: Vicky Harland <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 11:17 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Vicky Harland


Address*: 5C Cowie Street

Parnell, Auckland 1052

Submission No 25

182

1

From: Anna Joy Dixon <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 10:58 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Anna Joy Dixon


Address*: 72 Burnley Terrace

Auckland, Mount Eden 1025

Submission No 26

183

1

From: Katie Scott <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 10:57 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Katie Scott


Address*: 21 Browning Street Grey Lynn Auckland, Auckland 1021


When there are smokers at a cafe or restaurant outside it even forces you to make an irrational judgement of the cafe. I wouldnt go back to a place that has smokers outside.

Submission No 27

184

1

From: Ben Hamer <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 10:52 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Ben Hamer


Address*: 10 Constitution Hill

Auckland, Auckland Auckland


I would like to see Smokefree outdoor dining because I feel extremely uncomfortable and unhealthy breathing in second hand smoke whilst eating a meal outside at a restaurant. I don't want to be limited to having to eat inside a restaurant due to the fact the outside of the restaurant has smokers.

Submission No 28

185

1

From: Lauren Mitchell <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 10:43 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Lauren Mitchell


Address*: 10 Constitution Hill

CBD, 1010, Northland Auckland


I want outdoor public dining to become smoke free as I believe my health and the health of others around me are affected by second hand smoke, not to mention it will make the whole dining experience much more enjoyable. Lets make a better future together.


Submission No 29

186

1

From: Leanne Saw <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 10:12 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Leanne Saw


Address*: 19 Hope Farm Avenue Pakuranga Manukau, Auckland 2010


Submission No 30

187

1

From: Amber Callanan <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 9:49 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Amber Callanan


Address*: 15/79 Wellesley St West

Auckland, New Zealand 1010

Submission No 31

188

1

From: Jessica Carr <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 5:26 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jessica Carr


Address*: 67a Alexander Street

Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014

Submission No 32

189

1

From: Dearra Naidoo <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2014 12:36 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Dearra Naidoo


Address*: 13 jerpoint drive flatbush Auckland, Botany 2016

Submission No 33

190

1

From: Blair Speakman <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 10:54 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Blair Speakman


Address*: 14 Kissling Place, St Johns

Auckland, Auckland 1072

Submission No 34

191

1

From: Kellyy Geater <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 10:43 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Kellyy Geater


Address*: 40 Verbena Road Birkdale North Shore, Auckland 0626

Submission No 35

192

1

From: Kelly Teed <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 10:42 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Kelly Teed


Address*: 44 Takutai Avenue Bucklands Beach Auckland, New Zealand 2012

Submission No 36

193

1

From: Shirley Shen <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 10:29 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Shirley Shen


Address*: 79A Meadowland Drive

Somerville, Auckland Auckland

Submission No 37

194

1

From: Madeleine Duthie <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 9:26 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Madeleine Duthie


Address*: 22 Sudbury Terrace

Parnell, Auckland 2014

Submission No 38

195

1

From: thea naicker <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 9:00 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: thea naicker


Address*: 25 pinewood grove

auckland, howick 2010

Submission No 39

196

1

From: Rebecca Patterson <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 15 August 2014 8:57 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Rebecca Patterson


Address*: 23 Alexander street Cockle bay Auckland, Howick 2014


There's nothing more off putting than sitting outside at a restaurant and inhaling somebody else's cigarette smoke. I am also asthmatic and consuming second hand cigarette smoke is unhealthy for me so I shouldn't have to chose where to sit based on where somebody may of may not be smoking.

Submission No 40

197

1

From: Lincoln Lam <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, 17 August 2014 12:04 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Lincoln Lam


Address*: 7 Ransom Smyth Drive Goodwood Heights Manukau, North Island Auckland

Submission No 41

198

Submission No 42

199

Submission No 42

200

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: H Kaihe <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:46 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: H Kaihe


Address*: 230 Kupe Street Orakei Auckland, New Zealand 1745


Because it is still not fare to those for second hand smoking

Submission No 43

201

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Aroha Edwards <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:43 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Aroha Edwards


Address*: 76 Trevor Hosken Dr Wiri Manukau, Auckland, New Zealand 2104


I am a Non Smoker and I personally do not like smoking around where i eat.

Submission No 44

202

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Hannah Roberts <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:39 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Hannah Roberts


Address*: 20B Hapua Street Auckland, Remuera 1050

Submission No 45

203

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Katherine Cook <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:39 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Katherine Cook


Address*: 18 Beeston Crescent Manurewa, Auckland 2102

Submission No 46

204

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Takirua Hona-Nelson <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:38 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Takirua Hona-Nelson


Address*: 25 Adams Road Manurewa Manukau, Counties Manukau Auckland


I just through lunch at a cafe in Mangere Bridge. My aunty and I sat outside and opposite us, sat a elderly women and friend who lit up and next thing you know, we are surrounded by ciggarette smoke. It completely ruined our lunch. Its horrible, especially when there was a child on the otherside of us.

Submission No 47

205

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Michael Bullen <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 7:53 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Michael Bullen


Address*: 7 Adam Street Greenlane Auckland City, New Zealand 1051


Bad for health and the cigarette smell sticks to clothing. Frustrating

Submission No 48

1206

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jenny Hicks <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 7:49 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jenny Hicks


Address*: 21/26 Mary Street Mt Eden Auckland, New Zealand 1024

Submission No 49

1207

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Lynda Mance <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 7:28 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Lynda Mance


Address*: 3 William Laurie Place Albany Auckland, Auckland 0740


I get really frustrated when people smoke in public places, as I am allergic to the smoke, and it makes me feel ill. My daughter has asthma and smoke in public places causes her to cough excessively. I have seen the damage smoke can do, as 2 relatives smoked. I have seen a neighbour eventually drown in the fluid of her own lungs and heart. Terrible death!!! Ban smoking everywhere please - for their sakes and ours.

Submission No 50

1208

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Susan Koo <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 6:49 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Susan Koo


Address*: P O Box 105882 Auckland Auckland, Auckland 1143


Those smokers outside Auckland City Hospital got me 'high' whenever I walk past. I work at ADHB.

Submission No 51

1209

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: June Poole <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 5:44 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: June Poole


Address*: 9 Tranquility Rise Mellons Bay Howick, Auckland 2014


This would be another step to help reduce smoking and would lessen passive smoking, and another step in resulting in helping to reduce cardiac and respiratory diseases

Submission No 52

1210

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Cheri Macdonald <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:56 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Cheri Macdonald


Address*: 67 Beaubank Road; Kelston: Kelston, Auckland 0602


I would like to see Smokefree outdoor dining, as on warmer or hotter days I too like to dine outdoors without people smoking around me or having the smell of smoke drifting around the eating area.

Submission No 53

1211

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Mira Bi <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:57 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Mira Bi


Address*: 1F Hillcrest Avenue North Shore, Auckland 0627

Submission No 54

1212

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: marama murphy <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 10:27 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: marama murphy


Address*: 3 school lane kirwee, darfield christchurch

Submission No 55

1213

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Margaret Mitchell <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 10:02 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Margaret Mitchell


Address*: 93 Haseler Crescent Howick Howick, Auckland Auckland

Submission No 56

1214

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Bunty Condon <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 10:02 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Bunty Condon


Address*: 71 Oraha Rd Kumeu Auckland, Rodney 089


I hate cigarettes. No one should smoke. On warm evenings I like sitting outside and I cannot because others' smoke always comes my way.

Submission No 57

1215

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: jennifer lu <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 9:40 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: jennifer lu


Address*: 20 sarah place farm cove Auckland, Auckland 2010

Submission No 58

1216

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Charlotte Crick-Friesen <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 9:32 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Charlotte Crick-Friesen


Address*: 21 Collingwood St Freemans Bay Auckland, New Zealand 1011

Submission No 59

1217

From: India StoreyTo: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places BylawDate: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:32:10 p.m.



Name*: India Storey


Address*:2/97 Tasman St

Mt Cook, 6021 Wellington

Submission No 60

218




1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Hone Te Rire <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 9:11 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Hone Te Rire


Address*: 12 Tawhana Street Te Kuiti, Waitomo 3910


Improve peoples health by being smokefree because mine has

Submission No 61

1219

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Genevieve Tshibola kabuya <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 8:51 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Genevieve Tshibola kabuya


Address*: 56 woodbank drive Glen Eden, Auckland 0602


Second hand smoke is an unfair exposure for those who do not smoke. I would like justice to be done by them when making all outdoor, particularly restaurants smoke free. In addition, it is a public health responsibility to protect as many people as possible from negative health effects resulting from smoke. This will save the public money in term of expenses on diseases that will have been prevented

Submission No 62

1220

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Emma Warner <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 8:46 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Emma Warner


Address*: 19 Clifton road Herne bay Auckland, Auckland 1011


I'd love all dining at restaurants and bars to be smoke free because as a non smoker it is terrible being able to smell any smoke at all coming in through the windows and second hand smoke causes cancer it seems unethical for non smokers to be exposed to it especially when eating.

Submission No 63

1221

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Gineke Bell <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 8:04 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged



Name*: Gineke Bell


Address*: 152 Clevedon Road Papakura Auckland, Auckland 2010

Submission No 64

1222

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Danielle Hay <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 7:59 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Danielle Hay


Address*: 8 Fairsea Place Lynfield, 1042 Auckland


Less litter, cleaner air and culture change

Submission No 65

1223

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Amy MacKay <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 7:47 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Amy MacKay


Address*: 454 Onehunga Mall Onehunga, Auckland 1061


I think it is important for it to be smoke free outside cafes/restaurants etc. Today a friend and i were sitting inside a cafe & there were people outside smoking and the smoke was coming into the cafe. My friend has a 5 month old that was with us, and it just isn't appropriate, or good for the health of others.

Submission No 66

1224

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Carl Edmondson <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 7:25 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Carl Edmondson


Address*: 7 kerridge close Shamrock park, Auckland 2016


Even when dinning indoors in summer with windows and doors opening up to the outdoor dinning areas you still can't escape smoke drifting in. A lot of places don't even have an outside smoke free area, every bit of smoke free areas count! Also should be no smoking around door ways as it's like walking through a smoke screen!

Submission No 67

1225

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Sally Mitchell <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 7:25 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sally Mitchell


Address*: 135 Fiddlers Hill Rd Puhoi, Auckland Puhoi

Submission No 68

1226

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Karen Periam <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 7:21 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Karen Periam


Address*: 9 Keith ave Meadowbank Auckland, North Island 1050


It smells disgusting and people walking by still inhale smoke

Submission No 69

1227

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Norma van Arendonk <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 7:05 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Norma van Arendonk


Address*: 86 Grace rd Tauranga, BOP 3112


So that our children do not see smoking and follow bad habits

Submission No 70

1228

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Tessa Kirkland <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 6:48 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Tessa Kirkland


Address*: 37B Haslett Street Eden Terrace Auckland, Auckland 1021

Submission No 71

1229

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Evani Taumoepeau <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 6:44 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Evani Taumoepeau


Address*: 49a holly street Avondale, Auckland 1026

Submission No 72

1230

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Grace Kingston <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 6:33 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Grace Kingston


Address*: 27 Hayley Lane East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016

Submission No 73

1231

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Wendy Willsher <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 6:16 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Wendy Willsher


Address*: 22 Aviara Court Howick Auckland, Auckland 2013

Submission No 74

1232

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Clive Taylor <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 6:15 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Clive Taylor


Address*: 87 Anawhata Road Piha Auckland, North Island 0772


I don't like feeling like I'm sitting in other people's rubbish bins when I'm trying to enjoy myself in an outdoor cafe area, and having my risk of lung cancer increased.

Submission No 75

1233

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Shona McLeod <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 6:13 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Shona McLeod


Address*: 10 Sunnynook Road Sunnynook North Shore, Auckland Auckland


I love to take my daughter out for lunch and we love dining outdoors, but often have to sit inside even on hot summer days because people are smoking outside. It would be great for her to have access to fresh air while we eat and not have to breath in smoke on our way in and out of restaurants/cafes.

Submission No 76

1234

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Nicola Plant <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 6:00 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Nicola Plant


Address*: 1/209 Mt Albert Sandringham Auckland, Auckland 1025

Submission No 77

1235

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: diana murray <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:24 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: diana murray


Address*: 55 Norwood Rd, Bayswater 55 Norwood Rd, Bayswater 55 Norwood Rd, Auckland New Zealand

Submission No 78

1236

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Lauren Tomsett <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:21 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Lauren Tomsett


Address*: 42 schollum rd Rd2 morrinsville Morrinsville, Wkto 1111


I would like to eat outside without getting smoke in my eyes and food. Also want Nz to be smoke free nation so I'm all for any type of anti smoking campaign

Submission No 79

1237

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Liam Yu <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:16 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Liam Yu


Address*: 36a Wattle St New Lynn Auckland, Auckland 0600


To prevent third party harm

Submission No 80

1238

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Kirstin Lloyd <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:14 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Kirstin Lloyd


Address*: 108 stapleford crescent, browns bay auckland, Auckland 0630

Submission No 81

1239

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Sam Garaway <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:09 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sam Garaway


Address*: 58 paihia road Onehunga Auckland, Auckland 1061

Submission No 82

1240

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Faye Kenny <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:08 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Faye Kenny


Address*: 5 Cambridge Tce Devonport, Auckland 0624

Submission No 83

1241

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Claire Edmondson <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:04 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Claire Edmondson


Address*: 7 kerridge close Shamrock park Auckland, Auckland 2016


So that my family can enjoy outside dining without having to breathe in harmful smoke,

Submission No 84

1242

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Matt Ansley <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:01 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Matt Ansley


Address*: PO Box 7257 Wellesley Street Auckland City, Auckland 1141


I support this campaign as I believe too many people suffer health problems from other people's decisions to smoke in a public area

Submission No 85

1243

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Rose Scott <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 4:45 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Rose Scott


Address*: 1/21 Campbell Rd Royal Oak, Auckland 1061

Submission No 86

1244

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: May Lin Tye <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 4:37 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: May Lin Tye


Address*: 30 Helvetia Drive Auckland, Browns Bay 0630

Submission No 87

1245

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Brittany Hunt <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 4:36 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Brittany Hunt


Address*: 2/25 Browning Street Grey Lynn Auckland City, Auckland 1021

Submission No 88

1246

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Barbara Plant <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 4:27 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Barbara Plant


Address*: 34c Allendale Road Mt Albert Auckland, Auckland 1025

Submission No 89

1247

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Supriya Maharaj <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 4:25 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Supriya Maharaj


Address*: 43B Chieftain Rise Goodwood Heights Manukau City, Auckland 2105

Submission No 90

1248

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jen Stewart <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 4:22 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jen Stewart


Address*: 92 Alton Ave Hillcrest Auckland, Auckland 0627

Submission No 91

1249

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Carol Porter <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 4:09 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Carol Porter


Address*: 40 glendene ave Glendene Waitakere, Auckland 0602

Submission No 92

1250

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Peter Choi <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 4:07 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Peter Choi


Address*: 30 Karaka Street, Takapuna Auckland, New Zealand 0622

Submission No 93

1251

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Rhys Vaughan-Jones <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 4:06 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Rhys Vaughan-Jones


Address*: Kyle Road Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

Submission No 94

1252

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Sean Liggins <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 4:02 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sean Liggins


Address*: 14 Te Wiata Place Avondale Auckland, Auckland 1026


As a young person I am often out and about and the levels of smoking that occur in outdoor dining and outdoors at pubs and bars is horrendous, we live in a sub tropical climate and as such many people want to enjoy the cool breeze or sunshine outdoors when they go for a bite to eat or a casual beer, as it stands at almost every establishment I have been to in Auckland, the outdoor area becomes a smokers paradise. it has literally become impossible to enjoy our wonderful countries outdoors with smoke everywhere you turn, forcing those who choose to protect their bodies to become the victims and suffer because of our choice to be healthy. you are indirectly rewarding smokers and punishing those who simply want to achieve more positive health outcomes for Auckland as a whole. Furthermore, forcing smoking outdoors only advertises smoking to youth who walk by and see these 'cool' people outdoors all smoking. Young people are very impressionable and all the research shows that if people can stay away from picking up smoking as a habit until the age of 20, then 99% of them will never start. Please please listen to the thousands of appeals I know you must get and make smoking outdoors at dining establishments illegal.

Submission No 95

1253

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: C P <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:53 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: C P


Address*: Grey Lynn Auckland, Auckland 1021

Submission No 96

1254

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Alana Berry <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 4:00 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Alana Berry


Address*: 19 Peridot Place Conifer Grove Takanini, Auckland 2112

Submission No 97

1255

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Alexandra Landl <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:47 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Alexandra Landl


Address*: 4 Gradwell Place Taupo, Bay oif Plenty 3330

Submission No 98

1256

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Andrea Bossenger <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:44 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Andrea Bossenger


Address*: 54a Amaru road One tree hill Auckland, Auckland 1061

Submission No 99

1257

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Satey Rahmanipour <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:40 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Satey Rahmanipour


Address*: 38A Stottholm Road, TItirangi Auckland, Auckland 0604

Submission No 100

1258

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Nicole van Heyst <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:36 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Nicole van Heyst


Address*: 4 Halesowen Ave Sandringham Auckland, Auckland 1041

Submission No 101

1259

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Aaron Slako <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:38 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Aaron Slako


Address*: 22 Kells Place Botany, Auckland 2010

Submission No 102

1260

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Selah Hart <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:36 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Selah Hart


Address*: 51 McKinstry Avenue Mangere East Auckland, Auckland 2025

Submission No 103

1261

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Hayley Cross <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:35 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Hayley Cross


Address*: 13 Lynton Rd Mt Wellington Auckland, Auckland 1060


I don't think it is fair that if a café is busy or you want some fresh air and so sit outside you have to share that 'fresh' air with chemical pollutants from smokers. I don't sit outside when dining out anymore, and it's a shame.

Submission No 104

1262

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: scott plant <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:35 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: scott plant


Address*: 34c allendale rd mt albert auckland, auckland auckland


Often smoke drifts into a cafe.Or you have to walk through it on the way out.

Submission No 105

1263

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Glendith Samson <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:34 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Glendith Samson


Address*: 98 Commercial Road, Te Awaroa (Helensville) 33 Chic Gardens, Parakai, Rodney Rodney


To walk through a cloud of horrible smoke to buy food from the cafe'is doing me an injustice. I am breathing second hand smoke. I look forward to the change in the law to ban smoking outside all outdoor dining.

Submission No 106

1264

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Pori Tumahai <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:31 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Pori Tumahai


Address*: 60 Merton Road Auckland, St Johns 1702


Just don't like smoking full stop.

Submission No 107

265

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Lawna Kani <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:30 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Lawna Kani


Address*: 17 Roulston St Pukekohe Auckland, South 2120

Submission No 108

266

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Bridget Rowse <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:24 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Bridget Rowse


Address*: 5424 State Highway 14 RD 2 Dargaville, Northland 0372


I travel alot to Auckland for work and pleasure and I enjoy the dining experiences on offer but not the smoke. With less and less people smoking why should they get the 'best seats in the house' those outdoor seats with the great views, while I sit inside because their smoke bothers me, it makes me feel ill and I dont want cancer from someone elses second-hand smoke. They then throw their dirty butts on to the footpath, into drains and out into our beautiful waterways. Even just walking past a premise that has people smoking outside is awful, its a bad look, smells awful and the cigarette litter is a mess especialy when we are going to so much trouble to beautify the city and create spaces that attract people to the city centre it is spoilt by second-hand smoke and tobacco rubbish.

Submission No 109

267

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Joanna Overall <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:33 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Joanna Overall


Address*: 38 Prospect Terrace Mt Eden Auckland, Auckland 1024


Smoking around food consumption is unhygienic.

Submission No 110

1268

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Shirley Campbell <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:28 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Shirley Campbell


Address*: 215D Schnapper Rock Rd Albany, Auckland 0632


iT IS HARMFUL FOR YOUR HEALTH, DISCUSTING TO SIT NEXT TO AND THIS MOVE WILL ASSIST THE NATIONS HEALTH AND WELLBEING BY MAKING IT LESS SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE TO SMOKE. ROLE ON 2025 SMIKEFREE NZ!

Submission No 111

269

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: melinda jones <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:33 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: melinda jones


Address*: 38 Ventnor Rd. Remuera Auckland, North Island 1050

Submission No 112

1270

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Moetu Taua <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:27 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Moetu Taua


Address*: PO Box 319 Pukekohe PO Box 319, New Zealand 2340


No comments

Submission No 113

271

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Geoff Wood <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:31 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Geoff Wood


Address*: 63 Parker Road, Oratia Auckalnd, Auckland 0642


Continued action chipping away at removing the smoking culture is showing significant returns in terms of reducing hospitalisation, family economic deprivation, cleaner and more 'friendly' environments. Every small step is adding up to what I hope will be the end of tobacco use in this country and world-wide. We need courage in the face of a huge lobby to keep move forward to a completely tobacco and other smoked substances environment.

Submission No 114

1272

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Lis Cowling <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:28 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Lis Cowling


Address*: 233B Birkdale Road Birkdale Auckland, Auckland 0626

Submission No 115

1273

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Sharon McCoskrie <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:25 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sharon McCoskrie


Address*: 85A Huia Rd Papatoetoe Auckland, Auckland 2025

Submission No 116

274

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Danielle Heyhoe <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:30 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Danielle Heyhoe


Address*: 129 Victoria Street Onehunga Onehunga, 1061 Auckland


So smokefreers can sit outside without endangering their health, and especially our children.

Submission No 117

1275

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Kerry De Villiers <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:29 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Kerry De Villiers


Address*: 36 The avenue albany North Shore, Auckland 0632


Its an individuals choice to smoke, and it is my choice not to. I don't want to inhale smoke while I am in public, espcially when I am dining.

Submission No 118

1276

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Fiona Allison <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:27 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Fiona Allison


Address*: 14 Ranleigh Road Mt Albert Auckland, Auckland 1025


I can't stand smoking, and it's unfair for non smokers to be inhaling that disgusting air. There's nothing worse than being outside behind/beside a smoker with nowhere to go. Also currently when smokers go outside it still drifts inside.

Submission No 119

1277

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Michelle Witika <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:19 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Michelle Witika


Address*: 6 Te Arawa Street Orakei Auckland, Orakei 1071


Its a start to not seeing smoking outside any buildings. It looks unhealthy, smells unhealthy and IS unhealthy and is unavoidable by those around that do not chose to smoke.

Submission No 120

278

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Sjaan Askwith <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:11 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sjaan Askwith


Address*: 112 Clonbern Road Remuera Auckland, Auckland 1050


Submission No 121

279

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Michael Colhoun <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:10 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Michael Colhoun


Address*: Apt 3 17 Fleet Street Eden Terrace, Auckland Auckland

Submission No 122

280

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jude Manuel <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:27 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jude Manuel


Address*: 55 Boundary Road Clover Park Manukau, Auckland 2023

Submission No 123

1281

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Mason Ngawhika <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:07 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Mason Ngawhika


Address*: 4/30 Avondale Road Avondale, Auckland Auckland


I dislike breathing in tobacco when eating. Even when im in doors, it affects me.

Submission No 124

282

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: nicola roberts <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:27 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: nicola roberts


Address*: apt gh-135 victoria st west auckland Central auckland, auckland 1010

Submission No 125

1283

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Eleanor Grey <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:27 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Eleanor Grey


Address*: 40 Oakwood Grove Eastern Beach Auckland, Auckland 2012


Seeing people smoming outside would definitely put me off going to a cafe or restaurant, especially in summer if i want to sit outside in the sun too. Additionally, the staff shouldn't have to be in a smoking environment inhaling second-hand smoke at work as it's not reallh a choice they can make, they have to do their job and serve customers. I don't think it is at all an appropriate place to smoke. The issue of children possibly being present is important to consider too as it is so damaging to them.

Submission No 126

1284

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Kyle Rolland <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:18 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Kyle Rolland


Address*: 38 Norfolk Street Ponsonby, Auckland 1021


I feel my lungs get assaulted when I am forced to inhale their smoke. its not fair to non-smokers

Submission No 127

1285

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Felicity Hunte <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:15 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Felicity Hunte


Address*: 1 revel ave Mt roskill Auckland, north island 1041


It is so unpleasant being around smoke when out, and especially concerning if there are children around. I think if people want to smoke, they should do so in a place where no other person is affected by it.

Submission No 128

1286

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: L Tasi <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:59 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: L Tasi


Address*: 3 Gloucester Sreet Cannons Creek Porirua, Wellington 5024


To be able attend and enjoy a meal / time outdoors with family, friends, young and elderly etc, without having to inhale other peoples cigarette smoke, is a health priority.

Submission No 129

1287

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Janelle Baptist <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:05 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Janelle Baptist


Address*: 179 hobsonville road West harbour Auckland, State/Province 0618

Submission No 130

288

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jasmine Reti <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:49 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jasmine Reti


Address*: 98 Commercial Road Helensville, Auckland 0800


I think it is important for us all to walk outside cafes and restaurants without having to worry if I will inhale secondhand smoke.It shows that we are serious about becoming a smoke free country by 2025.

Submission No 131

1289

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Yvonne Rogers <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:41 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Yvonne Rogers


Address*: 3 Karamu Street Mamaku Rotorua, New Zealand 3020


i would like to see smokefree outdoor dining, eidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking. Exposure to tobacco smoke for 30 minutes significantly reduces coronary flow velocity reserve in healthy nonsmokers I do not want to expose my children, grandchildren and my self to tobacco smoke.

Submission No 132

1290

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Penelope Tsitsiras <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:02 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Penelope Tsitsiras


Address*: 1/19 Kenwyn Street, Parnell Auckland, Auckland 1052

Submission No 133

291

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Bella Te Pou <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:42 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Bella Te Pou


Address*: 10 Kinross Street Blockhouse Bay Blockhouse Bay, New Zealand Auckland 0600


My mokos like being outside when we visit out door dining if you want to smoke go to the designated area hopefully that is down the road and away from where you want to be seated or give up and start saving for that holiday you always wanted.

Submission No 134

1292

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Carmel Conaghan <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:58 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Carmel Conaghan


Address*: 88 Kurahaupo st Orakei, New Zeland 1071

Submission No 135

293

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Wayne Borell <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:38 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Wayne Borell


Address*: 432 Wainui Road Raglan Hamilton, Waikato 3024

Submission No 136

1294

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Amanda Spencer <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:34 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Amanda Spencer


Address*: 18 Braestar Court Henderson Auckland, Auckland 0612


I hope Auckland Council listens and helps protect our whanau and our environment

Submission No 137

1295

1

Brogan McQuoid

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Sara Epperson Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:21 [email protected]; BylawSubmission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sara Epperson

Email*:

Address*:

Submission No 138

1296

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Penelope Barrie <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:58 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Penelope Barrie


Address*: 20 Harrison Street Stretton, Queensland 4116


I Used to live in Auckland New Zealand. and even when im back on holiday i don't Appreciate people's smoke blowing in my face while im trying to enjoy the sunshine and my meal.

Submission No 139

297

1

Susanne Tapsell

From: Ruth Sliedrecht <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:57 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Ruth Sliedrecht


Address*: 16 Loch Street, Remuera Auckland, Auckland 1050

Submission No 140

298

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Sally Casswell <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:16 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sally Casswell


Address*: 3 Ada St remuera auckland, NZ 1050


it will help smokers to stop and improve many people's enjoyment of the outdoor environment

Submission No 142

1299

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Sally Darragh <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:16 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sally Darragh


Address*: 1591b Pohangina Road RD14 Ashhurst, Manawatu 4884

Submission No 141

1300

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Leah Caddigan <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:10 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Leah Caddigan


Address*: 785 Lake Road RD1 Taupiri, Waikato 3791


I choose not to smoke, so it'd be nice if smokers would respect that, whilst I eat in a public place.

Submission No 143

1301

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Ali Ajmal <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:09 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Ali Ajmal


Address*: 9A Hoheria Road Onehunga Auckland, North Island 1061

Submission No 144

1302

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: anya kean <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:09 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: anya kean


Address*: 16 cranberry place bucklands beach, auckland 2012

Submission No 145

1303

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Liam Funnell <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:06 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Liam Funnell


Address*: 8 Bamfield Place Auckland, Hillsborough 1042

Submission No 146

1304

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Dominika Williamson <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 8:06 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Dominika Williamson


Address*: 7 Berkshire terrace Massey, Auckland 0614

Submission No 147

1305

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jenny Harding <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 4:41 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jenny Harding


Address*: 73 Rose Rd Grey Lynn Auckland, Auckland 1021


I really dislike getting smoke smells when I am dining outside.

Submission No 148

1306

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Cescille Pura <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 12:49 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Cescille Pura


Address*: 14 Yeoman Place Howick Auckland, 2014 2014

Submission No 149

1307

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Rachel Gould <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 11:14 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Rachel Gould


Address*: 191 Victoria Ave Remuera, Auckland 1050

Submission No 150

1308

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: peter liggins <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:42 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: peter liggins


Address*: 7 Second Ave,Kingsland 7 Second Ave,kingsland Auckland, Northland 2021

Submission No 151

1309

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Annalise Klay <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:36 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Annalise Klay


Address*: 14 Pickwick Parade Auckland, Auckland 2014

Submission No 152

1310

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Amir Kalanie <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 9:44 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Amir Kalanie


Address*: 5/7 Kitirawa Road, Remuera Auckland, Outside USA 1050

Submission No 153

1311

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Rachael Hanna <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 8:38 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Rachael Hanna


Address*: 9 inglewood street Wai o taiki bay, 1072 Auckland


Because people make the choice to smoke. Non smokers don't make this choice so why should they be subjected to second hand smoke

Submission No 154

1312

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Joy Glasgow <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 7:52 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Joy Glasgow


Address*: 85 Lincoln St Ponsonby. Ponsonby auckland, Auckland 1021

Submission No 155

1313

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Gemma Nikara <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 7:46 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Gemma Nikara


Address*: 59 Greenmeadows Ave Manurewa Auckland, Auckland 2102

Submission No 156

1314

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Ainslie Jalfon <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 7:24 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Ainslie Jalfon


Address*: 2/134 Arran Road Browns Bay Auckland, . 0630


Cancer, other diseases, it bloody stinks then the person who has been smoking stinks, affects an otherwise enjoyable dining experience. I'm a firm believer in a total ban but this is a start.

Submission No 157

1315

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: kellie Christophersen <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 7:18 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: kellie Christophersen


Address*: 1050A Coatesville-Riverhead Highway Riverhead Auckland, Auckland 1050

Submission No 158

1316

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Dylan Crummer <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 6:48 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Dylan Crummer


Address*: 2 Campbell Cres Epsom Auckland, New Zealand 1051


Love the idea especially heading into summer. The last thing I want is smoke billowing in my face while I'm enjoying a meal in the sun.

Submission No 159

1317

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Emma McLaren <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 6:21 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Emma McLaren


Address*: Unit 4 59 Rangatira Road Auckland, Beach Haven 0626


As a waitress/bartender, it would also be nice to serve my customers without having cigarette smoke blown in my face - better work environments!

Submission No 160

1318

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Alison McKenzie <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 5:43 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Alison McKenzie


Address*: 46 Eaves Bush Parade Orewa, Rodney 0931

Submission No 161

1319

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Hannah Holland <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 5:36 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Hannah Holland


Address*: Hannah Holland 24 Les Fisher Place Pukekohe, Auckland 2120

Submission No 162

1320

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Josie Lipscombe <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 4:56 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Josie Lipscombe


Address*: 72 Asquith Ave Mt Albert, Auckland 1025


Because it is my right to clear air and therefore health and not a smokers right to smoke.

Submission No 163

1321

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: John Sames <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 4:40 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: John Sames


Address*: 830 North Rd Clevedon, 2582 Auckland


The current environment of allowing smoking in these places is disgusting - ruining the Pure NZ image - I will not eat where there are smokers

Submission No 164

1322

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Sharon Daly <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 4:36 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sharon Daly


Address*: 2/78 Parrs Cross Road Waitakere, Auckland, McLaren Park 0612


I would like this bylaw to be passed because people that smoke around outdoor and eating areas give who ever is in the vicinity 'second-hand' smoke when they exhale. This affects everyone's health. You can't enjoy yourself if your trying to avoid someone's cigarette smoke drifting your way. Elderly and children and those with asthma aren't safe around people who smoke. Smoking is unhealthy for anyone and personally I don't want to sit anywhere near people that are smoking because I don't like the smoke that wafts past me as I know that myself and my family are inhaling something we don't want in our systems.

Submission No 165

1323

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Rebecca Whistler <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 4:29 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Rebecca Whistler


Address*: 1/23 Te Kawa Road One Tree Hill Auckland, NZ 1061


It's not fair to non-smokers to have to put up with smoke inhalation (and the consequences of it) and smell if we want to sit outdoors! It's terrible for your health. It's often out the front of a restaurant/cafe etc so you have to walk through it (REALLY bad if you have kids too) and it is a bad look too. Hope it gets banned nationwide one day!

Submission No 166

1324

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Amy Blackburn <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 4:24 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Amy Blackburn


Address*: 31 Grosvenor street Grey Lynn Auckland, Auckland 1041


Cos smoking smells bad!

Submission No 167

1325

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Christina Bartlett <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 4:10 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Christina Bartlett


Address*: 2505 B 17 St SE Calgary, AB T2G3V8

Submission No 168

1326

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Makere Herbert <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 3:55 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Makere Herbert


Address*: Korowai Aroha Health centre 1292 Hinemoa St Central, Lakes district Rotorua

Submission No 169

1327

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Louise Beuvink <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 3:37 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Louise Beuvink


Address*: 51 Maritime Terrace Birkenhead Auckland, Auckland 0626


Submission No 170

1328

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Rebecca Williams <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 3:26 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Rebecca Williams


Address*: 16 Paewai Road Glen Eden Auckland, Glen Eden 0602

Submission No 171

1329

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Natasha Geo <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 3:14 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Natasha Geo


Address*: 17A Belmont Terrace Milford North Shore City, Auckland 0620

Submission No 172

1330

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Atahlia Dunnett-Wilkes <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 2:38 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Atahlia Dunnett-Wilkes


Address*: 304A Glengarry Road Oratia, Waitakere Auckland

Submission No 173

1331

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Georgina Peters <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 2:36 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Georgina Peters


Address*: 10a Waller Street Onehunga, Auckland Onehunga

Submission No 174

1332

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jenna Scullin <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 2:32 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jenna Scullin


Address*: 1/167 Avenue Road East, Otahuhu Auckland, Auckland `1062


Because when people smoke outdoors and I am walking past, my choice to not breath in smoke is taken away from me. This will save lives.

Submission No 175

1333

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Kimberly Fong <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 2:14 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Kimberly Fong


Address*: 42 akoranga drive Northshore city, northcote centre 0627

Submission No 176

1334

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Carol Tarboton <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 1:53 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Carol Tarboton


Address*: 13B Olwyn Place Greenhithe Auckland, Auckland 0632

Submission No 177

1335

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Akansha Maharaj <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 1:35 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Akansha Maharaj


Address*: 109A Golf Road New Lynn Waitakere, Auckland 0600

Submission No 178

1336

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Elizabeth Maritz <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 1:28 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Elizabeth Maritz


Address*: 5 Wylie ave Sunnynook Auckland, Auckland 0620

Submission No 179

1337

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Katie Rom <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 1:05 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Katie Rom


Address*: 177b Shakespeare Road Milford Auckland, Auckland 0622

Submission No 180

1338

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Belinda Broekes <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 12:45 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Belinda Broekes


Address*: 162 Trig Road Whitford Auckland, Whitford 2571

Submission No 181

1339

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Alexandra Miller <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 12:33 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Alexandra Miller


Address*: 3 Bampton Rise Northpark Auckland, Auckland 2013


Because it's nice to eat outside on a nice day, in the fresh air and smoking ruins that

Submission No 182

1340

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Rachel van Stockum <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 12:06 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Rachel van Stockum


Address*: 12 Liffey Drive Dannemora, Dannemora Auckland


I would like to see Smokefree outdoor dining so I can enjoy eating outside without having to worry about second hand smoke.

Submission No 183

1341

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Ngaire Reid <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 12:04 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Ngaire Reid


Address*: 123 Golf Rd Titirangi Auckland, Auckland 0600

Submission No 184

1342

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Renee Mitchell <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 12:03 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Renee Mitchell


Address*: 93 Haseler Crescent Auckland, AUCKLAND 2014

Submission No 185

1343

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Frith Jenkins <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 11:53 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Frith Jenkins


Address*: 45 evelyn road Howick Manukau, Auckland 2014


Because it is the right thing to do

Submission No 186

1344

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Emma Osborne <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 11:51 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Emma Osborne


Address*: 23 Huntington Drive Huntington Park Auckland, Auckland 2013

Submission No 187

1345

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: milica milenkovic <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 11:48 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: milica milenkovic


Address*: 12/144 Kepa rd. Orakei Auckalnd, New Zealand 1071

Submission No 188

1346

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: David Fougere <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 11:25 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: David Fougere


Address*: 52 Wallace Street Herne Bay Auckland, NZ 1011

Submission No 189

1347

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Barbara vanRyn <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 11:25 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Barbara vanRyn


Address*: 42 Shelly Bay Road Beachlands, Auckland Auckland

Submission No 190

1348

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Sarah Berger <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 11:12 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sarah Berger


Address*: 42 Bernard Road Wanaka, Central Otago 9305

Submission No 191

1349

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Allan Wyllie <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 11:11 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Allan Wyllie


Address*: 111A West End Rd, Westmere Auckkland, Auckland 1022

Submission No 192

1350

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Michelle Gate <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:50 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Michelle Gate


Address*: 15 Sea Spray Drive Bucklands beach Auckland, Auckland 2012

Submission No 193

1351

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Megan Owen <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:45 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Megan Owen


Address*: 5a Farwood Drive Henderson Waitakere, Auckland 0612

Submission No 194

1352

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Fa'asi'u Gae'e -Gosche <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:37 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Fa'asi'u Gae'e -Gosche


Address*: 72B Ennis Ave, pakuranga , SEE ABOVE, SEE ABOVE AUCKLAND 2010


I really support the clean outdoor smokefree bylaw to keep us HEALTHY AND FREE FROM UNHEALTHY DISEASES. THE SALE OF FOOD OUTDOOR ON THE FOOTPATH MUST BE BANNED AS WELL. IT IS VERY UNHEALTHY,IF FOOD ARE EXPOSED TO DUSTY ,DUST AREAS.

Submission No 195

1353

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Rowena O'Donnell <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:30 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Rowena O'Donnell


Address*: 1/12 Marama Street Castor Bay Auckland, North Shore 0620

Submission No 196

1354

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Peter Conaglen <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:25 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Peter Conaglen


Address*: 13 Frank Place Manurewa Manukau, Auckland 2012


Auckland has some very beautiful out door settings that have become the domain of the smokers. It is irresponsible, and a breach of human rights, that those who choose to adversely affect their health, get the prime seats, on nice days, while the responsible person is forced in doors.

Submission No 197

1355

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Bruce Baguley <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:15 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Bruce Baguley


Address*: 74A Bassett Road Auckland, Auckland 1050

Submission No 198

1356

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Kate Van Velzen <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:09 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Kate Van Velzen


Address*: 47 Nelson Street Howick, Auckland 2014

Submission No 199

1357

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Olivia Wilson <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:07 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Olivia Wilson


Address*: 15 Leamington Rd Mt Eden, AKL Auckland

Submission No 200

1358

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: jenna pairama <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:01 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: jenna pairama


Address*: 103 second view avenue Auckland, Auckland 2018


As a newly reformed smoker I would love to see a fully smoke free nz

Submission No 201

1359

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Lydia White <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:05 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Lydia White


Address*: 46a Onewa road Northcote, Auckland Auckland


All communal areas should be Smoke free, and phasing smoking out of popular areas will help reduce the popularity of smoking.

Submission No 202

1360

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Shayal Mala <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:00 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Shayal Mala


Address*: 49 Derrimore Heights Clover Park, Auckland 2023


I would like outdoor dining to be smoke free as I hate going out to a nice place to eat with my family and there is a whole heap of people blowing smoke in the air around us. I believe that is very rude, and it is not something I want to be around when I am out enjoying time out.

Submission No 203

1361

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Ellie Fourie <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 9:56 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Ellie Fourie


Address*: 1B Hiwihau Pl Glenfield, Auckland 0629

Submission No 204

1362

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Heather Came <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 9:53 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Heather Came


Address*: 115 Screen Road, RD 3 Albany, Auckland 0973


The world is a better place smokefree.

Submission No 205

1363

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Taimi Allan <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 9:49 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Taimi Allan


Address*: po box 60576 titirangi auckland, waitakere 0604

Submission No 206

1364

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Stephen Randerson <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 9:43 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Stephen Randerson


Address*: 12 Scout Ave Three Kings Auckland, Auckland 1041


I strongly support a smokefree outdoor dining bylaw as it will both protect vulnerable people in our workforce from second hand smoke, and make public smoking far less visible to our young people. Across a population, such a significant and visible environmental change is likely to be a highly effective component of reducing the uptake of smoking and supporting those who want to quit. Personally, I greatly dislike being forced indoors to avoid second hand smoke when I would prefer to eat outside and enjoy the sunshine and warm weather free from poisonous substances. I'm sure restaurant staff who are faced with this smoke throughout their shift would feel the same.

Submission No 207

1365

1

From: [email protected]: Monday, 25 August 2014 11:31 a.m.To: BylawCc: [email protected]: Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014 - submission






Contact details

First name: Jonathan Surname: Field Organisation: Email address: [email protected] Postal address: 145d St Heliers Bay Road, St Heliers Post code: 1071 Contact phone: 5755224 Preferred method of communication: By email Local board area: Orakei local board Do you want to speak in person on your submission? No

Submission details


All except cl16 and cl19 concerning the offering of a commercial service by means of a Mobile Shop.


Cl 16---Mobile Shops cl 19-Offering a Commercial Service I am concerned about the effects of some Mobile Shop operators who are offeringa financial service as part of their trading operations on vulnerable and economically deprived communities.


cl16-Mobile shops:

Submission No 208

366

2

(a) the exact location of the mobile shop and any associated signs and displays PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE MOBILE SHOP IS OFFERING A FINANCIAL SERVICE AS PART OF ITS TRADING ACTIVITY THE COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THE LOCATION WHERE IT HAS REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE SERVICE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC WELLBEING OF THE LOCAL RESIDENTIAL AREA. cl 19(b) the quality and standard of services being offered AND SHALL REQUIRE ANY TRADER OFFERING A COMMERCIAL SERVICE THAT INCLUDES PROVIDING A FINANCIAL SERVICE TO BE REGISTERED AT ALL TIMES AS A PARTICIPANT UNDER THE FINANCIAL SERVICES PROVIDERS (REGISTRATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION) ACT 2008. Date of submission: 25 August 2014

Submission No 208

367

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: cooper watkins <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 9:06 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: cooper watkins


Address*: 41 brunner rd glen eden Waitakere, Auckland 0602


i gave up around 4 years ago and now i fully understand how unpleasant it is to be around smoke. i think its so gross at Cafes while i am eating that they let people right next to me smoke and i would like to see them have to be further away so i cant smell it while i am eating at least

Submission No 209

1368

1

From: [email protected]: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 10:16 a.m.To: BylawCc: [email protected]: Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014 - submission






Contact details

First name: Chris Surname: Sutton Organisation: Panmure Business Association Email address: [email protected] Postal address: PO Box 14313, Panmure, Auckland Post code: 1741 Contact phone: 095276389 Preferred method of communication: By email Local board area: Maungakiekie-Tamaki local board Do you want to speak in person on your submission? Yes

Submission details


In general we support the proposed bylaw.


I do not oppose the bylaw but would like the bylaw to include some extra points as outlined below.


16 Mobile Shops The addition of a clause to recognise the potential impact a mobile shop may have on the surrounding local businesses. The Panmure Business Association does not wish to see the mobile trucks that trawl Panmure, Glen Innes and Point England streets take the liberty to park in our town centres car parks and open their doors for

Submission No 210

369

2

business. Mobile Fruit and Veg shops should not been given a license that allows them to trade any where near a town centre or group of shops that also sells produce. Business have to pay on going rent and overhead costs that goes with having a permanent premises whereas a mobile shop pays a one off Ak Council fee which in no way compares to the cost of running an on going business. 21 Street Performance/busking: Street performers must be made aware when issued a licence that their performance may have a potential impact of the local businesses and should move if asked by a business or by Business Association staff. We appreciate the fact that a buskers licence can be approved by Ak Council staff without that staff members knowledge as to whether the busker can actually perform or not. If the busker can not actually sing or play an instrument the problem then falls back on the Business Association who is usually the first organisation that our shop owners or the public ring to complain about the busker. We suggest that if a busker receives several complaints that their licence is revoked. Date of submission: 26 August 2014

Submission No 210

370

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Margaret nash <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 9:06 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Margaret nash


Address*: 4 Riverhills Avenue Pakuranga Auckland, Auckland 2010


I have been advocating for many years for smoke free areas in all public places so dining areas is a great start

Submission No 211

1371

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Gina Vente-Smith <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 8:40 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Gina Vente-Smith


Address*: 151 Mt Pleasant Rd Christchurch, Canterbury 8081


I have two children and we enjoy dining our. Unfortunatelly we are unable to dine al fresco on beautiful days as those areas ten to be full of smokers and I hate exposing my children to second hand smoke. I understand first hand the dangers of second hand smoke as my mum, was diagnosed with esoephageal cancer believed to de due to exposure to second hand smoke as my father was a heavy smoker.

Submission No 212

1372

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: karen stevens <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 8:38 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: karen stevens


Address*: 20/49, St Stephens Ave., Parnell Auckland, Auckland 1052


For those trying to stop smoking, eating and then being able to smoke at the table is a significant bond to overcome. Dining outside with a prohibition on smoking is a helps for them to stay quit. Also it is expected of the owner of the cafe/restaurant to prevent their staff members, who are non-smokers,being exposed to second hand smoke. The prohibition of smoking in an outdoor area ensures that employers can meet their obligation.

Submission No 213

1373

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jerome Cowley <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 8:29 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jerome Cowley


Address*: 230 Kupe Street Orakei Auckland, North Island 1071


Safer environments for families eating out and, gives non-smokers the right to be in a Smokefree area.

Submission No 214

1374

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Denise Barnfather <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 7:47 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Denise Barnfather


Address*: Greenlane Clinical Centre Greenland Rd Greenlane, Auckland 1051

Submission No 215

1375

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: alison taylor <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 3:53 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: alison taylor


Address*: 36 boyd ave royal oak royal oak, New Zealand auckland 1061

Submission No 216

1376

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Tui Makoare <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 3:37 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Tui Makoare


Address*: 11 Carole Crescent Pakuranga Manukau, Auckland 2010

Submission No 217

1377

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Deborah FitzPatrick <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 2:44 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Deborah FitzPatrick


Address*: 20 Chelmsford Avenue Glendowie Auckland, Auckland 1071


I absolutely support this submission, and am disappointed it has not been initiated earlier. It will be nice to enjoy a cafe's best seats outside in the new fresh air again. Giving society this change will assist smoking being less visable, therefore society will be more visable as a non smoking healthier community. This in turn will assist the pressure that is on the regions DHBs by reducing smokers and therefore lessening patients with smoking related diseases assisting DHB bed capacity issues.

Submission No 218

1378

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Karin Urmersbach-Niersbach <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 2:31 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Karin Urmersbach-Niersbach


Address*: 73 Otitori Bay Road Titirangi Auckland, - 0604


My mother smoked like a chimney. Being around her, I was forced to inhale second-hand smoke and I hated it. I lost her far too early through mouth and lung cancer. When I go out, I want to have fresh air around me. After all, I pay for a nice experience and food doesn't taste good with cigarette smoke.

Submission No 219

1379

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Rangitamoana Wilson <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 2:23 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Rangitamoana Wilson


Address*: 15 Roulston Street Pukekohe, Auckland 2120


I want to promote mauri ora for me and my whanau.

Submission No 220

1380

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Kylie Etherton <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 1:50 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Kylie Etherton


Address*: 3G/5 Charlotte Street Eden Terrace Auckland, Auckland 1021


No one wants to inhale smoke while they're eating. Smokers don't do it - they wait until after they finish eating to smoke, but the people sitting around them don't get this choice. It's now far more widely accepted to have separate smoker's areas i.e. outside bars, and this would quickly become the norm outside eating areas too. Thank you.

Submission No 221

1381

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Sarah Greenaway <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 1:48 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sarah Greenaway


Address*: 56 Station St Hobsonville Auckland, Auckland 0618

Submission No 222

1382

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Ataria Marsden <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 1:23 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Ataria Marsden


Address*: 12 Coleman Ave Mt Roskill Auckland 9 Westmoreland ave Grey Lynn, Auckland 1041


Because health is a human right. If I am to pay money for a beautiful meal and have the experience of dining outside whilst feeling the sun on my back I happily would pay - especially if this experience is a smokfree one. Sharing this space with smokers does not inspire me to support New Zealand local business. People come to NZ for the clean green environment - lets make it real for evryone.

Submission No 223

1383

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Nazanin Rafati <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 1:22 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Nazanin Rafati


Address*: 138 Anzac avenue Unit 1303 Auckland City, Auckland 1010


This is an excellent idea! You sometimes need to go outside for fresh air but all you get is a lot of second hand smoke

Submission No 224

1384

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: jana tuipluotu <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 1:02 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: jana tuipluotu


Address*: 24 hamlin rd mt wellington, auckland 1060


Yesterday I went out to grab lunch with my sister, it was a beautiful day so we decided to sit outdoors. A man came outside, sat right next to us and started to smoke, at that point lunch was ruined! I did not want nor appreciate smoke on my food and it made breathing and smelling hard to do, we simply wanted to enjoy our meal in the sun. It is not fair on those of us who made the choice not to smoke then have second hand smoking forced upon us.

Submission No 225

1385

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Mandy Drent <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 12:41 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Mandy Drent


Address*: Po box 47347 Ponsonby Auckland, Auckland Auckland

Submission No 226

1386

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Zara Recordon <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 12:15 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Zara Recordon


Address*: 86 Arney Road Remuera Auckland, Auckland 1051

Submission No 227

1387

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Hayley Thom <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 11:52 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Hayley Thom


Address*: 30a springcombe road st heliers PO box 25777 St heliers, 1071 Auckland

Submission No 228

1388

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Emma Belcher <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 11:51 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Emma Belcher


Address*: 1/44 Tawhiri Rd One Tree Hill Auckland, Auckland 1061

Submission No 229

1389

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Linda Crosbie <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 11:02 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Linda Crosbie


Address*: 11 Baird Street Howick Auckland, Auckland 2014

Submission No 230

1390

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Matiu Brown Rapana <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 10:46 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Matiu Brown Rapana


Address*: 15 -17 Roulston Street Pukekohe, Franklin 2120


I would like to see smokefree outdoor dining because I want to see smoking banned all together. This would help increase life for maori people.

Submission No 231

1391

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Joseph Maruzza <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 10:46 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Joseph Maruzza


Address*: 46 Colombo road Waiuku, Auckland 2123


So that we can look to the future. A smokefree New Zealand.

Submission No 232

1392

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: pauline mitchell <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 10:44 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: pauline mitchell


Address*: 44 Riserra Drive 44 Auckland, New Zealand 0612


Because I know how serious tobacco is and the harm it causes.

Submission No 233

1393

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Ririana Taupo <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 10:40 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Ririana Taupo


Address*: 5 Tahuna Paa Rd , Waiuku Auckland, Franklin 2123


Smokefree Outdoor dining= #ONE STEP CLOSER TO A SMOKEFREE AOTEAROA 2025

Submission No 234

1394

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Kerrin Brown <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 10:25 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Kerrin Brown


Address*: 27 Gillies Ave Auckland, New Zealand 1149


Cancer in all forms is a huge issue in New Zealand. We are also a nation of loving the outdoors however a relaxing meal, coffee or wine can and often is spoilt by the rising stench of cigarette smoke. Second hand smoke has been proven to be as damaging as inhaling direct so it shouldn't be okay to have this forced onto innocent parties trying to enjoy fresh air and a bite to eat.

Submission No 235

1395

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Te Manaakiora Popata <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 10:00 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Te Manaakiora Popata


Address*: 45 Cape Hill Road Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120


Its disgusting to be inhaling 2nd hand smoke when you are trying to enjoy meals with your family, friends & children. My children suffer from asthma, & depending on the intensity of the smoke, it can irritate their condition.

Submission No 236

1396

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jan Sheeran <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 9:56 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jan Sheeran


Address*: 10 Gladstone Rd Northcote Auckland, Auckland 0627

Submission No 237

1397

Submission No 238

398

Submission No 238

399

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Bruce Rattray <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 8:46 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Bruce Rattray


Address*: 143 Norman Lesser Drive St Johns Auckland, Auckland 1072


It is very uninviting when I would like to be seated outdoors to be subjected to second hand smoke

Submission No 239

1400

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Lisa Morice <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 8:37 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Lisa Morice


Address*: 215 Motutara Road Muriwai Beach, RD1 Waimauku, Auckland 0881

Submission No 240

1401

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Debbie Aley <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 8:28 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Debbie Aley


Address*: 3 Landsberg way Windsor Park, Auckland 0630


this is a no brainier.

Submission No 241

1402

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Karen Hicks <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 8:23 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Karen Hicks


Address*: 11/73C Carlton Gore Road Newmarket, Auckland 1023


It supports making Auckland the world's most liveable city and role modelling to other cities and countries.

Submission No 242

1403

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Emily Ryan <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 8:22 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Emily Ryan


Address*: 19 Ginko Pl Mangere, Auckland 2022

Submission No 243

1404

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Hazel Oxford <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 8:08 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Hazel Oxford


Address*: 6 Springleigh Ave Mt Albert Auckland, Auckland 1025


I love al-fresco dinig but feel penalised that I have to share the space with clouds of unhealthy smokers. Smoking in public also sends a poor public health message to young nonsmokers.

Submission No 244

1405

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Lisa Howard-Smith <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 3:54 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Lisa Howard-Smith


Address*: 1/B Gloria Ave, Te Atatu Peninsula Auckland, Waitakere 0610

Submission No 245

1406

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Angela Metford <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:52 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Angela Metford


Address*: 20 Nevada AVe Pakuranga Auckland, Auckland 2010


It's also terrible when trying to walk past these establishments. We have to hold our breath as we walk by.

Submission No 246

1407

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Alexx Hayward <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:51 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Alexx Hayward


Address*: 16A Bel Air Drive Hillsborough Auckland, ------ 1061

Submission No 247

1408

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Carmel Williams <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:50 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Carmel Williams


Address*: 15 Castle Drive Epsom Auckland, Auckland 1023


We have the opportunity to lead the world and continue to improve Auckland as the world's healthiest city: keep our public spaces, especially where we eat and play, smoke free

Submission No 248

1409

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Sophie Andrews <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:48 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sophie Andrews


Address*: 329f Plummers Point road RD2 Tauranga, Bay of Plenty 3172

Submission No 249

1410

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Kelly Taylor <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:43 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Kelly Taylor


Address*: 50 Cambridge Road Hillcrest Hamilton, Waikato 3216

Submission No 250

1411

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Tessa Williams <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:39 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Tessa Williams


Address*: 13 Wiles Avenue Remuera, Auckland 1050


I think it would be better for the health of New Zealanders!

Submission No 251

1412

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Awhina Kanohi <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:37 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Awhina Kanohi


Address*: 83 Coronation Road Papatoetoe Auckland, North Island 2025


It's really off putting especially when your at a restaurant or cafe and you can still inhale in the smoke that whiffs by you from outdoor smokers. SO you are still in the vicinity where your still being affected by passively inhaling this terrible habit.

Submission No 252

1413

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Cameron Whiteman <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:36 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Cameron Whiteman


Address*: 111a Selwyn st onehunga Auckland, Auckland 1061

Submission No 253

1414

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Alana Marck <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:33 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Alana Marck


Address*: 15 Willow Way Pakuranga, Auckland 2010


Often the outdoor tables are the nicest place to eat because there is fresh air and a nice view etc. However there is no fresh air if people are out there smoking.

Submission No 254

1415

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Anitra Roberts <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:26 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Anitra Roberts


Address*: 38 May Road Auckland, New Zealand 1041

Submission No 255

1416

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Racheal Hira <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:09 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Racheal Hira


Address*: 1 Elizabeth street Tuakau 1 Elizabeth Street Tuakau, South Auckland 2121


I know everyone has the right to make their own choices if the smoke but I'm a non smoker and it really makes me feel sick and uncomfortable when your eating and someones smoking near me when I'm eating and its horriable. To be able to eat food without the horriable smoke when be really appreciated. 100% support this kaupapa smokefree

Submission No 256

1417

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Berdie Milner <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:04 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Berdie Milner


Address*: 20 Fitzwater Place Henderson, Waitakere Auckland

Submission No 257

1418

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Gloria Williams <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:54 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Gloria Williams


Address*: 2 Nga Oho Orakei, 1071 Auckland


I am allergic to cigarette fumes, to the point where I get nauseous, not very conducive for dining.

Submission No 258

1419

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Zoe Hawke <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:44 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Zoe Hawke


Address*: 31 Kitemoana Street Orakei, Auckland Auckland


Please be brave - show your leadership to the rest of the country and DO IT!!!


Submission No 259

1420

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Michelle Lee <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:43 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Michelle Lee


Address*: 16/24 Norrie Ave Mt Albert Auckland, NZ Auckland


There is no reason why non smokers should be exposed to smoke whilst they prefer to dine outside.

Submission No 260

1421

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Vivien Daley <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:37 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Vivien Daley


Address*: 23 Flavell St Christchurch, Canterbury 8022

Submission No 261

1422

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Karen Windelborn <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:33 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Karen Windelborn


Address*: 227 Ngataki Road RD 4 Kaitaia, Northland 0484

Submission No 262

1423

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Denise Barlow <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:12 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Denise Barlow


Address*: 6 Elizabeth Point Road South Cove Kawau Island, Auckland 1142


To the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, I want all outdoor dining areas to be Smokefree because: - Smokefree outdoor dining will make being outside at cafes and restaurants more enjoyable and I would go more often - Smokefree outdoor dining would protect my family and friends from second-hand smoke, help prevent children from starting to smoke and support those trying to quit - Smokefree outdoor dining will mean there is less cigarette butt litter on our streets and make our city a better place to be I urge you to include in this bylaw a requirement that outdoor eating and drinking areas are Smokefree. Thank you Denise Barlow

Submission No 264

1424

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Leanne Kirton <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:17 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Leanne Kirton


Address*: 36 Mewburn Ave Mt Eden Auckland, Auckland 1024

Submission No 263

1425

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Heber Fruean <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:08 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Heber Fruean


Address*: 48 Evans Rd Glen Eden Waitakere, Auckland 0602


Smokefree environments and outdoor dining is about fresh air available to all. Healthy environments is good for everyone. The impact of smoking is too harmful to allow to continue. Champions like Tariana Turia helped make this possible. We must continue for the sake of our families and future generations. Smoking definitely should not be in our future.

Submission No 265

1426

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Fay Burke <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:06 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Fay Burke


Address*: 110 Stanley Street Grafton Auckland, Auckland 1143


In New Zealand we are portrayed as having a "Clean Green" environment. This is not the case when there is someone blowing smoking nearby you or even having dirty smellie ashtrays on the tables outside cafes and restaurants. I would like to see all public places including parks and walkways Smoke Free.

Submission No 266

1427

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Merania Makoare-Kerehoma <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:02 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Merania Makoare-Kerehoma


Address*: 55 Kitemoana street Orakei Auckland, North Island 1071


It is not nice when walking pass to inhale second hand smoke from those sitting outside cafe, resturants etc. The addictive habbit and Secondhand smoke is expossed to our children Smokers don't always use ashtrays so flick their butts on the ground which polutes our country. Smoking Tobacco kills

Submission No 267

1428

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jill Nicholls <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 11:01 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jill Nicholls


Address*: 56 Alberta Rd Glen Avon New plymouth, Taranaki 4340


Auckland should lead the way as our biggest city for the rest of New Zealand.Then the rest of the country will follow

Submission No 268

1429

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Amanda Brien <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 10:54 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Amanda Brien


Address*: 115c Remuera Road Auckland, Auckland 1050

Submission No 269

1430

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Simonne Jeffs <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 10:04 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Simonne Jeffs


Address*: 12 Price Crescent Mt Wellington Auckland, North Island 1060


Submission No 270

1431

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Sioeli Vaiangina <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 9:59 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sioeli Vaiangina


Address*: 17 Sidey Ave, Clover Park, Manukau Manukau 2023


I am a cancer patient

Submission No 271

1432

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Metua Bates <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 9:45 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Metua Bates


Address*: 18 Sandbrook Avenue Otara Auckland, New Zealand 1021


So that we can enjoy fresh air as we eat and reduce chances of getting cancer from inhaling smoke from smokers.

Submission No 272

1433

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Ericka Jonker <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 9:34 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Ericka Jonker


Address*: 60 Glen Marine Parade Glendene, Waitakere Auckland


It is healthy option. Also me being pregnant now don't enjoy the smell of other peoples smoking when I walk past as my morning sickness makes me ill from the smell.

Submission No 273

1434

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Tracey Logan <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 9:28 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Tracey Logan


Address*: 203 Henderson Valley Rd Henderson Auckland, Auckland 0612


As someone about to have a baby this is really important to me. I have found it hard to avoid smokers whilst being pregnant and really don't want my baby with his new luncgs to be inhaling smoke if we go out to eat.

Submission No 274

1435

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: VILIAMI PULOKA <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 9:28 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: VILIAMI PULOKA


Address*: 42 May Road Mt Roskill Auckland, Auckland 1041


Out doors is where most people enjoy gathering together for social interactions especially during NZ beautiful summer months

Submission No 275

1436

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Shanesse Haresnape <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 9:24 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Shanesse Haresnape


Address*: 10 constitution hill auckland CBD Auckland, New Zealand 1010


I don't want that harm done to my body

Submission No 276

1437

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Mary caffin <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 8:50 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Mary caffin


Address*: 19 Gifford Ave Mount Roskill, New Zealand Auckland 1041


Because we have a little baby and live healithy lifestyles and want to encourage others to do the same. My father died of cancer when I was 6 and I wouldn't wish this on anyone if it can be helped.I don't intend to disqualify smokers from life but clean air is a gift for all so hopefully there can be a negotiation of some sort.....thank you

Submission No 277

1438

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Amy Tong <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 8:43 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Amy Tong


Address*: 5 Chevis Place Pakuranga Auckland, New Zealand 2010

Submission No 278

1439

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Holly Spence <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 8:02 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Holly Spence


Address*: 28 Darwin lane Remuera, Auckland 1050


Smoking is a choice- and it's not mine. Non smokers should be protected from second hand smoke

Submission No 279

1440

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jackie Kendall <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 7:44 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jackie Kendall


Address*: 161 Annandale Road RD2 Henderson, Auckland 0782

Submission No 280

1441

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jackie Kendall <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 7:44 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jackie Kendall


Address*: 161 Annandale Road RD2 Henderson, Auckland 0782

Submission No 280

1442

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: jiney jose <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 7:38 a.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: jiney jose


Address*: 77 Lake Panorama Drive Henderson Auckland, Auckland 0612

Submission No 281

1443

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Stephanie Erick <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 11:32 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Stephanie Erick


Address*: 19 Mauranui Ave Epsom, Auckland Auckland


Evidence shows that poisoning smoke drifts from outdoor dining areas to inside what lawfully should be 'smokefree'. We want a Smokefree NZ as soon as possible and this is one fantastic way to say that. We also need to responsible adults in protecting our children from second hand smoke. Auckland is surely the leading place to ensure this happens.

Submission No 282

1444

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Mary Spellman <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 5:14 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Mary Spellman


Address*: 2 Hedge row Sunnyhills Auckland, Auckland 2010

Submission No 283

1445

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: William Lin <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 5:13 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: William Lin


Address*: 85 Park Road Grafton, Auckland Auckland

Submission No 284

1446

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Debbie Greenhalgh <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 5:07 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Debbie Greenhalgh


Address*: 40B Attitude Ave RD1 Silverdale, Auckland 0994

Submission No 285

1447

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Anna Giddens <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 5:06 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Anna Giddens


Address*: 23B Kempthorne Cres Mission Bay Auckland, -Select one- 1071

Submission No 286

1448

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Ben Dickson <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 5:04 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Ben Dickson


Address*: 47 Castleton St Birkdale, Auckland 0626

Submission No 287

1449

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Evelyn Niua <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 3:38 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Evelyn Niua


Address*: 2 Manston Road Mangere Manukau City, Auckland 2022


It would be great to be able to go out and eat and drink without cigarette smoke around.

Submission No 288

1450

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Esther U <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:56 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Esther U


Address*: 1/6 Olena Avenue Pakuranga NIL, Manukau Manukau2010

Submission No 289

1451

1

From: [email protected]: Wednesday, 27 August 2014 1:55 p.m.To: BylawCc: [email protected]: Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014 - submission






Contact details

First name: Diane Surname: Harrison Organisation: Cigana Ltd Email address: [email protected] Postal address: 5 maskell st, St Heliers, Auckland Post code: 1071 Contact phone: 095752075 Preferred method of communication: By email Local board area: Orakei local board Do you want to speak in person on your submission? No

Submission details




I would like to suggest that you consider allowing businesses to pay their licensing fees in monthly installments. It is quite hard on the cashflow of small businesses to pay annual bills when they have several licenses to pay for at the same time (food hygeine, street trading, seating licences etc). Could even be quarterly like rates.

Submission No 290

1452

2


Submission No 290

2453

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Sharn Birch-Robertson <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:39 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Sharn Birch-Robertson


Address*: 19 claremont street 19 claremont street, Grafton Auckland 1023


I would like to walk down the street not having to breath in second hand smoke, my health is important to me and others around me. I believe smoking should be banned from all public spaces, workplaces and all areas in which second hand smoke can be contained without proper ventilation i.e. cars, homes etc. I hope tobacco in NZ becomes illegal, and a strong and conscious effort by government is made to help ALL members of society to quit smoking especially addressing the smoking cessation inequality between Maori and non Maori.

Submission No 291

1454

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jonathan Rawstorn <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:37 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jonathan Rawstorn


Address*: 66 Mt Taylor Drive Glendowie Auckland, Auckland 1072


second hand smoke ruins the pleasure of outdoor dining

Submission No 292

1455

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Vaughan Somerville <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:38 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Vaughan Somerville


Address*: 6a Renfrew ave Sandringham Auckland, Auckland 1041

Submission No 293

1456

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Kaye Bell <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:32 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Kaye Bell


Address*: 2 RiccartonWay Ellerslie Auckland, Auckland 1051

Submission No 294

1457

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Varsha Parag <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:33 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Varsha Parag


Address*: 86 New Windsor Rd 86 New Windsor Rd New Windsor, Auckland Auckland

Submission No 295

1458

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Samantha Ellis <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:33 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Samantha Ellis


Address*: 183 Landscape Road Mt Eden Auckland, Auckland 1024

Submission No 296

1459

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Varsha Parag <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:33 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Varsha Parag


Address*: 86 New Windsor Rd 86 New Windsor Rd New Windsor, Auckland Auckland

Submission No 295

1460

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Brooke Schneideman <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:29 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Brooke Schneideman


Address*: 28b Seaview Road Remuera 1050, Auckland Auckland

Submission No 297

1461

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Johan Strydom <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:28 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Johan Strydom


Address*: 2/62a Lynden Ave Hillcrest Auckland, Auckland 0627


Smoke is just dangerous and foul smelling outside a building as it is inside a building.

Submission No 298

1462

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Michelle Lambert <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:25 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Michelle Lambert


Address*: 60 Anchorage Dr Karaka Auckland, NI 2113

Submission No 299

1463

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Vanessa Selak <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:23 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Vanessa Selak


Address*: Y6/30 York Street Parnell, Auckland 1052

Submission No 300

1464

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Natalie Greenaway <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:18 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Natalie Greenaway


Address*: 14 Glade lane Birkenhead Point Auckland, Auckland 0626

Submission No 301

1465

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Jordan MacTavish <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:18 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Jordan MacTavish


Address*: 40 seafield view road Grafton Auckland, Auckland 1023


Smoking should be private not public

Submission No 302

1466

1

Brogan McQuoid

From: Shaun Cavanagh <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2014 2:13 p.m.To: [email protected]; BylawSubject: Submission – Proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw



Name*: Shaun Cavanagh


Address*: 1 Royal Terrace Dunedin Otago, Otago 9016


Outdoor dining areas should be smokefree because: - The word 'hospitality' means 'to make welcome'. The physiological response to smoking is evidence it is NOTlcome inside the body. - Clientele pay money to have an experience that is enjoyable. Exposure to second-hand smoke cannot be part of that for non-smoking diners. While smokers may claim such a policy is discriminatory, this is not the case. It's more likely that exposure to the effects of second-hand smoke is discrimination. - The sale of tobacco is premised upon the concept of 'informed choice'. Therefore, smoking diners accept there is harm to other people as a result. - Policies must reflect the documented harm caused by the direct and indirect effects. - Outdoor dining is an example of a recreational activity. This term implies there is something voluntary in the activity. Meanwhile, the majority of smokers want to quit as they realise it is not enjoyable.

Submission No 303

1467

standard report template - temp.aucklandcouncil.govt.nzconsulted under the lta. ... recommends that...

Documents