Notice of Meeting:
I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regulatory Subcommittee will be held on:
Date: Thursday 25 March 2021
Time: 1.30 pm
Venue: Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin
Sandy Graham
Chief Executive Officer
Regulatory Subcommittee
review of Legal High Retail Location Policy
PUBLIC AGENDA
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Cr Andrew Whiley |
|
|
|
|
Members |
Cr Marie Laufiso |
Cr Steve Walker |
Senior Officer Simon Pickford, General Manager Community Services
Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson
Lynne Adamson
Governance Support Officer
Telephone: 03 477 4000
lynne.adamson@dcc.govt.nz
Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.
Regulatory Subcommittee 25 March 2021 |
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 4
2 Confirmation of Agenda 4
3 Declaration of Interest 5
Part A Reports (Committee has power to decide these matters)
4 Results of consultation on review of Legal High Retail Location Policy 11
Regulatory Subcommittee 25 March 2021 |
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
Note: Any additions must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.
|
Regulatory Subcommittee 25 March 2021 |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Members are reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.
2. Elected members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable, including amending the register at this meeting if necessary.
That the Committee: a) Notes/Amends if necessary the Elected Members' Interest Register attached as Attachment A; and b) Confirms/Amends the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests. |
Attachments
|
Title |
Page |
⇩a |
Committee Register of Interest |
7 |
|
Regulatory Subcommittee 25 March 2021 |
Results of consultation on review of Legal High Retail Location Policy
Department: Customer and Regulatory Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 This report presents a summary of the six submissions received on the review of the Legal High Retail Location Policy (the Policy) to the Regulatory Subcommittee (the Subcommittee).
2 Of the six submissions, the majority (83%) agree overall with the existing policy (see Attachment A for the Policy). One submitter wishes to be heard.
That the Committee: a) Considers the submissions on the review of the Legal High Retail Location Policy b) Makes recommendations to the Council on the Legal High Retail Location Policy.
|
BACKGROUND
3 The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (the Act) allows local authorities to have a policy specifying where, in their districts, legal highs can be sold. An approved product was termed a ‘legal high’. It does not permit a council to ban legal highs outright or to have a policy which is so restrictive as to effectively ban their sale.
4 In 2015, the Council chose to adopt a Legal High Retail Location Policy to help minimise the risk of harm posed by the presence of legal highs in the city.
5 The purpose of the Policy is threefold:
· To minimise the harm caused to the community resulting from the use of psychoactive substances by limiting the locations from which the ‘legal high’ may be sold; and
· To minimise the exposure and potential harm of legal highs to vulnerable members of the community; and
· To ensure the community has influence over the location of the premises licensed to sell the products, so much as legally possible.
6 The Policy restricts legal high retailers to the Dunedin central city area provided they are more than 100m away from ‘sensitive sites’ like schools, churches, Dunedin Public Library, Dunedin Hospital, mental health facilities and justice premises.
7 In October 2020, the Council approved the review and retention of the Legal High Retail Location Policy 2015 and approved the statement of proposal for consultation.
DISCUSSION
Community engagement
8 The special consultative procedure was used for the Policy review, as required by the Act. Formal consultation took place from 11 November – 11 December 2020.
9 Consultation included information on the Dunedin City Council (DCC) website, in the Otago Daily Times noticeboard, as well as targeted emails to stakeholders such as the Police, Southern District Health Board, Māori and Pacifica groups and to the Dunedin People’s Panel.
Results of consultation
10 Six submissions were received and, of these, three were from organisations (Police, Restorative Justice Otago and Spooks Vintage Art) and three were from individuals. James Buckner from Spooks Vintage Art wishes to be heard.
General support
11 The submission form asked: Overall, do you agree with the Legal High Retail Location Policy? Most (83%) agreed with the Policy with one submitter (17%) disagreeing.
Retail locations
12 The submission form asked: Do you agree with the current policy that restricts legal high retailers to the Dunedin central city area provided they are more than 100 m away from ‘sensitive sites’ like schools, churches, Dunedin Public Library, Dunedin Hospital, mental health facilities and justice premises? (refer to maps on pages 3&4 of the Policy).
13 All submitters agreed with this question.
Sensitive sites
14 The submission form asked: Are the ‘sensitive sites’ defined effectively? Would you add or remove any? (See map on page 3 of the Policy).
15 Most submitters (83%) answered ‘Yes’ to this question with one submitter (17%) answering ‘No’.
16 The Police submission suggested adding the area outside the Police Station around the bus hub as, with the introduction of the bus hub, there are anecdotally more school aged and young people in this area. Restorative Justice Otago suggest adding parks and open spaces such as the Octagon.
17 Note that section 52 of the Act prohibits the sale of approved products from any vehicle or street cart.
General comments
18 General comments included restricting the sale of legal highs as strongly as possible.
OPTIONS
19 There are no options to this report as the purpose is to present a summary of submissions.
NEXT STEPS
20 Next steps are for the Subcommittee to consider consultation results, hear the submitter and make recommendations to the Council regarding the Legal High Retail Location Policy.
Signatories
Author: |
Anne Gray - Policy Analyst Kevin Mechen - Secretary, District Licensing Committee |
Authoriser: |
Paul Henderson - Acting Group Manager Customer and Regulatory Services Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services |
|
Title |
Page |
⇩a |
Legal High Retail Location Policy 2015 |
16 |
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fit with purpose of Local Government This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities. This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future. This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fit with strategic framework
This summary report for consideration has no impact on the strategic framework, however a Legal High Retail Location Policy has potential to contribute to the safe and healthy people priority of the Social Wellbeing Strategy, compelling destination priority of the Economic Development Strategy and liveable city priority of the Spatial Plan. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Māori Impact Statement Māori organisations were identified as a potential interest group and were advised of the review and invited to submit. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sustainability There are no specific implications for sustainability. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy There are no implications for these documents. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial considerations There are no financial implications. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Significance This report is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. However, this assessment is based on the absence of currently approved products (legal highs). If products were approved, then there would likely be higher community interest and therefore higher significance. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engagement – external The special consultative procedure was used for the Policy review and this included advising key stakeholders of the review and inviting them to submit. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engagement - internal There has been no internal engagement with this report. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc. There are no identified risks. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conflict of Interest There is no known conflict of interest. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Boards There are no specific implications for Community Boards. |