Cap on bottle stores may be eyed again

Photo / Thinkstock

Opposition to more bottle stores opening in Te Puke and Katikati could push the Western Bay District Council to renew its bid to limit the number of liquor outlets by imposing a cap.

Mayor Ross Paterson has indicated the recent decision by the Western Bay and Tauranga councils to remove the cap on the number of off-licences is not the final word on the issue.

The councils originally wanted to cap the number of bottle stores at 74 in Tauranga and 35 in the Western Bay as part of their joint Local Alcohol Policy - drafted after extensive community consultation.

Ross Paterson

But the policy was successfully challenged by supermarket and bottle-store chains concerned at the impact of the cap and shorter opening hours. The councils avoided a court hearing by agreeing to remove the cap, each council for different reasons.

Mr Paterson said the Western Bay council reserved the right to revisit the cap policy because of the strong public reaction about the issue of alcohol in their communities. More than a 1000 people submitted on the draft policy, with many concerned about the number of bottle stores, particularly in Katikati and Te Puke.

Western Bay's decision was based on Countdown owner Progressive Enterprises saying it had not been adequately consulted on the inclusion of supermarkets in the cap. Tauranga said the cap would restrict growth by creating a barrier to the establishment of new supermarkets and convenience retail stores.

The cap was subsequently lifted by a consent order between the councils and liquor retailers before the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority had ruled on the cap's merits.

Mr Paterson said that because the authority had not ruled on the cap, the council reserved the right to revisit the policy, although it was unlikely to happen before the middle of next year.

He was now waiting to see the outcome of liquor policies elsewhere in New Zealand, particularly in Auckland where there was a similar proposal to cap the number of stores.

Mr Paterson said because it was such new legislation, there was no point getting into something that would be challenged because the councils did not need the cost.

"We are looking at certainty, a way forward, and then rethinking the whole issue of the cap."

Mr Paterson supported the compromise position of a cap in areas where there were already enough liquor outlets, but not in growth areas.

Western Bay acting policy and consents manager Liz Davies said the consent order meant the authority had not made a judgment call on whether it agreed or disagreed with the reasons.

Asked why the authority had said the cap policy was "unreasonable in the light of the object of the act", she said it could have been aimed at Progressive's concerns about the process, or it could be for other reasons. However, she could not see how a cap in itself was unreasonable when there were provisions in the Act to restrict liquor-licence numbers.