Dr Mills had argued a fourth off-licence would increase alcohol-related harm, including underage drinking, domestic violence, drink-driving and Emergency Department admissions.
Evidence included a map of alcohol-related crashes in the area, hospital admission data and statistics on the higher density of alcohol outlets in Northland than the rest of the country.
The licensing committee decision had stated: "There was no evidence presented at the [application] hearing that gives any compelling reason to conclude that there will be a relationship between the sale of alcohol and alcohol-related harm."
The committee had also expressed frustration that data presented earlier was not specific enough to Onerahi. However, Ms Sussock said the committee was being unrealistic.
Andrew Holgate, who represented the Onerahi residents, said the committee incorrectly put the onus on the appellants to prove there would be alcohol-related harm.
It should have been on the applicant to prove the opposite, Mr Holgate said.
Mr Jones, who represented himself, said the issue was based around the number of alcohol providers in the area already.
"It would be very difficult to argue Onerahi will have a proliferation of alcohol stores as a result of the licence being granted," Mr Jones said.
He used the example of a store in Taumarunui, which had more alcohol outlets per capita than Onerahi, which was given a licence by ARLA last year because there was not considered to be a proliferation.
Some of the conditions of the original committee decision, including closing while students walked home from school and installing CCTV outside, were self-imposed, Mr Jones said.
ARLA reserved its decision with a final outcome likely within a month.
