They also instructed staff to review whether the 150m rule made sense for the wider region.
However, the previous policy already contained a rule stating that no new licences could be issued within 150m of sensitive sites, except for cafes and restaurants.
The latest LAP was to add another restriction of Class 1 restaurants on top of that, and this is what councillors voted on.
Council staff said the report sought to resolve the potential confusion.
Chief executive Nedine Thatcher Swann said: “The initial recommendations from the draft consultation was to be stringent in both the CBD and the wider region for Class 1 licences.”.
Class 1 restaurants have a bar and might act in the manner of a tavern at least one night a week. The new policy does not allow them within 150m of sensitive sites.
Thatcher Swann said when the council decided to remove the newly proposed policy from the CBD, but not the outer zone, it meant that they had inadvertently created restrictions for the rest of the district.
“However, there had been limited councillor support observed during discussions for implementing restrictions for Class 1 restaurants outside the CBD area,” the report said.
Sustainable Futures director Joanna Noble said relaxing the law would require another round of public consultation.
“This correction means we are sticking to the status quo for now, but we have already initiated a review about sensitive sites and looking into what could be relaxed.”
Councillors couldn’t choose to relax the policies because they had not consulted on that aspect, she said. If they were to loosen the policies without consultation “it would open us up to legal challenges”.
“I can’t guarantee that we would receive a judicial review, but if you look at what is happening around the country, it is highly likely that we would receive one if we did not follow due process because there are some very strong advocates for restricting access to alcohol.”
Councillor Rob Telfer asked why they had to go to external consultants first, rather than just going straight to the community for the view.
“I struggle with the process. Why can’t we just ask the public,” he said.
Noble said the process was not that simple.
“There are some procedural steps that have to be covered off to keep us legally safe, including engaging with police and the medical officer of health, as well as other parties.”
Councillor Larry Foster said the problem lay when external courts made decisions based on Gisborne’s local alcohol policy.
“We know that our district licensing committee make decisions on a case-by-case basis,” he said. “Nine times out of 10 they will grant a licence that is within 150 metres of sensitive sites.”
The 150m policy had recently caused friction when a proposed bar in a historic hospitality building had its licence approved by the district licensing committee. It was then appealed by a school that had moved into an old bank on Gisborne’s main road a few years prior.
Thatcher Swann said there was a liquor licence outside of the CBD that could potentially be declined by the DLC due to the new rules.
Mayor Rehette Stoltz asked the councillors to consider their intent when they decided to remove the 150m policy from the CBD.
“Was it the intent of this table to make it stricter on the outside?”
“No,” the councillors responded.
Foster said he didn’t want to hinder progress outside of the CBD for the next six years.
The local alcohol policy gets reviewed every six years. However, Noble said councillors would have the opportunity to make the decision again well before then.
“We’ve got external support to help us out so we can make it happen quicker.”
She could not give a definitive timeline.
Noble said she would warn against too much predetermination of sensitive sites being removed entirely after consultation.
Councillors voted to keep the status quo for Class 1 restaurants while the council explored consultation to relax the rules of the 150m policy.
