Re: Proposed alcohol changes for Gisborne under fire (May 2).
As long as there is alcohol there will be a night life — truly this is about businesses fighting over market share and not for reducing alcohol harm.
An on-licence has lapsed for a long period of time and the new owner wishes the council to approve a new on-licence for a new business. The current Local Alcohol Policy does not allow this because a kura kaupapa has been operating within 150 metres of that place for at least three years. The new business owner must therefore not be granted any licence as a kura is a sensitive site.
It matters not that the previous business had an on-licence for a substantial period before the licence lapsed; nor that another business has an on-licence down the corner within 150m, because that on-licence has not lapsed. This is the protection afforded to business.
It appears some submitters want the Local Alcohol Policy to protect their business rather than people, and little people at that.
It’s no different down the other end of town where a day care is sitting behind another on-licence.
It appears that unless you are a submitter, then all is right with the world of on-licences. No lapse of licence and the licence stands — other than if you are Black Bull with an off-licence that never traded for a year then went elsewhere for their licence — fantastic! I wonder if that strategy could work again.
Another loophole is changing the licence over to another business and then changing it back to the original business again. A privilege given to on-licence holders who may have run into breaches, but it keeps the on-licence from lapsing.
The rules are different if you have maintained your on-licence for over a year and you apply for a renewal — which I dare say for the 123-ish licences of all varieties held in our territorial authority, are simply renewals.
The challenge is with new licences and that is how it should be under our policy. Protect the little people.
Elizabeth Crawford
