Alcohol policy on the rocks
City councillors have U-turned on creating a Christchurch alcohol policy by deciding not to pursue a new version of the controversial plan for the time being.
The council’s last attempt to create a local alcohol plan (LAP), outlining where and when alcohol could be sold in the city, landed it in court after a legal challenge by Hospitality New Zealand (HNZ).
Yesterday, councillors voted not to pursue a new LAP ‘‘at this time’’. The original recommendation to councillors was that they should ask staff to begin work on a new draft LAP ‘‘as soon as possible’’.
However, several councillors worked on the alternative set of recommendations during last week’s recess.
Deputations from police, the Canterbury medical officer of health, HNZ and community members raised issues with alcohol being bought and consumed from off-licences. Councillors have requested information on how the District Plan could be used to deal with off-licence issues.
The original LAP, which the council spent $1.1 million developing, failed after the restrictions it placed on some central city bars were challenged.
It included a closing time of
3am and a one-way door policy from 1am for taverns, bars, pubs, nightclubs and clubs in a small central city precinct. It proposed a
1am closing time elsewhere. Offlicence trading hours were to be limited to between 9am and 9pm.
Following submissions and appeals, the council widened the central city precinct to include Victoria St, south of Salisbury St. It proposed a temporary 3am closing time for bars in north Victoria St, between Salisbury St and Bealey Ave, which would change to 1am after three years, in line with suburban pubs.
Off-licence trading hours would be between 7am and 10pm, instead of 9am and 9pm.
The High Court later ordered the council to reconsider the LAP after the hospitality sector raised concerns about Victoria St. HNZ’s proceedings focussed on the decision to split the street at the Salisbury St intersection.
Yesterday, councillor Sara Templeton said she did not want to ‘‘give up’’ on a LAP and leave the work for a future council.
‘‘We don’t need to fast track this. I know there’s a stated position that we would need to get it done before the next election cycle [in 2019], but actually as a council organisation many plans and policies and strategies . . . go over several council terms,’’ she said.
‘‘I would be happy with us getting started on this now and potentially leaving it with the next council to notify.
‘‘We know that there is evidence available to regulate because we were able to settle provisions in the last LAP, which limited the hours of off-licences.’’
Cr Yani Johanson said agreeing to complete a new LAP now would be a ‘‘very intensive piece of work’’ when the council was already under pressure.
‘‘We’ve got major pressures on us . . . around things like our Long Term Plan, our relationship with central Government, a number of key infrastructure decisions,’’ he said.
‘‘I think we need to keep doing work around getting the evidence . . . that we can develop a really coherent plan. But having said that the irony is that our submission . . . pleaded with Government to be very clear about what evidence was required because we were so concerned at that time that they were setting us up to fail.’’
In a statement, the council said LAP policy considerations should be supported by evidence to prove they would address a local problem. LAPs could be developed under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.
Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel, once the Government minister behind the concept of a LAP, previously said the council’s original policy did not cover the issue of communities having a say.
‘‘The real purpose behind it wasn’t so much the focus on a central city, the focus was on local communities having a say about whether they wanted bars and restaurants [or] licensed premises in their neighbourhoods,’’ she said.