South Auckland grocery store loses right to sell alcohol
McLennan Grocery Store, at Swamp Kauri Grove in Papakura, was recently granted an off-licence in March by the Auckland District Licensing Committee (ADLC).
However, after an appeal led by Auckland councillor Angela Dalton with the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA), the off-licence was denied.
The appeal focused on whether the shop met the statutory definition of a grocery store under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.
According to section 33 of the Act, a grocery shop was defined as a premises that emphasised the sale of food products as the principal business, and characteristics normally associated with grocery shops.
ADVERTISEMENT
Under the Act, a convenience store wasn't permitted to sell alcohol.
Communities Against Alcohol Harm secretary Dr Grant Hewison said ARLA's decision will now set a precedent for future off-license applications on grocery and convenience stores.
"This decision will be welcomed by many in the Papakura community," Hewison said.
"It's encouraging to see ARLA taking a firm stance on the difference between convenience stores and grocery stores to avoid alcohol being sold from convenience stores," Hewison said.
He said convenience stores were often located right in the centre of residential communities and were intended to be convenient.
Parliament made it clear in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act that liquor shouldn't be sold from 'convenience' stores, Hewison said.
The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including deadly Texas floods, Australian woman attacked by a lion, and Elon Musk's new political party. (Source: 1News)
ADVERTISEMENT
The off-licence application
Baj Holdings Limited applied for a new off-licence with the DLC, for McLennan Grocery Store September 3, 2024. The shop was formerly known as McLennan Convenience Store.
The applicant stated the primary business was food sales and agreed to conditions such as alcohol sales only until 8pm.
The medical officer had initially opposed the application but withdrew after viewing photos showing an increase in the range of food and groceries sold, and introduction of shopping baskets, after an earlier visit.
With no opposition from key agencies, and six public objectors related to alcohol-related harm, the application was granted on March 11.
DLC concluded the application met the object of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, the company was suitable, the application was consistent with the Local Alcohol Policy, and the proposed hours, design, and other goods sold were appropriate.
The appeal
ADVERTISEMENT
In June, councillor Dalton filed an appeal with ARLA, against the District Licensing Committee's decision for McLennan Grocery Store.
Her appeal was focused on whether the premises met the statutory definition of a grocery store under the Act, and the object of the Act.
In its own inspection, ARLA found the shop was not what people would consider patronising to shop for grocery items, but more to pick up items they were running out of, therefore characterising the shop as a 'convenience store'.
The entrance of the shop did not suggest it was a grocery store, other than the amended signage from McLennan Convenience Store to McLennan Grocery Store.
There was a large sign outside and inside with prices assigned to various goods. ARLA found none of the items listed suggested the store had as its principal business the sale of food products.
They found it concerning there was limited space given on the limited range of food products like bread, fresh fruit, vegetables and fresh meat.
However, greater prominence was given to other aspects of the business — drinks and takeaways.
ADVERTISEMENT
The premises had a vape store, which ARLA said was more easily aligned with a convenience store than a grocery store, and that there were only two baskets available for shoppers to use to load goods, which was also inconsistent with a grocery store.
"For these reasons we consider that the appeal must succeed as we do not consider that these premises meet the requirements of a grocery store," ARLA said in its decision.
"The shop certainly had aspects that could be attributed to those expected of a grocery store, but those aspects appeared to be secondary to other aspects of the business that appeared to us to be correctly and appropriately those of a convenience store."
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
Businesses warned as tax department cracks down
Businesses are being urged to get their books in order and be ready to answer probing questions as the tax department increases its focus on compliance. Business consultancy EY said this year's government Budget saw an increase to Inland Revenue's (IR) funding for enforcement, in the order of $64 million, with the intention of boosting collection activities and driving tax compliance. EY tax leader Dean Madsen said the increased funding would likely see increased scrutiny of taxpayers in New Zealand, beyond checking that a tax return is correct. "(IR) will want to understand how you got there," he said adding that technology, data and processes will be important, as well corporate governance. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including deadly Texas floods, Australian woman attacked by a lion, and Elon Musk's new political party. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT "Prove that you have a system with the requisite integrity." He said IR's focus would be go beyond business to include specific sectors such as property, organised crime, the hidden economy and trusts. "The changes could be seen as a warning for New Zealand businesses, who need to be ensuring their tax practices are fully compliant to avoid both the financial implications and the reputational risk of noncompliance," he said. "Businesses should be making certain their tax structuring is adhering to IR's expectations, auditing previous years, and consistently seeking advice - because, with increased scrutiny from IR, businesses can't afford not to." Madsen said IR had a clear mandate to become more active in enforcement, adding the department was expected to eventually generate $8 for every dollar it invested in the process. By RNZ's Nona Pelletier
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Treaty Principles 2.0? Hearings Begin Into Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill
Analysis: A week of political scrutiny lies ahead for one of the government's most polarising bills, dubbed by some critics as "Treaty Principles 2.0". Starting Monday morning, the Finance and Expenditure select committee will reconvene for about 30 hours over four days to hear public submissions on the lightning rod Regulatory Standards Bill. The bill - championed by ACT's David Seymour - sets out "principles of responsible regulation" and would require ministers to explain whether they are following them. It would also set up a new board to assess legislation against those benchmarks. But while it may sound dry and technical, the legislation has become a flashpoint in a wider debate about the country's constitution, te Tiriti o Waitangi, and competing ideologies. Among the submitters on day one: former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Green MP Darleen Tana, Transpower, and the Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists. What's in the bill? The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include: Respect for the rule of law Protection of individual freedom and property rights Keeping taxes and fees fair and reasonable Proper consultation and clear cost-benefit analysis Ministers introducing new laws would have to declare whether they meet these standards, and justify those that do not. The new Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Minister for Regulation - could also review older laws and make non-binding recommendations. "We need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians by putting more sunlight on their activities," Seymour told Parliament in May. Why are people so upset? Opposition to the bill has been intense. An early round of consultation last year attracted about 23,000 submissions, with 88 percent in opposition and just 0.33 percent in support. Seymour has dismissed that as "meaningless" and initially claimed many of the submissions had been created by "bots". He later walked that back, but maintained they were driven by non-representative online campaigns. It is true campaign groups have provided templates for submissions or even offered to write them on people's behalf. But the pushback has come from far and wide: lawyers, academics, advocacy groups and public servants. Even Seymour's own Ministry of Regulation has raised concerns. Seymour has labelled much of the criticism "alarmist" and grounded in misinformation. He's also targetted some critics on social media, accusing them of having "derangement syndrome" and conspiracy thinking. The most common criticisms are: 1. That it elevates ACT's values above all else Critics argue the bill embeds ACT's political ideology into law, particularly its emphasis on individual rights and private property, while ignoring other considerations. Notably, te Tiriti o Waitangi is not mentioned in the bill - an omission which critics fear could undermine the Treaty's legal status and influence. Seymour says he has yet to hear a convincing reason why the Treaty should get special consideration when evaluating good law-making. Critics also object to the principle of individual property rights being given prominence over, say, collective rights. They fear the bill could dissuade governments from introducing rules that protect the environment, or restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, because that might be seen as breaching the listed principles. Even though the government could still pass those laws, critics worry it would send a message that profits and property are more important than public health or environmental protections. For his part, Seymour is unapologetic about the principles proposed and open that he wants to reset the culture of government. "If you want to tax someone, take their property, and restrict their livelihood, you can, but you'll actually have to show why it's in the public interest," Seymour says. 2. That it's a solution in search of a problem New Zealand already has a raft of systems in place to check laws are made properly. For example, Cabinet's Legislation Guidelines require ministers to follow best practice principles - including the rule of law, human rights compliance and consultation. The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, made up of experts and officials, also provides detailed feedback on bills, and Treasury checks the impact of major policy decisions. As well, Justice officials and Crown Law conduct Bill of Rights vetting of legislation, with the Attorney-General required to report any breaches. Critics say this bill just adds another layer of process - increasing cost and workload for little benefit. To that, Seymour says: "If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them." 3. That it is a corporate power grab A lingering concern has been whether the bill could open the government up to legal challenges or claims for compensation - especially from large corporations. Among its principles, the bill does include the concept that property should not usually be taken without consent and "fair compensation". But the legislation also clearly states that it does not create any new legal rights or obligation enforceable through the courts. That means companies would not have a new avenue to sue the government if a law affected their property or profits. Still, critics argue that simply embedding the principle in law could alter expectations over time. Businesses or lobby groups, for example, might point to it to put pressure on ministers to avoid certain policies. As well, lawyers say the courts could take note of the new principles when interpreting legislation or reviewing regulatory decisions elsewhere. The political debate The National-ACT coalition agreement includes a firm commitment to pass the bill through into law - though not necessarily in its current form. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the government will pay close attention to the select committee process and remains open to changes. "The devil is in the detail," he told reporters on Friday. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as "a work in progress" and has indicated his party wants changes. He has not specified which provisions in particular concern him. The opposition parties, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, have already promised to repeal the bill if elected next year. That means, for all the noise, the bill's practical impact may be limited, affecting only the parties introducing it - which presumably would adhere to these principles whether they were codified in law or not. The select committee hearings will run from 8:30am till 5pm, Monday through Thursday.
1News
4 hours ago
- 1News
Kiwi creator on why he turned down huge offers to plug online gambling
A New Zealand content creator is speaking out about the harms of gambling after revealing he was offered more than $500,000 to promote offshore gambling websites. Louis Davis is a Kiwi content creator with a following of over 3 million across all platforms, and has taken to his social media platforms to warn others about the risks. Speaking with Breakfast this morning, Davis said he received the promotional offers in his email inbox. "We get hammered with emails every day, they're pretty consistent," he said. When asked on why he decided to turn down the offer, he said that gambling promotions are causing real harm in communities and were encouraging addictive behaviour. ADVERTISEMENT 'We are living in an age now where you can gamble in your car, on the toilet, or at work. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including deadly Texas floods, Australian woman attacked by a lion, and Elon Musk's new political party. (Source: 1News) 'There used to be a time and a place for it, but now because of our phones we have access 24/7 to it. 'If they're offering me over $500,000 to ask you to gamble, imagine how much they're stealing from you.' Data from the Department of Internal Affairs showed that in 2022/23, New Zealanders lost $2.76 billion gambling on the four regulated gambling sectors - Lotto New Zealand, TAB NZ, casinos and class 4 gambling (pokies). Growing up in Northland, Davis said he witnessed the impacts of gambling firsthand. "I see the harm of this in my communities, and what it takes from us." he told Breakfast. ADVERTISEMENT "There's a reason they give money to people that look like me. They're going after my community." Davis said he would love to see changes around the rules of advertising, so people don't continue to be tempted by offers from gambling companies. "People get put in this real hard position, where it's undeniable life-changing money. I almost have empathy for people who have to make that decision," "I'd love to see changes made to that system; I don't want it to be a decision people have to make." DIA has been cracking down on the promotion of offshore gambling, sending cease-and-desist letters to some influencers, and monitoring other accounts. Millie Elder-Holmers was recently fined $5000 for promoting online gambling. Under the Gambling Act it is illegal to publish an advertisement for an offshore gambling operator.
