Local Alcohol Policy: Napier to retain 3am bar closing times after council reversal
'There is only one place in Napier open until 3am and it offers a point of difference – you can actually go and dance, not my thing but for plenty of people it is and perhaps if we go back far enough around the table, for some, dancing was a big thing.
'I'm not prepared to take that away from our community who are growing up and doing their thing and learning about the world.
'How are they going to learn about the world sitting at home playing on a PlayStation?'
The earlier closing time was a major part of the draft Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), which also included that no more off-licences be issued for bottle stores in Maraenui, Marewa and Onekawa – the Reserve, Suburban Commercial and Residential Zone.
However, during the meeting, Mayor Kirsten Wise called for an amendment to the proposed LAP based on what she was hearing around the table.
'What I'm going to propose is an amendment to the officers' recommendation yet to be debated, and voted on but as our starting position, is we retain the provisions in the existing LAP regarding maximum trading hours, regarding the 3am closing for nightclubs and 7am selling at grocery stores.'
In all, 44% of submitters supported the proposed changes, with their reasons including helping reduce the harm caused by antisocial behaviour and alcohol, while 56% were against the changes, with reasons including unnecessary pressure being placed on the hospitality industry.
Chris Sullivan, a publican who has been in the industry for 47 years, had earlier said the proposed changes in the closing hours were crazy.
He said if bars had issues they were 'not being run right, with little or no security'.
Sullivan, who owns Napier nightclub Roxof, spoke at the meeting about the importance of creating a safe environment using security and cameras.
Another issue identified by officers on the proposed LAP was consistency and alignment with Hastings District Council.
Hastings bars are open until 2am.
However, McGrath said he kept hearing about Hastings.
'I was voted in for Napier. It's about time perhaps Hastings looked at itself and said 'hey actually Napier's going to three, if we think there's a big enough issue with the different closing times, we will match Napier'.
'It doesn't always have to be us going the other way, they can match us. We are a tourist town, perhaps they aren't so much.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Warning to illegal rubbish dumpers: new rules could lead to crack-down
Clearing up the worst dumping spots costs Heretaunga-Hastings ratepayers more than $100,000 a year, councillor Wendy Schollum says, and she wants councils to have better enforcement options (file photo). Photo: Supplied/ Hastings District Council Fly-tippers illegally dumping rubbish could be in for a shock if new laws are passed making it easier for councils to prosecute them, and to crack down on them using clues such as old car registration plates or names on letters or mail. The government has proposed revisions to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) and the Litter Act 1979 (the Litter Act), including giving authorities more flexibility to help them crack down on illegal dumping. Hastings District Councillor Wendy Schollum told Checkpoint that illegal rubbish dumping was an ongoing issue in the community, but the council was currently limited in its ability to do much about the fly-tippers. Annually, picking up litter in Heretaunga-Hastings cost well over $100,000, council staff had told her - "and that was only in hot-spot areas, so that wasn't even across the whole district," she said. Wendy Schollum Photo: Supplied via LDR "We estimated that if we were to try and clear every space of litter, it would cost in excess of over $1 million." The types of rubbish being dumped in the area varied from everday litter, to households worth of rubbish, including whiteware and mattresses. "It's actually quite outrageous some of the stuff that gets left," Schollum said. Hastings District Council was not alone in the problem, but critics say it is difficult to hold offenders to account under laws written in the 70s, with offenders basically needing to be caught in the act. "When I first was elected onto council back in 2017, right from then until now, littering and dumping has been the number one issue with ratepayers in our area," Schollum said. But at the moment, even with overwhelming evidence, the council often could not do much in response, she said: "Unless someone was literally standing there watching the person do it at the time, under the current law, there is so little we can do." A consultation document on the law changes also noted the problem: The current Waste Minimisation Act "provides limited CME [compliance, monitoring and enforcement] powers. Prosecution is the main means to address non-compliance, with maximum fines of $100,00 for all main offences at a central government level, [and] $20,000 for a breach of bylaws." But in effect that meant: "For ... offences [other than non-payment of the levy] prosecution through the courts is the only enforcement option, which is limiting because prosecution can be a disproportionate regulatory response to non-compliance, [and] if non-compliance falls below the prosecution threshold, no consequences can arise from breach of the WMA." Schollum said the current loophole leaves ratepayers footing the bill for fly-tippers. "In an area like Heretaunga, where they've been hit by Cyclone Gabrielle and we're reeling from recovery costs, our ratepayers don't need to be paying for what is frankly laziness." She believes the problem was caused by bad attitudes, rather than issues affording dump fees. "Often people contact me and say, 'well, if you reduce the dump fees, people wouldn't litter'. The reality is that if that were the case, we would see in areas where it's cheaper or free to dispose of rubbish that there would be no illegal dumping at all and that's just not the case. "The evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact it's about attitudes." Under the proposed changes, evidence like addressed mail left in dumped rubbish could be used to identify dumpers and fine them. (file photo) Photo: Supplied/Gisborne District Council The consultation document also suggests a new tiered compliance system, with different penalties for different levels of offence. This could range from small infringements where a warning might be suitable, for example for "illegal plastic bag use" or minor littering, through to mid-range offences where the most severe consequences were not suitable, up to the most severe consequences, for behaviour like "high-harm illegal dumping". Schollum said tiered enforcement options would be helpful to the council: "If someone threw their takeaway container out their car window, they're not going to be met with the same sort of penalty as someone who dumps a whole house ... worth of rubbish [in] the community area. "This is about councils finally being able to pursue repeat offenders and stop communities having to pay for the cost of laziness, but only with reasonable evidence." The revisions could also distinguish between individuals and larger entities committing offences, and define offences and maximum fees, penalties and prosecution. Schollum said despite enthusiasm from the community to help in clearing the litter, other frustrating barriers have stood in the way. "Some of the worst hit areas are actually NZTA managed lands, and at the moment, because of health and safety rules with NZTA we can't even arrange community clean ups on their land." Even though these set backs have limited community clean ups, Schollum said it should not be the community's job in the first place. "We shouldn't be having to look at the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff solution, which is the community spending their money and time trying to clean up other people's mess. We need to stop the dumping and the littering in the first place." Other changes in the proposal include adjusting how local councils are allocated funds to dispose of waste, widening what councils can use the funds for and clarifying who is responsible for what. Consultation for the potential law changes closed on 1 June, the Ministry for the Environment website said. Next, the submissions will be considered, and from there Cabinet could decide to create an amendment bill, which could be introduced to Parliament to pursue changing the existing law. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Fly-tipping crackdown: If your name's on a letter inside a pile of roadside rubbish, get ready for a fine
Hastings District Council councillor Wendy Schollum says proposed changes to the Litter Act would allow litter control officers to issue fines using vehicle registration and ownership details inside bags to identify dumpers. If a letter with your name on it is found in a pile of rubbish left on the roadside, be prepared for a visit from your local council. Proposed changes to the Litter Act would allow councils to ping fly-tippers long after they have fouled roadsides and private land and
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Havelock North residents consider legal options to stop Crematorium from being built
A group of Havelock North residents say building a crematorium in the middle of the village is distasteful and they plan to fight it. Photo: LDR/Supplied A group of Havelock North residents are considering legal action in a last-ditch bid to prevent a crematorium being built in the middle of the village. Lawyers say the only avenue open to them is to get the 2024 resource consents, issued by Hawke's Bay Regional Council and the Hastings District Council, overturned. Hastings District Council says the application to include a crematorium at the existing Terry Longley and Sons funeral home in Cooper Street, over the road from the New World supermarket, was carefully assessed. Resource consent required an air discharge consent from HBRC, and a land use consent from HDC. A Hastings council spokesperson said its resource consent department determined that when measured against the criteria, the proposed crematorium's adverse land use effects on the environment would be "less than minor". That meant that notification of the community was not required. A spokesperson from the Havelock North group Andrew Fulford said they would be focusing on fighting the fact the consent was non-notified. "To slip it through without communicating with the community - unnotified - that's the point we would go to court with," Fulford said. "We haven't decided yet if we will continue with the legal pathway, because of the potential cost," he said. "It's a lot of money but it's not out of the realms of possibility. We have had some generous support." He said one option was to apply for an injunction, which meant if the crematorium were to go ahead, any work would be at Terry Longley and Sons' own risk. The Havelock North group, who met with Hastings District Council last month, claimed building a crematorium in the middle of the village was "distasteful". Local Democracy Reporting contacted Terry Longley & Sons for comment but they "politely declined to comment". Montage of the proposed cremator's flue as seen from New World's access to Cooper Street, Havelock North. Photo: LDR/Supplied At a public meeting called by the funeral home in late March, general manager Terry Longley said they had looked at alternative sites, including ones in Napier, Omahu and the Tukituki Valley with no luck, so had turned their attention back to Havelock North. There are only two crematoriums in Hawke's Bay, serving a population of 180,000. There is a need for another, with Hastings District Council's crematorium at Hastings Cemetery nearing 100 percent capacity. The other is a private facility also near Hastings Cemetery. Longley said the alternative would likely be cremations taking place in Taupō, Gisborne or Palmerston North. Councillor Henry Heke, who attended the meeting, said he agreed the community should be heard and that a Crematorium in Havelock North village was not ideal. "It has so many perceived risks," Heke said. "But owners have the right, as they went through a process they believe to be the correct. "I, however, believe that possibly the zoning could have been reviewed or the community around the industrial area consulted on changes in the area. "I do support the development of a new crematorium, but I don't support the current proposed location." The council spokesperson said the council understood there were some concerns within the community. "However the Resource Consent has been approved (within the regulatory framework per the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991) and therefore there is no formal opportunity to oppose the granting of consent. "The only party able to decide whether to proceed or not with the consented project is the business which holds the consent, in this case Terry Longley & Sons." The funeral home is owned by Australian company Propel Funeral Partners Ltd (Havelock North) which also owns two other Hawke's Bay funeral companies Tong and Peryer Funeral Directors (Hastings), as well as Howard and Gannon Funerals (Taradale). The resource consent for the site was first issued in 2015, but lapsed in 2017. Since then a New World supermarket has been built across the road. The crematorium would have a 14m chimney, clad in stainless steel, the only feature visible beyond the site. The resource consent said there would be no visible particles, smoke or haze emitted from the cremator and the cremator's heat, which created a shimmer, was all that would be seen above the chimney. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
