What Happens When A Neighbourhood Bottle Store Closes? We Asked Local Residents

Stephen
Randerson, Te
Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey
University

For people living in New
Zealand’s most deprived communities, alcohol is often far
too accessible.

These areas have around
three times as many off-licence supermarkets, grocery
stores and bottle stores as the least deprived. Just within
South Auckland suburbs Ōtara, Ōtāhuhu and Papatoetoe,
there are 32 separate outlets.

Research suggests
that concentration comes at a cost. Having more off-licence
alcohol outlets nearby has been linked to violence,
anti-social behaviour, property damage, crime
and higher
teenage drinking.

While lowering the number of
local outlets might help curb these problems, communities
have often found stopping an existing off-licence from being
renewed is difficult.

Now, there
are concerns that new law changes will only make it
harder for locals to have their say.

Proposed
amendments to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act,
presently awaiting their second reading in parliament, would
restrict who can oppose licensing applications and give
applicants a formal right to respond to objections. Local
alcohol policies could also not be used to reduce the number
of existing outlets in unsuitable locations.

For
communities, one long-standing challenge has been showing
licensing committees what might actually improve if an
outlet closed – from noise and rubbish to disorder and
crime.

Although studies broadly show fewer alcohol
outlets can mean less harm, those involving individual store
closures are rare. Our new
research offers one such case, examining what changed
after a bottle store closed in South
Auckland.

What the community told
us

Wymondley Discount Liquor, in Ōtara’s Larsen
St shopping centre, closed in 2023 after the local District
Licensing Committee rejected its off-licence renewal. At the
time, the store was reportedly
selling single bottles of beer for as little as
$2.

The decision was hailed as a victory by
community groups that had campaigned to reduce
alcohol-related harm in South Auckland. The closure also
gave us an opportunity to examine what happened
next.

Working with the Ōtara
Gambling and Alcohol Action Group, we surveyed 18
long-term residents living within 1.5 kilometres of the
former store about changes they had noticed in the
surrounding area.

Our survey, which was
co-developed with community groups and alcohol licensing
officials, found two-thirds of participants viewed the
closure positively.

Residents described several
changes after the closure, particularly an end to drinking
in the store carpark, including drinking by minors. They
also reported less rubbish and noise, and feeling safer and
more comfortable in the area.

One resident recalled
people drinking in the carpark “late into the night”,
with loud music and cars parked up – but said “that’s
all changed now since it’s been closed”.

They
now visited the nearby shops more often, having previously
felt uneasy about the number of people gathering around the
bottle store.

One parent welcomed the change,
saying their children could now visit the neighbouring dairy
without seeing alcohol for sale next door and perhaps
thinking, “I want to try that when I’m
older”.

A small number of survey respondents felt
nothing had changed. But most of these residents also
reported no local problems with alcohol in the first
place.

That reflects wider research showing people
experience public drinking differently. Women, children and
young people, for example, are
more likely than men to feel unsafe around drinkers and
drinking places, and to avoid them.

Elsewhere in
our findings, two drinkers said the closure had made buying
alcohol less convenient. For one, the hassle of now having
to drive to another store meant they were drinking less
alcohol socially.

In all, our research pointed to a
net positive impact – even if alcohol-related problems in
the neighbourhood had not disappeared. Notably, and without
being prompted, many residents told us they wanted fewer
outlets across the wider area.

Why local voices
should be heard

We also examined records of noise
complaints, emergency department presentations and police
responses. But there were too few recorded incidents around
Wymondley Road to reliably assess whether these changed
after the store closed.

That highlights a
limitation of relying on official data alone. Residents
described changes – including less public drinking, noise
and rubbish, and feeling more comfortable around the shops
– that may never appear in police, hospital or council
records.

Such observations can play an important
role in alcohol licensing as they relate directly to the
decision criteria. Case law has also recognised the
relevance of evidence of local alcohol-related problems, and
no longer requires residents to prove that a particular
outlet directly caused them.

Just three years ago,
law changes sought to make it easier for communities to
participate in licensing decisions, including by making
hearings less formal and removing
cross-examination.

Our findings suggest there is
value in preserving that participation, rather than
introducing new barriers that could make it even harder for
communities to be heard.

Stephen
Randerson, Research Officer in Drug Policy, Te
Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey
University

This article is
republished from The
Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the
original
article.