What happens when a neighbourhood bottle store closes? We asked local residents

As alcohol licensing laws face change, new research suggests closing individual outlets can bring noticeable benefits for nearby residents.

Ads

Sandra Mu/Getty ImagesFor 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 and colleagues received research funding from Health New Zealand/Te Whatu Ora for this study.

Tags: Academic Journalism, The Conversation, The Conversation Academic News