Pausing considerations on a draft of the Dunedin City Council’s local alcohol policy (LAP) and going back to the drawing board was floated at a reconvened hearing last week.
Committee chairman Jim O’Malley told councillors at a meeting yesterday he was seeking clarity about how to proceed with the LAP process.
The draft plan contained several proposed changes, including amending the hours off-licence premises could sell alcohol to between 7am and 9pm, as opposed to 7am to 10pm, prohibiting the promotion of alcohol on the exterior of premises and a temporary freeze on new off-licence premises in an area north of the Octagon.
Cr O’Malley said at the hearing last week the council’s partner agencies had raised "sufficient concerns" after the submissions period had closed, and should have been looked at more stringently.
He had approached the office of the Ombudsman with a request for advice on how to move forward with the LAP hearings process, which he had not yet received.
He had planned to inform senior management at the council about the committee’s direction, but claimed they were already informed ahead of time in an email sent to council chief executive Sandy Graham.
"That was an internal communication inside the panel, so I’m most concerned that that email broke our confidentiality.
"I would actually like the panel member who did it to identify themselves because it has actually caused a problem for the process.
"So who broke the internal communications of this panel and sent the internal communications to the chief executive?"
But no-one answered.
Cr David Benson-Pope said the decision to write to the Ombudsman was "quite extraordinary, an unprecedented step".
Cr O’Malley said he was seeking advice so he could make decisions based on wider knowledge.
The committee might find itself in a position where it would have to "significantly rewrite the consultation document", he said.
"We’re getting significant input that should have actually been put in at the start," he said.
Cr O’Malley recommended the committee reject the LAP, seek consultation again in the new year and ensure the agencies and industry had early involvement.
The submissions they had already received could be incorporated into the design of the new consultation document, but rejecting the draft LAP would mean the current one would lapse before a new one was issued.
"I don’t think any of the matters are insurmountable, I don’t think there’s any need to start again," Cr Benson-Pope said.
Members of the partner agencies were among the first submitters at the hearing.
"So I find it hard to think that the views of those parties weren’t adequately represented as part of the submissions on the first day."
Cr Bill Acklin said pausing the process and rewriting the consultation document did not seem like the right process.
"I don’t know any situation whereby that we have put something out for public consultation, received and heard submissions, and then rewritten it to go out for more consultation."
Cr Andrew Whiley agreed the committee should go back to consultation, to get stronger engagement during the academic year.
Committee members voted to adjourn the meeting and seek legal advice from Simpson Grierson on the process to date and how to proceed, requesting the advice be presented in person or via audio visual link once the committee reconvened.
