However, police and the Southern District Health Board say opening another off-licence liquor store in the area would result in increased alcohol abuse and crime in what was already a "deprived" area.
Store owner Graham Murphie is applying for the licence in an attempt to make his tobacco store, at 531 Hillside Rd, Dunedin, more profitable amid falling tobacco sales.
In his submission to the Dunedin City Council district licensing committee hearings panel, consisting of chairman Colin Weatherall, councillor Andrew Noone and Colin Lind, Mr Murphie said, as a businessman, his primary purpose was to be "in tune" with his customers.
He said the nature of the business had changed dramatically over the years from selling fruit, vegetables and groceries, to becoming a tobacconist.
"Some time ago, we surveyed our customers again and we asked them how we could add value for them — what sort of products do you want to see in our store.
"The predominant response was, effectively, liquor. So hence the decision to apply for the liquor licence.
"It’s not sinister as a businessman and an employer, to seek to make a living, and it’s not sinister to provide lawful products to consumers, who are adults and who have a clear regime in which they need to be accountable for their decisions. That’s outside the scope of being a retailer."
The proposed store would sell a range of alcoholic products, including beer, wine, spirits and RTDs, he said.
Dunedin alcohol harm prevention officer Sergeant Ian Paulin said having another liquor store in what was a vulnerable area, would result in increased crime and alcohol abuse.
The store was situated about 175m from Liquor King, 500m from Caversham Liquor and Caversham Four Square, and 1km from Pak’n Save.
Sgt Paulin said since the start of 2016, 328 calls had been made to police for alcohol-related incidents within a 1km area of the proposed premises.Disorder accounted for 190 (58%) of those calls.
"Police submit that this can only increase with another off-licence situated within this 1km circle."
Police witness Shelley Kapua, general manager of Arai Te Uru Whare Hauora, said her organisation worked with high-risk families, and another liquor store in the area would create temptation and accessibility that could undo the good work the organisation was doing.
Another police witness, Senior Constable Toni Lee Wall, said she ran intervention programmes for underprivileged youth in the area, who came from deprived backgrounds and broken families.
"With this liquor outlet wanting to open in South Dunedin, especially in such close proximity to the two schools, I believe that this will not only expose more tamariki and rangatahi to alcohol and all the negative behaviours that are associated with it, but cause a lot more harm in homes.
"It’s almost a kick in the guts for the programme, the students and their whanau, the schools and the community."
Sgt Paulin said the object of the Act was that the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly.
"Police submit the granting of this licence will go against the object of the Act, as it would lead to an increase in alcohol abuse in the immediate community, and increase drinking in public places by at-risk youth."
Southern District Health Board public health physician Dr Keith Reid also opposed the licence.
He expressed concerns about the premises competing with other alcohol retailers, by discounting alcohol prices.
"This vulnerable community displays a number of characteristics, shown to be factors associated with increased hazardous consumption of alcohol, and consequently, increased alcohol-related harm.
"The applicant has indicated that his primary motivation for seeking a licence is to improve the profitability of his tobacconist business.
"Declining tobacco sales is a public policy aim in New Zealand in pursuit of the health benefits associated with a smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025.
"It seems to my public health eye that to seek to combine sales of one product associated with public health harms, with another product also associated with harms, is unwise."
Because the hearing ran over time, the applicant was permitted to consider the opposing submissions and make a written closing submission within seven days.
A date may be set for the hearings committee to reconvene, before making its decision.
