Local resident and objector Lisa Riley said the outcome was "deeply disappointing, but not unexpected".
Approval for the Longview Dr store was issued, despite a record 542 public objections.
It is believed to be the highest number of objections ever received for a licensing application in the district.
Formal opposition came from Health New Zealand, and extensive evidence and concern was raised by local residents about the placement of the large outlet in a new, high-density residential subdivision near a playground, school bus route, and planned childcare and community facilities.
While the licensing committee acknowledged the scale of community opposition, its decision document said much of the evidence presented was "repetitive".
"We were particularly interested in the Ministry of Health opposition and expected more specific and expert evidence and reasoning to support the proposition that this particular application would present a real risk of generalised harm occurring.
"No evidence was provided to show an increase in alcohol related harm or a deterioration of 15 amenity, including litter, loitering or anti-social behaviour near other off licence premises in the area."
Ms Riley said the decision ultimately gave limited weight to the evidence given and concluded that alcohol-related harm had not been proven to a sufficient degree at that specific site.
"From the outset of the hearing, and from the nature of the questioning, it was clear that the threshold being applied was so high, that community and public health concerns were never realistically going to succeed.
"There was a strong sense that unless harm could be proven with near certainty before the store even exists, the decision had effectively already been made."
Ms Riley said the decision highlighted a wider issue with how alcohol licensing law was being applied in fast-growing residential communities.
"The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act is meant to minimise harm, not require communities to wait until harm occurs before action can be taken.
"This decision places an unreasonable burden on residents and health professionals to predict future harm with absolute precision, while dismissing the collective voice of the community."
She said the community would now lodge an appeal, focusing on concerns the decision discounted the depth, consistency, and scale of community opposition on technical grounds.
It would also be based on their belief the committee marginalised public health evidence by requiring near-certainty of harm; failed to adequately consider future-focused risk in a rapidly growing residential area; and approved a liquor licence for a premises that had not yet been built, effectively locking in land-use before the community was fully established.
Ms Riley said the appeal was not about opposing business or development.
Rather, it was about ensuring that alcohol licensing decisions genuinely reflected community wellbeing, public health expertise, and the realities of planning in new residential areas.
