Rhyme and Reason co-owners Jessica Herman and Simon Ross appeared before the committee in Queenstown on December 1, with plans to create a microbrewery offering tours and tastings as well as a small tavern-style bar with substantial food options and takeaway sales of the company’s craft beers.
The pair secured the lease of a large workshop at 17 Gordon Rd, in Wanaka’s industrial zone. Their application was not opposed by the police, the District Licensing Inspector or the Medical Officer of Health, but two objections were received from neighbouring businesses.
In a written decision Judge Bill Unwin said the first objector was Castor & Pollux Ltd, owner of the two next-door units on Gordon St, ‘‘partially used’’ for residential purposes.
Their concerns related to the trading hours and "potential street cleanliness".
"The inspector pointed out that under the terms of the resource consent for the development of 21 Gordon Rd, owners or occupiers of these properties were unable to object to any complying activity undertaken in the industrial zone.
"At any event, the company did not appear at the hearing and, in accordance with local policy, the objection is discounted, particularly as the objector did not attend either of the two meetings organised by the company."
Judge Unwin said the second objection came from John Eckhold, of Queenstown, who owned a large industrial property across the road from the proposed brewery.
Mr Eckhold had several concerns, particularly the negative effect the licences would have on his tenants which could result in them terminating the leases, or vacating the property.
"He considered that there would be a major risk of accident from intoxicated people coming from the brewery and wandering into the path of the large vehicles.
"On the other hand, he was apparently unaware that the street has a footpath, as well as lighting.
"Secondly, Mr Eckhold said that he and his wife were concerned about the increased probability of intoxicated people entering their property and tampering with the machinery, and even taking the heavy road vehicles for ‘joy rides’."
Mr Eckhold was also concerned about the increased probability brewery customers would park illegally on the street or affect the traffic flow in and out of his land; the increased probability of litter and broken bottles in the area; and the safety and wellbeing of staff and customers of the tavern due to the likely lack of any police or taxi presence and the likelihood of outbreaks of violence.
"He seemed somewhat surprised to hear that the company intended to install CCTV coverage, as well as security lighting."
Judge Unwin said the committee had to determine whether the amenity and good order of the locality would be likely to be reduced by a more than minor extent by the licences, but much of Mr Eckhold’s evidence was based on his expectation of intoxicated people creating a nuisance either on the road or on his property.
"Such speculative assessments also reflect directly on the suitability of the applicant company.
"Given the inspector’s report that the company is suitable and the lack of any police opposition, it would be quite unreasonable in our view to refuse a licence based on Mr Eckhold’s belief of what might happen.
"Mr Eckhold did himself no favours with his comment: ‘I fully acknowledge we are wasting our time’ when he gave evidence. He has very little knowledge of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and a jaundiced view of the way that alcohol is sold and supplied in this country."
The committee granted the licences, subject to a code of compliance certificate being received following building work, for 12 months, initially.
