Resource consent application to allow for an Off licence for The Mussel Inn

Resource consent application to allow for an Off licence for The Mussel Inn - Onekaka

Section 1 - Land Use

(a) Full description of the activity.

Background information for the reason why we would like to apply for an off licence.

Before a beer can be put on tap, it must first be transferred from bulk bright beer storage into 50 litre kegs. When we transfer a brew of beer from our storage tanks into kegs, we end up with a part filled keg.

Because it is undesirable for us to have part kegs taking up space, we generally run this into 2 litre riggers and make it available for patrons to take away if they so desire. This would amount to approximately 15 to 20 riggers per week. We have never promoted or advertised off sales and have no intention to do so. It is merely a means of dealing with the small surplus of product that we produce as part of the brewing process. Very seldom will anyone come specifically to buy take away product i.e. they are taken by patrons who are already present on the premises. We are however often asked if we have beer to takeaway by patrons as they leave – and invariably they go away empty handed.

On occasion we have made available keg beer for special occasions. This would amount to approximately 3 – 5 kegs a year – usually delivered by ourselves as invited guests.

We believe that having an off licence to allow for what we have in effect been doing for the past 10 years will in no way generate an increase in traffic associated with our premises. Nor will it change anything else about our operation and no adverse affects are likely.

Ideally we would like to apply for a variation to our present on licence to allow for these sales. If that is not possible then we are prepared to apply for an off licence although we feel that this is way in excess of what is required to cover what we do.

I. Hours and duration of the operation:

11am to 1am , 7 days a week. No change to present hours

II. Number of people involved: Staff – no change to present staffing levels will be required.

Number of people expected to visit or use the site: No change to that of present levels

III. Parking arrangements: No extra parking required.

Access: Present access will be adequate.

Services: Sewage and water will be unchanged.

IV. Expected traffic flows to and from the site: Unchanged from that of present.

The traffic flows to and from The Mussel Inn are expected to remain the same as at present levels. Because no changes will be made to the way in which The Mussel Inn has been operating for the past 10 years, there is no reason at all why there should be any increase in the traffic flows over and above what already experienced.

Over the years measures have put in place to reduce the risks associated with the entry way and these measures have significantly lessened the likelihood of bad or inappropriate driving habits resulting in unfortunate consequences. These include the erection of no stopping signs either side of the property, the painting of ’no parking’ lines along both sides of the road side, the erection of a barrier on the western side of the road to prevent parking on the shoulder and the erection of a warning sign on the Takaka side of the approach.

As ‘dangerous’ as this entry way has been deemed to be, there has never been an ‘accident’ associated with it.

Parking space is provided and has been adequate in the past. There is no need to provide for extra parking when the number of patrons is not expected to increase.

V. Hazardous substances: Nil

VI. Signs to be erected: Nil

(b) Site plan. No changes to present site plan.

I. Effects on ecosystems, natural and physical resources, having aesthetic, recreational, scientific, historical, spiritual, cultural or any other special values for present or future generations. Nil

II. Noise emissions. Nil

III. Dust generation. Nil

IV. Traffic generation. Nothing over and above that already visiting the property.

V. Visual effects. Nil

VI. Any other nuisance elements. Nil

(d) Description of any possible alternative methods or locations. N/A

(e) A description of mitigating measures to help prevent or reduce actual or potential effects of the activity: Off sales will not be advertised.

(f) Adjoining land owners and other potentially affected parties.

Steve and Marie Bennett, Onekaka RD 2 Takaka - no objection

Kirsty Johansson, Onekaka, RD 2 Takaka - no objection

John Garwaith and Trudi Fersterer Onekaka, RD 2 Takaka - no objection

Transit NZ – PO box 27 477 Wellington - objection

Section 2 - Application for Sign

There is no sign applied for

.....and then....

Further information as requested

Attn. Laurie Davidson

We see little point in getting an expert in when essentially nothing will be changed and there is nothing for them to comment on.

We were led to believe that we could not have a variation on our original consent but would be happy to go this way if at all possible.

I. Expected traffic flows to and from the site: Unchanged from that of present.

Over the years measures have been put in place to reduce the risks associated with the entry way and these measures have significantly lessened the likelihood of bad or inappropriate driving habits resulting in unfortunate consequences. These include the erection of no stopping signs either side of the property, the painting of ’no parking’ lines along both sides of the road side, the erection of a barrier on the western side of the road to prevent parking on the shoulder, the painting of a large direction arrow at the exit and the erection of a warning sign on the Takaka side of the approach

As ‘dangerous’ as this entry way has been deemed to be, there has never been an ‘accident’ associated with it.

Parking space is provided and has been adequate in the past. There is no need to provide for extra parking when the number of patrons is not expected to increase.