Agenda item

The persons participating at the hearing were identified as follows:

Chairman – Councillor Clive English

Sub-Committee Member – Councillor Denise Joy

Sub-Committee Member – Councillor Bob Hinder

Senior Licensing Officer – Lorraine Neale

Legal Advisor – Helen Ward

Democratic Services Officer – Oliviya Parfitt

Applicant – Richard Balfour-Lynn

Applicant’s witnesses – Adam Williams, Sarah Easton, Councillor John Perry.

Interested Parties – Matt Lewin, on behalf of Andrea Hodgkiss, Angus Codd, Mr & Mrs Humphrey and Amanda Tipples, Sally Humphrey, Andrea Hodgkiss, Natasha Davidson-Houston.

The Chairman explained that:

·  The Sub-Committee would allow all parties to put their case fully and make full submissions within a reasonable time frame.

·  The procedure would take the form of a discussion led by the Sub-Committee and that would usually permit cross-examination within a reasonable timeframe.

·  Any person attending the hearing who behaved in a disruptive manner may be directed to leave the hearing by the Sub-Committee (including temporarily) after which, such person may submit to the Sub-Committee any information which that person would have been entitled to give orally had the person not been required to leave the meeting. If this was not possible, they may be permitted to speak at the Chairman’s invitation.

The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report, referencing the application received in appendix 1 to the report, and the representations received in appendix 3 to the report.

The applicant, Mr Richard Balfour-Lynn, was invited to make their opening remarks and stated that the application had been submitted to avoid a potential situation whereby the premises was accused of invalidating its licence through serving food, given that the licence included that the premises would not operate as a restaurant. As there was no legal definition of a restaurant, the applicant wished for the word to be removed from the licence.

The applicant summarised the services provided by the venue, including wine tastings that were accompanied by lunch, the production and sale of wine, a shuttle service for visitors, and its role as a local business and employer.

The Legal representative clarified that the Sub-Committee would not be able to define the term “restaurant” however they would consider the application and its effect on the licensable activities.  

In response to a question from the panel, the applicant confirmed that they would like to provide a greater number of food options for guests as part of the ‘wine and dine’ experience offered at the premises. The applicant’s witness, Sarah Easton, reiterated that feedback had been received from regular customers that they would prefer a wider range of food options. It was not intended for the premises to become a restaurant.

The applicant’s witness, Councillor John Perry, gave their opening remarks and stated that the business was important to the local economy and that the services provided were similar to other wineries. The impact of Covid-19 to the business and the need for business diversification was highlighted. The premises provided high-quality products and services, with the traffic on the local road network stated to be low. The applicant’s witness asked for the application to be supported by the Sub-Committee.

In response to questions from Mr Lewin, as the representative of four of the interested parties, the applicant reiterated that they had submitted the application as a pre-emptive action, to prevent a complaint on the premises food provision given the absence of a legal definition of a restaurant. It was stated that the venue did not operate as a restaurant. There had been no complaints since 2010.

The applicant’s witness, Sarah Easton, responded to further questions to reiterate that the business had had to change since Covid-19, and that repeat customers had given feedback that they would like more food offerings as part of the experiences already offered by the venue. It was stated that other wineries in Kent offered food with their wine tasting experiences, and that removing the word ‘restaurant’ would not cause confusion as the business did not advertise itself with food being its primary service, but as part of the wine experiences.

In response to questions from the panel, Sarah Easton confirmed that they would like to provide hot food choices to the experience mentioned, rather than a full food menu. It was not anticipated that the visitor number or average visit length would increase. The applicant’s witness, Adam Williams, reiterated the venue’s primary function as a winery.

The interested parties were invited to make their opening remarks, beginning with Mr Lewin on behalf of some of the interested parties.

Mr Lewin stated that granting the application would lead to further confusion than it would resolve and referenced the Sub-Committee’s previous decision in September 2020 which sought to ensure the venue’s primary use remained as a winery. It was stated that if granted, the application would impact several of the licence’s existing conditions, with some residents worried that it would permit an expansion of the venue’s services. It was stated that the existing premises licence would allow for further food offerings as outlined by the applicant, with the premises being wine led, rather than food led. The Sub-Committee’s previous decisions relating to the premises were felt have been balanced between the commercial and residential interests of the area, with a request made for this balance to be struck again.

The interested party, Andrea Hodgkiss, echoed the comments made by Mr Lewin and stated that whilst they fully supported the winery and its value to the local economy, granting the application could increase local traffic. In response to questions from Mr Lewin, Mrs Hodgkiss outlined instances of noise pollution from the premises and outlined the issues experienced in living near the site.

The interest party, Natasha Davidson-Houston, reiterated the concerns expressed relating to increased road traffic and other road users and the sub-committee’s previous decisions having been balanced. It was stated that amending the licence could allow the premises to operate similarly to a restaurant as opposed to a winery which was its primary use and increase noise levels to the local rural area, through increased visitor numbers. The interested party expressed that it was difficult to engage with the premises owners.

The Legal Advisor reiterated points 3.1 and 3.2 of the Council’s Licensing Policy, to ascertain if the interested parties had any questions arising from the policy. Mr Lewin reiterated the balanced decisions previously made.

In response to questions, the applicant stated that premises online advertisements would continue advertising wine experiences, with the food offerings available changing. The food currently provided was served on the terrace, which was felt to shield any noise from customers; the draft conditions proposed by the interested parties would not be acceptable to the applicant.

In making their closing remarks, Mr Lewins reiterated that there was no need for the applicant’s licence to be varied as this would cause confusion, and that the current arrangements balanced the business and residential needs of the area.

In making their closing remarks, the applicant reiterated their reasons in applying for the licence variation, which were supported by their witness, Councillor Perry.

The Chairman advised that the Sub-Committee would retire for deliberation with the legal advisor present. The meeting was adjourned between 11.30 a.m. to 12.15 p.m.

The Sub-Committee returned and the Chairman stated that having considered the evidence provided, representations made and the relevant legislation and guidance, the decision was made to grant the application as applied for. The reasons contributing to the decision were outlined in further detail.

It was confirmed that a written decision notice would be provided. Parties were reminded of the right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.

The hearing closed at 12.17 p.m.

RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee’s decision and reasons be provided within the Notice of Determination attached as an Appendix to the minutes.