Vineyard Alcohol License Being Considered By Wealden Councillors

Councillors have retired to consider a vineyard’s bid to secure a new alcohol licence.

On Tuesday (February 11), a Wealden District Council licensing panel considered an application connected to Beacon Down Vineyard, which is located in Brown Lane near Cross-in-Hand.

Through its application, the vineyard is seeking a premises licence to sell alcohol at a soon-to-be-built shop and cafe, which secured planning permission last year.

The hearing had been called in light of objections from local residents, who had largely argued the sale of alcohol would result in ‘public nuisance’.

During the hearing, Jon Wallsgrove, a solicitor acting on behalf of vineyard owners Paul and Alice Pippard, argued the objections should be given limited weight, as no objections had been raised by any statutory bodies.

Mr Wallsgrove said:

“You as a committee must base your decision on credible evidence. It is not a case of listening to fears or concerns or opinions expressed by people. It is about what is before you that you can attach weight to; credible evidence.

“That, as I said right at the outset, is the expert views of all of the responsible authorities who have looked at the application objectively and not subjectively, which of course both us and the interested parties are doing.”

The vineyard is seeking operating hours of between 9am and 6pm from Monday to Saturday, reduced to between 10am and 5pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Mr Wallsgrove noted how the vineyard already holds a more limited licence, which allows it to sell its products online and during tours and wine tasting events. He said the vineyard intends to surrender this licence should its new application be granted.

As with the existing premises licence, the new licence would also allow the vineyard to make remote sales.

The existing licence, granted in 2018, limits the vineyard to no more than 12 tours each year, with each of these events limited to no more than 30 people. This limit was applied in response to resident objections to the previous licence application.

Notably, however, the vineyard has surpassed this limit through the use of Temporary Event Notices (TENs). According to meeting papers, the vineyard notified the council of nine TENs in 2023 and six in 2024.

The meeting papers also note how no formal complaints connected with the vineyard’s previous operations had been sustained. Specifically, the papers note how there had been only one ‘notification’ around noise disturbance in 2019, but this was not followed by a formal complaint.

A second complaint, raised in August 2021, claimed the vineyard was “exceeding” its annual limits on events, although the business was later determined not to be in breach of its conditions by council officers.

In all, the vineyard’s application received 34 objections from “interested parties”. However, it also received 37 representations in support of the licence being granted.

Both objectors and supporters attended the hearing to put forward their concerns.

Two objectors — Peter Benians and Richard Randell — attended the meeting and raised concerns around noise emanating from the business, arguing the vineyard’s rural location meant the impacts would be more severe. Both men had also raised concerns around highways safety and impact on the natural environment, saying licensed activity could cause harm.

Mr Wallsgrove stressed how part of these concerns would be planning, rather than licensing, matters. He said these issues had been addressed through the previous planning process.

He also addressed some of the other objections, saying:

“Of all the letters from the interested parties, what I have picked out from those were perhaps fears that there might be drunken behaviour, antisocial behaviour … or drink driving.

“Now we say — as a vineyard that has been operating for six years, has had those 12 events [each year], has had numerous temporary events in addition to those 12 events — there hasn’t been one single incident where anybody has been reported as drunk, antisocial or causing a nuisance.”

He added:

“My submission is that they have proven themselves to be responsible operators. Six years without a single incident of rowdy behaviour, drunkenness … [or] drink driving. We say those are fears expressed by interested parties, which cannot be supported by any credible evidence.”

After hearing from all parties, councillors retired to consider the decision in a private session. After a little over an hour of private discussion the panel told the parties it would not immediately issue its decision, but would provide it in writing within five working days.

This decision, once issued, will be open to legal appeal by any interested parties.