The Licensing Sub-Committee of Richmond upon Thames Council met on Monday 12 October 2026 to consider an application to vary the premises licence for The Crane & Tap, located at 1 Brewery Lane, Twickenham. The application sought to remove a condition that restricted alcohol sales to table meals on event days at the nearby Twickenham Stadium, replacing it with a clicker system to monitor customer numbers. After hearing representations from the applicant and local residents, the committee refused the application.

The Crane & Tap, 1 Brewery Lane, Twickenham TW1 1AA

The Licensing Sub-Committee heard an opposed application to vary the premises licence for The Crane & Tap. The applicant, Twickenham Pizza Enterprises Ltd, sought to remove Condition 12 of the existing licence. This condition stipulated that on event days at Twickenham Stadium, when over 30,000 people were present, alcohol could only be sold to persons taking table meals. The proposed variation would replace this with a requirement for a clicker system to record customer numbers every 30 minutes, with the log made available for inspection. The applicant also proposed adding a condition that food would be available throughout the trading period and sought to vary the internal layout of the premises.

The application was opposed by four local residents who raised concerns about increased noise and anti-social behaviour, obstruction of access to their residential block, alleged non-compliance on event days, and a potential shift from a restaurant to a vertical drinking establishment.

During the hearing, Stephen Thomas, the applicant's agent, explained that the business had taken over The Crane & Tap after the previous licence holder went into receivership. He stated that the hospitality industry is facing significant financial pressures and that the proposed variation would allow for greater flexibility, enabling customers to purchase drinks without necessarily ordering a full meal. This, he argued, would help the business remain viable. Mr Thomas also highlighted that the premises would continue to offer food and that no seating would be removed. He proposed that on event days, the premises would close at 22:30, with the last alcohol sale at 22:00, and that only incidental background music would be provided.

However, residents, including Teresa Gebski, Katalin Hangacs, and Priya Chakravarti, voiced strong objections. Ms Gebski, who lives directly above the premises, detailed an incident on 12 September 2026 where amplified music and bass vibrations caused significant disturbance and physical discomfort. She stated that despite repeated complaints to the premises manager, the noise continued beyond the agreed-upon times. Ms Hangacs raised concerns about patrons congregating outside the premises, obstructing access to residential properties and using communal areas like the fountain. Ms Chakravarti argued that the proposed clicker system was inadequate for preventing public nuisance and that the variation would lead to increased noise, anti-social behaviour, and overcrowding in communal areas, particularly on event days. She also highlighted that the fountain area, where patrons were observed drinking from glasses, was a public thoroughfare and communal space, not part of the pub's external seating.

The Sub-Committee considered the evidence presented, including the applicant's proposed conditions and the residents' concerns. They noted that there were no representations from any Responsible Authorities. However, the committee expressed a lack of confidence in the applicant's management ability to promote the licensing objectives, citing the handling of the 12 September event and the applicants' initial lack of awareness of existing licence conditions. The Sub-Committee also took into account the residents' observations of patrons congregating in the fountain area with drinks from the premises, causing noise disturbance and access issues.

Ultimately, the Licensing Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application to vary the premises licence. They concluded that the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance had been undermined and that granting the variation at that time would not uphold this objective. The applicant was encouraged to work with residents and run a tight operation adhering to current licensing conditions and objectives, suggesting that a future application might be successful if these issues were addressed.

The meeting was chaired by Councillor Lesley Pollesche, with Councillor Seamus Joyce and Councillor Matthew Hull also in attendance. The decision was communicated in writing within five working days.