Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Richmond upon Thames Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Licensing Sub-Committee - Tuesday, 27 May 2025 - 7.00 pm
May 27, 2025 at 7:00 pm Licensing Sub-Committee View on council website Watch video of meeting Read transcript (Professional subscription required)Summary
Open Council Network is an independent organisation. We report on Richmond upon Thames and are not the council. About us
The Licensing Sub-Committee of Richmond upon Thames Council met on Tuesday 27 May 2025 to consider an application for a new premises licence for Clouded Connection at 8 Broad Street, Teddington. After hearing evidence and representations, the committee decided to refuse the licence application.
Clouded Connection Premises Licence Application Refused
The Licensing Sub-Committee refused an application for a new premises licence for Clouded Connection, located at 8 Broad Street, Teddington, to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises between 8am and 11pm daily. The decision was made after careful consideration of written and oral evidence, with the committee concluding that granting the licence would not uphold the licensing objectives, specifically the Prevention of Public Nuisance.
The committee noted that the premises is situated in a sensitive location with several existing licensed premises nearby. Concerns were raised about potential increases in anti-social behaviour and disturbance from youths, particularly given the proximity to Coleshill Road and Bushy Park. The ongoing dispute regarding the premises' lease with the freeholders and previous planning enforcement issues also contributed to the committee's decision. They expressed a lack of sufficient trust and confidence that all licence conditions would be adhered to if the licence were granted. The committee also highlighted the premature display of an off licence
sign in the shop window before a licence had been granted as irresponsible. While acknowledging that planning and licensing are separate matters, the committee felt that at this time, the applicant would not promote the licensing objectives effectively. However, they suggested that a future, improved application might be successful.
During the hearing, the applicant, Mr. Honey Kumar, represented by Mr. Surendra Panchal and Mr. Paul Richards, outlined their plans to expand the existing vape and mobile phone shop into a convenience store. They stated that Mr. Kumar, who holds a personal licence, understood the four licensing objectives and that robust training protocols would be implemented for staff. They highlighted that the business had operated for a year without incident and that the Metropolitan Police had agreed to tightened conditions.
However, several interested parties, including residents and Councillor Baker, a ward councillor for Teddington, raised objections. Concerns were voiced about the potential for increased crime and disorder, public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. Specific issues raised included the proximity to residential properties, the potential for increased anti-social behaviour and public nuisance, and the possibility of underage individuals accessing alcohol. The ongoing lease dispute and previous breaches of planning regulations were also cited as reasons to doubt the applicant's ability to comply with licensing conditions.
Pia Mordaunt-Smith, an interested party, questioned the applicant's character and trustworthiness, citing instances of alleged breaches of regulations, including construction work on a Sunday and lease terms. She expressed a lack of confidence that the applicant would adhere to rules and regulations, particularly concerning the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children.
Councillor Baker echoed these concerns, stating that the application would add little to the commercial success of the area and that the applicant's past performance raised doubts about their ability to meet licensing obligations. He also highlighted the existing issues with anti-social behaviour and disturbance from young people in the vicinity.
The legal advisor reminded the committee that planning and licensing are separate regimes and that the lease issue is a civil matter. They also noted that any breach of licence conditions could be a criminal offence and that there is a right of review for the licence.
The subcommittee confirmed that the meeting was held and a decision was made. The minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee hearings held on 28 April 2025 and 8 May 2025 were approved.
Attendees
Topics
No topics have been identified for this meeting yet.
Meeting Documents
Agenda