The Licensing Sub-Committee of Kingston upon Thames Council met on Tuesday 13 January 2026 to consider an application for a new premises licence for WorldVibs UniHub at 14-16 Eden Street, Kingston upon Thames. The committee ultimately refused the application, citing concerns about the potential for increased crime and disorder, public nuisance, and the undermining of existing measures to tackle anti-social behaviour in the area.

Application for a New Premises Licence: WorldVibs UniHub

The primary focus of the meeting was the application for a new premises licence for WorldVibs UniHub, located at 14-16 Eden Street, Kingston upon Thames. The applicant, Mrs. Shraddhaben Siddharthkumar Patel, initially sought to sell alcohol off the premises from 9 am to 11 pm on Sundays to Thursdays, and 9 am to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. However, following representations, the applicant proposed to reduce these hours to 9 am to 7 pm daily and introduced several conditions, including the sale of alcohol exclusively from a locked, separate room, no sale of single cans, and the implementation of a Challenge 25 policy with a biometric age verification system.

Despite these proposed changes, the application faced strong objections from the Metropolitan Police, represented by Police Sergeant Jeremy Weston, and two local businesses: O'Neill's, represented by Luke Tamplin, and a retail shop opposite the premises, represented by Alardin Graffer.

Arguments Against the Application:

• Metropolitan Police: Police Sergeant Jeremy Weston argued that granting the licence would undermine the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) at Eagle Brewery Wharf and exacerbate existing issues of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and street drinking. He highlighted that Memorial Gardens, a nearby area, also historically suffered from these problems. PS Weston expressed concern that the new premises would attract individuals already engaging in street drinking, placing further strain on police resources. He also noted that the absence of other standalone off-licences in the immediate vicinity suggested the area was not suitable for such a business and that granting this licence could set a precedent for further applications, altering the neighbourhood's character negatively. He reiterated that a similar application for an off-licence on Eden Street had been refused in early 2025 for the same reasons.
• O'Neill's (Luke Tamplin): Luke Tamplin, representing O'Neill's, voiced concerns about the practical impact on neighbouring businesses, particularly those with outdoor seating. He argued that customers purchasing alcohol from the new premises could then congregate in their outdoor areas, forcing O'Neill's staff to eject them and call the police, leading to cumulative impact and increased pressure on their own venue. He feared this would open a can of worms regarding street drinking and ASB, especially during busy periods like summer events.
• Local Retailer (Alardin Graffer): Alardin Graffer, speaking on behalf of his father who owns a retail business opposite the proposed premises, supported the police's objections. He stated that the area already experienced persistent street drinking, intoxication, ASB, noise, and littering, even without a formal PSPO designation in their immediate vicinity. He rejected the idea that their objections were commercially motivated, stating that if that were the case, they would have applied for a licence themselves years ago. He argued that the proposed 9 am start for alcohol sales would extend existing problems into daytime hours, increasing the risk of children being exposed to drunken behaviour and unsafe street conditions.

Applicant's Proposals and Defence:

Mrs. Patel, the applicant, emphasised that WorldVibs UniHub would primarily be a grocery and convenience store, with alcohol sales being a secondary offering. She proposed strict measures to mitigate concerns, including:

• Reduced alcohol sales hours to 9 am - 7 pm daily.
• Alcohol sold exclusively from a separate, locked Alcohol-Controlled Room outside these hours.
• No sale of single cans, only multipacks and premium products.
• A strict policy against selling to intoxicated persons or known street drinkers, maintained via a refusal log and banned customer list.
• Comprehensive CCTV coverage with 31-day retention.
• A Challenge 25 policy, enhanced by the MyID Checker biometric digital age verification system.
• Prominent signage stating No Street Drinking and No Open Containers.
• Daily litter sweeps of the pavement outside the premises.
• A direct contact number for the manager to be displayed for immediate issue resolution.

Mrs. Patel argued that these voluntary measures went beyond standard requirements and demonstrated her commitment to operating responsibly and promoting all four licensing objectives.

The Committee's Decision:

The Licensing Sub-Committee, chaired by Councillor Peter Herlinger, considered all representations and evidence. They ultimately decided to REFUSE the application for a new premises licence.

The committee noted the concerns raised by the Metropolitan Police and the local businesses regarding the potential for increased crime and disorder, public nuisance, and the undermining of existing measures like the PSPO at Eagle Brewery Wharf. They were particularly concerned about the proximity of the proposed premises to Eagle Brewery Wharf, the 'Apple Market' area with its outdoor seating, and Memorial Gardens, all of which had experienced issues related to alcohol consumption and ASB.

While acknowledging the applicant's proposed conditions, including the reduced hours and the separate alcohol room, the committee felt these measures did not adequately address the core concerns. They were particularly influenced by the representation from the second Other Person who highlighted the unusual layout and the potential for direct conflict if alcohol purchased from the premises was consumed in the outdoor seating areas of neighbouring establishments or in the PSPO area. The committee also noted the police's view that no conditions could fully prevent customers from taking alcohol to nearby areas for consumption.

The committee concluded that the availability of alcohol from this premises, given its location and the existing issues in the area, increased the risk of crime and disorder and public nuisance. They did not consider the issue of public safety but noted the potential safety issue of crossing a road to reach the market area. Despite the applicant's efforts to mitigate concerns, the committee felt that granting the licence would not be appropriate in this specific location.