The Licensing Sub-Committee of Richmond upon Thames Council met on 10 June 2026 to consider an application to review the premises licence for The Scrummery, located at 105 Whitton Road, Twickenham. The committee heard representations from local residents, the licence holder, and the operator regarding concerns about public nuisance, public safety, and the protection of children. The committee also considered a separate application for a new premises licence for the same venue.

Review of The Scrummery Premises Licence

The meeting focused on a review of the premises licence for The Scrummery, prompted by an application from Councillor Katie Mansfield, who represents the St Margaret's and North Twickenham ward. Councillor Mansfield submitted the review on behalf of local residents who have raised concerns over several years regarding public nuisance, public safety, and the protection of children from harm.

Public Nuisance and Noise Disturbance: Residents reported persistent issues with loud music, particularly from external speakers, which they claim starts hours before rugby matches and continues late into the evening. This has been documented since 2022, with complaints detailing thumping bass audible within homes even with windows closed. Councillor Mansfield highlighted that the venue operates like a disco in the centre of Soho on rugby days, with loud music and flashing lights disrupting daily life in the residential area. Russ Stevens, Principal Licensing Officer for Richmond Council, confirmed that complaints related to excessive drinking, anti-social behaviour, and extended hours of loud music had been received over several years.

Public Safety Concerns: Significant concerns were raised about public safety, particularly once road closures related to Twickenham Rugby Stadium matches are lifted. Residents reported patrons spilling onto pavements and roads, often intoxicated, blocking pedestrian access and creating a hazard for traffic. Councillor Mansfield stated that on match days, residents feel unsafe due to the behaviour of intoxicated patrons.

Protection of Children from Harm: Residents expressed concerns about the impact of the venue's operation on local children. They reported that children are exposed to drunken behaviour, lewd comments, and public urination, which they find intimidating. Councillor Mansfield noted that this behaviour occurs in a residential road with children living nearby.

Operator's Response and Proposed Conditions: The current operators, Rubi Rocks Limited, represented by Bijal Soni and advised by legal counsel Marcus Lavelle, presented their case. They acknowledged past issues but highlighted improvements made since the review was initiated. They proposed a comprehensive set of voluntary conditions, which were largely mirrored by the conditions suggested by Russ Stevens. These included:

• Holding meetings with local residents in advance of rugby matches.
• Prohibiting external speakers and portable speakers.
• Implementing documented capacity limits based on a Fire Risk Assessment.
• Ensuring clear routes to customer toilets.
• Providing a direct telephone number for the manager on duty.
• Prohibiting customers from leaving the premises with alcohol.
• Ensuring sufficient SIA-registered security staff to manage capacity and prevent loitering.
• A condition that Rahul Soni, son of the operators, would not be involved in the management or operation of the premises.

Landlord's Position: Karen and Colin Griffiths, the premises licence holders, stated their intention to terminate the lease with Rubi Rocks Ltd and take back possession of the premises. They expressed regret over the change in the venue's operation from its original model as a sushi restaurant and cafe. They confirmed they would endorse Russ Stevens's proposed conditions, particularly the exclusion of a pop-up bar.

Arguments for and Against:

• For the review and stricter conditions: Residents and Councillor Mansfield argued that the current operation is inappropriate for a residential area, citing persistent noise, public urination, anti-social behaviour, and risks to public safety and children. They highlighted a breakdown in the relationship between the operators and residents, and a lack of trust due to past unaddressed issues.
• Against the review or for a less stringent approach: The operators, Rubi Rocks Ltd, argued that they have engaged with authorities and residents, implemented improvements, and obtained independent expert reports that found no statutory nuisance. They presented evidence of positive feedback from some residents and highlighted their commitment to operating responsibly. They also pointed to the fact that the landlord, Karen Griffiths, had previously praised their operational improvements.

New Premises Licence Application

The committee also considered a separate application for a new premises licence for The Scrummery, submitted by Rubi Rocks Ltd. The operators stated that this application was intended to formalise the operational reality and ensure accountability. They proposed a substantial package of voluntary conditions, many of which mirrored those suggested for the review of the existing licence.

Decision

The committee retired to deliberate on both the review of the existing licence and the application for a new licence. A written decision notice was to be issued within five working days of the hearing. The meeting status was SCHEDULED_ONLY, indicating that no decisions were confirmed at this meeting.