The Licensing Sub-Committee of Richmond upon Thames Council refused an application to vary the premises licence for Londis, located at 250 Upper Richmond Road West, East Sheen, London, SW14 8AG. The application sought to extend the hours for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises. The decision was made after considering representations from the applicant, local residents, and interested parties, with concerns raised about underage sales, public nuisance, and crime and disorder.

Londis Premises Licence Variation Refused

The Licensing Sub-Committee of Richmond upon Thames Council refused an application to extend the alcohol sales hours for Londis at 250 Upper Richmond Road West, East Sheen, London, SW14 8AG. The applicant, Fairs & Cares Limited, sought to extend the hours from Monday to Thursday until 1am, Friday and Saturday until 2am, and Sunday until 1am.

The committee heard evidence that the current licence permits alcohol sales from 8am to 11pm Monday to Saturday, and 10am to 10:30pm on Sundays. The proposed variation would have significantly extended these hours.

Concerns Raised by Residents and Interested Parties:

A key concern raised by six local residents and interested parties was the alleged history of non-compliance with the current premises licence, including sales of alcohol beyond permitted hours and potential underage sales. Mr Giti Sorouri presented evidence of a transaction on Thursday 18 June 2026, where a 17-year-old reportedly purchased alcohol after 11pm without being asked for identification. Similar concerns were echoed by other residents, including Ms Smita Roy Chowdhury and Mr John Chambers, who spoke about underage drinking and anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of the premises. Mr George Butler, a 17-year-old, also shared an incident where he witnessed underage individuals being served alcohol after 11pm.

Councillor Julia Cambridge, representing local families including the Crockett family, objected to the application, highlighting that the premises is located in a residential neighbourhood and not an entertainment district. She argued that extending the hours would increase noise, disturbance, and anti-social behaviour, particularly due to the premises' location on a T-junction and a red route with limited parking. She also noted that the petition supporting the application included some individuals from outside the local postcode area.

Applicant's Arguments:

Manuel Rocha, the applicant's agent, argued that the extended hours were necessary for the business to remain viable due to competition from online retailers and other convenience stores. He stated that the applicant had invested £120,000 in refurbishing the premises and had gathered support from approximately 90 local residents. Mr Mehboob Ali Khan, the applicant and manager, stated he had taken over the lease in August 2025 and had invested significantly in the store, which had reopened in January 2026. He also mentioned that the premises had a Challenge 25 age verification policy in place, an upgrade from the existing Challenge 21 policy. Mr Khan also indicated plans to introduce a delivery service in the future.

Committee's Decision and Reasoning:

The Licensing Sub-Committee, chaired by Councillor Lesley Pollesche, with Councillor Seamus Joyce and Councillor Jonathan Cardy also present, ultimately refused the application. The decision was based on the four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm.

The committee noted the significant investment made by the applicant and the petition of support. However, they were concerned by the lack of specificity in the applicant's operating schedule, which stated they were happy with the Conditions existent in our Premises License and welcome recommendations given by the Authorities. The committee felt this placed the onus on the authorities to recommend steps rather than the applicant proactively outlining measures.

Crucially, the committee was persuaded by the evidence of recent underage sales and sales beyond permitted hours, despite the Challenge 25 policy. The fact that a Challenge 21 policy was already in place and allegedly not adhered to raised further concerns. The committee also considered the potential for increased nuisance and anti-social behaviour, particularly given the premises' location and the applicant's stated intention to introduce a delivery service, which was not adequately addressed in the operating schedule.

The Sub-Committee concluded that granting the variation would likely increase existing nuisances experienced by local residents, many of whom are families with children. The application was therefore refused on all four licensing objectives.

The applicant and any person who made a relevant representation have a right of appeal to the Magistrates' Court within 21 days of receiving the decision notice.