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, located at 8 Broad Street, Teddington. After hearing representations from the applicant, residents, and councillors, the Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application.

Clouded Connection, 8 Broad Street, Teddington

The Licensing Sub-Committee refused the application for a new premises licence for Clouded Connection, located at 8 Broad Street, Teddington, TW11 8RF. The application sought permission to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises between 8am and 11pm, seven days a week.

During the hearing, numerous objections were raised by residents and local councillors, primarily focusing on concerns related to the licensing objectives of preventing public nuisance, crime and disorder, and the protection of children from harm. Key issues highlighted included:

• Public Nuisance: Residents expressed concerns that the sale of alcohol would exacerbate existing issues with anti-social behaviour and noise, particularly in the vicinity of Bushy Park and the adjacent residential mews, Stableyard Mews. There were also complaints about disruptive building works carried out at the premises outside of permitted hours.
• Crime and Disorder: Concerns were raised about the potential for increased anti-social behaviour and crime, with reference to past incidents, including an attempted burglary at the premises. The proximity to schools and an NHS centre treating individuals with addictions was also cited as a reason for concern.
• Protection of Children from Harm: Objectors worried that the premises could become a source for underage individuals to purchase alcohol, especially given the proximity to schools and the potential for easily faked identification.
• Lease Disputes and Character: Significant attention was given to an ongoing dispute between the freeholders and the current tenants regarding the lease of the property. This included allegations of breaches of lease terms, unauthorised subletting, and a lack of transparency, which raised questions about the applicant's character and their ability to adhere to licensing regulations. Councillor Richard Baker and Councillor Phil Giesler, among others, highlighted these issues.
• Premature Display of Signage: The Sub-Committee noted that an off licence sign had been displayed in the shop window before the licence had been granted, which was considered presumptuous and irresponsible.

The applicant, Mr Honey Kumar, represented by Mr Surendra Panchal and Mr Paul Richards, argued that they understood the licensing objectives and had robust measures in place, including staff training, CCTV, and a Challenge 25 policy. They stated that the premises had operated for a year without incident and that the Metropolitan Police had agreed to conditions to address their concerns. They also highlighted that the leaseholder did not need to be the applicant for the premises licence.

However, the Sub-Committee concluded that, at the present time, they could not have sufficient trust and confidence that all the conditions of a premises licence would be adhered to, given the ongoing lease dispute and previous enforcement issues. They felt that granting the licence would not uphold the licensing objectives, particularly the prevention of public nuisance, in this sensitive location. The Sub-Committee did, however, suggest that a future, improved application might be successful.