Twickenham Allianz Stadium pub operators win new licence

The Scrummery is the closest pub to Twickenham’s Allianz Rugby Stadium and is extremely popular with rugby fans on match days. However, over a number of years, a number of local residents have complained of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour arising from the pub’s loyal customers. The ward councillor launched a review of The Scrummery’s premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003. This was supported by the London Borough of Richmond’s licensing officer and a number of disgruntled residents.

The premises licence was held by the owners of the premises, Mr and Mrs Griffiths, but they did not operate the pub. The actual operators were their commercial tenants: the Soni family. In response to the review, the owners said they were “heartbroken” by the disturbances reported by the local community. They sought to blame their tenants, the Soni family, and indicated that steps were being taken to terminate their lease.

As well as making a formal representation in the review, the Soni family also, unusually, made a parallel application for a new premises licence in their company’s name. The owners, a number of residents and the licensing authority opposed the new application. It was pointed out by the licensing officer that an old planning permission restricted the terminal hour of the pub to 6pm. Although this inconsistency was known to the Council, there had been no attempt to enforce the planning condition for well over a decade. A number of other residents and customers wrote in support of the Soni family’s operation and grant of the new licence.

Both the review application and the new premises licence application were heard on the same day before the London Borough of Richmond’s licensing sub-committee, on 10 June 2026. The Soni family argued that they had introduced a number of significant measures that had reduced the impact of match-day pub openings on the local community but there was inevitably going to be disturbance to local residents who choose to live within a few hundred metres of a 82,000 capacity sports stadium.

The Soni family instructed two independent experts to inspect their new operating procedures on different  match days. The first was David Nevitt, a senior independent environmental health officer (formerly at Westminster Council). The second was Jim Sollars, a highly experienced former Metropolitan Police Westminster licensing officer. Both gave evidence confirming that the new procedures kept customers under good control and no public nuisance was witnessed.

The Sonis submitted that the owners’ objection did not preclude a new licence being granted to them as the actual operators, even if they were involved in a commercial property dispute. That dispute would be determined in the civil courts and had little relevance to the issues to be decided in the licensing proceedings. The inconsistent planning hours were also a legal red herring: given that there had been no enforcement of the hours restriction for over 10 years, the owners and operators could rely on established use to render the planning condition effectively  unenforceable.

It was also submitted on behalf of the Soni family that, if a new premises licence was granted to them, the owners’ licence could become a “shadow licence”. The Soni family would then operate under their own premises licence, making them legally accountable for promoting the licensing objectives.

In a decision issued on 17 June 2026, the Council granted the new premises licence to the Soni family on the terms they had agreed. In the review application, the Council modified the existing licence held by the owners to reflect those proposed in relation to the new licence.

It is rarely an attractive position for a tenant to be in a serious dispute with their landlord when making a new premises licence application. This case highlights the need to focus on what is truly relevant: the appropriate and proportionate steps to be taken to promote the licensing objectives. Ultimately, the commercial lease dispute and the planning issues were irrelevant from a licensing perspective.

The two decisions have been published here:

The Review decision is here: https://cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/documents/g500000867/Public%20minutes%20Wednesday%2010-Jun-2026%2011.00%20Licensing%20Sub-Committee.pdf?T=11

The new premises licence decision is here: https://cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/documents/g500000870/Public%20minutes%20Wednesday%2010-Jun-2026%2014.30%20Licensing%20Sub-Committee.pdf?T=11

Press reports of the case are here and here.

Gary Grant appeared for the operators instructed by Marcus Lavell and James Hoffelner of Complete Licensing