Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: October 2, 2025

Purpose:

Content: Notification of decision following a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing to determine an application for a temporary street trading licence pursuant to the London Local Authorities Act 1990, as amended   SITE: To be positioned on the pavement junction opposite 109 Bath Road, Hounslow TW3 3BT   TO:    Lina Travassos YFC (Your Food Court) (“the Applicant”)    TAKE NOTICE THAT following a hearing before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub-Committee   ON 2 October 25, the London Borough of Hounslow, as the relevant Licensing Authority   RESOLVED as follows:   1)         The Sub-Committee convened to determine an application in respect of the grant of a temporary street trading licence made pursuant to section 31 of the London Local Authorities Act 1990, as amended (the “Act”).   2)         The application, which was shown at Appendix A of the Agenda pack, for a temporary street trading licence. The applicant was to place a stall on the public highway in the area as highlighted in the plan. The Applicant wished to sell fast food takeaway from Monday to Sunday between 07:00 hours 20:00 hours.   3)         The hearing was in person. The Sub-Committee consisted of three members. All members of the Licensing Sub-Committee were in attendance throughout the hearing, and during deliberation, which took place separately in a closed session once the hearing of the evidence had concluded.   4)         During the consultation process, the Licensing Authority received 1 representation from Regulatory Compliance Officer, Mr Sudhir Bhatt, from the Community Enforcement and Regulatory Services (Neighbourhood Enforcement). Mr Bhatt did not attend the hearing.  In an email dated 18.08.25, the Regulatory Compliance Officer, Mr Bhatt, stated in his representation that his concern was that the proposed site for the stall was in a residential area with heavy footfall. He went on to also state that placing the structure would impede the right of pass and repass for pedestrians. The full representations were attached at Appendix B.   5)         In making its decision, the Sub-Committee carefully considered all the relevant information, including:   -         Written and oral representations submitted by all the parties -         Oral representations made by the parties during the licensing panel hearing -         The London Local Authorities Act 1990 as amended (“the Act”) -         Hounslow Council’s Street Trading Policy (“the Policy”) -         The Human Rights Act 1998   6)         At the hearing, the Applicant represented herself and was assisted by her friend Mr Vincent Fernandez from the charity Saint Vincent de Paul, which is attached to the local church. Mr Fernandez described the charity as one that befriended families who were encountering challenging times, such as bereavement, to help them stand on their feet.  The Applicant expressed how difficult it had been trying to find a suitable location for her business venture.   7)         The Applicant informed the Sub-committee she was seeking a licence to sell hot fast food takeaway, which she described as Goan style food such as samosas and other fried meals.   8)         The Applicant submitted that she refuted the objection raised by the Regulatory Compliance Officer, noting that there was already a tree and a designated cycle stand (marked on the ground as a cycle drop-off point) in place. The cycle stand measured approximately 2.8 to 2.9 metres, while the tree measured about 2.6 metres in width. The Applicant further contended that her proposed stall, measuring 2.5 metres, was smaller than both existing structures. Since neither the tree nor the cycle stand obstructed pedestrian movement, she was confident that her stall would likewise not cause any obstruction or impede pedestrian passage, contrary to the Officer’s objections.  The Applicant was also permitted to show some additional photos as well as play a short video footage of the area, which the Applicant stated supported the fact that the existing structures did not cause any disruption to pedestrians' right of passage.        9)         The Applicant was asked by the Sub-Committee about the map that was submitted in the Application. The plan was required to show all street furniture in the vicinity of the site and provide measurements between the site and all installations, which were not shown on the map submitted. The Applicant also addressed the secondary issue raised by the Regulatory Officer, stating that the suggested locations proposed would not be suitable due to a lack of passing trade, and noted that the car park was already managed by Europarks.   10)     It was clarified by the Applicant during the Licence officer’s submissions that the measurements on the enclosed plan at Appendix A of the Application should read 5 metres in length as opposed to the recorded 6 metres.   DECISION:   11)     The Act provides a measure of discretion when deciding whether to issue a temporary street trading licence, and the Policy provides for all applications to consider various issues as set out therein, which include consideration of public safety, prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, the appearance and suitability of the stall/vehicle, and environmental credentials.  The subcommittee considered this and also considered demonstration of suitable or adequate arrangements for storing any articles, things that were to be used during trade.  The Sub-Committee asked the Applicant whether they had read the Council’s Street Trading Policy, noting that a number of the required preconditions set out within the Policy had been found lacking in the application.   12)     The Sub-Committee were of the view that the Applicant failed to provide the Council with the particulars required by the Council. The requirements are set out at paragraph 4.19 of the Policy, which states that the plan must “include the location of any obstacles such as bus stops, street furniture, etc, and all streets and public areas within a radius of 200 metres from the proposed location”. The plan failed to include all the street furniture, bus stops, and trees in the area.   13)      Although the plan submitted was insufficient, the Sub-Committee took no issue with the location.   14)     The Sub-Committee were concerned that the Applicant’s proposal to operate the stall alone for up to 12 hours did not adequately consider the need for rest breaks or address how the stall would be managed during periods of absence, which led the Sub-Committee to conclude that the  Applicant did not adequately make provisions for the safety of the public and any risks which may arise contrary to the Policy S.11 (a).     15)     The Subcommittee referred to the Policy at paragraph  2.11(f) which sets out that applicants must demonstrate satisfactory arrangements for the storage, collection, and lawful disposal of refuse, including the provision of evidence of a commercial waste contract where applicable, and noted that the Applicant had not provided sufficient information regarding rubbish collection and waste disposal, including a failure to nominate an authorised commercial waste contractor.   16)     The Sub-Committee also found that the Applicant had failed to provide or identify suitable or adequate arrangements for storing the foods once on site, contrary to the policy, section 2.10 (k).   17)     Finally, the Sub-Committee considered that the Applicant failed to demonstrate adequate preparedness to manage the business affairs of the proposed trading activity. Her responses during questioning were unstructured and lacked detail, giving the Panel limited assurance of her ability to comply with the standards required of licence holders. This was inconsistent with Section 6 (Suitability of Applicants) and Section 7 (Management of Business Affairs) of the London Borough of Hounslow Street Trading Policy, which required applicants for temporary street trading licences to demonstrate competence, reliability, and responsibility in the operation of their business.  Under Section 2.10(e) – Discretionary Grounds, the Council may refuse an application if the nature of the applicant, their proposed trading, or the information provided gives reasonable cause to believe the licence would adversely affect the general amenity of the area. The Sub-Committee considered that these concerns about readiness and competence also fell within this discretionary ground.   18)     Having considered all the representations and all relevant material, the Sub-Committee therefore decided to REFUSE the application for a temporary street trading licence for the Site.   19)     There is no right of appeal by any party in relation to the determination in respect of a temporary street trading application. The decision of the Sub-Committee is therefore final.