The Licensing Panel of Hounslow Council met on Thursday, 15 October 2026, to review the premises licences of two businesses in Feltham. The panel decided to revoke the licences of both Swan News t/a U R Local and Newsbox due to serious concerns regarding the prevention of crime and disorder. Councillor Theo Dennison was appointed as the Chair for the meeting.

Swan News t/a U R Local and Newsbox Licence Revocations

The Licensing Panel revoked the premises licences for Swan News t/a U R Local, located at 3 Rochester Parade, High Street, Feltham, TW13 4DX, and Newsbox, at 5 Rochester Parade, High Street, Feltham, TW13 4DX. The applications for review were brought by Bob Dear, a Licensing Enforcement Officer for the London Borough of Hounslow, citing concerns that the premises were undermining the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder.

In the case of Swan News, the panel found that illicit tobacco products had been deliberately concealed behind the sales counter. The presence of Kamagra products also raised concerns about management oversight and regulatory compliance. The explanations provided by the Premises Licence Holder were not found to be persuasive, and the panel concluded that there was a failure to fully acknowledge the seriousness of the offending and accept full responsibility. The panel noted that the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco and goods is treated particularly seriously under the Secretary of State's Guidance¹.

For Newsbox, the review application was based on similar grounds, with illicit tobacco products found concealed beneath confectionery. Crucially, the panel noted that the Premises Licence Holder was the sole director of both Newsbox and Swan News, and that concerns regarding illicit tobacco had already been identified at Swan News approximately one week prior to the inspection of Newsbox. The panel rejected the explanation that a trainee employee had independently entered the products onto the till system, deeming it not credible. The panel also expressed concern that responsibility was repeatedly minimised and attributed elsewhere, demonstrating a failure to accept full responsibility.

In both cases, the panel considered the powers available under section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003². They concluded that taking no action would be inadequate, and that additional conditions or suspension would not adequately address the underlying issues. The panel found that the seriousness of the conduct identified, including the presence and concealment of illicit products and the lack of credible explanations, substantially outweighed any economic considerations. Consequently, revocation was deemed both necessary and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.

The Premises Licence Holders have the right to appeal these decisions to the Magistrates' Court within 21 days of notification.