Content

Notification of
decision following a Licensing Panel 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 Hounslow High Street, between the
telephone kiosk and the advertising hoarding (opposite Red Lion
Court) (the “Site”)
 
TO:              
Mr Remy
Estfanous(“the
Applicant”)
 
TAKE NOTICE THAT following a hearing
before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub-Committee
(“the Licensing Panel” or
“Panel”)
 
ON 17th September 2025 the London
Borough of Hounslow, as the relevant Licensing Authority
 
RESOLVED as follows:
 

1.    
The Licensing Panel convened in person to determine an application
for 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 page 9 of the Agenda pack, sought to license the Site measuring 2
metres in depth and 3 metres in width, and located in the area
described as the Site, from which the Applicant intended to sell
food and soft drinks. The Applicant proposed that the Site operated
from Monday to Saturday between 10:00 hours to 20:00 hours and on
Sunday between 10:00 hours and 17:00 hours. A plan of the Site was
contained within the application at page 13 of the Agenda pack.
 

3.    
The hearing was in person.  The Panel
consisted of three members.  All members
of the Licensing Panel were in attendance throughout the hearing,
and during deliberations, which took place separately in a closed
session.
 

4.    
During the consultation process, the Licensing Authority received 2
representations objecting to the application.  One from a Community Enforcement and Regulatory
Officer and the other from a Ward Councillor for Hounslow Central.
Both objectors took issue with the impact a gazebo would have on
pedestrians on an already overpopulated part of the High Street.
The issue was compounded by the number of restaurants and the
delivery bikes that serviced them and travelled at high speed. The
Applicant addressed the objectors by email in advance of the Panel
and in their submissions to the Panel. The objection from the Ward
Councillor was shown in Appendix C, and the objections from the
Community Enforcement and Regulatory Officer were shown in Appendix
D. 
 

5.    
The Licensing Panel 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 himself and was assisted
by a friend, Mr Bassem Mohamed, who assisted with translation at
times. Both objectors were present and made submissions.
 

7.    
The Panel was informed that the Applicant was seeking this licence
to sell hot food, salads, and soft drinks. The Applicant explained
that the stall would not cause a disturbance to the flow of
pedestrian movement. In advance of the hearing, the Applicant
submitted video footage with the perimeter of the proposed stand
marked out. The Applicant relied on this to show that pedestrians
would not be affected by a gazebo placed at the Site. The
Applicant’s oral submissions were limited, instead he sought
to rely on the application and the other correspondence in the
Agenda pack, in which he responded to
the concerns raised by the objectors.
 

8.    
The Panel heard that the stand would not be a permanent fixture but
would be erected and taken down each day. The Applicant stated that
he intended to park a van at the nearest permitted parking bay and
carry the gazebo, equipment, and supplies to the Site. This would
include a gas supply for cooking food, a battery for the fridge, a
water container, and the gazebo itself. The gazebo was made of
fire-rated material and had protection for the gas supply in the
event of impact.
 

9.    
In relation to concerns about waste disposal, the Applicant
confirmed that they would obtain a contract which would provide for
daily collections of waste from the Site. Additionally, the
Applicant would have bins to collect waste and water for
cleaning.
 

10.Both objectors had
similar concerns that the High Street was already crowded and the Applicant’s gazebo would add
to the congestion. In addition, the objectors raised a public
safety issue regarding the delivery bikes, which congregated close
to the site. The panel heard that the site was located close to a
junction and in an area where there were a
number of other restaurants. The delivery bikes entered the
pedestrianised area at high speed. The Applicant commented that the
conduct of the bikes existed without the gazebo in place. However,
the Panel heard that the addition of a gazebo at the Site would
block sight lines and may increase the probability of collisions
between bikes and pedestrians. The objectors were particularly
concerned about the impact of limited sight lines on elderly
pedestrians and parents with young children.
 

11.When asked about the
Applicant’s plan to manage the queue of customers, the Panel
heard that the queue would be oriented towards Sam Pound Store. It
was noted that this would encroach on the clearance between the
Site and the limit of the street. Additionally, the Applicant did
not envisage a long queue, as the food would be served quickly. If
there was a lengthy queue, the Applicant would consider additional
staff to ensure customers are served quickly and long queues were
eliminated.
 

12.The Applicant was
asked about the map that was submitted with 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. The Panel heard that the map did not include all the
street furniture in the area, nor did it include the existing
outdoor seating outside the existing restaurants in the immediate
area. Further, the Ward Councillor submitted that the gazebo would
cause an interference with the amenities in the area, in particular
the benches which had been requested by residents who wish to enjoy
the street scene.
 
DECISION:
 

13.The Act provides the
Council with a measure of discretion when deciding whether to issue
a temporary street trading licence and the Council’s Street
Trading 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 Policy also requires applications to
consider the needs of the area, this being the demand for the
articles for sale and the geographical location of the proposed
Site.
 

14.The Panel had
consideration of the other similar businesses in the area.
Paragraph 4.5 of the Policy states that applications for a new
pitch will be assessed based on a number
of factors, including that the goods to be sold must not
replicate those of neighbouring stalls or shops within 200 metres.
In this case, the Panel notes that there are already a number of restaurants serving takeaway and dine-in
food. The Panel considered there was no need for another stall
selling food.
 

15.The Panel also
considered that the plan provided was inadequate as it did not meet
the requirements of the Policy. 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 in the area.
 

16.The Panel relied on
the submissions by the Ward Councillor and Community Enforcement
and Regulatory Officer, who have extensive local knowledge. The
Panel was aware that the section of the High Street where the
proposed Site would be located was especially overcrowded compared
to other parts of the High Street, being close to a busy junction,
bus stop, and popular restaurants. The installation of a gazebo in
this part of the High Street would have a considerable impact on
public safety by reducing sight lines in an area with delivery
bikes and high footfall. The Panel was also concerned that there
was no consideration or acceptance of the impact that a queue would
have on the movement along the High Street.
 

17.Having considered
all the representations and all relevant material, the Panel has
therefore decided to REFUSE the application for a temporary
street trading licence for the Site.
 
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 Panel is therefore
final.