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.