Decision

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

TO: Y.M.F.G GROUP LTD (the “Applicant”) Company No. 16182770

SITE: Between Halifax and Next, High Street, Hounslow, TW3 1HB (the “Site”)

TAKE NOTICE THAT following a hearing before the Licensing Sub Committee (the “Licensing Panel” or “Panel”) on 1 September 2026 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 can be found at Appendix A of the Reports Pack. Originally, the measurements of the area to be licensed were 8.0 meters in depth by 4.0 meters in width.The Site is the area in which the Applicant intends to sell fruit and vegetables.

3)    Licensing Enforcement, Hounslow Highways, Pollution, Fire Authority, Planning, Health and Safety, Food Safety, Traffic/Transport and the three Ward Councillors were consulted. Two representations were submitted. The first was from a Ward Councillor representing Hounslow Central Ward, and the second was Hounslow Highways. The representations can be found in Appendix C of the Reports Pack.

4)    The Traffic and Transport Team submitted representations which were later withdrawn as the Applicant had, upon their request, agreed to reduce the area to be licensed to 4.0 by 4.0 meters. The revised site plan can be found at Appendix D of the Reports Pack and forms the basis of the Application before the Panel.

5)    The Licensing Panel considered all of the relevant information including:

1. Written and oral representations submitted by the parties prior and during the Licensing Panel hearing.
2. Additional photographic evidence submitted by the parties during the hearing these being:

·       Three photographs by the Applicant – Said photographs were not dated or time stamped.

·       Two photographs from Councillor Rodrigues – both dated 21 August 2026 with one image timed at 15:59 pm.

1. The London Local Authorities Act 1990
2. Hounslow Council’s Street Trading Policy (the ‘‘Policy’’)
3. The Human Rights Act 1998.

6)    At the Licensing Hearing, the Applicant company was represented by Mr. Mohammed Yusuf and Mr. Rebin Mohammed. They were accompanied by their agent, Ms Arlene auf der Mauer. Councillor Pamila Rodrigues attended as an objector.

7)    Prior to determining the Application, the Panel was presented with additional photograph evidence submitted by both the Applicant and Councillor Rodrigues. Having considered the relevance of the material and the interests of fairness to all parties, the Panel and the parties reached a consensus that the evidence should be admitted and taken into account as part of its determination of the Application.

8)    The Panel was informed that the Applicant was seeking the licence to continue the sale of fruit and vegetables. Their current licence was due to expire on 5 September 2026.

9)    The Applicant considered each of the objections raised which primarily concerned how they operated their stall and disagreed with them. The Applicant explained that their marquees were located within the licensed area. While pitches may be temporarily moved outside the licensed area during the set-up process, they were positioned entirely within the licensed area when trading commenced. In relation to the concerns surrounding the Applicant’s behaviour and unreasonable attitude within one of the objections, the Applicant denied this entirely.

10) The Applicant confirmed that they would normally arrive between 6:00 am and 8:00 am to set up their stall. They further confirmed that they would transport their stock using a pallet truck and would sweep the Site and its immediate vicinity at the end of each trading day. The Applicant also informed the Panel that their pallets would be stored at the back of their van or within storage available to them at the nearby shopping centre. They also confirmed that they had not received any complaints regarding the set up or dismantling process at the close of business. The Panel informed the Applicant that using a pallet truck to transport their stock amounted to a breach of condition one of their current licence.

11) When the Panel asked about when they dismantled and cleaned up after trading, they informed the Panel that they could be clearing the site between 8 and 9 pm.

12)The Applicant confirmed that they were content with the current licensing conditions save for they would like to be able to attend the Site an hour earlier to enable them to set up.

13)  The Panel considered the images submitted by the Applicant in support of their assertion that the Site was left in a clean and tidy condition following trading. The Applicant informed the Panel that they were utilising three 3m x 3m marquees together with three additional marquees measuring 1.5m x 3m. The Applicant referred the Panel to Appendix A of the Reports Pack which showed how the marquees were arranged. This would mean that however these stalls were organised, the Applicant would be in breach of its existing licence which permitted the licensed area to be no more than 8m x 4m. 

14)The Panel reminded the Applicant that concerns regarding the size of the pitch had also been raised during their previous Application and formed part of the objections to the current Application. The Applicant accepted that they should have remained within the designated parameters for their marquees.

15) The Panel had also considered representations from the Councillor Rodrigues, an objector.

16)Councillor Rodrigues informed the Panel that she had received several complaints from residents and that the Applicant's stall could create nuisance and traffic congestion. Councillor Rodrigues also stated that the area had become congested and had attracted pickpockets. In addition, she reported that traders competing for customers by calling out prices had created a noisy environment. She submitted that the needs of the community should be considered in line with the Council's Street Trading Policy.

17) Councillor Rodrigues also informed the Panel of alleged instances of catcalling in the vicinity of the Applicant's stall. The Applicant denied these allegations.

18) The Panel subsequently considered the photographs which Councillor Rodrigues had shown the attendees on her mobile device. These images showed the licensed area in an unclean state. The Applicant denied that the Site had been left in an unclean condition and relied upon the photographs submitted in support of their position.

19)  Councillor Rodrigues did not consider that it would be necessary for a further stall within the vicinity as there were several already present.

DECISION

20)The Panel had regard to Section 5 of the Council's Street Trading Policy, including considerations relating to:

(a) Public safety: Whether the street trading activity represents, or is likely to represent, a substantial risk to the public from the point of view of obstruction, fire

hazard, unhygienic conditions or danger that may occur when a trader is accessing the site.

(b) Prevention of Crime: Whether the street trading activity represents, or is likely to represent, a substantial risk to public order. This is potentially more of a problem for licences late in the evening. and disorder and prevention of public nuisance: The Prevention of Public Nuisance: Whether the street trading activity represents, or is likely to represent, a substantial risk of nuisance to the public from noise, refuse, vermin, fumes, odours or misbehaviour, particularly in residential areas.

(i) History: The suitability of the applicant must be considered. Previous failures without reasonable excuse to comply with the above legislation or failure or neglect in paying Licence fees may result in a Licence being refused, revoked or not renewed.

21)The Panel accepted that the Applicant wished to continue trading from the Site and noted the submissions made in response to the objections.

22)Having considered all of the evidence before it, including the photographic evidence and the Applicant's oral evidence, the Panel found that the Applicant had demonstrated a failure to operate within the boundaries of the licensed area during setup and dismantling activities. The Panel attached particular weight to the photographic evidence and submissions relating to trading equipment and pallets extending beyond the authorised area and noted the Applicant's acceptance that they should have remained within the designated parameters for their marquees.

23)The Panel was therefore satisfied that the Applicant had failed to comply with existing licence conditions:

Schedule to existing temporary street trading licence TP137272/2025-26:

Licensed area:  4.0m in depth by 8.0m in width

1. 1.    There shall be no use of manual pallet trucks on the public highway for the delivery of goods to and from the stall.
2. No noise or associated works with the construction, or stock delivery at the stall shall commence any earlier than 08:00 hours.
3. The stall to be packed away by 19.45 hours once trading has ended.

Standard Temporary Street Trading conditions:

Condition 7:No display items, tables, chairs, structures or goods associated with the display or pavement café shall be positioned in any way so as to obstruct the sight line of drivers of vehicles in and around the vicinity of the display or pavement café.

24) The Applicant had, by their own admission, exceeded the permitted licensed area within which they were permitted to trade.  Furthermore, they had breached other conditions attached to their licence in commencing the set-up of their stall before 08:00 and failing to pack away the stall by 19:45.  It appeared the Applicant was using three 3m x 3m stalls side by side, with three further stalls of 1.5m x 3m size behind it.  As well as breaching the permitted licensed area, this also further obstructed the line of sight of people using the area.

25) The Panel considered whether the concerns identified could be addressed through the imposition of additional or amended conditions. However, given that the Applicant was already in breach of its existing licence and was subject to conditions intended to prevent obstruction and had failed to comply with those conditions, the Panel was not satisfied that further conditions would adequately address the concerns identified.

26)Having considered all relevant representations, evidence and the Council's Street Trading Policy, the Panel therefore resolved to REFUSE the Application.

27) There is no right of appeal by any party in relation to the Temporary Street Trading Licence application. Therefore, the Panel’s decision is final.