对许多在英华人来说,开一家属于自己的餐馆是一种梦想。而在如今这个外卖盛行的时代,提供线上点餐和送餐服务几乎成了餐饮业的“标配”。
不过,想在英国顺利开展外卖业务,并不像看起来那么简单。哪怕你已经拿到了餐馆的营业许可,也不代表就能自然而然地开始送外卖。
就在斯旺西(Swansea),有一对夫妇原本打算把一间旧邮局改造成一家温馨小餐馆,然而美好的计划却因为“是否能做外卖”而被卡住了。

开餐厅可以,但禁止外卖服务?
根据当地媒体报道,这对夫妇在斯旺西购买了一栋商业房产,这栋荒废已久的楼原来是Caereithin老邮局。
早在去年,他们已经获得当地市议会的用途变更许可。他们计划为老邮局注入新生命,把它改变成一家餐厅。
然而由于餐厅位于一个交通繁忙、停车空间严重不足的路口,市议会在审批时特别添加了一个条件:禁止外卖业务。
当地一名规划检查员最近驳回了他们的上诉,理由是:这家餐厅在未来不得提供外卖或送餐服务。
不甘心的两人之后向议会申请修改该限制。
他们认为,路口虽然忙碌,但有双黄线、公交车站和行人护栏,自然能“防住”那些临时停车的司机。此外,他们还在申请中强调——如今多数外卖都靠电动车、摩托车送货上门,根本不会造成门前堵车问题,反倒比顾客亲自驾车取餐更可控。
这对夫妻还指出,附近已有商家推出外卖服务,并未引发交通混乱。
可惜,议会并不买账,反驳称外卖业务只会带来更多“上上下下”的顾客,增加短时、无序停车的风险。
由于这处前邮局距离Pentregethin路和Ravenhill路的交通信号路口仅约50米,规划官员指出:这个地理位置实在太敏感了,交通负荷吃紧。
尽管申请人对议会的决定提出上诉,试图争取最后一线希望,但近日,威尔士政府下属的规划与环境决策部门给出了最终答复:驳回。据了解,2021年附近一间咖啡馆提出类似申请时,也被驳回了。
检查员的结论直截了当:“没有确凿证据能证明以送货取代自取就能降低交通安全风险;也无法确认外卖司机的行为会比顾客更有序,更别提,申请人也没有拿出令人信服的管理机制,没有办法说明如何能有效控制送货司机的停车行为。”
所以,这对夫妻想开餐厅没问题,但是他们的“外卖梦”恐怕就暂时画上了句号。

丽莎评论
根据英格兰和威尔士法律,在一些情况下,您想要开设一家外卖店,确实需要得到许可才可以。即便您获得开餐厅的许可,也不代表您的外卖服务一定被允许。
首先,您需要了解的是,堂食餐厅和外卖属于不同的法律商业用途(Use Class),一般的餐厅(堂食)属于Class E;外卖店通常属于Use Class Sui Generis,即“特殊用途类别”,尤其是那种:提供热食、供顾客外带的场所(比如炸鸡店、披萨店、奶茶店等)。
打个比方,如果您打算在一处商铺开一家中餐馆并提供堂食服务,如果您申请的是Class E用途,您可以正常开这一家餐厅。但是,如果您后来想要加外卖,比如让顾客来门口取餐或者您自己安排骑手送餐,您需要额外申请或者(修改)规划许可。
总之,您需要向当地政府提交:
- 用途变更申请(如果涉及)
- 外卖服务申请(即使你已有餐厅,但想加外卖,也可能需要额外许可)
- 交通/停车影响评估(如适用)
- 营业时间、垃圾管理、噪音控制计划等资料
在申请后,当地议会在审核时会考虑:
- 交通安全:外卖是否会导致乱停车、道路拥堵
- 噪音与气味:油烟、顾客等候、配送车辆等是否会扰民
- 营业时间:深夜营业更容易被限制
- 区域性质:比如住宅区vs商业街
也就是说,如果规划官员认为以上情况会受到影响或者公众反对(邻居可以提交意见),您的申请是有可能会被拒绝的。当然,您要是对该决定持反对意见,您可以尝试上诉。
本案就很好说明了这个问题,虽然这对夫妇拿到了开餐厅的许可(食堂),但因为店面靠近繁忙路口、没有停车位、潜在交通风险大,议会明确限制了他们不可以做外卖。他们也尝试上诉了,但是检察员并不接受这个理由,认为风险仍在、缺乏控制手段,于是上诉失败。
所以呢,为了避免这样的损失,我们建议您在选址的时候就最好可以了解相关法律,看看该商业地址是否已经获得外卖许可,或者有其他任何限制等。

除了以上两个针对外卖的情况,作为餐厅经营者,您还需要申请食品营业执照(Food Business Registration)。‘不论你是餐厅、外卖还是甜品铺,只要准备食品,都必须:至少28天前向所在议会注册为食品营业者;必须注册,否则违法(违反可能被罚款或停业)。
您还需要接受环境卫生检查(评分制度:0-5分);在经营的时候,必须要遵守食品安全与处理规定。可能需要提交食品安全管理计划(如HACCP)。其他可能需要的事项:
营业时间限制——议会可能会限制营业时间,比如不得深夜经营(尤其住宅区)。
排风系统 &烟雾控制——需要专业设备,且不扰邻。如果你要加装排风管道、油烟净化器,也可能需要额外规划许可。
牌匾/招牌许可(Advertisement Consent)——如果你要安装大幅招牌、灯箱等,也需要申请。
好了,本期分享就到这里。如果您在英国经营商铺并遇到任何法律问题,欢迎随时联系丽莎律师行。我们的商法部门可为您提供专业法律建议,协助您妥善应对各种挑战。

好的,今天的文章就到这边,如果您对于文章内容,或者其他英国法律方面,有任何疑问,都欢迎进一步咨询丽莎律师行。
任何英国税务方面的问题,也可以联系咨询丽莎会计行。
觉得丽莎的文章不错?请不要吝于点赞和转发!您的支持是丽莎继续前进的动力,我们将尽力为莎粉们提供最新最全的实用信息。
> 丽莎律师行 —— 最具国际化视野的英国华人律师行,专精于商业、房产、移民、家庭和诉讼法。<
丽莎律师行联络邮箱:info@lisaslaw.co.uk
联络电话:020 7928 0276
联络微信号:lisaslaw007
扫一扫,《丽莎知道》微信公众号:

 
				 
															 
								 
								![Gold coin Stack On the table save money Taking care of money - Lisa's Law Solicitors Two recent immigration tribunal decisions have highlighted important points of principle in UK immigration law: the requirement for procedural fairness in decision-making and the legal distinction between a grant of leave and the administrative issuance of a Biometric Residence Permit (BRP).
Both cases demonstrate the need for applicants and their representatives to be vigilant in challenging decisions where the Home Office may have acted outside established legal boundaries.
Namecard for article - Angel Wan in English
Procedural Fairness in Hong Kong BN(O) Applications
In R (KW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, JR-2024-LON-002169, the Upper Tribunal considered a refusal under the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) route. The applicant, a Chinese national from Hong Kong, had been refused on the basis of a previous conviction. The Home Office gave decisive weight to a Hong Kong Court of Appeal judgment it had located independently online, without putting this material to the applicant for comment.
The Tribunal found this to be a clear breach of procedural fairness, observing that the applicant had effectively been “ambushed” by evidence not disclosed to them.
While the Court of Appeal’s decision in Balajigari v Home Secretary [2019] EWCA Civ 673 was not directly applicable, it was considered a useful authority on fairness in immigration decision-making. The refusal was therefore quashed, and the case must now be reconsidered by the Home Office.
This judgment reinforces that applicants must be given an opportunity to respond to any evidence relied upon by decision-makers. Failure to do so will amount to procedural unfairness, providing strong grounds for judicial review.
The Legal Status of Biometric Residence Permits
The second case, Guerrero (s104(4A); statutory abandonment; right of appeal) [2025] UKUT 00276 (IAC), concerned an asylum seeker who received a refusal decision but was subsequently issued with a BRP stating “Refugee leave to remain.”
The First-tier Tribunal initially ruled that the BRP constituted a grant of leave, thereby treating the pending asylum appeal as abandoned under section 104(4A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
On appeal, the Upper Tribunal clarified the legal position. A BRP does not in itself grant leave to remain, it is an administrative document that evidences an earlier grant of leave.
Where a BRP is issued in error, no grant of leave arises, and an appeal cannot be deemed abandoned.
The Tribunal also confirmed that decisions to treat appeals as abandoned under section 104(4A) are not “excluded decisions,” and therefore fall within the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review.
The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside, and the case will be re-heard.
This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between the substantive grant of leave and the administrative issuance of a BRP. Mistaken issuance of documents cannot override statutory rights of appeal.
Conclusion
Both cases serve as reminders of the importance of legal safeguards in the immigration system when it comes to immigration tribunal decisions. The KW case highlights that applicants must be given a fair opportunity to respond to evidence before adverse decisions are made. The Guerrero case confirms that a BRP is not determinative of immigration status and cannot substitute for an actual grant of leave.
These judgments illustrate the value of expert legal representation in holding the Home Office to account where decision-making falls short of the standards required by law.](https://lisaslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AdobeStock_284883829-scaled.jpeg) 
								