Westminster Council Threatens Charing Cross Soup Kitchen

Published: 15 August 2026.The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.
Westminster City Council has threatened to prevent a volunteer-run soup kitchen from operating in Charing Cross, saying the site is currently unsafe for vulnerable people using the service and for members of the general public. The dispute has placed renewed attention on how homeless people are supported in one of central London’s busiest areas, with the charity running the weekly outreach warning that repeated demands from the council could eventually force it to close.

Friends of Essex & London Homeless, known as FOELH, has operated its Charing Cross outreach for years, providing hot meals and practical assistance to people experiencing homelessness. Volunteers also distribute new clothing and sleeping bags to rough sleepers and operate a food bank as part of their wider support work.

Steven Stuart, who founded FOELH with his wife, Cheryl, about a decade ago, said the charity was facing increasingly difficult conditions because of complaints and enforcement action by Westminster City Council. He said the organisation was being placed under growing pressure despite being run entirely by volunteers and providing services to people who often have few other sources of immediate support.

The charity says council officials have raised concerns about litter, noise, crowds and the way the weekly operation is organised. FOELH volunteers, however, argue that they clean the area after distributing food and leave the location in good condition.

Phil Jones, a volunteer with the organisation, said the charity had received notice indicating that the council intended to stop the weekly soup kitchen from operating in Charing Cross. He rejected the council’s concerns about litter, saying volunteers clear away waste and leave the surrounding area clean.

For FOELH, the dispute is not simply about where food can be distributed. The charity says the weekly gathering has become an important point of contact for people living on the streets, allowing volunteers to offer food alongside clothing, sleeping equipment and other forms of practical assistance.

Stuart said the organisation had encountered a growing number of requirements and obstacles surrounding its weekly outreach. According to him, these measures were making it increasingly difficult to provide the consistent support that vulnerable people had come to depend on.

Among the concerns raised by the charity was a potential £500 parking charge involving the vehicle used to transport and distribute food. The council also required the charity to obtain a waste disposal licence, which Stuart described as a costly requirement for a small volunteer organisation.

Although the charity questioned whether the requirement was proportionate, Stuart said FOELH had obtained the necessary certificate in order to remain compliant with the council’s expectations.

The charity also claims that council officials have attended the site on several occasions accompanied by police and security personnel. Stuart said the size and manner of some of these visits had felt intimidating and disproportionate considering that volunteers were providing food and basic assistance to homeless people.

FOELH has proposed a system under which charities could receive permits for specific days and locations. Stuart believes such an arrangement would give organisations clearer guidance about what they are permitted to do and prevent them from being unexpectedly confronted with new requirements.

The council, however, maintains that its concerns are primarily about safety and the management of the area rather than opposition to charitable assistance itself.

A Westminster City Council spokesperson said soup kitchens could provide an important service but argued that they needed to be carefully managed. The council said operators had a responsibility to treat vulnerable people with dignity while also ensuring that surrounding public spaces were properly managed.

According to the council, several soup kitchens are currently operating in the same area at the same time. Officials say this results in large numbers of vulnerable people gathering within a confined space, creating conditions that they believe can increase risks for those using the services.

The council also claimed that the concentration of people could attract drug dealers seeking to exploit vulnerable individuals. It said residents had complained about antisocial behaviour, littering and crime in Charing Cross during periods when soup kitchens were operating.

The authority therefore maintains that the current arrangement is not safe for either people receiving assistance or members of the wider public.

The disagreement comes as Westminster City Council faces wider political and social debates about the management of central London, homelessness and public spaces. The Conservative-controlled authority has been involved in a broader crackdown on homelessness sites, drawing criticism from charities and campaigners who argue that enforcement measures can make life more difficult for people already living in highly precarious conditions.

Caroline Sargent, the council’s deputy leader, has previously expressed frustration about rough sleeping sites appearing in Westminster. She said local residents and businesses were tired of seeing rough sleeping sites develop in the area and described the situation as unacceptable in the centre of the capital.

The comments reflect the council’s position that Westminster’s public spaces need to be managed in a way that considers residents, businesses, visitors and vulnerable people simultaneously. However, charities working directly with homeless people argue that restrictions on outreach services can leave some of the capital’s most vulnerable residents without reliable access to food and essential supplies.

Charing Cross is one of London’s busiest central areas, attracting commuters, tourists, residents and businesses throughout the day. Its location also means that homelessness and rough sleeping are highly visible, making the management of public spaces a politically sensitive issue.

For organisations such as FOELH, the weekly soup kitchen represents more than a place where meals are handed out. Volunteers often develop relationships with people who regularly attend, allowing them to provide practical assistance and direct people towards additional support when possible.

The charity’s concerns about the council’s approach therefore centre on whether strict regulation of food distribution can unintentionally reduce access to basic assistance. Stuart has argued that charities need clear and predictable rules so that volunteers can continue their work without repeatedly facing unexpected enforcement action.

The council, meanwhile, insists that charitable work must take place within a properly managed environment. Officials say the presence of large crowds, reports of antisocial behaviour and concerns about criminal activity mean that the existing arrangement needs to change.

The dispute highlights a difficult balance facing local authorities across London. Councils have responsibilities for public spaces, environmental standards and community safety, while charities often provide essential services to people who are unable to access conventional support systems.

The immediate future of the Charing Cross soup kitchen remains uncertain. FOELH wants clearer arrangements that would allow its volunteers to continue their weekly outreach, while Westminster City Council says the current setup cannot continue because of safety and public-order concerns.

For the people who rely on the service, the outcome could have a direct impact on access to hot food, clothing and other basic necessities. For the council, the challenge is to demonstrate that its concerns about safety and public space can be addressed without unnecessarily removing support for people experiencing homelessness.

As negotiations and enforcement measures continue, the dispute is likely to remain part of the wider debate over homelessness in central London and the role of charities in supporting people sleeping rough. At its heart is a question that extends beyond one soup kitchen: how a major city should balance the needs of vulnerable people with demands for safe, orderly and accessible public spaces.