Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, please see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are reminded to declare the nature of the interest and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it’s the Members’ responsibility to declare any interests form and to update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of your interest, you are advised to seek advice prior to the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services

There were no declarations on interest.

The Committee considered an application by Culian Fu for a special treatment licence to be held in respect of Lily Thai Spa, 1 Whites Row, London, E1 (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the provision of massage and manicure.

The application was opposed by the Licensing Authority. This was based on the history of contraventions of the licence held in respect of the Premises previously and on the fact that a recent inspection showed the Premises to be open and offering special treatments whilst unlicensed.

Applicant

The Committee heard from Ms. Fu, who was assisted by an interpreter. She spoke very briefly to the application and said she was nothing to do with the previous owners. She held the lease until 2027 and had to pay the rent and business rates.

During questions from Members, she said that staff had been told that sexual services were not to be offered, that customers would be made aware, and that she would dismiss any staff member who did offer such services.

She was asked if she understood the concerns that the licence had been revoked and, since then, the Premises had been found to have been providing or offering unlicensed special treatments. She said that she needed to keep the Premises open as she had bills to pay and she had no choice. She had not been made aware of the problems at the Premises when she purchased the business in April 2022; she only found out about the problems subsequently. She had tried to dispose of the business but had been unable to do so. She admitted that the Premises had been open “for a few weeks” after the application had been made. Objections had been received and she had then closed.

Ms. Fu also asserted that she had tried to meet with officers but that they had refused to do so.

The Committee explored further into the applicant’s presentation which prompted further questioning which were answered and responded to.

Licensing Authority

James Doherty addressed the Committee on behalf of the Licensing Authority. He said he had visited on three occasions and on each occasion the Premises had been open. On the second and third visits, staff had confirmed that special treatment was being offered.

Mr. Doherty denied the allegation of refusing to meet with Ms. Fu but explained to the Committee that the history and the current contraventions meant that there was nothing that could be said to allay his concerns. He confirmed that the visits took place in August 2023 and on 11^th September and 19^th October 2023.

Mr Doherty sought the Committee to refuse the grant of a special treatment licence in respect of Lilly Thai Spa Massage 1 Whites Row, London E1 7NF.

Decision

The Committee accepted that Ms. Fu was not involved with the Premises when sexual services were offered in October 2021. Nor was she involved in 2019 when the company of which she is now a director was convicted of similar  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.1

The Committee considered an application by Thai Garden Ltd. for a new special treatment licence to be held in respect of Thai Garden Massage Therapy, 35 Artillery Lane, London, E1 7LP (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the provision of massage only. One objection had been received against the application. This was from the Licensing Authority on the basis of the history of the Premises, which included test purchases resulting in the offer of sexual services by masseuses, and that the Premises appeared to have been carrying on or offering special treatment whilst the application was awaiting determination.

Applicant

The Committee heard from Chanakan Ayriss and her husband on behalf of the company. Thai Garden Massage Therapy 35 Artillery Lane, London E1 7LP. 

They explained that they had no connection with the previous owners and had spent around £50,000.00 refurbishing the Premises. All staff were qualified and no-one who had worked previously at the Premises was employed there. The Committee was also informed that they managed a premises in Bishops Stortford and had an unblemished record and good reviews, particularly from medical practitioners and other professionals.

Ms. Ayriss understood the concerns of the objectors and offered to install frosted glass panes or doors to the treatment rooms so that it would be possible to ensure that nothing inappropriate took place whilst still maintaining privacy. Beyond that, they could not see what else could reasonably be done to prevent sexual services being offered. The applicant asserted that it was not fair to judge them on the history of poor operators who were nothing to do with them.

It was accepted that the Premises had been open whilst the application was pending, and services had been offered. The officer, Mr. Mehboob Ahmed, had told them to close down and so they did. This was around 1^st September 2023.

Mr. Ayriss then explained that one staff member was a registered member of the CThA (the Complementary Therapists Association) and that there was an exemption for such therapists.

The Committee’s legal adviser did some research. He informed the Committee  

that their website stated the following:

“If you are performing treatments within all the London Boroughs and most other parts of the country you are required to have a Special Treatment License.

In recognition of the quality of CThA Members, we have been able to negotiate an exemption from this license for most Councils. This exemption could save you over £1000 per year. The yearly CThA membership fee is only £60.

There are a number of treatments that are classified as special treatments, but the main ones are Massage, Aromatherapy and Reflexology. You will need to have a licence to perform these treatments in all London Boroughs and in many council run areas in the UK unless you are a CThA Member.”

The papers in the report pack showed that Ms. Ayriss herself was a member of the CThA. Mr. Lewis, the Licensing Manager, checked the Council’s records and confirmed that the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.2