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 of interest made.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Kamal Miah, Environmental Health Officer, introduced the report which was seeking a refusal to grant a special treatment licence for Vanilla Thai Massage, 1 Whites Row, London E1 7NF. He explained the reason for the objection and gave a brief history of the premises.

It was noted that Redbud (London) Ltd previously held a special treatment licence which was granted on 23^rd March 2016 and renewed annually until 14^th March 2019 when its renewal application was refused by Licensing Committee for offering services of a sexual nature. Then on the 23^rd March 2019, Redbud (London) Ltd was convicted at Thames Magistrates Court of an offence under the London Local Authorities Act 1991 Section 14(2).  This was due to the offering of services of a sexual nature in breach of its special treatment licence conditions.

It was further noted that on the 16^th October and 29^th October 2021, test purchases were carried out by a professional surveillance company and found services of a sexual nature were being offered during the massage treatment on both occasions. Ms. Kwan was the licence holder at this time.  Ms Cheung Lai Kwan’s special treatment licence was revoked by Licensing Committee on the 14^th July 2022.  She was a listed as a director of Redbud (London) Ltd at the time of the test purchases.

Mr Miah also highlighted that the two massage therapists listed in the new application made by Redbud (London) Ltd are the same therapists listed under the previous licence held by Ms Kwan at the test purchases. For these reasons, the Licensing and Safety Team had concerns that the premises has been operated improperly. Furthermore, the proposed licence holder, Redbud (London) Ltd, cannot reasonably be regarded as fit and proper to hold a special treatment licence given the previous recent conviction for breaches of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 for similar issues that occurred in October 2021.

Members then heard from Mr Robert Sutherland representing the Applicant Ms Cui Lan Fu. He stated that nothing said by Mr Miah was being disputed. He referred to the supporting documents submitted which set out the statements setting out the circumstances for which the application had been applied for. He explained that the applicant had acquired the company name in order to take over the premises and in turn change company ownership. He explained that the applicant has had no history with the premises, no history with the previous operation of the business or the previous operators under Redbud London Ltd.

Mr Sutherland acknowledged the fact that there may be concerns  in relation to this particular Applicant because of the history of the premises and therefore asked the Committee to consider granting a licence for a short period of three months to enable Ms Fu to make an application to transfer that licence into her own personal name or into another company formally separating herself from Redbud Ltd. This would also enable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.1

At the request of the Chair, Mr Tom Lewis, Team Leader, Licensing, introduced the report which was seeking refusal to grant a special treatment licence for Primo Remedy, 24 Wentworth Street, London E1 7TB. He explained the reason for the objection and gave a brief history of the premises.

He explained the reason for the objection was because the premises had a history of offering services of a sexual nature.  A test purchase was carried out on the 29^th October 2021.  During the massage the person carrying out the test purchase indicated that he was offered sexual services. Mr Lewis stated that the grounds for the objection were that the premises had been improperly conducted, and the applicant was not fit and proper to hold a licence. He then referred to the representation from the Licensing and Safety Team in Appendix 2. 

It was noted that the premises provided deep tissue massage, reflexology and cupping. It was noted the fact that the Licencing and Safety Team have objected to the granting of this special treatment licence because the premises had been associated with providing services sexual nature over the years. It had initially come to the attention of the Health & Safety and Licencing Team in March 2019 and Primo Remedy and Min Zhang (applicant) were convicted under the London Local Authorities Act 1991 which was in relation to a test purchase operation finding the premises was delivering services of a sexual nature. A further complaint was also received in July 2019 about providing services of sexual nature. Officers then visited that month and Ms Min Zhang, who was then the manager, was informed of this complaint. Due to the pandemic which started in March 2020 there was no services of special treatments available until in October 2021 a test purchase was carried out and it was found again that services of sexual nature were being offered at this premises.

Mr Lewis in conclusion explained that this premises appears to have been found providing services of a sexual nature and it is believed that on a balance of probabilities that granting this new premises licence will mean that services of a sexual nature will be continued to be delivered at this premises. It also appears that Miss Min Zhang is one of the directors of the company who has been associated with the premises since 2019.

He stated that premises offering services sexual nature are often associated with the exploitation of females and can give rise to increase risk of infectious disease. It was believed that the premises has operated in an improper manner and the application should be refused by the Committee under Section 8E of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 because the premises has a history of services being offered of sexual nature and it was believed that this could continue.

Members then heard from Mr Nigel Carter, Representative on behalf of the Applicant. It was noted that the premises had been operating under exempt body  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.2

At the request of the Chair, Mr Lekan Olomo, Environmental Health Officer, introduced the report which was seeking refusal to grant a special treatment licence for Rain Therapy Centre, 56 Skylines Village, London E14 9TS. He explained the reason for the objection and gave a brief history of the premises.

It was noted that on 20^th September 2018 (being operated by a different company/person), a test purchase was carried out by a professional surveillance company and found services of a sexual nature were offered during the massage treatment.  This resulted in a previous licence being refused by the Licensing Committee on 28^th November 2018. Then on the 14^th of October and 29^th of October 2021, further test purchases were carried out and found services of a sexual nature were offered during the massage treatment on both occasions.  As a result, the previous licence holder and its director were each convicted of an offence under the London Local Authorities Act 1991 and therefore they did not renew their licence. Mr Olomo stated that for these reasons, the Licensing and Safety Team have concerns that the premises has been operated improperly. Therefore, concluded by asking Members of the Committee to refuse the application under Section 8 of the London Local Authority Act 1991.

Members then heard from Mr Christopher Adiole, representative on behalf of the Applicant, Ms Wang. It was noted that the applicant was present at the meeting with her daughter who would help translate. He explained that the applicant had recently been going through bereavement due to the loss of her husband.

Mr Adiole explained that the allegations referred to in the witness statements were carried out with the previous owners and that the applicant took over the business in February 2022. During this time there was a valid licence in place. In the month of February there was a visit by Council Officers during the visit Ms Wang was at the premises and had a chance to speak to the officers and asked them about the purpose of the visit and if there were any concerns. However, at the time the Officer’s response was rather vague and didn't indicate there was any concerns in relation to the services being provided at the premises.

A few days after the visit, Ms Wang wrote to the Council before purchasing the business asking if there were any concerns in relation to the business but none were raised and therefore Ms Wang completed the purchase. At the time of purchase there was a valid licence in place for a special treatment licence and therefore there was no suggestion that there had been any wrongdoings at that premise. It was stated that it could be confirmed via Companies House Ltd that at the time when the test purchases were being carried out, the previous owners of the of the business was ACU Herbs Limited and they are the persons that were accused of wrongdoings and there was no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.3