Agenda item

Mubao Beauty Ltd, Basement, 26 Wardour Street, W1

16/11243/LIMSTN

Application: New special treatment licence to allow massage and facials to be provided at the premises to men and women during separate sessions.

To provide the massage treatment from 11:00 until 00:00 on every day of the week (including Sunday).

The application is determined under Part 2 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991.

Amendments to application advised at hearing:

None.

Decision (including reasons if different from those set out in report):

Mr Rowe, in presenting the item, clarified that the ground floor at 26 Wardour Street had previously been licensed and not the basement which is the subject of the application for the new special treatment licence.

The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Barca, representing the Applicant.  He confirmed that his client, Ms Liang, is not a fluent English speaker.  This was a concern of the City Inspectors.  Mr Barca informed the Sub-Committee that in order to address this issue, Ms Vann was being put forward as the proposed full time manager of the premises.  He added that she is an experienced massage practitioner and would be able to assist at the current hearing as a translator for Ms Liang. 

Mr Barca had submitted additional papers which included Ms Liang’s qualifications.  Ms Liang with the assistance of Ms Vann provided the information that she had been practising for nine years and held licences at two other premises which had been granted by Camden Council.

Ms Liang in response to an allegation from the City Inspectors accepted that the basement premises had been open before the licence, currently being applied for, had been granted.  This was, she stated, due to a misunderstanding.  She had believed that she was able to carry out waxing treatments at this stage.  She had not been required to have licensing hearings in respect of the two licences she had been granted by Camden Council.

Ms Liang with the assistance of Ms Vann gave an explanation as to why the licence on the ground floor had been surrendered in 2016.  The ground floor had been shared with a hair salon.  There had been a complaint from the hairdressers that the chair massage treatment being provided by Ms Liang to customers at the front of the premises was impacting adversely on their business at the back of the premises.  Ms Liang had decided not to proceed with her treatment.

The City Inspectors had proposed a condition that at all times of trading there would be a duty manager within the venue who is authorised by the licence holder.  They maintained their objection to the application but had proposed the condition in the event that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.  Ms Liang had agreed the condition.  Ms Vann would be the duty manager.

Mr Barca stated that Ms Liang did not accept that anything untoward was taking place on the first floor of the premises.  She was not operating the licence on the ground floor when the City Inspectors had visited.  The premises were not under her control when the officers had observed touting taking place.  Ms Liang gave assurances that if she was granted the licence she would comply with the standard condition attached to it that there would be no touting.

The Sub-Committee was addressed by Mr Keegan, City Inspector Team Manager.  He advised the Sub-Committee that he was opposing the application because there were concerns about the suitability of the Applicant, alleged touting at the premises and the suspected use of the building as a brothel.  Mr Keegan appreciated that Ms Liang’s previous licence was for the ground floor only and the current application was for the basement.  There was no evidence to support the suggestion that any part of the building was used for prostitution except the upper floors.

Mr Keegan referred to Ms Liang’s application form which had been included in the report.  This had indicated that she had not previously applied for a similar licence when Ms Liang had actually held a licence from Westminster Council for the ground floor and held two that had been granted by Camden Council.  Mr Keegan informed Members that one of the Camden licences was held by a company of which Ms Liang is a director.  The other was held in the name of a male and Ms Liang’s application for a transfer had only been received in the last few days.  Ms Liang had indicated in her application that she was applying as an individual when the application was by Mubao Beauty Ltd.  It was unclear why a home address had been given for 30 Goodge Street on the application form when Ms Liang had never resided there.

Mr Keegan commented that in discussions with Ms Liang she denied the upper floors were being used as a brothel but had accepted that unlicensed massage was being provided.  He said that Council officers and the Police had witnessed a number of Chinese ladies over many months outside the premises in the small hours of the morning touting the business to passers by.  Officers did not accept that the upper floors were not being used for prostitution.  However, he added that since his meeting with Ms Liang in March 2017 the touting had appeared to have ceased.

Mr Keegan explained that the City Inspectors remained concerned about the Applicant complying with conditions in the event the application was granted, based on Ms Liang’s operation of the licence for the ground floor.  He said that those persons the City Inspectors had spoken to had not appeared to know anything about the licence, been able to produce a copy or answer any questions about it.  The City Inspectors recommended that the current application was not granted as they did not have any confidence the conditions would be complied with.

Mr Keegan referred to the additional condition which had been agreed with the Applicant in the event that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant the application.  He recommended that several people should receive the relevant training to act as a duty manager as Ms Vann could not be expected to be on the premises at all times the business operated.  Mr Keegan also drew Members’ attention to the proposed hours.  He considered that the terminal hour of midnight for the special treatments was particularly late and requested that a condition was attached that they were only provided between 11:00 and 23:00.

Mr Keegan was asked by the Sub-Committee to explain further why he was concerned that the special treatments would take place after 23:00.  He replied that it was due to the nature of the premises.  There were concerns that touting would take place and the risk of sexual misconduct would increase, particularly as a result of people consuming alcohol.

The Sub-Committee asked Mr Keegan what evidence there was of prostitution taking place in the upper floors.  He replied that it had been very difficult to gain access to the premises.  When he did gain access upstairs with a colleague, there were ladies scantily clad.  They had formed the view from the ambience of the premises that it was not massage taking place there.  Mr Keegan was asked whether the touting had included a reference to prostitution.  He responded that they had only promoted massage.  The inspectors’ view was based on the attire worn.    

Mr Barca was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.  He replied that Ms Liang had not been involved with operating the premises at the time Mr Keegan and his colleague had entered.  If there was prostitution, the Metropolitan Police would have been likely to have taken action following the matter being reported to them and they had not done so.  Mr Keegan clarified that he was not saying that at this current time there was prostitution upstairs or that touting was taking place.  However, when he had visited and gone upstairs the Applicant had suggested she was in charge.  She had denied prostitution was taking place but accepted there was unlicensed massage proceeding.

Mr Barca asked Mr Keegan to supply the date of the visit.  He did not have the exact date but clarified that it was over a year ago.

Mr Barca stated that Ms Liang was willing to accept the proposed condition that special treatments would only be provided between 11:00 and 23:00.  He also informed the Sub-Committee that the male who held one of the licences in Camden for which she was seeking a transfer was in fact her husband.  Ms Liang operated the premises. 

Ms Vann also wished to stress that she had been employed in the beauty industry for 25 years and did not want to lose her reputation and would therefore do her upmost to help Ms Liang.

The Sub-Committee considered that Ms Liang had made errors including operating at the premises in the basement prior to the current application being granted and in relation to filling in the application form.  However, these were not sufficient to take the view that her suitability as an applicant was in question.  She was qualified and was employing a duty manager to assist her in engaging with visiting officers effectively.  The alleged touting and the alleged use of the first floor as a brothel could not be directly linked to Ms Liang’s previous operation of her licence on the ground floor.  The Sub-Committee granted the application.

The Sub-Committee gave a warning to Ms Liang that the premises would continue to be inspected and that action was likely to be taken if she did not comply with the conditions on the licence including that there must be no touting in relation to the premises.