Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  They advised that the applicant had informed them that they would not be attending the licensing sub-committee meeting.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

The Metropolitan Police Service officer, objecting to the application addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the police officer.

The meeting adjourned at 10.30am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 11.05am and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

RESOLVED:

hat the application made byChris Robson on behalf of Beauty By Eva, for a special treatment licence to be granted under Section 10 (1) of the London  Local Authorities Act 1991 in respect of the premises known as Beauty By Eva, 157 Camberwell Road, London, SE5 0HB be refused

1.  Reasons

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer who stated that the application concerned a new special treatment licence in respect of Beauty by Eva.  He said there had been one objection raised by the Metropolitan Police Service.  He informed the licensing sub-committee that the applicant had stated he would not attend the meeting.  The licensing officer mentioned that the applicant did not ask for an alternative date convenient to him to attend.  A representative was not instructed to attend the meeting on the applicant’s behalf.

The licencing officer went on to say, the licensing unit had asked the applicant to provide a copy of the lease.  The applicant did not respond to that request. The licensing officer noted, the former licensee of 157 Camberwell Road, London SE5 0HB had enquired with them previously, to have their licence transferred to the applicant.

The licensing sub-committee confirmed with the licensing officer that only one nail technician had been named on the application. 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the Metropolitan Police Service, who objected to the grant of a licence under section 8 (c) and (e) of the London Local Authorities Act 1991. Section 8 provides:

c)  The persons concerned or intended to be concerned in the conduct or management of the premises used for special treatment could be reasonably regarded as not being fit and proper persons to hold such a licence;

e)  The premises have been or are being improperly conducted;

At the meeting, the police officer stated, officers from night-time economy team, the council licensing team, trading standards and immigration officers attended the premises on 17 July 2019.  Upon entering the premises, officers were able to confirm that six people were working at the premises, all of which had entered the country illegally and therefore did not have the right to work in the United Kingdom.  Two of the illegal immigrants were juveniles who were placed into the care of social services.

At the raid, the officers carried out checks and found out that none of the workers at the nail shop were not licenced to carry out special treatments but did so, to unsuspecting members of the public.  The police officer mentioned that none of the persons working at the premises at the time of the raid had the correct qualifications to administer special treatments. 

In accordance with their procedures for new applications, they had requested a copy of the lease from the applicant. As the applicant failed to provide a copy of the lease agreement, they could not ascertain whether there had been a change in the ownership of the premises.

The police concluded that the application should be refused for the reasons stated.

The licensing sub-committee were very concerned by the potential link between the former licensee and the applicant.  It was noted by the licensing sub-committee, that the former licensee had nominated the applicant to take over the licence previously.  The licensing sub-committee were concerned that the applicant had only named one technician in the application even though the premises had the capacity for six technicians.

As the applicant did not attend the meeting, did not instruct a representative to speak on his behalf and did not provide a copy of his lease as requested by the police and the licensing unit; the licensing sub-committee had a number of unanswered questions. On that basis, the licensing sub-committee could not be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.  The licensing sub-committee also concluded that the premises had been improperly conducted.

In reaching its decision, the licensing sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and were of the view that this decision was appropriate and proportionate in all of the circumstances.

2.  Appeal Rights

The following parties may appeal a decision of the sub-committee:

·  An applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence whose application is refused.

·  An applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence who is aggrieved by any term, condition or restriction on or subject to which the licence is granted, renewed or transferred.

Any appeal must be made to the Magistrates’ court for the area in which the premises are situated. 

Any appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates’ Court within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision appealed against.