Agenda item

RESOLVED the Licensing Committee noted the contents of the report and the Appendices, subject to an amendment to Appendix A; the current list of special treatments being placed in alphabetical order.

RESOLVED the Licensing Committee approved the proposed changes to the Massage and Special Treatment licensing function.

4.1 David Tuitt, the Business Regulation Team Leader (Licensing and Technical Support) introduced the report. The report provided information and an update on the reform of the Massage and Special Treatment (MST) licensing function. Licensing of MST was a discretionary power under the London Local Authorities Act 1991. Persons and/or businesses carrying on these types of activity have required authorisation from the Council following adoption of the provisions under Act in the mid-nineties. “Massage and special treatment” include any beauty treatment that involves massage, manicure, acupuncture, tattooing, cosmetic piercing, chiropody, light treatments, electrical treatments and other similar treatments. It also includes saunas, steam rooms and other baths.

4.2 The London Borough of Hackney’s (LBH) Licensing Service was seeking to review the MST licensing function with a view to:

·  Simplifying the process for applicants by reviewing and updating the

various elements of the function

·  Review and update the local regulations and guidelines

·  Allow flexibility for persons wishing to carry on activities on a temporary

·  basis

·  Reduce red tape

·  Update the fee structure

·  Ensure the function is consistent with the European Services Directive

2009 and the Provision of Services Regulations 2009

·  Reduce the number of submissions made offline and reintroduce an

online application process

·  Align the application processes with the forthcoming ‘Business

Launchpad’ and ‘Business Landing Pad’ which will seek to make it easier to start up and grow businesses in the Borough.

4.3 The Licensing Service wanted to move the MST licensing function from the existing ‘light’ touch approach to a more advisory and compliance-based approach. The proposed streamlined application processes were designed to make application processes far less burdensome. Licensing Committee members noted that under the proposals MST practitioners must register, while exempt operators are not currently charged a fee to register.

4.4 The Licensing Service proposed to introduce a new system of temporary licensing. This will enable an operator to apply for and be granted a short term licence not exceeding three months. This new process will further support and offer flexibility to businesses by removing the need for a full 12 month licence whilst maintaining public safety.

4.5 Councillor Snell welcomed the news of the review of the MST function. He saw this as a very sensible move and would contribute to make the licensing process even better.

4.6 In response to a question from Councillor Moema, David Tuitt replied that businesses had a number of options available to them at the end of a short three months licence. They could either apply for another three months or apply for a 12 month licence.

4.7 In response to a question from Councillor Peters, David Tuitt replied that the licensing service were equipped to monitor compliance. Members noted that in relation to MST, under current legislation, there was no power to revoke a business licence but it was possible to object to a licence being renewed.

4.8 In response to a question from Councillor Peters, David Tuitt replied that the primary focus now of the licensing service was to monitor risk. The licensing service was currently in a transitional period and they were well aware that the ‘high risk’ areas were primarily Tanning and Tattoo parlours. Currently, the Licensing Service employed six licensing officers and seven technical support officers, as well as providing  administration support for areas such as Trading Standards, Environmental Health and Enforcement.

4.9 In response to a question from Councillor Odze, David Tuitt would ensure that Appendix A of the report, the listing of special treatments, would be amended so it was in alphabetical order.

4.10 In response to a question from Councillor Moema, David Tuitt replied that the Licensing Service would later in the year set the fees via a separate approval process.

4.11 David Tuitt explained to the Committee that when it came to licence renewals due to expire on the 31st March, the Licensing Service would contact the relevant businesses inviting them to submit their renewal forms in early February. Committee members noted that in reality that the Licensing Service would receive the majority of applications in the last two week of March. Those licence holders could carry on operating but if an objection was raised then the licence would have to be brought to Licence Sub-Committee meeting.

4.12 Councillor Peters highlighted, that if a licensee’s future was indeterminate, this could be seen as a Human Rights violation. Members noted that the future of a licensee would have to be determined at a Licensing Sub-Committee meeting, if an objection was received by Hackney Council on any new or renewal application. The decision of the Sub-Committee could then be challenged at the Magistrates Court and then could even be appealed at the Crown Court.

4.13 The legal officer reminded committee members that some licences have been refused

because of evidence of serious concerns and failings by management relating to how

it was being operated with regards to:

(a) Causing a nuisance by reason of the conduct, management or situation of the

premises or the character of the relevant locality or the use to which any premises in

the vicinity are put;

(b) 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;

(c) The premises have been or are being improperly conducted

4.14 In response to a question from the chair of the committee, David Tuitt replied that under

the MST regime LBH would register the person as well as the actual business. The

legal officer added that this would still be classified as a licence. David Tuitt added

that the licensing service would determine proof of public liability insurance as part of

the inspection process of a business.

RESOLVED the Licensing Committee noted the contents of the report and the Appendices,

subject to an amendment to Appendix A; the current list of special treatments being placed in

alphabetical order.

RESOLVED the Licensing Committee approved the proposed changes to the Massage and

Special Treatment licensing function.