Content

Application for a
Premises Licence – Basement, Ground Floor, Ground Floor
loading bay and First Floor - Spaces Unlocked, 118 Curtain Road,
London, EC2A 3AY – REFUSAL
 
RESOLVED:
 
The decision of 29th
July 2025
 
The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering
this decision from the information
presented to it within the report and at the
hearing today has determined that having regard to the promotion of
all the licensing objectives:
 
? The prevention of crime and disorder;
? Public safety;
? Prevention of public nuisance;
? The protection of children from harm;
 
The application for a premises licence has
been refused in accordance with Licensing Policies LP1, LP2, LP4,
LP6, and LP10 within the Council’s Statement of Licensing
Policy.
 
Reasons for the
decision
 
The Licensing Sub-committee, having heard from
the Licensing Authority and the Other Persons (local residents),
believed that granting the application would result in the
licensing objectives being undermined, and would have a negative
impact on the Cumulative Impact Area (Shoreditch SPA).
 
The Sub-Committee took into consideration the
representations of the 25 local
residents who objected to this application due
the impact it would have late at night. The Sub-Committee took into
consideration 76 representations in support of this
application.
 
The Sub-Committee noted that the Police
withdrew their representations after
agreeing to non-standard hours. The
Sub-Committee took into account that the
Licensing Authority made representations on
the grounds of the prevention of public nuisance.
 
The Sub-Committee noted that this was an
application for a new licence with
additional hours over the existing licence.
Also the application was seeking to
authorise late night refreshment. The
Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant was seeking flexibility
across the floors to allow events to be pre-booked. The
Sub-Committee noted that the current licence does not apply to the
basement.
 
The Sub-Committee heard eight representations
made in support and ten representations made against the
application.
 
The Sub-Committee took into consideration the
amended plans, the noise management plan and the policy for
dispersal from the premises.
 
The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant
operated a number of temporary events. The Sub-Committee took into
consideration the report provided by Guy Hicks on the noise
assessment of the premises and it was noted that the Environmental
Protection Service had not made representations.
 
The Sub-Committee took into consideration the
Applicant’s representations that they operated over the last
year a number of events until late hours. The Applicant was
previously granted a licence beyond the core hours. The Applicant
made representations that they had two exhibitions which lasted
three months, one of which took up three floors and had 50,000
visitors. The Applicant’s legal representative contended that
there is no evidence to show that they will undermine the licensing
objectives. The premises are not alcohol-led. The Sub-Committee
noted that In the last 12 months there
have been 120 events of which 50 had live music.
 
The Sub-Committee heard from the
Applicant’s legal representative that the Applicant was
seeking to have events in the basement that are both recorded music
and live music. These events included fashion shows, gallery
experiences, private events, Christmas parties and corporate
events.
 
The Sub-Committee heard from the
Applicant’s legal representative that the
Applicant is currently operating until 01:00.
The noise report from Guy Hicks confirms that there are no issues
at the premises. This is a cultural premises for events that are ticketed. The premises
are seeking nine extra hours. Alcohol will be ancillary to events.
It is not like other premises; it is a destination venue and not a
bar.
 
The Sub-Committee took into consideration the
large capacity across the floors. The Sub-Committee noted that the
loading bay is used as a pop-up shop, and for exhibitions. And that
the Applicant wanted to be able to serve alcohol in the loading bay
area. The Applicant is seeking flexibility across the floors with a
movable bar. The use of the floors will depend on what events are
booked. There is no licence on the first floor. The premises are
accessible and there is a lift to all floors.
 
The Sub-Committee heard the Licensing
Authority representations that the premises is in a Cumulative Impact Area with a high number of
residential premises which will be disturbed by late night events.
This application will not comply with Policy LP10 in the Shoreditch
SPA. The Sub-Committee heard when people are away from the
premises, it is no longer the responsibility of the premises and
they cannot manage how their guests will behave. The Licensing
Authority contended that to consider temporary events and the
Police representations is not enough to say that it will not add to
the cumulative impact. The extra hours per week is enough to cause
a disturbance in the area.
 
The Sub-Committee took into consideration the
representations made by local
residents living near to the premises that
objected to the application. The residents felt that this
application is for a nightclub in a residential area and that a 4
am licence is not necessary. The premises do not have adequate
sound installation. The local residents have experienced antisocial
behaviour as a result of the events late at night. The events are
not cultural and are nightclub events. There are concerns about the
capacity and that there is no planning permission. The residents
did not accept that this is an art and cultural event space.
 
The Sub-Committee heard representations in
support of the application. Other
persons made representations that the premises
has operated events which have been
operated securely and safely and they have staff that deal with
dispersal from the premises. The premises are not going to be a
super club. It has 800 capacity and
everyone would not leave at 4 am. The premises support employment
in the area and provide cultural and inclusive events.
 
The Sub-Committee took into consideration that
the Deputy Mayor for Culture and Creative Industries had provided a
supporting statement.
 
The Sub-Committee felt the Applicant did not
address or allay the concerns raised by the local residents.
 
The Sub-Committee felt that the Applicant had
not demonstrated that they will not add to the Cumulative impact.
The premises are in an area where there are
concerns about dispersal from the premises
late at night and what occurs after the customers leave the
premises. The Sub-Committee had serious concerns about antisocial
behaviour and the impact on local residents late at night.
 
The Sub-Committee did not feel reassured that
the premises would not result in increased crime and disorder and
public nuisance that will impact local residents. The Sub-Committee
took into consideration the large number of local residents that
objected to the application. The Sub-Committee felt that the
Applicant needed to work with the local residents to try and
overcome the concerns that they have about the premises and to
demonstrate that they will not be operating the premises as a club.
The Sub-Committee felt having a later licence will cause a
significant disturbance to local residents.
 
The Sub-Committee took into consideration the
evidence presented to them and the frequency of people in the
premises which is uncertain throughout the year. The Sub-Committee
had concerns about the capacity and the number of events that will
cause a disturbance to the local residents late at night.
 
The Sub-Committee took into account that the
hours applied for are excessive and there are no mitigating
circumstances for why they should grant a license. The premises are
close to residential properties and granting a licence will
undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee cannot take
into consideration financial circumstances as a reason to grant the
licence.
 
The Sub-Committee took into consideration when
refusing this application that each case is considered on its
merits. The Sub-Committee felt that the licensing objectives could
not be promoted and as such believed it was appropriate to refuse
the application in its entirety.