Decision

Review of the Premises Licence – 45 Curtain Road, London, EC2A 3PT 

The decision of 8th June 2026

The Licensing Sub-Committee in considering this decision from the information presented to it within the report and at the hearing 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; and

•  The protection of children from harm,

and in particular the prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm, made the following determination:

1. Modify the premises licence:

·  Amend Condition 35 to read as follows:

“The principle that all regulated entertainment on the roof should be contained within the glass structure at all times, consistent with the recommendations of the expert report and including sound-limiting devices”

·  Amend conditions 30 and 32 to read as follows:

“Section 177A of the Licensing Act 2003 does not apply to the following conditions, which are added on a review of the premises licence pursuant to section 177A(4) of the Licensing Act 2003:

(a) The terminal hour for the provision of live or recorded music on the roof terrace Monday to Sunday shall be:

1. 00:00, where provided wholly inside the glass rooftop structure with all doors and windows closed
2. 22:00, in all other circumstances

(b) All sound generating equipment on the roof shall be subject to noise limiter control at all times. All limiting devices shall be professionally calibrated and kept in a locked, tamper-proof box and set at a level that does not cause nuisance to any nearby residential premises. Calibration certificates shall be provided to the Licensing Service.

For the avoidance of doubt, all sound generating and music systems (whether permanent or temporary) shall be operated through such sound limiting devices.

In this condition, the “Roof” means the entire roof area, including the roof terrace and rooftop glass structure”

.

Amend Condition 35 to read as follows:

“The principle that all regulated entertainment on the roof should be contained within the rooftop glass structure at all times, consistent with the recommendations of the expert report and including sound-limiting devices Section 177A of the Licensing Act shall not apply to this condition."

Amend Condition 36 to read as follows:

“36. The Premises Licence holder shall procure that a dedicated contact telephone number and email address are maintained and available at all times to all local residents, any responsible authority or any person wishing to make a complaint. These contact details shall be included on the website of the premises and on display at the premises”.

Amend Condition 37 to read as follows:

“37. The Premises Licence holder shall procure that 2 liaison meetings are held and publicised each year (at least every 6 months) with local residents to address any concerns or complaints about the premises.

Amend Condition 39 to read as follows:

“No licensable activities shall be permitted on the rooftop areas of the premises otherwise than pursuant to this premises licence”.

And the following modifications to the premises licence:

·  The disapplication of the deregulation provision of the Live Music Act 2012 and the Licensing Act 2003 (descriptions of entertainment) (Amendment) Order 2013.

·  Under section 177A (4) and section 52 (b) of the Licensing Act 2003 to lift the suspension of the relevant conditions on the premises licence and give renewed effect to live music and recorded music as regulated entertainment between 08:00 - 23:00.

Reasons for the decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee (“the Sub-Committee”) after considering the application from the Applicant on behalf of Shoreditch Community Association,  to review the premises licence at Rooftop, Level-3 (Part of) Level - 2, (Part of) Ground Floor & Roof Terrace, Mondrian Hotel, 45 Curtain Road, London, EC2A 3PT on the grounds of the prevention of public nuisance, and protection of children from harm, after hearing the representations and evidence presented to them both in writing and at the hearing from the Applicant, the Premises Licence Holder and their legal representatives and local residents: B1, B2 and B3 decided to modify the premises licence as proposed by the Applicant and the Premises Licence Holder. The Sub- Committee took into consideration that there were no representations made by responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration the representations made by the Applicant that the Agent of Change affected the premises and that public nuisance from the premises had been getting worse over time. The Sub-Committee heard that the Premises Licence Holder was undermining the licensing objectives by the continued loud noise events from the rooftop of the premises. The Applicant and local residents made representations that there has been an unpleasant disturbance that had an impact on them. The Applicant and the local residents felt that the Premises Licence Holder was not taking accountability for the disturbance and the impact on local residents in close proximity to the premises.

The Sub-Committee heard from one local resident that there were no physical barriers to cap the roof and protect the residents. There was no noise limiter used to calibrate and prevent the noise escaping from the rooftop.

The Sub-Committee heard representations from the Applicant that there had been ongoing noise problems at the premises for the last two years particularly on beach club nights which had thumping bass noise up to nine hours at a time. Previously there had been no problems at the premises or impact on local residents. However, the current Premises Licence Holder has not taken into consideration the impact on local residents.

The Applicant made representations that the Council's Environmental Protection Service received various reports, however, they have been unable to witness any statutory noise nuisance at the premises and have unsubstantiated complaints. The Applicant contended that the Premises Licence Holder had windows and doors open when the loud music was played which contributed to the impact on local residents. The Applicant felt that the Premises Licence Holder could have resolved the noise problem.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration the Applicant’s representations that the glass structure on the rooftop of the premises was like having a live club in your garden all day and all night. The music travels around until 22:00. The Applicant and local residents felt there should be no DJ music in the rooftop area at any time.

The Applicant made representations that the noise breakout needs to be dealt with by control of windows and doors and a noise limiter that can be set by the Environmental Protection Service. The local residents made representations that the noise limiter could be set to alleviate the noise problems from the rooftop area of the premises. The Applicant and local residents felt that the premises should not operate live and amplified music in the rooftop area to prevent public nuisance. The Applicant made representations that exemptions under the Live Music Act should be removed to prohibit live music at DJ events.

The Sub-Committee heard representations from the Premises Licence Holder and their legal representatives that they were unable to keep the glass doors closed at all times and they have provided conditions to address this.

The Sub-Committee took into account that Premises Licence Holder had offered some resident engagement in 2025, however no one attended the meeting.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration that by modifying the conditions to mandate a sound limiter to limit the level of music. The Premises Licence Holder will not be allowed additional equipment to be used on the premises without it being controlled through the noise limiter. It was accepted that time is needed for the noise limiter and the works to be carried out by the Premises Licence Holder.

The Sub-Committee took into took into consideration when making their decision that the Applicant was seeking that the windows and doors be closed from 22:00 at the premises, that the general sound system had been affecting local residents, that the noise limiter needed to be set to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Service.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration that there were no representations from responsible authorities. The report from Nevitt Acoustic Consultants shows that the Premises Licence Holder showed a willingness to compromise and to offer conditions to reduce the impact on local residents. The Sub-Committee felt that the local residents accepted the conditions provided that the works were carried out and the conditions were enforced quickly.

The Sub-Committee decided after considering the Applicant’s proposed condition 38 that the wording could not be accepted because it would not be enforceable having regard to the landmark case R (Developing Retail Ltd) v Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council 2011 where it was decided that conditions requiring inaudibility are often too vague, imprecise and unenforceable. 

The Sub-Committee took into consideration that the Applicant and the local residents were not preventing the premises from operating. The modified conditions were considered to be a practical and reasonable solution to overcome the noise nuisance experienced by local residents.

The Sub-Committee felt that the onus is on the Premises Licence Holder to be proactive and to engage with local residents to prevent the noise nuisance, and to prevent the licensing objective being undermined.