Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: July 29, 2025

Purpose:

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.