Decision

The application for a new premises licence was for the following licensable activities and times:

Films Indoors: Monday to Sunday, 18:00 to 23:00

Live Music Indoors (with a maximum of three music-led events per calendar month): Friday to Saturday, 18:00 to 23:00

Recorded Music Indoors (with a maximum of three music-led events per calendar month): Friday to Saturday, 18:00 to 23:00

Opening hours of the premises: Monday to Sunday, 09:00 to 23:00

The Licensing Sub-Committee, having considered the information presented to them within the report, the supplementary reports and at the hearing and having regard to the promotion of the licensing objectives:

·  The prevention of crime and disorder

·  Public safety

·  Prevention of public nuisance

·  The protection of children from harm

has decided to refuse the application in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

Reasons for the decision

The application for a premises licence has been refused as members of the Licensing Sub-Committee considered, having regard to all written and oral representations, that granting the application would undermine the licensing objectives. 

The Applicant, represented by Dean George, explained that the purpose of the application was to create opportunities for creatives from underrepresented backgrounds by working with recognised brands. Mr George said that this work had been celebrated by Hackney Council and that the aim was not to run the premises as a nightclub but as a community space hosting creative work. The Applicant had agreed reduced hours and no more than 3 music events per month, and there was also no outstanding representation from the police. The Applicant stated that there would be a maximum of 50 people subject to appropriate assessment and that the entry and exit routes would be kept clear. Mr George added that there were no issues with harm to children. In relation to public nuisance, Mr George acknowledged the concerns raised about noise and gatherings, but measures had been agreed with the environmental protection team to address these concerns. Mr George concluded by stating that the premises had never sold alcohol, and the selected events would help fund access for community projects.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr George stated that there was a Thursday drop-in session with brands such as Google and Nike. All projects were done on a sign-up basis, and there would be about 40-50 people at each event. Mr George added that multiple events were planned relating to music, fashion and sport, but these had been put on pause because he did not want to have an activity which may cause disturbance to the local community.

The Licensing Authority, represented by Channing Riviere, referred to the written representations contained within the Agenda Pack and stated that there had been noise complaints about noise and dispersal from the premises. The location of the premises made it very difficult for this type of activity to occur in that space, given its close proximity to residential homes. Mr Riviere stated that it was difficult to see how conditions could be added to the licence that would sufficiently promote the licensing objectives and allow the Applicant to operate as a viable business.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Riviere stated that Broadway Market was over the bridge and that although there was a pub and a restaurant, the area became much more residential over the bridge. The premises are surrounded by residential properties.

49 local residents had submitted representations in response to the application, with two residents withdrawing their representations prior to the meeting. At the meeting, nine local residents spoke in opposition to the application. The main points raised by local residents were as follows:

·  The pubs nearby were not noisy, and the noise from Broadway Market did not affect the area. The events run by the premises had ruined residents’ peace. Rules had not been followed in the past, and there was no reason to trust that the rules would be followed in the future.

·  There were clusters of drunk people and people urinating at the events, and it was not a suitable location for a premises that was in effect a nightclub, with people listening to loud music, drinking and dancing. The events were incredibly disruptive.

·  The premises did not benefit from planning permission for an events space.

·  One resident stated that while he respected what the Applicant was doing, the events were causing massive issues, and there were 7-8 flats that shared a wall with the venue. It was a great idea but in the wrong building.

·  It was not appropriate to have a club space located so directly close to residential buildings, and the resident was required to have their TV on at full volume to try to drown out the noise coming from the premises.

·  One resident stated that it had not been easy to deal with the Applicant and that issues quickly escalated when concerns were raised.

·  The building did not have a public toilet and there was only one toilet in the communal staircase. This meant that at events people were urinating in the streets outside and there was rubbish everywhere.

·  Residents were being imposed on in their own homes, with people smoking and urinating outside and with heavily amplified music causing anxiety and distress. There were also large and noisy crowds obstructing the pavement and the street on many occasions.

·  This was a residential area, and the premises was not a suitable location for a nightclub, which was what it felt like. The music and noise was atrocious.

·  The idea for Gauchoworld was fantastic, but it was in the wrong place and lacked community support due to its location. There had been no engagement with residents from the Applicant, and during events there was a lot of noise and spillover into the streets.

·  Loud music carried into people’s homes, with crowds gathering and shouting in the street outside and people smoking and drinking. One event was so loud that it felt like a music festival, and the entire building was shaking with the bass. The space was only 40 sqm, and there was no toilet.

·  This was an overwhelmingly residential area, and the premises had previously been a bike shop. The events in the premises included very loud music and people congregating outside. Alcohol purchased from the off-licence next door was also consumed at the events, and there had been very little engagement with the local community. There was support for what the Applicant was trying to do, but this was the wrong location.

·  The current venue was not suitable, even with the proposed conditions. The noise from music and crowds was clearly audible in the resident’s baby son’s room. Given the harm caused, there was no confidence that conditions would be followed.

·  There was no issue with daytime activities, but the evening events were too large for the venue, with no communication ahead. Large numbers of people gathered outside, and there were no toilets.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr George stated that he had started discussing with the landlord putting in a toilet. People did have access to a toilet, and it was not a public toilet since you needed a key to use it. Mr George said he personally had not seen people urinating outside.

Mr George added that he was willing to undertake further soundproofing works. The bedroom that the magazine was founded in was 50m away from the Gauchoworld Space and carried a lot of significance with the wider brand story founded in 2018. Brands paid to use the venue, and this money was then used to put on workshops and create community opportunities.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr George stated that the

Applicant would use a guest list to ensure that they remained in control of who

attended events. The brand had grown and become popular, and attendance had been quite large in the past. The number of people would be capped at 50, with doors and windows shut. Mr George added that he would be willing to meet with Ward Councillors and engage with the community.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr George stated that he

was flexible and that the terminal hour could be amended to 9:30pm.

In closing, Mr Riviere stated that he did not have too much to add. The discussion had not changed the position of the licensing authority, whose position remained that it was not viable to promote the licensing objectives in such close proximity to residential homes.

Five residents spoke in closing and made the main following points:

·  One resident stated that she did not feel safe walking alone with crowds of people blocking the pavement.

·  The toilet referred to by Mr George was a communal toilet that all residents of the flats had access to with a key. The premises were small and would be cramped even with 20 people in there, and the landlord would not invest money in soundproofing.

·  There had been little engagement with the local community, and there had been a large number of people and insane noise created by the events.

·  One resident stated that the noise in their flat could not be soundproofed out, as there were single pane windows and the premises shared walls with 6-7 flats.

·  There was support for music, fashion and culture, but this was just the wrong spot. The Applicant should look for a bigger space to match the expansion of the brand.

In closing, Mr George stated that it was just him running the business versus all of the local residents. At times there had been personal attacks made on him. In relation to one event with a van, Mr George stated that he had said this was not a good idea, and that he prided himself on picking up rubbish in the area. There was no evidence of rubbish provided apart from one photograph of a Gauchoworld bottle. In relation to the basketball court, he had been told by the Council to contact the estates department who had not sent back any response. He was seeking to do the best for the community so did take it of his own accord to use the basketball court after there was no response from the estates department.

The Sub-Committee then retired to deliberate. Having considered the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act), the Guidance issued under section 182 of the Act, Hackney’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the committee papers, supplementary papers and the submissions made by all of the parties both orally and in writing, the Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application.

The Sub-Committee fully recognised and supported the work that was being done by the Applicant and agreed with local residents that the Applicant’s efforts in seeking to encourage underrepresented groups into creative lines of work was of benefit to the community.

However, there was compelling evidence before the Sub-Committee that the use of the premises in the past for hosting events had led to significant public nuisance and disorder. This was evident from the representations submitted by many local residents (both in writing and orally) and from the number of noise complaints submitted to the Council, with at least 35 complaints submitted between 14 February 2026 and 13 June 2026. Events in the past had not been managed in a way that was consistent with residents’ amenity. In particular, loud music (particularly bass) had caused disturbance to residents in their homes, and a large number of people had spilled out of the premises, causing more noise and disturbance.

The Sub-Committee also noted that there was an outstanding objection from the Environmental Health Authority (Health & Safety) on the basis that there was no indication of where toilet facilities would be provided. Although Mr George stated that he was personally unaware of people urinating outside at events, there was evidence from a number of different residents attesting to people urinating outside. The lack of suitable toilet facilities was therefore a significant cause for concern, as it would encourage people at events to simply urinate outside, causing disturbance and disorder.

The Sub-Committee noted that the representations from the Metropolitan Police Service and the Environmental Health Authority (Environmental Protection) had been withdrawn following the Applicant’s agreement to the conditions proposed by the responsible authorities. The Sub-Committee also recognised that the Applicant had agreed to reduced hours and a limit on the number of events to three in a calendar month.

However, the conditions and reduced hours were not sufficient to address the Sub-Committee’s fundamental concerns with the application. The available evidence demonstrated that the operation of the premises in the past had led to significant public nuisance, and there was very limited information available to demonstrate that the conditions proposed would be effective. In particular, there was no evidence before the Sub-Committee which would allow the Sub-Committee to conclude that the conditions proposed by the Environmental Protection team could in reality be achieved at the premises given the proposed use. For example, the proposed conditions required a sound limiting device to be installed, but it was not possible (without any acoustic report being provided ahead of the meeting) for the Sub-Committee to conclude that the premises would be able to operate as it intended with a sound limiting device set at a level which would not cause noise nuisance to local residents. The Sub-Committee was particularly concerned given the apparent lack of soundproofing in the building, and the lack of evidence explaining what could be achieved in that regard. 

The Sub-Committee also had more general concerns given the history of the premises as to whether the Applicant would be able to effectively control and manage the crowds of people attending the premises. The available evidence suggested that previous events had not been well-managed or controlled. The Sub-Committee considered that the Applicant could potentially be a responsible operator in future but that this has not yet been demonstrated.

Finally, the Sub-Committee noted the concerns raised by the Licensing Authority that the proposed use of the premises was incompatible with its residential location. In these circumstances, compelling evidence would need to be provided to demonstrate that the premises would be able to operate in a way that would promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee did not consider that this compelling evidence had been provided and did not have any firm basis on which to conclude that the granting of the licence would promote the licensing objectives, in light of the issues caused by past events and the concerns raised by both local residents and responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee noted that this decision would not prevent the Applicant from applying for a premises licence in future, if the Applicant were able to demonstrate following a period of successful operation that the management of the premises had changed and was consistent with the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Applicant was encouraged to work alongside local residents and Ward Councillors to ensure that the business could be a success. In any future application, the Applicant was encouraged to submit further information and evidence concerning toilets, soundproofing, music noise limits, community engagement and crowd management. The Applicant is also encouraged to engage with Hackney Nights, a scheme which delivers a program around the management of licensed premises and safety in the night time economy. Further information can be found in paragraphs 1.13-1.14 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.

Having taken all of the above factors into consideration, and taking the application on its own merits, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that granting the application would promote the licensing objectives and therefore resolved to refuse the application.

Your right to appeal

If you are aggrieved by any term, condition or restriction attached to this decision, you have the right to appeal to the Thames Magistrates Court, 58 Bow Road, London E3 4DJ within 21 days of the date you receive this written decision.

You can also contact the court by email: northlondonmc@justice.gov.uk