►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
A
Everybody
good
morning,
everyone
welcome
to
the
remote
hearing
of
the
licensing
subcommittee.
My
name
is
council,
lennox
and
I'll
be
chairing,
and
before
I
proceed
further,
could
I
just
remind
everybody
that
this
meeting
is
being
streamed,
live
now
on
the
city
council's
youtube
channel?
Can
I
also
also
ask
my
colleagues
following
members
of
the
subcommittee
to
introduce
themselves
ben.
A
Thanks
al
cool
right,
I'd
like
to
start
the
hearing
today
by
confirming
that
this
meeting
of
the
licensing
subcommittee
meets
the
requirements
of
the
council's
constitution.
Even
though
members
of
the
panel
are
in
remote
attendance
while
items
today
will
be
fully
discussed,
as
is
usual,
remote
attendance
requires
a
few
slight
changes
as
to
how
I'll
manage
the
debates.
Therefore,
can
all
attendees
please
mute
their
microphone
unless
they're
invited
to
speak,
and
this
will
avoid
disruption
from
background
noises
and
can
all
participants.
A
A
D
Good
morning,
I'm
robert
brown,
I'm
a
solicitor
with
lee
city
council's
legal
services
and
I'm
the
legal
advisor
to
the
subcommittee
this
morning.
E
A
A
F
Yes,
thank
you
chair
good
morning.
My
name
is
rebecca
ingram,
I'm
from
kite
solicitors
and
I'm
the
representative
of
the
applicant
today,
I'm
here
together
with
stephen
who
I
will
pass
you
over
to
now.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
and
could
I
ask
the
objector
to
please
introduce
yourself
as
well.
A
Thank
you
very
much
right.
That's
the
clerk.
B
Thank
you,
chad.
So
moving
to
agenda
item
number
two:
there
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents
under
agenda
item
number.
Three:
there
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
preston
public
under
agenda
item
number.
Four:
there
are
no
formal
late
items,
however,
some
supplementary
information
and
relation
to
item
six
in
the
form
of
an
additional
submission
from
the
applicant
has
been
circulated
and
published
in
advance
of
the
meeting
and
then
under
agenda
item
number.
Five
could
ask
that
members
disclose
any
just
any
disposable
procurement
interests.
A
D
Thank
you.
Our
usual
procedure
for
such
applications
is
that
the
applicant
addresses
the
committee
first
and
any
other
parties.
Who've
indicated
an
intention
to
speak
at
the
hearing
then
address
the
committee,
and
then
the
applicant
has
the
chance
to
respond
to
anything
said
by
the
other
parties.
D
F
A
F
D
A
A
If
yeah,
if
five
minutes
is
I'm
sure,
surely
that
should
be
enough
five
minutes
on
top
yeah.
A
Chair
that
would
be
fantastic
and
if
it's
the
objective,
also
fine
with
that
time
limit,
do
you
have
to
use
it
all.
Obviously,
yeah,
okay,
cool!
Well
we'll
go
ahead
with
that.
Then
please
rob.
D
So
so
mr
taylor
you'll
get
20
minutes
in
one.
Go
you
don't
get
a
further
go
just
to
clarify
that,
so
a
time
limit
of
20
minutes
will
apply
to
all
presentations
after
each
presentation.
The
subcommittee
members
may
wish
to
ask
questions
the
time
for
questions
to
be
asked
and
answered
is
in
addition
to
the
time
set
for
presentations.
D
Please
note
that
we
that
we
do
not
permit
cross-examination
in
sub-committee.
If
any
party
feels
there
is
a
crucial
question
that
needs
to
be
asked
and
answered.
Please
don't
ask
the
person
directly,
but
instead
make
a
request
to
the
chair,
who
will
then
determine
whether
or
not
the
question
should
be
put
parties
may
request
permission
to
call
witnesses.
Can
I
ask
if
any
party
wishes
to
call
a
witness
today.
F
We
do
have
here
anderson
ellis.
He
is
the
his
representative
of
the
the
operator.
So
allied
london
are
the
the
landlord
they
will
be
the
license
holder.
The
operation
operation
of
the
premises
on
the
ground
will
be
via
wepop
and
anthony
is
here
from
wepop.
Now
I'm
not
intending
specifically
to
call
him
as
a
witness,
but
he
is
here.
Should
the
committee
have
any
questions
of
him.
D
Thank
you.
All
documents
that
have
been
submitted
previously
have
been
copied
and
circulated
to
the
subcommittee
in
advance.
Can
I
confirm
that
we
all
have
the
same
original
pack
with
the
agenda
report
to
the
subcommittee
should
be
98
pages
long.
In
addition,
there
are
further
10
pages
of
supplementary
information.
D
Does
everybody
have
the
same
packs?
Thank
you,
and
it
will
be
helpful
when
referring
to
documents
to
identify
which
document
you're,
referring
to
by
its
bundle
page
number.
Additional
documents
may
now
only
be
tabled
with
the
consent
of
all
the
parties.
Are
there
any
additional
documents
that
anybody
wishes
to
table
today.
D
Thank
you
please
note
that
your
presentation
is
your
only
opportunity
to
address
the
subcommittee,
so
you
need
to
make
sure
that
you've
included
in
your
presentation,
everything
that
you
wish
to
say
and
to
have
taken
into
account
after
the
parties
have
made
their
presentations
and
after
any
questions,
members
will
consider
whether
they
have
all
the
information
they
require
to
make
a
decision.
D
Once
this
point
is
reached,
the
subcommittee
will
go
into
a
private
session.
If
members
have
any
additional
questions
to
ask,
they
will
return
to
the
meeting
to
ask
those
questions.
They'll
then
return
to
private
session
to
continue
and
complete
their
deliberation.
D
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So
now
could
the
licensing
officer
please
present
to
us
the
application.
E
E
Premises
so
redacted
version
of
the
application
can
be
found
attached
at
appendix
a
on
page
11
of
the
part
of
the
report.
Sorry-
and
it
should
be
noted
that
this
includes
the
original
measures
offered
by
the
applicant
to
promote
the
licensing
objectives,
a
summary
of
the
amended
application,
including
the
new
operating
schedule
that
includes
all
the
agreements
agreed
with
the
applicant
objectives
and
west
yorkshire
police
can
be
found
attached
to
appendix
c
on
page
43
of
the
report,
so
the
application
has
attracted
representations
from
west
yorkshire
police.
E
These
have
been
agreed
prior
to
this
hearing,
and
the
copy
of
that
agreement
can
be
found
at
appendix
f
on
page
55
of
the
report.
E
Additionally,
seven
representations
have
been
received
from
members
of
the
public
on
the
grounds
of
public
nuisance.
Two
of
these
were
subsequently
withdrawn,
following
the
amen
the
amendments
made
to
the
application
by
the
applicant,
and
that
leaves
five
representations
unresolved.
One
representation
has
been
received
from
a
local
ward
member,
and
this
has
also
been
withdrawn.
Following
the
the
amendments
made
to
the
application
by
the
applicant,
we've
also
received
one
representation
in
support
of
the
application
and
for
members
information.
Redacted
copies
of
these
outstanding
representations
can
be
found
at
appendix
g.
E
On
page
59
of
the
report,
the
licensing
authority
is
in
receipt
of
supporting
information
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
that
is
included
as
a
layer
item.
This
consists
of
a
witness
statement,
a
revised
operating
schedule
that
includes
track
changes
to
indicate
amended
wording
to
the
final
version
of
the
measures
offered
by
the
applicant
and
finally,
a
noise
control
procedure.
I
can
confirm
that
this
information
has
been
supplied
to
all
interested
parties
in
advance
of
today's
airing
and
that
chair
is
an
outline
of
the
application
being
applied
for.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
matthew,
okay,
so
now
over
to
the
applicant,
then
could
I
now
invite
you
to
present
your
case
to
us.
F
Thank
you
very
much
chair
yes
good
morning,
everybody
as
you've
heard
just
in
sort
of
preliminary
discussions
there,
I'm
in
attendance
today
with
stephen
vickers
of
allied
london
and
anthony
ellis
from
wepop
allied
london
are
the
owners
and
developers
of
the
leedstock
area
and
the
applicants
for
this
licence,
because
they
take
responsibility
for
this
area
as
a
whole.
F
Wepop
will
operate
the
unit
on
the
ground
and
the
proposed
style
of
operation
that
is
described
in
the
witness
statement
that
mr
nelson
has
just
mentioned
within
your
supplementary
agenda
papers,
hopefully,
as
as
mr
nelson's
confirmed,
you've
all
had
the
time
to
read
that
so
I
won't
go
into
too
much
detail
in
terms
of
exactly
what
this
site
is
proposed
to
be.
F
The
the
witness
statement
also
details
the
lead
stock
area
and
strongly
submits
that
the
correct
characterization
of
this
area
is
as
one
of
mixed
use
now.
My
clients
absolutely
accept
that
there
is
a
significant
residential
element
here,
but
this
area
has,
since
its
inception
and
even
before
my
clients,
involvement
in
this
area
and
always
been
envisaged
as
having
a
very
significant
commercial
element
as
well,
both
through
office
use
and
through
leisure,
entertainment
and
retail
use.
F
F
So
there
is
much
made
in
the
representations
that
remain
of
this
being
a
residential
area
and
stephen
details
in
his
witness
statement
that
he
isn't
content
that
that
is
a
true
and
fair
representation
of
the
area.
We
want
to
be
very
clear
that
our
view
is
that
this
is
a
mixed
use
area,
and
indeed
I
do
think
that
that
is
reflected
in
what
some
of
the
representations
themselves
actually
say,
and
I
will
mention
that
in
due
course
when
I,
when
I
address
the
representations.
F
So
firstly,
as
you've
heard,
the
initial
application
has
been
amended
since
submission,
so
we
initially
sort
hours
from
10
o'clock
in
the
morning
until
11
o'clock
at
night,
sunday
to
wednesday
and
10
o'clock
in
the
morning
until
1
o'clock
on
a
thursday
to
saturday,
my
client
has
agreed
to
reduce
the
thursday
to
saturday
hours
significantly.
F
F
One
of
the
important
amendments
to
conditions
here
is
an
agreement
that
the
external
area
will
not
be
used
beyond
10
pm
safe
for
smokers,
so
it
won't
be
used
for
drinkers
and
diners,
and
that,
in
our
view,
is
a
very
reasonable
offer.
This
is
the
sort
of
cut-off
time
that
you
would
expect
to
see
for
often
a
pub
beer
garden
in
sort
of
a
rural
area,
so
we
would
submit
that
that
is
reasonable
for
the
sort
of
area
that
we
find
ourselves
in
here
now.
F
We
would
submit
that
the
reasonable
nature
of
those
amendments
is
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
some
of
the
representations
have
been
withdrawn
in
response.
So,
as
you've
heard,
councillor
ray
was
able
to
withdraw
his
representation
following
the
amendments
made,
as
did
two
of
the
the
local
residents
who
made
objections
initially
of
the
objections
that
remain.
My
client
has
tried
several
times
to
engage
with
those
residents
in
order
to
first
of
all
communicate
the
amendments
made
to
the
application
and
then,
secondly,
to
offer
to
discuss
any
outstanding
concerns
if
they
did
exist.
F
Following
those
amendments,
so
you'll
see,
on
pages
35
to
37
of
your
agenda
papers
that
my
client
wrote
some
time
ago
to
each
of
the
objectives
detailing
the
changes
to
the
application
and
within
that
correspondence
offered
to
set
up
a
virtual
residence
meeting.
So
a
meeting
prior
to
this
hearing.
If
that
was
desirable
for
any
of
the
residents,
they
sent
a
follow-up
then
to
those
residents
who
who
hadn't
responded
or
who
had
indicated
that
they
wanted
to
maintain
their
objections,
and
that
was
on
the
21st
of
july.
F
F
He
said
that
he
was
unable
to
attend
a
virtual
meeting
with
myself
and
my
client,
so
we
have
engaged
in
some
some
written
correspondence
in
advance
of
this
hearing
now
in
respect,
then
of
each
of
the
representations
that
do
remain,
and
as
a
result
of
this
lack
of
engagement,
this
lack
of
ability
for
us
to
discuss
the
concerns
with
the
objectives
that
do
remain.
I
just
want
to
go
through
and
address.
F
F
It
references
the
element
of
the
application,
that
is
until
it
says
the
early
hours
of
the
morning,
so
those
would
be
the
thursday
to
saturday
until
one
o'clock
hours
that
were
originally
sought.
Now,
as
I've
explained,
those
hours
have
been
reduced
in
line
with
what
was
initially
applied
for
sunday
to
wednesday,
so
until
11
o'clock,
and
so
we
would
submit
that
this
representation
has
been
addressed.
There
is
specific
reference
towards
the
bottom
of
the
representation
to
thursday
to
saturday
hours
and
those
are
are
no
longer
what
we're
seeking
today,
the
next
representation.
F
F
So
again,
I
would
submit
that
that's
been
addressed
with
the
reduction
two
hours
and
that
we've
already
offered
to
make
this
representation
also
suggests
that
the
the
grant
of
this
application,
the
presence
of
this
premises,
would
change
the
nature
of
the
area,
but,
as
the
witness
statement
explores
and
as
I've
already
touched
upon,
we
would
submit
that
this
use
is
entirely
in
keeping
with
the
area
and
with
other
licensed
uses
now.
Finally,
this
representation
also
suggests
that
that
this
is
a
quiet
residential
area
without
any
nighttime
noise,
but
simultaneously
suggests
that
sound
travels.
F
F
We
would
suggest,
therefore,
that
the
truth
lies
somewhere
in
the
middle
here,
as
stephen
suggests
in
his
witness
statement
that
the
truth
is
that
this
is
a
mixed
use
area.
That's
always
been
intended
as
such,
and
that
noise
heard
around
the
area
is,
as
would
be,
expected
of
this
type
of
sort
of
city
center
location
with
a
residential
element.
It's
the
sort
of
noise
that
doesn't
cause
a
nuisance
and
that
a
bar
that
opens
until
11
pm
would
be
acceptable
and
expected
within
this
sort
of
area.
F
If
I
can
then
take
you
on
again
to
page
61
to
the
representation
here
now
again,
this
representation
refers
to
late
hours.
It
talks
about
a
reduction
in
hours
of
sleep
and
and
suggests
that
these
may
be
reduced
to
less
than
five
hours.
So
again,
I
would,
I
would
assume
again
we
haven't
been
able
to
discuss
this
application
with
the
the
objective
himself,
but
I
would
assume
that
this
is
referring
to
the
later
hours
here
that
we're
initially
applied
for
on
a
thursday
to
saturday.
F
F
If
I
can
then
skip
ahead
here,
I'll
skip
ahead
to
page
63.,
page
62
is
the
representation
that
mr
nelson
mentioned
that's
in
support
and
I'll
return
to
that
shortly.
If
that's
okay,
so
if
we
skip
ahead
to
page
63
and
again,
there
are.
There
are
some
contradictions
here
within
this
representation
now
there's
reference
to
doc,
29,
which
is
a
bar
that
would
previously
operated
within
one
of
the
buildings
within
leeds
dock,
on
the
ground
floor,
and
this
representation
suggests
that
doc
29
had
no
demand
it
struggled.
F
It
was,
it
was
really
busy
and
yet
claims
that
it
was
just
about
tolerable.
Now
again,
we
would
submit
here
that
both
of
these
things
cannot
be
true.
Now.
My
client
is
aware
that,
at
the
very
outset
of
leads
of
doc
29's
operation,
there
was
a
third
party
operator
here.
F
Some
of
what
they
were
doing
was
perhaps
inappropriate
and,
and
a
stop
was
put
to
that,
and
so
far
as
my
client
is
aware,
issues
were
not
caused
after
that
now
this
representation
again
seems
to
suggest
that
the
grant
of
this
application
will
create
awful
noise
and
yet,
in
the
same
representation,
seems
to
suggest
that
people
won't
use
this
bar,
that
it
won't
be
attractive,
making
its
long-term
futurable
unvia
long-term
future
sorry
unviable.
F
Now
that
isn't
my
client's
hope.
They
hope
that
it
will
be
attractive
to
local
residents.
Those
are
the
people
that
they
want
to
attract
to
use
this
space
as
a
community
hub.
But
if
the
suggestion
is
that
it's
likely
to
be
too
quiet,
we
would
submit
that
it
isn't
simultaneously,
something
which
can
cause
a
nuisance
again.
We
would
suggest
that
the
truth
is
in
the
middle
here
now.
F
Furthermore,
this
also
appears
to
be
a
more
general
complaint
regarding
the
area
as
a
whole,
there's
reference
here
to
people
holding
parties
on
balconies
and
to
noise
from
from
other
residents
in
the
area.
F
Thirdly,
as
part
of
the
correspondence
with
another
of
the
objectives,
mr
taylor,
who
is
here
today,
my
client
has
discussed
the
area
in
general
and
my
client
and
mr
vickers
specifically
has
provided
in
the
past
his
contact
details
to
local
residents.
We
know
that
mr
taylor
has
those
he's
very
happy
to
provide
contact
details
to
any
other
resident
within
the
vicinity
that
would
like
to
have
them
and
he's
very
happy
to
respond
to
issues
as
and
when
they
are
reported
to
him
and
he's
happy
to
continue
to
do
that.
F
However,
what
he's
also
offered
to
do
is
to
introduce
the
noise
control
procedure.
That's
within
the
supplementary
agenda
papers
today.
So
this
goes
wider
really
than
this
specific
application.
It
talks
about
noise
monitoring
across
the
estate
as
a
whole,
so,
as
I
say
not
not
necessarily
specific
to
this
particular
application,
but
I
would
submit
demonstrates
my
clients
commitment
to
working
with
residents
and
to
doing
what
they
can
to
address
any
issues
that
they
might
have
in
the
area
as
a
whole.
F
This
representation
the
same
one
that
starts
on
page
63
and
also
refers
to
a
sense
of
dread.
With
regards
to
the
use
of
the
smoking
area.
Now
we
obviously
can't
deny
that
people
are
going
to
smoke
outside.
That
is
the
law.
People
must
smoke
outside,
but
what
we
have
agreed
is,
as
I've
said,
that
the
outside
area
will
not
be
used
except
for
smoking
after
10
pm.
F
The
area
will
will
only
be
for
smokers
after
10
p.m
and
will
be
closed
entirely
at
11
p.m,
and
that's
actually
a
time
that
this
objector
refers
to
as
as
tolerable
in
relation
to
the
previous
bar
dot
29,
which
closed
at
11
p.m.
So
that
would
be
the
the
same
timings
as
what
operated
there.
Previously.
F
The
final
representation,
then
from
mr
taylor,
is
on
page
65
and
goes
on
from
there
up
to
page
68
and
then
there's
some
additional
documents
after
that.
So
this
representation
refers
to
there
being
200
apartments,
overlooking
the
dock
and
of
course
there
are,
there
are
more
in
the
area,
and
we've
explained
that
this
is
a
very
we
understand,
there's
a
significant
residential
element
here.
F
What
we
would
say,
though,
is
that
that,
given
that
there
are
that
number
of
apartments,
it
is
therefore
clear
that,
in
our
submission,
the
overwhelming
majority
of
residents
in
the
area
do
not
subject
to
these
proposals
there
being
five
outstanding
representations,
none
from
any
responsible
authorities
and
a
local
councillor
who
is
now
in
agreement
with
this
application.
F
The
representation
also
refers
to
the
the
previous
incarnation
within
a
building
doc
29
as
a
compromise,
and
we
would
say
that
a
compromise
along
the
same
lines
has
been
suggested
here.
F
Mr
taylor's
also
submitted
world
health
organization
guidelines
in
relation
to
noise.
Now
I'm
not
going
to
claim
to
be
an
expert
on
wh
o
noise
guidelines.
We
would
need
to
have
an
acoustic
consultant
here.
I
think
if
we
were
to
claim
that,
but
what
I
would
say
is
that
your
environmental
health
team
at
the
council
are
experts
in
these
matters,
and
your
environmental
health
team
have
not
made
an
objection
in
relation
to
this
application.
In
fact,
they
didn't
make
an
objection
to
this
application,
as
it
was
initially
sought
with
the
later
hours.
F
What
I
also
do
know
in
relation
to
these
sorts
of
guidelines
is
that
they
make
reference
to
noise
in
bedrooms,
make
reference
to
your
hours
of
sleeping,
which
are
generally
accepted
to
be
11
pm
to
8
p.m.
8
a.m:
sorry,
which
ties
in
with
the
times
that
live
and
recorded
music
is
entirely
deregulated
by
the
live
music
act
and
the
premises
will
not
be
operating
at
all.
During
those
times.
Licensable
activities
will
finish
at
11
pm
premises
will
close
half
an
hour
later.
F
The
representation
also
proposes
conditions,
and
many
of
those
are
incorporated
within
the
final
operating
schedule
that
is,
is
submitted
by
us
and
is
in
the
agenda
papers.
Save
four.
There
were
conditions
suggested
which
would
restrict
regulated,
entertainment
prior
to
11
pm
and,
as
the
committee
will,
I'm
sure,
be
aware,
those
those
simply
aren't
legally
enforceable
as
a
result
of
the
deregulations
brought
about
by
the
live
music
act
and
save
also
for
the
cutoff
suggested
at
9
00
pm
for
the
external
area
we
would
submit
here.
F
As
I
say,
that
10
pm
is
reasonable.
We
would
submit
that
the
the
application
has
been
thought
through.
With
regards
to
the
noise
impact
that
it
could
have
and
and
that
the
the
application
as
it
is,
is
appropriate
and
proportionate.
F
F
Now
I
said
that
I
would
take
you
back
to
the
representation
on
page
62
in
support,
and
this
individual
says
that
the
proposed
establishment
appears
to
be
entirely
consistent
with
what
one
would
expect
to
find
in
an
area
like
this.
He
considers
that
it
would
be
a
welcome
addition
to
the
area
and
we
would
respectfully
ask
the
committee
to
agree
with
that
conclusion.
A
So
at
this
point
we
are
able
to
ask
questions
to
you
as
an
applicant,
so
I'll
just
open
it
up
to
my
colleagues
and
ask
if
there's
anything
that
we'd
like
to
start
off
with.
E
Oh,
the
containers
are
originally
it's
a
container
form,
so
it's
a
steel
wall
container,
however,
our
fit
out
proposes
an
internal
level
of
insulation,
either
it
be
through
what
you
would
expect
in
a
standard
construction,
so
almost
like
a
stud
wall
with
insulation
in
filled
against
it,
or
it
could
be
another
second
layer
of
steel
construction
again
with
some
insulation
between
it.
So
throughout
the
construction
of
the
the
premises,
it
will
have
to
comply
to
the
part
l
requirements
through
building
regulations.
E
Other
than
that,
I
don't
know
how
else
to
to
really
answer
it.
If
that's
okay,.
B
E
I'd
expect
that
you'd
be
able
if
windows
were
open-
and
you
know
there
were
there-
were
people
inside
I'd
expect
you
to
be
able
to
hear
as
you
would
stood
outside
a
shop
or
on
other
premises.
If
you
were
walking
past,
but
I
wouldn't
expect
it
to
to
be
intrusive.
E
I
think
the
capacity
is
set
at
is
it
100
or
120?
I
think
sorry.
Can
I
just
pass
that
over
to
anton,
because
anton's
gonna
antony
sorry
he's
gonna,
be
the
the
chap
who's
operating
it
through
wepop?
Is
that
okay,
yeah
yeah?
I
think
we
hadn't
completely
finalized
what
style
of
seating
we'd
have
which
could
reduce
levels
of
capacity
slightly,
but
internally
we
were
looking
at
over
two
floors.
110
people
exterior,
I
think,
could
add
another
40
odd
people.
A
B
Yeah,
I
see
you
say
you
still
have
no
music
and
no
screens,
but
if
you
have
quizzes,
will
there
not
be
a
need
for
a
pa
of
some
sort
with
that
number
of
people.
F
Yeah,
I
don't
think,
though
there
was
no
sort
of
specific
condition
around
that
being
that
that
being
prohibited,
it
may
be
that
I
don't
know
I'll
pass
over
to
anton
as
to
whether,
specifically
he
would
need
a
pa
for
quizzes,
but
there
all
of
that
would
be
within
the
confines
of
the
conditions
that
are
proposed
in
terms
of
ensuring
that
a
nuisance
isn't
caused,
that
it
can't
be
heard
in
residential
apartments,
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
Would
you
need
a
pa
specifically
for
you,
the
quizzes,
that
you
propose
anton.
E
No
not
at
all,
and
typically
that's
just
on
one
level
and
yeah.
It
would
just
be
just
someone
acoustically.
We
would
have-
and
I
think
rebecca
highlighted
this
earlier-
that
there
is
the
provision
to
have
recorded
music
during
opening
hours.
F
Yeah,
so
just
just
to
clarify
there.
What
we're
talking
about
is
that
the
the
live
music
act
allows
for
live
and
recorded
music
between
the
hours
of
8
and
11,
and
obviously
I
mentioned
that
in
relation
to
mr
taylor's
representation,
in
that
he
he'd
asked
for
conditions
reducing
those
hours,
but
that
isn't
legally
possible
or
enforceable
under
the
the
deregulation
brought
about
by
the
law
of
music
act.
B
Okay,
I've
got
one
final
question
again
on
noise.
Smokers
can
actually
be
very
noisy,
they
take
drinks
out
and
it
becomes
an
additional
social
space
in
good
weather.
How
are
you
going
to
control
the
noise
that
smokers
may
well
make
while
they're
out
there.
F
So
within
the
application
is
submitted
a
smoking
and
alfresco
dining
policy.
So
the
outdoor
area
would
be
managed
by
reference
to
that
policy,
which
would
form
part
of
the
license.
It's
a
requirement
under
the
conditions
that
that
policy
is
adhered
to.
So
that
involves
the
monitoring
of
the
outside
area,
specifically
by
staff
or
door
staff
when
employed
signage
in
the
outdoor
area,
to
ensure
that
customers
are
aware
of
the
obligations
upon
them.
F
Staff
monitoring
that
and
ensuring
that
any
customers
who
are
not
abiding
by
instructions
that
they're
given
are
either
brought
inside
or
asked
to
leave,
depending
on
the
particular
situation
and
anton,
is
experiencing
operating
these
sorts
of
premises.
That
sort
of
pop
up
within
residential
areas
in
accordance
with
these
kinds
of
policies.
So
his
staff
would
be
trained
and
briefed
on
the
use
of
the
outside
area.
The
importance
of
ensuring
that
residents
aren't
disturbed
and
making
sure
that
the
customers
behaving
in
an
appropriate
fashion
outside.
C
Yeah
a
couple
thank
you
chair,
just
on
the
back
of
that
about
the
smokers
which
outside
areas
would
be
open
for
smokers
after
10
days,
because
looking
at
the
plan,
there
there's
the
main
entrance,
but
then
there's
also
the
first
floor.
Terrace.
Would
that
be
one
or
one
of
those
above.
C
Okay,
thank
you
and
in
the
submit
in
the
submission
about
the
noise
protocol.
I
wondered
whether
that
was
existing,
but
from
what
from
what
you
said.
That
seems
to
be
a
very
new
thing
or
proposed
protocol
about
noise.
So
so
that
seems
to
suggest
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
that
there'll
be
four
noise
monitors
around
around
the
estate.
Would
that
be
right.
F
Yeah,
so
it's
a
newly
sort
of
formalized
procedure.
The
allied
have
always
responded
to
any
issues
that
that
have
occurred
within
the
the
vicinity
of
the
estate.
But
yes,
it's
new
in
the
sense
that
it's
formalized
steve.
Can
you
just
talk
through
exactly
how
that
will
work
with
various
staff
and.
E
Yeah
sure
I
I
manage
lead
stock
from
an
estate
perspective
as
well
as
some
other
key
projects,
so
I'm
directly
in
charge
of
our
security
team,
our
estate
team
cleaning,
landscapers,
etc.
So
we
generally
manage
lead
stock
from
almost
a
holistic
sense.
So
our
our
security
team
patrol
the
public
realm
areas
and
we
monitor
those
areas
for
any
anti-social,
behavior
normally
anywhere,
and
this
procedure
is
by
use
of
that
team,
not
solely
for
this
premises,
but
for
the
estate
on
whole.
E
That's
why
we've
chose
to
use
certain
key
areas
where
people
are
likely
to
either
pass
or
gather.
It
will
be
a
member
of
my
security
team
that
have
a
handheld
decibel
reader
or
noise
measuring
device.
I
don't
know
what
else
to
call
it
the
other,
but
they'll
go
to
those
locations.
They'll
take
a
reading.
They'll
also
visibly
see
who's
in
that
area
and
be
able
to
respond
to
issues
in
that
area.
So
that'll
be
something
that
all
of
my
team
are
trained
on
and
they're
able
to
respond
to
if
they
find
something.
A
Okay,
I
just
have
one
more
so
thanks
for
clarifying
what
you
what
you
changed
about,
your
11
pm
quote
end
of
license.
Thank
you
for
that.
Can
you
just
confirm
what
that
now
means
for
your
late
night?
Refreshments
is
so.
Presumably
this
is
coffees
after
you've
stopped
serving
alcohol
just
want
to.
Let
me
know
how
that's
how
you
see
that
working
yeah.
Of
course,
let.
F
F
Yeah,
so
we've
proposed
that
late
night
refreshment
would
be
11
to
11
30..
It's
something
to
be
honest
that
I
normally
do
as
a
matter
of
course,
in
the
sense
that
if
somebody
perhaps
wants
a
coffee
before
they
leave
or
something
like
that,
it
allows
for
that.
However,
if
it's
something
that
the
committee
were
concerned
about
for
any
reason,
I'm
sure
that
we
could
bring
that
in
line
with
the
alcohol
hours
as
well.
A
Okay,
thanks
for
clarifying,
I
don't
think
I
have
any
further
questions,
then
I'll
I'll
go
for
it.
B
This
is
a
slightly
different
question
not
relating
to
noise,
but,
as
you
may
be
aware,
leed
city
council
offers
free
training
to
bar
and
club
staff
around
recognizing
and
dealing
appropriately
with
incidents
or
complaints
about
sexual
harassment.
I
don't
think
that
is
taking
place
at
the
moment
due
to
covid,
but
when
it
starts
up
again,
will
your
staff
and
management
be
willing
to
attend
this
training.
E
Yeah,
absolutely
I
mean
clearly
it
makes
sense
and
we
want
to
fall
in
line
with
any
of
your
sort
of
local
and
leads
compliance.
So
absolutely.
A
Okay
right,
thank
you
everybody.
I
think
at
that
stage.
That's
all
for
questions
to
the
applicant,
so
I
think
now
we
will
move
on
to
the
objective.
That's
present,
so
mr
taylor,
you've
now
got
20
minutes
if
you'd
like
to
present
your
case
to
us
and
then
we'll
have
further
questions
after
that.
G
Thank
you
chair
good
morning,
everyone,
so
I'm
steve
taylor,
I'm
a
long-term
resident
of
leeds
talk.
I've
been
living
in
leeds
stock
for
over
eight
years
now,
six
of
which
of
those
I've
been
a
leaseholder
in
the
claw
house
and
that's
the
residence
that
is
most
close
to
the
proposed
venue
directly,
overlooking
the
the
proposed
license
premises
at
just
30
meters
from
those
premises
that
are
proposed.
G
G
The
council's
environmental
health
team
do
recognize
that
the
doc
has
special
acoustic
nature
and
where
the
proposed
premises
are,
I
would
argue
that
at
30
meters
the
nearest
residence
windows
would
suffer
from
noise
nuisance
at
all
times
of
the
day
and
that
the
proposed
binding
conditions
around
the
license
don't
protect
the
residents
sufficiently
from
that
noise
nuisance
from
the
beginning.
I
I
would
dispute
that
the
allied
london
has
engaged
with
residents
around
the
demand
for
this
facility.
G
There
is
no
prior
engagement
with
the
residents
to
the
application
for
licensing
the
first
residents
knew
of
licensing
was
the
posting
of
notices
around
around
the
venue,
so
I
would
dispute
that
it's
solely
for
the
resident's
benefit,
though
you
know
we
would
we
weren't
engaged
with.
We
weren't
asked
prior
to
any
submission
whether
or
not
this
would
be
a
a
useful
venue
for
for
the
residents
up
to
date,
no
noise
survey
has
been
undertaken
to
to
indicate
whether
there
would
be
a
a
significant
impact
of
noise
nuisance
from
the
venue.
G
I
believe
that
would
be
a
a
good
measure
that
the
the
applicant
could
undertake
to
ensure
that
what
would
consistent
what
could
be
construed
as
noise
nuisance?
They,
it
would
be
understood
what
that
noise
level
could
be.
G
The
conditions
go
into
detail
about
that.
It
would
be
a
clearly
delineated
external
area
within
the
license
application.
There
was
no
plan
or
outline
of
what
that
noise
area
would
be.
Neither
was
there
around
the
the
size
of
that
area
or
the
occupant
capacity.
G
If
we
look
at
the
the
submitted
plans,
the
external
area
is
approximately
100
external
seats,
and
I
would
put
forward
that
100
external
patrons
at
any
time
of
day
would
cause
a
significant
amount
of
noise
through
just
general
chatting
and
lively
activity
that
you
would
expect
in
a
in
bar
restaurant,
as
the
applicant
has
confirmed
the
there
are
certain
measures
under
the
live
music
act,
which
can't
be
legislated
against
through
licensed
premises
and
they've
made
that
clear.
So
the
the
requirement
to
have
no
external
speakers
cannot
be
enforced
through
premises
management.
G
So
that
premise
is
licensing
so
as
we've
found
with
other
venues
in
the
area
while
they
may
commit
to
that
there
isn't.
There
is
no
legally
binding
obligation
on
those
on
the
persons
to
undertake
that.
So
I
would
suggest
that
that
cannot
be
considered
as
something
that
would
be.
You
know
a
given
that
the
premises
wouldn't
seek
to
put
external
speakers
at
a
later
point.
G
At
the
moment
there
has
been
no
commitment
from
allied
london
to
surrender
the
license
for
doc.
29
residents
could
be
in
a
situation
where
we
have
two
venues
operating
in
extremely
close
proximity
to
the
homes,
and
we
would
have
a
cumulative
effect
of
two
licensed
premises
occupying
a
incredibly
small
space
within
the
center
of
the
dock.
G
I'm
thankful
that
the
london
have
taken
some
other
consideration
that
some
other
issues
into
acknowledgement
and
have
worked
with
residents
to
try
and
come
to
a
reasonable
solution
and
I've
communicated
myself
with
councillor
ray
regarding
this,
and
I
appreciate
his
work
and
the
license
committee's
work
on
trying
to
come
to
a
good
arrangement.
G
Unfortunately,
I
just
don't
feel
that
it
could
be
delivered
in
a
way
that
would
not
cause
a
nuisance
to
to
residents.
I've
gone
to
the
proposed
measures
that.
F
G
London
have
put
forward
for
a
a
regular
monitoring
around
the
the
dock
area.
These
indicate
that
this
would
only
be
done
when
there
is
a
a
specific
event
and
not
on
a
continuous
day-to-day
basis.
G
These
commitments
are
not
legally
binding
and
therefore,
at
any
time
as
allied
london
see
fit,
they
could
remove
that
requirement.
They
would
you
know
they
could
remove
that
in
two
years,
two
months,
two
weeks,
two
days
after
being
granted
a
license,
they
could
decide
for
commercial
or
other
reasons
that
they
no
longer
wish
to
perform
that
service
and
that
service
itself,
I
don't
believe,
is-
is
robust
enough
around
being
a
spot
check
on
a
on
a
regular
basis
around
the
area,
and
it
would
be
undertaken.
G
You
know
by
by
the
world.
Humans
which
are
you
know,
can
be
very
much
open
to
error,
or
you
know
shortcutting
at
these
sort
of
things
and
the
the
proposal
is
that
noise
would
be
challenged.
There
would
be
no
enforcement
in
terms
of
trying
to
you
know,
ask
people
to
move
away
or
to
or
to
stop
practices.
It
would
seem
to
be
a
a
challenge
at
that
particular
point.
G
So
previously
dot
29
the
the
current
license
that
the
allied
london
has
in
very
close
proximity.
I
agreed
with
stephen
bickers
and
allied
london
previously
on
the
application
of
that
for
for
a
license.
My
concern
here
is
that
this
new
premises
is
of
such
a
scale
and
in
such
a
noise,
sensitive
location
with
the
vast
amount
of
external
space
that
I
don't
consider
that
it
could
be
running
anyway,
which
wouldn't
cause
significant
noise
nuisance
at
all
times
of
the
day.
G
So,
to
sum
up,
I
would
suggest
that
the
council
has
a
duty,
to
you,
know,
enforce
the
licensing,
names
and
objectives
to
prevent
public
noise
nuisance
and
that
the
granting
of
the
license
should
only
be
done
and
considered
against
the
conditions
that
the
council
can
enforce
against
the
applicant
and
any
gestures
or
promises
that
are
not
binding
and
that
can
be
revoked
without
warning.
G
You
know,
such
as
installation
of
speakers,
the
monetary
events,
the
surrender
of
a
doc
29
license,
though,
shouldn't
be
taken
into
consideration.
It
should
only
be
what
we
can
enforce
through
the
license
against
these
premises
as
such,
that
would
control
the
noise
nuisance
and,
as
unfortunately,
my
opinion
is
that
I
don't
believe
any
conditions
that
can
be
imposed
directly
that
can
be
managed
and
can
be
enforced
would
be
sufficient
to
ensure
that
noise
nuisance
doesn't
occur.
A
Thanks,
mr
taylor,
so
do
we
have
any
questions
from
committee
to
the
objector.
C
One
from
nature,
please
thank
you,
mr
taylor.
That's
that's
good
and
I'm
pleased
while
we're
well.
We
have
remote
meetings
that
we're
still
able
to
get
objects,
as
well
as
the
first
in
one
of
the
subcommittees.
I've
been
on
so
fantastic.
Thank
you.
You
suggest
that
the
the
noise
plan
in
the
supplementary
and
some
infamous
information
doesn't
really
put
you
at
ease.
C
It
seems
to
me,
although
you
said
it
just,
it
would
just
be
implemented
for
events,
although
it
does
say,
albeit
that
it
does
seem
a
voluntary
thing
as
you've
as
you've
put
forward
and
that
it
would
also
be
every
thursday
to
saturday
6
p.m.
Till
midnight
does
that.
Does
that
put
you
at
ease,
notwithstanding
what
you've
already
said
about
some
voluntary
measures
being
being
able
to
be
pulled
at
will,
at
least
if
it
was
being
followed?
Would
that
put
your
aides?
I
think.
G
F
So
would
it
assist
for
me
to
jump
in
their
chair
just
to
clarify
it's
page,
nine
of
the
supplementary
agenda
papers.
I'll
just
read
the
way
it's
worded,
and
so
the
following
procedure
is
to
be
conducted.
If
there
are
any
events
taking
place
on
this
state,
the
procedure
is
also
to
be
followed
weekly
thursday
to
saturday.
So
it's
every
thursday
to
saturday
plus,
if
there's
an
event
on
a
sunday
to
wednesday.
C
Thank
you
does
that.
Does
that
put
you
at
his
anymore,
mr
taylor,
or
you
still
got
concerns
just
about
noise,
and
you
know,
I
believe.
G
It
would
if
it
was
enforceable,
it
would
offer
a
an
element
of
appeasement.
Unfortunately,
as
I've
ever
stressed,
it's
not
enforceable.
A
Okay,
thanks
ben,
I
don't
think
I
have
any
questions
for
mr
taylor.
Al.
Is
there
anything
from
yourself?
No
okay!
Thank
you
right.
In
that
case,
the
applicant
has
a
further
five
minutes.
To
summarize
the
application,
you
can
address
things
that
have
been
raised
by
the
objector
and
also
questions
and
answers
that
we've
had.
Obviously
you
can
cover
anything
that
you
choose
to
in
the
next
five
minutes.
F
That's
lovely
thank
you
chair
and
yes,
what
I'll
do
is
I'll,
just
sort
of
just
mop
up
a
couple
of
the
issues
that
mr
taylor's
raised
there.
First
of
all,
there's
a
reference.
There
was
a
reference
in
what
mr
taylor
said
and
I
think
there's
a
bit
of
a
misconception
here.
Potentially
mr
taylor
said
the
words
large
parties
he's
talked
about
there
being
needs
to
be
a
noise
survey,
etc,
etc.
F
A
noise
survey
is
the
sort
of
thing
that
I
would
expect
a
client
to
do
if
they're
wanting
to
open
a
nightclub.
This
is
a
premises.
That's
going
to
be
open
until
11
p.m.
It's
not
for
large
parties.
It
is
for
community
events,
it's
for
food
and
drinks.
It's
for
you
know,
residents
and
people
from
outside
the
area
to
to
be
able
to
come
down,
have
something
to
eat,
have
a
drink,
possibly
a
quiz
night,
we're
not
talking
about
sort
of
large
scale
events
or
anything
along
those
lines.
F
Now,
in
terms
of
the
need
for
a
noise
survey,
as
I
say,
this
is
something
I'd
expect
to
see
for
much
larger
scale
and
much
later
later
night
venues.
But
what
we
do
need
to
be
clear
on
is
that
this
application
is
going
through
this
process
from
a
licensing
perspective,
we're
thinking
and
talking
about
nuisance,
we're
talking
about
conditions
that
are
going
to
be
enforced
in
relation
to
nuisance.
F
All
of
that
is
to
ensure
that
there
won't
be
a
nuisance
caused
now.
What
I
would
say
is
that
that
nuisance
is
a
is
a
concept
that
relates
to
appropriateness
with
any
within
any
particular
area.
So
what's
a
nuisance
in
in
one
locality
will
not
be
considered
to
be
a
nuisance
in
another.
We
cannot
say-
and
we
wouldn't
want
to
say
to
you
as
a
committee
that
nobody
is
ever
going
to
hear
anything
from
this
premises.
F
You
know
if
you're
going
to
walk
as
steven
said
you
can
walk
by
this
premises
with
windows
open,
you
might
hear
people
chatting
etc.
It
isn't
going
to
be
completely
silent,
but
we
would
submit
that
it
is
appropriate
at
this
level
in
this
locality
and
that
it
won't
cause
a
nuisance
and
that's
the
key
issue
here
from
a
licensing
perspective
and
indeed
my
client
would
be
in
breach
of
their
license
if
a
nuisance
were
to
be
caused
as
a
result
of
the
operation
of
this
premises
in
terms
of
engagement
with
residents.
F
Obviously,
this
was
submitted
at
a
period
when
it
wasn't
possible
really
to
engage
on
a
wide
scale
with
residents.
I
know
that
my
clients
would
normally
sort
of
want
to
hold
residence
meetings
that
sort
of
thing,
but
obviously
that
wasn't
possible
back
back
when
this
was
submitted.
F
In
terms
of
conditions
that
are
enforceable,
mr
taylor
mentioned
his
concern
that
the
external
speaker's
condition
is
not
enforceable
and
obviously
happy
to
defer
to
rob
on
this,
but
my
view
is
that
that
condition
is
enforceable
at
all
times.
The
the
live
music
act,
deregulates
conditions
that
reference
regulated
entertainment.
So
if
the
condition
was
worded
there
shall
be
no
external
recorded
music,
then
yes,
I
agree
that
would
be
disapplied
by
the
live
music
act.
2012
it
wouldn't
be
enforceable.
F
However,
the
reference
to
external
speakers
falls
outside
of
that,
because
it
doesn't
refer
specifically
to
regulated
entertainment.
It
refers
to
the
presence
of
a
speaker,
so
the
presence
of
a
speaker
is
prohibited
by
that
condition
and
that
is
legally
enforceable,
in
my
view,
in
terms
of
dot
29.
Yes,
that
is
still
licensed.
There
was
never
any
suggestion
or
mentioned
that
we
would
surrender
that
licence
in
return
for
the
grant
of
this
application.
So
it's
not
disingenuous
to
say
that
that
license
is
still
in
place.
F
Finally,
in
terms
of
the
noise
control
procedure
and
as
we've
discussed,
obviously
just
in
response
to
that
query-
this
would
be
in
place
whenever
any
events
are
taking
place
plus
throughout
thursday
to
saturday.
Now
again,
I
would
of
course,
defer
to
rob
on
this.
I
I
do
agree
that
it's
probably
not
enforceable
in
relation
to
this
particular
license,
because
it
is
a
condition
that
refers
to
the
estate
as
a
whole
rather
than
to
sort
of
the
particular
application
at
issue
here.
F
However,
if
it
could
be
enforceable,
I'm
sure
my
client
would
be
more
than
happy
to
agree
that
this
noise
procedure
would
be
part
of
the
license.
I
don't
think
they'd
have
any
issue
with
that.
If
rob
is
in
agreement
with
myself
and
with
mr
taylor,
this
isn't
legally
enforceable.
What
I
would
say
is
that
they're
making
a
commitment
here
in
front
of
three
local
councillors
in
front
of
the
licensing
team
at
the
council.
F
So
if
noise
complaints
start
to
come
in
and
there's
evidence
that
this
procedure
isn't
being
followed,
I
suspect
that
a
dim
view
would
be
taken
of
my
client
for
for
going
back
on
the
promises
that
they've
made
in
front
of
you
and
they've.
Absolutely
no
intention
to
do
so
and
they're
happy
to
to
implement
that
policy
and
that
procedure.
As
stephen
has
explained,
there
are
already
the
security
stuff
on
site
to
implement
it,
there's
no
reason
for
them
not
to
so.
Hopefully
that
deals
with
most
of
the
issues
raised
by
mr
taylor.
F
I
would
just
sum
up
to
say
that
and
to
sort
of
reiterate
that
it
is
our
view
that
this
application,
as
amended,
is
entirely
proportionate
and
appropriate
in
this
area,
no
outstanding
responsible
authority
representation,
a
small
number
of
conditions
agreed
with
west
yorkshire,
police
and
importantly,
no
comment
whatsoever
from
environmental
health.
So
they
are
satisfied
that
there
won't
be
a
nuisance
here.
A
Okay,
I
think
I'm
gonna
have
to
stop,
because
I
think
I
heard
the
time
ago,
but
thank
you
for
summing
up
rebecca.
That's
been
helpful.
A
Okay,
so
the
subcommittee
will
now
move
into
private
session
to
deliberate
on
the
application.
Could
I
ask
that
all
parties,
including
the
applicant
and
their
representative
and
the
licensing
officer,
remain
available?
Should
the
subcommittee
have
any
additional
questions
if
there
are
any
additional
questions,
you'll
be
invited
back
into
the
meeting
by
the
clerk
so
over
to
the
clock.
A
A
A
Okay,
I
think
that's
everyone,
so
we're
just
coming
back
in
to
say
thank
you.
We've
got
no
further
questions
and,
as
we
said
before,
you'll
be
that
this
concludes
business
for
today
and
you'll
be
notified
within
five
working
days
in
writing
of
our
decision.
So
just
to
thank
everybody
again
for
attending.