(a)

considered the report from the Director for Community Services;

(b)

heard that following agreement of conditions with the applicant which were shown at appendix 3 of the report, Environmental Health had withdrawn their representation;

(c)

considered the written representations and heard from interested parties present;

(d)

heard from the applicant that:

(i)

all conditions agreed with the police and environmental health had been included in the Operational Procedures Manual which the staff all signed monthly after they had read and refreshed themselves on it;

(ii)

there was no intention to ruin the quality of the lives of the residents of Wesley Court, in fact the applicant hoped to enhance their quality of life and would be a good neighbour;

(iii)

if any public nuisance did result they were at risk of losing their licence;

(iv)

there was no substantial sound system in the premises and all music came from a simple iPod dock. The system had been tested at full volume and could not be heard in the offices upstairs, or past Studio Lounge with the doors closed. There was no facility to play music outside;

(v)

whilst they empathised with the existing problems the residents were having they did not consider that Studio Lounge would exacerbate this problem;

(vi)

it was intended to be a networking casual bar.  They intended to have live music infrequently but believed that this would not be able to be heard in Wesley Court as they did not have any doors and windows except at the front which opened onto a busy noisy road. Those windows and doors were made from very thick glass which was sound proof;

(vii)

due to the amount of money that had been spent on starting up Studio Lounge they were aiming to attract the business community, over thirties and people with a higher disposable income;

(viii)

they would operate an over 21 policy for service in the bar. They wished to attract people who wanted to eat, drink and stay late for a chat. They did not have a dance floor although they would allow occasional function bookings;

(ix)

the comments made by residents relating to Urban Brew were unfounded as they had only opened late on a handful of occasions and Temporary Events Notices (TENs) covered these openings and they never opened after hours as that would have risked their licence. Neither had they had any cause for the police to be called to the premises;

(x)

there had been no representations about disturbance to guests from the two nearby hotels;

(xi)

no other residents had shown concern for the opening of these premises;

(xii)

in response to the objections raised by interested parties they stated that the restrictions imposed by Environmental Health and the Police should address most of the concerns of residents. In addition patrons would have use of their car park, that it was unfair to ring fence their potential clients into the binge drinking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.