<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: License Application: 89-91 Livery Street</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.davidnikel.org.uk/blog/2009/06/license-application-89-91-livery-street/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.davidnikel.org.uk/blog/2009/06/license-application-89-91-livery-street</link>
	<description>A Liberal Democrat campaigner in Birmingham Ladywood</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:23:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Edward</title>
		<link>http://www.davidnikel.org.uk/blog/2009/06/license-application-89-91-livery-street/comment-page-1#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>Edward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:18:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidnikel.org.uk/?p=118#comment-121</guid>
		<description>If you live on Livery Street close to this venue, you can not possibly have &quot;decidedly mixed feelings&quot; about a proposal to open a nightclub on your doorstep.  It is very important for the local residents that this proposal remains rejected.

The Hatters Hostel is good and not shabby.  It has put back into use and has refurbished to a decent standard an otherwise unuseable building, providing another type of accommodation to increase visitors to the area.  Long may it be successful.  A similar use can be found for 89-91 without making it an early hours venue and anti-social neighbour.

The structure of the mansard roof in 89-91 is very different to that at the Jamhouse.  There is no sound insulation in this building at all.  It is wholly unsuitable for a music venue.  

Mind, even if this had consent this would probably have been Fiddle and Bone no 2. A great venue, killed by someone with an over-enthusiastic hand on the volume control, driving away the punters and driving the neighbours insane.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you live on Livery Street close to this venue, you can not possibly have &#8220;decidedly mixed feelings&#8221; about a proposal to open a nightclub on your doorstep.  It is very important for the local residents that this proposal remains rejected.</p>
<p>The Hatters Hostel is good and not shabby.  It has put back into use and has refurbished to a decent standard an otherwise unuseable building, providing another type of accommodation to increase visitors to the area.  Long may it be successful.  A similar use can be found for 89-91 without making it an early hours venue and anti-social neighbour.</p>
<p>The structure of the mansard roof in 89-91 is very different to that at the Jamhouse.  There is no sound insulation in this building at all.  It is wholly unsuitable for a music venue.  </p>
<p>Mind, even if this had consent this would probably have been Fiddle and Bone no 2. A great venue, killed by someone with an over-enthusiastic hand on the volume control, driving away the punters and driving the neighbours insane.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Webb</title>
		<link>http://www.davidnikel.org.uk/blog/2009/06/license-application-89-91-livery-street/comment-page-1#comment-88</link>
		<dc:creator>James Webb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidnikel.org.uk/?p=118#comment-88</guid>
		<description>I only knew about this from a letter you sent through my door. I did think it was rather presumptious that you assumed everybody would be pleased that the application was rejected and I have decidedly mixed feelings about it.
On one hand it is a little close for comfort and we are given little information about the type of venue.
I shall have to investigate this lack of clarity.
On the other it might have been beneficial in forcing out the Hostel which has always looked shabby. Objection can always be raised after it perfomed that function.
If the music were good and the building was to be renovated somewhat then I can&#039;t see what further ahrm could be created on top of the Jamhouse and Actress &amp; Bishop which already cause a fair disturbance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I only knew about this from a letter you sent through my door. I did think it was rather presumptious that you assumed everybody would be pleased that the application was rejected and I have decidedly mixed feelings about it.<br />
On one hand it is a little close for comfort and we are given little information about the type of venue.<br />
I shall have to investigate this lack of clarity.<br />
On the other it might have been beneficial in forcing out the Hostel which has always looked shabby. Objection can always be raised after it perfomed that function.<br />
If the music were good and the building was to be renovated somewhat then I can&#8217;t see what further ahrm could be created on top of the Jamhouse and Actress &amp; Bishop which already cause a fair disturbance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
