‘Go and Get Some Treatment, Mate’: Munby Responds:

@7streets That response has completely confused me, is he trying to distance himself or is he just a liar?

@fifofum123 To clarify, did you make a complaint yourself?

Not sure if SS/David Lloyd needs treatment but I wonder if they could do with checking facts? IF Lloyd’s reference to Mumby’s call for “city centre flat developments to be halted” was in fact his stand against the development of Parr St studios as luxury apartments, then this seriously undermines SS credibility. Could someone clarify?

Steve Munby’s response is in fairness well balanced and the council have responded appropriately to complaints of disturbance due to noise emission from Static.

This is not to say that the situation is fair.

Static has a Premises Licence that permits music. However, in granting a premises licence or planning consent the licensing and planning departments of the council should, in consultation with environmental health, apply appropriate conditions.

Conditions should have sought to ensure that, for example in Static’s case, putting a music venue next to an existing residence was not going to cause a problem. Historically, there may have been a shortfalling here, as when Static was granted a licence that permits music – perhaps more attention to noise issues could have averted this problem from the outset.

It is Static’s responsibility, like it is mine or yours, not to cause disturbance to a neighbour. But after being given the apparent all clear to host amplified music events – it’s not surprising that it has been a shock to the music community for them to be told to turn it down (which effectively renders gigs unviable).

David – I can see how Steve’s remark could be taken as offensive. As someone in the industry, I would read this as meaning ‘Get some [Acoustic] treatment, mate’.

It’s not that I cannot see the points that Seven Streets is making, but there is no denying that Cllr Munby has got some valid points too… To call him a liar is harsh.

This exchange of ‘articles v. comments’ on some online comment board is a rather childish way of dealing with a topic that is very complex and certainly warrants personal - face-to-face - interaction.

Nothing beats a personal exchange, and looking back: I’m sure people got more out of the Static Noise Debate - and the networking before and after the event between different stakeholders - than reading some of these exchanges…

@ RB: I would have maybe chosen different remarks to close the response if I would have been Cllr Munby, but let’s not distract from some of the valid points he makes!

Personally I find Councillor Munby’s comments “to go and get some treatment” to Dave Lloyd very offensive. It’s unprofessional and unpleasant.
Also, the need to mention “my mate Tom Lang”, no need.

I am no fan of Councillor Munby, but I think he has presented a reasoned argument. I think however that the responseses from Mr Lloyd and Mr Brown make you look like little kids running to the teacher saying Missssss, he called me names. Get over yourselves for God’s sake and you may be able to look at this thing with a little more objectivity instead of deperately trying to ingratiate yourselves with the Static Gallery in an attempt to also present yourselves as victims.

David Lloyd: I agree with your point:

I think we need to pull away from the micro (ie Static – as I attempted to do in the feature) and look at the macro (ie the signals we’re getting about the city’s priorities).

Unfortunately, you have used the ‘micro’ - ie Static v residents - as the very fulcrum on which you have based your whole argument. I agree that the city’s priorities need to be addressed, but your coverage of Static has been mostly unfair, and has generated a populist and divisive witchhunt of the residents on this site.

This has chimed with the reporting of the noise debate at Static which was held last month, whose tagline ‘Urban Metropolis or Suburban Hinterland’ was inherently biased (erm, wonder which one everyone is going to go for?).

Please stop reporting black-and-white arguments with your megaphone.

I’m opting to let abusive comments go unnoticed on this one, although it is rather depressing when the invectives begin . I’d rather save my energies for doing something positive. Thanks Henry for your enlightened contribution. We’re trying to encourage debate, and we’re coming from a standpoint of passion and belief in the potential of the city. That is all. We’re happy to give a platform to the other side of the argument, and have done so.- if you’d care to look. What’s so objectionable about having an opinion and sharing it honestly.

In the response from Councillor Munby to Sevenstreets, which was on the most part the carefully worded rebuttal you would expect; it must be clear, that of the stated accusations he addresses, three were straw men and never actually made (at least not in these articles) and the fourth uses examples of support for live music projects, which are all either un-amplified and/or exist outside city centre, therefore not particularly relevant to the debate. Within the city, neither Erics, Epstein theatre, nor Urban Strawberry Lunch are comparable for a variety of reasons. (heritage focus, council owned, unamplified).

I would love the public concerns to be unfounded, but it is difficult not to be skeptical when a city-wide CIS was the councillor’s apparent preference.

The core issues have been misrepresented to a degree; the council is self-evidently not responsible for venue closure through economic factors, and was never accused of being, but they have a responsibility to facilitate, not hinder, the development of new spaces to replace them.

The feared moratorium on new licenses has no immediate or longer-term economic benefit, especially given so much of the area is lying empty, and existing venues have been closing at an alarming rate, for a variety of reasons. Those developing circumstances should have surely influenced policy. At present the feeling is that if a premises isn’t already licensed in Ropewalks it doesn’t stand a chance of being so (Frenson has been scrambling to license all it’s appropriate sites before CIP hit). If that isn’t the case, we shall see, but confidence is low and people are on the most part looking at existing licensed sites which have previously not been economically viable.

There’s only one way to find out. If the CIS is genuinely designed to restrict licenses for vertical drinking for the benefit of venues and spaces that enhance the area culturally, then there’ll be little disagreement. How this actually works in practice, when there is a seeming contradictory agenda against city centre noise is another matter. We’ll see soon enough.

This weeks national live music legislation may ironically override what has happened to Static, though 7-11pm is not enough time realistically to soundcheck and run a show that is going to pay anybody, and that is what this is about: maintaining a grassroots music community’s ability to develop, earn a living, and contribute to the local economy. It should be clear that nobody is requesting council-funded live music here.

Minority interests appear to be shaping council policy in Ropewalks; a handful of residents at association meetings or minimal engagement in council elections. If that isn’t the case we’re all ears, but following the Static debate where nobody in the room, including Cllr Munby, agreed with the noise abatement order placed on it, we find ourselves here, and something has to give. Both sides to a point are conflating the issues, but only one of them has access to city policy, and the debate should be in a public forum like this, with an audience of thousands, rather than in a self-appointed residents association with single figure attendance.

The concerns expressed by a larger number of residents (and this site has articulated local feeling very well) should be listened to, taken seriously, and addressed by our elected officials, not dismissed. We all need to talk.

Daniel wrote: “We all need to talk.”

While I think its important to talk, it should be notoed that Cllr Munby did attend the public meeting at Static and engaged with the discourse. I think he is willing to talk.

There has recently been a shift in the council approach to the City Centre. In part this coincides with a change in the council administration - and there is room for more understanding about what the elected members want to achieve with their approach.

In part it also comes as a slow down in the economy has changed both the pace of development but it has also changed the financial landscape of the night-time economy in the area.

The change in pace of development has probably also changed the developers focus too, from looking for opportunity to extend their portfolio to protecting their existing developments. This may reflect a change in their concerns.

We all know what is happening in the economy and this is passing through changing patterns of going-out and ultimately effecting trading conditions of some venues. This, has many have observed, has lead to some closures. Other closures may have other motives.

So, there is much to talk about. How do we do this?

There is the existing ‘Stakeholders’ group that I beleive includes FACT, who chair the group, and then some businesses including local licences and developers. But as far as I’m aware it doesn’t include ‘city centre users’ who are also stakeholders to the city centre. But this is one of those meetings that meets ever so frequently and is probably not the best place for a wider discussion anyway. I’m not sure that an occasional meeting would help much anyway.

In the past I have proposed that there could be some on-line group that tried to be inclusive of all stakeholders and gave various groups a chance to show the city centre from their perspective. And to be fair, that’s what is contestable here - a set of different perspectives about the (multi) purpose of the city.

Such a group wont work if it becomes a forum(I don’t mean a peice of software) for moaning, and to make it work will require people to engage constructively with the discussions.

If anyone would like to explore this avenue as an option for talking about the city center you can email me at garry at so dash mo dot co and we at least consider the mission and values of such as approach.

Am (I wrong in thinking that most of the gigs at Static were not promoted by Paul Sullivan / Static gallery, but by harvest Sun, Liverpool Music Week, Lazy Genius, Sound City, et al ? If so, how many performances by particlar artists have been lost by this, as opposed to relocated to other venues? Certainly Harvest Sun seem to have been able to relocate some of the gigs they had scheduled for Static to other, seemingly decent, venues. If no performances are lost, merely relocated, doens’t this suggest that the venue situation is not as bad as is being suggested here, and that perhaps either Static, or Seven Streets, have another agenda?

@Robert, the aim for the majority of promoters in the city is to put on the best acts in the best and most applicable spaces. Thought many can be relocated it’s the more left-field events and the multi-media activities that will fall by the wayside due to a lack of available suitable spaces. Any space that has a stage is not necessarily a useable venue for any given performance. Some shows have been relocated and none-lost (though some may say moved to a less-suitable venue) at this point but there will be shows in the future that simply do not come to the city because Static is not available. If only the the rich or well-connected can open a live music space in the future we’re all going to be much worse off.

It is, Robert, council policy to introduce a CIP in a city centre, and it was Munby’s express wish to introduce one across THE ENTIRE CITY. That is unusual, draconian and counter productive in my view. It has only been done, city centre wise, in Westminster. And that particular city doesn’t quite rely on night time economy as much as Liverpool does. Does this strike you as a reasonable response to a nuanced argument, or a futile attempt to break a butterfly on a wheel? I agree there are severe and specific economic issues at play: but that’s exactly why we should be doing all we can to help, not hinder, the vibrancy of our (small, but universally popular) city centre. As I say, blunt edged orders and policies can never be the solution. Static’s case is under review, as we know, which is why we can’t go into it in detail for fear of jeopardising the outcome of further talks. But there is an issue here that is far, far from resolved - and a statement of intent we all need to sign up to. The renaissance of this city will not be found in Harvey Nicks, marvellous though that might be to some, it will be found in the places that make noise. That might sound simplistic, but if you know your history, you must know that it rings true. I am a huge Jane Jacobs fan, and appreciate Karen’s quotes above. Hear hear.

@Robin Brown of Sevenstreet: “Static – as far as I’m concerned they need us more than we need them”

Sounds more than a wee bit arrogant wouldn’t you say? Not to mention deluded.

I actually read it as ‘we’ being ‘all of us’, as in Static needs all of us in the city. That certainly is true. It also needs these types of websites, newspapers, magazines, etc to get behind it.

“Accept it and make moves to better it.”

Terry, if you could ask the council to give us a hand that would be much appreciated, there’s a lot of us trying to make things better that are far removed from that retrogressive Merseybeat bullshit.