Perhaps we should stop referring to applications for live music and replace this instead with applications to cause live public nuisance?

The application was properly advertised as required by the 2003 Act and, as a result, 8 representations were received from Interested Parties, i.e. persons living in the vicinity of the premises in respect of the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance.

Where we may accept that live music (and many other things) may have the potential to cause public nuisance - it should not be acceptable that all the unquestionable benefits of live music are considered to be one and the same thing or are first viewed as being a public nuisance. Is preventing live music to be thought successful in preventing public nuisance? It would seem so.

Where, like in this case, the baby is thrown out along with the bathwater and simply as a result of the live music having to be exposed to the licensing process - we will never know if the once proposed live music had anything other than simply the potential to cause a public nuisance.

Not that that those who are employed to enforce the legislation would see that the total loss of live music in this case as being a problem - for they can congratulate themselves on having prevented a public nuisance.

Perhaps, (partly as it obviously did not work), applicants should not have been able to self-limit and exclude live music from their own original application and the hearing be left to decide if the proposed live music did constitute a public nuisance?

However, from my experience this does not really happen. The assumption has already been made by the officers and Cllrs that any form of live music, in any venue and at any time is a public nuisance, to be prevented or limited in advance with binding licensing conditions and that this is the whole purpose of the hearing.

That is why it is so vital that live music be finally taken out of the hands of those who simply do not understand the true value of what they have been entrusted with.