Given the main thrust of the support for the Bill was on the grounds of protecting residents from noise - the idea that conditions that concern themselves with these objectives of the Bill - can be made non effective for entertainment permission and that this can provide ANY practical use to anyone- is rather strange.

Let us look at a case where noise from amplified music is considered as presenting a problem to residents now. Conditions could be applied that still permit some form of amplified music. These can be conditions like time limits or structural things like sound proofing-shutters or noise cut outs. If these are not agreed to - no music, even non amplfied (exept for two performer exempt) music - can take place

Under the act - these type of conditions can still be placed but would be non effective - if applied.

Now in the case of time limits etc - making these conditions, subsequently non effective will not present too much a problem - but in practice - if conditions that require structural modifications are not agreed to and not undertaken - permission to provide entertainment will not be given - to protect the residents. So no live music will be able to take place, even if it is to be non amplified.

The same is true if the optional application is not even made.   

In reality no licensee is just going to request permission to provide non amplified music - even if such a tick box was available for this.

And we don't know what form the so-called tick box(es) will take.