Licensing consultation announced!

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 10 - 09:57 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

A small restaurant has just won permission from Camden council to provide an unamplified live guitarist or harpist until 10pm:
http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/dec/restaurant-wins-music-battle

But wait a moment. Why should provision of such innocuous live music be made a criminal offence unless licensed? Isn't it just the sort of music that qualifies for the Licensing Act's 'incidental music' exemption?

Indeed it is, according to both local and central government guidance:

'The music is incidental if it is NOT the primary purpose for attending the premises i.e. the performer is there whilst the public are engaged in another (non-regulated entertainment) activity and that other activity would still take place even if there was no music playing. The public must be allowed to talk during the performance of incidental music i.e. there should be no expectation to listen or to watch (even if the public spontaneously sing along with the music).'
'Advice for licensing authorities about incidental music', LACORS, September 2009: http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768
(click on the 'incidental music' link in the third paragraph)

The government's own statutory licensing guidance is broadly the same. The exemption should apply if the music is not the main attraction and the volume 'does not predominate over other activities':
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/alcohol/guidance-section-182-licensing?view=Binary
('Licensing Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003', p31, para 3.22)

So why is Camden apparently ignoring official guidance? Did they explain the incidental music exemption to the licence applicants? There is no mention of the exemption in the press reports.

Perhaps the council is encouraged to over-regulate by Coalition havering over the small gigs exemption. And recent Ministers' replies to Parliamentary Questions on the subject have been somewhat ambiguous.

On 29th November, the evocatively named Baroness Garden of Frognal answered Tim Clement-Jones' question about the rationale for entertainment licensing:

'... what risks to public safety or public amenity arise from the performance of live music in workplaces that are not adequately covered by existing public safety and nuisance legislation, irrespective of licensing.' [HL4100]
The Baroness replied: 'The Government believe that, in the light of specific health and safety and fire and noise legislation to address public safety and public nuisance, it is not always necessary or proportionate to require the additional layer of regulation through the licensing regime. This is part of our current thinking about how best to deliver the coalition commitment to remove red tape from live music and other entertainment. However, before finalising any proposals, it is important to test these assumptions with relevant stakeholders, and that is what we are doing ahead of announcing our preferred solution.' See:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101129w0001.htm#column_WA410

Congratulations to the wiley civil servant who penned that reply. It gives something to both sides. Those against new exemptions can use it to justify their position (e.g. the Act's existing exemptions are adequate); those for reform can take it as a hint that more exemptions are being seriously considered.   

But on 30th November, an answer from licensing minister John Penrose suggested that the government is sliding back into jobsworth jargon:

Mike Weatherley (Hove, Conservative): 'To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what plans he has to reduce the (a) regulatory and (b) administrative burden on organisers of live music performances.

Penrose: 'We are currently considering how to deliver the coalition commitment to cut red tape and encourage the performance of more live music, while ensuring that there is appropriate protection for local communities. We will continue to have discussions with representatives from the music industry, the Local Government Association and others so that we can find the best possible solution.'

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/bydate/20101130/writtenanswers/part021.html [search on page for 'Weatherley']

That there is adequate public protection from small gigs, irrespective of entertainment licensing, should be obvious. How else could big screen sport be exempt in bars or indeed anywhere else. Consider the riot in Manchester city centre on 14 May 2008 during a big screen broadcast of the UEFA Cup final:

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1049714_battle_of_piccadilly

When asked whether they would review the broadcast entertainment exemption in light of the Manchester riot, the government said 'no'. See:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80603w0003.htm#080603100000499

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 08:42 AM

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768

The following from the above:

Some examples to illustrate the difference between
"incidental music" and music that generally would require a licence
(NB this is NOT an exhaustive list)

Pub with pianist (or other single instrument
playing background music

Restaurant/bistro with duo/trio providing
background music for dining

Pub/restaurant/bistro/café has band playing
quiet music – main activity is
drinking/eating/talking

What can be done when councils like this one not only ignore the legislation (because it suits them) but also ignore their own body's (LACORS) guidance on interpretaion.

And what of the other parties (like the MU) who have agreed with LACORS to produce this Guidance? Are they happy just to do nothing and watch whilst councils ignore their jointly agreed interpretations and coninue to trample over live music - for no other reason than they can and are seemingly being allowed to......?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 10 - 07:55 AM

This from The Shambles

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768

Not sure how this can be reported as this resaurant winnging anything but the following demonstrates clearly why all live music must be taken out of the hands of council employed vandals. They are not only ignoring (because it suits them) the Act's exemption for incidental live music but also their own body's latest Guidance issued in 22 November 2009. (See above link).

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/dec/restaurant-wins-music-battle

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 10 - 07:12 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

A Coalition bill published on 30 November would make it a potential criminal offence to play a musical instrument, listen to a radio or even use a mobile phone in Parliament Square Garden, without a special permit. The maximum penalty would be a £5000 fine.

The measures, which include a ban on tents, are intended to tighten control over public demonstrations in the Square. See Part 3 of the wide-ranging Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (starting from page 103 of the PDF file):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/116/11116.pdf

See also the Home Office summary:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/legislation/police-reform-bill/

Parliament Square Garden is situated within Parliament Square, on the west side of the Houses of Parliament. Peace campaigner Brian Haw has been camped there since 2001. Ministers suggested last month that they wanted to clear the area in time for the royal wedding in Westminster Abbey, which is on the south side of the Square.

The bill defines 'amplified noise equipment' in paragraph 141(4): '... any device that is designed or adapted for amplifying sound, including (but not limited to) - (a) loudspeakers, and (b) loudhailers.'

This covers many musical instruments, iPods, radios, mobile phones and even hearing aids. Their unlicensed use would be a 'prohibited activity' if a police constable or other 'authorised officer' believes that people in the vicinity 'can hear or are likely to be able to hear' them (see paras 141(2)(a) and 142(5)). iPods or hearing aids may be unlikely candidates, but instruments and mobile phone ring tones would certainly be audible.

The bill makes many significant changes to the Licensing Act, most of which are intended to tackle alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, including measures to allow local authorities to attach conditions to Temporary Events Notices.

But inevitably this would lead to an increase in the daft conditions for live music so beloved of local authorities, like St Albans whose licence conditions include restrictions on the number of performers and musical genres:
http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 05:37 AM

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/facebook_page_calls_for_return_of_live_music_at_norwich_club_1_742054

John King coments:
It doesn't matter how many people support live music at a venue. One complaint is still enough to get it stopped.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 05:21 AM

The more we write and pester our MPs, the less likely it will be that this Govt will continue to be able just waffle.....

When they are actually making things worse, they should certainly not be able to continue with waffle like this, from the Pubs minister - until they actually make a firm proposal as to what they intend to do, to make it easier to enable live music in our pubs (and elsewhere).

Licensing rules will be reformed to make it easier to play live music in local pubs, and the Government have already scrapped the planned 10% rise in cider duties (the so-called cider tax).

As there remains only one licence - what has actually been proposed by the Home Office is to increase the red tape involved in making live music in pubs and elswhere. For until the provision live music is removed from the requirement for a Premises Licence - any measure to deal with alcohol concerns - can currently only also apply to all live music (whether alcohol is being served or not).

We have the previous Govt to thank for linking together in a Premises Licence, the known benefits of live music forever with the known problems of alcohol. We have our local authorities to thank for seeing their role to prevent or limit one form of licensing activity (live music) to enable another (alcohol).

But we have the present Govt to thank for saying all the right things but not actually doing anything but to continue to watch as council employed vandals are allowed to strangle live music - often for no other reason than they have been given the power to do this and do not seem to be accountable to anyone for the resulting mess.

In practice, this is a seemingly unaccountable power that urgently needs to be taken away from those who have demonstrated time and again that this in an area that they do not understand, are not equipped to deal with and which they can only be trusted to treat as if live music had no benefits to society.

Any problems associated with live music are already dealt with by other existing legislation. When there was not other legislation - there may have be a case for additional entertainment licensing. Like the stabilising wheels on a child's bicycle, there comes a time when such measures have outlived their useful function and can only hamper forward progress.

The LGA Group lobby have discredited themselves in maintaining that this expensive duplication of existing legislation is the only way the public can be protected. The current Govt are further discredited if they continue to treat the claims of LGA Group lobby as if these were really based on a concern for the public and were something more than a powerful lobby just trying to look after their own vested interests.   

Make all premises safe for the public by all means - but please do not continue the pretence that the mere provision of any form of live music requires any more to protect the public's interests, than what has already been provided in Planning, Health and Safety, Environmental and other existing legislation.

This other legislation must be thought able to deal with any problems which may arise from the live music that is already exempted so it is not credible to claim (as the LGA Group lobby do) that any future exemption cannot also be dealt with in the same way.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Leadfingers
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 08:13 PM

Waffling around Acoustic Sessions , as always !!

And 800

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 06:09 PM

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-30a.27235.h&s=%22live+music%22#g27235.q0

Mike Weatherley (Hove, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what plans he has to reduce the (a) regulatory and (b) administrative burden on organisers of live music performances.

John Penrose (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport; Weston-Super-Mare, Conservative)

We are currently considering how to deliver the coalition commitment to cut red tape and encourage the performance of more live music, while ensuring that there is appropriate protection for local communities.

We will continue to have discussions with representatives from the music industry, the Local Government Association and others so that we can find the best possible solution.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 06:00 PM

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Noisy-bar-given-time-to.6644789.jp

LICENSING chiefs have given the owners of a popular nightspot more time to sort out problems with the level of music blasting out from the premises.
Owners of The Office, in Hartlepool's Church Street, could have had their premises licence revoked after claims they continued to breach the conditions.

Difficult to see how the premises can be accused of not following conditions which were not part of their licence and which are only now to form part of that licence.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 05:30 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/late-drinking-set-to-be-cut-by-new-charge-2148532.html

The new measures will also give power to communities to end 24-hour drinking in their area.

Licensing authorities will be able to make an early morning alcohol restriction order, effectively banning premises from selling alcohol during set times - such as between midnight and 6am.

We see the return of the cash-cow. Seems to me to reflect the very worst thinking of this Govt. If the industry is to continue with something which is thought to present a problem and to make money out of late night alcohol - the Govt and the LGA Group lobby will happly ensure that they take their cut of this revenue.

But if the measure succeeds in what appears to be its objective, in stopping premises opening from midnight to 6am, there will be no resulting revenue to fund this scheme and to pay for the introduction, elsewhere in this Bill, of police Comissioners.

If the objective is really to stop premises serving alcohol from midnight to 6am - then why not stop issuing any licenses for this period?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 08:29 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/116/11116.pdf

John King comments:
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill is here, and it's not good news for live music. It will allow Local Authorities to object to TENs.

And it clamps down on TENs being used to bypass licence conditions. This would prevent pubs from u...sing TENs to get round restrictions on the number of musicians allowed to perform.

Looking on the bright side - should the proposed exemption ever surface - most live music would no longer require a TEN.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 08:21 AM

http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000544/2010/12/01/Police+Reform+and+Social+Responsibility+Bill.html

Interesting that 70% of the cost of introducing police Comissioners will come from the levy on premises operating between midnight and 6 am. For this knee-jerk reaction against late night drinking - the Govt must be hoping that late night drinking will continue. For if these premises are not willing to open and pay - this 70% of the costs will have to be found eleswhere.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 02:57 AM

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2003-03-24.51.0

Our current Prime Minister seemed to care in 2003:

Mr David Cameron (Witney, Conservative)

I apologise to the right hon. Lady for missing the start of her speech, but she has now reached the part of the Bill about which I care a great deal. Is she aware that the morris dancers at Bampton in my constituency have been dancing in the pubs there for 600 years—without a break, as they tell me? The Secretary of State says that it will be easier to get an entertainment licence. Is she aware that, because the dancers have only two musicians accompanying them, they have never had to have a licence before, but that in future they will have to have one? That is going to cost the pubs a lot of money and time. Is it really necessary?

Of course an exemption was subsequently introduced: Can his Govt now contend that the public have been placed at risk by this exemption but would be by a small venues exemption or any other move that will free live music from our council employed vandals?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 02:48 AM

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-29a.26129.h

Bob Neill (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government; Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)

The Department for Communities and Local Government believes that community pubs are important local assets and they, along with other institutions such as village shops and community centres, play an important role in strengthening community relationships and encouraging wider social action. The Department is currently undertaking a range of actions to support the sector.

As part of our determination to shift power to local neighbourhoods, we aim to ensure through the Localism Bill that community organisations have a fair chance to bid to take over assets and facilities that are important to them, including local pubs. As part of this, we are working with Co-operatives UK to pilot the use of community shares as a means to develop community finance. A number of community-owned pubs have already used community share issues to develop their business.

The Department is currently considering proposals under the Sustainable Communities Act to prohibit the imposition of restrictive covenants on pubs when they are sold. We intend to make an announcement about this later in the year.

We are also committed to helping firms with business rates: simplifying the process and making small business rate relief automatic; introducing a more generous small business rate relief scheme for a year from October; and considering proposals to give councils powers to levy discretionary business rate discounts-which could, for example, be used to support local pubs.

Support for public houses remains a cross-Government issue and we will continue to work closely with colleagues across Whitehall to champion the place of local pubs as the social heartbeat of life in our towns and villages.

The Government are also to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price, helping protect local pubs from unfair "loss leading" by some shops. Licensing rules will be reformed to make it easier to play live music in local pubs, and the Government have already scrapped the planned 10% rise in cider duties (the so-called cider tax).

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 02:42 AM

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-29a.410.6&s=speaker%253A13517#g410.7

An answer:
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat) To ask Her Majesty's Government what risks to public safety or public amenity arise from the performance of live music in workplaces that are not a...dequately covered by existing public safety and nuisance legislation, irrespective of licensing.

Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)
The Government believe that, in the light of specific health and safety and fire and noise legislation to address public safety and public nuisance, it is not always necessary or proportionate to require the additional layer of regulation through the licensing regime.

This is part of our current thinking about how best to deliver the coalition commitment to remove red tape from live music and other entertainment. However, before finalising any proposals, it is important to test these assumptions with relevant stakeholders, and that is what we are doing ahead of announcing our preferred solution.

It is not an assumption that needs any more testing. The simple and plain fact is that if none of the other existing legislation were adequate to protect the public - then the Act's existing exemptions would also have been placing the public at risk since the Act's introduction.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 10:40 AM

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Licence-threat-to-town-bar.6639855.jp

A POPULAR night spot could have its licence revoked after complaints by police and businesses about the level of music blasting out from the premises.

Environmental health officers at Hartlepool Borough Council claim The Office, in Church Street, has continued to breach the conditions of its premises licence.

A premises without addtional entertainment licensing, which was presenting the problems claimed here - would be said to require and have to pay to obtain this to protect the public from noise. But cases like this show that using this process to address noise, is a complete waste of time and money.

For every time noise complaints are made to premises which have this permission, the same local council which granted permission will now claim that the premises are in breach of the licensing conditions.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 10:28 AM

http://www.fulhamchronicle.co.uk/fulham-and-hammersmith-news/local-fulham-and-hammersmith-news/2010/11/26/residents-win-battle-t

The following from John King:
Hammersmith and Fulham Council limit live music, plays & dancing to four events a year in Furnivall Gardens.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 12:48 PM

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/nov/lantern-england's-lane-new-restaurant-battle-live-music

THE couple behind a new restaurant will learn tonight (Thursday) if their bid to serve alcohol and host live music will be given the go-ahead after strong protests from neighbours.

Yolandie and Clifford Harrop opened European-style venue Lantern, in England's Lane, Belsize Park, on Friday. After living in Parkhill Road for five years, they say their dream is for a "community" restaurant open to "man, child and beast". The couple say they would like to have classical acoustic guitar performers to entertain customers "every so often".

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 09:01 PM

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich_pub_in_danger_of_losing_its_licence_1_728038

The Edith Cavell pub in Norwich's historic Tombland area is to undergo a review of its premises licence by Norwich City Council's licensing team.

Another instance highlighting the problems of the use of the Licesing Act to deal with noise concerns. Having obtained additional entertainment licensing the premises should reasonably expect to able to supply it.

Again, the only way the same council can find there to be a noise concern from the activity they provided permission for, is to try and find a way to contend that the premises are at fault for not following whatever conditions which were imposed as part of the Premises Licence.

For if the premises are following these conditions - then there cannot be a noise concern. For it is not possible for a council's licensing section to give permission for excessive noise.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 08:46 PM

http://beaconsfield.buckinghamshireadvertiser.co.uk/2010/11/garden-centre-applies-for-7-da.html

Residents are concerned about what the centre has planned and the town council is has objected to the application which will be decided by South Bucks District Council.

The former Wyevale garden centre on London Road has applied for permission to supply alcohol between 8am and 9.30pm seven days a week, and to play live and recorded music in during the same hours.
Councillor Alan Wilson, who lives in Tilsworth Road on the Wattleton Estate near the site, said: "The live music could be a public nuisance, the attraction of extra traffic could be against public safety and we should object to the sale of alcohol to protect children from harm."

Martin Andrews, regional manager for Beaconsfield Garden Centre, said the store may be holding promotional evenings for the sale of wines, local beers and ciders. Shoppers would be entertained with live music such as jazz or carol singing. However no alcohol would be consumed on the premises.
He added: "The centre normally closes at 6pm and if we do host an event or promotional evening we will never extend to opening later than 8pm."

When premises have to go through this process, even to stage something like this - it raises fears that are often unfounded but starts a process where complaints make a successful outcome very unlikely. This is why, places that are already made safe for the public) should not be subject to additional entertainment licensing.

The whole thing is further complicated when it is the same licence required for alcohol. Whoever played any part in permanently associating alcohol and entertainment in one licence, a move which enabled council employed vandals to use it as a bargaining tool and to strangle it in red-tape, as in the Licensing Act 2003, has dealt one live music a blow that it is unlikely to recover from.

And the current Govt is equally to blame in making knee-jerk proposals to deal with alcohol, which make no mention of live music - as if there was still a licence which dealt exclusivly with alcohol.............

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 08:18 PM

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=68501&c=1

Rumour is rife on what government proposals will cover

Operators and practitioners alike are still anxiously awaiting the publication by the government of its proposals for licensing reform, following the consultation which closed on September 8.

Something that was so rushed at the outset now seems to be a long time coming. In the meantime, our snouts tell us the following are likely to feature:

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 02:39 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/22/petitions-website-shelved


E-petitions website shelved

The infamous site launched by the previous government is under review, according to Whitehall.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:34 AM

http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/local-news/noisy_pub_to_open_again_after_closure_1_1665291

The spokesperson said the pub would become a "family friendly pub' with 'traditional values".

It was decided by councillors at August's meeting that when the pub reopens it will not be able to use the outside decked area for licensable activities and will only be allowed to play background music instead of the live music license it previously held.

John King comments:
It appears that ONE complaint about noise from a pub has led to the council suspending the premises licence - with of course more job losses

Of course one of the 'family friendly' and 'traditional' values in our pubs, has been the customers making various forms of live music for their own enjoyment. Sadly, the licensing authority has ensured no non-amplified live music will be taking place here in the future.

This as a response to noise concerns (seemingly from one complaining neighbour. However, the 'traditional' practice of amplified recorded (background) music is set to continue................

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:28 AM

http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000528/2010/11/19/Culture+Minister+updates+Live+Music+Forum+on+licensing+proposa

John King Comments:
Do turkeys vote for Christmas? Institute of Licensing publish the latest campaign bulletin (omitting the arguments about existing safety legislation covering live music performances)

Yes, it would be nice to have a little honesty shown by this lobby. The Act's existing exemptions already have largely driven a coach and horses through the entertainment licensing aspects of the Licensing Act 2003. It is dishonest for this body, the LGA Group lobby and the Govt to pretend that it is necessary to continue to duplicate other existing legislation in the Licensing Act.

This over-regulation just continues, for no good reason, to strangle the life out of live music in particular - whilst most everything else is either already exempted or not licensable in the first place.

This course of action (i.e. exemptions) is only possible because of the other legislation which is already in place and judged to be adequate (without any measures contained in the Licensing Act 2003 to deal with any real concerns which may emanate from the long list of activities which are already exempted from the Licensing Act's measures.   

Although it is easy to understand why the LGA Group lobby would like to hang on to something for thir members to licence - it is very unfair for those concerned with the remaining activity to be singled-out for the red-tape of outdated and expensive duplication, that is now additional entertainment licensing.

Perhaps the LGA Group lobby etc. would tell us what exactly is the concern for the public that the proposed exemption would expose us to - that is not presented (and already dealt with by other existing legislation) by all of the Act's existing exemptions?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 05:23 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/minutes/101116/ldordpap.htm#qwa

Lord Clement-Jones to ask Her Majesty's Government what risks to public safety or public amenity arise from the performance of live music in workplaces that are not adequately covered by existing public safety and nuisance legislation, irrespective of licensing.   HL4100

To be 'answered' on 26 November 2010.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 12:50 PM

If there really are any public safety or any other concerns over the exemption which the previous Govt proposed (even if this was only based on less than 100 people rather than 200) - then these concerns are also real for all the Act's many existing exemptions.

The Tories and Lib Dems supported the proposal when in opposition but now they are in power, are this Govt proposing to scrap the existing exempions? For if the other existing legislation is not adequate to protect the public on the proposed small events exemption then it must also be inadquate for all the others.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Coalition plans to cut red tape for live music have been postponed.

Hints of the reasons why appear in recent correspondence between licensing minister John Penrose and Phil Little of the original Live Music Forum about the entertainment licence exemption for small gigs, a solution backed by the music industry, performers unions, and the All Party Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

In a letter dated 5th November, the minister wrote:

'I promise I haven't given up or simply "parked" the issue but finding an answer which solves the problems without opening unwanted public safety loopholes elsewhere isn't easy.'

And on 17th November: '...I am aware of the points you raise and will bear them in mind as I develop the policy which will, as you know, need to be agreed across Government before I can make any announcement.' (See www.livemusicforum.co.uk click on 'Documents').

But this is very strange. Public safety arguments against a small gigs exemption faded from the Parliamentary licensing debate some time ago, partly because of a greater understanding about the scope of existing safety legislation, and partly because of new fire safety legislation that came into force in 2006 (Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005).

And only a few months ago the minister was talking optimistically in Parliament about a 'radical solution'. See Hansard, 21 June 2010:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100621/debtext/100621-0001.htm

At that time, the word on the music industry grapevine was that Penrose was poised to agree an historic live music exemption with the Local Government Association, following intensive talks.

So what has gone wrong, and why is he now resurrecting public safety concerns about live music?

In an attempt to find out, Lord Clement-Jones has this week tabled a written question (search on the page for 'Clement'):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/minutes/101116/ldordpap.htm#qwa

Penrose's reference to agreement 'across Government' probably means that the Home Office and Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) are making trouble behind the scenes.

A reliable Parliamentary source claims that Home Office licensing mandarins believe that Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, which would implement a 200-audience gig exemption, 'drives a coach and horses' through the Licensing Act.

If this claim is true, it would mean that ignorance and prejudice are once again in the ascendant. The exemption debate will be set back by years rather than months.

It would seem that the best hope for an entertainment licensing exemption now rests with Lord Clement-Jones' bill, backed by the whole music industry. A second reading is due early next year.

Text of the bill: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/012/11012.1-i.html

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 04:42 AM

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Hotel-given-live-music-ban-complaints/article-2903684-detail/article.html

I am puzzled as why the noise limiting devices that are required to be used so that recorded and DJs can continue to take place, cannot also be used to enable live music............

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 04:03 AM

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2010/11/15/coventry-cafe-applies-for-late-night-music-licence-92746-27661710

John King comments:
Costa Coffee applies for authorisation for live music on Sundays only and until 7pm.

Any takers for bets on the number of objections, or the conditions imposed by Coventry Council?

As it is from 9am to 7pm - I am not too sure how the headline writers came up with 'late night'? Unless of course they intentionally wish to stir things up...?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:52 AM

This bit was me and not John King.

And we have other examples where additional Entertainment licensing permission is paid for and granted but is prevented as Planning permission is not granted.

The net result of all this duplication of legislation and effort is an Amazonian jugle of red tape in which live music is very shortly going to be a thing of the past. A small venues exemption may help (if it ever arrives) but it is time for a total re-think of way to rescue live music from the 'vandals'.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:49 AM

http://www.threerivers.gov.uk/GetResource.aspx?file=10+10+13+LI+i+-+%2805%29+noise+complaints+from+licensed+premises.doc

John King comments:
Councillors at Three Rivers District Coucil are trying to find out from their Licensing Dept why only 17% of all premises in the area are authorised for live music.

TRDC Licensing Officers reveal how a... co...mbination of the Licensing Act 2003 and Environmental Protection Act 1990 result in a zero-tolerance of live music.

The licensed premises noise complaint flow chart in Appendix 1, shows how a premises licence review can be triggered by one complaint, even 'if no noise nuisance is witnessed'. Premises can expect anything from a complete ban on live music to prohibitive restrictions, such as a ban on amplification, requirements for SIA registered doorstaff to regulate gigs, restrictions on the number of musicians, and so on. Most premises give up hosting live music at this point. One more complaint can result in a heavy fine - even without evidence.

Not only is the licence holder punished, but the premises itself will not be able to put on music in the future. In many cases even unamplified live music is banned, while recorded music and broadcast sporting events are allowed.

And we have other examples where additional Entertainment licensing permission is paid for and granted but is prevented as Planning permission is not granted.

The net result of all this duplication of legislation and effort is an Amozonian jugle of red tape in which live music is very shortly going to be a thing of the past. A small venues exemption may help (if it ever arrives) but it is time for a total re-think of way to rescue live music from the 'vandals'.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 02:47 AM

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/time-pub-noise-row/article-2860566-detail/article.html

The Travelodge -v- The Brown Jug saga.

A DISPUTE between a pub and a hotel over live music will not be resolved until February.

Hotel giant Travelodge had asked Newcastle Borough Council's licensing sub-committee to review the Old Brown Jug's licence after it claimed noise from the Newcastle pub was stopping its guests getting to sleep.

Travelodge made the complaint just three weeks after it opened its £3 million 82-bedroom hotel on the Georgia Pacific site in June.

But a licensing meeting yesterday heard Travelodge had asked for the matter to be adjourned to give it more time to collect information.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 05:14 AM

From Equity's Magazine Autumn 2010 (not available online):

'Assistant General Secretary Stephen Spence and Louise McMullan met with John Penrose MP, minister for tourism, on 20 September. The minister, who has responsibility for the Licensing Act, was keen to open up a channel of communication with the union and was ve...ry receptive to Equity's arguments concerning the 'regulated entertainment' provisions of the Licensing Act. He stated that he was committed to working with us to find a solution to the issues faced by our members that can also accommodate the concerns of local authorities.

John King comments:
This is a pity. It is not possible to accommodate the 'concerns' of the LGA. The LGA misled their own members and the press with a bogus survey of 'licensing chiefs', and published false statistics about live music licensing.

Their concerns are for their own interests only and are not relevant when the issue is the fair enforcement of delegated legislation. The LGA Group lobby must be seen to enforce fairly, all of its responsibilties under the Licensing Act 2003. It is now clear that this is not the case and that this approach is actually the cause of the issues faced by Equity's members.

As demonstrated in many of the examples in this thread, there are many instances where they have been prepared to be seen to sacrifice one licensable activty in order to enable another. This is evidence, not of this lobby protecting the public but of using the legislation to illegally discriminate against the interests of live music and other cultural activities.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 09:41 AM

http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/letters/letters_more_views_on_the_planners_and_mama_liz_s_1_674862

The following from John King:
Letters from local residents to the Rutland & Stamford Mercury in support of Mama Liz's, where South Kesteven Council banned music and comedy in April. Not because of any speculative objections about noise, but appa...rently because of planning regulations.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 04:07 AM

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/committee/2010/re/re004/0511_4.pdf

John King comments:
This effort from Bristol Licensing Officers places the following conditions on the premises licence at Agora:

'Live music - limited to indoors only. Live band of 5 to 6 people, mixture of jazz and Latin. The music is amplified through the club's system.'

Once again, all non-amplified live music is limited by conditions which are more stringent than those for recorded music. How can live music possibly survive (let alone thrive) when it continues to be automatically scapegoated at the slightest excuse?

This is over-regulation imposed for no other reason than the powers exist. These powers MUST be removed from those who have no effective watchdog and as a result, take no responsiblity for damage their actions are creating.

There is already perfectly adequate legislation to deal with public order, safety and noise. There are exemptions for live music and other activities where additional entertainment licensing, contained in the Licensing Act 2003 is not required. So it cannot be argued that the other existing legislation is ineffective, as it is this that is already protecting the public from any concerns that may arise from these.

If these were thought to be inadequate - the LGA group lobby and the police would be lobbying for all exemptions to be removed. They may yet ask for this and possibly for licensing officers to be armed......

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:22 PM

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/DCMS-Business-Plan_2010-15.pdf

DCMS publishes the business plan 2010 to 2015

Section B - Coalition Priorities, states:

The Department will no longer... over-regulate. We will remove unnecessary red tape and barriers, ensuring that people remain protected by only essential regulation. For example, we will cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music.

These word are accepting that the DCMS have been and currently are over-regulating but they are still not making any proposals on how exactly they will cut the red tape to encourage the performance of more live music.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:10 PM

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-04a.20912.h&s=%22live+music%22#g20912.q0

Mike Weatherley (Hove, Conservative): 'To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent steps his Department has taken to encourage the performance of live music'

John Penrose (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport; Weston-Super-Mare, Conservative): 'The Department is currently considering how best to deliver the coalition agreement to cut red tape and encourage the performance of more live music, while ensuring that appropriate protection for local communities continues. We have had discussions with representatives from the music industry, the Local Government Association and the police among others and will continue to do so in our quest for consensus on this issue.'

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:06 AM

http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/local-headlines/opening_hours_objections_overruled_as_village_inn_set_to_reopen_this_w

John King Comments:
Live music prejudice is spreading in Scotland. Here is a pub with a licence for live music.. but only occasionally.

Prior to the Licensing Act (Scotland) 2005 such restrictions were unheard of. Unticketed live music events did not need a licence, and noise was dealt with by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 - which applies across the UK.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:01 AM

http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/music_venue_must_wait_to_hear_fate_1_1598415

A MuSIC venue will suffer a tense wait to hear the outcome of a planning row.

Mama Liz's Soulfood Shack and Voodoo Lounge in North Street, Stamford, was served with a planning notice banning it from holding music events and

comedy acts by South Kesteven District Council in April. The council said it did not have planning permission to hold them.

It's very disappointing because we have done everything by the book.

"Ever since we opened we have been guided by South Kesteven District Council and have done everything they asked of us."

The council granted a licence for food, alcohol and live music when the venue opened in 2008 but now says it does not have planning consent for live events.

So the same council as granted additional entertainment licensing permission - is now saying that it has not given planning permission?

What point was there in the venue paying for the additional entertainment permission? This is just another example of where the Licensing Act's measure are simply expensive and clumsy duplication of existing legislation.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:48 AM

http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/news/local/rose_and_crown_wish_to_serve_toast_1_1590645

Warwick Police object to three musicians in a restaurant.

POLICE licensing officer Keith Duncan is objecting to an application to vary the licence at a popular Warwick restaurant.


The Rose and Crown, which was bought by the Peach Pub Company, wants to lift some of the restrictions imposed on previous owners, Punch Taverns.

The new owners, who also own The Almanack in Kenilworth, want to have some restrictions lifted to allow entertainment from more than just two singers. They also want longer opening hours including 9am for breakfast, instead of 10am.

But on Novewmber 4, when the licensing panel meets, Mr Duncan will say the police object on the grounds that increased the hours and relaxed music conditions could lead to noise nuisance and crime and disorder problems.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Old Vermin
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:28 AM

Thank you both. And here's me, the last of the Facebook refuseniks.... Oh,well.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 04:31 AM

Joining this Facebook site may help.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141223114767&ref=mf


http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/london-loses-another-music-venue-as-the-flowerpot-closes-2122616.html

London loses another music venue as The Flowerpot closes

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:51 AM

Would I be right to assume it's best that I contact Mr Hunt and Waverley Borough Council direct and that this thread is for information only?

LAs, Mr Hunt, the DCMS should of course be informing the public about the true state of live music under the Licensing Act 2003. But as they seem to have every intention of continuing the pretence that live music is 'thriving', it is up to all of us to try to ensure that the true situation is presented. Anything you or anyone else can do will be much appreciated.


http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=68327&c=1

Licensing Law: TENs to transform
3 November, 2010

By Joelson Wilson & Co

The coalition is looking to abandon the previous government's 'light touch bureaucracy' approach to TENs, so more forethought will be required when organising events.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Old Vermin
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:56 AM

Email received today about suspension of events license for The Barn in Farnham - Part of Jeremy Hunt's South-West Surrey constituency.

Waverley Borough Council.

I heard about it because the Surrey Storytellers Guild event tomorrow - 4th November - is cancelled.

Also casts doubt on Anna [Tabbush] and the Odd Socks plus Tristan Seume on the 20th.


Guest - The Shambles - PM doesn't, of course, work for you. May I ask if and how information such as this item gets fed back to anywhere in the body politic - does it go to, say, to Mr Hunt or for consultation.

Would I be right to assume it's best that I contact Mr Hunt and Waverley Borough Council direct and that this thread is for information only?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:03 AM

Cases like the Saki bar highlight the problems of using the additional licensing permission in the Licensing Act as a means to deal with noise pollution. It is classic 'Catch 22'.

The only way that the local authority can claim there to be a noise problem after granting permission and after they have imposed conditions that are supposed to prevent any noise concern emanating from the Regulated Entertainment, - is for them to subsequently find that these conditions were not being correctly followed by the premises.

For if they are being followed - there cannot be a noise concern emanating from the permitted Regulated Entertainment.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 05:47 AM

http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000502/2010/10/28/Saki+Bar+wins+noise+appeal.html

Anthony Horne of Licensing Legal, acting for the premises said:

'The Appeal was lodged on the basis that Revocation was neither necessary nor proportionate – the Committee gave no thought to any other possible outcome – and the fact that the complaints regarding noise all emanated from the occupier of the flat adjoining the pub next door.'

Councillor Jim Battle, Deputy Leader of Manchester City Council, said at the time:

"This premises was having a detrimental effect on local residents, who complained about noise and other problems linked to the bar.

There were only complaints about noise from the same single resident.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 05:27 AM

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/news/John-beats-council-fruit-delivery-battle/article-2811967-detail/article.html

When folk are brave (or rich enough) to make a legal challenge - this case shows that complaints which council employees feel they are obliged to support can be be viewed far more sensibly by the courts.

After deliberation the chairman said the bench had decided in favour of Mr Prentis and added that the matter should not have come to court in the first place.

In his closing remarks he said: "As ordinary citizens we are extremely disappointed a public body should not seek to resolve these issues with the parties involved.

"Instead they have committed everyone to money spent from the public purse and put unnecessary stress and strain on a local trader of good repute. We wonder why we should be here."

After the hearing Mr Cagney said: "I feel very pleased indeed for a client who has had a very troubled year from the date this notice was served without any prior warning, any discussion or negotiation."

Mr Prentis said: "The council should be supporting local businesses, not trying to stop them trading. They have used taxpayers' money for something that shouldn't have happened. In the end the black and white word of the law threw it out and I want to thank the people who have been so supportive. I especially want to thank the Broadstairs and St Peters Chamber of Commerce and the 4,000 people who signed the petition in support."

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 05:15 AM

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/localnews/Pub-music-out-of-tune.6607017.jp

One objector told the licensing board: "When we first moved here 20 years ago there was music four nights a week and the noise levels continued long after the music had finished. Drunken fights were the norm after closing time.

"Obviously we will oppose any extension of the Blue Bell's licence which is going to contribute to recreating that situation."

People living in nearby Hutton Croft have also joined together and formed a petition, bearing 20 signatures so far, that they have submitted to the licensing board. The petition complains of fighting outside the pub, excess noise and glasses being smashed in the street.

Also objecting to the variations to the Blue Bell's licence are officials from Sheffield Council's environmental protection service.

They say the pub is in a residential area and could therefore cause "excessive noise disturbance" for neighbours.

Councillors will decide whether the changes to the licence should be permitted what they meet at Sheffield Town Hall at 10am tomorrow.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 01:30 PM

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3166894/Gaffe-as-lock-in-is-probed.html

A JOBSWORTH council lawyer reported a pub which displayed a poster reading 'Lock-In, 8pm till late' - before finding out it was an ad for a BAND.
The legal officer raised concerns about Greyfriars Bar in Perth, thinking it was promoting an illegal after-hours party.

But when local authority chiefs sent in a licensing official he found the advert was for a gig by local folk band Lock-In, who finished at 11pm.

Licensee Pauline Marshall said: "We just thought it was a routine visit, none of us had thought twice about the posters.

"When he turned up he realised immediately and was nice about it, but it beggars belief this could happen.

"You just have to laugh - have people lost their common sense?"

Lock-In drummer Sandy Stirton said: "We couldn't stop laughing.

"It's sounds like a case of a jobsworth who spotted the poster and thought they'd hit gold."

Perth and Kinross Council chiefs said the blunder was caused by 'unfortunate phrasing'.

A spokesman added: "It was decided to find out what it meant."

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 01:23 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317844/Council-killjoy-tries-stop-Cancer-Research-charity-event-Milton-Keynes.html

Jobsworth council killjoy puts spoke in the wheels of cancer charity bike ride
By Andrew Levy
6th October 2010

With their annual charity bike ride in its eighth year, the organisers were confident the wheels were in motion for a perfect day.
But they hadn't counted on an over-zealous council jobsworth.
After receiving a handful of complaints about the noise coming from a public address system, an environmental health officer arrived at the event.

Carol Osborne, 66, who spent a year helping to organise the event, said the council worker's attitude was... 'unpl...easant, uncalled for and unprofessional'.

She added: 'He came up to me with no introduction and just started yelling. He was shouting, "Do you realise I can close you down?" He was on some sort of power trip. He was right up in my face yelling and screaming through his teeth, practically growling at me.