Licensing consultation announced!

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 11 - 03:05 AM

http://ww3.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=14624

n) That a Metropolitan Police risk assessment, currently form 696, shall be completed
and submitted to the police at least 21 working days prior to any new regulated
entertainment event taking place.

John King comments:
Form 696 for "any new regulated entertainment" at Gatton Road Post Office.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 04:56 PM

Roger, most of your links don't work.

Obstruction of the Highway is a BAD THING - I feel almost more strongly about highways than about live music. That disposes of Fish Hill.

"Could be a nuisance" - a classic example of a bad condition because it is uncertain. The old Scottish condition (I think it was Glasgow, but it might have been Edinburgh) of "inaudible in any habitation" has much to be said for it. You should not have the liberty to impose music on others. The "other" restrictions on noise simply don't work.

What is needed, and it is simple, is for the use of electrical or electronic amplification equipment in any premises or place (ie not vehicle in motion) except for a private residence and then not so as to be audible in any other habitation) should be licenseable.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 03:15 PM

http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/community/no_warwick_town_centre_return_for_alibi_as_warwick_district_council_bans_live_music_at

John King comments:
Warwick District Council bans live music and another venue is put out of business.

This venue did not have any permission to make noise pollution - so why are environmental officers asking for permission for its live music permission to be removed, as a solution to what they claim to be noise pollution?

For now, any form of non-amplfied live Regulated Entertainment, which would not cause any noise pollution, is also prevented.

If the live music in question was not licensable or was exempt - this course of action (of getting the licensing staff to do their work for them) would not be open to them.

Is the claim being made that the environmental officers do not have effective noise pollution controls in other existing legislation and have to use the Licensing Act to deal with noise pollution, in this clumsy and unfocused way?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 02:48 PM

http://www.northnorfolknews.co.uk/news/businessman_s_anger_as_cafe_culture_plan_for_holt_falls_short_1_1025011

John King comments:
There is a myth that licensing authorities do not impose conditions on licences, and that they are somehow volunteered by the applicant. Here is Holt Town Council restricting live music ("a couple of violins playing Vivaldi") to indoors only and not after 9:00pm.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 02:40 PM

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2011/09/16/residents-concern-over-coventry-airport-entertainment-plans-92746

John King Comments:
Concerns over live music noise from residents living next to an airport.

Are these objections as absurd as it sounds?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 02:22 PM

http://idocs.westminster.gov.uk:8080/WAM/doc/Licence-1664087.doc?extension=.doc&id=1664087&appid=5003&location=VOLUME20&contentType=application%2Fmsword&pageCount=1

John King comments:
Paste the above link into a browser. An example of licence conditions which DCMS is proposing to RETAIN. The Royal Academy of Arts, Burlington House: live music only permitted May to Sep, Fridays only between 18:00 and 22:00hrs. Amplification is banned.

If a new venue opened right next door to Burlington House, such conditions as those exsisting on the Royal Academy, which place needless limits on the live music, could no longer be placed and would be illegal.

Quite how the resulting unlevel playing field can be defended by the Govt proposing it - will make very interesting reading. Could such a prosecution be upheld if the Royal Academy where to be found to have breached an existing condition on activities which could no longer have such conditions legally imposed upon their newer competition?

I just love this condition: No noise shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance.

The local licensing authority could not of course give permission for any form of noise nuisance and as it can only concern itself with that which may emanate from the entertainment activities specifically listed in Schedule 1, - the licensing authority can have no say in noise which may emanate say from the snoring of the members or of a chain saw being used as part of some future art installation.....

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 06:04 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Olympics-apply-now-for-TENs-to-avoid-red-tape

Speaking at the Institute of Licensing conference in London, Stephen Walsh QC of law firm The Raymond Buildings, told operators to act now to avoid any new regulations as part of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act.

John King comments:
The Government's INCREASED red tape for events kicks in.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 05:34 PM

http://blogs.culture.gov.uk/main/2011/09/lets_put_on_a_show_right_here_1.html

John Penrose

'Let's put on a show right here, in the barn'
I've heard it said that anyone who believes that 'you can't take it with you' has obviously never packed a car for a family camping holiday. In the same vein, the person who said 'you can't be too careful' has clearly never tried to put on a fund raiser in a community hall or organise any kind of public entertainment, regardless of how small and localised it might be.

Because the bureaucracy you have to clamber through to get the necessary permissions would do Sir Humphrey proud. Labyrinthine is too small a word for it. That's because if what you're planning to do is licensable, by which we mean pretty well anything you might want to put on in the field of entertainment, down to and including school discos, magic shows, showing children's films to a toddler group, putting on a Punch and Judy show or even, if you run a bar or restaurant, having a pianist in the corner tapping out moody and barely audible Cole Porter improvisations, you need a licence.

2,640 words to help keep you out of jail
If you or I wanted to apply for one in, let's say, Westminster (chosen simply because it is where I'm sitting as I write this), you would need to:

Fill out a form with nine questions about yourself, and provide short prose pieces on the nature of the premises to be used and the event you are planning (you may need to provide the Ordnance Survey grid reference for the venue if the address is unclear, by the way);
Answer further questions on what 'licensable activities' you have in mind, including the precise times when it will all be happening and – a particular favourite of mine, for which you'll need to take a deep breath before you start: 'the maximum number of people at any one time you that you intend to allow to be present at the premises during the times when you intend to carry on licensable activities'; and finally
Discuss your – and your 'associates and business colleagues' history of licence applications, with particular reference to 'events in the same calendar year', before signing on the dotted line (noting the friendly advice that you could get six months inside and\or a £20,000 fine if you stray from the licensing straight and narrow).
Then you send two copies and the relevant fee to the Town Hall, and a separate copy to the police. But don't worry if you get confused, because they also provide 17 notes to help you out, running to a modest 2,640 words between them.

So are you absolutely sure you want to put on that film show for the toddlers?

Crime, nuisance, harm and safety
Now let's be clear. This is not, of course, intended as any kind of reproach on Westminster City Council, who are simply applying the rules. The real point is that the rules themselves are out of all proportion to the thing they are trying to regulate. Indeed, some decadent souls might even go as far as to say that it's not so much a case of them being out of proportion, but that we don't really need any rules for a lot of this sort of thing at all.

And what do I think? A sane and civilised society needs some sort of regulation – it's right and proper that we do what we can to prevent crime and public nuisance, protect children from harm and generally keep an eye on public safety, but a tipping point can swiftly be crossed when the bureaucrats get on the case. So we're consulting on all this with a starting point that if there's no good reason for preventing something, our presumption should be that it be allowed. Do let us have your views but, in the meantime, don't even think about having fun in public unless you've done the relevant paperwork.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 11 - 04:39 AM

Sorry - the last post was from me.

http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/news-events/2011/09/14/consultation-on-the-licensing-act-for-small-venues/

The Government has announced another consultation on the Licensing Act. This one proposes that pubs, clubs and other small venues offering live music should no longer have to apply for an entertainment licence, and the MU will be responding to it.

John Smith says: "We welcome this consultation and the Government's intention to cut red tape for live music. At the very least, we hope that the result will be to implement an exemption for small venues putting on live music with fewer than 200 people in attendance, for which we have been lobbying for many years now.

We therefore also support the proposals outlined in Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill, which state that an exemption to the Licensing Act should take place when 'the live music entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience of no more than 200 persons'."

Posted: September 14, 2011

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 11 - 08:21 AM

John King comments:

Music Week reports on the deregulation consultation, with a passing reference to the proposal to RETAIN all existing licence conditions. In practice, this proposal will mean MORE red tape for the core live music sector.

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1046583&c=1

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Sep 11 - 10:20 AM

refresh - and other thread is probably a wiser choice at this stage anyway.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Sep 11 - 07:43 AM

thread.cfm?threadid=140189

Bear in mind that the "Big Society" is a fraud proposed by the present government to assist it to weasel out of its obligations.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 14 Sep 11 - 06:35 AM

The following is the Forward to the consultation.
http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/8413.aspx

It sounds very hopeful but it is up to us to ensure that what results in practice, is the "golden opportunity to deregulate, reduce bureaucratic burdens, cut costs, give the big society a boost and give free speech a helping hand as well."

At the moment, the law and regulations which require some (but not all) types of entertainment to be licensed are a mess. For example, you will need a licence if you want to put on an opera but not if you want to organise a stock car race. A folk duo performing in the corner of a village pub needs permission, but the big screen broadcast of an England football match to a packed barn-like city centre pub does not.

An athletics meeting needs licensing if it is an indoor event, but not if it's held outdoors. A free school concert to parents doesn't need a licence, but would if there is a small charge to raise money for PTA funds or if there are members of the wider public present. A travelling circus generally needs a permit whereas a travelling funfair does not. A carol concert in a Church doesn't need a licence, but does if it is moved to the Church Hall. There are many other examples where types of entertainment are treated differently for no good reason – the distinctions are inconsistent, illogical and capricious.

But they cause other problems too. Whenever we force local community groups to obtain a licence to put on entertainment such as a fundraising disco, an amateur play or a film night, the bureaucratic burden soaks up their energy and time and the application fees cost them money too. Effectively we're imposing a deadweight cost which holds back the work of the voluntary and community sector, and hobbles the big society as well.

Equally importantly, the various musicians' and other performers' unions are extremely concerned that all these obstacles reduce the scope for new talent to get started, because small-scale venues find it harder to stay open with all the extra red tape. There is also evidence that pubs which diversified their offer to include activities other than drinking were better able to survive the recession. Making it easier for them to put on entertainment may therefore provide an important source of new income to struggling businesses such as pubs, restaurants and hotels.

Last but not least, laws which require Government approval for such a large range of public events put a small but significant dent in our community creativity and expression. If there's no good reason for preventing them, our presumption should be that they should be allowed.

So this is a golden opportunity to deregulate, reduce bureaucratic burdens, cut costs, give the big society a boost and give free speech a helping hand as well. Our proposals are, simply, to remove the need for a licence from as many types of entertainment as possible. I urge you to participate in this consultation so that we can restore the balance.
John Penrose
Minister for Tourism and Heritage

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 11 - 05:24 AM

Why does the new consultation propose both a need to reissue licenses and a need to avoid this (by leaving existing conditions in place) when the introduction of the original S177 required only for any existing conditions to be suspended?

Why cannot the same principle now be applied?

This is poor legislation because it was was always based on what those who were paid to enforce it found most convenient to them. It enabled those more used to licensing street-traders and taxis to trample all over valuable cultral activities.

It is time not only for this basis to be changed for future venues but for redress to made for venues with to conditions contained in exsisting licenses.

Sadly it is too late for the many cultural activities which were actually deterred by being subject to this enforcement and which never did obtain the required licensing permission.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 11 - 04:20 PM

The document (para 2.25) indicates that existing conditions will be retained in order to "prevent the need for a wholesale reissue of licences by licensing authorities". After waiting a year for this consultation to appear, this reason is unacceptable.

The reason why these licenses would need to be reissued is because even without this latest consultation, the conditions were unlawful when they were imposed.

If the four main objectives of the Act remain unchanged and such conditions cannot be imposed on new premises, the existing licenses will remain unlawful.

We all must follow the law but those who are employed to enforce this legislation do not appear to have to follow the law - if it involves them in work that they may find inconvenient......

The reason given here, for not following the law is quite preposterous. There simply is no requirement for any licence holder to adhere to conditions which are unlawful, so the concept of there being any need to reissue such licenses or for such licences to remain binding, is based on a false premise.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 11 - 03:58 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

It sounded too good to be true - and, sadly, it was.

Contrary to ministers' claims, 'bonkers red tape' is to be kept for small gigs in bars and restaurants under the government's sweeping 'deregulation' proposals published last Saturday. Only new businesses and existing venues without alcohol licences would enjoy the full benefit.

As ever, the devil is in the detail. In this case page 11, paragraph 2.25 of the DCMS consultation document:

'Premises that continue to hold a licence after the reforms (for example, for alcohol, late night refreshment, or remaining forms of regulated entertainment) would be able to host entertainment activities that were formerly regulated without the need to go through a Minor or Full Variation process. We propose that all existing conditions on such licences would continue to apply unless the premises decided to apply for a variation to remove or amend them - a situation that should prevent the need for a wholescale reissue of licences by licensing authorities...'
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/consultation_deregulation-scheduleone_2011.pdf

In other words, even if the entertainment licensing requirement is abolished, live music licence conditions would remain in pubs, bars, restaurants and any other premises with an alcohol licence, however small. Such conditions quite often include restrictions of performer numbers, genres, times or days of performance. The onus would be on the licensee to pay to apply to have these removed, either £89 (minor variation) or several hundred pounds (full variation), and the final decision would remain with the council.

Credit for spotting this time-bomb within the consultation goes to John King of the Welwyn Live Music Forum, the group that conducted the first systematic review of local licence conditions in 2009, uncovering a raft of petty restrictions at small venues in St Albans:
http://www.musictank.co.uk/resources/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council

Their press statement today (full text below), highlights the possibility that red tape would actually increase, and includes this telling comment:

'For the largest licensed sector: premises already licensed to serve alcohol and provide live music there is no proposal to cut any red tape whatsoever. There will be no reduction in licensing costs for affected businesses, and there are no measures to encourage live music.'

This also means that Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill represents the only genuine deregulatory measure in the legislative pipeline for small-scale performances of live music.

Full text of Welwyn & Hatfield Live Music Forum statement today:

The Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum – Statement on DCMS Proposal to Deregulate Entertainment Licensing

On 9th September 2011, DCMS published a "consultation proposal to examine the deregulation of Schedule One of the Licensing Act". The introduction to the document written by Licensing Minister John Penrose concludes: '…this is a golden opportunity to deregulate, reduce bureaucratic burdens, cut costs, give the big society a boost and give free speech a helping hand as well. Our proposals are, simply, to remove the need for a licence from as many types of entertainment as possible.'

But the actual content of the Government's proposal falls way short of it's own spin, and a coalition agreement to slash entertainment red tape. For the largest licensed sector: premises already licensed to serve alcohol and provide live music there is no proposal to cut any red tape whatsoever. There will be no reduction in licensing costs for affected businesses, and there are no measures to encourage live music. In this sector, DCMS are proposing an increase in red tape and costs; and with increased powers for Local Authorities to veto events, there is likely to be less live music.

Critically, paragraph 2.25 of the document reveals that existing premises licence conditions relating to regulated entertainment are to be retained. Entertainment in breach of these conditions will remain a criminal offence – maximum fine £20,000 or 6 months in jail. Licensing Authorities will continue to use the previous government's comprehensive definition of regulated entertainment that includes pretty much everything from carol singing to reciting poetry.

Since 2004/5, Licensing Authorities have wasted £millions hiring thousands of licensing officers, and here is a selection of some of the restrictions on live music now found on premises licences across England and Wales:

• Restrictions on the days of the week live music can be performed
• Restrictions on the number of live music performances per week/month/year
• Restrictions on the instruments musicians may play
• Restrictions on the genre of music musicians can perform
• Bans on under-18 year olds listening to live music
• Bans on amplification
• Requirements to leaflet the surrounding area warning of impending live music events
• Requirements to display a sign outside the premises signalling that live music is in progress
• Restrictions on the number of musicians allowed to perform
• Restrictions on the lyrical content of songs
• Bans on all live music (including unamplified) even where recorded music is still permitted.
• 10 working days notice of live music events to be given to the principal licensing officer.
• Form 696 (look it up – get used to it – it's here to stay).

This is bad news for musicians who aren't 'white'. DCMS is proposing to retain all the existing red tape in premises licensed for alcohol. And this is the very sector which needs URGENT deregulation. And yet, Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen in both Houses have heavily criticised existing restrictions. A DCMS Select Committee described restrictions as "draconian" and "absurd". The Labour spokesman in the Lords admitted that the previous government "got it wrong" on live music – a matter which they "deeply regret". Even Licensing Minister John Penrose described live music restrictions as "mostly bonkers red tape".

The document (para 2.25) indicates that existing conditions will be retained in order to "prevent the need for a wholesale reissue of licences by licensing authorities". After waiting a year for this consultation to appear, this reason is unacceptable.

The document is proposing a welcome reduction in existing red tape with the removal of the requirement to license entertainment in the small number of premises which do not have alcohol permissions. But many of these are public spaces or schools or even derelict bandstands, and will be of little benefit to the core live music sector or licensed trade.

As for the increase in red tape – this is concealed within paragraph 3.6 of the document. Currently, if a premises wants to put on an event falling outside the restrictions on its licence – for example a pub wanting to put on a folk duo, or a restaurant wanting to put on a pianist – it can apply for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN for short). Under the previous government's Licensing Act, only the Police can object to a TEN. Paragraph 3.6 states that this proposal operates in tandem with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill currently before Parliament. Though not mentioned in the DCMS proposal, for the first time (and given their previous track record, inexplicably) Local Authorities are to be given the ability to object to a TEN and impose yet more restrictions on entertainment. Or, indeed, ban it.

If licence conditions are retained, we are looking at more red-tape for existing live music venues, more powers for local authorities to restrict or ban one-off events, and – unless there is a sudden and massive enthusiasm for live music in currently unlicensed venues – we are looking at a possible decrease in live music.

We are deeply concerned at DCMS proposal to retain entertainment licence restrictions. We urge the Government to scrap this proposal and give genuine support and Parliamentary time to the Lord Clement-Jones Live Music Bill as an interim measure.

John King
David Robertson
Prof. Phil Jaggar
Les Rayner
12 Sep 2011
Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 11 Sep 11 - 12:26 PM

At the moment all that we have is yet another consultation.......

It is vital that we all make sure that this is the last one and the only way to do this is for all of us to make a contribution to it. Which you can do by following the following link.

http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8408.aspx

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 01:08 PM

http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/8413.aspx

Government plans to slash live entertainment red tape
Following the Red Tape Challenge, Minister vows to reduce 'pointless bureaucracy' for smaller events.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 01:04 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport today launched its long-awaited public consultation on scrapping entertainment licensing for all but very large events.

DCMS press release: http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/8413.aspx
Links to consultation document (44 pages, 48 questions) and impact assessment: http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8408.aspx

Tourism minister John Penrose said of his promise to cut licensing red tape: " I want to set a match to all this nonsense, and trust sensible people to act sensibly, with regulation retained only where rightly needed to keep audiences and performances safe."
http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/8418.aspx

Under the proposals, already warmly welcomed by performers unions, the music industry and arts organisations, entertainment licensing would cease to apply to performances of music, dance, films and plays for audiences up to 5,000.

The consultation is open until 03 December. Responses can be emailed to [e-mail]
Or by post to:Nigel Wakelin, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2-4 Cockspur Street, London W1Y 5DH

But what does this mean for Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill? Backed by the government and the opposition in the House of Lords, it sets out entertainment licence exemptions for gigs with audiences up to 200. The bill is also backed by performers, performers unions, many arts organisations and the music industry. Although modest in its aims when set against the sweeping deregulation now being proposed, it could be implemented by next spring - provided government support continues.

By contrast, it will take DCMS at least that long to evaluate the thousands of responses expected in this latest consultation. Addressing the likely objections from residents associations, the police and local authorities, could also take many months. Legislation could take at least a year to implement.

Last Tuesday, Music Week, which had early sight of the DCMS announcement, suggested that government support for the bill was waning: 'It was also thought that the Government might at one time put its weight behind that.' http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1046481&c=1

If this were the case, Lord Clement-Jones' bill would almost certainly fail, probably by not being given time in the Commons. Private members bills rarely succeed without government backing. Allowing the bill to fail in favour of the bigger prize of radical reform would be a risky strategy. Live music suffered particularly badly under the Licensing Act - the historic exemption for one or two performers in pubs and bars was lost, while DJs and big screen sport were given a free pass. Small gigs need help now.

But contrary to Music Week's suggestion, today's DCMS consultation document explicitly confirms continued government support for the live music bill:

'4. The Coalition Agreement committed to cutting red tape to encourage the performance of more live music. 4.1. We intend to honour this agreement in two ways. The first is to honour our public commitment to support the Live Music Bill, a Private Member's Bill tabled in 2010 in the House of Lords by Lord Clement Jones, which followed a recommendation for live music deregulation by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in 2009 and a full public consultation on the subject in 2010. Because of this, the Live Music Bill is not the subject of this consultation.'
[p20, 'Regulated Entertainment - A consultation proposal to examine the deregulation of Schedule 1 of the Licensing Act 2003', September 2011]

So it would seem the government has a twin-track approach: if the radical deregulation runs into trouble, the live music bill at least should lead to modest reform soon.

Background:
Licensing minister John Penrose first hinted at radical entertainment licensing deregulation last year, responding to a question from culture select committee chairman John Whittingdale (see note below). On 15 May this year, in a Sunday Times piece entitled 'No more licences to party' by Marie Woolf, Penrose said: 'As long as we have proper controls on alcohol, and spectator safety and noise nuisance are controlled, the rest is mostly bonkers red tape, and it's time we consigned it to the bin.'

The following day, 16 May, Coalition culture spokesman Don Foster MP provided more information on his website and optimistically suggested that the consultation would take place in June:

http://bathlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2011/487967/foster-hails-changes-to-live-event-licensing


Live music campaigners have long called for most, if not all, live music to be removed from entertainment licensing, a position shared by the Musicians' Union and UK Music, the lobbying body for the music industry.

In a recent interview, Feargal Sharkey, CEO of UK Music, said: 'We don't think that live music, overall, should have anything to do with the Licensing Act whatsoever. In terms of the smaller premises, we're somewhat confused and bewildered that anybody thinks that regulating those kind of small-scale venues and pubs is either reasonable, necessary or, indeed, proportionate.' ['Still getting his kicks (from pubs)', Morning Advertiser, 25 August 2011]
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Business-Support/Still-getting-his-kicks-from-pubs

Note:
'Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): Is my hon. Friend aware that the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee - that there should be an exemption for smaller venues of a capacity below 200 - was supported by the previous Government, who were intending to introduce a regulatory order to provide an exemption for venues of a capacity below 150, and that there was widespread disappointment that that was not done? Will he confirm that he sees no need for any further consultation and that he will move to introduce the necessary order as soon as possible?
'John Penrose: My concern is that my hon. Friend's proposal goes for a particular solution when there might be a broader and potentially more radical solution that should also be considered. If we go for other alternatives, we will need to consult on them, but if we decide to go down the route of ideas that have already been thoroughly canvassed, I would obviously want to move as fast as possible and reduce the level of consultation to the bare legal minimum.' [House of Commons, Oral questions - Music Venues - Mon 21 June 2010]
See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100621/debtext/100621-0001.htm#1006219000008


ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 10:55 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/07/live-music-pubs-licence-bands

Band aid: ministers to call time on pub live music restrictionsGovernment aims to stimulate grassroots music by allowing bars to host gigs without a licence

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 04:03 AM

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Historic-building-s-fate-decided-city-magistrates/story-13253537-detail/story.html

Magistrates will decide the fate of a developer's controversial plans to turn a historic city centre building into an entertainment centre.

Belgrave developer Ashik Madlani wants to stage plays, films, wrestling, live music and dance events at the former Edwardian Guild for the Disabled building, now called the Charles Venue, in Colton Street, Leicester.

He is appealing against a decision by the city council's licensing committee in March which ruled the proposed use of the grade II-listed building – which would open until 5am, Monday to Friday – would disturb neighbours.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 09:52 AM

http://www.mirror.co.uk/most-popular/headlines/2011/08/30/parents-of-four-year-old-boy-threatened-with-5-000-noise-fine-115875-2

The authority insisted it has a legal obligation to investigate complaints.

A spokesman said: "In compliance with the law, we informed Mr and Mrs Lansdell a complaint was received."

I the above statements are actually true - then perhaps the law needs to be changed to prevent nieghbours and council employees from hiding behind it.

Currently the law is encouraging people to make complaints because those whose job it is to establish the validity of such complaints are seeing their, is to reduce the number of complaints being made. Which is a fruitless and impossible task but one which is liable to keep them employed for ever.

If the sound of social discourse and of kids is judged as being measurable noise pollution (simply as a result of a single complaint)and a matter for environmental employees - then we are all in trouble.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Sep 11 - 09:25 AM

http://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=16578

Pubs putting on live music run one hell of a risk. ONE complaint about the Chippenham Folk Festival leads to the Black Horse facing a premises licence review.

John King comments:
Even though the Licensing Sub-Committee ruled that there has been 'no substantiated complaints of noise nuisance', conditions have been added to the premises licence forcing the venue to submit to a noise management plan before future events. And we know what those are like...

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:11 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91526

M&B wins licence conditions case

Phil Crier, partner and head of the licensing team at law firm Blake Lapthorn, who represented M&B, said: "This was a common sense judgment, which reinforces the fact that conditions on licences should only be imposed where they are justified both on grounds of necessity and proportionality and have relevance to the licensing objectives."

"In respect of the imposition of conditions on the premises licence for the Goat in Clapham, we did not believe these were justified and are satisfied that our appeal has been upheld."

The PMA's legal editor Peter Coulson argued this was a ground-breaking case and said: "The police were trying to impose general crime prevention conditions that are not relevant to the holding of the licence."

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:06 AM

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/licensing_setback_for_eye_show_1_1006822

John KIng comments:
Mid Suffolk District Council get it wrong. Events for over 500 people need a premises licence, not a TEN. Live music was banned, but a childrens show was allowed to proceed. Wrong. Plays need a licence, but the music could have modified to qualify as incidental.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:01 AM

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/karaoke_bar_concern_over_late_hours_plan_1_3723464

The following from John King
'Concerns' over karaoke licence. Many licensing officers (minimum qualification 2 GCSE's) do not understand that karaoke is NOT live music.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Aug 11 - 06:44 PM

http://www.thisisscunthorpe.co.uk/Caf-eacute-s-OK-music/story-13199402-detail/story.html

Danny Fox, North East Lincolnshire Council Pollution Control Manager, objects to a live music licence for a cafe on the grounds that "the go-ahead will open the floodgates for other applications".

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Aug 11 - 06:41 PM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91510

Feargal Sharkey, CEO of UK Music, gives Jessica Harvey his views on the pub industry's role in the live-music scene.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Aug 11 - 01:21 PM

http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/music_venue_s_support_plea_1_999790

A HONITON businesswoman is urging the community to keep supporting her bar to ensure live music plays on in the town.

Elaine Montgomery, the leaseholder of Montgomery's Hotel and its in-house bar, The Orange Tree, has been forced to reduce the hours of live music entertainment in the bar following noise complaints.

After holding a meeting with representatives from East Devon District Council, she has agreed to finish live music at midnight.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 11 - 10:10 AM

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Jane-seeks-harmonious-fix-licence-issue/story-13155841-detail/story.html

PRS/PPL is the problem here. Not too sure of how accurate the reporting of this story is. My understanding is that here, it is less the status of the performer but the status of music being performed.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Aug 11 - 10:01 AM

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2011/08/18/karaoke-crooner-slinced-at-coventry-pub-after-complaints-92746-29

John King comments:
Complaints about karaoke lead to suspension of live music. Karaoke is NOT live music and requires a different permission.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 11 - 09:12 AM

*CORRECTION*

In the face of the opposition, the applicants decided to restrict their application's curfew time for inside live music from 02.00 to midnight and any outside live music to a sundown finish.

The above should read

In the face of the opposition, the applicants decided to restrict their application's curfew time for inside live music from 01.00 to midnight and any outside live music to a sundown finish.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 11 - 09:08 AM

Taxis, Street-Trading and the future of live music.

The Licensing Act 2003 is the worst example of bad legislation but if anything provided evidence of the mess that the combination of alcohol and entertainment in one licence is creating under local interpretations and current set-ups, it was the two recent applications ...which I attended (the first case as an observer only).

http://media.weymouth.gov.uk/docstore/demdocs/lic_committee/LIC-R-20110811.pdf
The first case was a variation to add live music (up to midnight) to the existing permission for recorded music (up to 02.00). The variation received a hearing because there was one objection from the public. As it turned out - the objector was under the impression that the variation for live music was up to 02.00 and had no objection to the earlier curfew time of midnight as specified in the variation. So on this count alone, there was in fact no need for this hearing.

But when the applicants informed the committee of the type of live music that they hoped to have - it was clear that they really had no need to expose themselves to objections by making the variation for Regulated Entertainment. The exemption for a performance of incidental live music would have easily fitted in the qualification set out in the LACORS advice which was issued in September 2009.

But even at the point when the single objector was happy with the application - the committee insisted on imposing an additional condition which required that all windows be shut during the live music. This condition not presumably required or applicable for the existing recorded music.

If this was a recommendation of the Environmental Dept for the variation, (it may have been written one) I did not hear it discussed and their was no officer present at this point, for the case for this objection to be made verbally.

The venue seemed to have lost an existing condition requiring CCTV but gained one for the installation of a noise limiter. There was no question during the hearing about the fact that alcohol was the be served until 02.00 or on what grounds, any form of live music was considered to present more concern to the licensing objectives than recorded music, requiring this to finish 2hrs earlier and additionally for the windows to be closed.

It is difficult to see any positives in the part that Environmental Officers play in licensing hearings. In this case, there did not seem to be anyone objecting to the existing recorded music and any open windows (other than presumably the Environmental Health dept). Action could have been taken by them at any point in the past to address this concern, but this variation simply presented an opportunity - which the Environmental Health dept seemingly jumped at - to place a binding licensing condition for an intervention made on behalf only of themselves. An example of the confusion caused by the duplication of many environmental and planning issues into what are supposed to be licensing only hearings.

http://media.weymouth.gov.uk/docstore/demdocs/lic_committee/LIC-R3B-20110811.pdf
The situation was even more confusing for the second case, for which an Environmental Health officer did attend and had presumably made some form of objection. He totally confused a licensing hearing by insisting on talking about a proposed temporary marquee, which he admitted was not relevant to this hearing and would need to be subject to a future planning meeting. He stated that he would consider the noise of people drinking and dining in this marquee to be noise pollution and that his dept would object to this.

None of this was actually relevant to a licensing hearing, especially as the marquee was not yet in place and no event had taken place in it, but this contribution made at this hearing did manage to confuse many at this hearing, especially the objectors.

However it does fit in with the current practice of these hearings imposing real conditions in advance on activities that remain untested and which at this stage, can only provide hypothetical concerns and potential issues.

In the face of the opposition, the applicants decided to restrict their application's curfew time for inside live music from 02.00 to midnight and any outside live music to a sundown finish. The Licensing Manager said (without any apparent consultation with the Committee) that the sundown finish would not be acceptable and that they would need a set time. This was later set by the sub-committee to 20.00 (8pm).

Once again, there was no question during the hearing about the fact that alcohol was to be served until 02.00. And although mention was made of parking and the noise of people leaving, the only restrictions placed as a result of the hearing was to the application for live music. I suspect that had the applicants not themselves volunteered the further restrictions on the live music, that this would have been the outcome in any case.

At one point, when the applicants were explaining that the dancing and live music would be inside the castle and that the outside live music would be limited to that being played during the wedding ceremony itself, I was amazed to hear the Licensing Manager answering that the latter would qualify as incidental and not require permission for Regulated Entertainment.

What does or what does not qualify locally for this exemption still resides only in the head of the Licensing Manager but had her view been made clear previously by the Licensing Manager, it could have avoided the whole expensive hearing process. I was surprised that it appeared to be the first time that the applicants had heard of this exemption. If the Committee members had heard of it, they made no comment and seemed content for the details of its local qualifying requirements to remain in the Licensing Manager's head.

The last minute concessions made by the applicants made a bit of a nonsense of my representation, which was stated on the agenda to be in support of the application but was certainly in favour of the originally requested times. This support was really only conditional on there being no further restrictions placed on the live music and stated that if there were any further restrictions, for these also applied to the serving of alcohol. This was obviously, if not altogether surprisingly, ignored.

My submission contained a request to the full committee to conduct a review on the indications of the deterrent effect of the so-called local licensing requirements on cultural activities like the sessions at the Cove House Inn and the New Star Inn. The Chairman did say that the "committee' would be writing to me on this. My ward Councillor was largely responsible here for stirring up his fellow local residents and at one point he stated that "all music was noise" and then went on to say that he would welcome a string quartet.

In conclusion, we have a situation where the public and to some extent Environmental Health, who have concerns unconnected to the provision of live music are using objections to this to obtain licensing hearings and these hearings are prepared to further limit or prevent live music for no good reason other than to appear to these objectors, to be doing something.

In reality, this process satisfies no party and the affect of all this on live music and related cultural activities could not be much worse in countries which unlike this country, do not bother to even pay 'lip-service' to supporting culture and free expression.

These hearings cannot grant licensing permission to create noise pollution so why are hearings accepting objections as being relevant when these are based only on attempts to prevent the applicants from creating noise pollution and as a result, giving Environmental Officers the opportunity, at these hearings, to recommend any condition they may choose to and often before a note has been sounded? Perhaps we should not expect much when our Parliament has placed the future of all of our cultural activities into the hands of those who mainly deal with the licensing of street-trading and taxis?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 11 - 09:00 AM

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.midweekherald.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fnoise_complaints_threaten_pub_s_weekend_trade_1_97

Noise complaints threaten pub's weekend trade.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 11 - 08:58 AM

http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/noise_limiter_to_be_installed_at_wisbech_restaurant_after_complaint_over_thumping_bass_1_9

John King comments:
Noise limiter installed to control the sound of 'thumping bass'. 99 times out of 100 this would mean that recorded music is too loud. But Councillors do not seem to understand the difference, and have cut the times of LIVE music.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 11 - 08:56 AM

http://www.thesprout.co.uk/en/news/cardiff-musiext-to-close/05734.html

Cardiff Music Venues; Who's Next To Close?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 11 - 08:54 AM

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petersfieldpost.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flocal-businesses%2Flicence_granted_despite_compl

John King comments:
One resident feels that any recorded music, live music, or dancing would be detrimental to the peace and health of residents living in Chapel Street.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Aug 11 - 08:52 AM

http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/news/local/controversial_warwick_lazy_cow_late_licence_gets_the_green_light_1_2958169

John King comments:
Lazy Cow gets late alcohol licence but live music gets the boot. DJs are allowed.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Aug 11 - 06:04 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-14406849

They said the organisers failed to submit an event safety plan, details of security, first aid provision and planning documentation.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Aug 11 - 06:02 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.​ma/article/91346

The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR) has welcomed Government plans to tighten up the conduct of copyright collection firms that would include PPL and PRS.

The Government plans to clampdown on firms such as PPL and PRS, with a planned statutory code next Spring if they fail to clean up their act.

The proposal came this week in the Government's response to the Hargreaves review of Intellectual Property and Growth.

John King comments:
If the GOvt wants to act on misleading claims from PRS, then they should take a hard look at the same claims being made by civil servants at DCMS/LGA/LGR.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 11 - 07:47 AM

The 'demise of LACORS' - or just a change of name?

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/static.aspx?N=0&Ne=0+2000+3000+4000+5000+6000+7000+8000+9000+10000+11000&groupid=1

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 11 - 06:53 AM

I agree that the promlem with the E petition idea is in thinking of the right wording. Perhaps it is just better to stop thinking and just to write what you think? Smiles.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91347?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n

Credit where it is due. This week's observations on the legal process come from a colleague who is a local authority licensing officer and whose wry observations on local and central government practices have caused me a great deal of entertainment, not to say enlightenment.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Aug 11 - 04:58 AM

Now the ePetition idea for the UK has reappeared, have you thought about creating one like the original petition against the bill? I thought of something like:

===

Revise the 2003 Licensing Act so that all music is treated equivalently, whether live, televised or otherwise recorded, and that all restrictions concerning noise under the Licensing Act are transferred to separate noise control legislation in which all noise, whether live music, recorded music, televised events or other sources are subject to the same conditions.

===

One of the big problems with the ePetition site at the moment is that there are dozens of petitions for essentially the same thing, but because the words differ, they can't really be combined. So if we did try to get the equivalent of the old petition together, we would need to prevent that sort of fragmentation.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 11 - 03:54 AM

http://media.weymouth.gov.uk/docstore/de​mdocs/lic_committee/LIC-R-20110811.pdf

This variation is to add live music (until midnight) and film (to 2am) to the existing permission for recorded music and alcohol (up to 02.00). There are two objections to this. One from Environmental Health.

It will be interesting to see on what grounds this variation is being objected to.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 11 - 06:52 AM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1046133&c=1

This summer festival line-up is destined to make the record books – but for all the wrong reasons as cancellations and postponements threaten to reach a new high.

31 events have already been cancelled this year, just three short of the 34 festivals axed in 2010. But in the past fortnight the rate of casualties has escalated leaving in fear that record numbers of live music fans will be left disappointed this year.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 11 - 06:48 AM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91299

Parliament has, of course, now gone into recess for the summer, but not before the Government put its support behind Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill, with the main trade-off being an 11pm terminal for the exemption instead of the previous midnight hour.

The Government's position was that this cutback would represent a fair compromise between the needs of the licensed trade and those of neighbours who would not want to be disturbed for an extra hour at that time of night. I

it was accepted with reluctance by the Bill's sponsors, although there may be scope for an extension of this when the Government's own review of music legislation has taken place.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 11 - 06:38 AM

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Swansea-s-Monkey-Cafe-banned-playing-recorded/story-13060968-detail/story.html

PPL spokesperson Jonathan Morrish said: "It is a legal requirement in the UK for any business that plays recorded music in public to have a PPL licence."

John King comments:
Oh really?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 06:51 AM

Morris dancers' bells breached Samuel Smith's ban on music.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91296

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Jul 11 - 09:33 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-festivals/8671203/Am-I-a-nimby-a-Luddite-or-a-party-pooper.html

I asked the landlady next time I was in the snug. She rolled her eyes, dragged out a sheaf of paper as thick as a Scotch egg and talked me through the detailed fine-tuning. "You can't just phone up the magistrate for your late-night extension on New Year's Eve any more," she said. "You've got to tick loads of boxes about health and safety and the rest of it. You've got to apply in advance. Temporary Event Notification [TEN], they call it. Go in person for your hearing. Got to flipping pay for it as well. I thought I might as well apply for more than just the one while I was there, to save time come the May Fayre. They've got no idea, these people objecting."

I inspected some of the objections from my village neighbours – to the granting of said licence. Gosh, they were brutal. But I had to schlepp around and make an effort to see how stingingly rude some people can be. Not like now.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Jul 11 - 09:27 AM

http://www.heybrookmusic.co.uk/news/?p=290

We know this is a bit dry, but if you like gigging it's important. There are people out there actively working to remove some of the pointless restrictions that are throttling the live music scene in the UK