This may help John.

I don't think that anyone was claiming that 'working musicians were exempted but this prompted DCMS to discuss B -v- M 1899. It may be as well to get your council to approach the DCMS and be advised by them?

In 1899, the courts held that impromptu performances by customers were not licensable, but performances given by a customer or any musician "for a consideration" were licensable.

The Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales) 1929 " 1931 (paragraph 249) confirmed this interpretation of the law.

Working musicians were therefore not exempted as claimed. The "two in a bar rule" was introduced by the Licensing Act 1964. The Bill does abolish the "two in a bar rule" but introduces new arrangements whereby any pub may obtain permission to stage live musical events at no extra cost when obtaining permission to sell alcohol.

3.3 Under existing legislation all public performances of music in licensed premises are licensable. The only exemption is provided by the "two in a bar" rule, which allows two musicians or less to perform without a public entertainment licence when a Justices'
Licence is held.

The following is a rather backward way of saying that in 1899 the courts held that impromptu music making by unpaid customers were not licensable. But no one has any idea where the word 'impromptu' comes from as it does not appear in the judgement - for in fact the music making in 1899 was a regular event...........

In the light of this it is rather difficult to see how a local authority can claim legal support for an interpretation that - all music making by unpaid customers is licensable - but they continue to try to do so.

In 1899, the courts held that impromptu performances by customers were not licensable, but performances given by a customer or any musician "for a consideration" were licensable.