As usual McGrath has a grasp on reality in this thread, whereas the majority of posters (and the representative of Billy Smart's Circus) are airing prejudices based on little if any knowledge of the Act or the guidance.

1)    Circus is not mentioned in the Act and Circus as such is not subject to licencing.

2)    There are some mentions of circuses in the Guidance. There is recognition that most of the music would be incidental to traditional circus acts and hence would be exempt for licencing however it also notes that a circus might have an act which was music or dancing and that that act might necessitate a licence.

3)    McGrath is correct that the site could have a single licence that would cover all users including the circus. Furthermore, again as noted local authorities are urged to licence sites in their ownnership to encourage the performance of licenceable activities. Similarly, any other land owner could cover a site by a licence which would cover every user.

4)    That may leave some circuses occassionally performing licencable music or dancing on sites that are not already licenced. If the perfromances stretch over a short enough period - which often seems to be the case with circuses - a temporary event notice would suffice. If the site is used for longer a licence would have to be sought. This would cover the site indefinitely (subject to the lower annual renewal fee).

5)    The other reference to a circus is as an example of the reason for allowing more than one entertainment licence for the same premises. If an existing licence excludes a particular type of entertainment it is open to someone else to initiate a second licence in parallel (always subject to the site owner allowing the site to be used). Similarly if an existing licence held by a user rather than the owner covers the land, but that licence holder wishes to prevent someone else using the licence even although the site owner is prepared to let them, a second licence can be applied for. In reality this is a bigger incentive to allow the exisiting licence to be used (possibly for a contribution towards the licence cost) than it is likely to result in many parallel licences.

It is fine to criticise the government any time they do something stupid. But it pays to confirm that they are at fault before wasting energy on unfounded condemnations.

Richard