Licensing chiefs have admitted that neighbouring pubs are being given different closing times under new laws coming into force in November.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4292810.stm

I have the past 5 years been trying to reach agreement with my local authority - Weymouth and Portland Borough Council in Dorset - to a change on what the local definition of the word 'performer' is.

The legal advice I have received is that although the word appears in S 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 - this current licensing legislation itself does not define this word. Also that as there is no case law that has legally determined what a 'performer' is. In the absence of this. - I am advised (via a ministerial answer given in the House of Lords) that the definition of this word is a matter for the Local Licensing authority to first decide and then - if this definition is legally challenged - a matter for the courts to finally decide.

With the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003 - which does not use the word 'performer'- I had thought that this issue of changing the local definition would now be only of academic interest. However, it has come to my notice locally that some Premises Licence applications are in effect imposing their own conditions by only asking for permission for live music with two or less 'performers'. I understand that many of these applications are being made by legal firms on behalf of licensees and owners.

I assume the idea in advising this course of action is in that by not asking for anything more than the premises already can have - there is less chance of the new application being objected to, turned-down or seen to be presenting any grounds for any conditions to be imposed. I am also accepting of course that if no request for live music was made in these application - that none at all would be permitted.

However, I regret that these premises feel they are now being forced to have to self limit the type of live music they could now legally hold. I especially question the wisdom of confining it to words that are not any part of the new legislation. With its much hyped and stated claims to encourage and benefit the type of live music that premises can now hold. For this self-limiting use of the word 'performer' - is now set to re-open all the old arguments about when a pub customer becomes a 'performer'.      

I find myself in the strange position of supporting a local application for the increased opening hours but having to object to this application because of the use and likely acceptance by my council - of these words. Their questionable legality and undesirable limitation to the live music that could now legally be available. This particular pub is small and this would already be a practical limitation. But room for a duo - would likely be enough for a trio - but with this self limiting wording - the addition of one more participant - would mean that the live music would be illegal.

The other issue which may conflict with this self limiting condition in application is S 177 of the new Act. In pubs where there is a safe capacity of less than 200 under a Premises Licence - any conditions placed upon any performance (by any number of participants) of non-amplified live music will be suspended.

Is there anything that a member of the public can do locally - as part of the application process - to prevent the limits of the old legislation being adopted into the new and the use and acceptance of these words again being part of licensing legislation.