The following from the MU submission is of interest.

Question 10: Do you agree that the proposal, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it?

22. Yes, we believe that the proposal strikes a fair balance. There is no evidence to suggest that the public is adversely affected by live music in small venues. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that the public is adversely affected by live music at all.

23. We recently made our own investigations into whether live music specifically has an effect on public nuisance. These investigations took place as a result of comments made by Chris Fox, the President of the Association of Chief February 2010 Police Officers, in July 2003 in which he claimed that live music performance has a negative impact on crime and disorder: „live music always acts as a magnet in whatever community it is being played. It brings people from outside that community and others who come and having no connection locally behave in a way that is inappropriate, criminal and disorderly.‟

24. The MU was concerned about the comments made by Chris Fox, and as a result we wrote to chiefs of police across the country to ask whether they considered live music to be linked to an increase in crime and disorder. The vast majority of the responses that we received supported our view - that the performance of live music itself has no effect on crime and disorder, and that any problems experienced are usually due to the size of the crowd (at festivals, for example) and the dispersal of people at the end of an event.

25. These letters support the MU‟s argument that smaller live music performances have no adverse effect on the promotion of any of the licensing objectives. We would be happy to provide copies of the letters that we received from chiefs of police if required.

26. The second commonly held perception about live music performance is that it impacts on public nuisance by way of noise. The research that DCMS commissioned through the Live Music Forum, carried out by Mori, reported that 77% of all objections to applications for live music came from local residents or their representatives, with 68% of those objections specifically relating to concerns about the noise level of music; or noise levels from customers.

27. However, the Live Music Forum‟s investigations into actual noise complaints made showed that an estimated 90% of complaints relate to music from a domestic premise. The MU is therefore concerned that the commonly held perception that a live music performance may impact on the public nuisance objective is not actually borne out in reality.

28. We certainly do not wish to pursue any policy that has an adverse effect on the community, however, we do not believe that this proposal could cause any problems in this area.

29. There is evidence, on the other hand, to suggest that the music and pub sectors have both been adversely affected by the current restrictions imposed by the Licensing Act 2003, as we explain in our answer to question two.

30. In the current difficult economic climate, many pubs and venues are struggling to survive and many local communities are losing important community hubs. Evidence recently collated by PRS for Music1 strongly demonstrates that live music can help pubs and venues survive the recession.

31. The research found that pubs that provide music take on average 44% more money than pubs without music. This rises to 60% more at the weekend. The findings also show that live music is much more profitable than recorded music, with one in four publicans reporting increases in takings of between 25%-50% on nights when they have live music compared to other nights and seven out of ten reporting an increase of typically between 10-25%.