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?