Residents are being reminded that time is running out for them to respond to a consultation on new proposals that critics fear could lead to huge increases in noise nuisance for local communities.
Additional entertainment licensing is additional to the existing and primary noise pollution controls contained in the Environmental Protection Act and these controls will remain in place. So if there really are any "critics fears" over the proposed removal of additional entertainment licensing over-regulation leading to "huge increases in noise nuisance" such fears are totally without foundation and must be easily assuaged for the voters of Wandsworth by the likes of Cllr Martin D Johnson.
Neighbours might only get to know that a noisy event was happening once it started and unless the noise was so loud that it constituted a serious statutory nuisance, councils would only be able to take action after the event had finished.
The fact is that, given the nature of the problem, the main thrust of the Environmental Protection Act is understandably reactive enforcement but as Wandsworth's hints at but falls short of explaining, there are powers within it, which can be used pro-actively, when the circumstances require this.
The preferred method of councils is to take actual pro-active action when the circumstances do not require this and when no form of noise pollution may in fact emanate from the live music in question.
The blanket use of additional entertainment licensing as means to deal with noise pollution, often in advance of note being sounded, is the method preferred by many councils. It deters and limits all live music in advance - and not noise pollution. This is one of the reasons why the removal of add ional entertainment licensing is being proposed. As a result of this preference, live music which will never in practice cause any noise pollution, will currently be subject to many conditions, based on the incorrect assumption of it presenting a actual noise concern.
The council's preferred method, to place conditions based on noise pollution, is based on the assumption of guilt, when it has long been accepted that one is innocent of any offence until it is proven otherwise. It is also based on the incorrect assumption that all live music is and will in practice, be a measurable cause of noise pollution. I was once told by a policeman friend, that assumptions were the mother of all 'cock-ups'. The current poor state of small-scale live music in Wandsworth and elsewhere under current local enforcement of the Licensing Act 2003, is testament to this.
In general, measures to prevent crime are sensible but should always fall short of imposing actual penalties and restrictions before any crime has in fact been committed.
Residents would also lose their right to object to a premises playing music late at night or in an outside area and councils would lose the ability to place conditions on a licence to prevent a noise problem from happening in the first place.
Nothing of the sort is in fact being suggested in these proposals. However, such objections, often made before a note has been sounded, is what the current enforcement of the licensing Act 2003 is encouraging from residents. But as it is none of their business, should any resident be encouraged by the council to object or have the automatic right to object to a premises playing music at any time? The performance of live music and the playing of recorded music is not a crime. Noise pollution, emanating from any source is the crime for which adequate measures are in place.
In addition, a club or other entertainment venue could open up without any public safety checks being carried out beforehand, while the new system would also mean that all the licensing conditions and restrictions that have previously been placed on venues requiring them to keep noise to a minimum would be removed.
The writer seems not to be aware of Planning, Environmental and Fire and Safety legislation and would not appear to have read the proposal for all existing conditions in alcohol licensed premises to be retained.
And dealing with noise issues would go from pro-active assessment to reactive enforcement, with the costs of this enforcement being met by local taxpayers and not by the business creating the problem.
Support for the idea that all businesses should be expected to pay in advance for expensive anti-noise pollution measures that they may not ever need and for providing forms of live music which will never be likely to cause any noise pollution, is an interesting concept.
"The council's licensing spokesman Cllr Martin D Johnson said: "These are controversial proposals that could have a major impact on noise levels in residential areas."
"The changes could see all controls on licensed entertainment being removed at a stroke. This would mean that all of the borough's nearly 500 pubs and bars being permitted to stage late night events like concerts, dancing and karaoke whenever they liked."
Again, Cllr Johnson is seemingly unaware of Planning, Environmental and Fire and Safety legislation and would not appear to have read the proposal for all existing conditions in alcohol licensed premises to be retained.
"While many of these would no doubt be run in a responsible manner, councils would have virtually no powers to intervene to prevent badly-run events from causing disturbance to their neighbours."
There would of course be no changes proposed to a council's powers to intervene in such cases.
"There are also concerns that without the need for a licence, other businesses could also begin providing public entertainment in wholly unsuitable premises."
Again, Cllr Johnson is seemingly unaware of Planning, Environmental and Fire and Safety legislation.
"These venues would not be subject to proper safety checks with potentially no limits on the numbers of people attending, nor on the hours of operation. This would negate one of the reasons for introducing a licensing regime in the first place which was to prevent tragedies where young people have been injured in fires or as a result of overcrowding or crushing.
Onece again, Cllr Johnson is seemingly unaware of Planning, Environmental and Fire and Safety legislation. The extent and improvement of this legislation over the years means that the type of requirement of additional entertainment licensing contained in the Licensing Act 2003, is now largely duplication of Planning, Environmental and Fire and Safety legislation, which is why these proposal can be implemented with no adverse effect on the public's interest.
It is a disgrace that the blatantly misleading information and the overly political message contained here is being presented as objective advice from those employed to advise on and enforce licensing legislation and those elected to serve all of the public.