Licensing consultation announced!

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:29 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Thursday 1st April 2010 - Sharkey calls on minister to back live music bill

Feargal Sharkey, boss of UK Music, has written to licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe asking the government to back Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill now that the DCMS small gigs exemption consultation has closed, writes Robert Ashton in Music Week 31 March:
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040631&c=1

The bill proposes an entertainment licensing exemption for live music in bars and other alcohol-licensed premises up to 200 capacity, an exemption for schools and hospitals, and the reintroduction of the 'two in a bar rule' for unamplified or minimally amplified live music:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/066/2009066.pdf

Theoretically there is time for the government to negotiate a deal with the Lib Dems. Parliament returns from the Easter recess on 6th April. But that is the date everyone expects Gordon Brown to call the general election. Realistically, the bill's chances are slim.

Reliable sources suggest that DCMS received more than 800 responses to their consultation, which closed on Friday 26 March. 800 is more than double the number of local authorities in England and Wales. Although a majority will have opposed the exemption, it is very unlikely that all, or even the majority responded. This leaves most responses divided between residents groups and individuals opposed to the exemption, and musicians, performers' unions, and live music organisations in favour. By now DCMS will know the breakdown of those in favour and those against, and whether an 'overwhelming majority' support a figure larger than the 100-audience exemption proposed by DCMS.

Sharkey's letter to the minister follows publication on 29 March of the UK Music vision for the music industry. Entitled 'Liberating Music' it includes among its recommendations an exemption for 200-capacity venues from entertainment licensing, and the reintroduction of the 'two in a bar rule' (see p30): http://www.ukmusic.org/files/LC_BrochureDigital4.pdf

Discussing 'Liberating Music' in The Guardian on 29 March, Sharkey said:

"I think people still look at music and think it is not a proper grown-up profession and that has got to change because ironically what some people in the world of finance might dismiss as nothing more than a couple of kids making noise in the back of a pub on a Friday night, when they grow up to be big boys and girls, the contribution and the impact that they will have on the rest of society is just - if not more - significant as some bloke with a double first from Cambridge working for a merchant bank in the City of London."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/29/uk-music-industry-government-support

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 04:56 AM

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22985

There seems to be a problem with the link provided to the LGA Group submission in full - the PDF can be obtained via this link.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:08 PM

· Should this exemption be pursued, premises that are already licensed for live music under the Licensing Act 2003, and premises that have had a permission to provide live music revoked following a review of a premises licence or club premises certificate – that is, premises that have previously been specifically considered as part of the democratic licensing process locally – should be excluded from the proposed exemption.

For example, what the LGA Group suggest would include all the pubs reported in Welwyn Hatfield still being limited by being subject to questionably legal licensing conditions resulting from what the LGA Group refer to as the democratic licensing process, competing with those small pubs that would now be exempt from any questionably legal licensing conditions resulting from what the LGA Group refer to as the democratic licensing process.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:02 PM

· The LGA Group suggests that government should commission further detailed research to establish:
o how much unmet latent demand for live music in small venues there is (amongst the public, performers and venue owners);
o the extent to which the licensing regime is a factor in this demand remaining unmet;
o the extent to which other factors prevent demand from being met;
o the extent to which the minor variations LRO, introduced in July 2009, is being used to license premises for live music, and;
o whether the number of gigs in small venues has increased or decreased in recent years in relation to the number of potential venues.

I suggest that when regulation for the sake of regulation, sounds as sweet to the ears of the LGA Group as music does to ours - we may as well be on different planets.

I also suggest to the government that they work out how much money will be saved by abolishing the whole outdated concept of additional entertainment licensing.

I further suggest that the government should suggest that the LGA Group supply some detailed research of their own to support their entrenched opposition to the implementation of recommendations based on the findings, in respect of live music, that the government have already either commissioned themselves or been presented with and on which this proposed exemption is based.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 06:56 PM

· Without a rigorous evidence base that shows the extent of the unmet latent demand for live music licenses, no assessment of the balance of costs and benefits from the proposed exemption can be made. It is naïve to ask councillors voluntarily to surrender local peoples' right to a democratically accountable licensing regime in these circumstances.

The two-in-a-bar rule permitted small scale live music but was abolished without a rigorous evidence base. There is no demand for live music licenses, unmet, latent or otherwise, except from the LGA Group.

It is irresponsible for the LGA Group to continue the pretence that additional entertainment licensing for fixed premises is the only or the most effective way the public's interests can be protected from the risks they claim to be associated with live music.

As reported in the consultation document, in 2008, the Government proposed that any problems arising from the exempt live music could be dealt with through penalties available under other legislation, such as on the spot fines for noise under environmental health legislation. No evidence is presented by the LGA Group to show an opposite position.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 06:51 PM

· The LGA Group does support exemptions for schools and hospitals, which were not previously required to hold a live music licence. We will work with government and partners to develop balanced exemption criteria.

Over half of the pubs did not previously hold a live music licence when the two-in-the-bar rule was in place. This rule only applied in in premises already licensed to sell alcohol and recognised that pubs were already made safe for small scale live music. By what logic and on what evidence do the LGA Group claim these pubs should be excluded from this proposed exemption when they say they support exemptions for schools and hospitals?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 06:42 PM

· Councils' role is to balance the needs of the whole local community, including local businesses and local residents. Opposing this exemption is not about saying "no" to live music. Councils want to be able to say "yes", confident that local people have been considered as part of the process.

The LGA Group's opposition to this proposal is certainly not the only area where musicians feel implacably opposed by this lobby. The many people who appreciate live music are also part of the whole local community and musicians are also local businesses but it would be fair to say that they do not feel that the LGA Group include them in any balanced process and do not detect much indication of the LGA Group wanting to say yes to live music. The LGA Group may say yes to being able to regulate live music.

The report of the Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum, July 2009 shows that even where this Council would be seen to have said yes to live music, this is not the whole story and covers up a whole list of questionable licensing conditions. It could well prove to be that as much damage and limitation is being done to the live music that is licensed, as it is to the live music being prevented, damaged and limited for lack of a licence. The LGA Group proudly refers to being subject to the 'democratically accountable licensing regime' - perhaps it can establish in Welwyn Hatfield, exactly how democratic and accountable this regime really is in practice.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:52 PM

· A poll of council licensing officers carried out by the LGA Group found that 9 out of 10 think the exemption would lead to an increase in complaints about noise and nuisance. More than half said they expected the increase to be considerable. As such, we believe the proposed exemption is contentious.

If the proposed exemption is at all contentious, it is important to note the direction of that contention and establish if it is at all valid. What is reported is here is what some licensing officers may think. And even if there were to be an actual increase in complaints about noise and nuisance - so what? Again what some people who complain may think, is just that and beyond any control.

The only complaints that should be concerning the LGA Group, are those that are proved to be valid on investigation. The licensing objectives do not currently include reducing the number of complaints. There is no onus on the LGA Group to reduce the number of complaints. The quantity of complaints being made may not reflect any corresponding increase in noise or nuisance but could be reflecting many other factors, such as the attitudes of Licensing Authorities actually encouraging complaints to be made by scare-mongering tactics, such as the type of objections being made in this submission.

Again it is not as if the concept of a de minimis exemption is new and the world did not end for all the years that the two-in-a-bar rule was in place. No corresponding reduction in the quantity of complaints seems to have been reported since the abolition of the two-in-a-bar rule, so there would seem to be little real concern for a resulting increase caused by this proposal. This suggest that the LGA Group's opposition here is not based on any real concern for the public's well-being. This stance alone is enough to alarm the public and as it is not a stance based on evidence, it is not one the LGA Group, as a responsible body should be expressing?

The same concern about anticipating the level of and urgently addressing potential and actual complaints, is not one shown when the complaint or concern is from members of the public and is about the local interpretations and resulting enforcement actions taken by licensing officers and the adverse effect of these on live music. Obtaining any satisfaction in these circumstances is unlikely and considered to be outside of the process described by the LGA Group as the democratically accountable licensing regime.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 03:03 AM

· The LGA Group is opposed to the introduction of de minimis exemptions for live music, however. Audience size alone is not a viable means of determining whether or not a particular performance of live music will contravene one of the licensing act objectives1.

Size would appear to matter when the LGA Group wish it to matter but would not appear to matter when they do not wish it to matter.

This objection would equally apply to the incidental exemption or indeed most if not all of the Act's many other exemptions, which may also not be a viable means of determining whether or not a articular performance of live music will contravene one of the licensing act objectives.

However laudable the LGA Group's intention may be, to ensure that the licensing objectives are not contravened in advance, common sense should tell us that this is not always possible and that the attempt to address every potential problem comes at a cost that not everyone is prepared to pay. To treat every activity in advance as if it is presenting a potential risk to the licensing objectives is to place at equal risk many activities that do not.

Planning legislation deals with averting potential problems and there is no need for expensive duplication of this for the provision of live music.

It is not as if the concept of a de minimis exemption is new and the world did not end for all the years that the two-in-a-bar rule was in place in our pubs. This suggest that the LGA Group's opposition here is not based on any real concern for the public's well-being. Perhaps the LGA Group should consult those they represent before announcing any opposition to a re-introduction of a de minimis exemption. This stance alone is enough to alarm the public and as it is not a stance based on evidence, it is not one the LGA Group as responsible body should be expressing

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:26 PM

Key Messages
· The LGA Group, and councils, have worked closely with government, the live music industry and the licensed trade to make it easier for both performers and premises to put on live music within the current licensing regime.

Many of the objections to the proposed exemption contained in this LGA Group submission apply equally to the incidental exemption, which has been part of the Act since its introduction.

There is no evidence that the LGA Group has worked closely with anyone since this introduction, to ensure that live music was made easier by the use of this exemption. Even when many Licensing Authorities were experiencing difficulty in understanding how to make any practical use of this exemption, it was only in November 2009 that the LGA group (along with others) made any serious attempt at this.

It is partly because of the failure of the LGA Group to recognise the existence of the incidental exemption, before it was too late, that the current proposal is now thought to be necessary.

Perhaps the LGA group may have considered the incidental exemption to be as "unworkable in practice and a disproportionate" as they now consider the proposed exemption to be in this submission?

Perhaps this was the reason why they waited some four years before making any serious attempt to issue guidance to Licensing Authorities to ensure that live music was made easier by the use of this exemption?

This was less a case of bolting the door after the horse has bolted - more a case of the horse starving to death waiting for the door to be unlocked. Many of the premise which could have benefited from this exemption, were either forced to obtain Entertainment Permission or have long ago given up on the idea of providing any form of live music.

There is also no evidence that the LGA Group has worked closely with anyone since this introduction, to ensure that the provision of small scale non-amplified live music was made easier by the use of S 177. In fact, the LGA Group insist on continuing with regulation which makes no distinction between non-amplified and amplified live music and which places non-amplified live music at risk when it presents no risk to the licensing objectives.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:14 PM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040631&c=1

13:15 | Wednesday March 31, 2010
By Robert Ashton
UK Music has asked Licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe to get behind Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill now that the Government's own small venues consultation has closed.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:41 AM

The following from the local govenment lobby submission.

LACORS wishes to make explicit its offer to liaise with individual licensing authorities to overcome any issues that have been identified by performers or venue owners as representing an unreasonable barrier to live music.

I am surprised that they consider that there would be any issues to overcome as everthing, according to them, is going so swimmingly.

I will let you know what they say when I write and ask them to liaise with my licensing authority............

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:24 AM

The following is York city's officers answer to Question 9

No, the proposals are most definitely in favour of the licensees and against the interests of local residents. The proposals would allow an effective free for all up until 11pm. Most licensed premises were not designed for live music and have insufficient sound attenuation. Exemptions could be made for those premises that are well insulated and managed.

Not sure if these officers have actually asked any local residents.

The so-called free for all referred to and feared - is the way things were for many years, when the two-in-a-bar-rule exempted the majority of live music peformance taking place in pubs. I have not seen any evidence or indeed any comment from the local government lobby that any local residents have suffered from that free for all, before or after its abolition.   

LACORS claims to be 'promoting quality regulation' but what is clearly shown by these submissions is that what is feared the most by this lobby - is for council employees to be seen to lose any form of regulatory control - even when it is costly, inconsistent, damaging and largely a duplication of other existing legislation.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:00 AM

The City of York's Point 7.

Licensing / Education, Art and Culture
The Head's of City of York Council's Licensing Department and The Department of Education, Art and Culture fully support the Government's proposal to exempt small live music events from audiences of not more than 100 people.

The Without Walls vision statement for York states "York wants to be seen as an inclusive, lively and active city, with a strong international profile. To do this we will be supporting the creative industries, such as music, craft, and film as well as the provision of festival in the city and sports opportunity". Whilst there is the potential for an increase in noise nuisance, it is believed the power to revoke an exemption at a specific premise if there are problems arising from the live music event will protect residents but more importantly, will send a strong message of support to local business and tourism.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:39 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The Local Government Association and its partner LACORS ('promoting quality regulation') have published their joint response to the DCMS consultation on an entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs:
http://www.lacors.gov.uk/LACORS/upload/24168.pdf

The consultation closed last Friday, 26 March. Predictably, the proposed exemption is rejected by LGA/Lacors as 'unworkable' and 'disproportionate'. But the document includes one notable concession: 'The LGA Group does support exemptions for schools and hospitals...'. It then wrongly claims that these venues 'were not previously required to hold a live music licence.'

Under the previous entertainment licensing regime, public performances of live music were licensable in such places, and indeed almost anywhere else - as they are today. Private charity fund-raising gigs were exempt, however - unlike today.

But even this LGA concession is qualified: 'We will work with government and partners to develop balanced exemption criteria.' How gracious. The response continues in paranoid mode:

'A poll of council licensing officers carried out by the LGA Group found that 9 out of 10 think the exemption would lead to an increase in complaints about noise and nuisance. More than half said they expected the increase to be considerable.' [Key Messages]

No mention, of course, that noise nuisance is already regulated by separate legislation.

'Councils' role is to balance the needs of the whole community, including local businesses and local residents. Opposing this exemption is not about saying "no" to live music. Councils want to be able to say "yes", confident that local people have been considered as part of the process.' [Key Messages]

'... the right of councillors to make decisions relating to local licensed premises is an important feature of local democracy and therefore the proposal may have constitutional significance in that it undermines local decision making.' [Response point 17]

It is true then: councils want to micro-manage virtually all local live music, and they see this as their right.

One particularly batty LGA proposal is that premises already licensed for live music should be excluded from any exemption (response point 9). Many already licensed venues are subject to unjustifiably restrictive conditions, including 2- and 3-performer limits. If implemented, this LGA idea would create two classes of venue based on an arbitrary distinction: one subject to many unnecessary restrictions; the other free of those restrictions and with a potentially commercial advantage. This would inevitably lead to conflict and legal challenges.

The abiding impression created by the LGA is that relaxing licensing control for small gigs would unleash the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. But no evidence of the imminent stampede is produced.

Surprisingly, other evidence often cited by the LGA is also conspicuous by its absence. This is the DCMS 'evidence' that live music is 'thriving'. Until now, citing dodgy DCMS live music statistics has been a favourite LGA lobbying tactic. Could it be that the LGA knows something we don't about the UK Statistics Authority investigation into recent DCMS live music claims?

The LGA response is .... more research! Yes, they call on the government to 'commission further detailed research' which would establish, among other things:

'How much unmet latent demand for live music in small venues there is (amongst the public, performers and venue owners)' (response point 14).

It is not clear what contribution this knowledge would make to the debate. Is the LGA is suggesting that if such demand is low, it would reinforce their case against a small gigs exemption, and justify a regulatory regime that criminalises the unlicensed provision of one musician in a bar or restaurant, even if there are no complaints?

Of course this LGA submission does not speak for all, or indeed any, individual local authority. It is based on the view of a relatively small number of licensing officers and a few officials within the LGA and Lacors.

In fact, there is support within some local authorities for a small gigs exemption, as this City of York council response demonstrates (see point 7):
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/Published/C00000606/M00004948/AI00018745/$ExemptSmallLiveMusicEventsreport.docA.ps.pdf

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:42 AM

I think that somewhere there must be a LACORS guide for licensing officers - on the party-line way to make a submission to this consultation.

I was joking but - I found this.

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/static.aspx?N=0&Ne=0+2000+3000+4000+5000+6000+7000+8000+9000+10000+11000&groupid=6

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:04 PM

http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/

Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 –March 2010

Published Date: 30/Mar/2010

The s.182 Guidance has been revised to take account of the new mandatory conditions commencing on 6 April, which impose a duty on those who manage licensed premises and clubs to prohibit irresponsible promotions and prohibit one person from dispensing alcohol directly into the mouth of another; they also require those who manage licensed premises and clubs to provide free tap water to customers on request.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:36 PM

I think that somewhere there must be a LACORS guide for licensing officers - on the party-line way to make a submission to this consultation.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:33 PM

Ipswich Council's submission is identical to Waveney Council's effort!!!

http://www.ipswich.gov.uk/downloads/LR-09-23_Proposal_to_Exempt_Small_Live_Music_Events_from_L….pdf

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM

I wonder who the anonymous 'key members' of Waveney Council are and what members of the public they consulted before speaking on behalf of all of them in this submission?

The '100 max audience limit' raises several key issues including (a) how is the 'individual on merit' and 'in the vicinity' emphasis of the Act being supported by an exclusion of this nature which gives no assessment of the premises build, locality, complaint history or control measures?; (b) setting a 100 capacity is arbitrary as it is often the location of the venue that is the critical factor and there is no consideration for the nature/style of the live music - clearly in a residential or noise sensitive area unamplified folk music by two performers until 11pm is going to be very low risk when compared to a drum 'n' bass or rock band activity in the same venue and with a same sized audience.

The above sounds reasonable until you realise that whoever wrote it, offers no solution and is still quite happy for the unamplified folk music, which they accept to be low risk, to continue to be subject to exactly the same licensing requirement as if it were drum 'n' bass or rock band activity in the same venue and with a same sized audience.

They also ignore completly the fact that existing Environmental legislation will still deal with any actual noise, from any source and that this would be their own advice to the premises should they manage to licence any of these activities.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:28 PM

Clear evidence that DCMS 'statistics' have unduly influenced Licensing Authority responses to the licensing consultation. Again this is in open defiance of UK Statistics Authority's recommendations. Waveney Council claim that 'there is no statistical... evidence that live music is being deterred'.See Morehttp://www.waveney.gov.uk/agendas/2010/march/licensing/item4appc.doc

„h We are very strongly of the view, from our experience in this district that live music is NOT being deterred by the provisions of the Act, our local policy or decisions made by members or delegated officers. The majority of licensed premises in our area had a live music permission of some description, and the Temporary Event Notice (TEN) system is well used for authorising live music activities (many TENS are also seeking alcohol and other regulated entertainment permissions). A significant number of pubs and other venues in our area have successfully varied their licences, to diversify, since the Act came in and it seems that live music activities are actually thriving. We are also seeing a noticeable increase in large outdoor live music events, taking advantage of more flexible licensing arrangements, for example the latitude festival. The feedback we get is that it is now generally much easier to apply for and gain music permissions than it was under the previous Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) system.

The exemption proposal seems to be a further unnecessary amendment to the Act, and surprising in view of:

(a) the widely expressed Police, Local Authority (LA), Environmental Health and Licensing Practitioner concerns submitted in respect of the similar exemption proposals in 2008;
and
(b) there is no statistical evidence that live music is being deterred. The unspecified ¡¥anecdotal¡¦ instances of deterrence referred to in the consultation paper are in our view likely to be exceptional and unusual occurrences rather than normal practice.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:18 PM

OK - is this a mess or is this a mess?

Or a Shambles.

The following is a tweet today, from the LGA.

LGACulture

LGA Conference hears that Local Govt provides both "routes to culture" but also the "roots of culture"

I suggest that the LGA would not recognise culture if it were to rear up and bite them on the bum. They could well be described as the 'roadblock to culture'.

It is a bit like the line about life being what happens to you, while you are making plans. Culture is what about what still manages to happen, despite the plans that oganisations like the LGA are making for it.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Dennis the Elder
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 05:21 AM

You can say that again!

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 04:45 AM

From the S182 Guidance Where there is any indication that events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed.

From the LACORS guidance Whilst the Government's Guidance accompanying the Licensing Act 2003 indicates some other factors which may influence decisions (e.g. live music / cultural considerations) these will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives and the Licensing Policy Statement.

How can these two pieces of guidance/advice be reconciled?

What authority has LACORS to advise local authority employees and councillors, that LACORS advice will take priority over what appears in the Statutory S 182 Guidance?

Why will local authority employees willingly follow LACORS advice when they do not follow the will of Parliament and the words of Government Ministers and what does this situation say about our so called-democratic processes?

Is this a mess or is this a mess?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:54 AM

I had forgotten that the reason that 4 1.4 appears in our SOLP - is that I made the suggestion for it to be added there, this in my first submission to the public consultation.

Rather surprisingly my suggestion was accepted - but no one seems to have noticed that it does appear or pay any attention to it..............

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:47 AM

http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=14268

I didn't seem to be able to link to the recently updated LACORS document itself - the above link refers to a local Milton Keynes version but the words are the same.

8. Decision making
Reasons for decisions made must be clearly documented so that any subsequent accusations of bias etc. can be defended. It is critical that it is clear that decisions are made according to the Licensing Objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 as well as the Licensing Authority's Licensing Policy Statement. Whilst the Government's Guidance accompanying the Licensing Act 2003 indicates some other factors which may influence decisions (e.g. live music / cultural considerations) these will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives and the Licensing Policy Statement. LACORS "Committee Guidance" will be available shortly.

It is deeply disturbing that those employed to local enforce this type of legislation seem to follow and incorporate into their documents - such advice as this from LACORS - rather than follow the law.......

No wonder then that any input on cultural concerns, even from those employed in the same local authority to enforce this, will be ignored and considered subservient to the Licensing Objectives. This would also seem to apply to Human Rights factors, even when their own policy statement makes specific reference to these. This from my SOLP.

4.1.4 The Council acknowledges the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

As LACORS advise that any decision must be based on both the Licensing Objectives and the Licensing Authority's Licensing Policy Statement - we have a problem.................

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:18 AM

A good example of this lip-service is this answer from the http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/welwynhatfieldsubmisson.pdf

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?
Yes/No. If No, please explain why.

No. Musicians who are employed at licensed premises are generally prohibited from making representations at licensing hearings. In failing to address this unfairness, this consultation is in potential conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998:

1. Local authorities are 'public authorities' for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998.
2. Under s3 of the HRA public authorities are obliged to interpret ALL legislation so far as possible compatibly with the European Convention rights now incorporated into UK law including
Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly).
3. Under s6 of the HRA public authorities must not act in breach of human rights unless primary or secondary legislation obliges them to do so.
4. The performance of live music falls within Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
5. The rights of residents to object to live music fall within Article 8 - respect for private and family life.
6. Rights under Articles 10 and 8 are qualified rights: both are subject to restrictions, subject to a range of conditions, including protecting the freedoms of others. In other words, where these
rights are in competition, a fair balance must be struck. But any control on the exercise of Article 10 must be 'necessary to meet a pressing social need' and must be proportionate to the need.

Furthermore, it is highly relevant that LACORS guidelines for Licensing Committee Hearings advise that cultural considerations 'will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives'. This is in clear conflict with the Human Rights Act.

Evidence given by DCMS to the DCMS Select Committee in 2008 claimed that the Licensing Act carefully balanced the needs of residents with cultural requirements. This evidence was not completely accurate as it failed to take account of LACORS guidelines.

The proposal contains no reference at all to the cultural benefits of live music. Music is only mentioned in connection with noise and crime.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM

"The Licensing Authority recognises the need for a balance the cultural needs with the necessity of promoting the licensing objectives."

In practice, There pretty obviously is no such balance at the local enforcement level.

These statements are simply paying lip-sevice only..........

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 02:38 PM

The following is from the S 182 Guidance.

CULTURAL STRATEGIES
13.57 In connection with cultural strategies, licensing policy statements should include clearly worded statements indicating that they will monitor the impact of licensing on the provision of regulated entertainment, and particularly live music and dancing, for example, by considering whether premises that provide live music or culture are represented on licensing stakeholder forums, and ensuring that local cultural officers are regularly consulted about the impact on local culture. Where appropriate, town centre managers have an important role in coordinating live music events in town centres and can be an important source of information.

13.58 Care will be needed to ensure that only necessary, proportionate and reasonable licensing conditions impose any restrictions on these events. Where there is any indication that events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. Broader cultural activities and entertainment may also be affected. In developing their statements of licensing policy, licensing authorities should also consider any views of the local authority's arts committee, where one exists.

Given the above, it really should be the case that there is little point in licensing employees risking deterring them by insisting that cultural activities like sessions etc. need a third party to license them. For if there is any indication of this - the S182 Guidance requires the local licensing requirement to be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed.

It seem pretty clear that Licensing Authorities are not being correctly advised by their employees. My last enquiry about the local cultural strategy was met with - 'we don't do them any more'.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:43 AM

My own authority's licensing policy (East Cheshire) includes this:

"The Licensing Authority recognises that as part of implementing local authority cultural strategies, proper account should be taken of the need to encourage and promote a broad range of entertainment, particularly live music, dancing and theatre, including the performance of a wide range of traditional and historic plays for the wider cultural benefit of communities. The Licensing Authority recognises the need for a balance the cultural needs with the necessity of promoting the licensing objectives."

Interesting to see the reference to traditional plays. There is a strong tradition around here of mummers' plays, pace egging, souling, etc.

However it is perhaps significant that despite the Government's insistence that the Act was intended to encourage live music and other cultural activities, this is not one of the the Licensing Objectives set out in the Act, which are:

· The prevention of crime and disorder;
· Public safety;
· The prevention of public nuisance; and
· The protection of children from harm

All very laudable in their way, but all very negative rather than positive in their approach.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:21 AM

Given the advice offered by its employees, there is some irony in the following from my Licenisng Authority's SOLP.

4.3.2 In its role of implementing local authority cultural strategies, the Council recognises the need to encourage and promote live music, dance and theatre for the wider cultural benefit of the community, particularly for children.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:53 AM

This is part of that answer.

A press release dated 11 Dec 2009 http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=6467844
claimed that: 'Proposals to allow pubs and bars to put on live music without the need for a licence could lead to a massive increase in noise problems, council leaders warned today, as a survey was published into the possible impacts of planned changes to the 2003 Licensing Act.'

This claim was reported in the Daily Mail and posted by the LGA on various Local Government websites such as The Local Government Executive, Information Portal for the Public Sector, and
also the Neighbourhood Watch. It has since become clear that the LGA survey was not properly conducted, and the results subjected to further 'interpretation' when issued to the press.

In fact, the survey was not of 'council leaders' but of random replies to emails sent to licensing officers. Replies were in fact
anonymous, so LACORS cannot tell if there were multiple replies on behalf of one council, or in fact whether the respondents were council employees at all. Bona fide research does not use self-selecting samples.

The word 'massive' was not used in the survey – this was an invention of the LGA press release. Unfortunately this 'information' has been distributed to Licensing Authorities who in turn have
advised Licensing Officers of these 'facts'. See East Devon council for an example
http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/google/knowledge_181209_issue_31.pdf

We support calls by Conservative shadow culture team for DCMS to abandon this consultation on the grounds that consultees may have been misled.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:48 AM

The Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum's answer to Question 14 - is informative and shows exactly what we are up against.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:21 AM

Submission from the Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum

http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/welwynhatfieldsubmisson.pdf

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 08:48 AM

Those who have made a submission to this consultation, whether they fully understand what is proposed or not, can at least be satisfied that they have made their views known and have done their bit.......................My thanks to them.

We now just have to wait and see.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:55 AM

See also the thread on House Concerts in the UK.

thread.cfm?threadid=100866&messages=53

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:16 PM

As the 2003 Act has devolved responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the licensing regime to individual licensing authorities, based at city, district or borough councils, it would be for them to interpret the Act in the first instance and determine in each case whether an entertainment was genuinely spontaneous.

This Council's view is that the gatherings went beyond spontaneous and required licensing for the following reasons:
a) They were held on a regular weekly basis
b) They were advertised on a notice board outside the premises c) They were publicised in the Dorset Echo
d) At the time the "two in a bar rule" was in existence but there were 5 musicians playing.

This is one of the best examples of the buck-passing encouraged by locally devolved legislation like the Licensing Act 2003. No takes responsibility when presented with a problem as long as the issue blame can be passed on.

From the above the only thing that is clear is that no one is any the wiser but the problem which has been presented to sessions by the local interpretation of licensing legislation - still remains.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:59 PM

My MP wrote to the current Minister on my behalf and received the following.

January 2010 [received 1 January 2010]

Dear Jim

Thank you for your letter of 8 December, on behalf of your constituent, Mr Roger Gall, of …. Portland Dorset …., about the Licensing Act 2003 and impromptu gatherings of musicians in public places such a public houses.

In our amended Guidance to licensing authorities (section 3.24), we have advised that the spontaneous performance of music, singing or dancing does not amount to the provision of regulated entertainment and is not a licensable activity.

As the 2003 Act has devolved responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the licensing regime to individual licensing authorities, based at city, district or borough councils, it would be for them to interpret the Act in the first instance and determine in each case whether an entertainment was genuinely spontaneous.

The Government wants to encourage the growth of live music. You may be aware that we have recently launched a consultation on an exemption for small live music events. Mr Gall can find details of this on our website http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx


This consultation seeks views on a proposal to exempt live music events for audiences of not more than 100 people from the requirements of the 2003 Act. It also seeks views on the draft Legislative Reform Order and impact Assessment. The closing date for responses is 26 March.

I would encourage Mr Gall to write in connection with this consultation.

Gerry Sutciffe
Minister for Sport

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:52 PM

I asked an received the following today.

EFDSS is responding to this consultation and has already responded to the earlier one (26 February).

Both will be posted on the Society's web site in due course.

Mike Wilson-Jones

EFDSS Trustee/Director
ENDS

http://www.efdss.org/

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 05:41 PM

This consultation document refers to : "It was proposed that any problems arising from the exempt live music could be dealt with through penalties available under other legislation, such as on the spot fines for noise under environmental health legislation."

The obvious question then is - as this other legislation can deal with problems arising from the exempt live music - why are LACORS and the LGA insisting that the red tape, uncertainty and expense of additional entertainment licensing is still necessary and why is the Government accepting what is so obviously nonsense?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shamble
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 08:15 AM

Full details in this PDF.

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/condoc_exemptsmall_livemusicevents.pdf

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 08:02 AM

The following is from my submission to the consultation. The numbers refer to the questions asked, which you can see linked to earler in this thread. It is important that your thoughts are made known and your submission would need to be in by 26 March 2010.

1. I am concerned that what is proposed in the draft, does not appear to exempt any Entertainment Facilities and will only apply to the provision of performances of live music and not to the provision of any facilities to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing which is not to any size of audience, and will not apply to associated facilities provided to enable the exempted performance.

The proposed exemption should not be limited to 'performances' but should also apply to anything provided, (including the premises or the land on which it takes place) to enable the public entertain themselves in music and dancing.

Other exemptions are not limited to inside a permanent building and there should be some consistency shown the Act's exemptions. For example, the exemption for Morris dancing applies whether the activity takes place inside or outside. If the reason for this proposed limitation is that amplified music in temporary buildings or gardens etc. is thought to offer more risk of excessive noise, this proposed limitation would also apply and would prevent non-amplified music in temporary buildings or gardens when this is unlikely to present any form of noise concern. Noise from all sources, is already addressed by the Environmental Protection Act and would apply whether Entertainment Permission were in place or not, in temporary buildings or gardens etc. There is no need to present a risk to non-amplified music by duplication in this licensing legislation, as this cannot ever give licensing permission for excessive noise.

The situation is further complicated by this proposal, for the provision of anything to enable the public to enter themselves in music and dancing which are licensable as Entertainment Facilities, because the activity is not one which is provided for any number of people or audience. Any exemption based on the size of an audience will not be able to benefit facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, which is not a performance to any size of audience. As this includes making the premises available for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, this proposal will still mean that the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing, will still be licensable, when paid performance and Entertainment Facilities associated with this performance, to a specified audience size, will be exempt.

2. Perhaps LACORS and the LGA could demonstrate at exactly what figure audience size in fixed premises, reaches the point where other existing legislation is not sufficient to ensure the licensing objectives? Then - rather than a minimum figure being set for an exemption, a maximum figure can be set at which additional Entertainment Licensing would then be necessary to be introduced in order to ensure the licensing objectives? This would leave fixed premises alone - with their existing safe capacity limits and risk assessments but would apply to temporary field/festival sites for large gatherings - where there may still be an argument for there to be a need for some form of additional entertainment licensing.

4. Other exemptions are not subject to curfews and there should be some consistency shown in the Act's exemptions. If the reason for this condition is in part that amplified live music between 11pm and 8am is thought to offer more risk of excessive noise, this proposed limitation would also apply and would prevent non-amplified music when this is unlikely to present any form of noise concern. Noise from all sources, is already addressed by the Environmental Protection Act and would apply whether Entertainment Permission were in place or not, for outside live music . There is no need to present a risk to non-amplified music by duplication in this licensing legislation, as this cannot ever give licensing permission for excessive noise

The danger of this type of curfew is that live music is used by Licensing Authorities as a bargaining position. In practice, a curfew on live music is offered to residents by a licensee and the Licensing Authority as a sacrifice to enable alcohol to be served for a longer period. In places where alcohol is served, live music should not be subject to special licensing conditions and should continue until closing time or unless the licensee decides to end it sooner.

There is no reason why all live music should be singled-out for imposed curfews of this type and all live music should be able to continue until all fixed premises close. It is bad enough that the provision of unlicensed live music is now subject to the same penalties as the provision of unlicensed alcohol. It is not acceptable that the provision of live music, with all of its benefits should be sacrificed to enable the provision of alcohol, with all of its problems. It would make far more sense if the provision of live music was encouraged for longer and for any curfews to be placed on the provision of alcohol.

5. Nothing is proposed here to enable a formal process by which the public can challenge interpretations advised by those employed to enforce this legislation and to include yet another process to enable objectors, is demonstrating a clear bias and overkill.

7. There is no need for any formal process here. Any redundant conditions can simply be suspended, like the S177 measures, until an opportunity is presented where the redundant conditions can be removed at no cost to the licensee. This should be the case where any other illegal conditions have been agreed and applied by a Licensing Authority.

10. No one can be adversely affected by this proposal as other existing legislation is still protecting the public whether Entertainment Permission is in place, whether an exemption applies or whether an activity is not in fact licensable. If other legislation was not considered not to be sufficient - then this proposal would not have been made and the fact that the proposal exists, demonstrates that other legislation is considered to be sufficient.

A formal process is required by which the public adversely affected by these, can challenge interpretations advised by those employed to enforce this legislation .

11. The proposal includes an exclusion process which itself implies that some form of protection is being removed and can be replaced by this process. No protection is in fact being removed as other existing legislation is still in place whether Entertainment Permission is in place, whether an exemption is in place or whether an activity is not in fact licensable.

12. In addition to performance, the public have the right to freely express or entertain themselves in music and dancing. What is proposed, as it applies only to performances of live music, will not prevent the Licensing Act 2003 from preventing this right by making anything provided to enable this, including the premises or land on which it takes place, to be a licensable Entertainment Facility.

13. The proposal ignores and is not extended to cover the unconstitutional and discriminatory nature of legislation which only requires facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing to be licensable Entertainment Facilities, when this does not apply to the public entertaining themselves in any of the other activities listed in Schedule 1 of the Act or in activities which do not.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 05:18 AM

We have tended to concentrate on sessions but what is the effect on other activities of Entertainment Facilities?

Open mics, for example?

Even where the fact that open mics are licensable as a performance of live music to an audience may be overlooked, the provision of the mic and PA are certainly to enable the public to entertain themelves in music. So all open mic nights are licensable.

House concerts?

Even where the fact that house concerts are licensable as a performance of live music may be overlooked and where no PA is provided, the provision of the house to enable the public to entertain themselves in music is licensable as an Entertainment Facility - or it certainly would be, should the Licensing Authority want to prevent or licence the House Concert.

Although as our friends at the DCMS point out, something meets the criteia and is licensable, or it does not meet the criteia and it is not licensable and there is no discretion. Except when out friends at the DCMS also tell us that premises provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing may or may not be licensable as Entertainment Facilities but are none too clear on the details.

It is little wonder then that those who are paid to locally enforce this legislation just do as they think best.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 01:24 PM

The difficulty arises with new venues which don't already have a licence for music, or with venues like the New Star which, for whatever reason, did not seek a music licence at the time.

I think we have fallen into the way that our Government wants us to think. Even if in practice, the Licensing Act 2003 and the previous legislation requiring additional entertainment licensing, had not adversly affected sessions or any other form of live music in any recordable way - the whole out-dated concept still places a risk of losing valuable music and for no real purpose.

Sessions are really valuable in many ways but their success is already subject to enough problems without the additional burden presented by licensing legislation and those who are employed to enforce it in order to deal with activities involving complex social interactions that they don't really understand.

Those of us who do understand have a responsiblity to ensure that those who need to be informed are never able to rest until sessions and all forms of live music are safe from the needless red-tape that will strangle it - if we just sit back and let it.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:28 AM

Entertainment facilities
3 (1) In this Schedule, "entertainment facilities" means facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment of a description falling within sub-paragraph (2) for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of being entertained.
(2) The descriptions of entertainment are—
(a) making music,
(b) dancing,
(c) entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) This paragraph is subject to Part 3 of this Schedule (interpretation).

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:17 AM

Thanks for producing evidence of a session which has been stopped by the legislation. This was of course a great concern while the bill was going through, but in practice it appears that most pubs which held sessions simply included music in their new licence application which they had to make anyway, when there would have been no additional cost.

Technically the New Star session was stopped under the old legislation - but it was prevented from re-starting under the licensing Act 2003.

It remains to be seen if pubs that have permission for performances of live music can also cover the provision of facilties to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing. In the specific case of dancing I really doubt that any Licensing Authority would accept that permission for performances of live music would cover the provision of anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in dancing.

And I am not sure if any distinction can be made that would permit a Licensing Autority to exempt the provision of facilities for the public to entertain themselves in music, whilst still having to make licensable the provision of facilities for the public to entertain themselves in dancing.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:38 AM

The simplest solution is of course to make all small performances of unamplified music unregulated, and I this is of course what the latest proposals are intended to achieve.

It may be that effect of what is proposed may have the practical result that the performance of non-amplified music in some premises will be free from any the requirement of any additional entertainment licensing - but there is no proposal to exempt all non-amplified live music.

One does exist for non amplified music as part of a performance of Morris dancing and this could easily be extended to cover all non-amplified live music. However such an extension is not proposed.

It is unlikely that there will be one as we are still stuck with S177 - even though it has proved to be of no use to anyone. The DCMS have yet to admit this and probably never will.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 06:00 AM

Thanks for producing evidence of a session which has been stopped by the legislation. This was of course a great concern while the bill was going through, but in practice it appears that most pubs which held sessions simply included music in their new licence application which they had to make anyway, when there would have been no additional cost. The difficulty arises with new venues which don't already have a licence for music, or with venues like the New Star which, for whatever reason, did not seek a music licence at the time.

The simplest solution is of course to make all small performances of unamplified music unregulated, and I this is of course what the latest proposals are intended to achieve. However as usual they appear so convoluted that one wonders whether they will in fact achieve this aim.

It occurs to me that a useful addition to the DCMS's guidance would be to consider whether licensing is necessary to achieve the licensing objectives set out in the Act. If a session is not causing nuisance, disturbance or a threat to public order, what is achieved by licensing it? There should be a presumption against requiring a licence, at least for small unamplified events.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 09:59 PM

Non amplified music in the form of participatory folk music sessions, have always struggled to survive in our few remaining small pubs, because they are not recognised for what they are but are treated by this type of legislation and its enforcers, as if they were conventional performances of live music and presenting the same impact as if they were amplified.

They also seem to overlook the fact that this approach then places session in a direct competition which they cannot win, with conventional performances of live music for available nights. A licensee who has paid to enable sessions may consider that they need to provide conventional performances on all available nights and although sessions could be legally enabled to take place - other more profitable activities would take preference.

If S177 was intended to be a measure to address this, it clearly does not. This measure is impossibly convoluted and still first requires permission to be obtained, as if the activity were conventional performances of amplified live music. There are still a few smaller pubs that are unlikely to ever be thought suitable for conventional performances of live music and where permission is unlikly to ever be applied for but which would be perfect for sessions.

Where permission is sought by a licensee to enable a session, there is little question that it would be granted. But the point that our enforcers miss, is that in our pubs, those who make the music (the particpating customers) cannot obtain the entertainment permission and those who can obtain the entertainment permission cannot make the music.

I think this is my main objection. It should not be the case when particpating customers require licensing permission for a musical activity but are unable to obtain it and they have to depend on a third party to pay and go through the red tape for them.

In the rare cases where licensees do share the customer's passion for making the music and where entertainment permission for conventionable performances of live music is not already in place, there should not be a problem in enabling a session by obtaining permission. However, as licensees do not really benefit - when push comes to shove and to paying out good money and filling in forms - often it is easier for a licensee to just end the session.

Our pubs are already made safe enough so that all that should be required to enable the public to entertain themselves in live music is the licensee's agreement. It is the case with pool, darts and quiz nights - so why not with live music?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:54 PM

In practice, I note that the licensee of at least one of the pubs you were concerned with did in fact obtain a licence. Is there evidence that the policies of this or other authorities are preventing licences being granted for this type of music and preventing sessions from taking place? I know this was a huge concern while the bill was going through Parliament, but the actual effects since it was past don't appear to have been as bad as originally feared.

After much argument, The Cove House Inn eventually did pay to obtain the entertainment licence. This partly to enable the session but mainly to enable the conventional performances of exempt live music, with less than two peformers, which were held every Friday, to encompass larger groups.

The New Star session in fact preceeded the Cove session. It had been running unlicensed for at least two years before the enforcement action at the Cove and the New Star session continued unlicensed for two years after the Cove enforcement had established that the New Star session also required the same licence.

As this session was the only live music held there, the licensee of the New Star was not prepared to pay for an activity that had taken place without incident or complaint for over 5 years. So this session was prevented when the Council wrote a letter containing the same 'encouragement' as was earlier sent to the Cove.

There is certainly evidence that the New Star session was deterred by the so-called licensing requirements and that the Council's employees were also prepared to see the Cove session end, had the licensee not taken action to save it.

There is also evidence that the 5 May 2006 advice prevented the New Star session from re-starting under the benefit of the incidental exemption after the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003. Had the advice been different, I would have led it myself, as the licensee was very keen to re-start the session.

The general effect on sessions of the Licensing Act 2003 has not been measured. There is no way of telling if the effect was as bad as feared and that of course depends on how bad you feared it might be. However, if sessions survive at all - we could probably agree that this is despite the clumsy legislation and its patchy enforcement, rather than from any resulting benefit?

After all this time - there is still no satisfactory answer for anyone who may ask you the simple question of whether sessions are licensable or not. I would suggest that most current sessions take place only in premises that already do have Premises Licence Entertainment Permission for the provision of performances of live music and that this simply confuses the issue.