Licensing consultation announced!

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 12:59 PM

It's shatteringly simple. Those whose business is red tape need the control of additional entertainment licensing and are showing that they are prepared to lie and cheat in order to retain it, Sadly, they are showing that they are quite prepared to see all live music be lost in the attempt.

If there were ever to be an exemption for all non-amplfied live music - that would give the green light to those who already see and wish to treat all live music in advance, as if it automatically is a noise pollution issue. The situation for amplification is not that simple, as not all amplified live music in all venues and at all times will present measuable noise pollution.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 09:45 AM

The full response from the LGA. Seemingly the requirement to provide answers to those asked bt DCMS does not apply the LGA.

http://www.local.gov.uk/web/10161/legislation/-/journal_content/56/10161/3168126/ARTICLE-TEMPLATE

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 09:32 AM

It would strip away the power of residents, councils and police to object to noisy, inappropriate and potentially dangerous events being held in their local area,

Where the premises have already been made safe for the public, and in the advance of a note being sounded - there is only the potential for events to be inappropriate, noisy or dangerous. Where any of these can be avoided in advance, it is of course desirable but the imposition of actual conditions in advance to address what at that stage can only be potential problems - will also deter and limit activities which will never be capable of producing such problems.

while reducing police and council powers to tackle noisy events which spark complaints from neighbours.

Tosh!
In what way can the removal of additional entertainment licensing reduce such powers? The very same powers which are currently being used by police and councils and thought perfectly adequate for activities which are already exempt from additional entertainment licensing?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 09:16 AM

It would strip away the power of residents, councils and police to object to noisy, inappropriate and potentially dangerous events being held in their local area, while reducing police and council powers to tackle noisy events which spark complaints from neighbours.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 06:59 AM

It's shatteringly simple. Amplification needs the control of licensing.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 06:46 AM

Premises like nightclubs, pubs and bars need licences to sell alcohol, but the deregulation would allow one-off events to be held in private premises like warehouses at any time of the day or night without the need for authorities to be notified.

Are we realy being asked to accept that it is only the requirement for additional entertainment licensing that is currently preventing warehouses from being used in the way suggested? After all, illegal activities are still illegal.

Sadly, at the moment, such things as mumming plays, school concerts, carol singing, sessions and all manner of other valuable cultural activities taking place just about everywhere are also illegal. Must these remain so?

The LGA does not appear to recognise that advanced planning legislation should be making sure that all premises are safe and suitable for its intended purpose and the the removal of the advanced requirement for additional enteratinment licensing will not alter the fact that all public premises need to be made safe in advance. Once they have been made safe - let the public use them for what they wish to do in them.

Rather than bodies like the LGA concentrating on some sort of return to them taking their historical advance cut from all types of entertainment activity, they would serve us better by ensuring that the public have safe and suitable premises available for all of their activities.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 06:00 AM

http://www.local.gov.uk/web/10161/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10161/3178559/NEWS-TEMPLATE

Scrapping regulation will lead to noisy all night raves councils warn.

John King Comments: Some of this LGA press release just isn't true.

The turkeys are not very keen on voting for an early Christmas.

It would be nice to think that their concerns are for the public they are supposed to serve, but sadly it is only self-interest. But why are you and I paying for a body which serves only its own interests?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 11 - 08:38 AM

http://www.censorwatch.co.uk/cw1211.htm#A_Cacophony_of_Squealing_Box_Tickers_8120

"Councillor Chris White of the Local Government Box Tickers Association, which represent 350 councils, said: 'These proposals go too far. In its intention to cut red tape and box-ticking for village fetes, school concerts and amateur plays, this will inadvertently be giving carte blanche for noisy parties, concerts and all night raves attended by thousands.'

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 11 - 08:35 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8933406/Conservative-Party-encourages-return-of-all-night-raves.html

Conservative Party encourages return of all night raves
The Conservative Party could be unwittingly encouraging a new wave of all-night open air raves, ministers have been warned.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Dec 11 - 03:38 PM

http://www.alan.shrank.freeuk.com/responses/dereg.pdf

The reason the 2003 Licensing Act provides some protection for residents is because conditions are imposed on a premises licence in order to limit the noise and nuisance that regulated entertainment can cause, and if they are breached reviews can take place with
possible penalties including loss of the licence.

The problem is that, imposing such conditions, in advance based on what noise and nuisance CAN cause will and does limit and deter ALL live music - even that which would NEVER in fact cause noise and nuisance.

It was the Licensing Act 2003 which introduced additional entertainment licensing for the first time to so many activities and to their detriment. The removal of additional entertain licensing will only reverse this.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 05:28 PM

"So why are councils across the capital determined to attack musicians under so many guises?"

More importantly, how can this be seen to be acceptable, from those who are largely responsible for the restricted position that small-scale live music is in and who still either try to deny this or when they don't deny it, attempt to blame everyone else?

None of the submissions I have seen calling for the over-regulation of live music to continue, seem to even attempt to explain why the showing of TV sport in pubs does not require the same. Or even mention any of the Act's existing exemptions, where such over-regulation is not required to ensure the public's interest, which can safely be left for all the other existing legislation.

Probably the biggest area of criticism is over the different treatment that those who are employed to enforce this legislation seem to accept for different types and styles of music. They view live music as presenting more problems than recorded music and it is difficult to understand the reasons why this should be the case.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 05:15 AM

http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/letters/feature.php/34437/same-regulations-for-live-music

So why are councils across the capital determined to attack musicians under so many guises?

The panic promulgated by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the knee-jerk allegations that music results in anti-social behaviour and that, somehow, by deregulating live music we will see anti-social behaviour crop up across the capital, are patently absurd.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 05:10 AM

http://www.popall.co.uk/news/general/Breathalyserconditionattachedtolicence.asp?utm_source=enewsgo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign

The landlord of a pub in Llanarth was both prosecuted and reviewed with regards to various breaches of his licence. He received a fine in excess of £2,000 following conviction for offences relating to his CCTV system, door supervisors and allowing underage persons to drink alcohol in the premises.

He may consider himself lucky not to have had his Personal Licence revoked by the Magistrates at the same time.

Separately he faced Review proceedings but his Premises Licence was not revoked. Instead a condition was attached to his licence requiring him to use a Police approved breath test machine before allowing anyone under the age of 18 on to his premises. This is a rather unusual condition - and perhaps the first time such has been imposed - and it is perhaps surprising that under 18s are allowed in the premises at all.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:03 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Please circulate

Don't let local authorities determine when, where and even what live music you can perform. Don't let them scare the government into abandoning plans for more radical deregulation of entertainment licensing.

It is a myth that entertainment licensing is the only way to regulate safety and noise at entertainment events. There is ample legislation irrespective of licensing to address these risks.

Respond to the DCMS consultation - there are two days left:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8408.aspx

The live music bill is making progress in Parliament, but it offers a relatively narrow exemption from the entertainment licensing regime: performances between 8am and 11pm to audiences of up to 200.

Why should live music be automatically subject to an 11pm curfew when DJs can often play much later? Should traditional folk singarounds, unamplified, automatically be subject to licensing between 11pm and 8am?

I and others have criticised the DCMS consultation for proposing to keep daft licence conditions for pubs and bars (p11 para 2.25), such as a two or three musician limit and restrictions on musical genres. That would be a disaster for live music in those venues. But it is only a proposal. You can reject it.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 11:57 AM

http://stevebeasant.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/11/30/don-foster%E2%80%99s-live-music-bill-aims-to-reduce-the-crippling-affect-of-r

Don Foster's Live Music Bill aims to reduce the crippling affect of red tape and bureaucracy has had on the live music industry.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 11:52 AM

http://siba.co.uk/2011/11/licensing-update-deregulation-of-regulated-entertainment/

John King Comments:BTW Mr Ireland is the lawyer who won the Thwaites v Wirral Borough Magistrates case a few years back. The judgement that licensing authorities should proceed on an "evidential basis" (rather than just bloody guessing) has since been overturned by the Police Reform Act.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 07:45 AM

http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/34420/entertainment-licensing-reform-will-boost-the

Equity has claimed that proposals to reform live entertainment licensing could boost the economy by more than £43.2 million every year.

John King comments:Equity gets it's numbers wrong. £43.2 was the estimated benefit by the Government's Impact Assesment if it removed existing licence conditions. But that is not what the published proposal is going to do...

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 07:41 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15745278

Earlier this year the government unveiled plans for a wholesale deregulation of entertainment licensing in the UK. The news was welcomed by live music promoters but there are fears it will cause a nuisance to neighbours.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 08:16 PM

http://www.musictank.co.uk/blog/the-live-music-sector-may-be-better-off-rejecting-the-government2019s-proposals-to-overhaul-ente

In September, DCMS published their long awaited consultation entitled 'Proposal to exempt regulated entertainment from the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003'. The consultation, which closes on 3rd December, attracted unanimous praise from the music industry. Plaudits ranged from 'forward-thinking' by Feargal Sharkey to 'visionary' by Christine Payne (Equity). Perhaps they should have checked with their lawyers before jumping to any conclusions, because the Government is about to make life a lot more difficult for the existing live music sector.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:30 AM

http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/press-releases/2011-11/licensing-fair-at-town-hall.en

John King comments:
Whatever next. A "Licensing Fair".

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:26 AM

http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/221111item8rpt.pdf

John King comments:
East Devon are hard at work (maybe not today - they're on strike) thinking up reasons not to deregulate entertainment. One of their reasons is "terrorism". (p 34 para 3.5).

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:21 AM

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1047679&c=1

The Live Music Bill, which aims to roll back almost a decade of licensing restrictions on small live music events, is "closer than ever" to being passed by Parliament.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:17 AM

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/live-music-approved-nightclub-square/story-13929404-detail/story.html

But Councillor Graham Facks-Martin read out one which he believed proved the music had been too loud.

Unfortunate

"It says 'Some old misery-guts is kicking up a fuss about the music. As for it being loud, that's the idea. Bring the people into Launceston town'," he said.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:12 AM

http://www.casweb.org/bloomsburyassociation/news/item?item_id=1058574

The APPARENT motivation for deregulating Schedule 1 from the Licensing Act 2003 is to allow small live music events. However what they are doing to achieve this is allowing ANY premises to have ANY form of what was previously regulated entertainment (live or recorded music, dancing etc) without a licence or any relevant conditions.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 10:08 AM

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/9389114.Tudor_Arms_late_night_music_bid_thrown_out/

John King comments:
Live music banned at the Tudor Arms. Karaoke and DJs are allowed.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 07:47 PM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Live-Music-Bill-gets-second-reading-in-Parliament

The Live Music Bill, which calls for licence exemptions for performances of live music between 8am and 11pm to audiences of up to 200, passed its second reading in the House of Commons on Friday.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 07:06 AM

http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/Licensing/register/licencegranteddetails.asp?systemkey=60415

John King comments: Perhaps Nick Pagett-Brown should look at some facts. Here's one. His committee imposed this condition on the Champion Public House. Live music played by more than 2 musicians must finish an hour earlier than a band with 2 or less. DJs are unrestricted.

16 At such times as the premises operate with not more than 2 live musicians, such regulated entertainment shall cease at 23.00

17 Whenever more than 2 live musicians are present and performing, (except on an acoustic only basis (i.e. performing unamplified), such regulated entertainment shall cease at 22:00

18 There shall be no live music played on the premises after 23.00

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 27 Nov 11 - 06:38 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007tjl5

John King comments:
Brief piece covering licensing reform on the Politics Show. Scroll to 48 minutes. Cllr Nick Paget-Brown feebly attempts to justify licensing controls for punch & judy men and carol singers where DJs are exempt.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Nov 11 - 03:40 PM

http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/%28S%28czobl0450xbqi155ede3ifez%29%29/mgAi.aspx?ID=63723

John King Comments:Hounslow Council's Head of Licensing: "made at least 6 visits to the premises in 2007 and 2008, and had concluded that it was not possible to play recorded or live music there without causing public nuisance" Apparently musicians are incapable of performing at an acceptable volume level without local authority supervision.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 09:09 PM

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/10856/still_time_to_object_to_licensing_law_changes

Some comments on this document:

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.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 02:06 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Friday 25th November 2011 - Live music bill passes 2nd reading in Commons

Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, now sponsored by Don Foster in the Commons, has just passed its 2nd reading there.

If implemented, the bill would create entertainment licensing exemptions for performances of live music between 8am and 11pm to audiences of up to 200. However, it retains the licence review process for bars and other alcohol-licensed venues if the exemption is abused.

The bill now moves to the Committee stage. A date has yet to be fixed, but it could be before Christmas.

It is unusual for a private members bill originating in the Lords to get this far. However, while encouraging, its success today is no guarantee that it will become law. Potential pitfalls, and much hard work, remain.

Meanwhile, another hysterical denunciation of the government's more radical entertainment licensing deregulation proposals has been published, this time by Wandsworth council:
http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/site/scripts/news_article.php?newsID=10856#makecomment

Entirely misleadingly it suggests that pubs and bars '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.'

This is complete nonsense and scaremongering of the worst kind. The safety of the public in workplaces is no longer regulated by entertainment licensing, but by separate health and safety and fire safety legislation, and this applies to all activities taking place. Also, as alcohol licensing and conditions in alcohol-licensed venues would remain under the deregulation proposals, enforceable opening hours would remain.

In their consultation submission to DCMS, Wandsworth puts forward other specious or contradictory arguments against more radical deregulation: http://bit.ly/squeVN

For example, their Q1 response states: 'Of the 579 premises in the London Borough of Wandsworth with a licence to sell alcohol on or on/off the premises, 213 also have a licence to provide live music. Of the 48 Private Members Club in the borough supplying alcohol, 32 have a licence to provide live music. There are, therefore, many venues within this borough that could allow live music performances (albeit with controls to protect neighbours from noise nuisance). However, many of these licences are not used and this Authority would, therefore, question whether live music is not being promoted in venues because of market decisions rather than because of bureaucracy and red tape.'

But it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusion from this data about the reasons for having or not having live music. How does the council know that the licences are not being used? Venues that have in fact closed often remain on council licence registers as if they were still in business. And what licence conditions have been imposed? These might include costly requirements to provide door supervisers during performances, or to fit a noise limiter. Or they might restrict the number of performers, or genres of music. The venue may have particularly intolerant neighbours.

And even if the amount of live music currently provided were entirely determined by factors other than entertainment licensing, as the council would like to believe, what then would cause the explosion in noise nuisance that they warn so stridently against if entertainment licensing is removed?

ENDS
Hamish Birchall

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:56 AM

Live Music Bill passes 2nd Reading.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 06:34 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmagenda/ob111125.htm

Todays order of business in the House of Commons.

The Live Music Bill is No 18.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 12:26 PM

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/10856/still_time_to_object_to_licensing_law_changes

John King comments:
Blatant lies from the London Borough of Jobsworth.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 10:32 AM

This is the meat of what is proposed in the Live Music Bill

Summary
3. The Bill seeks to amend the Licensing Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act") by partially deregulating the performance of live music and removing regulation about the provision of entertainment facilities.

Its purpose is to:
remove the licensing requirement for unamplified live music taking place between 8am and 11pm in all venues, subject to the right of a licensing authority to impose conditions about live music following a review of a premises licence or club premises certificate relating to premises authorised to supply alcohol for consumption on the premises;

remove the licensing requirement for amplified live music taking place between 8am and 11pm before audiences of no more than 200 persons on premises authorised to supply alcohol for consumption on the premises, subject to the right of a licensing authority to impose conditions about live music following a review of a premises licence or club premises certificate;

remove the licensing requirement for amplified live music taking place between 8am and 11pm before audiences of no more than 200 persons in workplaces not otherwise licensed under the 2003 Act (or licensed only for the provi sion of late night refreshment);

remove the licensing requirement for the provision of entertainment facilities; and widen the licensing exemption for live music integral to a performance of morris dancing or dancing of a similar type, so that the exemption applies to live or recorded music instead of unamplified live music.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 10:01 AM

http://www.equity.org.uk/news-and-events/equity-news/have-your-say-on-entertainment-licensing/

Equity's response to the licensing consultation. "If these proposals are passed, it would provide clarity for many businesses and performers if pre-existing conditions on the licence relating to live entertainment were made null and void."

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 09:54 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2012/0241/en/2012241en.htm

John King comments:
Explanatory notes to the Live Music Bill have been published on the Parliament website. In plain English. But will Licensing Officers be able to understand them?

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 07:41 AM

We, (meaning those employed to enforce licensing red tape for our respective councils) will issue any scaremongering half-information and obtain sensational media headlines in order to intentionally mislead the public and disguise this overtly political and self-interested hidden agenda, as objective advice which is only motivated by a concern for the public's safety, in order to ensure that we can continue to obstruct live music with licensing red tape, to continue to pick and choose to enforce only the aspects of legislation we like and to ignore what does not excite us and present this to the Govt's consultation as being the view of the public of whatever council we are employed to enforce legislation for.

What all the verbiage boils down to is a pathetic plea to allow those who are employed to enforce licensing legislation to be allowed to continue to control every aspect of the public's lives, no matter how disastrous this should prove to be and for them not to be ever held responsible or answerable for the results, to any effective watchdog.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 11 - 07:11 AM

http://www.musiceducationuk.com/news/2011/11/22/ism-urges-mps-to-back-live-music-bill-this-friday.html

The Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) is urging MPs to back the Live Music Bill this Friday when the Bill could move closer than ever to becoming law.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 11:56 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Performances of plays, dance, and live or recorded music are 'some of
the most problematic activities for local communities', according to
Steve Lonnia, head of licensing for Sheffield City Council.

The extraordinary claim was made in a letter from Mr Lonnia sent about a
month ago to local community organisations (copy of text below), drawing
their attention to the latest DCMS entertainment licensing deregulation
proposals within the public consultation that closes on 03 December:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8408.aspx

While agreeing that 'dancing by pupils at school fetes or pianists in
restaurants' may merit lighter regulation, Mr Lonnia is against any
'blanket removal of licensing requirements'.

He warns of the DCMS consultation: '... It would allow premises to have
live music, DJ's etc, without the need for a licence and therefore
without any controls. We are seriously concerned how this would impact
on local communities in Sheffield.'

He does not mention that DJs are allowed in most bars without conditions
as a result of the Licensing Act's transition arrangements in 2005. All
venues converting a justices on-licence at the time were automatically
granted permission to play recorded music. This was known as a
'grandfather right'. The right to have one or two live musicians was
abolished.

Mr Lonnia's letter continues in similar vein. He adds: 'If, after
reading these proposals, you are also concerned, we would encourage you
to respond directly to the DCMS highlighting your concerns.'

There is no mention of the raft of legislation already in place,
irrespective of licensing, to regulate crime and disorder, noise
nuisance, and health and safety for all activities in workplaces such as
bars and restaurants. Nor is there any mention of the range of
entertainments already exempt from entertainment licensing, including
big screen broadcast entertainment. Nor does he mention that the DCMS
deregulation consultation proposes to KEEP licence conditions relating
to live music and other activities in bars and pubs [para 2.25
consultation proposal document].

Together with Mr Lonnia's suggestion that licensing is the only way to
control live music and DJs, his letter is seriously misleading.
Depressingly, however, it is completely consistent with the hysterical
misrepresentations of the potential impact of the DCMS deregulation
proposals we have already seen in Oxford and Kensington & Chelsea.

No doubt the letter will produce the desired effect: a slew of
uninformed, knee-jerk rejections of the DCMS proposals from worried
community groups.

Mr Lonnia's fears about health and safety, noise nuisance and so on at
live music events do not apparently extend to the local tradition of pub
carol singing. In 2005 his department decided that these packed events
could go ahead unlicensed under the Licensing Act's exemption for music
for the purposes of, or incidental to a religious meeting or service
(LA2003, Sch. 1 para 9).

Copy text of Steve Lonnia's letter:

Date 26 October 2011

To All Community Assemblies / Community Groups

Dear Sir/Madam

DCMS Consultation - Proposal to examine the deregulation of Schedule One
of the Licensing Act 2003

The Department of Culture Media and Sport DCMS are seeking views on the
above proposal to remove licensing requirements for most of the
activities currently defined as 'regulated entertainment' under the
Licensing Act 2003.

For your information 'regulated entertainment' covers some of the most
problematic activities for local communities, such as;

A performance of a play
An exhibition of a film
An indoor sporting event
A boxing or wrestling event (either indoors or outdoors)
A performance of live music
Any playing of recorded music, and
A performance of dance

As well as the provision of facilities that enable members of the public
to make music or dance.

Although we agree that for some small scale or low risk events, such as
the exhibition of dance by pupils at a school fete or pianists in
restaurants you do not need such stringent regulation. However, we feel
this is best dealt with by amending the Licensing Act to give Licensing
Authorities more flexibility when dealing with these types of events. We
do not believe that a blanket removal of licensing requirements is
appropriate for any type of event.

As the Licensing Authority in Sheffield, we are extremely concerned
about these proposals and the potential impact they could have from a
health and safety, public nuisance and anti-social behaviour point of
view. It would allow premises to have live music, DJs etc. without the
need for a licence and therefore without any controls. We are seriously
concerned how this would impact on local communities in Sheffield

Such events would be able to continue into the early hours of the
morning with hundreds of people in attendance. Problems arising from
regulated entertainment are one of the most significant issues we
experience and it would only get worse if these proposals we passed.

The full consultation paper can be found on the DCMS website at:
http;//www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8408.aspx

If after reading these proposals, you are also concerned, we would
encourage you to respond directly to the DCMS highlighting your
concerns. The contact details for the response can be found on the
consultation document.

Alternatively, you are welcome to support our response as we will be
providing detailed answers to all the questions posed in the
consultation document.

The closing date for responses to DCMS is 3rd December 2011.

We would urge you to let the Community Groups in your areas know about
this consultation and ensure that their opinions are heard. Should you
wish to discuss these proposals in further details with us, please
contact us and we will endeavour to attend any public meetings prior to
submitting our response or assist you in submitting a response.

Yours faithfully

Steve Lonnia
Chief Licensing Officer
Licensing Services
Town Hall
SHEFFIELD S1 2HH
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Website www.sheffield.gov.uk

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 08:38 AM

The only controls proposed to be lifted is the requirement for additional entertainment licensing, which is already duplication of existing planning, environmental and safety legislation.

Which, for the sake of live music, is exactly this red tape can now be safely scrapped and taken out of the hands of those who treat live music as if it were the applications for street trading and taxi licenses that they are more used to and far better equipped to deal with.

But it is interesting to see the depths, that those whose business is red tape, will descend to in order to preserve it.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 08:24 AM

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9375749.Sussex_Police_concern_as_Government_plans_could_legalise_raves/?ref=rss

More groundless scarmongering - this time from Sussex

Sergeant Malcolm Wauchope, a licensing officer in Brighton, said he was amazed the proposals were being taken seriously.

He described the "nightmare scenario" if a rave was organised at the Hippodrome in Middle Street, Brighton.

He said: "The capacity is well over 2,000. Theoretically someone could open the doors, not bother to apply for an alcohol or late night refreshment licence and host dance led events with recorded music all night if they wanted with no need for a licence or contact with any interested party."

Councillor Lizzie Deane, chair of the licensing committee, said: "Unlicensed events with such large crowds would almost inevitably lead to increased noise levels and public safety issues."

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 08:18 AM

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2011-11-22a.65.0

Don Foster MP: "On the issue of live music, does the hon. Gentleman share my view that when on Friday I seek to steer my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones's Live Music Bill through the House of Commons, it would be a disgrace if any member of any party tried to object, preventing the Bill from making progress?"

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Nov 11 - 04:01 AM

Along with Oxford City and Kensington and Chelsea councils - the following scaremongering letter was sent by Sheffield City Council

Licensing Services
Town Hall SHEFFIELD S1 2HH
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Website www.sheffield.gov.uk

Date 26 October 2011

To All Community Assemblies / Community Groups

Dear Sir/Madam

DCMS Consultation - Proposal to examine the deregulation of Schedule One of the Licensing Act 2003

The Department of Culture Media and Sport DCMS are seeking views on the above proposal to remove licensing requirements for most of the activities currently defined as 'regulated entertainment' under the Licensing Act 2003.

For your information 'regulated entertainment' covers some of the most problematic activities for local communities, such as;
A performance of a play
An exhibition of a film
An indoor sporting event
A boxing or wrestling event (either indoors or outdoors)
A performance of live music
Any playing of recorded music, and
A performance of dance

As well as the provision of facilities that enable members of the public to make music or dance.

Although we agree that for some small scale or low risk events , such as the exhibition of dance by pupils at a school fete or pianists in restaurants you do not need such stringent regulation. However, we feel this is best dealt with by amending the Licensing Act to give Licensing Authorities more flexibility when dealing with these types of events. We do not believe that a blanket removal of licensing requirements is appropriate for any type of event.

As the Licensing Authority in Sheffield, we are extremely concerned about these proposals and the potential impact they could have from a health and safety, public nuisance and anti-social behaviour point of view. It would allow premises to have live music, DJs etc. without the need for a licence and therefore without any controls. We are seriously concerned how this would impact on local communities in Sheffield

Such events would be able to continue into the early hours of the morning with hundreds of people in attendance. Problems arising from regulated entertainment are one of the most significant issues we experience and it would only get worse if these proposals we passed.

The full consultation paper can be found on the DCMS website at: http;//www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8408.aspx

If after reading these proposals, you are also concerned, we would encourage you to respond directly to the DCMS highlighting your concerns. The contact details for the response can be found on the consultation document.

Alternatively, you are welcome to support our response as we will be providing detailed answers to all the questions posed in the consultation document.

The closing date for responses to DCMS is 3rd December 2011'

We would urge you to let the Community Groups in your areas know about this consultation and ensure that their opinions are heard. Should you wish to discuss these proposals in further details with us, please contact us and we will endeavour to attend any public meetings prior to submitting our response or assist you in submitting a response.

Yours faithfully
Steve Lonnia
Chief Licensing Officer

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Nov 11 - 03:02 PM

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Opinion/Peter-Coulson/Airing-views-on-conditions

My recent article about minor variations provoked a strong reaction among readers who have suffered their own problems and knock-backs when they have tried to make a small change to their premises licence.

I have even heard of one licensing district which basically does not entertain them at all. The licensing officer simply says 'no', rather like the computer in Little Britain. There is, regrettably, absolutely nothing you can do about that.

However, just as worrying is the tendency of certain responsible authorities to use the procedure as a door wedge to get extra conditions on to the licence.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 11 - 04:40 AM

http://www.ukmusic.org/policy/currentconsultations/licensingact2003

Help Cut Live Music Red Tape - Respond By 3rd December 2011

The Government is currently consulting on measures that would scrap parts of the Licensing Act 2003.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 06:20 AM

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24009515-24-hour-party-fears-over-new-live-music-law.do

A DCMS spokeswoman said: "We want to reduce red tape and allow groups such as schools to put on low- risk events to increase revenues and raise money. But the laws on noise nuisance, disorder and alcohol licensing will not be changed."

Not quite the whole truth:

The DCMS proposals mean that should a school already applied to serve alcohol along with with permissions for low-risk events of live entertainment and conditions have been applied to this - this red-tape and these conditions will remain and be binding.

As a result of changes introduced by the Home Office in the Police Reform Act, for any school that did not apply for entertainment permission but which currently relies on temporary pemissions (TENs)for low-risk events of live entertainment - this will no longer be possible - if the DCMS proposals to exclude these low-risk entertainments from the licensing requirement be passed.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 11 - 05:36 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea is the latest council to use
the press to scare the public over the DCMS entertainment licensing
deregulation consultation, which closes on 03 December:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24009515-24-hour-party-fears-over-new-live-music-law.do

'Kensington and Chelsea fears the Carnival, the biggest event of its
kind in Europe, will have the freedom to play music 24 hours a day,
provided audiences are not over 5,000 and alcohol sales stay within
permitted hours.'

Council leader Nick Paget-Brown said: 'Far from being meddlesome,
pointless bureaucracy, entertainment licences are actually how we ensure
that noise is controlled, that events close down at a reasonable time
and that landlords act responsibly.'

But these comments are are both ludicrous and misleading. The audience
for the carnival procession exceeds one million, but entertainment on
moving vehicles is in any case explicitly exempt from entertainment
licensing (Licensing Act 2003, Sch. 1, para 12 'Vehicles in motion').
This exemption was created in 2002 by DCMS (in the then Licensing Bill)
after discussions with carnival organisers. You can drive a lorry
slowly around the streets 24 hours a day, with powerfully amplified
music, live or recorded, without any entertainment permission under the
Act.

Moreover, even if you accept the argument that restricting the number of
performers and genres of music has any significant bearing on noise
nuisance, the council is misrepresenting the DCMS deregulation proposals
as they would apply to pubs and bars.

As has already been widely publicised, under paragraph 2.25 of the DCMS
deregulation document, licence conditions in alcohol licensed premises
would remain. A condition limiting live music to two days a week, for
example, and only until 10pm, would remain in force - even though the
entertainment itself would no longer be licensable. Licensees would not
be able to extend that time using a Temporary Event Notice because the
entertainment is no longer licensable. The only way they could change
these restrictions would be to apply to remove them using either a
'minor variation' (£89) or a full variation applications (over £1500
including advertising costs). The outcome of such an application would
remain at the local authority discretion.

So for most pubs, bars and restaurants, the DCMS entertainment licence
deregulation proposals would not cut any red tape at all. And licensing
officers could still threaten a criminal prosecution for having more
than two musicians in a venue with a two-performer licence condition.

Meanwhile, thanks to the Licensing Act, all bars and pubs can provide
big screen broadcast entertainment, and most can provide DJs without
conditions.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 06:55 AM

If the Govt's proposals go through, these existing conditions will remain and be binding and the pub will no longer be able to use a TEN.

Game, set and match to pointless red tape.

Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced!
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Nov 11 - 03:42 AM

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/boss_refutes_inaccurate_claims_about_pub_1_3970558

Last week, he made an application to the council's licensing sub-committte to allow live acoustic music at the premises.

But several residents objected to the bid, saying they had endured problems with noise from the pub, illegal parking and even unruly customers urinating in their gardens.

John King comments:The Police Reform Act starts to bite: DJs are allowed, but amplification is banned for live music. And things will get worse - if DCMS reforms go ahead, the pub can no longer use a TEN to put on live music (because live music is no longer licensable!)...... Do you see what they did there?