 sj |
||
|
||
Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 18 Jul 06 - 11:08 AM Stallion, after two days, your message was the only one in the new thread you started - so I moved your message into this thread. You'll find it below. -Joe Offer- Perhaps you will be kind enough to replace the recent posts of mine that have been deleted from this thread without notice or explanation?
I repeat, this particular thread is about the Licensing Act. If anyone posts comments about Mudcat administration here, those messages will be moved to the "closing threads" thread. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Snuffy Date: 17 Jul 06 - 07:07 PM Stallion, If you look at the main threads list, in the column next to Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 you will see something like 293* d. If you click on the d you will get just the last 50 posts in reverse order - newest at the top. That loads much quicker |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: stallion Date: 17 Jul 06 - 04:24 AM Pro's and cons, my argument for opening another thread, indeed I tried it and it got "lost", is because I am on dial up and it takes forever to load up all the messages in this thread, especially since I have read intently the contents of most of the messages posted, I am only interested in what is happening now, not what was happening in 2003. However, this is a powerful and worthy archive to keep and it needs to be stored for future reference. Why can't the posts be archived so the "live" info tree/debate is more up to date. If one reads the threads you can realise this is going to be a long haul and much moral support is going to be needed. Thankfully our local authority is very keen to promote live music and requires concrete proof from objectors, which of course there isn't any (they can't predict future noise and nuisance levels). So, they may object afterwards but they need evidence such as the council noise pollution police, it will not happen. Other authorities are not so enlightened thus this thread is neccessary and important. So less bickering, there is a job to do.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Tootler Date: 15 Jul 06 - 06:27 PM It is quite clear from DMcG's post two above that this thread has no way outlived its usefulness. I suspect there is still a lot more to come. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: DMcG Date: 15 Jul 06 - 06:08 AM A letter and an article from "The Stage" dated 13 July 2006. This a specialist newspaper aimed at actors, professional musicians and other people connected with the theatre. Your article (June 29, page 2) on Shaun Woodward's warning to heavy handed councils prompts me to tell you about the crazy antics of Scarborough Borough Council and the Whitby Harbour Masters Office. It all started with the decision that the traditional bandstand on the pier, just past the amusement arcades at Scotch Head, needed to be licensed for music. There was an objector. It was only licensed after practically giving the Harbour Master's Office carte blanche to say what could go on in the way of music and what could not, along the whole of Whitby harbour side. This means that the Harbour Master is moving buskers away from pitches they have traditionally used for many years. The odd group that is amplified may not be popular with some of the locals but the buskers are popular with tourists who appreciate that they contribute to the colour that has recently given the resort such high ratings in media awards. Whitby is a top venue for music and arts festivals and its success as such is being threatened by the jackboot of bureaucracy described above. Additionally, a planning application by the organisers of Whitby Musicport, a successful World Music Festival, to convert the old Quaker Meeting House into an arts centre has been refused by Scarborough Borough Council, forcing Musicport to consider pulling out of Whitby. At the same planning meeting permission was given for yet another nightclub in the town centre which will not be hosting live music. Article continues Clearly, the way the Licensing Act is being applied by Scarborough Borough Council in respect of Whitby is oppressive. Tony Morris, South View Whitby North Yorkshire Music minister Shaun Woodward has called on councils to avoid using the Licensing Act to impose heavy handed conditions which discourage venues from hosting live entertainment. New guidelines to the act call on local authorities to consult local musicians and owners regularly. If they find the local music scene is suffering as a result of their interpretation of the act, then they must rethink their licensing policies. Woodward said: "Live venues are the heart of many communities. That's why we gave them greater opportunities to put on live entertainment, such as music and dancing, under the licensing laws. "But we need to make sure local councils are promoting these opportunities and venue owners are taking advantage of them." The advice comes on the back of claims by campaigners and the pub industry that some councils are exceeding their powers under the act and imposing conditions which are discouraging people from applying for live entertainment permits. Results of a recent survey by the Musician's Union reveal that, while business in larger venues has continued much as usual, there has been a "marked drop" in live music in smaller venues, particularly those which previously benefited from the old 'two in a bar' rule allowing up to two people to perform without a licence. In April Westminster City Council imposed 39 conditions on The Hub, a new restaurant in Regents Park, before allowing it to host live music, even though it is half a kilometre from the nearest house and the performance area is underground. They included installing a noise limiter and CCTV systems and having no more than three musicians at any one time. The decision prompted leading trumpeter Henry Lowther to write to the MU saying he feared the act was making it harder for venues to put on music. Lowther said: "If every applicant has to comply with such conditions along with the cost of the licence itself, one could say that that is not exactly an incentive to small premises to present live music." |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: pavane Date: 14 Jul 06 - 07:10 AM The work will never be done until common sense returns. Looks like it will be a long time yet. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Folkiedave Date: 14 Jul 06 - 06:53 AM Not really. All sorts of events are being cancelled including a school fete in Sheffield last weekend. I am still awaiting full details - but someone local complained that the event (which has been held each year for many years) did not have a licence and the police advised, (wrongly IMHO and that of a local solicitor that the school consulted) that the event needed a licence. Sheffield City Centre,(as bounded by the Inner City Ring Road) is now licensed thanks partly to the efforts of people complaining to the local council. We still have the daft thing where a Pub gets a music licence provided they close the windows (in this weather??) Meanwhle an identical pub can have its windows open and Sky on as loud as they like subject ot Noise Abatement Act. Let's keep it open. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:03 AM spy@telegraph.co.uk (Filed: 01/07/2006) Regatta ball blow There was grave disappointment for anyone hoping to attend last night's sumptuous Henley Regatta Ball. The bash - for which VIP tickets were being sold at £800 - was unceremoniously cancelled 48 hours before the event, amid legal wrangling why the right licence had not been obtained from the local council. Bryan Ferry had been booked as the headline entertainment, while Elizabeth Hurley had agreed to host a fashion show and Olympic rower James Cracknell was all set to compere the charity auction. The guests were promised "an evening of unashamed extravagance" and a "celebration of the delights of the English social season" - but the failure to secure a live entertainment licence in time prompted Wokinghan council to pull the plug. Greg Mason, the ball's organiser and promoter, explains: "The council couldn't let the event take place because the person we relied on to obtain a licence had not done so. He adds: "We have refunded all tickets, and our VIPs have all been very supportive. "We're planning another event some time this year and hope to auction off some of the fantastic lots we got in aid of our charities. We also plan to be back next year." |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 06 Jul 06 - 02:38 PM The following from Hamish Birchall Now as long as they tick the box which says we want to put on an entertainment they won't have to pay any more and it is a much much easier system.' Former licensing minister James Purnell, BBC Radio 4 'Today', Wednesday 29 June 2005. ~ ~ ~ The Sir Richard Steele pub in Haverstock Hill, London, has resumed its weekly jazz sessions after a break of nearly six months. In February I reported that the gigs had stopped following council enforcement action after residents' complaints - not about the live music, but about a noisy DJ. In the past, the pub relied on the old 'two in a bar rule' to run its successful Monday night jazz. During last year's licensing changeover the landlord had failed to apply for a live music authorisation. The pub subsequently applied for a new licence, which was finally granted a couple of weeks ago. It allows recorded music every day up to midnight. They can also have live music... but with no more than two musicians... no later than 11pm... the music must be jazz or traditional, no rock or pop... and the venue must install a noise limiter. ~ ~ ~ Abbey Road Studios On February 13, BBC Radio 2 staged a Coldplay gig at Abbey Road Studios. The audience included members of the public who had won free tickets to the event in a BBC online competition. Under the old regime, such gigs had been deemed private, not for profit, and therefore exempt. But no longer. Westminster City Council decided that even this ticketing arrangement was public for the purposes of the new law and the event was therefore licensable. (Top of the Pops was caught for the same reason). The Studios then applied for a new licence which would allow them to host such events. The application provoked 67 objections on noise and disorder grounds. The council initially recommended that the application be refused. Significantly, the Studio's licence application suggests they believed that the recording facility itself was licensable. On the 'facilities for making music' section they entered: 'All necessary facilities so that musicians are able to play and record their music'. This may explain why they asked for authorisation 10am-midnight, 365 days a year, which in turn probably explains the high number of objectors. For sight of their application see Westminster's online public licensing register: http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/licensingapplications/ . Enter 'Abbey Road Studios' in the 'Trading as name' box. To the right of the screen there is a disclaimer you must accept to gain access to PDF's of the application. The public hearing to consider the objections took place this morning at the council's Marylebone offices. I understand that a compromise has been reached, but do not yet know the terms. A spokesperson for the council suggested that recording studio facilities would not be considered licensable by the council's legal officers unless 'guests were formally invited - one or two friends wouldn't count'. However, the presence of an audience is not required under the provision of entertainment facilities section of the Licensing Act 2003 (Schedule 1, para 3). |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 03 Jul 06 - 12:29 PM Licensing rules 'may force village halls to break the law' By Richard Savill (Filed: 01/07/2006) Saturday 01 July 2006 the Daily Telegraph Hundreds of village halls are losing revenue and could be forced to operate illegally because the Government's new licensing laws have restricted the number of events that they can hold, according to a survey published yesterday. The annual limit of 12 temporary events notices (Tens) has meant that bookings have had to be turned away so that halls can remain within the law. Fund-raising events generating thousands of pounds have had to be cancelled. Action with Communities in Rural England (Acre), which conducted the survey in conjunction with Mori, said a fifth of halls appeared to be at risk of contravening the Licensing Act, or were restricting the number of events. "There are thought to be 8,900 village halls in England, so this represents a significant number of communities," said Acre, which wants the limit increased to 36. "A limit of 12 Tens is not enough to allow a village hall to provide a range of services and activities that are necessary to support a healthy sustainable community. Bookings are being turned away to remain within the limit of the law." Fifty seven per cent of halls that responded to the survey felt that the limit on Tens was inadequate. Deborah Clarke, Acre's village hall information officer, said: "Volunteers managing halls already struggle with the level of legislation and regulation. Having to cope with a new system designed primarily for pubs and clubs in urban areas has not only added to this burden but affected their income and future sustainability." The Tens notice is needed for the sale of alcohol at events where a premises licence does not include it. The survey found that two thirds of halls had not applied for a premises licence that included the sale of alcohol mainly because of the difficulty in finding a volunteer willing to act as designated supervisor. Twenty nine per cent of halls expect between nine and 15 events per year involving alcohol sales, and 23 per cent expect 16 or more. Amateur dramatic groups that would previously have operated under a theatre licence now need to use Tens for interval bars. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport said it would consider the survey, but a spokesman added: "The cap on numbers [of Tens] ensures people are adequately protected from excessive noise, nuisance and disturbance." |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 03 Jul 06 - 12:24 PM The following from Hamish Birchall. On Saturday 01 July 2006 the Daily Telegraph reported more licensing problems, this time for village halls: 'Licensing rules "may force village halls to break the law"', by Richard Savill. The limit of 12 Temporary Event Notices a year is particularly onerous for these venues. By way of response, DCMS issued another misleading statement in the now familiar Nurse Ratched tone *: 'The cap on numbers (of TENs) ensures people are adequately protected from excessive noise, nuisance and disturbance.' See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/01/nhalls01.xml Fearful of recent press interest and increased public concern about licensing and live music, Labour has planted some questions for today's Oral Questions session in the House of Commons (Mon 03 July, 2.30pm): 'What steps her Department is taking to support live music.' (Q1, Ian Wright, Hartlepool) 'What steps the Government is taking to support live music and encourage the participation of young people.' (Q13. John Robertson, Glasgow North West). The questions are clearly intended to give the Secretary of State at DCMS an opportunity to divert attention from licensing. No doubt she will say how much the government values live music and how many excellent initiatives are currently underway. She probably won't say that her department was wrong when it claimed busking would not be licensable. Once the Secretary of State has addressed these questions, other MPs and particularly opposition MPs can raise licensing issues. If you have time, why not ask your MP to put a licensing question to Tessa Jowell today? Use this website to contact your MP by email: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ ~ ~ ~ * For those who have never seen the film or read the book, Nurse Ratched is one of the main characters in 'One flew over the cuckoo's nest' (book by Ken Kesey, 1962; film by Milos Forman, 1975, starring Jack Nicholson as Randle P. McMurphy and Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched). The story centres on the battle of wills between McMurphy, a 'swaggering, fun-loving' petty criminal and 'coolly monstrous' Nurse Ratched who is in charge of the mental hospital ward in which McMurphy has been detained. McMurphy has feigned mental-illness to escape prison. His resistance to Nurse Ratched eventually results in the destruction of his personality by enforced lobotomy. Nurse Ratched notoriously protests genuine concern for her patients. But as the Penguin Modern Classics edition of the book observes: 'Tyrannical Nurse Ratched rules her ward in an Oregon State mental hospital with a strict and unbending routine, unopposed by her patients, who remain cowed by mind-numbing medication and the threat of electric shock therapy.' With DCMS licensing statements, comparisons with electric shock therapy are perhaps inappropriate, but they could be described as a form of mind-numbing medication. ENDS |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 30 Jun 06 - 10:10 AM (from the London Buskers /Licensing Act thread) The following from Hamish Birchall Last week I reported that Southwark's licensing department were advising buskers to obtain a Temporary Event Notice under the new Licensing Act. This contradicted DCMS advice that busking would not be licensable. However, when further enquiries were made by a national newspaper, Southwark's press office denied that the council had a 'policy' to licence buskers. But a council policy may not be the same as advice provided to individual musicians by officials. So, for clarification I asked Southwark's press office to respond to a couple of questions: If a musician entertained spectators regularly with performances of live music at the same spot on the South Bank (i.e. at least once a week) within Southwark's boundaries, would the council regard this as the provision of regulated entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003? If not, on what legal basis would it be exempt? The reply came yesterday (29 June): 'The Licencing Act does not exempt buskers from needing a license but advice from the Local Authority Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) suggests that this is 'neither pragmatic nor realistic' and buskers should be treated on a case by case basis. We therefore don't have one rule for all buskers, but instead would look at whether or not individuals cause genuine noise nuisance before we took any action.' In other words, yes, busking is covered by the Licensing Act, but we will only take action under that Act if there are noise complaints. Encouraging, except... if noise is a problem why use licensing to deal with it? What about noise regulation under the Environmental Protection Act? A council spokesperson said: 'I have spoken to Environmental Protection, who say there is little scope for action from this point of view. This is because primarily, the term 'statutory nuisance' deals with noise from premises. Theoretically, there is scope if a busker is deemed to be busking from a vehicle, or using equipment or machinery, but this is unlikely. Also, the Control of Pollution 1974 could be used if the busker was using a loudspeaker in the street, but again this is unlikely.' Is this correct? According to experts in noise legislation, the answer is 'no': 1. Noise abatement notices issued under s.80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended by the 1993 Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act) are not confined to noise from premises. Section 79(1)(ga) explicitly states that 'statutory nuisances' can include noise from 'equipment in a street'. 2. Section 79(7) provides that '"equipment" includes a musical instrument'. 3. Recent case law showed that noise abatement notices can be used to prosecute noisy buskers: Westminster City Council v Prian Bruno McDonald, 28 October 2002, Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2698 (Admin). Why should councils or indeed government ministers play down the power to control noise using the EPA? The answer seems to be a fear of increased public demand for noise enforcement and the potential drain on resources. By coincidence, this week the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) issued a press release entitled 'New powers to curb noise in late-night pubs and clubs': http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/060628d.htm The new powers will only apply to licensed premises betweeen 11pm and 7am. They are due to come into force in October, and have been created specifically to address the potential for late night noise nuisance resulting from longer pub and club opening hours. One important implication of the announcement is that between 7am and 11pm existing noise legislation has been deemed adequate to address noise nuisance, irrespective of licensing. This reinforces the case for the deregulation of the licensing of live music under the Licensing Act 2003. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: IanC Date: 30 Jun 06 - 09:53 AM (from the LondonBuskers thread) I also just send this to my local council (with a copy to our (Con) MP). Hi I've been looking at the Government's pilot list of public spaces which have been registered by local authorities for entertainment on the basis of the governments (mandatory) guidance for the Licensing Act of 2003. The government stated that no facilities for entertainment would be lost due to the fact that public spaces (not licensable before the act) would become licensable from November 2005. Their reason for saying this was that in their guidance information they would "strongly encourage" local authorities to themselves license any open spaces within their area. The guidance was subsequently made mandatory. I'm surprised to find that, at least in the pilot document, NHDC has not apparently registered a single one of our (many) open spaces as licensable for entertainment. Such diverse places as Kennedy Gardens in Letchworth, Royston Town Centre, Ashwell Recreation Ground etc. etc. etc. - which are common venues for a variety of harmless entertainment - have not yet been registered by NHDC. Could you provide me with a list of locations you intend to register and some idea of when this will be done. Thank you Ian Chandler PS I will be contacting our local MP on this matter. :-) Ian NB I did send a copy to my local MP Oliver Heald who's already written back to say he will follow this up. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Folkiedave Date: 30 Jun 06 - 09:26 AM Extract from DCMS website DCMS is encouraging local authorities to licence public spaces to enable a range of events to take place. This is so performers and entertainers would then have no need to obtain a separate premises licence, or give a temporary event notice themselves to give a performance in these areas, so long as they had permission from the local authority to use the land. A list of available open spaces already licensed is here. A list of places already licensed See here Encourage your local authority to do the same. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Snuffy Date: 30 Jun 06 - 08:43 AM They won't need a licence to busk there, but they will still need the permission of the owner of the premises. As they would if they wanted to busk in a licensed pub. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 30 Jun 06 - 05:22 AM Since then they have avoided this by licensing the whole of the City Centre. This in particular to allow the Lord Mayor's Parade to go ahead. What is the position for buskers now in the City Centre or for any events there, other than those organised by the Council itself? Can they just go ahead - as Premises Licence entertainment permission is already in place? Or is prior permission from the Council or some form of payment to the Council now required there for busking, carol singing etc? |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Folkiedave Date: 30 Jun 06 - 04:13 AM If the provisions really are allowing entertainment to thrive, then why are councils finding it necessary to define belly dancing and line dancing as 'Similar to Morris dance' in order to avoid the necessity of obtaining a licence? What happened is that I have been questioning Sheffield City Council about the licences for events, which included "regulated entertainment", being held by them. In fact when this event "Chance to Dance" was held there was no licence. The event went ahead under the "Morris Dance exemption", although it used amplified music illegally. "Chance to Dance" is a showcase for the City's various dance groups. Since then they have avoided this by licensing the whole of the City Centre. This in particular to allow the Lord Mayor's Parade to go ahead. I hope this makes things clear. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: pavane Date: 30 Jun 06 - 02:43 AM If the provisions really are allowing entertainment to thrive, then why are councils finding it necessary to define belly dancing and line dancing as 'Similar to Morris dance' in order to avoid the necessity of obtaining a licence? |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jun 06 - 01:45 PM Lord Davies of Oldham: We have no current plans to amend Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003, as there is no evidence to suggest that the distinction is unclear. We shall, however, continue to monitor and evaluate the impact of the licensing reforms, to ensure that future proposed amendments to the legislation are evidence based. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Schedule 1 is what contains the existing descriptions of entertainment in the Act. See also http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4259.asp>http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4259.asp for Number Ten Downing Street's full response to the E Petition. Which includes the following. We believe that the Act will make it simpler and more affordable than now to stage live entertainment in the vast majority of cases and increase opportunities for musicians and other artists to perform We have also given an undertaking that we will review the existing descriptions of entertainment in the Act six to twelve months after the end of the transition period. If the Act has had an unintended, disproportionate negative effect on the provision of live music -or other forms of regulated entertainment-, there are powers already in the Bill to modify the position through secondary legislation. However we believe that the provisions in the Licensing Act will allow live music and other regulated entertainment to thrive. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 29 Jun 06 - 12:05 PM The following from Hamish Birchall The government has replied to Lord Clement-Jones' licensing questions tabled on 12 June 2006. See below for the Hansard extracts. Points to note Pubs/football: from the minister's answer it is clear that, irrespective of licensing, there is more than enough legislation to deal with noise and disorder. And the minister didn't mention powers available to local authorities under the Environmental Protection Act to confiscate noisy equipment immediately, and to issue pre-emptive or reactive noise abatement notices. In 2002 Camden council closed a West End show, Umoja, using a noise abatement notice. One resident's complaint was enough. On 8th May 2006 the Home Office announced the 4th Alcohol Misuse Enforcement Campaign. Newspapers headlines promised a crackdown on problem pubs in the run-up to the World Cup. Strangely, the government now appears to have no information about the number of pubs that have been closed down or prevented from screening such matches as a result of enforcement under the new Licensing Act. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Top of the Pops: licensing of the BBC studios depended on whether, under the new legislation, the live studio audience arrangements rendered the event public. Under the old legislation it was understood that free tickets allocated to the public meant that such studio recordings private (and not for profit) and therefore exempt. The government says is not aware of any evidence that the Act is unclear. Perhaps they don't know that Camden council appears to be interpreting the Act differently by allowing MTV to arrange studio audiences in the same way for their Hawley Crescent studio without a premises licence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It is ironic that the government should suggest that any amendments to the Act must be 'evidence based'. They abolished the 'two in a bar rule' on noise grounds, but never provided any research to suggest that it was a problem. Indeed, all the evidence that existed pointed to noisy punters outside licensed premises as the source of most complaints. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proportion of new live music authorisations in licensed premises: the government doesn't know the answer, but will attempt to find out later this year. Strange again. They could have found out within weeks of the Act coming into force by checking a representative sample of new premises licences and comparing them with the previous year's PEL records. The information is held by local authorities - a few DCMS staff could have done the work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessing a 'flourishing' live music scene: the government's response is, of course, still based on the MORI survey data of 2004, specifically MORI's estimate that there were 1.7m live gigs a year in venues whose main business is not live music. There is no statistical justification for the word 'flourishing' first used by the then licensing minister, Richard Caborn, in the now notorious DCMS live music survey press release of 25 August 2004 (notorious because Caborn's quote was covertly altered in October 2005 when the Market Research Society ruled that his claim was misleading). DCMS has so far resisted my Freedom of Information Act request for details of correspondence with MORI over the wording of this press release. There was no benchmark against which to judge the data because by DCMS' own admission, it was the first survey of its kind. In any case, 1.7m live gigs a year works out at roughly 1 live gig a year for every 25 people in England and Wales (assuming population of 50m that could attend). The MORI survey also found that the majority of pubs, restaurants and hotels had no live music at all, and that the more the Licensing Act was explained to licensees, the less likely they were to host live music in future. ~ ~ ~ House of Lords 26 June 2006 Licensing: Closure of Premises Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government: What powers under the Licensing Act 2003 have been used to close down licensed premises with a history of disorder and to prevent some licensed premises from screening games involving the England football team during the 2006 World Cup. [HL6250] Lord Davies of Oldham: This information is not available centrally. Part 8 of the Licensing Act 2003 makes provision for closing licensed premises on grounds of disorder, imminent disorder and public nuisance resulting from noise emanating from the premises. In addition, Section 19 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 provides for the closure of premises selling alcohol for consumption on the premises in breach of the conditions of a premises licence. Sections 40 and 41 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 make provision for closing licensed premises on grounds of public nuisance resulting from noise emanating from the premises. In addition, where premises have been the scene of disorder or disturbance, the police and other responsible bodies may apply for a review of the premises licences and this can result in the suspension or revocation of the licence by the licensing authority. Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government: How many licensed premises with a history of disorder have been closed down or prevented from screening games involving the England football team during the 2006 World Cup under the Licensing Act 2003 before the beginning of the tournament on 9 June. [HL6251] Lord Davies of Oldham: This information is not available centrally. Licensing: Live Entertainment Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether, following the outdoor performance of the Red Hot Chili Peppers on the BBC's "Top of the Pops" programme on 15 April, they will amend Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 to clarify the distinction between public entertainment that is licensable and private entertainment that is not licensable. [HL6247] Lord Davies of Oldham: We have no current plans to amend Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003, as there is no evidence to suggest that the distinction is unclear. We shall, however, continue to monitor and evaluate the impact of the licensing reforms, to ensure that future proposed amendments to the legislation are evidence based. ~ ~ ~ And from 22 June 2006: Licensing: Live Entertainment Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government: What proportion of licensed premises in England and Wales that did not previously hold an entertainment licence now have authorisation for the performance of live music. [HL6248] Lord Davies of Oldham: This information is not held centrally. However, the DCMS intends to commission research this year to assess the take-up of new licences permitting live music performances in England and Wales. This research will provide a measure of the number of smaller venues that did not previously hold an entertainment licence and which have secured the authorisation to provide live music under the new system. Once completed, copies of the results of this research will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and published on the DCMS website at www.culture.gov.uk. Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government: On what basis they assess that there is a flourishing live music scene in bars and restaurants. [HL6249] Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government's last assessment of the live music scene in England and Wales was made in 2004. This was based on findings from a survey by MORI, commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) that year, about live music performances in a wide range of smaller venues, including bars and restaurants, in the preceding 12 months. The survey findings are available on the DCMS website (www.culture.gov.uk), and copies were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The DCMS intends to commission research this year to assess the take up of new licences permitting live music performances in England and Wales. A repeat of the 2004 baseline study will take place in 2007, when the Licensing Act 2003 will have been fully operational for more than a year, to measure its impact on live music. ENDS |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Folkiedave Date: 26 Jun 06 - 01:05 PM As anyone who has asked questions of the local councils they are a law unto themselves on licensing matters. So the answer to your question is no it could not, legally. However "legally" did not stop Sheffield City Council calling a whole variety of dances (belly dancing, line dancing, ballroom dancing) "similar to Morris dancing" and then letting them go ahead with amplified music. Not legal and they knew it!. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: pavane Date: 26 Jun 06 - 11:16 AM I assume, then, that Southwark council's 'huge event' also could not be covered by a TEN! |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Folkiedave Date: 26 Jun 06 - 09:30 AM I am not a lawyer and do not purport to give legal advice. (Disclaimer). Having said that, as I understand it the limit on TEN´s for a venue is twelve per year. For personal licence holders it is 50 per year and for non-personal licence holders, 5 per year. Section 107 0f the Licensing Act. 2003. In the old days a morris team like Sheffield City Morris would have a ceilidh or two each year and apply for an occasional licence via the Magistrates Court. The process is simplified (written rather than requiring attendance for example)and we could have five rather than four - but if we wanted to we could have the squire, bagman, secretary etc apply. There are a number of possible problems with TEN´s: they are limited to 499 people; limited to 96 hours; and a venue can only have twelve. A village hall might have loads of licensable events, which means they need a "permanent" licence. HTH Dave |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: pavane Date: 26 Jun 06 - 04:31 AM Are the councils themselves limited in the number of Temporary Event licences they can obtain in the year? |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Folkiedave Date: 25 Jun 06 - 09:42 AM Noise and vibration etc....... Meanwhile large screen TV´s and juke boxes can be played as loud as they like with windows wide open and the remedy is only in the Noise Abatement Act. Fine, but why is this act not considered sufficient for live music? Answers to Tessa Jowell DCMS. Best regards, Dave Eyre |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Folkiedave Date: 25 Jun 06 - 09:38 AM Southwark Council's licensing department confirmed today that they require buskers to apply for a Temporary Event Notice under the new licensing laws. This despite the difficulty of providing a precise address for the busking location, and despite the fact that only 12 such permits are allowed per year per premises (total annual cost to the busker: £252). I thought it might be nice to support the buskers. Especially since the government specifically said in the run up to the Act that busking would not be affected. So I have written to Southwark Council asking when various events on their website applied for and were granted licences. You often find councils have not licensed streets for parades for example. Interestingly they have a huge event in September which will need a licence on the area between Westminster Bridge and Tower Bridge which may be the area where they are asking buskers to have licences. See: Can I suggest anyone else who believes this Act is iniquitous, and who finds it strange that it needs 186 pages of guidance six months after coming into being to likewise use the Freedom of Information Act creatively. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jun 06 - 07:52 AM The following from the revised Guidance. Annex G - Noise and vibration Change 1ST bullet point "noise or vibration does not emanate from the premises so as to cause a nuisance to nearby properties. This might be achieved by a simple requirement to keep doors and windows at the premises closed, or to use noise limiters on amplification equipment used at the premises;" to "noise or vibration does not emanate from the premises so as to cause a nuisance to nearby properties. This might be achieved by one or more of the following conditions: a simple requirement to keep doors and windows at the premises closed; limiting live music to a particular area of the building; moving the location and direction of speakers away from external walls or walls that abut private premises; installation of acoustic curtains; fitting of rubber seals to doorways; installation of rubber speaker mounts; requiring the licensee to take measure to ensure that music will not be audible above background level at the nearest noise sensitive location; require licensee to undertake routine monitoring to ensure external levels of music are not excessive and take appropriate action where necessary; noise limiters on amplification equipment used at the premises (if other measures have been unsuccessful). In determining which conditions are necessary and appropriate, licensing authorities should be aware of the need to avoid unnecessary or disproportionate measures that could deter the holding of events that are valuable to the community, such as live music. Noise limiters, for example, are very expensive to purchase and install and are likely to be a considerable burden for smaller venues." |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:51 AM The following from Hamish Birchall. Yesterday, Thursday 22 June 2006, the government published revised statutory Guidance for the new Licensing Act. See this DCMS press release: http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2006/dcms090_06.htm Significantly, ministers are no longer claiming that the new legislation is 'much better' for live music. "The new licensing laws have been in place for six months. But it's still too soon to draw any conclusions. We will continue to monitor the impact the Act throughout this year and beyond," said Mr Woodward. Of course it is not too early to draw conclusions. The government should now know the proportion of bars and restaurants that do not have a live music authorisation. These places are limited to 12 gigs a year under the temporary licence scheme and 'incidental music'. Most of these have the 'grandfather right' to play recorded music, which would include using DJs. They can also provide unlimited broadcast entertainment, no matter how powerfully amplified. For the licensee in such venues, obtaining the necessary permission to host more live music will be a more complex and often more expensive process than it was under the old entertainment licensing regime. Shaun Woodward says it's too early to draw conclusions, but earlier this month Musicians' Union General Secretary John Smith reported a 'marked drop in live music in smaller venues, especially the ones that previously benefited from the "two or fewer performers" exemption'. He added that the union was 'attempting to clarify the position in London'. A DCMS summary of the proposed Licensing Guidance changes or additions can be found here: http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C1056CF9-F361-4FDE-BC11-7F9B1161A6A9/0/Suppguidance_section182_June06.pdf The Live Music Forum has been debating the 'incidental music' exemption for some weeks, but this is not addressed in the proposed changes. There is a significant recommendation that noise limiter licence conditions, which can be expensive, should be avoided unless other noise reduction measures have failed. But there is no mention of the fact that noise abatement notices, issued under the Environmental Protection Act, achieve the same result. In short, noise restricting licence conditions could unlawfully duplicate provision available under separate legislation. In April, Westminster City Council imposed a noise limiter condition AND a 3-performer limit on The Hub, a brand new restaurant and sports changing facility in Regents Park. This was one of two Regents Park venues that top UK trumpeter, Henry Lowther, had hoped to perform in over the summer. The other venue, the Garden Cafe - run by the same company - has not so far applied for a live music authorisation, perhaps because of its tortuous experience of licensing at The Hub. Under the old regime neither venue would have needed an entertainment licence, because Crown land was exempt. Following Mr Lowther's public complaint to the MU General Secretary about the loss of these gigs, he received a letter from a London MU official who claimed to have made a 'thorough investigation'. This official had obtained a copy of the Minutes of the licensing hearing for The Hub. These did not set out or imply the licensing objective justifying the 3-performer condition. Despite this, the official concluded that it was to do with the health and safety of MU members, adding 'The Musicians' Union understand that 4 or more musicians performing are better than three. However, we are also concerned for the health and welfare of our members and can find no argument that might find us in opposition to such conditions.' End of MU investigation. In fact, when Westminster's press office was subsequently asked what licensing objective was served by the 3-performer limit, they quickly confirmed it was not to do with public safety but was a 'public nuisance' condition. They added that it had been proposed by the venue - which was technically correct. But the venue's original application submitted in February did not mention the number of performers. According to Westminster's licensing department the application received objections from local residents. Under pressure, council officers appear to have negotiated a compromise with the venue's solicitor just prior to the licence hearing. Are such noise conditions reasonable? Could a 3-performer limit ever be reasonable? The Hub is about half a kilometre from the nearest house, and the area where the musicians could perform is underground: the ground floor changing area is buried in an earth mound, while the first floor restaurant has a clear view across the park: http://www.royalparks.gov.uk/parks/regents_park/hub/thehub.cfm Mr Lowther has now written back to the MU asking what action they now propose to take in light of this new information. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:31 AM The following from Hamish Birchall There have been rumours lately of a licensing clampdown on South Bank buskers. Sure enough, Southwark Council's licensing department confirmed today that they require buskers to apply for a Temporary Event Notice under the new licensing laws. This despite the difficulty of providing a precise address for the busking location, and despite the fact that only 12 such permits are allowed per year per premises (total annual cost to the busker: £252). South Bank buskers could therefore face criminal prosecution if they do not obtain a Temporary Event Notice in advance. Max penalty: £20,000 fine and six months in prison. One busker, who asked not to be named, said that this is the first time they have run into serious difficulty. Until the new licensing laws came into force, entertainment licensing did not apply to public land, and busking was specifically regulated through local by-laws or not at all. The police would intervene sometimes on the grounds of obstruction; noise complaints were dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act. Under the new law 'premises' is defined as 'any place', which includes public or private land, as well as streets and pavements. By contrast with the new licensing restrictions for South Bank buskers, on Saturday 17 June over 400 musician members of the armed forces performed live music for the Trooping the Colour ceremony in The Mall and Horse Guards Parade. No licence was issued under the Licensing Act 2003. A spokesman for Westminster City Council explained that this particular performance was exempt because s.173 the Act exempts the military, and - wait for it - because it was incidental music. The incidental exemption may not be persuasive in this case, but the s.173 claim is arguable: 'An activity is not a licensable activity if it is carried on - (f) at premises which, at the time when the activity is carried on, are permanently or temporarily occupied for the purposes of the armed forces of the Crown'. [Licensing Act 2003, Part 9, s.173(1)(f)] |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: vectis Date: 16 Jun 06 - 03:14 PM Good old Lord Clement-Jones. I await his responses with interest but little hope of change for the better. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 16 Jun 06 - 02:25 PM Show of hand - Roots - What a track |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: GUEST,fvf Date: 16 Jun 06 - 08:01 AM fvfvdfv d v |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 16 Jun 06 - 07:59 AM The following From Hamish Birchall. Writing about the Licensing Act on page 9 of the latest issue of Musician, the in-house journal for Musicians' Union members, General Secretary John Smith says: 'We do believe there is a marked drop in live music in smaller venues, especially the ones that previously benefited from the "two or fewer performers' exemption under the old PEL system...' This important and worrying finding is rather incongruously located beneath a large photograph of the General Secretary beaming congenially at the reader. He adds, however, that 'intense discussions with DCMS are taking place over these issues' and responds to an apparently 'small minority of members' who believe the union kow-towed to the government and lack a coherent policy on the Licensing Act. According to Mr Smith, the policy recently 're-considered' by the Executive Committee is clear, and includes: 'A pragmatic acceptance of the position we are now in - the Act is the law and we have to operate within its confines.' 'Adopting a "wait and see' position until the full impact of the Act is clear'. The union will also commission more research of its own 'to complement the DCMS research'. On key points this policy will fail the majority of members whose employment opportunities will diminish as a result of the Act. Firstly, the 'confines' of the new law for live music are unclear and open to legal challenge; secondly, if the union already knows there has been a 'marked drop' in gigs, what is it waiting for? Where local authorities adopt interpretations that unnecessarily restrict members' employment surely the union has a responsibility to its members to do what it can to challenge such interpretations? What about licence conditions that deter venues from hosting live music? One common condition is the requirement to install and set up a noise limiter, which can cost around £2k. Unless the venue implements the condition, having live music is illegal. But the local authority could have issued a pre-emptive noise abatement notice under s.80 of the Environmental Protection Act, which allows the venue to propose its own measures to limit the noise. In most cases that would suffice, and would be a more proportionate process than an all-or-nothing £2k licence condition. The union could and should consider challenging such conditions in the courts on the basis that they are disproportionately restricting members' exercising their right to freedom of expression. The law requires that, where possible, all legislation must be interpreted compatibly with this right. Setting a precedent in favour of live music would have national significance. Elsewhere in the magazine, under the headline 'State of the Nation' (p6), Assistant General Secretary Horace Trubridge is quoted: '... This area [i.e. the Licensing Act] will continue to be a key priority for the Union until we are satisfied that our members' work opportunities, along with their health and safety, are at least being maintained and, ideally, improved by last year's changes.' The implication that licensing and musicians' safety are inseparable is mistaken and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. It also suggests a shift from the Union's position when the Act was a Bill back in 2003. The safety risks associated with live music in bars or any other workplace are addressed by separate legislation irrespective of licensing. The MU and Arts Council employed an expert in safety and licensing law to brief members of the House of Lords explicitly on this point back in 2003. And the implication that licensing might cease to be a key priority for the Union if the existing gig level is maintained is, frankly, ludicrous. The live music campaign drew its strength from the widespread view among musicians that existing performance opportunities were woefully inadequate. ENDS |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 13 Jun 06 - 05:57 PM The following from Hamish Birchall This Thursday, 15 June 2006, Lord Addington will ask the government a question along these lines: 'Is Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the police and local authorities have adequate powers to regulate crime, disorder, public safety and public nuisance at premises or open spaces where World Cup matches are shown on large screens for the entertainment of the public?' A Home Office minister is to reply. The answer should be interesting, and may have implications for musicians arguing for an alleviation of licensing requirements for small-scale gigs in bars. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, Lord Clement-Jones yesterday tabled these questions for written answer. Replies should come within three weeks: To ask Her Majestys Government whether, following the outdoor performance of the Red Hot Chili Peppers on the BBCs Top of the Pops programme on 15th April, they will amend Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 to clarify the distinction between public entertainment that is licensable and private entertainment that is not licensable. (HL6247) To ask Her Majestys Government what proportion of licensed premises in England and Wales that did not previously hold an entertainment licence now have authorisation for the performance of live music. (HL6248) To ask Her Majestys Government on what basis they assess that there is a flourishing live music scene in bars and restaurants. (HL6249) To ask Her Majestys Government what powers under the Licensing Act 2003 have been used to close down licensed premises with a history of disorder and to prevent some licensed premises from screening games involving the England football team during the 2006 World Cup. (HL6250) To ask Her Majestys Government how many licensed premises with a history of disorder have been closed down or prevented from screening games involving the England football team during the 2006 World Cup under the Licensing Act 2003 before the beginning of the tournament on 9th June. (HL6251) ENDS |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 13 Jun 06 - 05:01 AM The following from Hamish Birchall Following mass brawls in Liverpool and Canary Wharf during big screenings of England's match against Paraguay last Saturday, the BBC has cancelled its big screenings of the World Cup: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5073434.stm The Sunday Times of 12 June reported the violence in Liverpool and Canary wharf, but also apparently trouble-free screenings in Manchester, Leeds, Cambridge and Hull: 'Eight thousand fans packed into Manchesters Exchange Square. Before the match they were entertained by a karaoke of soccer anthems and a live interactive football game. Aiden Hooson, 14, a Manchester City fan, said: The atmosphere is far better than sitting in the house. The happy scenes were repeated in Leeds, Cambridge and Hull as fans sang Three Lions with its refrain Footballs coming home and jumped in the air as one when England scored.' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2220281,00.html Perhaps the music helped: Music hath charms to soothe a savage breast, To soften rocks, or bend a knotted oak. William Congreve 1670-1729, The Mourning Bride NB: I am waiting to hear from Manchester City Council whether Exchange Square has a premises licence authorising the performance of live music and the playing of recorded music. ENDS |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Folkiedave Date: 12 Jun 06 - 11:19 AM In Birmingham, according to the Sunday Times, they switched the Big Screen to tennis and told the fans to go in to the pubs. Errrr...................the police told people to go into the pubs so trouble could be avoided? Looks like the world is upside down again. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 12 Jun 06 - 11:06 AM The following from Hamish Birchall. Live music, criminality and the entertainment licence exemption for broadcast entertainment: '... A mass brawl involving around 200 people broke out at Canary Wharf in London where up to 6,000 people were watching an outdoor screening of England's 1-0 defeat of Paraguay. At about the same time, trouble broke out in front of a big screen in Liverpool city centre with fans hurling missiles.' ['In Germany, England fans enjoy the party. At home, there's a mass brawl', Andrew Culf, The Guardian, p9, Monday 12 June 2006] ~ ~ ~ 'Live music always acts as a magnet in whatever community it is being played. It brings people from outside that community and having no connection locally behave in a way that is inappropriate, criminal and disorderly'. [Letter from Association of Chief Police Officers' president Chris Fox to Tessa Jowell, 02 July 2003, opposing an entertainment licence exemption for live music in small venues, a position that was supported by the government during Parliamentary debate.] ENDS http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/story/0,,1795474,00.html AND http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1795853,00.html |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jun 06 - 08:24 AM The following from Hamish Birchall. With the 2006 World Cup about to start, it is perhaps a good time to consider that overworked metaphor 'level playing field' and the implications for live music. Only this week the press office for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, told me that licensing reform creates a level playing field for all musicians. This is nonsense, of course. I tried to explain to them that a) during last year's transition period the new Act automatically allowed bars and restaurants converting their old alcohol licence to keep the right to play recorded music (using DJs) while removing the exemption for one or two live musicians - at a stroke that tilted the playing field steeply against live music; b) the broadcast entertainment exemption obviously discriminates against live performers. DCMS press office would have none of it. They claimed that they had merely set out 'government policy', adding: '... as Richard Caborn told Parliament on July 8 2003: "Let me deal with the two-in-a-bar argument from the Musicians Union. Before we published the White Paper, the union told us that it needed a level playing field for live music, with permission to hold music events that involved any number in pubs and restaurants at low cost. We have delivered what the Musicians Union requested."' But this is just more tosh. Firstly, what the Musicians' Union may or may not have requested years ago is irrelevant to the question about whether or not the new Licensing Act actually creates a level playing field for all musicians. Secondly, Richard Caborn was being disingenuous. The licensing White Paper was published on 10 April 2000. Whatever the MU position had been prior to that date, by August 2000 a new position was being set out publicly by former general secretary Dennis Scard. 'Dennis Scard, general secretary of the Musicians' Union, is lobbying the government to rule that the new licences will automatically allow live music.' [Time Out, 'The late late-licensing show', Ruth Bloomfield, August 16-23, 2000, p14] If live music were automatically allowed, that means not 'low cost' but no cost. As we now know, the 'cost nothing extra' claims of ministers have been proved false for many licensees. In his statement of 8 July 2003, Caborn also forgot to mention that only three months before, the MU, Arts Council and music industry had backed a Conservative amendment to the then Licensing Bill which would have exempted small venues from licensing for live music. That was shot down by the government using a quote from a senior police officer that live music 'brings people from outside that community and having no connection locally behave in a way that is inappropriate, criminal and disorderly'. Throughout the Licensing Bill's passage through Parliament, November 2002 to July 2003, Culture ministers issued dire warnings about the need to licence live music on public safety, crime and disorder grounds. Panic tactics, in short, intended in part at least to stiffen the spine of wavering Labour backbenchers. And now these deceitful reasons for abolishing the two musician exemption have been quietly dropped. Even the remaining noise justification is rubbish: local authorities and the police have plenty of legislation to regulate noisy premises. What does this year's World Cup have in store for licensing ministers? Reliable sources suggest that DMCS press office has conducted a 'war cabinet' by way of preparation. ENDS |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 06 Jun 06 - 05:19 AM Yesterday (5 June 2006) the following questions were asked in Parliament. Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West) (Lab/Co-op): What assessment she has made of the impact of the Licensing Act 2003. Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): Will not the public think it completely barmy, if typical of this incompetent Government, that a pub needs a licence for one or two musicians in the bar but does not need one to show World cup matches on big screens to hundreds of inebriated supporters? Will the Secretary of State tell us just how much taxpayers' money is being used on extra policing, under the alcohol misuse enforcement campaign, in order to massage the crime and disorder figures associated with showing World cup matches? Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): What her policy is for the promotion of English folk dance and song. The answers can be seen on the following. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060605/debtext/60605-0337.htm |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 02 Jun 06 - 11:08 AM The following from Hamish Birchall 'The Government wants your help in tackling unnecessary regulation', says the Better Regulation Executive. 'We want to receive practical proposals for regulatory simplification from business, the voluntary and community sectors, public sector front line staff and any of their representatives.' See: http://www.betterregulation.gov.uk/ The downloadable guidance includes this caveat: 'The Government recognises that some regulations are required in order to provide necessary protections such as to employees or the environment. We will consider simplifying these regulations, for example by removing duplication, but not at a cost to those being protected.' Interestingly, later this year new fire safety legislation should come into force that will explicitly disapply fire safety conditions imposed on premises licences under the Licensing Act. This is the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, originally due to come into force 1st April 2006, now deferred to 1st October 2006: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051541.htm Responsibility for fire safety will reside exclusively with the fire service and whoever counts as the 'responsible person' at the venue making the appropriate risk assessments. Local authority involvement in fire safety through licensing will end. Given that existing safety law already allows both the fire service and environmental health officers to address most, if not all, risks arising from live music (including safe capacities), it is hard to see how any safety condition imposed via the Licensing Act would not duplicate what is already available. This no doubt why, in terms of the licensing objectives, DCMS now only cites noise as the rationale for abolishing the 'two in a bar rule'. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Bert Date: 15 May 06 - 11:58 AM The following from Hamish Birchall During a House of Lords debate on the arts last week (Thursday 11 May 2006), Lord Colwyn spoke up for jazz, and against the new licensing laws: 'Another restriction on the performance of jazz is the shambles created by the new licensing legislation.' For his full speech, see: here |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Folkiedave Date: 14 May 06 - 10:59 AM See: thread.cfm?threadid=91483&messages=2 |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 13 May 06 - 09:18 PM The following from Hamish Birchall Another TOTP licensing article, this time from yesterday's Independent (Fri 12 May 2006): http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article364314.ece ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps broadcasters should relocate to Camden. A statement released yesterday by Camden's press office suggests a more liberal interpretation of the Licensing Act: 'Camden Licensing Authority has considered the enquiry from MTV for the Hawley Crescent [studio], and based on the information supplied we do not consider this premises to need a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003. Licensable Activities under the Act are the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late night refreshment. In the case of MTV the only licensable activity that could apply is regulated entertainment. The Act defines regulated entertainment as entertainment provided to members of the public or a section of the public, or for consideration with a view to profit. 'MTV have stated that no members of the public will be admitted to the entertainment, and the audience will be made up from pre-invited guests who are given a ticket. MTV is making no charge for these tickets, and the tickets will be given away to competition winners. Therefore Camden Licensing Authority does not consider the entertainment at MTVs studios to be regulated entertainment, and no licence is required. 'In the case of the LB Hammersmith and Fulham issue with Tops of the Pops, the event is not private, as tickets are available to anyone who applies for them, therefore the entertainment is public and licensable under the Licensing Act 2003.' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This position could be based on a misunderstanding, however. MTV's ticket allocation process is the same as the BBC's for the Coldplay gig at Abbey Road (13 Feb), and for the Red Hot Chili Peppers recording for TOTP (15 April) - free tickets given away to competition winners. See this Coldplay website where the small print states that the call cost of entering the free ticket competition went to BBC Children in Need: http://www.coldplaying.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1299 http://mycoldplay.com/home/?m=200601 (scroll down) |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Folkiedave Date: 13 May 06 - 08:59 PM refresh |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 May 06 - 08:53 PM It used to be the case that TOTP was produced with artists miming to recordings of their songs. If this is still the case, then no license should be required whatever the audience may be. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 12 May 06 - 05:58 PM The following from Hamish Birchall Henry Lowther is one of the UK's leading trumpeters. His long and distinguished CV spans five decades. See: http://www.jazztrumpet.co.uk/henrylowther/henrylowther.html Yesterday Henry emailed an impassioned letter to Musicians' Union General Secretary John Smith. It concerned gigs Henry and fellow musicians have recently lost due to licensing problems in a Regent's Park venue. He criticises the MU for its 'lacklustre performance' on this issue over the last two years. The reply from Mr Smith was brief and almost off-hand. There is no suggestion of personal moral support or empathy, nor any clue about the Union's view on licensing generally. Disappointed at this response, Henry has copied this exchange to me and given permission for it to be circulated as widely as possible. NB: It is true that public entertainment licences as such no longer exist - but a premises licence authorising entertainment is the same in all but name. ~ ~ ~ From: Henry Lowther Sent: Thu 11/05/2006 16:14 To: John Smith Subject: Public Entertainment Licence Dear John, In connection with the Musician's Union's recent survey and request for information regarding the effects of the new Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) on musician's interests, I'm writing to inform you of a blatant example of why this legislation is so damaging and unnecessary. Last year I had the good fortune to be asked to play with a quartet on a regular basis in the Garden Cafe in The Regent's Park. This was for two mid-week late afternoons/early evenings per week for a period of three months, about 30 gigs in total. It was a delightful experience for all the musicians involved. We usually played outdoors, received generous and friendly hospitality and a good fee. The company who run the cafe, Caper Green, were delighted with the way it went (and so were the cafe's customers) and then invited us to play indoors for four Sunday afternoons prior to Christmas. At this time the overall manager for the company said he would like us to play again throughout the summer of this year, commencing at Easter, possibly three times a week and also maybe have us play in some of their other cafes. (Caper Green also run cafes in other Royal Parks and the cafe at Kenwood and will also be running the restaurant in the newly refurbished Roundhouse when it opens.) As you can see, all of this would amount to a significant amount of work for four musicians. Unfortunately, so far this year, this has all come to nought because of the necessity for a PEL. Caper Green have, through their solicitors, applied for a PEL for the restaurant in the Hub, a new sports facility in The Regent's Park but are finding dealing with Westminster City Council complicated, difficult and time consuming. "It's a nightmare," were the manager's words to me. Among other things Westminster City Council wish, for some unknown reason, to impose a limit of no more than three musicians. It would seem that, in this instance, the "Two in a Bar Rule" has been replaced by a "Three in a Bar Rule". I didn't realise that they were able to stipulate in this way. All of this totally contradicts the DCMS's claim that obtaining a PEL would be easy. Prior to the implementation of this legislation, Royal Parks, being Crown land, were exempt from the necessity of a music licence but are now required to obtain a PEL in order to engage musicians. Why? If the system worked before why shouldn't it work now? This is just yet another example among many of the total illogicality and stupidity of this bill. In the meantime the musicians involved are losing at least £200 or £300 a week in income, possibly more, with no possibility of compensation for loss of earnings. In addition the public are losing an opportunity of hearing good music in a pleasant environment. Over the last couple of years I have been disappointed and unhappy with the Musicians' Union's lacklustre performance in this matter and with what seems to me to be an apathetic response to the Government during the passage of this Bill through Parliament. After some brief lobbying and campaigning about three years ago it would appear that the Union has now rolled over and allowed the Government to tickle its tummy, swayed by a few minor concessions and exemptions and a more than unlikely empty promise to review the situation after a couple of years. By then so much damage will already have been done and if the Government wouldn't listen to objections before, why should we believe that they would in the future? The fact that the new licensing regulations don't require pubs, etc. to have a licence for them to present large screen televised sport or to play often loud background music is nothing less than a major concession to large corporate interests. Instead, this Government has chosen to regulate the performances of mostly minority and increasingly marginalised forms of music. Small venues, pubs, private premises, etc. who wish to present jazz, folk, improvised, experimental or avant-garde music are now in the almost Stalinesque position of having to seek permission from the State to do so and many of them simply don't have either the financial or organisational recourses to deal with it. Up until the last couple of years I've always paid my Musicians' Union subscriptions in the highest band for over thirty-five years and was always happy to support the Union's financial contributions to the Labour Party. Now, however, I resent the fact that any portion of my subscriptions should go towards supporting the Party that is responsible for this abhorrent legislation. Moreover I feel that the Musician' Union should have withdrawn its financial donations to the Labour Party two or three years ago in disgust and to have disaffiliated. Yours in despair, Henry Lowther ~ ~ ~ Response from Musicians' Union General Secretary John Smith: From: John Smith To: Henry Lowther Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 4:26 PM Subject: RE: Public Entertainment Licence Dear Henry Thanks for this. Of course PELs no longer exist, so the venue needs a Premises Licence which allows Entertainment. There is a Live Music Forum meeting at the DCMS tomorrow and I will copy your email to its Chair Feargal Sharkey, who will, no doubt, follow it up. I'll also copy it to our London Regional Office and ask them to talk to the venue and the Licensing Authority. As for the Labour Party, the affiliation is a decision of the Union's conference and neither I nor the Executive Committee can overule that decision. The next conference is in July 2007 - maybe someone should propose a motion, through their Region to the effect that the MU ends its affiliation. Conference can then decide. John F. Smith General Secretary, Musicians' Union |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 12 May 06 - 09:17 AM The following from Hamish Birchall This morning's BBC Radio 4 Today programme covered the TOTP story. It is also covered in The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2176807.html>a href=>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2176807.html The entertainment licensing requirement was described by Today presenter Jim Naughtie as a 'fandango'. But the general tone was light-hearted and shed no light on the underlying issues, in particular on the question of what is private (exempt) and public (licensable) under the new law. The BBC news website included this comment from DCMS which also avoided the key question: "Some types of entertainment in front of public audiences have needed to be licensed since at least 1963 in London and 1982 in the rest of the country. The Licensing Act 2003 has not changed that. Whether or not a licence is required in any particular set of circumstances is rightly a matter for the local licensing authority." See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4762783.stm In fact most public music and dancing has been illegal unless licensed in England since 1752. The law and the courts ultimately determine whether or not a licence is required. Local authorities have some discretion in enforcing the law. If an offence has been committed they must decide whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute. Experts in licensing law, and officials at Westminster and Hammersmith & Fulham councils have repeatedly told me that the new Licensing Act is obscure and confusing. This lack of clarity meant that council legal officers were forced to look to case law going back to 1991 and 1961 when deciding if the Coldplay Abbey Road gig and TOTP should be licensed. In both cases the public audience were free ticket-holders. It would seem that Lunn v Colston-Hayter, 1991, is the precedent that suggests such free ticketing arrangements may not be sufficient segregation to qualify as a private event for licensing purposes. However, during the past 40 years local authorities have rarely enforced entertainment licensing at private events in bars, clubs or restaurants where members of the public could not just walk in off the street. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 12 May 06 - 08:43 AM Listen Again to BBC Radio 4 You and Yours. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/transcripts_spring06.shtml A piece on the mistakes and delays to licensing applications and Westminster Council's reasons for this. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Barden of England Date: 12 May 06 - 06:36 AM Exactly my thoughts DMcG. The act states 'audience' and it matters not one jot if the 'audience' is paid to be there, it's still an audience. As I've said before- there's one rule for them and another for us. John Barden |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: DMcG Date: 12 May 06 - 05:46 AM Another thing I am doubtful about is the BBC's temporary solution to this being to ask their staff if they want to attend as a "fake" public audience. It seems to me a very grey area whether staff of the BBC are any less a public audience. True, they are being paid to attend, which a reversal of the usual position when attending a performance, but they are not involved in the producing the show any more than any other member of the public would be. |
| Share Thread: |