|
31 Dec 09 - 08:19 AM (#2799949) Subject: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Department of Culture Media and Sport have just announced a proposal to exempt small live music events from the Licensing Act 2003. Your input to this consultation is vital, if it is to succeed in finally freeing grass roots live music in England and Wales from the red tape which continues to strangle it. http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx The Government have ignored previous reccomendations for the exemption to apply in premises with a safe capaicity of less than 200 and are proposing only a figure of 100. They have indicated that should the consultation show support for the higher figure, this may be considered. There will be considerable opposition to even this modest proposal. Please contribute to this process and inform others? Many Thanks |
|
31 Dec 09 - 08:25 AM (#2799952) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1039509&c=1 |
|
31 Dec 09 - 08:37 AM (#2799963) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Rasener 100 fine by me, as thats what our safe figure is |
|
31 Dec 09 - 08:51 AM (#2799973) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The reason why there is so much opposition to even this modest proposal and why it is only announced on the last day of 2009, is that in order for even one person to be exempted, this means that the Government accepts that other existing legislation is adequate to ensure the public's safety etc. without the need for any expensive and cumbersome additional entertainment permission. The local government lobby still try to maintain (as their jobs rely on it) that this additional entertainment permission is the only way the public can be protected. This, even when so much live music took place perfectly safely under the old 'two-in-a-bar' rule, which this lobby advised the Government to scrap, on introduction of the Licensing Act 2003. Remember also that all that is being proposed, is only yet further consultation. http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1039509&c=1 Live music performances for 100 people or less will no longer need to be licensed, under proposals announced today by licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe. An exemption from the Licensing Act for small live music events would make it easier for a wide range of venues to put on live music, and help musicians who want to play to a live audience. Sutcliffe says, "Going to see a band, musician or singer is a very important part of many people's lives and we're keen to do what we can to support audiences and musicians." He believes and exemption for venues with 100 people or less would benefit many small venues, particularly unlicensed premises such as village halls and cafes, which may currently be put off by licensing requirements." However, he is also proposing that the exemption can be revoked at individual premises if there have been problems with noise, nuisance or disorder and to ensure concerns of people living close to venues are taken into account, the exemption would only apply to performances that take place between 8am and 11pm. British Beer and Pub Association director of pub and leisure Martin Rawlings says, "The BBPA welcomes any measures that can help pubs overcome existing barriers to putting on live music, helping aspiring and established musicians to reach audiences while at the same time boosting business, particularly during these difficult economic times." |
|
31 Dec 09 - 09:05 AM (#2799982) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Carol Great news |
|
31 Dec 09 - 09:13 AM (#2799990) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/condoc_exemptsmall_livemusicevents.pdf The following questions are from the above PDF. Can a potential bias be detected in a document where only those in disagreement have to provide their reasons? Question 1: Do you agree that the exemption should be limited to performances held wholly inside a permanent building? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Question 2: Do you agree that the exemption should be limited to performances of live music for not more than 100 people? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Question 3: Do you agree that audiences for exempt performances should be accommodated entirely within the building where the performance is taking place? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Question 4: Do you agree that exempt performances should not take place between 11pm and 8am? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Question 5: Do you agree that there should be an exclusion process as set out above? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Question 6: Do you agree that the exclusion process should be similar to the current review process, with the modifications proposed? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Question 7: Do you agree that licensed premises that qualify for the proposed exemption should have to apply through the Minor Variations process to remove licence conditions that apply to the exempt live music performance? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Question 8: Do you agree that this proposal cannot be achieved by non-legislative means? Yes/No. If No, please explain why Question 9: Do you agree that the effect of the proposal is proportionate to the policy objective? Yes/No? If No, please explain why. Question 10: Do you agree that the proposal, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Question 11: Do you agree that the proposal does not remove any necessary protection? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Question 12: Do you agree that the proposal does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Question 13: Do you agree that the proposal has no constitutional significance? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Question 14: Do you broadly agree with the estimates, assumptions and conclusions of the Impact Assessment (published as a separate document, and available alongside this consultation on the DCMS website at http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx.)? Yes/ No. If not, please say which estimate you disagree with, and provide any evidence that supports an alternate estimate. Question 15: Do you think that this draft Order accurately reflects the proposed change?
-Joe Offer- |
|
31 Dec 09 - 10:17 AM (#2800062) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Dave the Gnome Hey, Roger! Good to see you back and in fine campaigning form. Keep up the good work. Cheers Dave |
|
31 Dec 09 - 01:04 PM (#2800162) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://londonjazz.blogspot.com/2009/12/government-announces-small-venue.html |
|
31 Dec 09 - 01:41 PM (#2800206) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST, Poxicat Well there is a government trying to hide behind manipulated and one-sided "consultation" to get its own way – again. But the two elephants in the room are ignored. Noise. In truly urban areas noise pollution hides it. In suburban and rural areas, you can go from pub to pub. The jukeboxes and TVs will be loud enough to identify the songs 400 yards away. Karaoke and live music will be loud enough to identify the songs half a mile away and more. It is no use pretending that noise complaints about amplified music achieve anything. At first the LA's "licensing officer" ignores you. If you are persistent, then a visit to the pub may ensue. Somehow everyone gets to know who complained, and then those who like the noise (and live over a mile away) will "visit" the complainer. All amplification in pubs should be regulated. The exemptions that there are should be removed. Culture. Oh, yes, the department of culture media and sport. The culture that is in danger and should be the subject of support is not opera, nor ballet, nor proms for snobs, but English (or, in Wales, Welsh, or in Scotland, Scottish) folk music and song. It is so unsupported that its only supporter (so long as they can sing "Little Sir Hugh") is the BNP. What is needed is that music that is not electrically amplified should be free from music licensing. That can be done by expanding the "morris dancing" exemption. Which can be done by statutory instrument. |
|
01 Jan 10 - 06:57 AM (#2800693) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Question 4: Do you agree that exempt performances should not take place between 11pm and 8am? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. Not too sure why the concept of a 11pm curfew is introduced here? There is no such curfew on other exemptions. For example, whether it takes place inside premises or outside, Morris dancing after 11pm or before 8am (or indeed at dawn) is not considered to need additional entertainment permission. The recently issued LACORS guidance on the incidental exemption does not require this. Would the unlicensed live music performance safely taking place and benefitting from this exemption in larger premises become licensable at 11pm in premises qualifying for the proposed small premises exemption? I can't really see much on how exactly it is peoposed that the size of a premises is to be determined. If it is to be as convoluted as the existing S177, then this exemption will be as useless as S177. Perhaps that is the intention of these proposals? |
|
02 Jan 10 - 08:39 AM (#2801385) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles >All amplification in pubs should be regulated. The exemptions that there are should be removed.< Of course, all excessive noise is already regulated. Any live or recorded music that may be exempt from additional entertainment licensing is still subject to regulation under envirionmental legislation. Whether we have had additional entertainment licensing or not, has and can have no effect on noise concerns. As this can only be brought into effect for noise coming from entertainment (and not loud music blasting from the house next door) it can be at best, only a partial solution to noise concerns. The problems described above have not been created or made any worse by any measures introduced by the Licensing Act 2003. Promoting this legislation by continuing the myth, that additional entertainment licensing can have some effect, may have covered-up any short-comings in the envirionmental legislation that is supposed to protect the public from all noise concerns. The answer to this is to address these short-comings and not to perpetuate the myth that expensive additional entertainment licensing benefits anyone but those who are employed to enforce it. |
|
02 Jan 10 - 09:16 AM (#2801414) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Darowyn I have downloaded the PDFs and will be composing a full response- including comments on the seriously biased form of the consultation. I shall then be returning it through the more direct access to politicians that my family connections allow me- hopefully adding a few influential signatures on the way. To sum up my views in one simple paragraph, I shall be arguing that noise and anti-social behaviour issues are fully covered by existing legislation, and that the whole licensing regime under the 2003 Act is a waste of public money and should be scrapped completely in an era of budgetary constraint. I am entirely in agreement with Guest The Shambles in this. Cheers Dave |
|
02 Jan 10 - 02:27 PM (#2801693) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: stallion There was one good result from the licencing changes.......it was to do with safety........... will not bore you with it now ...... but it was a huge improvement, otherwise I agree the live music thing, oh and lets include PRS in this while we are at it, is this a conspiracy to drive out people gathering and enjoying themselves making music? |
|
02 Jan 10 - 06:19 PM (#2801873) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones It is "biased", but only in the sense that having already considered evidence and representations the government is now putting forward a proposal. If you agree with it, you don't need to give your reasons, but why should they need them? They will presumably be similar to the government's reasons for putting forward the proposals in the first place. It is only if you disagree that you are asked to put forward reasons. |
|
02 Jan 10 - 06:39 PM (#2801893) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Point taken but..... If this Government have already considered any evidence and representations on which the proposals are based, these are very selective. They are not mine and they are not any that I have contributed to. They don't even seem to be based on the evidence and representations from the bodies that they themselves have set up to advise them and which I am aware of, like those made by the Live Music Forum. The call for the level to be set at 100 is directly at odds with the figure of 200, which Parliament's select Committee has called for. Where for example, is there any mention of the following which Mr Suttcliffe mentioned in Parliament on 22 Oct 2009? "As part of the clarification, the consultation will propose a change to the definition of "entertainment facilities" so that the mere provision of musical instruments, such as a pub piano, is not licensable." |
|
02 Jan 10 - 07:38 PM (#2801935) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST, Poxicat Roger, the existing noise controls do not work to control noise nuisance from amplified music. The Licensing Act could (but also often does not, because of the incompetence of local council officers). Unless any new exemption is framed so that it does not apply to music in licensed premises (or their curtilage) is inaudible from other nearby premises you are simply proposing that your preferred entertainment should be permitted to be a nuisance to others. Incidentally, I believe that "inaudibility" ( after 10 pm) inside other dwellings may be the standard applied by Glasgow council. A 100 limit exemption for unamplified music could work. |
|
03 Jan 10 - 10:14 AM (#2802115) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones If you agree with the questions but for reasons which are additional to those given, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from giving your reasons for answering "yes". If you agree with the government's reasons, there's no need to repeat them. What they are asking is that if you disagree, you explain why. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Whilst the general thrust of the proposal is to be welcomed, I disagree with several of the detailed proposals. For example, they propose to exclude only music performed indoors, yet a few musicians playing unamplified in a rural pub garden will probably cause less disturbance than an amplified rock band playing indoors in an urban environment. I also don't understand why they have not accepted the 200 cut-off recommended by the select committee. |
|
03 Jan 10 - 06:46 PM (#2802529) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles >Roger, the existing noise controls do not work to control noise nuisance from amplified music. The Licensing Act could (but also often does not, because of the incompetence of local council officers).< I am confused. If the problem is with the incompetence of those who are employed to enforce the Licensing Act (which I tend to agree), then surely it matters little what is written in the legislation? |
|
04 Jan 10 - 11:44 AM (#2803038) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jan/04/small-venues-live-music-licence The following, from the above Guardian article, ends on rather a cynical note...... Furthermore, while the new proposal may sound generous, a parliamentary select committee recommended in May 2009 that an exemption be created for any venue with 200 people or less. They also called for a resurrection of the older "two-in-a-bar" law, which allowed any size of venue to host unamplified music by one or two people. Perhaps these ideas will be included in the inevitable tenth, eleventh or thirteenth consultations. |
|
04 Jan 10 - 01:03 PM (#2803119) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Folkiedave Nice of the Guardian to show the session in Sandy Bell's, where the law doesn't apply!! |
|
04 Jan 10 - 02:21 PM (#2803208) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Not this law perhaps but the one that does now apply in Scotland has also had its casualties. See the following thread. thread.cfm?threadid=125939&messages=23 We assume that Sandy Bell's has done what is now required to make it legal? |
|
05 Jan 10 - 08:09 AM (#2803852) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles See also: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141223114767&ref=mf |
|
05 Jan 10 - 09:06 AM (#2803902) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: IanC I'd hope we might be able to use this consultation to widen the discussion beyond music. For example Folk Drama is getting an even worse deal at the moment. Because mummers plays don't have a regular venue the pubs aren't licensed for them (except when they were specifically informed as in Ashwell). Mummers are, like morris, "drop-in" entertainment but they're not covered by the "morris exemption" (despite the claims originally made by the morris organisations). That means that mummers plays are almost always illegal, though we still seem to be doing them. Can we raise this while we're talking about the rest? At least pubs that have regular sessions, folk clubs etc. usually have a license for it. Thanks Ian |
|
06 Jan 10 - 05:20 AM (#2804666) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ On 31st December 2009, the public consultation on an entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs was announced by DCMS - more than two years since it was first promised by ministers: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/6553.aspx The key proposal is to exempt gigs with an audience of up to 100, provided performances are within buildings and do not take place between 11pm and 8am. The exemption may be revoked, however, if there are complaints. But the DCMS amendment intended to implement this proposal is flawed. The draft reform order, set out on p26 of the 33-page DCMS consultation document (see link below) could not work because it fails to address the licensing of 'entertainment facilities'. Under the Licensing Act 2003 the provision of entertainment facilities is separately licensable irrespective of any actual performance of live music. This covers, for example, the provision of musical instruments, amplification, or even a stage. Any new exemption has to ensure that such provision is also exempt. The failure to deal with this will be particularly embarrassing to licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe. On 22nd October 2009, during Parliamentary licensing debate, he said: 'For facilities to be separately licensable in such situations would be absurd and was not intended under the 2003 Act. As part of the clarification, the consultation will propose a change to the definition of "entertainment facilities" so that the mere provision of musical instruments, such as a pub piano, is not licensable.' See: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091022/halltext/91022h0005.htm It seems hardly credible that the omission of this vital clarification within the published consultation was merely an oversight by DCMS lawyers and the licensing team, particularly given the long time they have had to come up with a solution. This is of course not the only problem with the consultation. Its timing is almost guaranteed to ensure that reform cannot happen before the general election which must take place by May. While press coverage of the consultation missed the entertainment facilities problem, scepticism about the government's handling of this issue was unusually pronounced in Guardian coverage on 4th January: '... while the new proposal may sound generous, a parliamentary select committee recommended in May 2009 that an exemption be created for any venue with 200 people or less. They also called for a resurrection of the older "two-in-a-bar" law, which allowed any size of venue to host unamplified music by one or two people. Perhaps these ideas will be included in the inevitable tenth, eleventh or thirteenth consultations.' ['Government proposes exemption of small venues from live music licence', Sean Michaels] See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jan/04/small-venues-live-music-licence Equity, the Musicians Union, and UK Music support an exemption for audiences or venues up to 200 capacity, but have yet to make any public comment about this DCMS consultation. Sutcliffe has suggested that the government would consider expanding the exemption if this was the response of an 'overwhelming majority'. Links to other press reports: The Publican http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66055&c=1 NME: http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/49044 Music Week http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1039509&c=1 Link to the DCMS consultation webpage and consultation document downloads: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx The closing date for responses is 26 March 2010. ENDS |
|
06 Jan 10 - 05:31 AM (#2804680) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles [The last post was from me. When I put my name in the box - it did not work. It only seemed to work with the box empty.] Ian - I take your point about the non musical folk arts. It is totally wrong that these should be threatened by licensing legislation. However, no matter how little affected they may currently be in practice, the fact remains that they are licensable and illegal without additional licensing permission. Equity may be the best body for you to approach, for although few participants may be members, they are performances of plays. |
|
06 Jan 10 - 05:39 AM (#2804689) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST, Poxicat 1. Even if the Licensing Act is not effectively used to control noise nuisance, that is not a reason to remove its ability to do so. I know a pub that has just blown up a pair of Peavey Black Widows on its jukebox! All amplified music in pubs should be subject to noise limitation. 2. The reform of the "two-in-a-bar" rule (if ever) will also need to make it clear that it permits (a) - two at a time, not merely the same two all night; and (b) - the assembled audience to join in on chorusses etc |
|
06 Jan 10 - 10:14 AM (#2804850) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles All amplified music in pubs should be subject to noise limitation. Nothing is being proposed to change this. But your chosen method also adversly affects non amplified music. Even where additional entertainment is in place, any resulting noise is still subject to the envirionmental legislation. So what use does this expensive red tape serve, except to provide employment to those who enforce it? The problem with dealing with any noise concern with additional licensing permission is that it attempts to deal with it in advance. That is before there is any determination of whether there is a real noise concern being presented or not. And in cases where it is determined in advance that amplified music should be prevented or limited, this also applies to non amplified music. Surely it is better to apply measures to reduce noise concerns when and where they are being presented than to risk losing any music which is not causing a noise concern, which is the case with additional licensing permission? |
|
06 Jan 10 - 11:21 AM (#2804915) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST, Poxicat No, that is not correct. If all performances are under 100 capacity are exempt from regulation under the Licensing Act then the Licensing Act cannot be used to control noise, and its power pre-emptively to prevent noise is precisely what is needed. The only relaxation needed (and it is needed) is for all unamplified performances to be exempt from the Licensing Act. They and they alone are sufficiently dealt with by other applicable laws. Exempting unamplified 2-in-a-bar does not really go far enough. It would also be sensible to exempt the provision of entertainment facilities that do not include amplification. There could be a de minimis derogation to permit electric instruments to be used only if they are no louder than acoustic instruments. There urgently needs to be a tightening of the Licensing Act to de-exempt jukeboxes and big screen TVs. You obviously have no idea what sort of SPL you can create before melting a pair of Peavey Black Widows. They are used by many metal bass guitarists, and are the woofer in the big HiSys Peavey tops and the big Peavey subs. The Walls of Jericho would not have stood a chance. |
|
06 Jan 10 - 11:41 AM (#2804938) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones The current legislation is based on the belief that live music WILL cause disturbance, WILL lead to crime and disorder and WILL give rise to particular safety issues. The proposed amendment will reverse these presumptions for small events by removing them from the licensing provisions. If in individual cases any of these issues do arise, they can be dealt with using a raft of legislation, including the option to revoke the exemption. So in that sense the Licensing Act can still be used to control noise, by revoking the exemption and bringing the venue back into the Act. There are also other statutory and common law remedies to control excessive noise levels. I think on the whole the proposal is to be welcomed, although it does have its shortcomings. The provision about "entertainment facilities" is particularly ridiculous - but then this Act has been a textbook example of cocked-up legislation from the outset. |
|
06 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM (#2804990) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles >If all performances are under 100 capacity are exempt from regulation under the Licensing Act then the Licensing Act cannot be used to control noise, and its power pre-emptively to prevent noise is precisely what is needed.< But you are also maintaining that this and the other current noise legislation does not work. So why are you concerned of the effect of the addition of yet one more exemption to add to the many existing ones? Noise from stand-up comedy using PA and live music is not controlled by the Licensing Act. All of the amplified music that is exempt as being incidental cannot be controlled by the Licensing Act. Amplified music from the back of a moving vehicle is not controlled by the Licensing Act and so on. It has more exemptions than I have holes in my socks. Rather than objecting to this particular and perfectly sensible exemption being introduced as damage limitation, would it not be better to simply accept that the Licensing Act 2003 and the whole concept of additional entertainment permission (taking place in permanent venues) is a mess which needs a total reform? If the additional entertainment permission measures contained in Licensing Act 2003 (and the previous legislation it replaced) were in any way able to deal with noise concerns, why are licensing authorities when issuing this permission, currently obliged to advise operators that the activities for which they have obtained permission are still subject to the noise controls contained in the environmental legislation? |
|
06 Jan 10 - 01:40 PM (#2805061) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,Mikey This is all very well, at least it appears to have been recognised that the law needs reforming. The question we should be asking now is 'what should we be doing now?' Mikey |
|
06 Jan 10 - 02:41 PM (#2805110) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This is all very well, at least it appears to have been recognised that the law needs reforming. I can't really see that there has been any recognition that the law needs reforming nor see any firm proposals to do this. All the political parties (and with them the media) have their eyes on things that matter far more to them - the coming election. All that has been forced out of this Government, and its national and local civil servants, is yet another consultation...... The only thing we can do is to keep up the pressure and ensure that as many peoples as possible contribute to this consultation, as that is all that is on offer. |
|
06 Jan 10 - 03:39 PM (#2805156) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The only thing we can do is to keep up the pressure and ensure that as many peoples as possible contribute to this consultation, as that is all that is on offer. Peoples? I have been watching too many of those meercat adverts.... Showing the views of the 'overwhelming majority' is what we should be doing. 200 was after all the figure requested by the Commons Select Committee. Equity, the Musicians Union, and UK Music support an exemption for audiences or venues up to 200 capacity, but have yet to make any public comment about this DCMS consultation. Sutcliffe has suggested that the government would consider expanding the exemption if this was the response of an 'overwhelming majority'. |
|
07 Jan 10 - 12:49 PM (#2805830) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles A legal view of the proposed consultation. http://www.popall.co.uk/LicensingApplications/governmentsproposedexemptionforlivemusicinsmallvenues.asp |
|
08 Jan 10 - 02:22 PM (#2806816) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Stage. http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/26853/government-opens-consultation-on-licence |
|
12 Jan 10 - 05:18 AM (#2809819) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Campaigners, MPs and Lords will focus on the issue at Westminster meeting. The future of live music in pubs is to be discussed by politicians and campaigners at parliament tomorrow. The meeting has been arranged by the All Party Save the Pub Group and will include talks by campaigner Hamish Birchall and Lord Clement-Jones. http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66130&c=1 |
|
13 Jan 10 - 05:50 PM (#2811285) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The hidden cost of the Licensing Act 2003 in schools. http://www.musictank.co.uk/newsletters/jan-10#viewpoint-the-hidden-cost-of-licensing-music-in-schools |
|
13 Jan 10 - 05:52 PM (#2811287) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from the link in the previous post. On 31st December 2009, the DCMS finally published details of the consultation to amend the Licensing Act 2003 and exempt some small-scale live music events from licensing. Strangely, the government's proposals make no mention of exempting music performances in schools, and missing from the DCMS's list of consultees are the NUT, the NAHT, the Independent Schools Association and the National Confederation of PTA's. Under the Licensing Act, schools staging musical events in front of an audience are exempt from paying the premises licence fee, but they are not exempt from paying for Temporary Event Notices (and this will cost £252 p.a. if the school takes up its annual entitlement of 12), nor are schools exempt from the requirement and cost of advertising the licence application in the press for a period of 28 days. But that is only the beginning of what the CEO of the Independent Schools Association described as 'a burdensome bureaucratic nightmare'. When attending licensing hearings, schools expecting that educational needs will allow an application to proceed unopposed might be in for a nasty surprise. LACORS guidelines for Licensing Committee Hearings advise that cultural considerations 'will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives'. Accordingly some Licensing Authorities have implemented wholly unnecessary and prohibitive restrictions. Conditions placed on the premises licence of Verulum School in St Albans run to over 1,400 words – and include conditions such as 'neighbours are made aware by letters of the type of event and the time the music will stop' 'There are to be no more than thirty events per year at the school. There are to be no more than five events in any one month'. Even a conservative estimate of the amount schools have spent on music licensing is likely to be embarrassing for the government, and all of the live music statistical reports issued by the DCMS have carefully avoided any reference to how the Act has affected schools and colleges. Since Nov 2005, if the 24,000+ schools in England and Wales have each spent £1,000 on music licensing and advertising this would have amounted to over £24m. According to the DCMS, the National Confederation of PTA's could account for up to half of the 360,000+ Temporary Event Notices issued in the three years to March 2009. DCMS statisticians have not asked Licensing Authorities how many of these TENs included permission for live music, but the total cost of these licences is over £7.5m. The DCMS recently attempted a rather feeble justification for this fiasco: 'If there was no restriction on entertainment events at schools, independent schools could simply operate as venues.' Ronnie Bridgett DCMS Spokesman, 8 Sep 2009. This begs the question: should the Licensing Act be amended to cover pet animals just in case schools simply operate as zoos? Lord Clement-Jones's Live Music bill, which contains a proposal to exempt school music from licensing is due to receive it's 2nd reading in the House of Lords on 15th January 2010. |
|
15 Jan 10 - 01:15 PM (#2812804) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Publican - Peer praises Listen Up! campaign http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66176&c=1 |
|
15 Jan 10 - 01:19 PM (#2812810) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Lib Dems press release. http://www.libdems.org.uk/press_releases_detail.aspx?title=Small_venues_should_not_pay_for_live_music_licences_says_Lord_Clement |
|
15 Jan 10 - 01:21 PM (#2812811) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 2nd Reading of the Live Music bill. Scroll to 3hrs, 33 minutes. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5501 |
|
15 Jan 10 - 02:09 PM (#2812868) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ The Local Government Association has been handing out a misleading and offensive briefing against Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill. Entitled 'Live Music Bill - LGA Group Second Reading Briefing' and dated 15th January 2010, the A4 page has been distributed to Peers over the past two days in advance of the bill's 2nd reading today in the House of Lords. The introduction makes these key claims: 'The Live Music Bill proposes exempting performances of live music that attract an audience of fewer than 200 people from the need for a premises licence. It also proposes reintroducing the "two in a bar" rule which would allow up to two performers to play live music anywhere without the need for a licence.' On the basis of those claims, it then states in bold type: 'LGA View - The LGA does not support this Bill. If introduced it would restrict the rights of local people and their directly-elected councils, and deny them a voice in the licensing process for live music. Licensing authorities are trusted to ensure that their residents' wishes are heard and that the licences of local premises take into account the wellbeing of the neighbourhood as a whole. We believe that families should be able to put their children to bed in peace and be able to relax in their homes without being disturbed by noise from local premises.' But this is misleading claptrap. Under the bill, the exemption for live music that might apply in pubs and bars could be revoked if residents' complaints were upheld following a licence review. Councils' and local people's rights of redress under the Licensing Act remain at such venues, if there are problems. The exemption proposed for hospitals, schools and colleges is conditional upon no alcohol being sold during its provision. If alcohol were to be sold, the event would be licensable. In any event, local people, their councils and the police, already have statutory redress against noise nuisance under various Acts, irrespective of licensing, including noise abatement notices issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (which can be pre-emptive or reactive), on-the-spot fines for licensees under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (for noisy premises between 11pm and 7am), and fines under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (noise nuisance coming from a dwelling or garden between 11pm and 7am). The LGA briefing is offensive where it insinuates that live music generally must be regarded a threat to families and 'the wellbeing of the neighbourhood', and that this threat is such that it must be pre-emptively regulated by licensing. There is absolutely no evidence of any significant nuisance or public order problem caused by live music, certainly nothing that justifies making it a potential criminal offence merely to host a performance by one musician. The briefing goes on to quote recent licensing statistics in support of the LGA view. But these statistics have already been exposed as meaningless, specifically the claimed rise in live music permissions of about 11% since 2007. Since this data was published last year by DCMS, the government has had to concede that they don't know what proportion of the apparent increase is accounted for by venues that would not have needed a licence under the old regime, including two-in-a-bar venues, and schools and hospitals hosting public events. Nor do they know what live music licence conditions apply, and whether these have been implemented by the venue - as they must be if gigs are to be legal. The LGA's concluding arguments suggest that in their view the new 'minor variation' process and new guidance on the 'incidental music' exemption obviate the need for any new exemption. But clearly even the government accepts that neither is likely to be of significant benefit because they would not have proposed their own 100-capacity exemption otherwise. A call to the LGA established that this rather dodgy briefing originated with their Culture, Media and Sport Committee, chaired by St Albans councillor Chris White. ENDS |
|
16 Jan 10 - 10:53 AM (#2813608) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Comments in support of the Lib Dems Live Music Bill: "The Musicians' Union is very pleased with this bill, as it supports the recommendations that were made by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee last year which were in support of live music". John Smith, Musicians' Union "There is no doubt that the Licensing Act 2003 continues to stifle small-scale live music throughout the UK. This leaves our society and culture significantly poorer – not to mention our economy – and is potentially disastrous for the UK's next generation of musical talent, most of whom will hone their craft in pubs, clubs and bars, and is denying jobbing musicians the opportunity to earn a living. The common sense proposals of Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill would address these issues in one stroke and have the full support of UK Music." Feargal Sharkey, UK Music "The Government's Licensing Act has really been seen as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It has had a detrimental effect on musicians performing in small venues and the National Campaign for the Arts is pleased to support Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill, which we believe will go a long way towards addressing the issue." Louise de Winter, National Campaign for the Arts "Equity supports the Live Music Bill and calls on all members of all parties to do the same." Stephen Spence, Equity |
|
17 Jan 10 - 01:25 PM (#2814324) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This is a rather important part of the consultation. Entertainment Facilities were introduced for the first time in the Licensing Act 2003. As it is only facilities for music and dancing that are made licensable, this introduction is clearly descriminatory. Why should the provision of a piano, PA or a stage be a licensable entertainment facility, when the provision of a pool table or a boxing ring is not? On a practical level, how can any performance of music or dancing be exempt as incidental or under any of the other exemptions, where the facilities required for them require the premises to be licensed? http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/091020PN_FACILITIES_clarification_condoc.pdf |
|
17 Jan 10 - 01:50 PM (#2814335) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following is the current position - from the consultation document linked to above. It appears that the intention was to make the public singing and dancing for their own enjoyment, into a licensable activity by making licensable any premises in which they were singing and dancing. Department for Culture, Media and Sport Proposal to clarify the definition of "entertainment facilities" 1.5 The definition of regulated entertainment contains two elements: the provision of 'entertainment' and the provision of 'entertainment facilities'. The separate 'entertainment facilities' element is intended to address situations where people take part in entertainment that may not be provided solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience, but which may nevertheless present risks to the promotion of the licensing objectives. Examples may include the use of a dance floor, or some karaoke performances. As part of this, the provision of musical instruments (such as 'pub pianos') can be licensable (separate from a performance of live music) if they are to be used by customers to entertain themselves. |
|
18 Jan 10 - 11:15 AM (#2814949) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The true horror of the introduction of Entertainment Facilities does not generally seem to have been recognised. Entertainment Licensing legislation has concentrated on the performance of entertainment. It concerned itself with that which is provided for an audience and that which was not provided for an audience was thought to be safe - up until this reform. Almost unoticed, the act of entertaining yourself in music or dancing has become a licensable activity. This by virtue of anything provided to enable music or dancing being classed as a licensable entertainment facility. So much for the public's right of freedom of expression. So any building used or made available for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, like a rehearsal room or a dance studio is a licensable Entertainment Facility. This is the case whether other members of the public are present or not. A case that does not apply to any facilities which may be required for other activities, like a pool table or a boxing ring. This is strange, as these activities are also Regulated Entertainment. Not only is a provided pool table not licensable as an Entertainment Facility, there is no question that customers entertaining themselves in participatory games of pool will be judged to be licensable Regulated Entertainment, when customers entertaining themselves by making non-amplified music will be. This consultaion does give us a voive on this. Please use it. |
|
18 Jan 10 - 07:39 PM (#2815402) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Hansard - the Live Music Bill debate. 15 January 2010 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100115-0006.htm#10011519000411 |
|
20 Jan 10 - 05:17 AM (#2816566) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ On Friday 15th January DCMS published a new public consultation, this time on proposals to 'clarify' the definition of entertainment facilities within the Licensing Act 2003: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6574.aspx Unsurprisingly, there was no press announcement. This would have drawn unwanted media attention to one of the Act's more absurd effects: the separate requirement to licence the provision of pub pianos, and other instruments or facilities enabling people to make music, if the facilities are for public use, or indeed for private use if such provision is for a charge with a view to profit. Unlicensed provision, where a licence is required, is a criminal offence punishable by fines up to £20,000 and six months in prison. Even the Act's exemption for 'incidental music' is disapplied if entertainment facilities are provided. The DCMS consultation explicitly acknowledges this problem: 'The Government considers that this was not the intention of Parliament when it introduced the exemption for incidental performances of live music.' [p5, para 1.6] But once again, the proposed remedy is flawed and could not work. The draft DCMS amendment, set out on page 9 of the 19 page document, would exempt unamplified musical instruments, but not amplification, or indeed any facility enabling amplified performances (which could be a stage, or even the performance space itself). And while it also proposes to exempt facilities provided solely for incidental music, it fails to strike out the source of the problem: the vexed entertainment facilities sub-paragraph within the incidental music exemption itself (Schedule 1, para 7(b)). The amendment and the incidental music exemption would contradict one another. Friday 15th January was also the date of the 2nd reading of Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill in the House of Lords. If enacted, this would exempt performances of live music and the provision of entertainment facilities in a range of venues up to 200 capacity. It would effectively implement most of the Culture Committee recommendations following their inquiry into the Licensing Act last year. The debate saw strong speeches in support, not only from Lord Clement-Jones, but Lords Colwyn and Redesdale. Government spokesperson Lord Faulkner said that the government had reservations about the bill, but these were dismissed by Lord Clement-Jones. The bill now goes to the Committee stage on Monday 1st February. Much of the debate covered old ground, but significantly the Conservatives announced their backing for the Bbll. Lord Howard of Rising said: 'This is a Bill which we on these Benches support. We give that support in the hope that this Bill may go some way towards achieving the original objective of the 2003 Act, which was, broadly speaking, to promote the development of live music, dancing, and theatre. That never happened-rather the reverse; there has been a decline. Her Majesty's Government recognised this and introduced the minor variations procedure in June 2009; but I am afraid that that has had no discernable beneficial effect.' Significantly, Lord Howard is also a borough councillor. The support of the Conservatives tends to undermine the objections of the Local Government Association. Read the full debate: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100115-0006.htm#10011519000411 Read the live music bill: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/007/10007.1-i.html Yahoo news coverage: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11/20100118/tpl-live-music-faces-bureaucratic-minefi-0a1c1a1.html Lord Clement-Jones in Music Week, 19 Jan: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=1039688&c=2 Numbers are rising again on the Number 10 petition calling on the government to stop criminalising live music and to implement the Culture Committee's recommendations. It now has over 14,000 signatures: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/livemusicevents/ ENDS |
|
20 Jan 10 - 10:06 AM (#2816673) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66211&c=1 Government U-turn over licensing of pub pianos 20 January, 2010 By James Wilmore DCMS to "clarify" rules meaning licensees can let customers play instruments to "entertain themselves" Licensees will be allowed to let customers play a musical instrument to "entertain themselves" without the risk of prosecution, after a government U-turn on the issue. The Licensing Act currently states it is illegal to let a customer play an instrument, such as a piano, if the pub does not have an entertainment licence. The issue has previously drawn criticism from live music campaigners who branded the situation "absurd". But the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) launched a consultation last week, without alerting the press, to alter the Licensing Act and "clarify" what is regarded as licensable. The move will be seen as a U-turn by the goverment after licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe previously said having a pub in a piano was only "theoretically innocuous" as "even such supposedly harmless activities can cause noise nuisance". The DCMS hopes the plans will also encourage pubs to take advantage of the "incidental" music exemption in the Act. This exemption means pubs do not need a licence where the music is not the main reason for people attending the venue. Under the new plans, the Act will be changed to say that offering musical instruments, to be used for "incidental" music will not need a licence. Helpfully, the DCMS consultation document says that "items provided to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification" such as a "music stand" will also be exempt. The DCMS document says: "There will be a small economic benefit in terms of reduced burdens, but we have not attempted to quantify this". To respond to the consultation, which closes on February 26, write to Shelley Mickleburgh, Licensing Team, Sport and Leisure Directorate. 2-4, Cockspur Street. London SW1Y 5DH or email: licensingconsultation@culture.gov.uk |
|
20 Jan 10 - 10:10 AM (#2816678) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles If only...... Perhaps the Publican could be asked to explain how this works with the Cove/New Star situation? These customers playing instruments to 'entertain themselves' are not currently prevented because of Entertainment Facilities but because they are judged to be performances (to an audience) of Regulated Entertainment. This is ironic as when it is participatory sport which the public are entertaining themselves with, this is not judged to be Regulated Entertainment. But the very activity that Entertainment Facilities was introduced to catch (because the act of the public entertaining themselves in music and dance is NOT Regulated Entertainment) is being caught here as Regulated Entertainment. [ I hope that makes sense] The proposed changes still mean that any facility (except instruments but including the premises themselves) which are provided for the public to entertain themselves in music or dance is a licensable entertainment facility. So even if I could persuade my council that the sessions were not Regulated Entertainment, as the premises have been provided for the public to entertain themselves in music (or dance), the premises would still be licensable as an entertainment facility. Even if we entertained ourselves around a provided non-amplified piano. |
|
20 Jan 10 - 12:23 PM (#2816785) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones You have to look at it in the context of the other proposed amendment which would exclude smaller live music events. If this goes through, a session of less than 100 people won't be Regulated Entertainment and won't require a licence. However if the venue had a piano, under current legislation it would still need a licence (even if it wasn't going to be played). This amendment will remove this anomaly. |
|
20 Jan 10 - 12:59 PM (#2816811) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Stephen L. Rich Now if we could only get something like that going in the United States. ASCAP and BMI are killing all of the small venues. |
|
20 Jan 10 - 01:40 PM (#2816840) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles >You have to look at it in the context of the other proposed amendment which would exclude smaller live music events. If this goes through, a session of less than 100 people won't be Regulated Entertainment and won't require a licence. However if the venue had a piano, under current legislation it would still need a licence (even if it wasn't going to be played). This amendment will remove this anomaly.< I take your point but the piano issue was a way of demonstrating the wider problem problem presented by Entertainment Facilities, in a way that the media could understand. It is nice that the old singalong around the pub piano will be safe but what is proposed in not enough. It is a vital right that the public should be free to entertain themselves in music and dance. It is nice to know that that a music stand is no longer to be a licensable Entertainment Facility. Not so sure about plectrums though....... A session is a number of customers entertaining themselves in music. It is because this type of thing was not caught as Regulated Entertainment that Entertainment Facilities were introduced. The following from the consultation document: 1.5 The definition of regulated entertainment contains two elements: the provision of 'entertainment' and the provision of 'entertainment facilities'. The separate 'entertainment facilities' element is intended to address situations where people take part in entertainment that may not be provided solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience, but which may nevertheless present risks to the promotion of the licensing objectives. Examples may include the use of a dance floor, or some karaoke performances. As part of this, the provision of musical instruments (such as 'pub pianos') can be licensable (separate from a performance of live music) if they are to be used by customers to entertain themselves. It is clear from this that sessions like the Cove and New Star are plainly not licensable Regulated Entertainment so they do not need the small premises exemption or any other exemption to free them from being Regulated Entertainment. However, they do need to be protected from the day when a licensing officer decides that the mere provision of premises (or any place) on which the public entertain themselves in any form of music and dance is a licensable Entertainment Facility. |
|
20 Jan 10 - 02:21 PM (#2816873) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles >It is nice to know that that a music stand is no longer to be a licensable Entertainment Facility.< Well it will still be one, it is proposed that such things will only be exempt from being an Entertainment Facility, when used for incidental live music....... |
|
20 Jan 10 - 06:32 PM (#2817111) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge "solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience" Oh no no no. Go and look it up. "For purposes which include". Big difference. |
|
20 Jan 10 - 06:35 PM (#2817118) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge And ASCAP and BMI are wholly different. They deal with rights (in the USA) in the music: parts of copyright, which are owned by private owners who authorise the copyright owners to collect the royalties due for the public performance of the music. The Licensing Act (UK) makes licensable all provision of regulated entertainment or entertainment facilities, whether or not copyright is involved. It is a governmental control, not the collective administration of a private right. |
|
20 Jan 10 - 08:05 PM (#2817192) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Lord Faulkner of Worcester: The Bill seeks to reintroduce a variant of the old exemption for one or two musicians performing in a premises licensed for alcohol-the "two in a bar" exemption. The old exemption was not universally popular with musicians and was not widely used. A limit on the number of performers discriminates against musicians who perform in larger bands. The fact that the two-in-a-bar rule was not popular may be true, that it was not widlely used is not in any way true. The use of this partial exemption may be difficult for the DCMS to quantify and measure but perhaps it is in the nature of the best exemptions, that they work with the mininium of fuss and red tape. It seems strange for a Government about to introduce an exemption which will discriminate against larger venues to critise one which they claim dicriminated against larger bands. It may be a good idea to point out that the 200 limit proposed by the Lib Dems Bill is limited to premises already licensed for alcohol (as was the case also with the two-in-a-bar rule) but the proposed consultation on the 100 limit, is not. |
|
21 Jan 10 - 12:29 PM (#2817669) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Is it not a little strange when the Government side claim that some forms of live music are gaining benefit, being favoured or being discriminated against in a process of additional entertainment permission that they have claimed is not complicated or expensive and does not deter any live music? See Lord Faulkner's claim that it is fair to use audience size, rather that a venue's capacity, as lager venues can put on gigs with limited audience size, in order to benefit from the exemption. I have yet to see how the Government propose that an events audience size limit of 100 is to be determined in advance, to estabish if they qualify. If it is anything like the crazy way it was established for S177, this new proposal will be as much use as S177. |
|
21 Jan 10 - 01:11 PM (#2817707) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones I'm not sure what you mean by the "Cove and New Star" sessions, or why you think they don't need the small events exemption. My understanding is that all live music is Regulated Entertainment, however spontaneous performances by the customers themselves are exempted. Since most folk sessions either take place on a regular basis, or require a degree of organisation, they are not "spontaneous". Or am I missing something? The small events exemption will remove most sessions from being Regulated Entertainment. However, unless the "entertainment facility" rule is changed, the venue would still need a licence for a piano (even if it isn't played) but not for the music, which even the Government seems to recognise is nonsense. |
|
21 Jan 10 - 02:42 PM (#2817819) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge The government denies the need for a related facilities exemption but I have looked careful at the reasoning and it is wrong. THe house piano, guitar, music stand, or stage are all caught still |
|
22 Jan 10 - 07:52 AM (#2818378) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles >My understanding is that all live music is Regulated Entertainment, however spontaneous performances by the customers themselves are exempted. Since most folk sessions either take place on a regular basis, or require a degree of organisation, they are not "spontaneous". Or am I missing something?< With the inclusion of Entertainment Facilities, it could well be that in practice and effect, that all live music (certainly all that is open to the public) is licensable. The reason for this is a bit complicated but is not the case that the activity itself would qualify as licensable Regulated Entertainment. You are probably missing the difference between a licensable performance and live music which is not performance (as defined in the Act) and exactly why activities become licensable. Just because some live music may not be spontaneous does not mean that it automatically becomes licensable Regulated Entertainment. Whether live music by customers a thing would qualify as the spontaneous 'performance' you refer to or if there could be such a thing is questionable but there is no such exemption for this in the Act. There is an explanation of what is considered to be spontaneous in the S 182 Guidance which could lead people to think that the Act did contain an exemption for this. Any live music that was a spontaneous 'one-off' would be not be licensable in practice, as it would be over before the authorities became aware of it. And if it was in the nature of a performance, it would be licensable if or when it was repeated. However, the word 'spontaneous' is really a red herring here. There is no specific exemption for live music that is spontaneous, whether this is claimed to be a performance or not. If there were such a thing, how would that work when the provision of anything to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing (And NOT a performance) are licensable Entertainment Facilities. The key here is that Entertainment Facilities mean that even where the activity itself may not be licensable as Regulated Entertainment, anything that is provided ( including the premises themselves) that enables the pubic to entertain themselves in music and dance is a licensable Entertainment Facility. What is proposed is only to exempt the provision of musical instruments (and music stands) from being licensable Entertainment Facilities. A regular night provided in pub for the public to entertain themselves in indoors sports (which the performance of, is now a licensable Regulated Entertainment) is not at risk and anything provided for the public to entertain themselves in indoor sports is not a licensable Entertainment Facility. |
|
23 Jan 10 - 10:11 AM (#2819415) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/sirhughordeletter.htm The following from the above. I am happy to provide you with the reassurance that you seek. The vast majority of live music events serve to provide considerable pleasure and social benefit without implication for policing or public safety. In a very small number of cases there is clear evidence of association of criminality with events or acts and that obviously needs to be dealt with as the intelligence and circumstances indicate, however, this is clearly the exception and not the norm. Yours sincerely, Paul Minton Commander Chief of Staff Association of Chief Police Officers |
|
23 Jan 10 - 10:37 AM (#2819445) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles >I'm not sure what you mean by the "Cove and New Star" sessions, or why you think they don't need the small events exemption.< These are folk sessions where the customers entertain themselves by making non-amplified music. The officers of my licensing authority deem these sessions to be perfomances of licensable Regulated Entertainment. These same officers have made it clear that a performance of indoor sport like pool, i.e. provided for spectators, would be deemed to be performances of licensable Regulated Entertainment. So far so good you may think? However, the same officers have made it clear that customers entertaining themselves in games of indoor sport on a regular basis, would not be deemed by them, to be licensable Regulated Entertainment. All I expect is that all the activities listed as potential Regulated Entertainment in Schedule 1 of the Act, are treated equally. Thus, if participatory games of indoor sport are not licensable Regulated Entertainment and other pub customers present are not judged to be an audience or spectators, then nor are participatory pub sessions and vice-versa. |
|
25 Jan 10 - 01:06 PM (#2821167) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles There is a new Early Day Motion(EDM) for you to ask your MP to sign. http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40255 |
|
25 Jan 10 - 01:09 PM (#2821169) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles And this new one, http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40277 |
|
25 Jan 10 - 02:00 PM (#2821216) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Shambles, live music is specifically mentioned in the Schedule 1, which lists what is meant by Regulated Entertainment. Dancing is also specifically mentioned. So far as sport is concerned, the Schedule refers only to "an indoor sporting event" (boxing and wrestling are also specifically mentioned). It is not a question of treating different forms of regulated entertainment differently. Customers playing pub games among themselves is not an "event" and so is not regulated entertainment. Live music of any description is. So the licensing officers appear to be correct in their interpretation. In any event, the Act does treat different forms of regulated entertainment differently. The provision of "entertainment facilities" only applies to facilities for music and dancing, or similar activities. I suspect this came about because the government recognised that pub games are a normal part of pub life, but refused to accept that the same applied to pub customers entertaining themselves with music. As I recall, one of the many Ministers involved in seeing the Bill through Parliament said as much. We all know that's nonsense. Hopefully the proposed amendments will remove at least some of this nonsense. It's interesting to see the quote from the police accepting that the vast majority of live music events have no crime or public order implications. This is contrary to the impression often given by the authorities to justify the Act. |
|
25 Jan 10 - 02:41 PM (#2821244) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Shambles, live music is specifically mentioned in the Schedule 1, which lists what is meant by Regulated Entertainment. Dancing is also specifically mentioned. So far as sport is concerned, the Schedule refers only to "an indoor sporting event" (boxing and wrestling are also specifically mentioned). All those activities you list are subject to the next requirement, that that they be for or include the purposes of entertaining an audience or spectators. If any form of live music, dancing, indoor sport and the rest in the list are for that purpose, it is a performance of Regulated Entertainment. It is not a question of treating different forms of regulated entertainment differently. Customers playing pub games among themselves is not an "event" and so is not regulated entertainment. Live music of any description is. So the licensing officers appear to be correct in their interpretation. Customers playing music for their own entertainment among themselves would also not be the 'event' you refer to would it? The legislation simply cannot support the different treatment that these officers advise for determining what is or is not a performance of Regulated Entertainment. The legislation can support different treatment for determining what is and is not licensable as Emtertainment Facilities. As these are only to enable music and dancing and not applicable to indoor sports or any of the other activities listed in Schedule 1. >Hopefully the proposed amendments will remove at least some of this nonsense.< I'm not so sure, as all the incidental exemption and proposals are exemptions for (performances of) Regulated Entertainment. Sessions are not this but are caught as the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing, so that wherever they take place can be said to be provided for that purpose and be a licensable Entertainment Facility |
|
25 Jan 10 - 07:21 PM (#2821477) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones No, the term "event" applies only to indoor sports. Pub customers playing a casual game of darts isn't an "event", even if it's taking place in public and there are spectators. An organised darts match or demonstration might be an "event". Like you, I can't see much distinction between customers playing darts or pool for their own amusement, and customers playing music for their own amusement. However the Act does make a distinction. Live music is on the list of regulated entertainment. So far as I can see, the Act makes no distinction between music made by customers or organised music. There's no requirement that anyone is actually entertained by it, simply that it takes place in public (which might include the musicians at a session) and is one of the activities listed in Schedule 3 Part 1 Para 2(1). I imagine that most sessions will fall within the 100 people maximum for the proposed small events exemption, should it be implemented. |
|
26 Jan 10 - 09:36 AM (#2821637) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles No, the term "event" applies only to indoor sports. Pub customers playing a casual game of darts isn't an "event", even if it's taking place in public and there are spectators. An organised darts match or demonstration might be an "event". I think you are reading far too much into the Act's use of the word 'event' and providing a definition which the Act does not supply. Like you, I can't see much distinction between customers playing darts or pool for their own amusement, and customers playing music for their own amusement. However the Act does make a distinction. Live music is on the list of regulated entertainment. You and my local officers may choose to make a distinction between the two activities (or events) but for purposes of determining what is or is not Regulated Entertainment, the Act does not. All the activities listed (including indoor sport) must be treated equally for determining whether they are Regulated Entertainment or not. |
|
26 Jan 10 - 10:02 AM (#2821665) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge I see that amongst all this barrack room lawyering Hamish Birchall's latest letter to the DCMS has become ignored. |
|
26 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM (#2821786) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones "SCHEDULE 1 Provision of regulated entertainment Part 1 General definitions 2 (1) The descriptions of entertainment are— (a) a performance of a play, (b) an exhibition of a film, (c) an indoor sporting event, (d) a boxing or wrestling entertainment, (e) a performance of live music, (f) any playing of recorded music, (g) a performance of dance, (h) entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (e), (f) or (g), where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience." No doubt a lawyer could make a great deal of the meaning of "provision", "event", "performance", "audience" and "entertaining", and probably quite a lot more, but the reality is that in the case of a session the costs of a legal challenge would far outweigh the costs of getting the appropriate licence, so it's unlikely to be tested. I don't think Hamish Birchall's statement has been ignored, exactly, rather it says pretty much all there is to say. There are hints that the Government is beginning to admit that the Act is not achieving the intended results, at least so far as encouraging live music is concerned, but it seems reluctant to undertake a full-scale revision and instead is trying to get away with the bare minimum changes which don't fully address the issues. |
|
26 Jan 10 - 02:10 PM (#2821855) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles No doubt a lawyer could make a great deal of the meaning of "provision", "event", "performance", "audience" and "entertaining", and probably quite a lot more, but the reality is that in the case of a session the costs of a legal challenge would far outweigh the costs of getting the appropriate licence, so it's unlikely to be tested. Yes, would that the law only affected lawyers.......... I tend to agree with you. I am of the mind that when it comes to legislation like this, which is devolved to individual local authorities, that the wording of the legislation only really matters if or when it is tested in court. Those who are paid to enforce it know that it is unlikely to be tested so this leaves them free to advise and do pretty much as they wish. The law then becomes what those who enforce it, wish it to be. The Act did one good thing in taking away the power of local authorities to set their own fees. The next step is to take all additional entertainment licensing away from them and preferably to scrap it altogether. |
|
27 Jan 10 - 04:15 AM (#2822325) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ The government has confirmed that they know of only three new live music permissions resulting from the 'minor variation' licensing process, introduced on 29 July 2009. 'Minor variations', which requires an £89 application for an uncertain outcome, was touted by the government as a cheaper and simpler means to add live music permission to an existing premises licence. About 40% of smaller venues have no live music permission. Only two weeks ago, the Local Government Association suggested that the minor variations process, and confusing guidance on the 'incidental music' exemption, were reasons no new exemption for small gigs was needed - this despite the fact that they already knew some councils had a policy of refusing all such applications ['info @ lacors' in-house magazine, p5, Issue 18, November 2009]. The government's admission came on 25 January in response to a written question by Lord Clement-Jones: 'To ask Her Majesty's Government how many applications there have been for live music under the Legislative Reform (Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates) Order 2009; and how many of these applications have been granted.' [HL1360] Lord Davies of Oldham replied: 'The minor variations process came into force on 29 July 2009. Official statistics on its use are not yet available. We hope to be able to include data about minor variations in the next Statistical Bulletin on Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing, which we expect to be published in autumn 2010. 'The Government have asked the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) to request information from licensing authorities about minor variations applications that relate to live music. 'LACORS has informed the department that, although it has not conducted an exhaustive survey, it is aware of six examples of applications being made that include requests to add or extend authorisation for live music. There were three requests for the easing of conditions relating to an existing authorisation for live music, and three for new authorisations for live music. All these applications were granted. LACORS is not aware of any minor variation application relating to live music that has been refused.' See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100125w0003.htm#10012523000275 Three new related Early Day Motions have been published. EDM 666 by Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland calling on the government to support Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill: 'That this House supports the Second Reading of the Live Music Bill; commends the proposal contained in the Bill to revive live music by the creation of an exemption from licences for small venues such as pubs; regrets that there has not been an expansion of live music since the introduction of the Licensing Act in 2003; recognises that bureaucratic procedures and red tape have stunted the growth of live music; further regrets that this has had a detrimental effect on both musicians and on the pub industry; believes that pubs and small venues play a vital role in nurturing new and unsigned music talent; and calls on the Government to support the Live Music Bill to encourage the return of live music to pubs and similar venues around the country.' EDM 689 by Labour MP Janet Anderson welcoming the government's small gigs exemption consultation, but claiming that a 200 capacity exemption would be more effective: 'That this House celebrates the cultural value of live performances in enriching and entertaining communities; welcomes the Government's consultation regarding an exemption to the Licensing Act 2003 for venues with audiences of 100; but believes that an exemption for audiences of 200 would be more effective in tackling the negative impact of the Act in reducing the number of small venues hosting live performances.' And EDM 689A1 by Independent MP Bob Spink calling for the 200 capacity exemption to apply up 500 capacity. See EDM database: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/Default.aspx ENDS |
|
27 Jan 10 - 04:19 AM (#2822327) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles EDM 689A1 by Independent MP Bob Spink calling for the 200 capacity exemption to apply up 500 capacity. http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40297&SESSION=903 |
|
27 Jan 10 - 04:44 AM (#2822340) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Don't ever ask a civil servant to arrange a piece of music! Chances are that you won't be able to play it. http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/85723?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n |
|
27 Jan 10 - 01:41 PM (#2822724) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles A music festival in mid Wales has lost its licence amid concerns over safety, crime and disorder. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/8482972.stm |
|
27 Jan 10 - 01:59 PM (#2822737) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones From the brief information contained in the report, it appears that there were problems with traffic management and security. These are the sorts of issues that licensing is supposed to address. Of course, without more information its difficult to know whether refusing the licence was an over-reaction or whether the problems could have been resolved. However since they appear to have been due to problems with the management of the event it seems possible that imposing conditions might not have been sufficient. On the face of it, this seems to be licensing doing what it's intended to do. |
|
27 Jan 10 - 04:57 PM (#2822923) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles They would say that wouldn't they? But to be fair, I don't really know enough of the facts to judge in this case but I think that events on temporary sites probably are one area where additional entertainment licensing may still have a role. |
|
28 Jan 10 - 03:01 AM (#2823225) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Committee stage of the Libs Dems Live Music Bill is on 1st February 2010. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/livemusic.html |
|
29 Jan 10 - 04:31 AM (#2824271) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/6603.aspx The following from John King on http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141223114767&ref=mf "No evidence of negative impact of live music licensing" according to the DCMS 'statisticians'. So, according to the DCMS; the House of Commons Select Committee, The Live Music Forum, the MU, Equity, UK Music etc are all wrong. According to the DCMS's... own statistical bulletins 114,261 premises have lost the entitlement to stage any form of live music since Nov 2005. More rubbish from the DCMS 'statisticians' who have discreetly added Scotland and Northern Ireland to the live music employment 'statistics'. |
|
30 Jan 10 - 04:09 PM (#2825783) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles My poor brain is hurting from trying to work out what to submit to the consultation on what is proposed for Entertainment Facilities. It is obvious that in order to benefit from any exemptions, the activity first needs to be licensable Regulated Entertainment. So if an activity qualifies as Regulated Entertainment and also qualifies as being a provided Entertainment Facility (like a performance of live music) then they are both exempted. So far so good. And of course the proposal will exempt any provided instrument from being a licensable Entertainment Facility. But for example, the proposed small events exemption is of no use to activities that are in effect licensable (by virtue of what is provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing) but are not also performances of Regulated Entertainment. So it is difficult to see how the proposal can specifically exempt the public entertaining themselves with a provided piano unless it is first claimed that the activity itself is a licensable Regulated Entertainment. Which it plainly isn't - as the Act has specifically introduced Entertainment Facilities to catch this. Unless Entertainment Facilities are scrapped completly, what is proposed will just make matters worse and even more confusing than it is now. |
|
31 Jan 10 - 03:00 PM (#2826608) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles (3) The second condition is that the premises on which the entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, provided are made available for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of enabling the entertainment concerned (whether of a description falling within paragraph 2(1) or paragraph 3(2)) to take place. To the extent that the provision of entertainment facilities consists of making premises available, the premises are to be regarded for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as premises "on which" entertainment facilities are provided. There semms little doubt from the above that any premises provided for the public to entertain themselves in music or dancing is a licensable Entertainment Facility. So exempting provided instruments like pianos, in order for the public to entertain themselves, as proposed, will still result in this being licensable. And the Government can still claim that such musical activities as rehearsal, when the public are not admitted, are not licensable. |
|
01 Feb 10 - 03:17 PM (#2827471) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles A few informed comments on the latest DCMS Live Music statistics. http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/dcmsreport.pdf |
|
02 Feb 10 - 08:43 PM (#2828650) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles DCMS denies tough licensing regime is to blame for fall in people seeing live music in pubs. http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66307&c=1 The scrapping of the exemption for live music by two or less performers and the introduction of legislation that requires payment for any live music anywhere is not going to have any adverse results - is it? No of course not - who suggested such a thing? Such measures can only encourage live music. |
|
03 Feb 10 - 12:42 PM (#2828942) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Consultation re simplifing procedures for Licensing Statements; Interim Authority Notices; & TENS ends 9 Feb 2010: http://www.culture.gov.uk |
|
03 Feb 10 - 01:00 PM (#2828961) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles A peer's bid to force the government to make it easier for pubs to host live music has survived for a third reading in the House of Lords next week. http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66320&c=1 |
|
04 Feb 10 - 06:44 AM (#2829703) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill will have its 3rd Reading in the House of Lords next Tuesday, 9th February: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/livemusic.html If enacted the bill would exempt a range of venues up to 200 capacity from entertainment licensing for live music between 8am and midnight, and allow up to two musicians to perform anywhere unamplified or minimally amplified. The bill is supported by UK Music, the original Live Music Forum, the National Campaign for the Arts, Equity and the Musicians Union. The Bill passed the Lords Committee stage on Monday 1st February without amendment or opposition: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100201-0002.htm#1002012000310 If progress continues unobstructed, it will go to the Commons. Its success there is dependent on the government. In reality, it is unlikely that the Bill will receive Commons debate as the Government will be unwilling to find time before the general election for a Bill they do not support. But as The Publican reported yesterday: 'Although the bill is a private members' bill and is unlikely to become law, it could help to effect the government's final plans over live music licensing': http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66320&c=1 Meanwhile the police have been making friendlier noises about live music. The original Live Music Forum, founded by campaigner Phil Little in the 1990s, has published a correspondence with the police in which they state: 'The vast majority of live music events serve to provide considerable pleasure and social benefit without implication for policing or public safety. In a very small number of cases there is clear evidence of association of criminality with events or acts and that obviously needs to be dealt with as the intelligence and circumstances indicate, however, this is clearly the exception and not the norm.' [Letter to Phil Little from Commander Paul Minton, Chief of Staff, Association of Chief Police Officers, received 13/01/2010 See: http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ and follow the link] On 21 January Phil Little wrote back asking whether or not the police will support the exemptions in the live music bill and the government's own consultation. A reply is expected soon. ENDS |
|
05 Feb 10 - 01:13 PM (#2830777) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall 46 Minor Variations. It could be the name of a monumental keyboard work by Beethoven or Bach. But no. It is rather the best estimate to date of applications by venues to add or amend authorisations for live music using the supposedly cheap, simple, fast-track Minor Variations process introduced by the government on 29 July 2009. Just to put this into some sort of context, the British Beer and Pub Association claimed last summer that 52 pubs were closing a week: http://www.beerandpub.com/newsList_detail.aspx?newsId=289 Even if the average were 30 closures per week, that would mean for every Minor Variation application for live music, about 17 potential pub venues are closing. And that assumes all 46 applications were for pubs - but they weren't. The identities of more than half of the 46 applications are unknown, apparently. But the rest included 11 pubs, 3 restaurants, 2 hotels, one civic building, one 'club', one 'cafe', one public area and one skittle alley. The latest Minor Variations lament was delivered today by Lord Davies of Oldham in a Written Answer to a question by Lord Clement-Jones (the Q&A has yet to be published on the Parliament website): Lord Clement-Jones asked: Further to the Written Answer by Lord Davies of Oldham on 25 January (WA299), what are the types of venue of the six examples identified by the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services that have had applications for live music under the Legislative Reform (Minor Variations to Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates) Order 2009 granted; and which local authorities granted those applications. [HL1600] Lord Davies replied: We do not hold the information requested about the six examples referred to in my previous answer. Since that answer was given on 25 January, however, more local authorities have responded to the request for information made by Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS). LACORS is now aware of approximately forty-six applications to add or amend authorisations for live music, of which three were refused. The figure is approximate because one local authority said it had granted 'a few' relevant applications. We understand that the survey conducted by LACORS did not request the names of the authorities providing the information, and descriptions of premises type were not given in every case. The descriptions that were given were eleven pubs, three restaurants, two hotels, one civic building, one 'club', one cafe, one public area and one skittle alley. LACORS' request for information was not intended to discover the details of each minor variations application, but to establish whether or not the new process is being used successfully to vary premises licences and club premises certificates (including the addition or amendment of authorisation for live music). ENDS |
|
07 Feb 10 - 12:07 PM (#2832154) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ This is our own Live Music Forum submission to the consultation sent on 5th February 2010:- |
|
08 Feb 10 - 12:13 PM (#2832994) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Councils should be given "total control" over setting licensing hours in their area, says a group representing local authorities in London. http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/85873?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n |
|
10 Feb 10 - 01:08 PM (#2835141) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66368&c=1 |
|
11 Feb 10 - 05:25 AM (#2835867) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill has reached the House of Commons where it has been picked up by Don Foster, Lib Dem spokesperson for Culture, Media and Sport. Significantly, the bill also has Conservative front bench support from Ed Vaizey, Shadow minister for Culture and the Creative Industries. Commons debate in the form of a 2nd reading is scheduled for 12 March, although there is competition for time with several other private members bills. If enacted the bill would create exemptions from entertainment licensing for live music, but not dancing or recorded music, from a range of venues up to 200 capacity, including hospitals and schools. It would also partially reinstate the old 'two in a bar' exemption, permitting one or two musicians to perform anywhere unamplified or with minimal amplification. These measures would implement most of the all-party Culture Committee recommendations. The bill is already supported by Equity, the Musicians Union, the National Campaign for the Arts, the original Live Music Forum (www.livemusicforum.co.uk), UK Music and The Publican (see their Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141223114767&ref=mf ). For the first time, however, the Incorporated Society of Musicians has added its weight to the campaign. ISM Chief Executive Deborah Annetts said: 'With just weeks to go before the general election, MPs have the chance to free musicians from mountains of paperwork and allow live music to flourish. Performing in small venues is the first step in a musician's professional career but the current licensing regime is causing opportunities to dry up. This Bill has the support of politicians from all parties and musicians from all genres. We now call on the government to make time for this important piece of legislation and enable it to make a difference to music and musicians." ['Live music strangled by red tape', Lib Dem press release 09/02/10: http://www.libdems.org.uk/press_releases_detail.aspx?title=Live_music_scene_strangled_by_red_tape_says_Lord_Clement-Jones&pPK=3e109ef6-86d5-436c-91df-bc71326d7cc1 ] Whether the bill succeeds or fails is now down to the government. Lord Clement-Jones explains: "My Bill is the only chance to change the law before the general election and breathe new life in to the live music scene. I challenge the Government to explain why they will not support it." ENDS |
|
16 Feb 10 - 06:18 AM (#2840714) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The closing date for making responses to the consultation on Entertainment Facilities is 26 February 2009. If you would like to respond to this consultation, please email your response to licensingconsultation@culture.gov.uk If you prefer, you may submit a hard copy by post to: Shelley Mickleburgh Licensing Team Sport and Leisure Directorate 2-4, Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5DH |
|
16 Feb 10 - 03:34 PM (#2841191) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Dennis the Elder Am I right in presuming the last post should read 26th February 2010 |
|
16 Feb 10 - 03:47 PM (#2841202) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Well perhaps you can ask the DCMS? As you will see from the following link - their document states 26 February 2009!!!!! http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/091020PN_FACILITIES_clarification_condoc.pdf In fact I dicn't notice. I just copy and pasted from their document. |
|
17 Feb 10 - 05:02 AM (#2841683) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from the consultation document: The licensing objectives 1.4 The burdens imposed by the Act are justified by the need to prevent potential adverse impacts on the promotion of the four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. The Government believes that the requirements of the Act in relation to entertainment facilities can be clarified and amended, as described below, without any adverse impact on the licensing objectives. The current situation 1.5 The definition of regulated entertainment contains two elements: the provision of 'entertainment' and the provision of 'entertainment facilities'. The separate 'entertainment facilities' element is intended to address situations where people take part in entertainment that may not be provided solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience, but which may nevertheless present risks to the promotion of the licensing objectives. Examples may include the use of a dance floor, or some karaoke performances. As part of this, the provision of musical instruments (such as 'pub pianos') can be licensable (separate from a performance of live music) if they are to be used by customers to entertain themselves. Proposal to clarify the exemption for incidental music 1.6 The Act provides for an exemption for performances of live music to the extent that they are incidental to some other activity which is not itself "entertainment" or "the provision of entertainment facilities". However, a broad interpretation of "entertainment facilities" can capture the provision of facilities even if they are intended to be, and are used solely for the provision of exempt incidental music. Such an interpretation limits the usefulness of that exemption, especially for venues that do not have a premises licence, or do not have authorisation for regulated entertainment on their licence, if they are providing the facilities necessary for the performance (such as the provision of a piano in an unlicensed cafe). In such a case, it would mean that they have to make an application to vary the terms of their licence (to add authorisation for entertainment facilities) or make a new application for a premises licence in order to provide exempt incidental music. The Government considers that this was not the intention of Parliament when it introduced the exemption for incidental performances of live music. 1.7 Discussions with musicians' representatives, the licensed trade, and local authority officers have revealed that the broad interpretation described above is not uncommon. We therefore feels that the issue requires clarification and propose to amend the Licensing Act 2003 by statutory instrument made under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to state that entertainment facilities are not licensable if they are to be used solely for the provision of exempt incidental music. Question 1: Do you agree that the Licensing Act 2003 should be amended to state that entertainment facilities are not licensable if they are to be used solely for the provision of exempt incidental music? Yes/ No Please provide reasons for your answer, giving as much detail as possible. Proposal to exclude the provision of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities 1.8 To further clarify the law with regard to the provision of pianos and other instruments, the Government proposes to change the 'descriptions of entertainment' (at Schedule 1, paragraph 3(2)) by statutory instrument to exclude the provision of musical instruments. Performances of live music and the provision of facilities other than musical instruments will remain licensable. This will remove any doubt about whether a licence is required when musical instruments are made available by themselves. For clarity, this exemption will extend to items provided to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification. This is intended to clarify that ancillary items such as music stands are also excluded from the definition of music facilities. The provision of other facilities, such as amplification, will remain licensable, as their provision may present risks to the licensing objectives. (For example, of public nuisance due to noise, or public safety in the case of a stage). Question 2: Do you agree that the Licensing Act 2003 should be amended so that the provision of musical instruments and ancillary items is excluded from the definition of entertainment facilities? Yes/ No Please provide reasons for your answer, giving as much detail as possible. The benefits of the proposal 1.9 The proposed clarification will benefit, in particular premises such as pubs, cafes, restaurants and community venues that do not have authorisation for regulated entertainment, but who wish to provide incidental live music to their customers. It will, therefore, also benefit musicians who wish to perform and members of the public who wish to hear them. The exclusion of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities may also benefit members of the public who wish to entertain themselves (for example, using a piano in a pub). There will be a small economic benefit in terms of reduced burdens, but we have not attempted to quantify this. Implementation of the proposals 1.10 Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we propose to introduce the clarification by means of an affirmative statutory instrument as noted above. The draft instrument will be laid in Parliament and debated in both Houses. If Parliament approves the measure, the Minister can then bring the instrument into force. |
|
18 Feb 10 - 05:37 AM (#2842782) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles A chance to ask Licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe some questions. http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86007?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n |
|
18 Feb 10 - 01:13 PM (#2843278) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Lord Clement-Jones has tabled several Parliamentary Questions on the latest DCMS statistics http://tinyurl.com/yeq89bx |
|
18 Feb 10 - 01:26 PM (#2843291) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: SunrayFC what a shambles! |
|
18 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM (#2843522) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: The Barden of England And - - - - -100 |
|
19 Feb 10 - 03:33 AM (#2843911) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86007?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n I have sent the following question to the above: Comment Date: 19/02/2010 08:29:03 Dear Mr Sutcliffe I take this opportunity to thank you for the 1st January 2010 letter to my MP, in which you state that: "The Government wants to encourage the growth of live music." (a) Can you confirm that since your Government's introduction of the concept of Entertainment Facilities in the Licensing Act 2003, that currently any premises (or land) provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dance and on which this entertainment takes place, is a licensable Entertainment Facility and that nothing the Government has proposed can alter this? (b) As Entertainment Facilities do not apply to anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in indoor pub sport but only to music and dancing - perhaps Mr Suttcliffe can explain why his Government have now chosen to discriminate against the public entertaining themselves in music and dance, especially in pubs and on what statistical basis the concept that this presents more concern to the Act's objectives than participatory pub games? Thank you |
|
19 Feb 10 - 11:54 AM (#2844230) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Questions have been raised in Parliament about the latest DCMS live music statistics: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/minutes/100222/ldordpap.htm#qwa [search on page for 'Clement-Jones'] The questions came in response to a new DCMS report 'Changes in live music between 2005 and 2009' published on 28 January (link to PDF file 254kb): http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf The report's headline claim is that 'Overall live music is thriving'. Although it acknowledges a fall in attendance at smaller venues, entertainment licensing is ruled out as a contributory factor. There are apparently three reasons for DCMS optimism: the number of live music licences has increased; more adults are going to gigs; and a large increase in the number of professional musicians. But doubts are growing about these claims. Live music licences: The Licensing Act 2003, not to be confused with copyright licensing, came into force on 24 November 2005. It extended the scope of entertainment licensing, capturing large categories of event and venue that did not previously require authorisation for live music. This included performances by one or two musicians in bars, private concerts raising money for good causes, and performances on public land. It is therefore not surprising that the new regime generated more licence applications. The government has already conceded that it does not know what proportion of the claimed 10% rise in live music licences between 2007 and 2009 is accounted for by premises or events that would not have needed a licence under the old regime. Increase in adults attending live gigs: The report suggests that over the period in question, based on the DCMS 'Taking Part' survey, there has been an increase of about 3% of those attending at least one live music event a year (excluding classical performances). But their analysis does not seem to take into account the appearance in 2007 of the O2 and Wembley Stadium venues. The series of 21 concerts given by Prince in 2007, for example, was attended by over 400,000 people. In the same year, nearly 500,000 attended concerts at Wembley Stadium. The combined attendance at these two venues in one year alone account for more than half the DCMS estimate of 1.64 million more adults going to gigs between 2005 and 2009. Number of professional musicians: The report claims that: 'In professional live music, the Creative and Cultural Skills Council counted 42,800 employed in live music performance in 2006, and 50,780 in 2008, a near 20% increase in employment over 2 years.' But this is simply wrong. John King, co-founder of the Welwyn and Hatfield Live Music Forum, explained why in a comment posted yesterday beneath Music Week coverage about Lord Clement-Jones' questions: '... DCMS 'statisticians' cherry-picked their live music sector employment statistics from a statistically unreliable survey - 'Music Impact and Footprint' published by the Creative Skills Council. The 50,780 'professional live music musicians' are nothing of the sort, and include 41% part-time musicians and a further 30% employed in ancillary activities (e.g. sound engineers, roadies). But – fatally for the DCMS's argument that this is evidence of a 'thriving' live music sector - this 20% increase in professional employment (even if true) actually relates to the period 2004 to 2006. It appears that DCMS civil servants have misled their own ministers. ' See: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040108&c=1 Link to Creative & Cultural Skills Council research page (Links to their two reports under 'Sector', 'Music' 06-07 and 08-09): http://www.ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx The CCSC has confirmed that about 30% of the 'live performance' category within these reports represent people who are not musicians, but are in occupations associated with putting on live performance. ENDS |
|
19 Feb 10 - 11:59 AM (#2844235) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: SunrayFC does anyone read this tosh? |
|
21 Feb 10 - 04:37 PM (#2846064) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles St Albans is not known as a hotspot for crime, or weekend debauchery, or indeed of unlicensed cabbies. But there is no council in Britain which either pursues its responsibilities as seriously or is prepared to rack up expenses as boldly as St Albans City and District. Read more about St Albans' new "Licensing Compliance Officers here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/sebastianscotney/100006759/st-albans-creates-licensing-compliance-officers-just-what-we-nee |
|
22 Feb 10 - 04:31 AM (#2846430) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The disturbing report into licensing in St Albans can be downloaded from; http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council |
|
22 Feb 10 - 10:01 AM (#2846613) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall St Albans made national headlines last week for insisting, on health and safety grounds, that runners should only be allowed to walk during the annual pancake race on Tuesday 16th February: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7250644/Health-and-safety-officers-ban-running-in-pancake-race.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251508/Health-safety-ruins-Shrove-Tuesday-pancake-race-contestants-disqualified-running.html By an ironic coincidence, on that very day St Albans councillor Chris White was making a presentation to DCMS on behalf of the Local Government Association. An LGA spokesperson confirmed the presentation theme: 'the value of Culture, Tourism and Sport services in promoting and improving peoples health'. Councillor White, who represents the LGA on licensing and is chair of the LGA Culture, Tourism and Sport Board, publicised this 'DCMS gig' on Twitter: 'Haircut and then off to DCMS for a joint presentation with the Permanent Secretary. Hence the haircut.' [12.43am Feb 16] 'Early for DCMS gig so a little jaunt to the National Gallery. :-)' [4.23am Feb 16] See: http://twitter.com/chriswhite17 [scroll down] The LGA is opposing entertainment licence exemptions for live music, even for hospitals and schools, on the grounds that these pose a threat to the wellbeing of local residents. It is lobbying against the exemptions for live music proposed in Lord Clement-Jones live music bill, due for debate in the Commons on 12 March, and indeed the exemption in government's current consultation which would apply to gigs with an audience of up to 100 people. St Albans came to public notice last year for the extraordinary range of restrictive licence conditions on live music in local bars: http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council On 2nd February this year councillor White announced the creation of two new licensing officer posts in St Albans: http://chriswhite.mycouncillor.org.uk/2010/02/02/licensing-compliance-officers-to-help-reduce-crime-and-disorder/ Presumably their remit will include checking that St Albans bars comply with council licence restrictions on the number of musicians and indeed genres of music. Breach of such conditions, where they apply, is a potential criminal offence punishable by a fine up to £20,000 and six months in prison. What is behind Councillor White's apparent passion for licensing? Daily Telegraph jazz writer Sebastian Scotney has a theory: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/sebastianscotney/100006759/st-albans-creates-licensing-compliance-officers-just-what-we-need/ ENDS |
|
23 Feb 10 - 05:25 AM (#2847397) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones 'Live music is, like anything else which is an attraction in licensed premises, potentially a public order problem,' he began. 'If you start from that point of view, then it becomes clear what you must do...' (Chris White, Lib Dem councillor for St Albans, member of the Local Government Association Executive, and chair of the LGA Culture, Tourism and Sport Board) That assumption, which is implicit in the Act itself, is at the root of the problem. Anyone who attends live music events knows that this is the exception rather than the rule - even the police have changed their tune. A better approach would have been to treat live music the same as recorded music or TV, and to deal with problems if they arise. Unfortunately we are stuck with what we've got. Guilty until proved innocent. |
|
23 Feb 10 - 06:10 AM (#2847432) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles But even this statement of Mr White is inconsistent and prejudiced against live music. For if every attraction in (already) licensed premises is a potential public order problem - why is it that only facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing is a Licensable Entertainment facility which requies additional permission? Where anything a pub may provide to enable the public to entertain themselves in indoor sports (like a pool table)is NOT a licensable Entertainment Facilty, even if when the activity itself, when provided to entertain an audience, is a performance of licensable Regulated Entertainment. And where anything a pub may provide for the public to entertain themselves in quiz nights is not a licensable Entertainment Facility and the activity itself is not a performance of licensable Regulated Entertainment. The last two examples present as much or as little public order concerns as live music in pubs but are viewed and treated quite differently. Prior to the Licensing Act 2003, all of the problems presented to a thriving live music scene at root level were those presented by the local enforcement of additional Entertainment Licensing. An opportunity was missed to correct this and the current legislation just allows the same situation to continue. |
|
23 Feb 10 - 10:15 AM (#2847619) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Further progress for Lib Dem peer's Live Music Bill http://prosoundnewseurope.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1546&Itemid=26 |
|
23 Feb 10 - 10:18 AM (#2847625) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Tories ramp up pressure on Government over live claims http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040139 |
|
24 Feb 10 - 09:41 AM (#2848684) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Live Music Lord gets answers http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040176&c=1 |
|
24 Feb 10 - 08:09 PM (#2849370) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Just a reminder that a submission to the consultation on Entertainment Facilities needs to be in by 26 February. This is from my submission. The introduction of Entertainment Facilities in this Act is like maintaining that the public still have a right of freedom of expression when restricting the means by which it is expressed. The public are free to speak but denied the means to make themselves heard to a crowd by preventing them from having a platform or a PA system or permission to use the land they stand on. In this case in order to express myself in music or dancing (but nothing else listed in Schedule 1) in a pub I not only need a third party's permission (which is perfectly sensible) but I need them to pay and apply for permission from the local Licensing Authority. If I play a part in organising this without this permission, along with the third party or licensee, I risk prosecution and face a maximum of £20,000 or six months in prison if found guilty. |
|
25 Feb 10 - 02:00 AM (#2849544) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Live Music Bill will create new opportunities says Live Music Forum founder Phil Little11:58 | Wednesday February 24, 2010 http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=1040177&c=1 |
|
25 Feb 10 - 05:58 AM (#2849621) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall As a result of questions by Lord Clement-Jones (see full Q&A below), DCMS has made a small change to the wording of its latest report on live music 'Changes in live music 2005-2009'. In the report DCMS suggested that 'overall live music is thriving', partly on the basis of their claim that there had been a large rise in the number of professional musicians: 'In professional live music, the Creative and Cultural Skills Council counted 42,800 live music musicians in 2006, and 50,780 in 2008, a near 20% increase in employment over 2 years.' This has now been changed to: 'In professional live music, the Creative and Cultural Skills Council counted 42,800 employed in live music performance in 2006, and 50,780 in 2008, a near 20% increase in employment over 2 years.' http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf (see Appendix D then p6) Notice the difference? 'live music musicians' has been changed to 'employed in live music performance'. The statement remains as misleading as ever. Since DCMS first published the report on 28 January, it has emerged that the Creative & Cultural Skills Council figures were: a) from 2004 and 2006, not 2006 and 2008; b) 30% were not musicians; and c) about 40% were part-time, not professional. The CCSC music research included no definition of 'professional musician': http://www.ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx [Scroll down to Music, 06-07 and 08-09] DCMS has also now conceded that they did not verify these figures with either the Musicians Union or the Incorporated Society of Musicians. They merely trawled the MU and ISM websites for publicly available data - and didn't find any. This is what DCMS is pleased to call 'high quality' and 'robust' research. Something very odd is going on here. DCMS is currently running a public consultation on a new entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs. But at the same time it publishes a report which, on the basis of misrepresented statistics, asserts that live music is thriving, and suggests that if there are some problems for small venues this is nothing to do with entertainment licensing. It is effectively arguing against its any new exemption. And their dodgy claims are being used by the Local Government Association to lobby against this exemption. Madness. List of Parliamentary Q&A on the DCMS report 'Changes in live music 2005-2009' (questions put by Lord Clement-Jones and answered on 23 February 2010 by Lord Davies of Oldham): Q:... how the terms "professional musician" and "professional live music" were defined by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for its report Changes in live music 2005-2009, published on 28 January.[HL2061] A: The terms "professional musician" and "professional live music" were intended to be synonymous with the definition of "employment in live music performance" used by the Creative and Cultural Skills Council. A minor clarification has been made to the article to reflect this. Q: ... whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport consulted the Musicians' Union and the Incorporated Society of Musicians on the numbers of professional musicians between 2005 and 2009 for its report Changes in live music 2005-2009, published on 28 January.[HL2062] A: The department did not consult the Musicians' Union and the Incorporated Society of Musicians on the numbers of professional musicians between 2005 and 2009 for this report. However, the Musicians' Union website was searched for robust, publicly available employment statistics but none were found. The only data found meeting these criteria were hosted at the Creative and Cultural Skills website. Q:... whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport estimated the proportion of the total annual adult attendance at ticketed live music events accounted for by the O2 Arena and Wembley Stadium between 2007 and 2009 for its report Changes in live music 2005-2009.[HL2063] A: The Changes in live music 2005-2009 report neither estimated nor reported published data on total adult attendance at ticketed live music events. The attendance data published in the report were taken from the Department for Culture, Media and Sports' Taking Part survey. This showed a significant increase between 2005-06 (when the survey started) and 2008-09 in both the proportion and number of adults in England who attended at least one live music event in the previous year. This included both ticketed and non-ticketed events. Q:... what proportion of interviewees in the 2007 British Market Research Board survey of live music were responsible for their venue's licence conversion in 2005 and had a good knowledge of the Licensing Act 2003.[HL2064] A: The 2007 Survey of Live Music did not ask whether respondents were directly responsible for licence conversion as the survey was about staging live music and not the process of converting the licence. Regarding knowledge of the Licensing Act, 43 per cent of respondents said that they knew a lot; 31 per cent said that they knew a little. [HB comment: DCMS does not mention that 12% said that they did not know very much, and 13% said they knew hardly anything. Moreover, the BMRB authors themselves included several caveats (see para 1.4) including this one: 'The third caveat relates to the fact that a significant proportion of respondents had been in post for a short period of time and in some cases had limited knowledge of the policy and practice of the venue in relation to live music prior to them taking up their position. The lack of knowledge among some respondents about their venue history was evidenced in a relatively high proportion of 'Don't know' responses to certain questions, for example in relation to when venues had started or stopped putting on live music. While this means that the survey cannot always provide a robust and complete picture of live music provision in venues, it should be noted that the 2004 survey was subject to the same limitations and so this particular shortcoming should not impact on comparisons between the two surveys.' ] Q:... what is the source of the Creative and Cultural Skills Council research that specifies the number of "live music musicians" in "professional live music" as reported on page 6 of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport report Changes in live music 2005-2009.[HL2065] A: The source of the information on page 6 of the original Department for Culture, Media and Sport reportChanges in live music 2005-2009is taken from the Creative and Cultural Skills (CCS) studies of the industry carried out in 2006 and 2008. The research is available on the CCS website: http://ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx. A new version of the report has now been released that includes the source of the data. Link to Q&A on Parliament website: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100223w0004.htm#10022368000777 ENDS |
|
25 Feb 10 - 06:21 PM (#2850289) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=66481 The following from the above. Is the consultation for exemptions for small gigs an acknowledgement that the original legislation has hampered live music in pubs? No. If you look at the facts we've actually increased the amount of live music that's taking place. But not in pubs ... Well in venues. Applications for live music has gone up. So why are you having this consultation? Because we have been asked to do that. We have said we are not complacent about things. We had the Live Music Forum and the recommendations that came from that. We decided to have a look at what could be done. On the counter side to that you have LACORS and the local authorities who have got a view on effects on residents. And I really wanted to bring it to a head to make sure we get the right results. The good news for me is these bodies are talking to each other so I hope we can move as quickly as we can to a licensing reform order, which will give us what people want which is an increased number. How likely is it that you will extend the exemption to 200? Well I stated in the debate that was the figure that was put to me. But one of the thing that has concerned me in this whole debate is there are declared views from all sides and then the finger pointed at government.I think what I need to do, but haven't done is brokered discussion between the chair of LACORS and the Musicians Union. The live music guys have come to me and said 200, everybody wants it, it's not an issue. But Lacors say it is an issue. They both agree they want to promote live music. To me I want to get to the end of the consultation process and try to get the decision as soon as we can after that. The route we've taken with the licensing reform order means we don't get caught up with the general election. So it will come in before the election? No, I don't think it will necessarily come in before the election. If we have got the timescale right then it could do. But this process gives us the opportunity for it not to be lost. That's why I've called for all party agreement on this, if we can maintain that momentum then we can get it through. |
|
25 Feb 10 - 06:51 PM (#2850299) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles On what evidence does Mr Sutcliffe base his belief that LACORS want to promote live music? It has taken them 5 years to issue guidance on the incidental exemption and in which time the employees of local authorities have done a pretty good job of pretending that this exemption didn't exist. We have a Minister for licensing, one for sport and now one for the few pubs that remain - perhaps one is needed for music? |
|
26 Feb 10 - 04:22 AM (#2850546) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Well in venues. Applications for live music has gone up. Wonderful. It is a shame that no supplimentary questions were asked and as a result, Mr Sutcliffe has been given a chance to indulge in a blatant piece of election spin. If the number of applications have increased, this would not be too surprising given that Mr Sutcliffe's Government have made it neccessary for practically all live music everywhere to make applications, have introduced a whole new temporary licence. They have also introduced the concept of Entertainment Facilities which means that application needs to be made for anything (including the premises themselves) to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing. But the number of applications is not an indication of any increase or decline in live music for many reasons but one is that the claim may or may not refer to all applications, and may include unsuccessful applications. In pubs specifically, as small scale live music was exempt in many pubs, these would have needed to make applications (for the first time) just to keep the existing level of live music. A situation made worse as Mr Sutcliffe and Co would have us acept that their Licensing Act has increased the number of pubs with live music - when the pubs themselves are still closing at an alarming rate. |
|
26 Feb 10 - 02:22 PM (#2850993) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles And of course even successful applications do not mean that the live music in question is free from illegal conditions being placed on it. As the following report will demonstrate. http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council |
|
27 Feb 10 - 07:28 AM (#2851467) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles (3) The second condition is that the premises on which the entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, provided are made available for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of enabling the entertainment concerned (whether of a description falling within paragraph 2(1) or paragraph 3(2)) to take place. To the extent that the provision of entertainment facilities consists of making premises available, the premises are to be regarded for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as premises "on which" entertainment facilities are provided. There semms little doubt from the above that any premises provided for the public to entertain themselves in music or dancing is a licensable Entertainment Facility and requires Entertainment Permission, in its own right. So in all the pubs and other premisise with Entertainment Permisssion granted to enable them to stage performances of live music - this Regulated Entertainment and any associated Entertainment Facilities provided to enable this, are enabled by the conditions of the Premises Licence. But anything provided in these premises to enable the pubilc to entertain themselves in music and dancing is now separately licensable as Entertainment Facilities and needs specific Entertainment Permission for this. Until this is applied for and does appear in the conditions of the Premise Licence - the public entertaining themselves with music and dancing in premises provided to enable it, is illegal. The licensee and any one else who plays a part in 'organising' this are liable for prosecution. The assumption has been that obtainng Entertaining Permission for conventional performances of live music would also cover the public entertaining themselves. I can't see that such an assumption is safe. Council employees obscure this in practice as they make no distinction but include sessions where the public entertain themselves in music for their own enjoyment, as performances of licensable Regulated Entertainment. The only upside to this approach, is that sessions (incorrectly) viewed to be performances of Regulated Entertainment and their associated Entertainment Facilities can then benefit from any exemptions. |
|
01 Mar 10 - 06:25 AM (#2852835) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 100 not enough say Musicians Union. http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040220&c=1 |
|
01 Mar 10 - 07:49 PM (#2853602) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Don't Criminalise Live Music – Interview with Lord Tim Clement-Jones: http://www.blueprint-blues.co.uk/dont-criminalise-live-music-interview-with-lord-tim-clement-jones |
|
02 Mar 10 - 12:09 PM (#2854189) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Meanwhile the horror that is Form 696 continues. London police have ordered DJs including Danny Rampling, John Kelly and Rocky from X Press 2 to hand over their personal details in order to play at a cancer charity fund-raising event taking place at Ministry Of Sound on January 31st. http://www.trackitdown.net/news/show/103220.html |
|
04 Mar 10 - 04:06 AM (#2855632) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://ow.ly/16Io34 Licensing lawyer claims residents have too much power 4 March, 2010 By Matt Eley Camden Council cited as example of making it too easy to complain about pubs. The following from Hamish Birchall The UK Statistics authority confirmed yesterday that they have asked DCMS for statistical evidence relating to claims made about live music by licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe in The Publican magazine. In a wide-ranging interview about the Licensing Act, published on 25 February, the minister was asked: 'Is the [DCMS] consultation for exemptions for small gigs an acknowledgement that the original legislation has hampered live music in pubs?' The minister replied: 'No. If you look at the facts we've actually increased the amount of live music that's taking place.' The Publican: 'But not in pubs.' Minister: 'Well in venues. Applications for live music has gone up.' http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66481 But DCMS has not measured actual gigs in pubs or anywhere else since the BMRB survey of 2007. Even the otherwise misleading DCMS report of 28 January 2010, 'Changes in live music 2005-2009' has no direct evidence and concedes: 'It is hard to say conclusively that the number of premises with a live music licence indicates more live music venues or more live music gigs...' http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf (see p2) The minister's misleading claims were echoed in Parliament last Monday, 2nd March, by Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw, in an exchange with Conservative shadow licensing minister Ed Vaizey: Mr. Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): The Government are fond of saying that there has been an increase in live music since the Licensing Act came in. One reason for that is that the number of events that need to be licensed has increased, and another is the coming on stream of the O2 arena and Wembley stadium. Is the Minister aware that the UK Statistics Authority has said: "The DCMS...and Press Office will be alerted to the possibility of misinterpretation and the need to exercise caution when quoting the figures"? Can he confirm that the UK Statistics Authority has written to him in those terms and that he will exercise caution in using those figures in future? Mr. Bradshaw: Unlike the Conservative party, we always take very seriously what the UK Statistics Authority says, and I shall do so. Certainly on the information we have, I do not think anyone challenges the fact that there has been significant growth in the amount of live music, but the hon. Gentleman is right to identify the fact that it has been concentrated in medium and larger-sized venues. Similar growth has not been seen in smaller venues, which is exactly why we are proposing to extend the exemption to them. Again, however, I am afraid I am still completely confused about the hon. Gentleman's policy. On the one hand, he told the Performers Alliance, at a reception at Parliament recently, that he supported Lord Clement-Jones's Bill; but on the other, the Conservative Local Government Association is vehemently opposed to any exemption for licensed premises. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100301/debtext/100301-0002.htm In fact attendance at the O2 and Wembley Stadium account for most of the 'growth in live music' claimed by the Culture Secretary. The Statistics Authority wrote to DCMS in December 2009 including this request specifically in relation to DCMS Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing statistics: 'The DCMS Minister and Press Office will be alerted to the possibility of misinterpretation and the need to exercise caution when quoting the figures.' ENDS |
|
05 Mar 10 - 12:39 PM (#2856882) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Shambles, I agree that both the Act and the guidance notes are so unclear that they could mean virtually anything. However I do question your interpretation of some points. So far as "entertainment facilities" include the premises, do you have any evidence that this means the whole premises? The Guidance Notes suggest that it is intended to mean things like the provision of a dance floor. It would be contrary to common sense (which the Guidance Notes say should be applied) for the premises to be licensable solely as an entertainment facility when they would otherwise not need to be licensed. This is reinforced, to my mind, by the statement in the latest consultation: 1.9 The proposed clarification [exclusion of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities] will benefit, in particular premises such as pubs, cafes, restaurants and community venues that do not have authorisation for regulated entertainment, but who wish to provide incidental live music to their customers. It will, therefore, also benefit musicians who wish to perform and members of the public who wish to hear them. The exclusion of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities may also benefit members of the public who wish to entertain themselves (for example, using a piano in a pub). Again, it would be contrary to common sense, and contrary to the intention of the proposed amendment, to exclude musical instruments from the defintion if the premises themselves still needed to be licensed as an entertainment facility. It must also be read in conjunction with the guidance on incidental music, although again this is far from clear. However this suggests that in most cases a session should meet the criteria to be considered incidental music and therefore not licensable. The whole thing is fogged with lack of clarity, and unfortunately individual authorities have too much power to interpret the law for themselves. However it seems to me that the clear intention of the latest proposed amendments is to allow members of the public to entertain themselves, and that this should not be obstructed by the need to licence, say, a pub piano. This suggests that the public entertaining themselves does not in itself require a license. |
|
05 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM (#2856901) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Concerns about recent DCMS live music statistics continue to be raised in Parliament. Two new Written Questions have been tabled, this time by Lord Colwyn: ... to ask Her Majesty's Government, with regard to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport report Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector, of 28 January, (a) what is the definition of the term "professional musician", and (b) how many professional musicians are included in the total of "those employed in live music performance" in 2006 and 2008. [DCMS] HL2477 ... to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the dates of the research sources for the numbers of professional musicians in 2006 and 2008 cited in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's report Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector under the heading "increases in those performing music—are there more musicians?". [DCMS] HL2478 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcumlst.htm [search on page for 'Colwyn'] The questions, which should be answered within two weeks, follow yesterday's revelation that the UK Statistics Authority is now investigating DCMS live music statistics. In the report cited by Lord Colwyn, DCMS claim that the number of professional musicians rose by 20% between 2006 and 2008: http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Increases_in_live_music_between_2005_and_2009.pdf [see p4] However, it emerged last month that these figures, lifted by DCMS without verification from research published online by the Creative and Cultural Skills Council, included a large number of non-musicians and was sourced from 2004 and 2006. Link to CCSC music research: http://www.ccskills.org.uk/Industrystrategies/Industryresearch/tabid/600/Default.aspx [see Music 06-07 and 08-09] Phil Little's original Live Music Forum has published a comprehensive dissection of the DCMS live music claims by the Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum: http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ [middle of home page] ENDS |
|
05 Mar 10 - 01:57 PM (#2856937) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Howard, I agree with your first statement and that is really all that needs to be said. The fact that you and I may interpret these things differently is really inevitable for as you say, the Act and the S 182 Guidance could mean virtually anything. A point that the more legally trained among us have been saying since the first appearance of the Bill. However it is important to remember that if there is a nitpicking something that can be used to obstruct the sensible treatment of all aspect of live music, my experience tells me that there will be some licensing employee who will advise that their failure to enforce it could result in the Licensing Authority facing a legal challenge. I think that you are possibly seeing these things in a more hopeful fashion than I can manage. But there is nothing stopping us from discussing our differences here and hopefully others will also chip in. >So far as "entertainment facilities" include the premises, do you have any evidence that this means the whole premises?< With so many words emanating from the DCMS, in the form of S 182 'statutory Guidance, Guidance on the incidental exemption and recently in all these consultation documents - the words that matter are those which still appear in the Licensing Act 2003. (3) The second condition is that the premises on which the entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, provided are made available for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of enabling the entertainment concerned (whether of a description falling within paragraph 2(1) or paragraph 3(2)) to take place. To the extent that the provision of entertainment facilities consists of making premises available, the premises are to be regarded for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as premises "on which" entertainment facilities are provided. Would you accept that the above words make it quite clear that Entertainment Facilities [as defined in the words of the Act below], consist of making premises available? Entertainment facilities 3 (1) In this Schedule, "entertainment facilities" means facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment of a description falling within sub-paragraph (2) for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of being entertained. (2) The descriptions of entertainment are— (a) making music, (b) dancing, (c) entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (a) or (b). (3) This paragraph is subject to Part 3 of this Schedule (interpretation). Could you really argue, that a session is not a case of premises being made available to enable persons to entertain themselves in making music and dancing? However this suggests that in most cases a session should meet the criteria to be considered incidental music and therefore not licensable. Sessions, [as defined above] do not qualify for the incidental exemption as currently worded in the words of the Act [or as proposed], as they are not performances of live music or the playing of recorded music. Music incidental to certain other activities 7 The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not itself— (a) a description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or (b) the provision of entertainment facilities. |
|
05 Mar 10 - 02:26 PM (#2856956) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles What you can do. http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/lmfwhatyoucando.htm |
|
06 Mar 10 - 01:45 PM (#2857687) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones I've read Schedule 1 Part 1 Para 3 of the Act numerous times and I'm still baffled as to what is actually meant by "entertainment facilities". Indeed, I don't really understand the need for them to be licensed - if an entertainment facility such as a piano (for example) is used for performing music, then a licence is required because music is a regulated entertainment; if it is not used, or the music it is used for is not regulated (eg is incidental music) then why should it matter? It would appear to be unnecessary for premises in general to be considered as an "entertainment facility", since any regulated entertainment must take place on premises of some kind. As the Act is so unclear I have turned to the Guidance Notes, which suggest (but again are not explicit) that "premises" means elements such as a dance floor. However the whole thing is so vague that nothing is clear, and it is impossible to tell what this clearly bonkers government had in mind when it passed the Act. I think this is what the latest amendment is intended to correct. The consultation document clearly states that one of the reasons for removing musical instruments from the definition of "entertainment facilities" is to allow customers to entertain themselves using for example a pub piano - this can only mean that the act of entertaining themselves is not itself regulated entertainment, otherwise removing instruments from the definition would not achieve this aim. Likewise, if instruments are to be excluded but the premises themselves are considered to be "entertainment facilities" and thus licensable, this too would defeat the intention of the amendment. The logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that customers can entertain themselves with music without needing a licence, and that if the amendment is passed they will be able to use musical instruments and similar items provided by the venue. |
|
06 Mar 10 - 03:34 PM (#2857780) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Dennis the Elder I hope your interpretation of the latest information is correct, Howard. Being involved in Local Government, I know that the enforcers of the legislation would also like to know what the law means. Their life at the moment is very confusing, with many Local Authorities interpreting the Legislation differently. Let's hope we all get clarification in the very near future. |
|
06 Mar 10 - 04:04 PM (#2857804) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Howard you have not answered the points I made with reference to the words of the Act. I have come to the conclusion that the S 182 Guidance and the consultation document must be intentionally misleading in the examples being provided, this is not helping you trying to find logic where there simply is none. There can be no doubt that Entertainment Facilties have some intent, otherwise the Act would not have been drafted the way it is. The view that it is just a plan B to be used to catch again activities that are already licensable Regulated Entertainment is a possible explanation but not a likely one. So it must be to catch activities which are not licensable Regulated Entertainment. The DCMS explain the intention here. Department for Culture, Media and Sport Proposal to clarify the definition of "entertainment facilities" 1.5 The definition of regulated entertainment contains two elements: the provision of 'entertainment' and the provision of 'entertainment facilities'. The separate 'entertainment facilities' element is intended to address situations where people take part in entertainment that may not be provided solely for the purpose of entertaining an audience, but which may nevertheless present risks to the promotion of the licensing objectives. Examples may include the use of a dance floor, or some karaoke performances. As part of this, the provision of musical instruments (such as 'pub pianos') can be licensable (separate from a performance of live music) if they are to be used by customers to entertain themselves. The DCMS do not specify what performances of karaoke would require it to be caught as the provision of Entertainment Facilities. This is already licensable Regulated Entertainment as 'any playing of recorded music'. Despite what is implied in the consultation document, there is no further requirement in the words of the Act for Entertainment Facilities to be seen to present risks to the licensing objectives - they are automaticaly licensable if they are provided for the public to entertain themselves. However, the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing is not a activity which is licensable Regulated Entertainment. So the only way our legislators could catch this is by making anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in (music and) dancing a licensable Entertainment Facility. I think that the DMCS are being a little sly here. It seems pretty obvious that all the other things that are tangled-up and caught as Entertainment Facilities are simply a result of a clumsy attempt to ensure that the public could no longer be provided with premises or land on which they could quite legally entertain themselves in non amplified music made by themselves to enable themselves to dance. Which most of would think that the public had every right right to do. There is nothing proposed in the consultation that will change this effect of the Act. Entertainment Facilities discriminates against music and dancing. This is step too far and should be removed. |
|
06 Mar 10 - 05:06 PM (#2857854) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.licentiouslaw.co.uk/live-and-let-live-%E2%80%93-live-music-to-get-a-reprieve |
|
06 Mar 10 - 05:36 PM (#2857878) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Shambles, you quote the DCMS on the wording as it stands. The latest consultation shows that there are at least two situations where they want to relax the existing rules - these are expressly referred to in S1.9 of the consultation which I quoted in my post of 05 Mar 10 - 12:39 PM . The first situation is where a restaurant wants to provide incidental music (not itself regulated entertainment) but requires a licence because musical instruments, such as a piano, are provided. The second is where customers want to entertain themselves, for example using a pub piano. I think these are both examples, rather than being the only cases for exemption, but these are the ones actually mentioned. The objectives referred to in S1.9 cannot be achieved if these activities remain licensable because the premises themselves are "entertainment facilities". The DCMS could have taken this opportunity to also remove "premises" from the definition. They have not done so. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the premises do not need to be licensed. You may think that the DCMS is being sly, by offering an apparent concession which they don't really mean. However I think they would find themselves in a very difficult position if this came to court - having clearly stated what their objectives are they could not then try to undermine them. The other, perhaps more likely, answer is that it is yet another cock-up by the DMCS, who don't seem to understand their own legislation. However I think the result is the same - a court would look at the intention, which is to free both incidental music and customers entertaining themselves from regulation. |
|
06 Mar 10 - 06:11 PM (#2857901) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The objectives referred to in S1.9 cannot be achieved if these activities remain licensable because the premises themselves are "entertainment facilities". That is exactly my point. No matter how-well intentioned you may think the DCMS are the words of the Act remain what they are. What is proposed cannot happen unless the words of the Act regarding the provision of the premises are changed and this is not proposed. So the the whole thing is a nonsense. The DCMS could have taken this opportunity to also remove "premises" from the definition. They have not done so. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the premises do not need to be licensed. I am not sure that I agree that this is the only conclusion to be drawn. The other, perhaps more likely, answer is that it is yet another cock-up by the DMCS Not even the DCMS can simply wish the words of the Act to say something they would prefer it to say. Would you accept that the above words (in the Act) make it quite clear that Entertainment Facilities [as defined in the words of the Act below], consist of making premises available? Could you really argue, that a session is not a case of premises being made available to enable persons to entertain themselves in making music and dancing? |
|
06 Mar 10 - 07:25 PM (#2857942) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones I'm b******d if I know. The more I read this the less I understand it. |
|
07 Mar 10 - 07:09 AM (#2858213) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The problem all along with this legislation are the claims that were made for it - in order to get it through. All sorts of assurances were given and still are, (especially for the music aspects) which the words of the Act could not support. The Lords did make an effort to address these aspect but our MPs in the Commons did a very poor job. I suspect that they understood it even less than you and I do any many of them were reassured by the claims rather than really examining if the claims could be supported in the words of the Act. Things that are lauded as being all things to all people often turn out in practice to be of no real use to anyone. The sh** has now hit the fan. The DCMS now have to explain to ministers and MPs what the real situation is but are not really prepare to admit the true scale of the situation. It was always going to be the case that the activities exempt under incidental exemption would have problems with the facilities provided to enable any entertainment consisting of music and dancing. Thus the playing of the piano is said to be exempt from being licensable Regulated Entertainment, as a performance of incidental live music but the provision of the piano is caught as an Entertainment Facility The proposal to address this and change the words of the Act in this consultation cannot achieve the stated aim, unless the words of the Act which state that licensable Entertainment Facilities consist of the provision of premises to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing. The DCMS rubbished claims that the Act would require Entertainment Permission to enable a postman whistling on their rounds to entertain themselves, however I'm not sure who was making such claims. But that would currently be the case - if they were provided with a whistle or if they were provided with a van or bike to enable them to do this......these are Entertainment Facilities? The Act has introduced (under cover) in legislation that was thought to be about ensuring the public's concerns for conventional performances of paid entertainment, a means to prevent the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing. Which many of us would consider to be an essential human right of free expression, which other legislation should have ensured for us. It was bad enough when the requirement for additional Entertainment Permission applied only to conventional performances of paid entertainment. Its extension to catch anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, as Entertainment Facilities introduced for the first time in the Licensing Act 2003 is a step too far. You could perhaps argue that the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing does present the same type of risks to the licensing objectives but the main problem with additional Entertainment Licensing is that those who enforce it tend only to concentrate on this side of things and not on the effect of this approach. It has the effect of a aquarist who provided the same water conditions to all the fish in their collection - and who did this regardless of the consequences on the health of the fish. They may be able to present statistics to show a few very healthy fish - but this would not reflect the true situation. In the past, Licensing Athorities could probably place pressure to pay and obtain the required licence, on a licensee who intended to profit from providing conventional paid entertainment, safe in the knowledge that they would comply. The same approach taken where the premises were provided to enable customers to entertain themselves in music and dancing - would probably result in the licensee calling a halt to an activity, which has been part of our pubs for at least as long as the public entertaining themselves in darts and skittles. But the provision of pool tables and (the few remaining) skittle alleys are not caught as Entertainment Facilities and are are not thought to be presenting any risk to the licensing objectives. How many sessions and singarounds have been needlessly lost as result of this approach to additional Entertainment Licensing? |
|
07 Mar 10 - 07:38 AM (#2858235) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones I think on reflection you're probably right. There's undoubtedly a problem in that the Act does not mean what the DCMS would like it to mean, and possibly not what Parliament intended it to mean. To answer your final question, I get the impression that the impact on existing sessions and singarounds has been less than was originally feared, although there have undoubtedly been some casualties. Most venues which were already hosting these simply included them in their licence application, which they were obliged to make anyway. However it's undoubtedly an obstacle to setting up new ones - if the licensee has to go to a lot of time, trouble and expense to alter his licence to allow something which probably won't bring him significant financial benefit, he probably won't bother. |
|
07 Mar 10 - 08:05 AM (#2858254) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles My point was less the effect on sessions by the Licensing Act only but the effect on sessions over many years by the requirement for additional Entertainment Licensing. Many had already been lost prior to the introduction of this Act. But should any be lost or placed at risk? We don't see licensing presenting any threat to indoor pub sports.......Are these thought to be of more value? But we have established that anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing is now licensable and that this introduction of the Act is something quite new. In the light of the fact that premises have to specify the exact nature of entertainment being provided to enable it to be covered - what is the situation in the premises which have permission for conventional paid performances of live music but which do not have permission for facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing? The assumption has been that sessions would be coverered in premises which already had permission for conventional paid performances of live music - but is this a safe assumption? Would it work in reverse for example? Would permission obtained for the provision of facilities for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing also cover the provision of conventional paid performances of live music? I suspect not. The Act has in effect introduced a quite distinct new area, presenting risks to th licensing objectives This needs specific Entertainment Permission and which I suspect that few if any premises currently hold. Where permission for Entertainment Facilities does exist, it would only be to cover the provision of facilities associated with the specific conventional paid performance of live music. |
|
07 Mar 10 - 09:18 AM (#2858288) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones I find the whole concept of "providing entertainment facilities" very odd. The intention seems to be to bring participatory singing and dancing within the Act, which would otherwise not be regulated entertainment as it is not for the entertainment of an audience. So why not simply include these in the definition of regulated entertainment? I'm also confused what is meant by "making premises available". The Guidance Notes explain that spontaneous music or dancing are not licensable because "the place where the entertainment takes place will not have been made available to those taking part for that purpose." However, unless the licensee immediately steps in to stop the singing or dancing, surely the premises have then been made available, if only by default? But since we are told spontaneous music and dancing are not licensable, why should the licensee step in to prevent it? I'm coming to the conclusion that the parliamentary draughtsman must have been channelling Lewis Carroll when he drew up the legislation. |
|
07 Mar 10 - 10:31 AM (#2858323) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I'm coming to the conclusion that the parliamentary draughtsman must have been channelling Lewis Carroll when he drew up the legislation. Curiouser and curioser indeed - I find the whole concept of "providing entertainment facilities" very odd. The intention seems to be to bring participatory singing and dancing within the Act, which would otherwise not be regulated entertainment as it is not for the entertainment of an audience. So why not simply include these in the definition of regulated entertainment? If it was done that way, the admission would have to be made that the Act introduced for the first time the concept of the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing as licensable. Which was possibly thought a bit too controvesial to openly admit. Ministers were briefed to say that the Act did not make licensable any activity that was not already licensable under previous legislation. This was probably true, as far as it went but it quite intentionally disguised the fact that the Act introduced the concept of making licensable any facility provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing. I'm also confused what is meant by "making premises available". The Guidance Notes explain that spontaneous music or dancing are not licensable because "the place where the entertainment takes place will not have been made available to those taking part for that purpose." However, unless the licensee immediately steps in to stop the singing or dancing, surely the premises have then been made available, if only by default? But since we are told spontaneous music and dancing are not licensable, why should the licensee step in to prevent it? Again - it is probably not wise to place too much on what DCMS have placed in the S 182 Guidance. There is no specific exemption in the words of the Act for a performance of spontaneous live music so quite why this has a definition in the S 182 Guidance (when so much is left undefined) is not clear. They just keep on digging a hole of their own making, in the hope that no one will notice. Of course it follows that the premises would have been made as much available for a peformance of spontaneous live music as they would be to enable the public to entertain themselves in any other form of music and dancing. Spontaneous performances of live music are only not licensable on purely practical grounds, because the licensing process cannot deal with it until it occurs and it is too late when it is over. If the activity is repeated - exactly the same activity or anything provided to enable an entertainment consisting of music and dancing -becomes licensable whether paid conventional entertainment or not. |
|
07 Mar 10 - 12:51 PM (#2858417) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Just for the fun of stirring the pot ... despite the government's protestations, I believe singing "Happy Birthday" may be illegal without a licence. My reasoning is that if people go out to celebrate someone's birthday, they probably intend to sing "Happy Birthday" at some point, so it cannot be spontaneous (even assuming, as Shambles points out, that spontaneous singing is really exempt). It's not just music this government is out to get, they're planning to outlaw photography in public places and effectively take away your rights over your own photographs: UK Government nationalises orphan photos and bans non-consensual photography in public |
|
07 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM (#2858481) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles It is not me but DCMS who maintain that performances of spontaneous live music are not licensable in the first place (as opposed to being licensable but exempt). The activity itself may not be technically licensable but as any facilty provided for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing is licensable as a Entertainment Facility - the effect is the same. If you - (and 100,000 others) turned-up in field (with permission of the owner) and claimed that this was a performance of spontaneous live music - would the DCMS advise and more importantly, would the local Licensing Authority accept, "the place where the entertainment takes place will not have been made available to those taking part for that purpose?" Anyone wish to try it this summer? |
|
07 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM (#2858513) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Sorry, I was trying to say that you were casting doubt on the DCMS's claim that spontaneous music is exempt. Re-reading what I wrote, that doesn't come across very well. |
|
09 Mar 10 - 09:14 AM (#2860027) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=997%3Adcms-to-tackle-confusion-over-entertainmen Launching a consultation last week, the DCMS proposes: Excluding the provision of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities in the 2003 Act, and Clarifying that entertainment facilities are not separately licensable if they are used solely for the provision of incidental music. There is a caveat to the exemption, however – anything that amplifies the music will still be licensed as an entertainment facility. Grimsey said: "The reality is that even with the existing flaws in the legislation, most licensing authority enforcement officers have taken a common sense and practical view. This new consultation is an attempt by DMCS to restrict the few officials who do not take such a sensible approach, and in that respect it is partly successful." |
|
09 Mar 10 - 09:22 AM (#2860032) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Strange as it may seem, I am beginning to have some sympathy with all of those who are employed to enforce this legislation. It simply is not possible for them to take a sensible approach - the words of the Act make this impossible. But perhaps if they are placed in this position - they (through their associations and professional bodies) they should be the ones leading the calls for more sensible legislation? |
|
09 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM (#2860040) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Mr Happy .........so I need to get a licence to entertain myself? If I don't enjoy my efforts, can I get my money back? 8-) |
|
09 Mar 10 - 09:50 AM (#2860057) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Dennis the Elder Thank you for your sympathy, this is a pleasant change as normally we get all the blame and none of the credit. As someone who has been involved, if somewhat obliquely, with enforcing this legislation, Enforcing Noise Legislation in Public Houses etc being one of my duties, I am learning much from this thread, I compliment all involved in this thread in particular "The Shambles" and Howard Jones on their vigulent contributions. Some nuisance cases have recently been lost due to misinterpretations, this is expensive and obviously a cost to tax payers. In each case the enforcement officer felt they were acting correctly. We all need to know what we should be doing!! The majority of enforcement officers do not instruct that legal proceedings should be taken without a great deal of deliberation and "consideration" for all parties involved. I continually look for leadership from our associations and professional bodies, but at this moment in time they are lagging behind this thread. If I am successful and obtain advice I will certainly post what I can within this thread. |
|
09 Mar 10 - 11:09 AM (#2860122) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Thank you Dennis. You probably do have to know quite how badly I have been treated by the employees of my local Licensing Authority to appreciate the fact that I can still accept that even they do honestly feel they are doing the best they can, in difficult circumstances. But that is another long and even more tedious story. However, it is sad and not very helpful that we seem to be so firmly on opposite sides. However, the report linked to here is, I suspect not an isolated situation. http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council What disturbs me about this report is that although most if not all of the questionable licensing conditions detailed, are probably not directly imposed by the Licensing Authority, no one seems to be prepared to take responsibilty for these conditions appearing as legally binding in Premises Licenses. The fact that a licensee or pubco may self limit their applications does not mean that the Licensing Authority should not accept full resonsibility for imposing conditions they know to be both damaging to live music and possibly illegal. The argument used that the Licensing Authority may not have technically imposed these conditions in the licenses, is not really one which refelts much credit on this authority's employees or on their professional body. |
|
09 Mar 10 - 11:17 AM (#2860138) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This survey identified 85 pubs in the St Albans District with live music authorisation, and of those: • 30 have restrictions on the number of musicians who can perform (35% of pubs) • 45 pubs have restriction on the regularity or frequency of musical performances (53% of pubs) • 4 have a restriction on the genres of music which can be performed • 1 pub has to display a suitable and conspicuous notice advising the residents of forthcoming live music events. • 1 pub has a restriction on indoors Morris Dancing |
|
09 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM (#2860189) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.popall.co.uk/LicensingApplications/itisimpossibletopleaseeveryoneallthetime.asp The application to vary the premises licence of the Albert Hall to add boxing, wrestling, late night refreshment and an extension of hours at the beginning of the day should have been reasonably straightforward. The Albert Hall has been a significant venue for boxing and the staging of premier events in the past. |
|
09 Mar 10 - 12:13 PM (#2860195) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/5048346.St_Albans_District_Council___We_are_not_killjoys_/ THE district council has responded to a barrage of criticism of its two new "licensing compliance officers" by denying they are killjoys cracking down on live music. |
|
09 Mar 10 - 02:17 PM (#2860288) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040220&c=1 10:13 | Monday March 1, 2010 The Musicians' Union has become the latest organisation to reply to the Government's consultation on live music venues by slating the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's proposals to limit exemption to events with attendance of just 100 people. The MU has urged the DCMS to clarify a perceived ambiguity in the draft order about the performance of live music and making available "entertainment facilities" such as a piano. |
|
09 Mar 10 - 06:35 PM (#2860567) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Small Gigs Exemption Consultation The implementation of the small gigs exemption may depend, to an extent, on the Public Consultation and we all have a right to respond to it. The closing date for submissions is 26th March 2010 and it is important that as many live music fans let their opinion be known. It is also vital that professional organisations such as Schools, Music Teachers, Choirs, Charities, Shops, Entertainment Agents, Pubs and Brewers submit their own responses to the Consultation. You may be able to think of more, in any case, please urge all your contacts to respond and pass on the word. The Consultation document can be found at, http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx The email address given for submissions is,licensingconsultation@culture.gsi.gov.uk |
|
10 Mar 10 - 05:30 AM (#2860832) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/pdf/2/l/GN4._Club_Premises_.pdf The above is an example of how many different interpretations of the words of the same legislation are being advised and more importantly, enforced. The examples provided here for what is called 'Incidental Entertainment' are really interesting. |
|
10 Mar 10 - 02:12 PM (#2861202) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040357&c=1 12:04 | Wednesday March 10, 2010 By Robert Ashton The Second Reading of Lord Clement-Jones Live Music Bill is due to take place in the House of Commons this Friday. |
|
10 Mar 10 - 02:30 PM (#2861216) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I have finally had a reply from DCMS - It is all now made perfectly clear.............Except what is the current position or what would the position be, should the proposal be accepted for where the premises are provided for the public to entertain themselves in music - when no instruments are provided. Would this be a licensable Entertainment Facility? You asked for confirmation that the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act) says that "any premises (or land) provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dance and on which this entertainment takes place, is a licensable Entertainment Facility." It is not the case that the Act says that any premises or land provided in this way qualifies as an entertainment facility. In fact, the Act is clear that this is not always or necessarily the case. However, as you correctly observe, the Act does allow for the possibility that premises or land may be an entertainment facility. Legislation often demands the use of common sense in its interpretation. In the kind of case with which the consultation is concerned, the provision of facilities for performances of exempt incidental music and the provision of instruments (such as a pub piano), it would be artificial to say that the pub (or the bar area where the piano is situated) is a separate facility (in addition to the piano itself) "for enabling persons to take part" in making music on the piano. The customers' ability to use the piano would be exactly the same if it were placed anywhere else, so the room or bar area does not contribute anything. Nothing would be achieved in terms of the policy aims of the Act (the promotion of the licensing objectives) by counting the room or bar area as a distinct facility in a case such as this. On the other hand, a room which has a dance floor as its main or sole feature could quite easily be seen as a separate facility in this sense. In that case, to distinguish the dance floor from the room might be artificial. It should be noted that the draft clarification proposed in the consultation would prevent any suggestion that the premises or land might be separately licensable as an entertainment facility in relation to facilities for incidental music and the provision of instruments. In the case of incidental music, the draft clarification applies to any "facilities". In the case of musical instruments, the clarification applies to "anything to be used to enable a musical instrument to be played". This would therefore apply to, for example, a bar area, if it were suggested that this enabled the playing of the musical instrument. Thank you again for your helpful contribution to the consultation, which has now closed. All responses will be considered, and we expect that Ministers will be in a position to announce their response in the near future. |
|
10 Mar 10 - 07:27 PM (#2861453) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 2. After paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003, add— "Entertainment facilities 19 The following are not be regarded as the provision of entertainment facilities within the meaning of this Schedule— (a) the provision of a musical instrument, or anything to be used to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification; (b) the provision of facilities solely for the purpose of a performance of live music of the kind described in paragraph 7 of this Schedule.". This shows that the provision of entertainment facilities is not linked to the provision of musical instruments. Part (b) would permit the provision of a room for incidental music whether or not an instrument were provided. |
|
10 Mar 10 - 07:57 PM (#2861478) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Where exactly is this propsed amendment from Howard? |
|
10 Mar 10 - 08:06 PM (#2861485) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following is the proposal from the DCMS consultation document. Chapter 1: Proposal to clarify the definition of 'entertainment facilities' Summary of proposals 1.1 The consultation document seeks your views on a proposal to: • exclude the provision of musical instruments from the definition of entertainment facilities in the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act) schedule 1, section 3 (see extracts from the Act at Annex B); and • clarify that entertainment facilities are not separately licensable if they are used solely for the provision of incidental music (as described by schedule 1 section 7). 1.2 The proposal would encourage the use of the existing exemption for incidental music. Performances of live music which meet the conditions in paragraph 1(2) and (3) of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act would remain licensable if they: • are for purposes that include the purpose of entertaining an audience and take place in the presence of an audience; • do not benefit from the exemption for music that is incidental to other activities; and • do not fall within any other exemption in Schedule 1. 1.3 The proposal would also ensure that the provision of musical instruments (such as a piano made available to members of the public to entertain themselves) is excluded from the definition of regulated entertainment. For clarity, this exemption will extend to items provided to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification. This is intended to clarify that ancillary items such as music stands are also excluded from the definition of entertainment facilities. |
|
10 Mar 10 - 08:21 PM (#2861492) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This shows that the provision of entertainment facilities is not linked to the provision of musical instruments. Part (b) would permit the provision of a room for incidental music whether or not an instrument were provided. But only for a performance of incidental live music or the playing of recorded music. The following is the existing Para 7. Music incidental to certain other activities 7 The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not itself— (a) a description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or (b) the provision of entertainment facilities. Anything (including the premise or land) provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing - an activity which is not licensable itself as Regulated Entertainment, as a PERFORMANCE of live music or the playing of recorded music, cannot qualify for this exemption and as a result, is still caught as Entertainment Facilities. |
|
11 Mar 10 - 02:48 AM (#2861593) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66575 Have your say on government's live music plans 10 March, 2010 By James Wilmore Licensees have until March 26 to respond to DCMS consultation |
|
11 Mar 10 - 04:25 AM (#2861625) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Shambles, I not sure I follow the final paragraph of your post of 10 Mar 10 - 08:21 PM. Where the public are entertaining themselves then this could be considered "incidental music", since it is not for the purpose of entertaining an audience or attracting customers, and for many customers would be something going on in the background. Unfortunately the definition of "incidental music" in the Act and Guidance Notes is typically woolly, and we are left to rely on "common sense", which experience shows is in short supply. Where it is a "performance" then it should be exempted under the proposed small gigs amendment. All this assumes both amendments actually go through. |
|
11 Mar 10 - 05:13 AM (#2861652) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Where the public are entertaining themselves then this could be considered "incidental music", since it is not for the purpose of entertaining an audience or attracting customers, and for many customers would be something going on in the background. It cannot be considered to be a 'performance of live music', which is what the exemption is worded for. The only things re live music, that qualify for current exemptions and the changes proposed to make the incidental exemption work - must first be licensable as the provision of a activity which is a performance of live music and thus licensenable as Regulated Entertainment, this does (or will then) include any associated facilties provided for this. Anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music which is not the provision of an activity which is a performance of live music - will remain licensable as a Entertainment Facilty. The proposed small gigs exemption will not be of any use unless it is worded to include the public entertaining themselves live music which is not performance. |
|
11 Mar 10 - 10:09 AM (#2861828) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Ooops! The exemption for a performance of live music that is incidental etc. is in no a way limited to non-amplified performances (according to the latest LACORS guidance on this. However any associated Entertainment Facilities that are provided to enable it - cannot be amplified. The provision of a PA for example or an amplified instrument is not being exempted is it? |
|
11 Mar 10 - 01:52 PM (#2861963) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The other side of the same exemption permits the playing of recorded music - all of which of course must be amplified. If this were not so serious - it would be funny. |
|
12 Mar 10 - 07:40 AM (#2862512) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, which if enacted would exempt most small gigs from entertainment licensing red tape, is listed for 2nd reading debate today in the House of Commons. The bill is backed by UK Music, Equity, the Incorporated Society of Musicians, the original Live Music Forum (www.livemusicforum.co.uk), the Musicians Union, and the National Campaign for the Arts. However, at 14th in the list of private members bills it is unlikely to get any Parliamentary time and will almost certainly fail. Lib Dem shadow culture secretary Don Foster said: 'The bill represents a great opportunity to repair the damage done to live music by Labour's licensing rules. I am disappointed the government have refused to support it, despite their slowly coming to accept that they have got it wrong. The minor change suggested in their consultation [an exemption for gigs with an audience up to 100] does not go anywhere near far enough, and bureaucracy will continue to strangle live music provision unless our ideas are put into action. When the government consultation reports and the election is complete, we will assess how best to take the contents of the Bill forward.' Needless to say a lot depends on the outcome of the general election, which must be held by the end of May. The Conservatives have already backed the 200-capacity venue exemption recommended by the All Party Culture, Media and Sport Committee last year. Labour has promised to consider a 200-capacity exemption, but only if 'an overwhelming majority' backs this in the current DCMS consultation: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx The deadline for responses is 26th March. On 1st March, Music Week reported that DCMS had already received over 100 responses and that those by the Musicians Union and the Live Music Forum had slated the government's 100-capacity proposal as too small: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040220&c=1 ENDS |
|
12 Mar 10 - 11:46 AM (#2862676) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles It was like pulling teeth but the DCMS have finally replied as follows. However, as you correctly observe, the Act does allow for the possibility that premises or land may be an entertainment facility. Leaving aside the fact that no one really knows when the premises or land may or may be claimed to be provide as a licensable Entertainment facility - I wonder why this rather important fact receives little attention in the S 182 Guidance and does not appear with the other examples provided? This is the worst example of bad legislation as it provides no protection at all for the public, like so much else in this legislation. If those who are paid to enforce it - wish to claim that the premises are a provided Entertainment Facility, they can. And if they don't (or don't need to as there are already so many other ways of making an activity licensable) they can ignore the legislation's requirement. In answer to the following question (which I thought was fairly easy one) I received a (short) answer that I still do not understand. However, I would be very grateful if you could answer for me, what is the obvious question after reading your comments: The following situation is one that is far more common than one where any instruments were provided. What is the situation currently and what would be the case should the proposal be accepted - where no instruments were being provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music but there is no question that the premises are being provided, on a regular basis for this purpose - would the premises be Entertainment Facilities, require specific Entertainment Permission and be illegal without this? The short answer to your last question is, as we have previously said, that it depends on the nature of the premises and whether it is meaningful to regard them as "facilities" that are being provided for making music or dancing. Whether the premises themselves have anything to do with enabling the music or dancing to occur in any distinctive way is obviously relevant to this. We covered the point with the example of the piano in the bar versus the specially-designed dance floor that occupies most or all of a room. In the first case the thing claimed to be a separate "facility" adds nothing to the making of the music, apart from the mere presence of the piano and the participants. In the second, the room is specifically set up to enable dancing to take place and so does add something to enabling the activity itself to take place. Whether the alleged facility is provided on a regular basis or not does not seem to us to be relevant. It is the nature of the thing itself, not how often it is provided, that determines whether it is an "entertainment facility" or not. Schedule 1 does not contain anything that allows one to characterise (or decline to characterise) something as an entertainment facility on the basis of how frequently it is used. The Guidance does not contradict this. The last point seems to bring us back to the S 182 Guidance, where it is claimed that the premises are not being provided for 'spontaneous' music. But as the S 182 Guidance iteslf states - Licensing Authorities can ignore it................ |
|
12 Mar 10 - 02:33 PM (#2862809) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I think the provision of premises to enable the public to dance on the walls or the ceiling or the provision of a building with no floor at all, is safe - well safe from being a provided licensable Entertainment Facility. Or is it? |
|
13 Mar 10 - 03:16 AM (#2863163) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles In the second, the room is specifically set up to enable dancing to take place and so does add something to enabling the activity itself to take place. Whether the alleged facility is provided on a regular basis or not does not seem to us to be relevant. It is the nature of the thing itself, not how often it is provided, that determines whether it is an "entertainment facility" or not. Schedule 1 does not contain anything that allows one to characterise (or decline to characterise) something as an entertainment facility on the basis of how frequently it is used. The Guidance does not contradict this. As it is exempt when taking place inside or out, any performance of Morris dancing taking place on the floor of a premises is an activity that is exempt, along with any associated Entertainment facilities that are provided to enable it. But any other dancing taking place on the same floor would need licensing as this would be then be considered to be provided for the purposes of the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing. It is unclear when a provided floor become a dance floor? The pretty obvious answer is when the public are dancing on it. Although spontaneous music and dancing is said, in the S 182 Guidance, not to be licensable. |
|
13 Mar 10 - 05:47 AM (#2863235) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles A performance of stand-up comedy is not a licensable activity. Rightly or wrongly, The incidental exemption is supposed to make exempt any facilities provided to enable it even when live nusic is used as part of this performance. Although I am not sure I follow the logic being used here. However even if the proposed changes to the incidental exemption are accepted, the provision of an amplified instrument or PA to such an activity - would still need licensing as the provision of an Entertainment Facilty. Not too sure about the provision of floor though? |
|
16 Mar 10 - 09:30 AM (#2865207) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles However even if the proposed changes to the incidental exemption are accepted, the provision of an amplified instrument or PA to such an activity - would still need licensing as the provision of an Entertainment Facilty. Not according to the DCMS (see the last para of the following). I am able to reassure you that it is not currently the case that "any facility provided (including the floor but with the possible exemption of the premises themselves) to enable the 'playing of recorded music' constitutes the provision of entertainiment facilities". Nor will the proposed Statutory Instrument make such 'facilities' licensable. In most circumstances, the mechanisms for the transmission of recorded music are and would remain entirely outside the definition of entertainment facilities. The definition refers to facilities for enabling persons to take part in 'making music' and 'dancing'. It does not otherwise include the playing of recorded music. There may nevertheless be circumstances when the making of music involves recorded music. Karaoke might be an example. It is the intention of the Act that the provision of facilties to enable people to take part in (electronically amplified) karaoke is licensable, and it will remain licensable under the current proposals. However, the current proposal would clarify that anything (including amplification and amplified instruments) provided to enable incidental music is not licensable. |
|
16 Mar 10 - 09:37 AM (#2865212) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from the DCMS own consultation document would seem to make it clear that only a musical instrument provided without any means of amplification is excluded by the proposals. 1.3 The proposal would also ensure that the provision of musical instruments (such as a piano made available to members of the public to entertain themselves) is excluded from the definition of regulated entertainment. For clarity, this exemption will extend to items provided to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification. This is intended to clarify that ancillary items such as music stands are also excluded from the definition of entertainment facilities. |
|
16 Mar 10 - 10:34 AM (#2865240) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 2. After paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003, add— "Entertainment facilities 19 The following are not be regarded as the provision of entertainment facilities within the meaning of this Schedule— (a) the provision of a musical instrument, or anything to be used to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification; (b) the provision of facilities solely for the purpose of a performance of live music of the kind described in paragraph 7 of this Schedule.". The above is what is proposed. It would seem clear to me that the provision of any amplified instrument or any amplification would still be regarded as Entertainment Facilities. If the intention is really to exempt the provision of all instruments and amplification from being Entertainment Facilities - there is a clearer way of expressing this - possibly without any mention of the the words 'without amplification'. It would be easier if Entertainment Facilties were simply removed. |
|
17 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM (#2865864) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I am concerned that what is proposed in the draft does not appear to exempt any associated Entertainment Facilities and will only apply to the provison of performances of live music and not to the provision of facilties to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing. "Live music in certain small venues 7A (1) The provision of entertainment consisting of a performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if the conditions in sub-paragraph (2) are satisfied in respect of the performance. (2) The conditions are that- (a) the performance takes place wholly inside a building; (b) the performance takes place in the presence of an audience of not more than 100 persons, all of whom are accommodated wholly inside the building where the performance takes place; (c) no part of the performance takes place between 11pm and 8am; (d) the performance does not take place on premises in respect of which an exclusion decision under Part 2A of this Schedule has effect." ENDS |
|
17 Mar 10 - 06:58 AM (#2865888) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones The provision of facilities for incidental music will be excluded by the proposed Schedule 1 (19)(b). However this depends on the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing being seen as "incidental music". From various comments, that seems to be the DCMS's intention, but it's not explicit in the Act and is not very clear from the guidance notes. We're left to rely on "common sense". |
|
17 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM (#2866095) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall. Rumours of the death of Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill were, it seems, exaggerated. Although not debated in the House of Commons last Friday, a new date has been set for 2nd reading: Friday 26th March. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100312/debtext/100312-0011.htm Lib Dem MP Normal Lamb announced the new date, although for some reason Hansard does not record his name. For even stranger reasons, Hansard does not record who shouted 'Object' to this and five other private members bills. One of quirks of the mother of democracies is that while individual Parliamentarians may originate bills, other individuals may scupper them with one word. No wonder why, for many, Parliament has become something of a farce. The House of Commons is not sitting on 26th March, but Mr Lamb's announcement means that the bill remains live until the general election is called. Put another way, the ball is in the government's court. They could make time for the bill before the election. That is, they could make time if they were sincere about wanting to act 'very quickly' to introduce an entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs, as licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe told BBC You & Yours almost five months ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/06/2009_42_thu.shtml Friday 26th March happens also to be the closing date for the DCMS public consultation on a new small gigs exemption: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx Ministers will know by then whether or not the majority of responses back a 200-capacity exemption, like the one in Lord Clement-Jones' bill and recommended by the All Party Culture, Media and Sport Committee last year. Both the Musicians Union and the Live Music Forum have already criticised the consultation's proposed 100-capacity exemption as too small to be of much use. By 26th March the government runs out of excuses for any further delay. ENDS |
|
17 Mar 10 - 12:27 PM (#2866114) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The provision of facilities for incidental music will be excluded by the proposed Schedule 1 (19)(b). Yes and in the other proposal the public will be able to be provided with non-amplified instruments to enable them to entertain themselves in music and dancing, which is not performance to an audience. However this depends on the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing being seen as "incidental music". From various comments, that seems to be the DCMS's intention, but it's not explicit in the Act and is not very clear from the guidance notes. We're left to rely on "common sense". Common sense would tell us that only performances to an audience can qualify for any exemptions which are specifically worded as being for performances to an audience. The only proposal which applies to the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing is to allow them to be provided with non amplified instruments, without these being licensable as Entertainment Facilities. The tweak to the incidental exemption will make little difference as this exemption has been part of the original Act. It has proved in practice to be of little use and many Licensing Authorities, including mine, whilst insisting that participatory sessions are licensable as performances to an audience, currently do not accept that the incidental exemption can be used. So what hope is there for sessions affected by licensing, in any of what is proposed, without some way of ensuring that Licensing Authorities comply with what has always been available to them? |
|
17 Mar 10 - 12:45 PM (#2866130) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The tweak to also exempt facilites provided for exempt performances of live music is needed as the current words only exempt the activity itself. However, even in its new form, it is too little and too late and unlikely to make any difference now. Had our licensing enforcers a different culture to the one that had already caused most of the problems - this exemption could, without costs and red tape, have encouraged all sorts of live music in all sorts of premises. Music incidental to certain other activities 7 The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not itself— (a) a description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or (b) the provision of entertainment facilities. |
|
17 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM (#2866137) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones I'm sure that somewhere in all the recent stuff that's been quoted the DCMS has specifically said that the public entertaining themselves should be considered incidental music. Sessions are usually not provided, even partly, for entertaining an audience, which is one of the requirements for "regulated entertainment". On the contrary, an audience is usually unwelcome since they take up space which would otherwise be occupied by musicians - that's the situation at my regular local session, anyway, although we're not rude enough to tell them that. |
|
17 Mar 10 - 03:33 PM (#2866249) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Sessions are usually not provided, even partly, for entertaining an audience, which is one of the requirements for "regulated entertainment". On the contrary, an audience is usually unwelcome since they take up space which would otherwise be occupied by musicians - that's the situation at my regular local session, anyway, although we're not rude enough to tell them that. I couldn't agree more but I have been trying to explain this to my local Licensing Authority for the last ten years - perhaps you could persuade them? The Licensing Manager Weymouth and Portland Borough Council North Quay Weymouth Dorset DT4 8TA www.weymouth.gov.uk |
|
17 Mar 10 - 04:22 PM (#2866281) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I'm sure that somewhere in all the recent stuff that's been quoted the DCMS has specifically said that the public entertaining themselves should be considered incidental music This is the latest Guidance on what performances are exempt under this. Not sure that it helps much....... http://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/downloads/Item6_App2_3_.pdf It contains the following gem: The music is likely to be licensable if those present at the premises are arranged as an audience, compared to customers seated as diners, for example. And the following is an example of an activity which is licencable: Pub promotes sing-along event with pianist (or other single instrument) |
|
17 Mar 10 - 04:37 PM (#2866295) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I think we have to accept that part of our problem is that DCMS do not have the slightest idea of what sessions, open mics and singarounds are but they have a real obsession with ensuring that karaoke is caught. The provision of performance of the activity itself is already licensable Regulated Entertainment but they appear to want to prevent unlicensed karaoke at any cost. So to make doubly sure, any facility provided to enable karaoke is also licensable as Entertainment Facilities. I am quite sure that the legislation could be drafted in such a way as to ensure that the specific activities DCMS are concerned about can be licensable, without making licensable, as Entertainment Facilities, the provision of any faciltiy to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing. |
|
17 Mar 10 - 04:41 PM (#2866300) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones On the contrary, I think the new guidance seems very helpful, and certainly a lot better than the previous guidance. From our point of view, it's a pity that folk sessions aren't explicitly mentioned, but on the other hand they vary so much that they could fall into either category depending on how they're run and whether or not they're advertised. You picked out "Pub promotes sing-along event with pianist". However that is clearly being promoted as an event which will attract customers specifically for the purpose of attending the sing-along, and so is not incidental music. Where a pianist is simply playing background music, without it being promoted and with the audience free to listen or ignore him as they choose, that is incidental music. What the difference is in practical terms, or in terms of achieving the licensing objectives, is unclear to me. It appears that two very similar events could fall into one category or the other due to quite small differences, but at least these differences are now a little bit clearer. |
|
17 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM (#2866326) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles You picked out "Pub promotes sing-along event with pianist". However that is clearly being promoted as an event which will attract customers specifically for the purpose of attending the sing-along, and so is not incidental music. Where a pianist is simply playing background music, without it being promoted and with the audience free to listen or ignore him as they choose, that is incidental music. I picked this out as it was the nearest to what my Licensing Authority would claim that a session was. They do actually still advise that any form of advertising would make a session licensable and not eligible for the incidental exemption. However, the point you make about the licensing objectives is a good one. Should an event be licensable, by an advert stating the performer's name - when an advert which does not is exempt? The event could be pretty much the same event and be presenting the same risks to the licensing objectives. But being involved in organising one of them could get you a £20,000 fine or 6 months in prison!!! The Guidance is full of such subjective judgements which place our licensing officers in really difficult positions and which give very little protection to the public. |
|
17 Mar 10 - 07:07 PM (#2866414) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Most sessions in my experience are not "promoted" by the landlord. "Promoted" usually means someone has arranged the event, booked the performers, etc. In most cases sessions are merely permitted by the landlord and advertised by word of mouth, and more between musicians than potential audience. If the landlord simply advertises "folk music here tonight" then under the new guidance that should be OK. However if he advertises a named performer then it's regulated entertainment. |
|
18 Mar 10 - 04:04 AM (#2866633) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles If the landlord simply advertises "folk music here tonight" then under the new guidance that should be OK. However if he advertises a named performer then it's regulated entertainment. But what sense is there in this? How can the words of a advert change the risks presented to the licensing objectives? The so-called 'new' Guidance was issued in November 2009 - My lot still will not accept that their advice needs to change at all and see no hurry to even discuss it. They will be looking at it in May 2010 - as part of the three-yearly general review of the Statement of Licensing Policy but this is a requirement of the Act and has nothing to do with the Guidance. As there is currently nothing in the SOLP which supports the officer's advice - such a review is unlikely to change the situation anyway. But the Guidance does not make it clear that the exemption only applies to the performance of live music and to the playing of recorded music. The situation where the public are provided with licensable Entertainment facilities, in the form of premises, to enable them to entertain themselves in music and dancing is unchanged. I can see nothing in the Guidance that would make my lot change their advice and it is only Guidance remember. But if you think you could change their advice - I would be most greateful if you could please contact them and try. |
|
18 Mar 10 - 06:55 AM (#2866705) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones "If the landlord simply advertises "folk music here tonight" then under the new guidance that should be OK. However if he advertises a named performer then it's regulated entertainment. But what sense is there in this? How can the words of a advert change the risks presented to the licensing objectives?" I agree it's nonsense, but at least under the new guidance the distinction is a bit clearer. If the landlord is in a position to advertise a named performer then it suggests he is promoting an event, rather than merely permitting incidental music - a crucial distinction for the purposes of the Act. It also suggests a different sort of event from what the more informal incidental music might provide, although this isn't necessarily the case in practice. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that while the DCMS's guidance may have no statutory force, an authority which ignores it (especially if their policy actually contradicts it) could be on shaky ground. A court would look at the official guidance to help it decide how the Act should be interpreted (although it would also look at other legal precedents). The problem is that these issues are unlikely to be tested in court, it's easier for the licensee to just agree to the authority's demands even if they're wrong, easier still simply to stop the music. |
|
18 Mar 10 - 07:45 AM (#2866732) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall The government has avoided answering the latest questions raised by Lord Colwyn about DCMS live music stats. This purely fictional conversation between a junior and senior civil servant is inspired by the Q&A (full text below): Junior: The Lords want to know how many professional musicians are actually accounted for in our live music report. Senior: We can't tell them. Junior: Why not? Senior: Because we don't know. Junior: But we published figures and claimed there had been a 20% rise, 2006 to 2008. Senior: I know, but some fool plucked numbers from a website without checking. If we admit the mistake we might have to withdraw the report. Junior: So what shall I say? Senior: Refer them to the previous answer. Junior: But we seem to have avoided an answer the first time. Senior: I know. Junior: What about the second question, the one asking for the actual dates of the research? Senior: Tell them... I mean, imply the fault lies with the source material, and that those responsible are now making revisions which we may incorporate later. [Junior retreats with a conspiratorial wink] In real life, the civil servants who prepare ministers' answers are, of course, bound by a Code of Conduct which requires honesty, impartiality, objectivity and integrity: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/values/cscode/index.aspx Actual Q&A: Lord Colwyn: To ask Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport report Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector, of 28 January, (a) what is the definition of the term professional musician, and (b) how many professional musicians are included in the total of "those employed in live music performance" in 2006 and 2008. [HL2477] Lord Davies of Oldham: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer that I gave to Lord Clement-Jones on 23 February 2010 (Official Report, col. WA 285). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100315w0004.htm#10031553000799 Lord Colwyn: To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the dates of the research sources for the numbers of professional musicians in 2006 and 2008 cited in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's report Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector under the heading "increases in those performing music-are there more musicians?". [HL2478] Lord Davies of Oldham: The Live Music: An Analysis of the Sector report used source material taken from the Creative and Cultural Skills Council (CCSC) studies of the industry. We understand that CCSC are making some revision to their material. DCMS will incorporate any changes affecting our analysis in the report in due course. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100316w0004.htm Link to DCMS live music report webpage, published 28 January 2010, revised 16 February: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/6603.aspx Link to previous DCMS answers to questions by Lord Clement-Jones: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100223w0004.htm#10022368000777 ENDS |
|
18 Mar 10 - 07:51 AM (#2866734) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following is from the S182 Guidance. Legal status Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides that in carrying out its functions a licensing authority must 'have regard to' guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 182. The requirement is therefore binding on all licensing authorities to that extent. However, the guidance cannot anticipate every possible scenario or set of circumstances that may arise and as long as licensing authorities have properly understood the Guidance they may depart from it if they have reason to do so as long as they are able to provide full reasons. Departure from the Guidance could give rise to an appeal or judicial review, and the reasons given will then be a key consideration for the courts when considering the lawfulness and merits of any decision taken. 1.8 Nothing in this Guidance should be taken as indicating that any requirement of licensing law or any other law may be overridden (including the obligations placed on the authorities under human rights legislation). The Guidance does not in any way replace the statutory provisions of the 2003 Act or add to its scope and licensing authorities should note that interpretation of the Act is a matter for the courts. Licensing authorities and others using the Guidance must take their own professional and legal advice about its implementation. |
|
18 Mar 10 - 09:04 AM (#2866775) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86358?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Tories stoke rumours of licensing shake-up By John Harrington 18/03/2010 10:42 The Conservatives want to "rationalise" the number of Government departments dealing with pubs — adding weight to rumours they'd put the Home Office back in charge of alcohol licensing. |
|
18 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM (#2867042) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thesession.org/sessions/display/361 |
|
19 Mar 10 - 04:33 AM (#2867447) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Whilst Kim Howell's words have no statutory weight, it seems to me that they should be taken into account when interpreting the Act, because they shed light on what was intended by the wording used when the Act was being drafted. Ultimately it is up to a Court to interpret the Act, and they will look firstly at the language used and what it could be expected to mean in terms of usual everyday language, but having regard to definitions of particular terms in the Act and legal precedent from other cases. Nevertheless, Dr Howell's words do shed light on how the words were intended to be interpreted, and what the Act was intended to include and exclude, and should carry some weight insofar as they don't contradict the other meanings of the words used. One question to ask the Licensing Authority is what Licensing Objectives they believe are being promoted by demanding the sessions are licensed. I suspect that any issues of noise or disturbance, for example, could either be dealt with by other legal measures, or shown from previous experience not to be a problem. The Licensing Authority seems to be taking the view that everything should be licensed, which flies in the face of all the guidance and clarifications from the DCMS. By disregarding the guidance they put themselves on dangerous ground from a legal point of view, in my (unqualified) opinion. The problem is that no one is likely to risk the costs of testing this in a court. |
|
19 Mar 10 - 07:57 AM (#2867549) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles One question to ask the Licensing Authority is what Licensing Objectives they believe are being promoted by demanding the sessions are licensed. That is a good question but there is no point in me asking them, as they will not respond to me on any licensing matters. I would be grateful if someone else would ask. Extract from Mike Harding's BBC Radio 2 show 17 July 2002. Published in The Rose Of The Ribble Valley by Graham Dixon ISBN 1-84294-100-3. Dr Kim Howells was then Minister in the DCMS responsible for introducing what later became The Licensing Act 2003. Mike Harding Kim, if I can just go on to some questions we've had sent in from listeners, very quickly, because I do realise you've got to get off to the house and various other things...Roger Gall has emailed to say, and I quote, "When you introduce this new licensing system, if pubs don't have an entertainment licence, will sessions and singarounds be banned?" Dr Kim Howells MP Yes, i suppose they would be. The landlord would need to get an entertainment licence to cover himself or herself.... Mike Harding But this is not for gain, is it, you were talking about... Dr Kim Howells MP Oh, I see, I am sorry, I thought that you meant it would be professional musicians being paid .... Mike Harding No, just sessions and singarounds, people just playing for their own fun. Dr Kim Howells MP No, they certainly wouldn't and I'm very keen that we should make sure that that facility is there. There shouldn't be a problem. As long as money is not changing hands, then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence. |
|
19 Mar 10 - 08:15 AM (#2867565) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030401/pm/30401s08.htm#end Column No: 070 Jim Knight: I would not have become interested in the subject if it were not for Roger Gall, a constituent of mine, who lives on Portland, where there is a folk jamming session on a Friday night in a pub called the Cone House Inn. It became known that the landlord was comfortable with people coming along on a Friday night and playing their music. These sessions were not advertised. Such an event, which is not advertised or actively encouraged, may be a passive part of the atmosphere of the pub, and it may begin to build up business and become a substantial attraction and profit maker for the publican. Would the Minister regard such an activity as one that should be regulated under the Bill? Dr. Howells: It seems that that is largely a spontaneous activity, to which people turn up occasionally, and it seems also that the word has spread that people can hear some nice music. However, as the hon. Gentleman says, the licensee does not spend money on advertising. If it is clear that music is being played in the corner of the pub, that would be incidental in my book. I do not know whether that gives him any comfort. Often, if it is intended that the everyday meaning of a term be used in legislation, it must be judged commensurate to the circumstances of each case. I know that that has drawn some guffaws from Opposition Members, but I hope that the combination of the term ''incidental'' and the explanation that I have tried to give, taken together with the guidance that the Department will issue, will be sufficient to ensure that licensing authorities give due consideration to whatever music is being performed. As you can see, there is a difficulty in getting my Licensing Authority to accept that sessions are exempt as performances of live music that is incidental etc. Is there anything in the proposals that will change this? |
|
19 Mar 10 - 01:55 PM (#2867747) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones If you have not already done so, I would suggest sending copies of your local authority's responses to the DCMS. OK, interpretation is the responsibility of the authority, but it might demonstrate to the DCMS that their guidance is not getting through and authorities are not enforcing the Act in the way which the government intended. |
|
19 Mar 10 - 02:08 PM (#2867758) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following quote from the Local Government Ombudsman 03 April 2008 Ref 07/B/13783/BM. It refers to advise contained in a letter to me and a local Councillor dated 5 May 2006. She [Bridget Downton then Corporate Diector of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council] enclosed information available and commented on the Council's view of what constituted incidental music. This was considered to be; music that could take place without an audience, music that would not be advertised or held on a regular basis: and music that would not be amplified. She added that the Council's preference was not to apply 'a one size fits all' approach and to consider each case on its merits and to advise licensees accordingly. The LGO also states 03 April 2008 Ref 07/B/13783/BM: I have not found evidence that the Council's officers have given misleading advice and information to Members or that the authority has acted in disregard of government guidance in its interpretation of the new statutory provisions for premises licensing. That the LGO finds in favour of the Council's employees here, is not surprising as they do this in a about 95% of all complaints and that is not to say that the remaining 5% are happy with the outcome. So as there is no effective watchdog, it should come little surprise when council employees feel that they are safe to advise what they choose to and feel that their advice has more authority than that which is offered by Government Ministers. |
|
19 Mar 10 - 02:22 PM (#2867767) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This is what the Statement of Licensing Policy (which was endorsed by the Council's Management Committee) has to say on the exemption. 5.6.2. The incidental performance of live music and the incidental playing of recorded music may not be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment activities for the purposes of the Act. This is where they are incidental to another activity which is not itself entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities falling within paragraph 5.6.2. Whether or not music of this kind is 'incidental' to other activities will be judged on a case by case basis [For information, the previous SOLP, which presumably formed the policy on this exemption at the time the advice was presented on 5 May 2006, reads as follows.] 5.6.2 Music incidental to certain other activities The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not in itself- • A description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or • The provision of entertainment facilities. As you can see from the above - the details of what the LGO refers to as being the Council's view on the incidental exemption - is not what appears in the SOLP and has never been endorsed by any Committee or even presented to one. It is not clear if any of the elected members of the Council are aware of how this differs from the Government Minister's advice - or if they are aware - if they care. |
|
19 Mar 10 - 02:39 PM (#2867780) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The local policy on enforcement for this exemption, was sought by me and a local Councillor and the following was carefully advised, in the letter to us, dated 5 May 2006. As you know, the Act contains no definition of 'incidental' and my legal team advise me that in these case it is normal to use dictionary definitions to aid interpretation. The dictionary definition of incidental includes the word 'casual' which, in our view, does impact on the regularity of incidental music. I can confirm that we would advise licensees asking us that we would regard incidental music as that which: could take place without an audience; would not be advertised or held on a regular basis; and would not be amplified." As I have said before here, the 'new' LACORS Guidance on the incidental exemption was issued in November 2009. This makes it clear that the 5 May 2006 advice still being maintained by the employees of my local Licensing Authority is totally wrong [but this was always clear]. Should anyone wish to contact them to try and help bring some common sense to bear - I would be most grateful. |
|
19 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM (#2867803) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones I doubt the authority will listen to anyone else from outside their area. I don't know how your particular session operates, but the ones I go to would satisfy all those criteria, with the exception of "not being held on a regular basis". However this particular criteria flies in the face of the guidance, which says nothing about this, indeed implies the opposite. Under the guidance a restaurant should be able to provide live background music 24/7, provided it is ancillary to the main purpose of eating. "Could take place without an audience" is also a nonsense, although a session is probably one of the few types of music which could meet this particular requirement. Restaurant example again - the music is played specifically to entertain an audience, what makes it incidental is the fact that the audience's main reason for being there is to eat, not to listen to music. The LGA's main concern would be to ensure that the authority acted within its powers. As long as it did so, and exercised them reasonably, the LGA will be satisfied. That doesn't mean the authority's actions are correct, merely within their powers. You need to hammer this home to the DCMS, since it is clear that local authorities are still either misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring the guidance. |
|
19 Mar 10 - 08:10 PM (#2867905) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The LGA's main concern would be to ensure that the authority acted within its powers. As long as it did so, and exercised them reasonably, the LGA will be satisfied. That doesn't mean the authority's actions are correct, merely within their powers. The reference is not to the LGA (Local Government Association) but the LGO (Local Government Ombudsman. Maladmisitration is all that the LGO can decide - this was defined as a Council not following their own rules or the law. It cannot be within any of the Licensing Authority's powers to state one thing as correctly endorsed policy in the SOLP, as required by the Licensing Act 2003 - but for their employees to offer advice to licensee which ignores and takes precedent over the correctly endorsed policy contained in the SOLP. My MP has recently received a letter from them which makes reference only to the policy in the SOLP and no reference to the 5 May 2006 advice and the fact that the LGO still considers this to be the Council's view on the incidental exemption. As follows: Kate Hindson General manager Communities & People Tel 01305 838037 Fax 01305 838438 Katehindson@weymouth.gov.uk Our ref KH/HH 18 January 2010 Dear Jim Revised Guidance To Licensing Authorities On The Provision Of incidental Music Licensing Many thanks for your letter of 4 January 2010 the contents of which my licensing Manager and her team were already aware of. I am happy that Paragraph 5.6.2 of this Council's current Policy already explains the principles of incidental music albeit in slightly less detail than the revised guidance. The Policy (at paragraph 2.4) also takes note of the provisions of the 2003 Act and the Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Act so my view is that there is not a need for immediate revision of the Policy. However, we will be starting consultation on the statutory review of the statement of licensing policy in May this year so this will present us with an ideal opportunity to make amendments/improvements to the policy to reflect the revised guidance. In the meantime I will ensure that all Councillors who sit on Licensing Committee are provided with a copy of it (in addition to the Licensing Services team members who have already been given copies). Yours sincerely Kate Hindson General manager - Communities & People |
|
19 Mar 10 - 08:37 PM (#2867916) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles "Could take place without an audience" is also a nonsense, although a session is probably one of the few types of music which could meet this particular requirement. The employees of my Licensing Authority do not agree and advise that sessions are the provision of a performance of live music to audience and licensable as Regulated Entertainment. Mainly as they argue that a regular session is not 'spontaneous', so it must be a licensable performance.... As the exemption still only applies to 'performance of live music and the playing of recorded music' this advice/view/position (- but not policy -) means that 5.6.2 of the SOLP, cannot benefit anything that does take place for an audience. And anything that didn't take place for an audience, wouldn't be licensable in the first place, as a performance of live music to andience and would have no need of the exemption. They may need some protection from employees of the Licensing Authority claiming that the premises are being provided for the purpose of the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing and licesable as Entertainment Facilities. |
|
19 Mar 10 - 09:13 PM (#2867925) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040455&c=1 Live Bill loses out 16:53 | Thursday March 18, 2010 By Robert Ashton Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill could be crippled by the Easter recess and impending General Election. |
|
20 Mar 10 - 06:14 AM (#2868027) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.artscampaign.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=169:190310item3&catid=92:newsitemsnew&Itemid=97 The NCA is seeking members' comments on its draft response to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) latest consultation on the Licensing Act, which proposes to exempt live music events for audiences of not more than 100 people from the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003 |
|
20 Mar 10 - 10:30 AM (#2868103) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I doubt the authority will listen to anyone else from outside their area. Well, if everyone outside of their area shares your doubt - my Licensing Authority won't have anything to listen to, will they? Whether they actually listen or just go through the motions - the Licensing Act 2003 (currently) requires every Licensing Authority to review their SOLP every three years. Part of this process is a formal public consultation which every member of the public and all national organisations are invited to contribute to. |
|
20 Mar 10 - 02:16 PM (#2868194) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following what was the Licensing Manager represented to the Management Committee as being their response to my submission to the last public consultation. Reference Number: 002 and 005 Respondent: Roger Gall, Comment: See attached letters (ref: 002 & ref: 005) Appraisal: Ref: 002: The Government, largely as a result of work undertaken by the Live Music Forum, have recently identified the need for clarification with regard to the definition of regulated entertainment. On 28th June 2007 the guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 was revised and pages 27 to 31 of the guidance are reproduced here for Member's consideration (ref: 002B). Members may wish to make specific reference to the Licensing Authority's desire /obligation to adhere to this guidance when considering whether or not a licence is required. In order to properly address the points raised by Mr Gall it is necessary to re-visit the situation which led to Mr Gall's campaign and to examine the facts. Mr Gall has claimed throughout his campaign that he and a group of fellow musicians were discriminated against. His assertion is that their gathering at the Cove House Inn (a venue which was not at that time licensed for public entertainment) was spontaneous/incidental music making and did not require a licence. [It was not thought necessary to speculate on the reasons why any other submission to this consultation was made and what are referred to as facts are not. There was no claim made that the two sessions involved were spontaneous.] This Council's view is that the gatherings went beyond spontaneous and required licensing for the following reasons: a) They were held on a regular weekly basis b) They were advertised on a notice board outside the premises c) They were publicised in the Dorset Echo d) At the time the "two in a bar rule" was in existence but there were 5 musicians playing. [There is no mention that there were in fact two sessions affected and that the minimal advertising referred to - only applied to the Cove House Inn and that the one that was lost - at New Star Inn was not advertised in any form. The two-in-a-bar reference should of course be to the number of 'peformers' present. There were in fact customers partipating but no 'performers' involved in either session.] Mr Gall consistently failed to mention these mitigating factors when canvassing support for his cause. Mr Gall felt aggrieved by this ruling, even though the then Landlord of the premises willingly obtained an entertainment licence in order that the sessions could continue legally, and reported this Council's actions to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found in this Council's favour. [Mr Gall in fact mentioned all these factors as there would have been no point in not doing so. The Landlord of the Cove House Inn did not in fact willing obtain an entertainment licence. He did so only when faced with what these employees referred to as encouragement. That 'encouragement' consisted of a letter threatening them with prosecution and a possible £20,000 fine and six months in prison if they did not comply or end the session. The Ombudsman did not in fact find in the Council's favour. The finding was that the LGO could find no evidence of maladministration which would have required them to actually investigate.] A recent report on the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 by the Live Music Forum contains a number of case studies and the one on page 50 reads as follows: "A small restaurant in South London which seats around 40 people. In the past, and on a very occasional basis, live music was provided under the "two-in-a-bar rule" as an accompaniment to dinner. The music was advertised by means of a chalk board on the pavement and a small notice in the window. GENERAL CONSENSUS would seem to suggest that in this case the advertising of the music would preclude it from qualifying as "incidental". Mr Gall and his fellow contributor (Mr Diaper and Mr Hopkins) have some very valid points to make with regard to small gatherings of acoustic music makers having little or no adverse impact on the licensing objectives and this is presumably why the Government devised Section 177 of the Licensing Act which was intended to provide, under certain circumstances, flexibility for unamplified live music. Unfortunately, as stated in the report of the Live Music Forum, the current wording of Section 177 is convoluted. Their understanding, and this Council's, is that for this concession to be used the following circumstances would have to apply: a) the venue would need to have a capacity of not more than 200 people. b) The applicant would need to have appeared before a Licensing Committee, at a Licensing hearing, and had conditions relating to live music attached to the premises licence at that hearing by that Licensing Committee. c) If the premises were then to operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and midnight, and were it to be providing unamplified live music; d) Then any conditions, relating to live music, attached to the premises licence, except those relating to public safety or the prevention of crime and disorder, by the Licensing Committee, at that Licensing Hearing, would have no effect and could simply be ignored by the venue operator. Within Weymouth and Portland Borough there are 358 licensed premises in total. Only 24 of those licences have had conditions attached to the premises licence as a result of a Licensing Hearing and out of those 24 only 7 have a capacity of less than 200. It is therefore not surprising that the Live Music Forum could not find a single example countrywide where this concession had been used either by Licensing Officers or venue owners. The recommendation made by the Live Music Forum is that Section 177, where it relates to the provision of live music, should be deleted from the Act and Schedule 1 Part 2 – Exemptions, should have a new paragraph 7(a) inserted which should read: "The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of unamplified live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act." Members may wish to give consideration to lobbying Government in support of this recommendation. Whilst Mr. Gall's claims that this Council, its Officers and Members have acted inconsistently and unfairly in interpreting the Licensing Act 2003 are unsubstantiated, Members may also wish to give consideration to the adoption of a Code of Practice on licence conditions in order to allay his fears. The attached draft code of practice has been drawn up by the Institute of Licensing and all its Members (of which I am one) are being encouraged to adopt it. Relevant policy paragraph(s): 4.3.2, 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 ENDS |
|
20 Mar 10 - 06:11 PM (#2868298) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Anyone who has read the Live Music Forum's report would know that the piece presented to the Committee was very carefully selected by the Licensing Manager, as supporting their position (that any form of advertising meant that an event was a licensable peformance of live music that could not benefit from the incidental exemption) as there were very few other findings in this report which they could claim to be favourable. And of course such an interpretation is not supported by the 'new' Guidance. Both the advertising in the example provided in the Live Music Forum report and in the case of the single local paper advert for the Cove House Inn session (as they did not contain a named performer) would not prevent these events from qualifying under the exemption. But getting my Licensing Authority to sensibly enforce this legislation seems beyond the power of Government Ministers, who don't appear to really care very much anyway. I suggest that ensuring that mine and other Licensing Authorities do sensibly enforce this legislation is up to those of us who do care. |
|
20 Mar 10 - 07:15 PM (#2868337) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Unfortunately the interpretation of the Act is ultimately a matter for the courts, not the minister. If a local authority is applying the Act incorrectly then the correct course of action is for the person who is being asked to obtain a licence to challenge it in the courts. Of course, this is unlikely to happen. In the meantime, the wording of the Act is so vague that an authority can make its own interpretation - indeed, it has no other option. The only other course of action is to draw these situations to the attention of the DCMS in the hope that they will clarify their guidance to cover them. Some hope. In practice, I note that the licensee of at least one of the pubs you were concerned with did in fact obtain a licence. Is there evidence that the policies of this or other authorities are preventing licences being granted for this type of music and preventing sessions from taking place? I know this was a huge concern while the bill was going through Parliament, but the actual effects since it was past don't appear to have been as bad as originally feared. |
|
20 Mar 10 - 08:54 PM (#2868375) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles In practice, I note that the licensee of at least one of the pubs you were concerned with did in fact obtain a licence. Is there evidence that the policies of this or other authorities are preventing licences being granted for this type of music and preventing sessions from taking place? I know this was a huge concern while the bill was going through Parliament, but the actual effects since it was past don't appear to have been as bad as originally feared. After much argument, The Cove House Inn eventually did pay to obtain the entertainment licence. This partly to enable the session but mainly to enable the conventional performances of exempt live music, with less than two peformers, which were held every Friday, to encompass larger groups. The New Star session in fact preceeded the Cove session. It had been running unlicensed for at least two years before the enforcement action at the Cove and the New Star session continued unlicensed for two years after the Cove enforcement had established that the New Star session also required the same licence. As this session was the only live music held there, the licensee of the New Star was not prepared to pay for an activity that had taken place without incident or complaint for over 5 years. So this session was prevented when the Council wrote a letter containing the same 'encouragement' as was earlier sent to the Cove. There is certainly evidence that the New Star session was deterred by the so-called licensing requirements and that the Council's employees were also prepared to see the Cove session end, had the licensee not taken action to save it. There is also evidence that the 5 May 2006 advice prevented the New Star session from re-starting under the benefit of the incidental exemption after the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003. Had the advice been different, I would have led it myself, as the licensee was very keen to re-start the session. The general effect on sessions of the Licensing Act 2003 has not been measured. There is no way of telling if the effect was as bad as feared and that of course depends on how bad you feared it might be. However, if sessions survive at all - we could probably agree that this is despite the clumsy legislation and its patchy enforcement, rather than from any resulting benefit? After all this time - there is still no satisfactory answer for anyone who may ask you the simple question of whether sessions are licensable or not. I would suggest that most current sessions take place only in premises that already do have Premises Licence Entertainment Permission for the provision of performances of live music and that this simply confuses the issue. |
|
20 Mar 10 - 09:59 PM (#2868407) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Non amplified music in the form of participatory folk music sessions, have always struggled to survive in our few remaining small pubs, because they are not recognised for what they are but are treated by this type of legislation and its enforcers, as if they were conventional performances of live music and presenting the same impact as if they were amplified. They also seem to overlook the fact that this approach then places session in a direct competition which they cannot win, with conventional performances of live music for available nights. A licensee who has paid to enable sessions may consider that they need to provide conventional performances on all available nights and although sessions could be legally enabled to take place - other more profitable activities would take preference. If S177 was intended to be a measure to address this, it clearly does not. This measure is impossibly convoluted and still first requires permission to be obtained, as if the activity were conventional performances of amplified live music. There are still a few smaller pubs that are unlikely to ever be thought suitable for conventional performances of live music and where permission is unlikly to ever be applied for but which would be perfect for sessions. Where permission is sought by a licensee to enable a session, there is little question that it would be granted. But the point that our enforcers miss, is that in our pubs, those who make the music (the particpating customers) cannot obtain the entertainment permission and those who can obtain the entertainment permission cannot make the music. I think this is my main objection. It should not be the case when particpating customers require licensing permission for a musical activity but are unable to obtain it and they have to depend on a third party to pay and go through the red tape for them. In the rare cases where licensees do share the customer's passion for making the music and where entertainment permission for conventionable performances of live music is not already in place, there should not be a problem in enabling a session by obtaining permission. However, as licensees do not really benefit - when push comes to shove and to paying out good money and filling in forms - often it is easier for a licensee to just end the session. Our pubs are already made safe enough so that all that should be required to enable the public to entertain themselves in live music is the licensee's agreement. It is the case with pool, darts and quiz nights - so why not with live music? |
|
21 Mar 10 - 06:00 AM (#2868477) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Thanks for producing evidence of a session which has been stopped by the legislation. This was of course a great concern while the bill was going through, but in practice it appears that most pubs which held sessions simply included music in their new licence application which they had to make anyway, when there would have been no additional cost. The difficulty arises with new venues which don't already have a licence for music, or with venues like the New Star which, for whatever reason, did not seek a music licence at the time. The simplest solution is of course to make all small performances of unamplified music unregulated, and I this is of course what the latest proposals are intended to achieve. However as usual they appear so convoluted that one wonders whether they will in fact achieve this aim. It occurs to me that a useful addition to the DCMS's guidance would be to consider whether licensing is necessary to achieve the licensing objectives set out in the Act. If a session is not causing nuisance, disturbance or a threat to public order, what is achieved by licensing it? There should be a presumption against requiring a licence, at least for small unamplified events. |
|
21 Mar 10 - 06:38 AM (#2868492) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The simplest solution is of course to make all small performances of unamplified music unregulated, and I this is of course what the latest proposals are intended to achieve. It may be that effect of what is proposed may have the practical result that the performance of non-amplified music in some premises will be free from any the requirement of any additional entertainment licensing - but there is no proposal to exempt all non-amplified live music. One does exist for non amplified music as part of a performance of Morris dancing and this could easily be extended to cover all non-amplified live music. However such an extension is not proposed. It is unlikely that there will be one as we are still stuck with S177 - even though it has proved to be of no use to anyone. The DCMS have yet to admit this and probably never will. |
|
21 Mar 10 - 07:17 AM (#2868506) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Thanks for producing evidence of a session which has been stopped by the legislation. This was of course a great concern while the bill was going through, but in practice it appears that most pubs which held sessions simply included music in their new licence application which they had to make anyway, when there would have been no additional cost. Technically the New Star session was stopped under the old legislation - but it was prevented from re-starting under the licensing Act 2003. It remains to be seen if pubs that have permission for performances of live music can also cover the provision of facilties to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing. In the specific case of dancing I really doubt that any Licensing Authority would accept that permission for performances of live music would cover the provision of anything provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in dancing. And I am not sure if any distinction can be made that would permit a Licensing Autority to exempt the provision of facilities for the public to entertain themselves in music, whilst still having to make licensable the provision of facilities for the public to entertain themselves in dancing. |
|
21 Mar 10 - 07:28 AM (#2868512) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Entertainment facilities 3 (1) In this Schedule, "entertainment facilities" means facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment of a description falling within sub-paragraph (2) for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of being entertained. (2) The descriptions of entertainment are— (a) making music, (b) dancing, (c) entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (a) or (b). (3) This paragraph is subject to Part 3 of this Schedule (interpretation). |
|
21 Mar 10 - 01:24 PM (#2868674) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The difficulty arises with new venues which don't already have a licence for music, or with venues like the New Star which, for whatever reason, did not seek a music licence at the time. I think we have fallen into the way that our Government wants us to think. Even if in practice, the Licensing Act 2003 and the previous legislation requiring additional entertainment licensing, had not adversly affected sessions or any other form of live music in any recordable way - the whole out-dated concept still places a risk of losing valuable music and for no real purpose. Sessions are really valuable in many ways but their success is already subject to enough problems without the additional burden presented by licensing legislation and those who are employed to enforce it in order to deal with activities involving complex social interactions that they don't really understand. Those of us who do understand have a responsiblity to ensure that those who need to be informed are never able to rest until sessions and all forms of live music are safe from the needless red-tape that will strangle it - if we just sit back and let it. |
|
22 Mar 10 - 05:18 AM (#2869104) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles We have tended to concentrate on sessions but what is the effect on other activities of Entertainment Facilities? Open mics, for example? Even where the fact that open mics are licensable as a performance of live music to an audience may be overlooked, the provision of the mic and PA are certainly to enable the public to entertain themelves in music. So all open mic nights are licensable. House concerts? Even where the fact that house concerts are licensable as a performance of live music may be overlooked and where no PA is provided, the provision of the house to enable the public to entertain themselves in music is licensable as an Entertainment Facility - or it certainly would be, should the Licensing Authority want to prevent or licence the House Concert. Although as our friends at the DCMS point out, something meets the criteia and is licensable, or it does not meet the criteia and it is not licensable and there is no discretion. Except when out friends at the DCMS also tell us that premises provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing may or may not be licensable as Entertainment Facilities but are none too clear on the details. It is little wonder then that those who are paid to locally enforce this legislation just do as they think best. |
|
22 Mar 10 - 08:02 AM (#2869167) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following is from my submission to the consultation. The numbers refer to the questions asked, which you can see linked to earler in this thread. It is important that your thoughts are made known and your submission would need to be in by 26 March 2010. 1. I am concerned that what is proposed in the draft, does not appear to exempt any Entertainment Facilities and will only apply to the provision of performances of live music and not to the provision of any facilities to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing which is not to any size of audience, and will not apply to associated facilities provided to enable the exempted performance. The proposed exemption should not be limited to 'performances' but should also apply to anything provided, (including the premises or the land on which it takes place) to enable the public entertain themselves in music and dancing. Other exemptions are not limited to inside a permanent building and there should be some consistency shown the Act's exemptions. For example, the exemption for Morris dancing applies whether the activity takes place inside or outside. If the reason for this proposed limitation is that amplified music in temporary buildings or gardens etc. is thought to offer more risk of excessive noise, this proposed limitation would also apply and would prevent non-amplified music in temporary buildings or gardens when this is unlikely to present any form of noise concern. Noise from all sources, is already addressed by the Environmental Protection Act and would apply whether Entertainment Permission were in place or not, in temporary buildings or gardens etc. There is no need to present a risk to non-amplified music by duplication in this licensing legislation, as this cannot ever give licensing permission for excessive noise. The situation is further complicated by this proposal, for the provision of anything to enable the public to enter themselves in music and dancing which are licensable as Entertainment Facilities, because the activity is not one which is provided for any number of people or audience. Any exemption based on the size of an audience will not be able to benefit facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, which is not a performance to any size of audience. As this includes making the premises available for the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing, this proposal will still mean that the public entertaining themselves in music and dancing, will still be licensable, when paid performance and Entertainment Facilities associated with this performance, to a specified audience size, will be exempt. 2. Perhaps LACORS and the LGA could demonstrate at exactly what figure audience size in fixed premises, reaches the point where other existing legislation is not sufficient to ensure the licensing objectives? Then - rather than a minimum figure being set for an exemption, a maximum figure can be set at which additional Entertainment Licensing would then be necessary to be introduced in order to ensure the licensing objectives? This would leave fixed premises alone - with their existing safe capacity limits and risk assessments but would apply to temporary field/festival sites for large gatherings - where there may still be an argument for there to be a need for some form of additional entertainment licensing. 4. Other exemptions are not subject to curfews and there should be some consistency shown in the Act's exemptions. If the reason for this condition is in part that amplified live music between 11pm and 8am is thought to offer more risk of excessive noise, this proposed limitation would also apply and would prevent non-amplified music when this is unlikely to present any form of noise concern. Noise from all sources, is already addressed by the Environmental Protection Act and would apply whether Entertainment Permission were in place or not, for outside live music . There is no need to present a risk to non-amplified music by duplication in this licensing legislation, as this cannot ever give licensing permission for excessive noise The danger of this type of curfew is that live music is used by Licensing Authorities as a bargaining position. In practice, a curfew on live music is offered to residents by a licensee and the Licensing Authority as a sacrifice to enable alcohol to be served for a longer period. In places where alcohol is served, live music should not be subject to special licensing conditions and should continue until closing time or unless the licensee decides to end it sooner. There is no reason why all live music should be singled-out for imposed curfews of this type and all live music should be able to continue until all fixed premises close. It is bad enough that the provision of unlicensed live music is now subject to the same penalties as the provision of unlicensed alcohol. It is not acceptable that the provision of live music, with all of its benefits should be sacrificed to enable the provision of alcohol, with all of its problems. It would make far more sense if the provision of live music was encouraged for longer and for any curfews to be placed on the provision of alcohol. 5. Nothing is proposed here to enable a formal process by which the public can challenge interpretations advised by those employed to enforce this legislation and to include yet another process to enable objectors, is demonstrating a clear bias and overkill. 7. There is no need for any formal process here. Any redundant conditions can simply be suspended, like the S177 measures, until an opportunity is presented where the redundant conditions can be removed at no cost to the licensee. This should be the case where any other illegal conditions have been agreed and applied by a Licensing Authority. 10. No one can be adversely affected by this proposal as other existing legislation is still protecting the public whether Entertainment Permission is in place, whether an exemption applies or whether an activity is not in fact licensable. If other legislation was not considered not to be sufficient - then this proposal would not have been made and the fact that the proposal exists, demonstrates that other legislation is considered to be sufficient. A formal process is required by which the public adversely affected by these, can challenge interpretations advised by those employed to enforce this legislation . 11. The proposal includes an exclusion process which itself implies that some form of protection is being removed and can be replaced by this process. No protection is in fact being removed as other existing legislation is still in place whether Entertainment Permission is in place, whether an exemption is in place or whether an activity is not in fact licensable. 12. In addition to performance, the public have the right to freely express or entertain themselves in music and dancing. What is proposed, as it applies only to performances of live music, will not prevent the Licensing Act 2003 from preventing this right by making anything provided to enable this, including the premises or land on which it takes place, to be a licensable Entertainment Facility. 13. The proposal ignores and is not extended to cover the unconstitutional and discriminatory nature of legislation which only requires facilities provided to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing to be licensable Entertainment Facilities, when this does not apply to the public entertaining themselves in any of the other activities listed in Schedule 1 of the Act or in activities which do not. ENDS |
|
22 Mar 10 - 08:15 AM (#2869175) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shamble Full details in this PDF. http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/condoc_exemptsmall_livemusicevents.pdf |
|
22 Mar 10 - 05:41 PM (#2869542) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This consultation document refers to : "It was proposed that any problems arising from the exempt live music could be dealt with through penalties available under other legislation, such as on the spot fines for noise under environmental health legislation." The obvious question then is - as this other legislation can deal with problems arising from the exempt live music - why are LACORS and the LGA insisting that the red tape, uncertainty and expense of additional entertainment licensing is still necessary and why is the Government accepting what is so obviously nonsense? |
|
23 Mar 10 - 12:52 PM (#2870112) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I asked an received the following today. EFDSS is responding to this consultation and has already responded to the earlier one (26 February). Both will be posted on the Society's web site in due course. Mike Wilson-Jones EFDSS Trustee/Director ENDS http://www.efdss.org/ |
|
23 Mar 10 - 12:59 PM (#2870121) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles My MP wrote to the current Minister on my behalf and received the following. January 2010 [received 1 January 2010] Dear Jim Thank you for your letter of 8 December, on behalf of your constituent, Mr Roger Gall, of …. Portland Dorset …., about the Licensing Act 2003 and impromptu gatherings of musicians in public places such a public houses. In our amended Guidance to licensing authorities (section 3.24), we have advised that the spontaneous performance of music, singing or dancing does not amount to the provision of regulated entertainment and is not a licensable activity. As the 2003 Act has devolved responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the licensing regime to individual licensing authorities, based at city, district or borough councils, it would be for them to interpret the Act in the first instance and determine in each case whether an entertainment was genuinely spontaneous. The Government wants to encourage the growth of live music. You may be aware that we have recently launched a consultation on an exemption for small live music events. Mr Gall can find details of this on our website http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/consultations/6499.aspx This consultation seeks views on a proposal to exempt live music events for audiences of not more than 100 people from the requirements of the 2003 Act. It also seeks views on the draft Legislative Reform Order and impact Assessment. The closing date for responses is 26 March. I would encourage Mr Gall to write in connection with this consultation. Gerry Sutciffe Minister for Sport |
|
23 Mar 10 - 01:16 PM (#2870130) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles As the 2003 Act has devolved responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the licensing regime to individual licensing authorities, based at city, district or borough councils, it would be for them to interpret the Act in the first instance and determine in each case whether an entertainment was genuinely spontaneous. This Council's view is that the gatherings went beyond spontaneous and required licensing for the following reasons: a) They were held on a regular weekly basis b) They were advertised on a notice board outside the premises c) They were publicised in the Dorset Echo d) At the time the "two in a bar rule" was in existence but there were 5 musicians playing. This is one of the best examples of the buck-passing encouraged by locally devolved legislation like the Licensing Act 2003. No takes responsibility when presented with a problem as long as the issue blame can be passed on. From the above the only thing that is clear is that no one is any the wiser but the problem which has been presented to sessions by the local interpretation of licensing legislation - still remains. |
|
25 Mar 10 - 06:55 AM (#2871399) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles See also the thread on House Concerts in the UK. thread.cfm?threadid=100866&messages=53 |
|
26 Mar 10 - 08:48 AM (#2872367) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Those who have made a submission to this consultation, whether they fully understand what is proposed or not, can at least be satisfied that they have made their views known and have done their bit.......................My thanks to them. We now just have to wait and see. |
|
26 Mar 10 - 09:21 AM (#2872395) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Submission from the Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/welwynhatfieldsubmisson.pdf |
|
26 Mar 10 - 09:48 AM (#2872406) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum's answer to Question 14 - is informative and shows exactly what we are up against. |
|
26 Mar 10 - 09:53 AM (#2872407) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This is part of that answer. A press release dated 11 Dec 2009 http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=6467844 claimed that: 'Proposals to allow pubs and bars to put on live music without the need for a licence could lead to a massive increase in noise problems, council leaders warned today, as a survey was published into the possible impacts of planned changes to the 2003 Licensing Act.' This claim was reported in the Daily Mail and posted by the LGA on various Local Government websites such as The Local Government Executive, Information Portal for the Public Sector, and also the Neighbourhood Watch. It has since become clear that the LGA survey was not properly conducted, and the results subjected to further 'interpretation' when issued to the press. In fact, the survey was not of 'council leaders' but of random replies to emails sent to licensing officers. Replies were in fact anonymous, so LACORS cannot tell if there were multiple replies on behalf of one council, or in fact whether the respondents were council employees at all. Bona fide research does not use self-selecting samples. The word 'massive' was not used in the survey – this was an invention of the LGA press release. Unfortunately this 'information' has been distributed to Licensing Authorities who in turn have advised Licensing Officers of these 'facts'. See East Devon council for an example http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/google/knowledge_181209_issue_31.pdf We support calls by Conservative shadow culture team for DCMS to abandon this consultation on the grounds that consultees may have been misled. |
|
27 Mar 10 - 07:21 AM (#2873120) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Given the advice offered by its employees, there is some irony in the following from my Licenisng Authority's SOLP. 4.3.2 In its role of implementing local authority cultural strategies, the Council recognises the need to encourage and promote live music, dance and theatre for the wider cultural benefit of the community, particularly for children. |
|
27 Mar 10 - 08:43 AM (#2873175) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones My own authority's licensing policy (East Cheshire) includes this: "The Licensing Authority recognises that as part of implementing local authority cultural strategies, proper account should be taken of the need to encourage and promote a broad range of entertainment, particularly live music, dancing and theatre, including the performance of a wide range of traditional and historic plays for the wider cultural benefit of communities. The Licensing Authority recognises the need for a balance the cultural needs with the necessity of promoting the licensing objectives." Interesting to see the reference to traditional plays. There is a strong tradition around here of mummers' plays, pace egging, souling, etc. However it is perhaps significant that despite the Government's insistence that the Act was intended to encourage live music and other cultural activities, this is not one of the the Licensing Objectives set out in the Act, which are: · The prevention of crime and disorder; · Public safety; · The prevention of public nuisance; and · The protection of children from harm All very laudable in their way, but all very negative rather than positive in their approach. |
|
27 Mar 10 - 02:38 PM (#2873412) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following is from the S 182 Guidance. CULTURAL STRATEGIES 13.57 In connection with cultural strategies, licensing policy statements should include clearly worded statements indicating that they will monitor the impact of licensing on the provision of regulated entertainment, and particularly live music and dancing, for example, by considering whether premises that provide live music or culture are represented on licensing stakeholder forums, and ensuring that local cultural officers are regularly consulted about the impact on local culture. Where appropriate, town centre managers have an important role in coordinating live music events in town centres and can be an important source of information. 13.58 Care will be needed to ensure that only necessary, proportionate and reasonable licensing conditions impose any restrictions on these events. Where there is any indication that events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. Broader cultural activities and entertainment may also be affected. In developing their statements of licensing policy, licensing authorities should also consider any views of the local authority's arts committee, where one exists. Given the above, it really should be the case that there is little point in licensing employees risking deterring them by insisting that cultural activities like sessions etc. need a third party to license them. For if there is any indication of this - the S182 Guidance requires the local licensing requirement to be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. It seem pretty clear that Licensing Authorities are not being correctly advised by their employees. My last enquiry about the local cultural strategy was met with - 'we don't do them any more'. |
|
27 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM (#2873415) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles "The Licensing Authority recognises the need for a balance the cultural needs with the necessity of promoting the licensing objectives." In practice, There pretty obviously is no such balance at the local enforcement level. These statements are simply paying lip-sevice only.......... |
|
29 Mar 10 - 04:18 AM (#2874459) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles A good example of this lip-service is this answer from the http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/welwynhatfieldsubmisson.pdf Question 10: Do you agree that the proposal, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it? Yes/No. If No, please explain why. No. Musicians who are employed at licensed premises are generally prohibited from making representations at licensing hearings. In failing to address this unfairness, this consultation is in potential conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998: 1. Local authorities are 'public authorities' for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998. 2. Under s3 of the HRA public authorities are obliged to interpret ALL legislation so far as possible compatibly with the European Convention rights now incorporated into UK law including Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly). 3. Under s6 of the HRA public authorities must not act in breach of human rights unless primary or secondary legislation obliges them to do so. 4. The performance of live music falls within Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). 5. The rights of residents to object to live music fall within Article 8 - respect for private and family life. 6. Rights under Articles 10 and 8 are qualified rights: both are subject to restrictions, subject to a range of conditions, including protecting the freedoms of others. In other words, where these rights are in competition, a fair balance must be struck. But any control on the exercise of Article 10 must be 'necessary to meet a pressing social need' and must be proportionate to the need. Furthermore, it is highly relevant that LACORS guidelines for Licensing Committee Hearings advise that cultural considerations 'will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives'. This is in clear conflict with the Human Rights Act. Evidence given by DCMS to the DCMS Select Committee in 2008 claimed that the Licensing Act carefully balanced the needs of residents with cultural requirements. This evidence was not completely accurate as it failed to take account of LACORS guidelines. The proposal contains no reference at all to the cultural benefits of live music. Music is only mentioned in connection with noise and crime. |
|
29 Mar 10 - 06:47 AM (#2874523) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=14268 I didn't seem to be able to link to the recently updated LACORS document itself - the above link refers to a local Milton Keynes version but the words are the same. 8. Decision making Reasons for decisions made must be clearly documented so that any subsequent accusations of bias etc. can be defended. It is critical that it is clear that decisions are made according to the Licensing Objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 as well as the Licensing Authority's Licensing Policy Statement. Whilst the Government's Guidance accompanying the Licensing Act 2003 indicates some other factors which may influence decisions (e.g. live music / cultural considerations) these will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives and the Licensing Policy Statement. LACORS "Committee Guidance" will be available shortly. It is deeply disturbing that those employed to local enforce this type of legislation seem to follow and incorporate into their documents - such advice as this from LACORS - rather than follow the law....... No wonder then that any input on cultural concerns, even from those employed in the same local authority to enforce this, will be ignored and considered subservient to the Licensing Objectives. This would also seem to apply to Human Rights factors, even when their own policy statement makes specific reference to these. This from my SOLP. 4.1.4 The Council acknowledges the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. As LACORS advise that any decision must be based on both the Licensing Objectives and the Licensing Authority's Licensing Policy Statement - we have a problem................. |
|
29 Mar 10 - 06:54 AM (#2874530) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I had forgotten that the reason that 4 1.4 appears in our SOLP - is that I made the suggestion for it to be added there, this in my first submission to the public consultation. Rather surprisingly my suggestion was accepted - but no one seems to have noticed that it does appear or pay any attention to it.............. |
|
30 Mar 10 - 04:45 AM (#2875379) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles From the S182 Guidance Where there is any indication that events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. From the LACORS guidance Whilst the Government's Guidance accompanying the Licensing Act 2003 indicates some other factors which may influence decisions (e.g. live music / cultural considerations) these will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives and the Licensing Policy Statement. How can these two pieces of guidance/advice be reconciled? What authority has LACORS to advise local authority employees and councillors, that LACORS advice will take priority over what appears in the Statutory S 182 Guidance? Why will local authority employees willingly follow LACORS advice when they do not follow the will of Parliament and the words of Government Ministers and what does this situation say about our so called-democratic processes? Is this a mess or is this a mess? |
|
30 Mar 10 - 05:21 AM (#2875402) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Dennis the Elder You can say that again! |
|
30 Mar 10 - 12:18 PM (#2875684) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles OK - is this a mess or is this a mess? Or a Shambles. The following is a tweet today, from the LGA. LGACulture LGA Conference hears that Local Govt provides both "routes to culture" but also the "roots of culture" I suggest that the LGA would not recognise culture if it were to rear up and bite them on the bum. They could well be described as the 'roadblock to culture'. It is a bit like the line about life being what happens to you, while you are making plans. Culture is what about what still manages to happen, despite the plans that oganisations like the LGA are making for it. |
|
30 Mar 10 - 12:28 PM (#2875695) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Clear evidence that DCMS 'statistics' have unduly influenced Licensing Authority responses to the licensing consultation. Again this is in open defiance of UK Statistics Authority's recommendations. Waveney Council claim that 'there is no statistical... evidence that live music is being deterred'.See Morehttp://www.waveney.gov.uk/agendas/2010/march/licensing/item4appc.doc „h We are very strongly of the view, from our experience in this district that live music is NOT being deterred by the provisions of the Act, our local policy or decisions made by members or delegated officers. The majority of licensed premises in our area had a live music permission of some description, and the Temporary Event Notice (TEN) system is well used for authorising live music activities (many TENS are also seeking alcohol and other regulated entertainment permissions). A significant number of pubs and other venues in our area have successfully varied their licences, to diversify, since the Act came in and it seems that live music activities are actually thriving. We are also seeing a noticeable increase in large outdoor live music events, taking advantage of more flexible licensing arrangements, for example the latitude festival. The feedback we get is that it is now generally much easier to apply for and gain music permissions than it was under the previous Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) system. The exemption proposal seems to be a further unnecessary amendment to the Act, and surprising in view of: (a) the widely expressed Police, Local Authority (LA), Environmental Health and Licensing Practitioner concerns submitted in respect of the similar exemption proposals in 2008; and (b) there is no statistical evidence that live music is being deterred. The unspecified ¡¥anecdotal¡¦ instances of deterrence referred to in the consultation paper are in our view likely to be exceptional and unusual occurrences rather than normal practice. |
|
30 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM (#2875722) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I wonder who the anonymous 'key members' of Waveney Council are and what members of the public they consulted before speaking on behalf of all of them in this submission? The '100 max audience limit' raises several key issues including (a) how is the 'individual on merit' and 'in the vicinity' emphasis of the Act being supported by an exclusion of this nature which gives no assessment of the premises build, locality, complaint history or control measures?; (b) setting a 100 capacity is arbitrary as it is often the location of the venue that is the critical factor and there is no consideration for the nature/style of the live music - clearly in a residential or noise sensitive area unamplified folk music by two performers until 11pm is going to be very low risk when compared to a drum 'n' bass or rock band activity in the same venue and with a same sized audience. The above sounds reasonable until you realise that whoever wrote it, offers no solution and is still quite happy for the unamplified folk music, which they accept to be low risk, to continue to be subject to exactly the same licensing requirement as if it were drum 'n' bass or rock band activity in the same venue and with a same sized audience. They also ignore completly the fact that existing Environmental legislation will still deal with any actual noise, from any source and that this would be their own advice to the premises should they manage to licence any of these activities. |
|
30 Mar 10 - 06:33 PM (#2876011) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Ipswich Council's submission is identical to Waveney Council's effort!!! http://www.ipswich.gov.uk/downloads/LR-09-23_Proposal_to_Exempt_Small_Live_Music_Events_from_L….pdf |
|
30 Mar 10 - 06:36 PM (#2876013) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I think that somewhere there must be a LACORS guide for licensing officers - on the party-line way to make a submission to this consultation. |
|
30 Mar 10 - 07:04 PM (#2876034) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/ Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 –March 2010 Published Date: 30/Mar/2010 The s.182 Guidance has been revised to take account of the new mandatory conditions commencing on 6 April, which impose a duty on those who manage licensed premises and clubs to prohibit irresponsible promotions and prohibit one person from dispensing alcohol directly into the mouth of another; they also require those who manage licensed premises and clubs to provide free tap water to customers on request. |
|
31 Mar 10 - 04:42 AM (#2876273) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I think that somewhere there must be a LACORS guide for licensing officers - on the party-line way to make a submission to this consultation. I was joking but - I found this. http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/static.aspx?N=0&Ne=0+2000+3000+4000+5000+6000+7000+8000+9000+10000+11000&groupid=6 |
|
31 Mar 10 - 09:39 AM (#2876457) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall The Local Government Association and its partner LACORS ('promoting quality regulation') have published their joint response to the DCMS consultation on an entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs: http://www.lacors.gov.uk/LACORS/upload/24168.pdf The consultation closed last Friday, 26 March. Predictably, the proposed exemption is rejected by LGA/Lacors as 'unworkable' and 'disproportionate'. But the document includes one notable concession: 'The LGA Group does support exemptions for schools and hospitals...'. It then wrongly claims that these venues 'were not previously required to hold a live music licence.' Under the previous entertainment licensing regime, public performances of live music were licensable in such places, and indeed almost anywhere else - as they are today. Private charity fund-raising gigs were exempt, however - unlike today. But even this LGA concession is qualified: 'We will work with government and partners to develop balanced exemption criteria.' How gracious. The response continues in paranoid mode: 'A poll of council licensing officers carried out by the LGA Group found that 9 out of 10 think the exemption would lead to an increase in complaints about noise and nuisance. More than half said they expected the increase to be considerable.' [Key Messages] No mention, of course, that noise nuisance is already regulated by separate legislation. 'Councils' role is to balance the needs of the whole community, including local businesses and local residents. Opposing this exemption is not about saying "no" to live music. Councils want to be able to say "yes", confident that local people have been considered as part of the process.' [Key Messages] '... the right of councillors to make decisions relating to local licensed premises is an important feature of local democracy and therefore the proposal may have constitutional significance in that it undermines local decision making.' [Response point 17] It is true then: councils want to micro-manage virtually all local live music, and they see this as their right. One particularly batty LGA proposal is that premises already licensed for live music should be excluded from any exemption (response point 9). Many already licensed venues are subject to unjustifiably restrictive conditions, including 2- and 3-performer limits. If implemented, this LGA idea would create two classes of venue based on an arbitrary distinction: one subject to many unnecessary restrictions; the other free of those restrictions and with a potentially commercial advantage. This would inevitably lead to conflict and legal challenges. The abiding impression created by the LGA is that relaxing licensing control for small gigs would unleash the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. But no evidence of the imminent stampede is produced. Surprisingly, other evidence often cited by the LGA is also conspicuous by its absence. This is the DCMS 'evidence' that live music is 'thriving'. Until now, citing dodgy DCMS live music statistics has been a favourite LGA lobbying tactic. Could it be that the LGA knows something we don't about the UK Statistics Authority investigation into recent DCMS live music claims? The LGA response is .... more research! Yes, they call on the government to 'commission further detailed research' which would establish, among other things: 'How much unmet latent demand for live music in small venues there is (amongst the public, performers and venue owners)' (response point 14). It is not clear what contribution this knowledge would make to the debate. Is the LGA is suggesting that if such demand is low, it would reinforce their case against a small gigs exemption, and justify a regulatory regime that criminalises the unlicensed provision of one musician in a bar or restaurant, even if there are no complaints? Of course this LGA submission does not speak for all, or indeed any, individual local authority. It is based on the view of a relatively small number of licensing officers and a few officials within the LGA and Lacors. In fact, there is support within some local authorities for a small gigs exemption, as this City of York council response demonstrates (see point 7): http://democracy.york.gov.uk/Published/C00000606/M00004948/AI00018745/$ExemptSmallLiveMusicEventsreport.docA.ps.pdf ENDS |
|
31 Mar 10 - 10:00 AM (#2876468) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The City of York's Point 7. Licensing / Education, Art and Culture The Head's of City of York Council's Licensing Department and The Department of Education, Art and Culture fully support the Government's proposal to exempt small live music events from audiences of not more than 100 people. The Without Walls vision statement for York states "York wants to be seen as an inclusive, lively and active city, with a strong international profile. To do this we will be supporting the creative industries, such as music, craft, and film as well as the provision of festival in the city and sports opportunity". Whilst there is the potential for an increase in noise nuisance, it is believed the power to revoke an exemption at a specific premise if there are problems arising from the live music event will protect residents but more importantly, will send a strong message of support to local business and tourism. |
|
31 Mar 10 - 10:24 AM (#2876488) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following is York city's officers answer to Question 9 No, the proposals are most definitely in favour of the licensees and against the interests of local residents. The proposals would allow an effective free for all up until 11pm. Most licensed premises were not designed for live music and have insufficient sound attenuation. Exemptions could be made for those premises that are well insulated and managed. Not sure if these officers have actually asked any local residents. The so-called free for all referred to and feared - is the way things were for many years, when the two-in-a-bar-rule exempted the majority of live music peformance taking place in pubs. I have not seen any evidence or indeed any comment from the local government lobby that any local residents have suffered from that free for all, before or after its abolition. LACORS claims to be 'promoting quality regulation' but what is clearly shown by these submissions is that what is feared the most by this lobby - is for council employees to be seen to lose any form of regulatory control - even when it is costly, inconsistent, damaging and largely a duplication of other existing legislation. |
|
31 Mar 10 - 10:41 AM (#2876498) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from the local govenment lobby submission. LACORS wishes to make explicit its offer to liaise with individual licensing authorities to overcome any issues that have been identified by performers or venue owners as representing an unreasonable barrier to live music. I am surprised that they consider that there would be any issues to overcome as everthing, according to them, is going so swimmingly. I will let you know what they say when I write and ask them to liaise with my licensing authority............ |
|
31 Mar 10 - 12:14 PM (#2876547) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040631&c=1 13:15 | Wednesday March 31, 2010 By Robert Ashton UK Music has asked Licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe to get behind Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill now that the Government's own small venues consultation has closed. |
|
31 Mar 10 - 06:26 PM (#2876893) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Key Messages · The LGA Group, and councils, have worked closely with government, the live music industry and the licensed trade to make it easier for both performers and premises to put on live music within the current licensing regime. Many of the objections to the proposed exemption contained in this LGA Group submission apply equally to the incidental exemption, which has been part of the Act since its introduction. There is no evidence that the LGA Group has worked closely with anyone since this introduction, to ensure that live music was made easier by the use of this exemption. Even when many Licensing Authorities were experiencing difficulty in understanding how to make any practical use of this exemption, it was only in November 2009 that the LGA group (along with others) made any serious attempt at this. It is partly because of the failure of the LGA Group to recognise the existence of the incidental exemption, before it was too late, that the current proposal is now thought to be necessary. Perhaps the LGA group may have considered the incidental exemption to be as "unworkable in practice and a disproportionate" as they now consider the proposed exemption to be in this submission? Perhaps this was the reason why they waited some four years before making any serious attempt to issue guidance to Licensing Authorities to ensure that live music was made easier by the use of this exemption? This was less a case of bolting the door after the horse has bolted - more a case of the horse starving to death waiting for the door to be unlocked. Many of the premise which could have benefited from this exemption, were either forced to obtain Entertainment Permission or have long ago given up on the idea of providing any form of live music. There is also no evidence that the LGA Group has worked closely with anyone since this introduction, to ensure that the provision of small scale non-amplified live music was made easier by the use of S 177. In fact, the LGA Group insist on continuing with regulation which makes no distinction between non-amplified and amplified live music and which places non-amplified live music at risk when it presents no risk to the licensing objectives. ENDS |
|
01 Apr 10 - 03:03 AM (#2877142) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles · The LGA Group is opposed to the introduction of de minimis exemptions for live music, however. Audience size alone is not a viable means of determining whether or not a particular performance of live music will contravene one of the licensing act objectives1. Size would appear to matter when the LGA Group wish it to matter but would not appear to matter when they do not wish it to matter. This objection would equally apply to the incidental exemption or indeed most if not all of the Act's many other exemptions, which may also not be a viable means of determining whether or not a articular performance of live music will contravene one of the licensing act objectives. However laudable the LGA Group's intention may be, to ensure that the licensing objectives are not contravened in advance, common sense should tell us that this is not always possible and that the attempt to address every potential problem comes at a cost that not everyone is prepared to pay. To treat every activity in advance as if it is presenting a potential risk to the licensing objectives is to place at equal risk many activities that do not. Planning legislation deals with averting potential problems and there is no need for expensive duplication of this for the provision of live music. It is not as if the concept of a de minimis exemption is new and the world did not end for all the years that the two-in-a-bar rule was in place in our pubs. This suggest that the LGA Group's opposition here is not based on any real concern for the public's well-being. Perhaps the LGA Group should consult those they represent before announcing any opposition to a re-introduction of a de minimis exemption. This stance alone is enough to alarm the public and as it is not a stance based on evidence, it is not one the LGA Group as responsible body should be expressing |
|
01 Apr 10 - 01:52 PM (#2877516) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles · A poll of council licensing officers carried out by the LGA Group found that 9 out of 10 think the exemption would lead to an increase in complaints about noise and nuisance. More than half said they expected the increase to be considerable. As such, we believe the proposed exemption is contentious. If the proposed exemption is at all contentious, it is important to note the direction of that contention and establish if it is at all valid. What is reported is here is what some licensing officers may think. And even if there were to be an actual increase in complaints about noise and nuisance - so what? Again what some people who complain may think, is just that and beyond any control. The only complaints that should be concerning the LGA Group, are those that are proved to be valid on investigation. The licensing objectives do not currently include reducing the number of complaints. There is no onus on the LGA Group to reduce the number of complaints. The quantity of complaints being made may not reflect any corresponding increase in noise or nuisance but could be reflecting many other factors, such as the attitudes of Licensing Authorities actually encouraging complaints to be made by scare-mongering tactics, such as the type of objections being made in this submission. Again it is not as if the concept of a de minimis exemption is new and the world did not end for all the years that the two-in-a-bar rule was in place. No corresponding reduction in the quantity of complaints seems to have been reported since the abolition of the two-in-a-bar rule, so there would seem to be little real concern for a resulting increase caused by this proposal. This suggest that the LGA Group's opposition here is not based on any real concern for the public's well-being. This stance alone is enough to alarm the public and as it is not a stance based on evidence, it is not one the LGA Group, as a responsible body should be expressing? The same concern about anticipating the level of and urgently addressing potential and actual complaints, is not one shown when the complaint or concern is from members of the public and is about the local interpretations and resulting enforcement actions taken by licensing officers and the adverse effect of these on live music. Obtaining any satisfaction in these circumstances is unlikely and considered to be outside of the process described by the LGA Group as the democratically accountable licensing regime. |
|
01 Apr 10 - 06:42 PM (#2877711) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles · Councils' role is to balance the needs of the whole local community, including local businesses and local residents. Opposing this exemption is not about saying "no" to live music. Councils want to be able to say "yes", confident that local people have been considered as part of the process. The LGA Group's opposition to this proposal is certainly not the only area where musicians feel implacably opposed by this lobby. The many people who appreciate live music are also part of the whole local community and musicians are also local businesses but it would be fair to say that they do not feel that the LGA Group include them in any balanced process and do not detect much indication of the LGA Group wanting to say yes to live music. The LGA Group may say yes to being able to regulate live music. The report of the Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum, July 2009 shows that even where this Council would be seen to have said yes to live music, this is not the whole story and covers up a whole list of questionable licensing conditions. It could well prove to be that as much damage and limitation is being done to the live music that is licensed, as it is to the live music being prevented, damaged and limited for lack of a licence. The LGA Group proudly refers to being subject to the 'democratically accountable licensing regime' - perhaps it can establish in Welwyn Hatfield, exactly how democratic and accountable this regime really is in practice. |
|
01 Apr 10 - 06:51 PM (#2877716) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles · The LGA Group does support exemptions for schools and hospitals, which were not previously required to hold a live music licence. We will work with government and partners to develop balanced exemption criteria. Over half of the pubs did not previously hold a live music licence when the two-in-the-bar rule was in place. This rule only applied in in premises already licensed to sell alcohol and recognised that pubs were already made safe for small scale live music. By what logic and on what evidence do the LGA Group claim these pubs should be excluded from this proposed exemption when they say they support exemptions for schools and hospitals? |
|
01 Apr 10 - 06:56 PM (#2877723) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles · Without a rigorous evidence base that shows the extent of the unmet latent demand for live music licenses, no assessment of the balance of costs and benefits from the proposed exemption can be made. It is naïve to ask councillors voluntarily to surrender local peoples' right to a democratically accountable licensing regime in these circumstances. The two-in-a-bar rule permitted small scale live music but was abolished without a rigorous evidence base. There is no demand for live music licenses, unmet, latent or otherwise, except from the LGA Group. It is irresponsible for the LGA Group to continue the pretence that additional entertainment licensing for fixed premises is the only or the most effective way the public's interests can be protected from the risks they claim to be associated with live music. As reported in the consultation document, in 2008, the Government proposed that any problems arising from the exempt live music could be dealt with through penalties available under other legislation, such as on the spot fines for noise under environmental health legislation. No evidence is presented by the LGA Group to show an opposite position. |
|
01 Apr 10 - 07:02 PM (#2877724) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles · The LGA Group suggests that government should commission further detailed research to establish: o how much unmet latent demand for live music in small venues there is (amongst the public, performers and venue owners); o the extent to which the licensing regime is a factor in this demand remaining unmet; o the extent to which other factors prevent demand from being met; o the extent to which the minor variations LRO, introduced in July 2009, is being used to license premises for live music, and; o whether the number of gigs in small venues has increased or decreased in recent years in relation to the number of potential venues. I suggest that when regulation for the sake of regulation, sounds as sweet to the ears of the LGA Group as music does to ours - we may as well be on different planets. I also suggest to the government that they work out how much money will be saved by abolishing the whole outdated concept of additional entertainment licensing. I further suggest that the government should suggest that the LGA Group supply some detailed research of their own to support their entrenched opposition to the implementation of recommendations based on the findings, in respect of live music, that the government have already either commissioned themselves or been presented with and on which this proposed exemption is based. |
|
01 Apr 10 - 07:08 PM (#2877727) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles · Should this exemption be pursued, premises that are already licensed for live music under the Licensing Act 2003, and premises that have had a permission to provide live music revoked following a review of a premises licence or club premises certificate – that is, premises that have previously been specifically considered as part of the democratic licensing process locally – should be excluded from the proposed exemption. For example, what the LGA Group suggest would include all the pubs reported in Welwyn Hatfield still being limited by being subject to questionably legal licensing conditions resulting from what the LGA Group refer to as the democratic licensing process, competing with those small pubs that would now be exempt from any questionably legal licensing conditions resulting from what the LGA Group refer to as the democratic licensing process. |
|
02 Apr 10 - 04:56 AM (#2877904) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22985 There seems to be a problem with the link provided to the LGA Group submission in full - the PDF can be obtained via this link. |
|
02 Apr 10 - 07:29 AM (#2877949) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Thursday 1st April 2010 - Sharkey calls on minister to back live music bill Feargal Sharkey, boss of UK Music, has written to licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe asking the government to back Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill now that the DCMS small gigs exemption consultation has closed, writes Robert Ashton in Music Week 31 March: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040631&c=1 The bill proposes an entertainment licensing exemption for live music in bars and other alcohol-licensed premises up to 200 capacity, an exemption for schools and hospitals, and the reintroduction of the 'two in a bar rule' for unamplified or minimally amplified live music: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/066/2009066.pdf Theoretically there is time for the government to negotiate a deal with the Lib Dems. Parliament returns from the Easter recess on 6th April. But that is the date everyone expects Gordon Brown to call the general election. Realistically, the bill's chances are slim. Reliable sources suggest that DCMS received more than 800 responses to their consultation, which closed on Friday 26 March. 800 is more than double the number of local authorities in England and Wales. Although a majority will have opposed the exemption, it is very unlikely that all, or even the majority responded. This leaves most responses divided between residents groups and individuals opposed to the exemption, and musicians, performers' unions, and live music organisations in favour. By now DCMS will know the breakdown of those in favour and those against, and whether an 'overwhelming majority' support a figure larger than the 100-audience exemption proposed by DCMS. Sharkey's letter to the minister follows publication on 29 March of the UK Music vision for the music industry. Entitled 'Liberating Music' it includes among its recommendations an exemption for 200-capacity venues from entertainment licensing, and the reintroduction of the 'two in a bar rule' (see p30): http://www.ukmusic.org/files/LC_BrochureDigital4.pdf Discussing 'Liberating Music' in The Guardian on 29 March, Sharkey said: "I think people still look at music and think it is not a proper grown-up profession and that has got to change because ironically what some people in the world of finance might dismiss as nothing more than a couple of kids making noise in the back of a pub on a Friday night, when they grow up to be big boys and girls, the contribution and the impact that they will have on the rest of society is just - if not more - significant as some bloke with a double first from Cambridge working for a merchant bank in the City of London." http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/29/uk-music-industry-government-support ENDS |
|
03 Apr 10 - 06:40 AM (#2878645) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 7 Exercise and delegation of functions (1) All matters relating to the discharge by a licensing authority of its licensing functions are, by virtue of this subsection, referred to its licensing committee and, accordingly, that committee must discharge those functions on behalf of the authority. I suggest that any individual submission to this or other consultations, which have not been produced by a Licensing Authority's Licensing Committee, should not be considered as representing the view of that Council. Where anyone employed to enforce legislation is asked whether they consider giving up any of their powers - it is naïve (to use a word from the LGA Group's submission) for the government to expect them or their associations to be willing to do this. As it was this lobby's opposition in 2008 that scuppered this government's earler attempts to provide an exemption, based on recommendations of the findings in respect of live music, that the government have already either commissioned themselves (the Live Music Forum) or been presented with the all-party Parliament Commons Select Committee) and on which recomendation this proposed exemption is based - the government can hardly pretend to be surprised by the same opposition from the same lobby, for this proposal. I suggest that this is a case of the law becoming what those employed to enforce it, wish it to be. This based mainly for their own convenience rather than what is best for the public. That to me would be a good definition of a 'police state'. |
|
04 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM (#2879203) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040646&c=1 13:00 | Thursday April 1, 2010 By Robert Ashton The Government has been swamped with more than 800 submissions to its consultation on proposals to exempt small music venues from the Licensing Act. |
|
04 Apr 10 - 02:31 AM (#2879206) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I note the combative words - like clash & battle being used in this article. And the quote in reference to heavy drinking. http://ow.ly/16YlkT Fans enjoy 3D football clash in Harpenden 5:18pm Saturday 3rd April 2010 DOZENS of football fans squeezed into a Harpenden pub this afternoon to watch their heroes do battle in 3D. An errant linesman may have helped Chelsea to a controversial victory at Manchester United, but it was the many fans squeezed into The George who definitely did require glasses. Supporters young and old at the High Street venue donned specially tinted eyewear to enjoy the action. Manager Dionne Clark explained: "It's been absolutely packed in here. The 3D screen has been really popular and the feedback has been great. "We're one of only 1,000 pubs in the country to have a Sky 3D screen so we're really lucky to have it. In future we'll be showing boxing and rugby on it as well." After the match, which Chelsea won by two goals to one, fans gave their reactions to the technology. Phil Cowley, of Redbourn, said: "I really liked it. I wouldn't normally have come here but I wanted to see what football looked like in 3D. I think they still have to do some work on the technology but the idea is excellent and I'd definitely come again." Eight-year-old son Aaron, however, could not see past the crushing defeat inflicted upon his beloved Manchester United. "I really liked the 3D but didn't like to see Manchester United get beaten," he grumbled. Matt Swan, meanwhile, who watched the game with a group of friends, had other concerns. He told the Review: "Two of us have got headaches. But we can't work out if they've come from the TV or the amount of lager we've had to drink." All the objections from the local government lobby to the proposesd exemption apply to the showing of live TV sporting events - which of course are already specifically exempt from licensing. Use of television or radio receivers 8 The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it consists of the simultaneous reception and playing of a programme included in a programme service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42). |
|
04 Apr 10 - 03:44 AM (#2879216) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80603w0003.htm#column_WA41 June 2008 Lord Colwyn asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether, in view of the serious violence and disorder that broke out in Manchester when a big screen showing the ITV broadcast of the UEFA cup failed on 14 May, it will review the exemption for broadcast entertainment in the Licensing Act 2003. [HL3715] Lord Davies of Oldham: The screening in Manchester of the broadcast of the UEFA cup final in a public place on 14 May only took place with the consent of the local authority and under restrictions agreed with the police. It is therefore difficult to see what added control would have been available had the event been subject to the licensing controls under the Licensing Act 2003, or that such controls would have prevented the disorder that arose. It remains the Government's position that big-screen television broadcasts in themselves do not cause disorder, but that it is the consumption of alcohol at such events that can lead to problems. Decisions on whether big-screen events should go ahead are the responsibility of the local authority in consultation with the local police, who are involved at an early stage, and event organisers. It is already possible under existing legislation to control consumption and drunkenness in public places. Under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, it is possible for a local authority to designate any area to which the public have access a place where alcohol may not be consumed. It is also an offence under the Licensing Act 1872 to be drunk in a public place. The Government are confident that the police and local authority in Manchester will ensure that safety and security arrangements provide a controlled environment at any future big-screen events. |
|
05 Apr 10 - 05:11 AM (#2879850) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles An example of how the surviving live music that is not actually prevented by it is treated under what the LGA Group refer to as a "democratically accountable licensing regime." http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council This survey identified 85 pubs in the St Albans District with live music authorisation, and of those: • 30 have restrictions on the number of musicians who can perform (35% of pubs) • 45 pubs have restriction on the regularity or frequency of musical performances (53% of pubs) • 4 have a restriction on the genres of music which can be performed • 1 pub has to display a suitable and conspicuous notice advising the residents of forthcoming live music events. • 1 pub has a restriction on indoors Morris Dancing |
|
06 Apr 10 - 05:51 AM (#2880528) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/5048346.St_Albans_District_Council___We_are_not_killjoys_/ St Albans District Council: "We are not killjoys" The relevant cabinet member, Councillor Anthony Rowlands, said: "It is a nonsense to suggest they are killjoys. To the contrary, their work, along with the council's effective partnerships with the police, pubs, restaurants and taxi trade, ensure that this is a good place for an enjoyable night out." |
|
06 Apr 10 - 06:12 AM (#2880538) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles On the subject of sessions (with their multiple instruments) being able to benefit from the incidental exemption.................. The following is the official LACORS response to the consultation on Entertainment facilities. It includes the following: The issue of numbers of instruments should also be covered by the revised Guidance, in order to make it clear that music involving multiple instruments is very unlikely to fall within the incidental music exemption. http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=23111 Question 4: Does this draft Guidance provide sufficient advice to assist licensing authorities in their administration of the Licensing Act? Yes/ No Answer: No; further clarification and examples are required in order to provide licensing authorities, operators and performers with clear guidance about the proposed changes and the meaning of incidental music. LACORS is concerned that the definition of entertainment facilities is very broad, and that in order to avoid confusion (especially about the definition of incidental music), the revised Guidance should be particularly detailed in its explanation of the points below. It should be made clear to operators that unamplified instruments capable of producing loud music are very unlikely to be capable of making music that falls within the definition of incidental music. Guidance to operators and musicians should make it very clear that, for example, if musical instruments are used in a way that goes beyond incidental music and into a form of music that would in fact require a permission for regulated entertainment, those instruments will not fall within the entertainment facilities exemption. We also note that the draft statutory instrument refers to "…anything to be used to enable a musical instrument to be played without amplification" and again, the Guidance should explicitly refer to unamplified musical instruments, in order to provide clarity for licensing authorities, operators and performers. The issue of numbers of instruments should also be covered by the revised Guidance, in order to make it clear that music involving multiple instruments is very unlikely to fall within the incidental music exemption. The revised Guidance should continue to refer to existing DCMS Guidance on incidental music, but it is also very important that the revised Guidance reproduces the broader advice and positive examples of incidental music issued by the live music working party formed by the Musicians' Union, the British Beer & Pub Association, DCMS, LACORS and the LGA. Finally, the Guidance should set out "negative" examples of instruments that are unlikely to be capable of producing incidental music, e.g. bagpipes, drums, brass instruments and so on that would then not be exempt, in order to provide clarity for operators and performers as well as local authority officers (and others with an enforcement role under the Licensing Act 2003) It would seem that at any point where there is some hope of common semse being applied - the local government lobby will find some way of advising some form of unhelpful regulation that would be impossible in practice. This is not the 'promotion of quality regulation' that is supposed to be purpose of LACORS - it is regulation for its own sake. |
|
06 Apr 10 - 06:47 AM (#2880548) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The LACORS position - should it be accepted and it most probably will be - means that although any provided instrument for a performance of incidental live music will not be a licensable Entertainment Facility - those provided for live music that a licensing officer does not accept as qualifying as a performance of incidental live music - will still be a licensable Entertainment Facility and of course the performance of live music will be atill be licensable as performance of Regulated Entertainment. A session with multiple non-amplified instruments will not be considered to be exempt as a performance of incidental live music and any instrument provided (or premises) to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing will be licensable as the provision of Entertainment Facilities. |
|
06 Apr 10 - 09:37 AM (#2880649) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/upload/23037.pdf The above link is to where LACORS, along with what it refers to as its partners, have produced joint guidance on the incidental exemption which LACORS refer to as the DCMS Guidance. As this joint document gives examples of bands qualifying for the incidental exemption this 'DCMS guidance' seems to differ to LACORS own submission to DCMS where LACORS want to make "make it clear that music involving multiple instruments is very unlikely to fall within the incidental music exemption." I wonder if their so-called partners have been consulted before LACORS submitted this further requirement of their own or indeed if they are aware of it now? What a mess? |
|
06 Apr 10 - 09:51 AM (#2880659) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T If you want any sensible entertainment, VOTE TORY. After all, New Labour is the party of the Football Hooligan, as may readily be inferred from the exemption of the incredibly noisy wide screen broadcast from any control whatever. Don T. |
|
06 Apr 10 - 10:44 AM (#2880704) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Green Man OK well!, 'They' spent ALL that money (our money) creating the P.E.L legislation and trying to enforce it over the vociferous objections of many organisations and individuals as well as ignoring our petion(s). NoW guess what? they're going to spend even more of our money changing what should never have been done in the first place. We have a saying in I.T. and I guess a few other professions, If it ain't broke don't fix it. Well they broke what wasn't and now we're paying twice for them to fix it. What a bunch of horses arses. As far as culture ministers go they are pants indeed. In fact they de-culture things quite effectively. Oooh I do love a good rant. :) Back to the trees.! |
|
06 Apr 10 - 12:30 PM (#2880770) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Brass instruments, drums and bagpipes should be illegal unless licensed, according to council enforcement officers. This is the implication of the response to a DCMS consultation by the Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services - LACORS - motto: 'promoting quality regulation': http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/upload/24025.doc [see p2] Under the Licensing Act's 'entertainment facilities' provisions, even providing a piano in a bar, or an instrument for a school concert, is a potential criminal offence unless licensed explicitly as an 'entertainment facility'. No-one need actually perform - provision of the unlicensed facility is of itself the potential criminal offence. Max penalty: £20,000 fine and six months inside. Last summer, pianos set up for the public to play in London streets had to be licensed in this way. Robert Hardman reported in the Daily Mail of 23 June 2009: 'Every piano has required both planning permission and a temporary events licence, not to mention meetings with the police and a constellation of local government functionaries. There would actually be more pianos scattered across London were it not for the red tape and local jobsworths': http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194875/Strolling-Beethoven-Playing-PIANO-street--start-new-craze.html Last October, licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe said that this had not been the government's intention and promised to clarify the law. To that end, on 15 January 2010 DCMS published a consultation (which closed on 26 February). This proposed that unamplified musical instruments should be exempt from the 'entertainment facilities' provisions. It also proposed a clarification of the existing exemption for performances that qualify as 'incidental music', making clear that both amplified and unamplified instruments could be provided: http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/091020PN_FACILITIES_clarification_condoc.pdf But LACORS seems to want only solo unamplified performance to qualify for the 'incidental music' exemption. This is contrary to current DCMS guidance, which suggests that an orchestra might qualify: '... an orchestra may provide incidental music at a large exhibition': http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/DCMS_LicensingGuidanceb.pdf [p29, para 3.22] LACORS wants this Guidance to be changed: '... The issue of numbers of instruments should also be covered by the revised Guidance, in order to make it clear that music involving multiple instruments is very unlikely to fall within the incidental music exemption.' And: '... the Guidance should set out "negative" examples of instruments that are unlikely to be capable of producing incidental music, e.g. bagpipes, drums, brass instruments and so on that would then not be exempt, in order to provide clarity for operators and performers as well as local authority officers (and others with an enforcement role under the Licensing Act 2003).' What do you think of this LACORS proposal? The author of their DCMS response is Charlotte Meller: charlotte.meller@lacors.gov.uk ENDS |
|
06 Apr 10 - 05:49 PM (#2880963) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles How can Licensing Authorities be expected to reconcile the S 182 Guidance with the guidance from LACORS? From the S182 Guidance CULTURAL STRATEGIES 13.57 In connection with cultural strategies, licensing policy statements should include clearly worded statements indicating that they will monitor the impact of licensing on the provision of regulated entertainment, and particularly live music and dancing, for example, by considering whether premises that provide live music or culture are represented on licensing stakeholder forums, and ensuring that local cultural officers are regularly consulted about the impact on local culture. Where appropriate, town centre managers have an important role in coordinating live music events in town centres and can be an important source of information. 13.58 Care will be needed to ensure that only necessary, proportionate and reasonable licensing conditions impose any restrictions on these events. Where there is any indication that events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. Broader cultural activities and entertainment may also be affected. In developing their statements of licensing policy, licensing authorities should also consider any views of the local authority's arts committee, where one exists. --------------------------------------------------------------------- From the LACORS'GUIDANCE: THE ROLE OF ELECTED MEMBERS IN RELATION TO LICENSING COMMITTEE HEARINGS UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003 FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND Updated January 2010 http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=23187 8. Decision making Whilst the Government's Guidance accompanying the Licensing Act 2003 indicates some other factors which may influence decisions (e.g. live music / cultural considerations) these will always be subservient to the Licensing Objectives and the Licensing Policy Statement. |
|
07 Apr 10 - 06:14 AM (#2881241) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86579?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n DCMS stalls on TENs reform * By Peter Coulson * 07/04/2010 08:31 Back in January I wrote about the Department for Culture Media & Sport (DCMS) proposal to free up the temporary event notice (TEN) regime slightly, in order to deal with postponed events and unexpected changes. |
|
07 Apr 10 - 06:42 AM (#2881251) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.lastminutemusicians.com/how_to_get_gigs/?p=220 The PDF containing the MU's submission to the small events consultation can be obtained from the above link. |
|
07 Apr 10 - 07:04 AM (#2881259) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/site/cms/v4_newsArticleView.asp?article=904 The above contains a link to a PDF leaflet guide where the MU refer to an examples of a band & orchestra being exempt under the incidental exemption!!!! LACORS submission would seem to have sabotaged that? I wonder if the MU (and what LOCORS refer to as their partners) are aware of this? |
|
07 Apr 10 - 10:47 AM (#2881378) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/static.aspx?N=0&Ne=0+2000+3000+4000+5000+6000+7000+8000+9000+10000+11000&groupid=1 As LACORS motto is 'promoting quality regulation' this body can hardly object to being seen to be effectively regulated itself. the question is, is LACORS currently effectively regulated at all or is it the 'loose cannon' acting in its own interests, that it would appear to be to many of us? The position currently is that: LACORS is accountable to its Board of Directors which is made up of senior elected members nominated by the four UK local authority Associations. Is being accountable to this board, as currently comprised, able to ensure that the regulation that is being promoted by LACORS is this 'quality' regulation rather than simply being the promotion of regulation for its own sake? How is 'quality' in this case to be determined? How effective is the current regulatory process that LACORS is subjected to? How democratic is the current regulatory process that LACORS is subjected to? There is currently a Scottish vacancy on the Board. Is it the bagpipe thing? |
|
07 Apr 10 - 01:11 PM (#2881482) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe is resisting calls for the small gigs exemption to be increased from 100- to 200-capacity events, writes John Harrington in the Morning Advertiser of 6th April: http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86573 The report quotes 'a Labour party spokesman at the DCMS' - probably Lenny Shallcross, special adviser to Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw (Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/lenny.shallcross ): "There's nothing so far in the responses to the consultation [which closed on 26 March] that have changed Gerry's mind. If Labour is re-elected they will attempt to make the exemptions. Gerry's position remains unchanged on this." However, Gerry's position is premature. DCMS has not published the 800-plus consultation responses. Only a few civil servants know the breakdown of those for and against the proposed exemption, and the proportion supporting a larger figure. Sutcliffe and the special adviser are unlikely to have read more than a few of the responses. On 22 October 2009, Sutcliffe promised to consider a larger exemption during the Westminster Hall licensing debate, when he announced the small gigs exemption consultation. Lib Dem Richard Younger-Ross said: '...If the consultation on a capacity of 100 shows a desire for it to be increased to 200, I hope that the Government will support it.' Sutcliffe replied: 'I am grateful for the opportunity to do that now - I was asked to do it by the Chairman of the Select Committee. Clearly, if the consultation overwhelmingly shows that everybody is happier with the figure of 200, and that will get us through the legislative reform order, we will consider it. We are suggesting the figure of 100, but that is one of the reasons for the consultation.' http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091022/halltext/91022h0004.htm According to a report in Music Week last week, Musicians Union general secretary John Smith believes that almost everyone who responded to the consultation asked for a 200-capacity exemption: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040631&c=1 The exemption is opposed by the Local Government Association, however, and an as yet unknown number of individual local authorities. ENDS |
|
08 Apr 10 - 06:25 AM (#2881990) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66789 Tories back 200 exemption for live music 8 April, 2010 By James Wilmore Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt claims licensing regime has been a 'disaster' for live music |
|
08 Apr 10 - 09:43 AM (#2882092) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from the MU submission is of interest. Question 10: Do you agree that the proposal, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it? 22. Yes, we believe that the proposal strikes a fair balance. There is no evidence to suggest that the public is adversely affected by live music in small venues. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that the public is adversely affected by live music at all. 23. We recently made our own investigations into whether live music specifically has an effect on public nuisance. These investigations took place as a result of comments made by Chris Fox, the President of the Association of Chief February 2010 Police Officers, in July 2003 in which he claimed that live music performance has a negative impact on crime and disorder: „live music always acts as a magnet in whatever community it is being played. It brings people from outside that community and others who come and having no connection locally behave in a way that is inappropriate, criminal and disorderly.‟ 24. The MU was concerned about the comments made by Chris Fox, and as a result we wrote to chiefs of police across the country to ask whether they considered live music to be linked to an increase in crime and disorder. The vast majority of the responses that we received supported our view - that the performance of live music itself has no effect on crime and disorder, and that any problems experienced are usually due to the size of the crowd (at festivals, for example) and the dispersal of people at the end of an event. 25. These letters support the MU‟s argument that smaller live music performances have no adverse effect on the promotion of any of the licensing objectives. We would be happy to provide copies of the letters that we received from chiefs of police if required. 26. The second commonly held perception about live music performance is that it impacts on public nuisance by way of noise. The research that DCMS commissioned through the Live Music Forum, carried out by Mori, reported that 77% of all objections to applications for live music came from local residents or their representatives, with 68% of those objections specifically relating to concerns about the noise level of music; or noise levels from customers. 27. However, the Live Music Forum‟s investigations into actual noise complaints made showed that an estimated 90% of complaints relate to music from a domestic premise. The MU is therefore concerned that the commonly held perception that a live music performance may impact on the public nuisance objective is not actually borne out in reality. 28. We certainly do not wish to pursue any policy that has an adverse effect on the community, however, we do not believe that this proposal could cause any problems in this area. 29. There is evidence, on the other hand, to suggest that the music and pub sectors have both been adversely affected by the current restrictions imposed by the Licensing Act 2003, as we explain in our answer to question two. 30. In the current difficult economic climate, many pubs and venues are struggling to survive and many local communities are losing important community hubs. Evidence recently collated by PRS for Music1 strongly demonstrates that live music can help pubs and venues survive the recession. 31. The research found that pubs that provide music take on average 44% more money than pubs without music. This rises to 60% more at the weekend. The findings also show that live music is much more profitable than recorded music, with one in four publicans reporting increases in takings of between 25%-50% on nights when they have live music compared to other nights and seven out of ten reporting an increase of typically between 10-25%. |
|
08 Apr 10 - 01:30 PM (#2882213) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall. Entertainment licensing for small gigs has become an election issue. On Tuesday, a Labour party spokesperson suggested that licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe had already made up his mind to proceed with an entertainment licensing exemption for 100-capacity gigs - even before DCMS had evaluated the 800 exemption consultation responses. Last October Sutcliffe suggested that the figure would be open to negotiation when the DCMS exemption consultation was over (it closed on 26 March). http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86573 Today, both trade papers report renewed Conservative backing for a 200-capacity exemption: http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66789 Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt told The Publican: "We support the campaign to extend the exemption from requiring a licence for live music performances to 200 people. The Licensing Act was meant to support the live music industry, but has turned out to be a disaster. Extending the exemption to 200 people will reduce the burden of bureaucracy on pubs, and provide a much needed boost to the live music industry." The Publican itself is among those campaigning for a 200-capacity exemption: http://www.thepublican.com/section.asp?navcode=399 Today's Morning Advertiser coverage: http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86594 Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, which made it to the Commons, has now fallen. It was not included in the secretive and undemocratic Parliamentary 'wash up' that finishes today. This is where last minute deals are done to get some bills through before an election. An excellent article today by Alex Stevenson of politics.co.uk sheds more light on the wash-up: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/talking-elections-post/post/talking_election/11/lost-in-the-wash-up-behind-closed-doors/ Lib Dem shadow culture secretary Don Foster has suggested that they would consider bringing back a bill after the election. ENDS |
|
09 Apr 10 - 09:28 AM (#2882805) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=65237 In Sep, the MU staged a gig to promote the inciental music exemption. This gig would be a criminal offence under LACORS proposed changes. |
|
10 Apr 10 - 06:49 AM (#2883522) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ukmusic.org/comment/185-an-open-letter-to-licensing-minister-gerry-sutcliffe An open letter to Licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe Wednesday, 31 March 2010 11:50 An Open Letter to Gerry Sutcliffe: will you support Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill and Liberate Creativity? March 31st 2010 - That the current Licensing Act is hurting grassroots live music is beyond doubt. Over the past 6 years, Government have conducted eight consultations, two Government research projects and two national review processes, all of which reached this conclusion. The Culture Media & Sport Select Committee did likewise last May, stating that "to encourage the performance of live music we recommend that the Government should exempt venues with a capacity of 200 persons or fewer from the need to obtain a licence for the performance of live music." UK Music entered into this latest consultation with good faith, and in full agreement with the Select Committee that any exemption threshold should be raised from 100 to 200. - Yours Sincerely, Feargal Sharkey Chief Executive UK Music |
|
10 Apr 10 - 09:10 AM (#2883598) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles From an open letter from Feargal Sharkey, Chief Executive, UK Music, to Licensing Minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, March 31st 2010. "That the current Licensing Act is hurting grassroots live music is beyond doubt. Over the past 6 years, Government have conducted eight consultations, two Government research projects and two national review processes, all of which reached this conclusion." Why is it that employees of Licensing Authorities are being allowed to advise their elected members and the public they represent, a position so different to this and why is it that a view based on advice this then is submitted to the DCMS consultation process as being the views of individual councils? Clear evidence that DCMS 'statistics' have unduly influenced Licensing Authority responses to the licensing consultation. Again this is in open defiance of UK Statistics Authority's recommendations. Waveney Council claim that 'there is no statistical... evidence that live music is being deterred'. See Morehttp://www.waveney.gov.uk/agendas/2010/march/licensing/item4appc.doc We are very strongly of the view, from our experience in this district that live music is NOT being deterred by the provisions of the Act, our local policy or decisions made by members or delegated officers. The majority of licensed premises in our area had a live music permission of some description, and the Temporary Event Notice (TEN) system is well used for authorising live music activities (many TENS are also seeking alcohol and other regulated entertainment permissions). A significant number of pubs and other venues in our area have successfully varied their licences, to diversify, since the Act came in and it seems that live music activities are actually thriving. We are also seeing a noticeable increase in large outdoor live music events, taking advantage of more flexible licensing arrangements, for example the latitude festival. The feedback we get is that it is now generally much easier to apply for and gain music permissions than it was under the previous Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) system The Local Government lobby grouping have a agenda of their own, which is based on what they think is good for them and not what is best for the public (who are paying for it) and is certainly not based on what is good for live music. Am I the only one that detects more than a hint of incest in the relationship between DCMS and the local government lobby? The saving that could be obtained by finally ending the whole concept of locally enforced additional entertainment licensing should be an attractive one at this Election, when each of the main political parties are talking public sector pay cuts. Not sure if we would miss bodies like LACORS and the LGA either should their abolition be suggested in order to save us all money. |
|
12 Apr 10 - 07:00 AM (#2884713) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.efdss.org/latestnews.html The English Folk Dance & Song Society website (above) now contains their formal response to the DCMS consultations......... |
|
12 Apr 10 - 10:58 PM (#2885284) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2010/apr/12/music-funding-in-harmony Ben Bradshaw admitted the Licensing Act of 2003 needed urgent reform, with its ludicrous restrictions on musical performance in public places, and all three parties agreed they would tackle these issues in a new parliament – another commitment to which we should hold them accountable. This is the man who is supposed to be in charge of the DCMS.... |
|
13 Apr 10 - 05:14 AM (#2885413) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Mr Bradshaw and the DCMS seem to have a different definition to the word 'urgent' and probably a different one again, to the word 'reform'. As Feargal Sharkey's open letter to Mr Sutcliffe states: Over the past 6 years, Government have conducted eight consultations, two Government research projects and two national review processes, all of which reached this conclusion [That the current Licensing Act is hurting grassroots live music is beyond doubt.] |
|
13 Apr 10 - 03:24 PM (#2885756) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/musicmat Ben Bradshaw's reported comments can be heard here, in answer to a good question from a listener [listen from 39 Mins]. He may not have said what he was reported to have said or used those words but he does repeat that live music is flourishing. |
|
15 Apr 10 - 05:38 AM (#2887042) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Liberal Democrats are the only party making an explicit manifesto commitment to an entertainment licensing exemption for small-scale performances of live music: 'Cut red tape for putting on live music. We will reintroduce the rule allowing two performers of unamplified music in any licensed premises without the need for an entertainment licence, allow licensed venues for up to 200 people to host live music without the need for an entertainment licence, and remove the requirement for schools and hospitals to apply for a licence.' http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf (p46) In fact, if Lord Clement-Jones' live music is revived in the new Parliament, the two performer exemption would apply anywhere, not just licensed premises. The Conservative manifesto doesn't mention music at all: http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf A party press officer said: 'The manifesto isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of all our policy commitments. But rest assured we plan to do what we previously announced.' Last week, Conservative shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt told The Publican that the Licensing Act had been 'a disaster' for live music and that his party backed the campaign for a 200-capacity exemption: http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66789 After the high-profile u-turn announced by licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe last October, and the DCMS consultation on an exemption for gigs with an audience of up to 100, Labour's manifesto is a disappointment. It coyly alludes to the issue, but only for pubs, and avoids any mention of an exemption: 'Restrictive covenants applied by pub companies to property sales will be curbed and flexibility for pubs to provide related services promoted, making it easier to have live entertainment without a licence.' http://www2.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf (Communities and Creative Britain, 7:4, p52 in PDF file) Since at least 2008, Green Party cultural policy has included a commitment to make it easier for pubs and other places to host live music: 'To modify the licensing regulations to ensure that small scale live performance in pubs, clubs and similar venues is not stifled.' http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/downloads/mfsscms.pdf (CMS433) I understand this will be included in the party's manifesto, due to be launched in Brighton at 10.30am today. ENDS |
|
17 Apr 10 - 02:14 AM (#2888406) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040789&c=1 Thursday April 15, 2010 By Charlotte Otter Two Manchester venues, famous for hosting gigs by Joy Division and Depeche Mode, have shut down. Jilly's Rockworld and the Music Box both cite financial reasons for their closure. News that these two venues are closing their doors do not support the Government's claim that live music is either 'thriving' or 'flourishing'. But these claims, based as they are on no reliable statistics - is still their claim. |
|
18 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM (#2888999) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles My MP sent my questions re the incidental exemption to the Chair of the local Licensing committee. The following is from the reply which I think shows that whichever Party wins the election - our problems in obtaining sensible licensing will continue unless action is taken at the local enforcement level. As Chairman of Licensing my committee adjudicates on applications which have objections to them. We do not set the policies which are set by Government statute with slight variations which can be set by the Policy and Management Committees. On the substance of your letter to Mr Knight I would simply comment that the purpose of having a licensing procedure is to give any objectors an opportunity to make those objections. If you think there should be less opportunity for such objections to be heard I suggest you write to all the candidates standing at this election and ask them to change the law. There was no mention of passing my still unsanswered questions to whichever Committee may have some interest in local licensing policy. The intent is to simply ignore them. |
|
19 Apr 10 - 08:33 AM (#2889753) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/ Local government licensing officers are prejudiced against live music. How else to explain the ludicrous suggestion last month from LACORS (Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services) that using drums, brass instruments or bagpipes should be a potential criminal offence unless licensed? http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=23111 Or, Local Government Association opposition to almost any entertainment licensing exemption for small-scale performances of live music? These ideas were set out in responses from the LGA and LACORS, to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) consultation on an entertainment licence exemption within the Licensing Act 2003 for live performance to audiences of up to 100 (closed on 26th March 2010) and a separate consultation on Entertainment Facilities (closed on 26th February 2010). Local government opposition is based on their view that local residents and licensing officers should be able to block live gigs merely on the grounds of the potential for noise. But no evidence is produced that noise from live music is a significant problem, or that existing noise nuisance legislation is inadequate. Unfortunately, many local authorities encourage residents to complain about music merely because they can hear it, not because it is causing a 'public nuisance'. This was not an objective of the Licensing Act. Local authorities in Scotland use the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deal with noise. Why do English and Welsh authorities use the Licensing Act to regulate the extremely small number of live music noise complaints, when those in Scotland do not? We believe that pre-emptive regulation through licensing, without discriminating between high or low-risk events, can be neither necessary nor proportionate. Moreover, the lack of necessity or proportionality is reinforced by an exemption already within the Act for big screen broadcast entertainment, and the light touch for recorded music in bars and pubs during the changeover to the new regime in 2005. These venues can have DJs and Sky TV - but they have no automatic entitlement to live music. Following the violence in Manchester during the 2008 UEFA Cup final screening, Lord Davies, on behalf of the Government, concluded that there would have been no measures available in the Licensing Act 2003 which would have prevented this. In their DCMS consultation response, the LGA cite an 11% increase in the number of premises licensed for live music since 2007. They conclude, fallaciously, that demand for live music is therefore decreasing. The insinuation is that no further reform is necessary. They call for further research and surveys to establish "unmet latent demand for live music in small venues" as if this were relevant to the debate about whether or not the legislation is necessary or proportionate. Under the Licensing Act 2003, the scope of entertainment licensing increased dramatically. The old regime had exemptions for one or two musicians in bars. Private charity fund-raising performances were exempt. Both exemptions were abolished by the new regime. Now even private concerts in schools, colleges, hospitals, retirement homes, public places, museums, art galleries, warehouses, supermarkets and stores all fall within the Act's purview, if gigs count as 'public' or are raising money for good causes. This hugely inflates the licensing requirement, and inevitably, licence applications. The fact remains that in tens of thousands of premises it would be illegal to host live music today. Prior to the Licensing Act 2003, many if not most would have been able to have some live music any day of the week without entertainment licensing. The urgent need for a small gigs exemption is backed by the whole music industry, including the Live Music Forum, performers unions, the Incorporated Society of Musicians, and UK Music - the lobbying agency for the music business, who's Chief Executive, Feargal Sharkey, said in his recent letter to licensing minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, "Over the past 6 years, Government have conducted eight consultations, two Government research projects and two national review processes, all of which reached this conclusion". It appears to us that entertainment licensing is promoted by local authorities for their administrative convenience without any serious regard for the cultural implications. There is no grave threat to public amenity from a licensing exemption for small live music events. However, there are the issues of the employment of scores of thousands and the perpetuation of a popular music culture of which successive Governments boast and rely upon to support a huge market. There is no decrease in the demand for live music. Live Music is the new 'Gospel' following the shrinking of the recording industry. Phil Little Live Music Forum |
|
19 Apr 10 - 01:59 PM (#2889959) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=11216202 I had not heard of IDeA but the small print shows that they are part of the LGA group. That this group is lobbying for more locally devolved powers under the Licensing Act and a return to locally set licensing fees is clear from the following..... Lobbying and campaigns As the voice of local government, the Local Government Association (LGA) is lobbying and campaigning for: local government to be recognised as the principal deliverer of culture, tourism and sport services the regulatory and cost burdens on councils to be minimised an emphasis on the local democratic accountability of the library service and encouraging service transformation and modernisation the benefits of the 2012 Games to spread throughout the UK through the involvement of local government further devolution of powers to councils within the Licensing Act 2003 sustainable funding for free swimming, ensuring future funding is directed locally licensing fees to be set locally. |
|
19 Apr 10 - 03:11 PM (#2890007) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The local government lobby's implacable opposition to any sensible moves that would free live music may be difficult to understand but the key is that this is a lobby group. The removal of locally set entertainment licensing fees was about the only sensible result of the Licensing Act 2003, it was a shame that it did not go further but given the strength of the lobby - it is surprising that this aspect was included and passed. But there is no such thing as free lunch. The lobby continues for a return of locally set licensing fees and for some further but unspecified powers to be devolved to them. I think it is clear that if the current or any other Party forming central government should really want to free live music from the stranglehold that the local government lobby currently have over it -they will have to give the local government lobby something it wants in return. Or that is how this lobby see it and as they will still be there - whichever political Party holds temporary sway and think they are in charge. It seems very clear to me who exactly is in control and who has no intention of handing over this control. The real irony it that we pay for this lobby and it must cost us a considerable sum............. |
|
20 Apr 10 - 04:04 AM (#2890447) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The LGA group. http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=4983464 |
|
20 Apr 10 - 06:38 AM (#2890505) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://new.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/10168309 Information about the LGA group The LGA is the single voice for local government. As a voluntary membership body, funded almost entirely by the subscriptions of our 424 member authorities in England and Wales, we lobby and campaign for changes in policy and legislation on behalf of our member councils and the people and communities they serve. We work with and on behalf of our membership to deliver our shared vision of an independent and confident local government sector, where local priorities drive public service improvement in every city, town and village and every councillor acts as a champion for their ward and for the people they represent. www.lga.gov.uk The IDeA supports improvement and innovation in local government, focusing on the issues that are important to councils and using tried and tested ways of working. We work with councils in developing good practice, supporting them in their partnerships. We do this through networks, online communities of practice and web resources, and through the support and challenge provided by councillor and officer peers. We also help develop councillors in key positions through our leadership programmes. Regional Associates work closely with councils in their areas and support the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships (RIEPs). www.idea.gov.uk LGE works in partnership with local authorities, regional employers and other bodies to lead on and create solutions for pay, pensions and the employment contract. LGE offers advice on all employment issues, and represents local government employer interests to central government, government agencies, trades unions and European institutions. www.lge.gov.uk LACORS promotes quality regulation to councils in the areas of trading standards, environmental protection, licensing and gambling, food safety, hygiene and standards, animal health and welfare and private sector housing.LACORS offer comprehensive advice and guidance to councils and their partners, disseminating good practice and providing up-to-date information on policies and initiatives that affect local people and local services. We lobby on behalf of councils and ensure that legislation and government policy can be practically implemented, and with our colleagues in the LGA group, ensure we contribute to sector-led improvement. www.lacors.gov.uk -------------------------------------------------- http://www.independent.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=833147 Central Bodies Improvement and Development Agency (I&DeA) Formed in 1998, the I&DeA is funded by a mix of 'top sliced' Revenue Support Grant from the LGA, grant funding from government deparments and fee income from chargeable services. The I&DeA works in partnership with all councils in England & Wales to enhance the performance of the best and accelerate the speed of improvement in other authorities. In this way it helps to develop the sector as a whole. ----------------------------------------------------------------- See the following site also for informantion on how LACORS itself is regulated and the composition of the board. http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/static.aspx?N=0&Ne=0+2000+3000+4000+5000+6000+7000+8000+9000+10000+11000&groupid=1 How is LACORS funded? LACORS is a local government central body created by the UK local authority associations which comprise of the Local Government Association (LGA), Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA), Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) and Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA). LACORS is mainly funded from local government monies. In England and Wales money is 'top sliced' from the Revenue Support Grant. -------- I don't know what being 'top sliced' means - but it sounds painful to me!! |
|
20 Apr 10 - 07:01 AM (#2890520) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=2 From April 2010, the majority of content on this website will be reserved for LGA member councils only. This content will be indicated with a red 'm' symbol. ----------------------------------------------------- Q: Why are you restricting some content on this website for LGA member councils only? A: The Local Government Association is a voluntary membership body that acts as the national voice for local government, supporting and advising its member councils. Some of our website content is of relevance specifically to our member councils and/or is a value added service that they have paid for through their membership subscription. We pay for them (and no doubt their subscription too) and we elect them but....................... They are 'aving' a 'larf' |
|
20 Apr 10 - 08:26 AM (#2890565) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall The often perverse and contradictory attitude to live music within local authorities is beautifully illustrated - literally - by the Local Government Association 2008 accounts: http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/751363 Entitled 'In Tune - In Touch', the document features handsome photographs of musical instruments, particularly drums and brass - a design concept clearly intended to convey a message of harmony and co-ordination. But only last week we learned that LACORS, the regulatory arm of the Local Government Association, wants to criminalise the provision of brass instruments, drums and bagpipes unless licensed: http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=23111 [click on response link] And the LGA Group, which includes LACORS, publicly opposes the government's suggested entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs: http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22985 [click on response link] Meanwhile the LGA has drastically restricted public access to its website: http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=2 The organisation, almost entirely funded by public money, lobbies central government on behalf of local authorities. It is apparently exempt from Freedom of Information legislation. ENDS |
|
23 Apr 10 - 04:53 AM (#2892601) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Information Commissioner has confirmed that the LGA is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Can anyone suggest any good reason for an exemption which prevents the public from receiving information from a body which they pay for and which is supposed to be working for the public's interest? Is this what is referred to a open government? |
|
23 Apr 10 - 06:51 AM (#2892652) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://chelt.maitlandwalker.com/licensing/index.php/news/the-end-of-24-hour-licensing The end of 24 hour licensing? |
|
23 Apr 10 - 06:29 PM (#2893028) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/hbbulletin302.htm Evidence has emerged that DCMS use of Alcohol and Entertainment licence statistics has misled respondents to the public consultation on an exemption from entertainment licensing for small gigs. Environmental Protection UK (EPUK), formerly the National Society for Clean Air, has submitted a strongly negative response to the consultation: http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/assets/library/documents/DCMS_-_Licensing_Act_Reform_(2).pdf It is based in part on a misinterpretation of DCMS Alcohol and Entertainment licence statistics - an almost inevitable result of the way the statistics were presented by DCMS within the consultation. |
|
27 Apr 10 - 12:37 PM (#2895318) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Music and the election. Guitarist asks the three main political parties: How would you make life better for musicians? http://www.musicradar.com/guitarist/music-and-the-election-249022/3 The following is the Labour view: Again note that Mr Bradshaw uses the word "thriving". Guitarist: Why would life be better under a Labour government? "The music sector in Britain is thriving. We're providing over £100 million of funding this year to support music organisations and we will maintain that funding. "We want to do more to encourage live music performances. The Licensing Act gets a bad press, but there are more premises licensed to put on live music and more live music is being performed. But there is a case to make it easier for small establishments to put on live music acts, which is why we propose excluding small venues with a capacity of up to 100 from the Act. "In schools we're investing over £300 million to improve music education. We will continue our drive to ensure all children experience good quality music and have the opportunity to develop their talents." Ben Bradshaw, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. |
|
27 Apr 10 - 01:57 PM (#2895379) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Alastair Campbell prosecuted for organising an unlicensed gig? The prospect is no doubt enticing to many, but it has receded now that Corby Borough Council (CBC) has bent licensing rules for Labour's Elvis stunt last Saturday, 24 April. The lunchtime performance by Brighton-based Elvis impersonator Mark Wright took place at Lodge Park Technology College, Corby. It came as a show-biz style finale to Gordon Brown's big NHS speech and was widely reported in the national media. See BBC tv news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8641849.stm But according to the council, the venue's premises licence only allowed entertainment between 6pm and midnight. It seems no-one had checked with the council beforehand about the intended lunch-time gig. Campbell trailed Mr Wright's appearance on Twitter. At the event, former culture secretary Andy Burnham told the assembled Labour faithful that a tweet by Campbell was broadcast on Radio 5 live saying that 'somebody bigger than Gary Barlow would be here today.' TV coverage shows 'Elvis' taking centre stage, singing initially to a seated audience. He is well amplified. Campbell wrote on his blog the following day: "... many thanks to Mark Wright AKA Elvis for putting a bit of life into the campaign coverage yesterday. 'Best pictures of the campaign so far,' said ITV's reporter, so we'll live with that especially as they got GB [Gordon Brown] to the top of the news talking about the future of the NHS." http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog.php?id=405 [use the search facility on the page for 'elvis'] Questioned yesterday about licensing arrangements, CBC officers asked local Labour MP Phil Hope for more information. The initial defence was that this was a private, not-for-profit event, and therefore exempt. However, that was quickly dropped - possibly because of Campbell's Tweets, and because the event was open to the press. Under the Act, entertainment may be licensable if it is 'to any extent for members of the public or for a section of the public' (LA2003, Sch. 1 para 1(2)(a)). Today CBC decided that Elvis was not licensable because he was exempt as 'incidental music'. This may be a common sense position, but in adopting it CBC has bent, if not broken the law. Under the Act, the exemption is disapplied if facilities are provided to enable people to be entertained by music-making, including amplification and a stage (see Licensing Act 2003, Sch. 1 para 3, and para 7(b)). The government is aware of this problem. Only a couple of months ago DCMS ran a public consultation conceding this was an 'unintended' effect of the Act, and proposing to amend the Act accordingly: http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/091020PN_FACILITIES_clarification_condoc.pdf [see para 1.6] It was this consultation which prompted LACORS to call for instruments to be illegal unless licensed, including brass, drums and bagpipes. More links: Lodge Park principal's blog: http://www.lodgepark.org.uk/news/default.asp?storyID=144 Elvis was the finale of the event - Northampton Chronicle http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/EXCLUSIVE-Gordon-Brown-tells-the.6252807.jp "Mr Brown told the rally in Corby, Northamptonshire: 'I am just the warm-up speaker, I am going to be introducing Britain's Elvis Presley.'" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1268503/All-shook-Labour-tears-flagging-election-strategy-Gordon-Brown-vows-tempo.html The space in which event was held was on open view to the public - see the opening seconds of this video footage: http://www.3news.co.nz/Set-for-Heartbreak-Hotel-Brown-enlists-Elvis/tabid/313/articleID/152771/Default.aspx ENDS |
|
27 Apr 10 - 02:12 PM (#2895386) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles If we could all simply ignore the legislation and not be accused by licensing empoyees of presenting a risk to the licensing objectives -we could also claim that live music is 'thriving'. But it is clearly a case of one rule for those with the 'clout' and another for the rest of us and a 'post code lottery'. As the following will show, the amplified Elvis performance would not be able to benefit from the incidental exemption under my licensing authority. She [Bridget Downton then Corporate Diector of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council] enclosed information available and commented on the Council's view of what constituted incidental music. This was considered to be; music that could take place without an audience, music that would not be advertised or held on a regular basis: and music that would not be amplified. She added that the Council's preference was not to apply 'a one size fits all' approach and to consider each case on its merits and to advise licensees accordingly. |
|
28 Apr 10 - 06:33 AM (#2895813) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7639880/Elvis-appearance-opposite-Gordon-Brown-sparks-investigation.html |
|
28 Apr 10 - 06:35 AM (#2895814) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1040959&c=1 |
|
28 Apr 10 - 08:45 AM (#2895880) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall BBC 6 Music News is to host a live debate on the future of the music industry at 3pm this Friday, 30 April: http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20100428_debate.shtml Presenter Richard Bacon will be joined by John Whittingdale, chair of the all party Culture Media and Sport Committee and former Conservative shadow culture secretary, Labour's culture minister Margaret Hodge, Lib Dem shadow culture secretary Don Foster, and Feargal Sharkey, head of UK Music. Questions for the politicians can be put via the 'Have your say' comment section on the website. ENDS |
|
29 Apr 10 - 09:43 AM (#2896648) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Elvis & Gordon Brown duo story is 'thriving'. http://newsblog.thecmuwebsite.com/?tag=/labour%20party But Corby Council tried to justify turning a blind eye to the mini gig by declaring the musical turn as "incidental music" which, they say, doesn't required a licence. We asked Brown for a comment, but he just said "fuck off, you bigot". Which is fair enough, I suppose. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 05:13 AM (#2897159) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles thread.cfm?threadid=129165&messages=2 The above Mudcat thread is of interest. |
|
30 Apr 10 - 12:58 PM (#2897374) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Not had time to listen to all of the Radio 6 show yet but what I heard was not too hopeful. Labour's culture minister Margaret Hodge, was on good form and showing just how out-of-touch she was. They had all obviously been asked in advance to choose a piece of music. Mr Whittingdale chose a track which his advisors had obviously and carefully considered to be in line with the ethos of the show. Margaret Hodge had not been so advised. She referred to going back in time a little in her choice which she claimed, 'brought back memories'. Not sure what these menories were, as when she was asked to introduce her choice, there was an embarrassing moment as she could not remember what she had chosen. After some prompted discussion, her choice turned out to be Don Maclean singing Vincent..Which it was pointed out was the first time this had been played on BBC Radio 6. As it is due to be closed - it may also be the last time. They did not listen, their not listening still - perhaps they never will |
|
30 Apr 10 - 02:17 PM (#2897431) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles You can now listen to the whole thing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/6musicnews |
|
01 May 10 - 06:38 AM (#2897921) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/feature.php/28030/cultivating-culture The following from the above. We'll also end the bureaucratic nightmares that hold performers back, like Labour's live music licensing system, for example. It has become a complicated, time-consuming regime which has even caught schools, hospitals and colleges in its tentacles, and is stifling the kind of small-scale live music that is so important for the future. So we'll exempt small venues with capacities of less than 200 and go back to the rule where any venue can put on a performance of un-amplified music by one or two people without a licence. That is how we can foster new talent and new community venues. And Liberal Democrats recognise how extraordinarily competitive careers in performance and the arts can be, and how many of the people working in them are struggling. Nick Clegg |
|
01 May 10 - 01:51 PM (#2898121) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This all sounds very encouraging from the leader of the Lib Dems but it should be remembered that it was the decision made by the Lib Dems, in the Lords, to vote with the Government which inflicted this legislation upon us. Had they voted against - the Bill would have fallen........... |
|
01 May 10 - 03:09 PM (#2898146) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Lib Dem leader already seems to have changed the proposal to - and go back to the rule where any venue can put on a performance of un-amplified music by one or two people without a licence. The following was what was proposed in the Lib Dem supported Private Members Bill. Live unamplified or minimally amplified music by no more than two performers 12B (1) The provision of a performance of live music within the meaning of paragraph 2(1)(e) of this Schedule, or entertainment of a similar description, or facilities enabling persons to take part in such entertainment, is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act provided that the music or entertainment is — (a) performed by no more than two performers; and (b) either unamplified or minimally amplified. Neither the proposal contained in the Private Members Bill nor the Lib Dem leader's new one can be described as any sort of a return to the two-in-a-bar rule. This exemption, removed by the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, applied to amplified music and only applied in premises already licensed to serve alcohol. |
|
02 May 10 - 10:35 AM (#2898528) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Outside-events-ban-pub-unbelievable/article-2095960-detail/article.html Pub with permission for outside drinking and music banned from holding events. But after just two complaints were made about noise during the pub's Easter Sunday event, a council investigation was started. |
|
02 May 10 - 10:45 AM (#2898535) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theadvertiserseries.co.uk/consettandstanley/8128433.Noise_ban_could_force_pub_to_close/?ref=rss MANAGERS of a pub that hosts live music fear it may be forced to close because of a ban on noise. |
|
02 May 10 - 10:53 AM (#2898544) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/Popular-venue-appealing-after-planning.6264885.jp Popular venue appealing after planning officers say its shows must stop. Michael Houlihan, one of the four owners, said several council officers they dealt with prior to opening in 2008 were happy to grant them an alcohol and entertainments licence to cover the whole of the premises. |
|
02 May 10 - 11:05 AM (#2898549) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.durhamtimes.co.uk/news/8131335.Legion_given_extra_conditions_on_music/ NEIGHBOURS who complained music from a Royal British Legion Club was keeping them awake at night have won a reprieve. Brandon and Meadowfield RBL Club has been ordered to fit noise monitoring equipment and had its music licence hours reduced. He said club members could often be seen leaving the club after hours smoking and with carry-outs. Some, he said, could be seen urinating in the street. However, Dr Millard told the committee at the council's Spennymoor office on Tuesday, he did not wish to see the club closed down. He said: "We ask the (committee) to add conditions to the licence to remove the noise nuisance. Given that it takes an hour after the music stops for people to leave, we suggest that the music stops an hour before closing time." Some examples of how regulation is certainly 'thriving'. |
|
02 May 10 - 05:26 PM (#2898736) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles It is bad enough that serving alcohol and providing live music are treated in this Act and its local enforcement, as if they are presenting the same risks to the licensing objectives but to impose a curfew on live music (with all of its benefits) in order to allow the serving of alcohol (with all of its problems) to continue - is surreal scapegoating of live music as an easy target. Licensing officers are using this tactic, where live music becomes a sacrifice, in order placate objectors. With Councils now responsible for all licensing - this is sadly quite a common practice. If the homeward bound and alcohol-fuelled patrons create the problem outside - why not place the curfew on both licensable activities equally? There is nothing preventing a licensee from finishing any live music, food or any other activity when they think best but there is no need to make such curfews a licensing condition. |
|
03 May 10 - 02:57 AM (#2898992) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles For a good start - how about pressing the election hopefuls to replace the proposal from the Lib Dem supported but fallen Private Members Bill) with the following clearly worded exemption? Live unamplified music. 12B (1) The provision of a performance of live music within the meaning of paragraph 2(1)(e) of this Schedule, or entertainment of a similar description, or facilities enabling persons to take part in such entertainment, is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act provided that the music or entertainment is — (a) unamplified. This would at least finally free all live music that was not presenting a noise concern from conditions and restrictions applied to address this. |
|
05 May 10 - 05:39 AM (#2900419) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/folkestone/Protest-art-cafe-s-late-night-hours-ban/article-2045779-detail/article.html CUSTOMERS of Googies Art Café have vowed to "kick up the biggest stink possible" against a council decision to refuse it a late licence. Owner Keith Holland says the Rendezvous Street café is not financially viable with its current 10pm closing time, and that he will have to "close the doors and walk away" unless the decision is reversed. |
|
05 May 10 - 10:19 AM (#2900544) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://fromunderthestone.blogspot.com/2010/04/all-go-for-googies-cafe-campaign-knives.html Not sure who I am quoting here [from the above] but the following warning sounds more than a little sinister. However, anyone who had dealings over similar issues with local athorities will not be surprised. -"Cautioning that alterations would have to be made to the premises, including soundproofing, the source warned that generating lots of negative publicity for the council may backfire." The only way that councils should try to ensure that they obtain good publicity is to act positivly in the first place. Can this council really expect good publicity? Is it acceptable when the protection the public are provided with by Parliament in The Licensing Act 2003, is subject to a post code lottery and your treatment under this legislation is subject to saying only nice things about your council? |
|
05 May 10 - 10:31 AM (#2900550) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Margaret Hodge became the latest minister to peddle DCMS myths about live music, suggesting that licence statistics were somehow good news during the BBC6 live music debate last Friday, 30 April: '... I've just been looking at the figures before I came on today and actually the number of [live music] licences has gone up by 11% between 07 and 09, so that's... [Feargal Sharkey tries to intervene]... the number of licences, hang on Feargal - I was very careful with the words I used - the number of licences, so there's an increase in the number of pubs that have got licences but whether they're using them is another issue. The only other evidence we've got, is we have a... we do an annual survey of what people take part in and how they spend their time, and under that survey we see that again there's an increase in the number of people, adults, who go to live rock, pop, country, folk, soul, r'n'b, and world music... so it's a pretty difficult...' http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sbgh0 [about 41m 30s into the programme - NB only 2 days left to listen] But Ms Hodge was not careful enough with her words. Firstly, she didn't mention licence conditions. These are routinely imposed by local authorities and include requirements to fit noise limiters, provide door supervisers, even - as in St Albans - to restrict performer numbers and genres of music. Live music can only be staged if such conditions are implemented by the licensee. Without knowing if conditions have been imposed, and whether or not they have been put into effect, it is impossible to know if the venue can lawfully host live music. DCMS has not surveyed licence conditions. Secondly, she didn't mention the dramatically increased scope of entertainment licensing under the 2003 Licensing Act, making it inevitable that there would be thousands more applications. This point was subsequently made by Conservative John Whittingdale, chair of the all party Culture, Media and Sport Committee that last year recommended entertainment licensing exemptions for venues up to 200 capacity. Thirdly, the modest attendance increase Ms Hodge cites from the Taking Part surveys (about 3% 2005-2009) is largely accounted for by mega-venues O2 and Wembley Stadium opening in 2007. In that year alone, over 400,000 attended concerts at those two venues. Lastly, as Feargal Sharkey pointed out, Ms Hodge for some reason did not mention DCMS research of 2007 which found a 5% fall in gigs since the Licensing Act came into force (BRMB live music survey, the follow-up to the benchmark 2004 MORI/DCMS survey): 'Listen it's very simple, and it's kind of disappointing I'm still hearing this, the government's own figures show that there was in fact a 5% reduction in those small-scale venues and everybody does not want to talk about it.' ENDS |
|
08 May 10 - 06:23 AM (#2902580) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.kingston.gov.uk/browse/business/licensing/licensing_guidance/licensing_guidance_noise_pollution.htm Not too sure on what statistical evidence this is based but this is question that Kingston Council have now been asked to provide. Control of Noise from Pubs and Clubs The main source of noise associated with pubs and clubs is musical entertainment, although noise can also originate from patrons using beer gardens, children's play areas, patrons leaving premises, storage areas and plant. This guidance suggests way to avoid noise nuisance and so maintain good public relations with your neighbours. It will also enable you to formulate a noise management plan and operating schedule to prevent public nuisance and meet the Council's licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003. There are of course great distinctions between the playing of recorded music, performance of amplified music and the playing of non-amplfied music. The licensing measures here are taken in advance and assumes that all 'musical entertainment' will be presenting the same concerns. It continues the LGA group position which can only see live music, (with all of its benefits) firstly as a public order concern and places most of its efforts on presenting noise complaints. The examples provided earlier in this thread will show the effects on all live music, of an approach where it follows that any form of noise complaint, whether valid or not, will trigger all sorts of Council Depts into action and even where advance enertainment permission is in place, this will be overriden. So what possible use, are all of the Licensing Act's additional and expensive advance licensing permissions that are currently said to be so vital to protect the public from live music? |
|
08 May 10 - 06:32 AM (#2902587) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles thread.cfm?threadid=125302&messages=29 The above thread shows that live music venues have enough problems already. |
|
11 May 10 - 05:17 AM (#2904335) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86983?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Officials err on side of caution * By Peter Coulson * 11/05/2010 08:43 One of the main uses of the new minor variations procedure was alleged to be the removal of "unwanted or unnecessary" conditions on licences. However, experience has shown that this is not as simple or straightforward as the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) would have you believe. |
|
11 May 10 - 08:28 AM (#2904409) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Project-s-close-earlier-raises-concerns/article-2099401-detail/article.html A COMMUNITY music youth project, licensed to play music until 3am and sell alcohol, wants to reduce its opening hours and become teetotal. But some residents are still up in arms. http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Joy-young-musicians-gain-licence/article-2135018-detail/article.html If even such applications as this are to be subject to objections of this kind - there does not seem to be much hope. Permission has been granted but one wonders how long it will be before it is challenged? |
|
12 May 10 - 01:03 PM (#2905373) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Conservative Jeremy Hunt is the new Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, according to reliable sources. Junior DCMS ministers will be confirmed tomorrow or Friday. At the beginning of April Mr Hunt told The Publican magazine that the Licensing Act had been 'a disaster' for live music and that his party backed the campaign for an entertainment licensing exemption for venues up to 200 capacity: http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66789 The exemption is also a Lib Dem manifesto commitment: 'Cut red tape for putting on live music. We will reintroduce the rule allowing two performers of unamplified music in any licensed premises without the need for an entertainment licence, allow licensed venues for up to 200 people to host live music without the need for an entertainment licence, and remove the requirement for schools and hospitals to apply for a licence.' http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf (p46) ENDS |
|
12 May 10 - 06:37 PM (#2905616) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/livemusicevents/ We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop criminalising live music with the Licensing Act, and to support amendments backed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the music industry, which would exempt most small-scale performances in schools, hospitals, restaurants and licensed premises. More details Submitted by Phil Little of Live Music Forum – Deadline to sign up by: 27 July 2010 – Signatures: 16,948 The above has been closed during the election. The following information is now appearing. The new administration is currently assessing how best to proceed with the e-petitions service. We will update users as soon as practicable. |
|
12 May 10 - 07:04 PM (#2905635) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles It looks like the new Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is going to be in for a bit of a scrap. The following from the LGA Group submission. The LGA Group is opposed to the introduction of de minimis exemptions for live music, however. Audience size alone is not a viable means of determining whether or not a particular performance of live music will contravene one of the licensing act objectives1. |
|
13 May 10 - 05:59 AM (#2905908) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8678797.stm By Torin Douglas Media correspondent, BBC News Media, arts and sports policy is not a key priority for the new coalition government - any more than it was in the parties' election manifestos. Culture is on the back-burner, hardly mentioned in the first agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. |
|
14 May 10 - 04:49 AM (#2906619) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87024?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n A spokesman for Nottinghamshire police said: "Nottinghamshire Police, in common with other forces, has been urged by the Home Office and senior officers within the force to use powers granted under section 19 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. "Under section 19, a closure notice can be served within 24 hours of finding a breach of a premises licence, with the effect that between seven days and six months of service of the notice, police can apply to local magistrates to close the premises if the breaches have not been rectified. "If premises stay open whilst breaching their licence conditions they are advised that they are acting otherwise than in accordance with their licence and are committing a criminal offence under section 136 of the Licencing Act 2003 unless they cease licenceable activities immediately. In practice, the premises may shut to avoid criminal prosecution. It was on advice from the police that the two premises named chose voluntarily to close and address their licensing issues." |
|
14 May 10 - 05:36 AM (#2906642) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28187/jeremy-hunt-asks-dcoms-to-plan-for-66m Published Thursday 13 May 2010 at 10:56 by Alistair Smith Newly appointed culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has asked civil servants at the Department for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to investigate how the department can make savings to cover £66 million of cuts. |
|
14 May 10 - 05:40 AM (#2906648) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28198/vaizey-joins-hunt-in-dcoms?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign Vaizey joins Hunt in DCOMS Published Friday 14 May 2010 at 09:48 by Alistair Smith Ed Vaizey will today be confirmed as the new culture minister, The Stage understands. Vaizey has been given the arts brief within the newly-renamed Department for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. Portfolios are currently being confirmed, with further announcements of departmental appointments are expected today. |
|
14 May 10 - 11:04 AM (#2906821) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The new DCMS website is now live at www.culture.gov.uk Much of the content of this site has been temporarily removed for review. That which remains has been amended to reflect the change of government. To see a pre-election version of the site please visit The UK government web archive. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407120701/http://www.culture.gov.uk/index.aspx |
|
14 May 10 - 11:14 AM (#2906831) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I wonder how ex DCMS Ministers like Bradshaw, Hodge, Sutciffe will feel should the current fortunes of their Labour Party be described now as 'thriving'? In truth it is difficult to have much sympathy for such a bunch and we can only hope the end result of a Government which thinks it can so easily ignore and blatently lie to the public is something they and the current bunch will learn from. |
|
14 May 10 - 11:28 AM (#2906844) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8682124.stm Paul Heaton gets on his bike to save the 'beautiful' pubs For his bike, he is not required by law to wear a crash helmet, have insurance and have (a third party pay to obtain) road tax, as if the activity presented all the dangers of a powerful motor bike. For his gigs, unless a third party has paid in advance to obtain additional entertainment permission as if it was an arena gig to an audience of thousands - he will be told to get-on-his-bike. Perhaps if Feargal Sharkey can be persuaded to join him on this tour - we could obtain some timely publicity and some proportionate legislation? I'll even supply him with a bike....... |
|
14 May 10 - 01:02 PM (#2906923) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall A widely criticised DCMS live music report has been removed from the new DCMS website: http://www.culture.gov.uk/ 'Changes in Live Music between 2005-2009' was published by DCMS on 28 January 2010 and is one of many documents 'temporarily removed for review', although it is still available online via the National Archive: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/6603.aspx The report claimed that 'overall live music is thriving', but did acknowledge this was not the case for smaller venues. However, the 'thriving' conclusion was not based on any direct measure of performances. It relied instead on indirect evidence: an 11% increase in live music licence applications 2007-9; an apparent 20% increase in the number of professional musicians; a modest increase in self-reported gig attendance (about 3% from the 'Taking Part' surveys); and Arts Council participation data (TGI). DCMS itself conceded that it was unsafe to draw conclusions from licence application data. But it subsequently emerged that the 'professional' musician figures were nothing of the sort (30% were not musicians, 41% were part-time), and increased gig attendance data was probably due to the opening in 2007 of the mega-venues O2 and Wembley Stadium. Concerns were raised in a series of Parliamentary Questions by Lords Clement-Jones and Colwyn (documented in earlier circulars, starting with 'More dodgy DCMS music stats' 19 Feb - see Hamish Birchall Bulletins: www.livemusicforum.co.uk). Answers were evasive or entirely avoided. On 23 March, MP Ed Vaizey cited Music Week on DCMS 'cooking the books' in the Conservative blog 'Culture Politick': http://www.culturepolitick.com/cms/2010/03/23/weekly-email-25022010/ [search on page for 'cooking'] The Stage reports today that Mr Vaizey is expected to be confirmed as the new culture minister: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28198/vaizey-joins-hunt-in-dcoms?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20TheStageNews%20(News%20Headlines The last time DCMS surveyed actual performances in venues like bars and restaurants was in 2007 with the BMRB study. This found a 5% fall in performances after the Licensing Act came into effect in 2005, measured against benchmark the 2004 pre-Act MORI survey which found that the majority of premises had no live music at all in the previous 12 months. Most of those that did host live music did so relatively rarely. This did not stop DCMS calling this a 'flourishing' live music scene. Archive link to 2007 DCMS/BMRB live music survey: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/research_and_statistics/4854.aspx Archive link to 2004 DCMS/MORI live music survey: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/4558.aspx ENDS |
|
14 May 10 - 08:04 PM (#2907209) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles New DCMS cost cutting? http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/our_ministers/default.aspx/ Only one Minister now, where there were recently so many. |
|
16 May 10 - 05:28 PM (#2908187) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/7728278/Leaked-memo-reveals-what-Whitehall-really-thinks-of-its-new-masters.html Leaked memo reveals what Whitehall really thinks of its new masters Whitehall insecurities about its new Conservative masters are laid bare in eye-opening secret papers leaked to The Sunday Telegraph. -------------- The paper bluntly admits that the "Minister's agenda" is different from "our own agenda" – but says that the department is "willing to flex our own agenda" to the minister's, in perhaps the clearest admission yet seen that Whitehall regards itself as the real government and ministers as mere birds of passage. |
|
17 May 10 - 02:27 PM (#2908647) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67050&c=1 Licensing powers could move to the Home Office 17 May, 2010 By James Wilmore New ministers at DCMS not given licensing brief, fuelling speculation responsibility could shift The coalition government has unveiled new ministers for tourism and sport at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), but it remains unclear which one will be in charge of licensing, if any. I do wish they would get on with it................ |
|
17 May 10 - 03:08 PM (#2908676) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=1041182&c=2 Significantly, with the Lib Dems wielding quite considerable power in the new cabinet (there are five from the party), Clement-Jones would like to see the DCMS beefed up. ³We would like to see the DCMS have more clout; the DCMS is quite a weak department at the moment,² says the peer. ³You also need to have the Business Innovation and Skills department involved and Home Office so the departments are all pulling together.² Clement-Jones¹ own Live Music Bill fell at the final hurdle during the last Government and some suggest the new Con-Lib coalition might want to revisit its recommendations to provide a Licensing Act exemption for music venues with 200 people or fewer. ³They might need a popular piece of legislation after all the economic reforms,² adds McGonigal. |
|
17 May 10 - 06:09 PM (#2908779) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 1. The parts of the Lib Dems manifesto which supported the 200 exemption and two-in-a- bar for non-amplified music only do not appear in the Con/Lib coalition agreement/manifesto. So nothing is now being proposed by this Party and anyone who voted for them because of the Lib Dem manifesto can rightly feel betrayed. 2. Apart from his stated pre-election public support for the 200 exemption - there is no solid proposal from the Tories, now Mr Hunt is now (supposed to be) in charge at the DCMS. 3. But as no Minister there has (yet) been given this brief, there would seem to be some doubt if DCMS will keep licensing or if this will go to the Home Office. 4. The only remaining crumb of comfort is if Don Foster re-introduces the Live Music Bill - as a Private Menbers Bill, which he said he would do. So far there is deafing silence from that quarter 5. And the fate of the DCMS consultations is still to be announced. Reasons to be cheerful? Apart from getting shot of the last bunch - I think not. Now, all three parties have assured us that the problems presented to live music by additional entertainment licensing will be addressed. None of them have actually delivered when they were in power to do so. The Lib Dems in particular have twice had this opportunity but have chosen make deals which scuppered the chance. |
|
18 May 10 - 12:59 PM (#2909292) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Licensing remains in limbo almost two weeks since the general election. A licensing minister has yet to be confirmed, and press reports yesterday suggested that the portfolio might be moved back from DCMS to the Home Office: http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87043?PagingData=Po_0~Ps_10~Psd_Asc http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67050&c=1 'Alcohol and entertainment' has today been reinstated on the DCMS website under the heading 'What we do' - which makes it sound like some funky new venue - but the link just takes you to archived content: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/alcohol_and_entertainment/default.aspx Meanwhile, The Stage today reports that Feargal Sharkey is hopeful that Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill, which would create entertainment licensing exemptions for small venues, will be revived in the autumn: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28250/sharkey-optimistic-about-parliamentary And Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt is praised in the Daily Telegraph for reportedly promising, pre-election, that 'every child will have the opportunity to learn an instrument...' ['Music unlocks the key to childrens souls', Stephen Hough, 18 May 2010]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/7735302/Music-unlocks-the-key-to-childrens-souls.html Of course, under the Licensing Act 2003, most school concerts remain illegal unless the school is explicitly licensed for live performance. Private school concerts are caught if there is a charge with a view to profit, or just to raise money for good causes. Concerts open to friends are likely to count as 'public', and therefore licensable irrespective of any charge. Even the provision of musical instruments is potentially a criminal offence unless licensed as the provision of 'entertainment facilities'. There has been no comment to date from the new coalition government on whether or not they will take forward the small gigs exemption consultation initiated by Labour. ENDS |
|
18 May 10 - 01:46 PM (#2909319) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Sahmbles http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28250/sharkey-optimistic-about-parliamentary Sharkey 'optimistic' about parliamentary support for small gig exemption Published Tuesday 18 May 2010 at 14:43 by Natalie Woolman Chief executive of UK Music Feargal Sharkey has said he aims to get the Live Music Bill, which would give a licensing exemption to gigs for less than 200 people, re-introduced to parliament before the end of the year. |
|
18 May 10 - 06:26 PM (#2909506) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87043?PagingData=Po_0~Ps_10~Psd_Asc Home Office 'will control licensing' By John Harrington 17/05/2010 11:36 Control of licensing is to return to the Home Office under the new coalition Government, a senior Tory source has told the Morning Advertiser. |
|
18 May 10 - 07:01 PM (#2909522) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/default.aspx From the DCMS site above...... We are responsible for Government policy on: licensing and gambling |
|
19 May 10 - 10:59 AM (#2909927) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/ministers_speeches/7069.aspx Mr Hunt's speech in full. |
|
19 May 10 - 11:19 AM (#2909942) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Lib Dem leader also called on the public to nominate laws to be repealed, as part of a "power revolution". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8690882.stm He does not specify the process by which the public can make these nominations. And there does not appear to be a Minister with a brief for licensing to whom we could write and nominate the Licensing Act 2003. |
|
20 May 10 - 02:14 AM (#2910366) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7482778/Bad-Laws-Labour-has-clowned-around-with-our-freedom.html Bad Laws: Labour has clowned around with our freedom This nanny-state government's legislative tinkering leaves no one better off, says Philip Johnston in an extract from his new book |
|
20 May 10 - 08:36 AM (#2910492) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://londonjazz.blogspot.com/2010/05/parliamentary-jazz-awards-resultsreview.html The only overtly political speech of the night was from Lord (Tony) Colwyn. And it contained a couple of sentences which counted: "Jeremy Hunt will remove the restrictions on small gigs." Colwyn expressed the intention to re-instate the Liberal Democrat's Live Music Bill, and to make it into law. This commitment received the loudest applause of the night. And- maybe more significntly - it also got both a grin and a thumbs-up from Arts Minister Ed Vaizey. |
|
20 May 10 - 11:04 AM (#2910583) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: nickp "We will cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music." coalition statement pdf page 14 |
|
20 May 10 - 02:02 PM (#2910706) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Conservative peer and jazz trumpeter Anthony Colwyn suggested yesterday that licensing reform is imminent for small gigs, reports Jazzwise magazine from the 6th annual Parliamentary Jazz Awards: http://tinyurl.com/26qrzcd Colwyn's speech had ministerial support, according to jazz journalist Sebastian Scotney: 'The only overtly political speech of the night was from Lord (Tony) Colwyn. And it contained a couple of sentences which counted: "[Culture Secretary] Jeremy Hunt will remove the restrictions on small gigs." Colwyn expressed the intention to re-instate the Liberal Democrat's Live Music Bill, and to make it into law. This commitment received the loudest applause of the night. And - maybe more significantly - it also got both a grin and a thumbs-up from Arts Minister Ed Vaizey.' http://londonjazz.blogspot.com/2010/05/parliamentary-jazz-awards-resultsreview.html As it turns out, Vaizey does not have the licensing brief. It was announced today that this has gone to DCMS Tourism minister John Penrose. For the moment, it seems, licensing remains a DCMS function: http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7071.aspx However, well-informed sources within the licensing industry believe that licensing will be transfered back to the Home Office, and that this will be announced in the Queen's Speech next Tuesday, 25th May, although DCMS may retain control of entertainment licensing. Significantly, it was Home Secretary Theresa May and not Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt who yesterday announced a 'complete review' of the Licensing Act: http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87075 As a shadow licensing minister, Mrs May severely criticised the legislation during Parliamentary debate, including this comment about the changeover to the new regime in 2005: 'The Minister [then James Purnell] should now face the truth and accept the reality of what is happening. He need not accept my word, but he should accept the word of village halls, community centres, clubs and sports clubs throughout the country. He must face the truth, accept the chaos that the Act is causing and do something about it now.' [House of Commons, 12 July 2005] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo050712/debtext/50712-25.htm But a note of caution: many licensing ministers and several DCMS Secretaries of State have come and gone since the Licensing Bill was first published in November 2002. Some senior civil servants with licensing responsibility, however, have been in post for all that time. It will take a wily and determined minister indeed to wrest control of licensing from the Sir Humphreys within DCMS and the Home Office. ENDS |
|
20 May 10 - 02:19 PM (#2910717) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67073&c=1 Licensing stays with the DCMS 20 May, 2010 By James Wilmore Tory John Penrose will have licensing brief Tory MP John Penrose has been confirmed as the new minster responsible for licensing. |
|
21 May 10 - 05:22 AM (#2911110) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDdV_gAhbik&feature=youtube_gdata The new lot at DCMS - on You Tube. |
|
21 May 10 - 11:05 AM (#2911291) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1041224&c=1 11:05 | Thursday May 20, 2010 By Robert Ashton Live music won't be sidelined by the new Government, which in its first detailed programme has promised to "cut red tape" to encourage more performances. |
|
23 May 10 - 07:56 AM (#2912450) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Phil Little. DCMS told me Small Gigs Consultation will be published after website has been overhauled. |
|
27 May 10 - 08:50 AM (#2915256) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/newshastings/Pubs-hit-out-over-councils.6311371.jp A furious landlady has hit out at the council after she was told her pub was too noisy. Stephanie Beale of The Marina Fountain, Caves Road, St Leonards, was stunned to be served with a noise abatement order by Hastings Borough Council and publicans across the town agree the authority's approach has become too harsh. |
|
27 May 10 - 12:56 PM (#2915393) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Dennis the Elder The report states "She said: "There was no discussion, no shot across the boughs, nothing." If this is true then she should complain to the Chief Environmental Officer or equivalent or to her Local Authority Councillor or preferably the leader of her council. I am very surprised to hear that there was no discussion. Having been involved in the service of a few of these notices my self, I would not consider service of notice unless all other avenues, to solve the problem, had been exhausted. |
|
27 May 10 - 02:43 PM (#2915458) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/8184671.Venue_wants_council_to_call_time_on_flats_plan/ THE owner of one of Worcester's most popular live music venues has opposed plans to built flats directly opposite – unless soundproofing and ventilation work is included in the scheme. |
|
27 May 10 - 03:21 PM (#2915485) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles If this is true then she should complain to the Chief Environmental Officer or equivalent or to her Local Authority Councillor or preferably the leader of her council. Having taken all those steps myself to no effect (other than to unite all these parties even more firmly against the complainant) and with the complaint then going to the Local Government Ombudsman, I consider this suggested course of action to be a complete waste of time and effort. Sensible local officers may exist but in areas where they do not - it is difficult to see any way that a sensible course can be obtained. |
|
29 May 10 - 05:01 AM (#2916447) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Dennis the Elder Did the Local government Ombudsman help in your situation? Obviously, if so this could be the landlady's next step. With reference to your previous post regarding objecting to planning, this too can be problematic. I remember once objecting as an officer to the building Houses around the site of a large dog kennels. This objection was successful and plans were refused. Unfortunately on appeal planning permission was subsequently granted with central government intervention. Subsequently due to the numerous dog barking complaints from the occupiers of the new dwellings the council had to pay to relocate the dog kennels. Just illustrating that even when there is a sensible approach by officers and by council members common sense is still overturned. Life is not quite as simple with regards to officers alleged noise nuisance as it first appears. You are obviously aware of this. In some instances it appears to be a loose loose situation, when none of the parties involved is satisfied with the officer's action. I must, however state that at present in the authority where I am working we have over a 90% rate for amicable solutions, but is this even good enough?. |
|
29 May 10 - 12:14 PM (#2916611) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Did the Local government Ombudsman help in your situation? No it did not help and made a sensible solution even more unlikely. But is there really any choice for the public when the advice presented and decisions made by local authority employees are not sensible? Without being too judgemental here about local authority employees (for I am one also) - we do have to be realistic. In any internal complaint process, it is probably not very realistic to expect those complained about to find themselves to be wrong. This process must have first taken place before a complaint to the LGO is possible. You have to look at the nature of complaints and the quite different responses dependent on this and which raise many further questions. For example, (a) one to the local authority from the public about noise and (b) one about the local authority from the public. In (a) the whole system could certainly be seen as not only built to satisfy complainants but possibly as bound to encourage such complaints and to involve much available pieces of legislation in the process. In (b) the whole system could certainly be seen as not only built to support the original decision but possibly as bound to discourage such complaints and to involve much available pieces of legislation in the process. In (a) the complaint is most likely to be thought valid but in (b) the complaint is thought more likely not to be valid. The statistic were that in 95% of the complaints, the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) found the complainants to be wrong. And in the remaining 5%, the complainants were not happy with the results of a supposed successful result in their favour. The LGO is not an effective watchdog and without one - how can there be any expectation of help from this quarter or of there being any sensible actions resulting from local authority employees? For they know that any member of the public who is forced to complain about their actions, will only find the LGO too willing to findings against the complainant. |
|
01 Jun 10 - 07:47 PM (#2918664) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87230?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Licensing Act: is it a review or a revamp? * By Peter Coulson * 01/06/2010 11:19 Last week, the new Government announced that it was embarking on a review of the Licensing Act, but not a change of department, as had been predicted. |
|
03 Jun 10 - 05:59 PM (#2920053) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://rhyljournal.co.uk/news/89108/pubgoers-protest-over-noise-notice.aspx A spokesperson from Denbighshire County Council confirmed that a complaint had been received and a noise abatement notice issued while investigations go on. Just one complaint.................. |
|
03 Jun 10 - 07:25 PM (#2920102) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Dennis the Elder I am beginning to believe that local authorities have becomea little gung ho! It is important to investigate the complaint, prior to the service of notice, not after. The action of Denbighshire County Council sounds a litle pathetic, as if the officers do not know what they are doing, very sad! |
|
04 Jun 10 - 06:01 AM (#2920361) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles It would seem that any old complaint from anybody about noise is assumed in the first instance to be a valid one. The validity of the complaint must be investigated first. My experience of making a formal representation to support a licensing application for my local pub was that it was ruled not to be valid. The danger seems to be that once any form of noise complaint is made, all council departments seem to become involved in insuring that some form of resulting sanction is applied and such sanctions will affect non-amplified music, which is not presenting any noise concern, as no distinction is made. http://www.muswellhilljournal24.co.uk/content/haringey/muswellhilljournal/news/story.aspx?brand=MHJOnline&category=news&tBrand=n Muswell Hill ward councillor Jonathan Bloch also called for a "no discos or DJs" rule, no amplified live music and for the licence to end with the building lease. In an open letter to objectors, Mr Shelmerdine agreed to many curbs and said "no-one has ever complained to the police or the council about any of our parties" held when the café was last licensed, between 1999 and 2005. |
|
04 Jun 10 - 06:07 AM (#2920367) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles There seemed to be a problem with that link. Battle over 'boozing in the wood' plan by late-night cafe nlnews@archant.co.uk 02 June 2010 A BID to sell booze to partygoers until 1am in a tranquil wood has been met with outrage by residents and conservation groups. The owner of Queens Wood Café in Queen's Wood, Muswell Hill, which backs on to dozens of homes in six roads, wants to increase takings by opening up the tiny former wood-keeper's cottage for hire. But residents have bombarded the council with 200 PAGES of objections - some calling for the application to be thrown out altogether amid fears of an increase in crime and disorder. One neighbour called the bid "frankly tantamount to an application to become a public nuisance", while others suggested banning "private parties" altogether at the venue, which sits in a nature reserve. Café owner Harry Shelmerdine has already scaled back the hours for selling alcohol to midnight on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights and 11pm on other nights, after police objected. But he has not gone far enough for some. In a letter to the council's licensing team, The Highgate Society said "private parties, where a primary object is the consumption of alcohol and loud music, should be specifically excluded" from the licence. A Muswell Hill Road resident echoed many others' fears of "potentially large numbers of people congregating late at night with alcohol (and inevitably drugs) in close proximity to our homes". An objector whose Connaught Gardens home backs on to the woods blasted the "ridiculous" bid, adding: "This is completely at odds with everything the lodge has stood for and everything that is the very nature of the woods." Another neighbour said: "If we had wished to live where 'the action' is we would have chosen to live among the shops and restaurants". Others claim the entire application is void - even illegal - as notices at the café were not prominent enough. Concerns were also raised about a threat to wildlife, the health and safety of revellers stumbling around the unlit woods, and parking pressures. The small cafe is currently only used after 6pm for "art exhibition openings, book launches and meetings of local associations", said Mr Shelmerdine in his application. It has a capacity of 56 altogether, but only 30 inside. The council's noise team has asked the licensing panel, which meets on Monday evening, to impose a raft of restrictions to clamp down on disturbance, including sound limiters and keeping all doors and windows closed. Its report added the noise from partygoers leaving at the end of the night "is likely to be detrimental" to neighbours and could be "exacerbated by the level of public transport available" there late at night. Muswell Hill ward councillor Jonathan Bloch also called for a "no discos or DJs" rule, no amplified live music and for the licence to end with the building lease. In an open letter to objectors, Mr Shelmerdine agreed to many curbs and said "no-one has ever complained to the police or the council about any of our parties" held when the café was last licensed, between 1999 and 2005. |
|
04 Jun 10 - 12:22 PM (#2920564) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Phil Little. While researching case histories of pubs with licensing problems, one thing is becoming clear. That is, the recent trend is for Council licensing officers is to issue 'Pre-emptive Noise Abatement Orders'. That means live music can be stopped or an event can be cancelled for ...causing too much noise before it has actually happened, because a licensing officer thinks it might cause a noise problem. Worse still these officers are not using sound measuring equipment to measure excessive deci-bells. They are relying on their ears. It is essential this new co-alition take steps to curb the tyranny maintained by local authority licensing departments. |
|
04 Jun 10 - 01:31 PM (#2920623) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.popall.co.uk/training/leadinglawyerscallforamorebalancedapproachtonoisefrompubs.asp "There have been two recent decisions on the topical issue of nuisance affecting licensed premises, but I think the subject remains a mystery to some. The first point is that 'nuisance' is a technical term and does not simply mean that residents can hear either music or noise from a pub or pub garden (as some residents think); the test is, thankfully, less straightforward. |
|
06 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM (#2921846) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2010-06-03a.396.1&s=rural I have a few words to say about music. I hope that the coalition will be able to make a clear statement on the situation over the Live Music Bill, which was widely supported but failed to survive the last few days of the previous Administration. A widely criticised recent DCMS live music report claimed that overall live music is "thriving", but acknowledged that this was not the case for smaller venues. However, the "thriving" conclusion was not based on any direct measure of performances, but relied instead on indirect evidence-an 11 per cent increase in live music licence applications, an apparent 20 per cent increase in the number of professional musicians, and a modest increase in self-reported gig attendance and Arts Council participation data. The last time that the DCMS surveyed actual performances in venues like bars and restaurants was in 2007. This showed a 5 per cent fall in performances after the Licensing Act came into effect in April 2005, measured against benchmark the 2004 pre-Act MORI survey which found that the majority of premises had no music at all in the previous 12 months. This did not stop DCMS from calling it a flourishing live music scene. The Live Music Bill, which would give licensing exemption to gigs for fewer than 200 people, reintroduce the "two in a bar" rule that allows one or two musicians to play with either minimal or no amplification and exempt hospitals, schools and colleges from requiring licences for events where alcohol is not being sold should be reintroduced to Parliament as soon as possible. I believe that the Home Secretary, Theresa May, will be reviewing the 2003 Licensing Act and I urge her to consider separating entertainment licensing with an exemption for small gigs from alcohol licensing. Grouping those two licensable activities together may have seemed a neat administrative solution, but it has seriously harmed live music in different ways, first by significantly reducing the number of places where musicians can work and radically increasing bureaucracy and, secondly, by creating the wholly misleading impression that live music is first and foremost a danger to society-as dangerous as alcohol. That is not only offensive to those who care for live music; it suggests that, as a nation, we have surrendered to petty officialdom. |
|
07 Jun 10 - 03:59 AM (#2922176) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=66789 8 April, 2010 Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt said: "We support the campaign to extend the exemption from requiring a licence for live music performances to 200 people. "The Licensing Act was meant to support the live music industry, but has turned out to be a disaster. "Extending the exemption to 200 people will reduce the burden of bureaucracy on pubs, and provide a much needed boost to the live music industry." |
|
07 Jun 10 - 04:06 AM (#2922178) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/feature.php/28030/cultivating-culture Published Wednesday 28 April 2010 at 15:11 by Nick Clegg We'll also end the bureaucratic nightmares that hold performers back, like Labour's live music licensing system, for example. It has become a complicated, time-consuming regime which has even caught schools, hospitals and colleges in its tentacles, and is stifling the kind of small-scale live music that is so important for the future. So we'll exempt small venues with capacities of less than 200 and go back to the rule where any venue can put on a performance of un-amplified music by one or two people without a licence. That is how we can foster new talent and new community venues. And Liberal Democrats recognise how extraordinarily competitive careers in performance and the arts can be, and how many of the people working in them are struggling. |
|
07 Jun 10 - 11:23 AM (#2922388) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2072261_caversham_school_bids_for_booze_licence The live music relates to school music concerts and bands performing at weddings, while dancing provision relates to the school's summer ball held every other year. But 23 letters of objection have been received from residents concerned it will cause "public nuisance" and an increase in traffic. |
|
08 Jun 10 - 01:18 PM (#2923194) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Over 2000 public comments on Government's plans for next five years. Add your views by 10 June http://bit.ly/aUNtUT |
|
09 Jun 10 - 04:22 AM (#2923698) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: nickp "So we'll exempt small venues with capacities of less than 200 and go back to the rule where any venue can put on a performance of un-amplified music by one or two people without a licence. " Not sure I'd want to be unamplified with 200 people. Unless they were very very quiet! |
|
09 Jun 10 - 01:06 PM (#2923989) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=982 By amending the notice in the Church's favour, the Court established an important principle—namely that any decision to serve a Noise Abatement Notice must be objectively verifiable by means of an independent Sound Level and not at the subjective whim of an Enforcement Officer. It may be an important principle but it would seem that few if any LAs are taking any notice............. |
|
09 Jun 10 - 01:12 PM (#2923996) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles "So we'll exempt small venues with capacities of less than 200 and go back to the rule where any venue can put on a performance of un-amplified music by one or two people without a licence. " A reintroduction of the two-in-a-bar would at least return the situation to what is was. However, this part of the Live Music Bill is the typical animal that tends to be created out of the committee process, it is a totally new and confused creation and it is important that it should not be referred to as the reintroduction of anything. This version first seemed to surface as a compromise from the Select Committee but they and the Lib Dems when adopting it, missed the main aspect of 2-in-a-bar. This exempted all live music by 2 or less 'performers' & applied only where alcohol licensing was already in place. This at least sensibly recognised that no additional entertainment licensing was required in these premises to ensure the public's interest and safety. Which is a logical starting point. The introduction of an exemption for non-amplified music will be of little real benefit to the majority of live music performance but such an exemption will end the situation where the small amount of non-amplified music that does stuggle on, is prevented or limited on the grounds of noise. It would be easy to extend to all non-amplified live muisc, the existing exemption for the non-amplified music for a performance of Morris Dancing. For is the current situation logical, where the same instruments playing the same non-amplified tunes becomes licensable if there is no one dancing? Of course an expansion of the 200 capacity exemption would be of most use but care must be taken to ensure that an attempt at an exemption to cover all non-amplified music is not dropped. |
|
09 Jun 10 - 02:12 PM (#2924063) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Falmouth's Sea Shanty Festival has not been granted an entertainment licence - because organisers missed the deadline. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/10274836.stm |
|
10 Jun 10 - 08:37 AM (#2924529) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Fancy a glass of wine on the ward? Thursday, June 10, 2010, 11:00Patients at a new private hospital near Bath could soon be enjoying a glass of wine with their meals. CircleBath has applied to Bath and North East Somerset Council for an alcohol and regulated entertainment licence. If it is granted, people being treated at the £30 million hospital in Peasedown St John will be able to have alcohol with their food if medics agree. There will also be entertainment in the central atrium of the hospital for patients and visitors to enjoy. http://www.southwestbusiness.co.uk/healthcareequipmentandservices/Fancy-glass-wine-ward/article-2285352-detail/article.html |
|
10 Jun 10 - 03:23 PM (#2924848) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Old Vermin The story about the shanty license problem seems to have stayed on the BBC News front page for some while. No other news is good news. Time to write to my MP - the charming Jeremy Hunt - again, I guess. Come to think of it someone from Liberty [NCCL as was] - was it Shami Chakrabarti herself - was very pleasant and interested at the anti PEL Bill demo on a very chilly day way back. Oh, I was going to ask - what will the The Shambles - could he be the man who also posts to uk.music.folk - do with his extra spare time should the government sensibly reform or abolish the legislation? |
|
11 Jun 10 - 06:27 AM (#2925313) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/World-Cup-music-event-cancelled.6353303.jp World Cup music event cancelled Published Date: 10 June 2010 A LIVE music event which was due to take place over the weekend has been cancelled. Nine bands due to perform at The Hamilton Russell Arms, in Thorpe Thewles, near Wolviston, this weekend – as part of a World Cup beer festival – have been cancelled after a problem with the temporary entertainment licence. Bosses have said all other aspects of the festival will go ahead as planned, with the England v USA game shown live on a big screen on Saturday. People who have already bought tickets have the choice of £2 off on arrival or another pint of beer on top of the one they already get free with the ticket. Can anyone explain the logic involved here? The music is prevented but the TV sport event (the showing of which does not require any form of Entertainment Licensing) can proceed!!! |
|
11 Jun 10 - 10:06 AM (#2925408) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Old Vermin Typifies the worst of New Labour's mix of bureaucracy and old meddling Puritanism. Are you feeding this to the Minister now responsible or do you know that someone else is? |
|
11 Jun 10 - 10:18 AM (#2925415) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Presumably if the bands played during the match then it would be "ancillary music" and wouldn't need a licence. |
|
11 Jun 10 - 05:10 PM (#2925741) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Are you feeding this to the Minister now responsible or do you know that someone else is? Sites like this are a way of keeping people informed. What they do with this information is a matter for them. Hopefully they will inform and discuss it with others. For the effect that may benefit us all, I would suggest that the best assumption to make is that none of this information has already being made available to anyone with the power to change matters. There will be little harm if this information is referred to many times by many people to those with the power to change matters. In fact that is probably the only way that positive change will occur. The real harm is if we don't. There is unlikely to be any benefit if we just disuss it amomgst ourselves here and everyone leaves it to everyone else to inform those with the power to change matters. So please don't assume that those with the power to changes things will have already been informed so you don't have to - just do what you can to inform them yourself and post any sensible responses here. |
|
14 Jun 10 - 04:21 AM (#2927298) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bid-to-end-music-hall-joke-of-safety-laws-1999929.html A former Cabinet Minister spoke today of his ambition to stop health and safety legislation being seen as a "music hall joke". Lord Young, who has been asked by Prime Minister David Cameron to lead a Whitehall-wide review of health and safety laws, said that over the past 10 to 12 years a "nanny state" had "really" developed. "There is no question, in any dangerous occupation, in any place where people are in danger, health and safety rules will apply," he told BBC Breakfast. "But there are so many parts of life where it is an absolute nonsense. If there were still music halls, it would be a music hall joke." |
|
14 Jun 10 - 02:12 PM (#2927692) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Be-fair-to-our-fair-pleads-Huppert.htm He wants the Government to change the Licensing Act to prevent last-minute licence reviews – similar to the one that led to the event being cancelled this summer. The Government has already agreed to review the Licensing Act and Mr Huppert wants his request included as part of that review. |
|
14 Jun 10 - 02:18 PM (#2927695) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67256&c=1 Penrose, whose remit as minister for tourism and heritage covers licensing, explained that responsibility for pubs would be shared between the Home Office and his department. "The partnership between us and the Home Office is because of the issues around licensing but I do not think you will find there is any agenda for the Home Office to penalise well-run pubs and clubs. "I hope it would not be necessary (for the two departments) to go into battle. There is a real issue about anti-social behaviour and the Home Office is looking at that, but I don't think we have to clamp down on the rest of the industry." The meeting also heard how plans to overhaul the Licensing Act were currently with the Home Secretary Theresa May. |
|
15 Jun 10 - 01:48 PM (#2928412) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/7155.aspx DCMS has published the consultation on 'entertainment failities'. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 04:04 AM (#2928823) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100614/text/100614w0001.htm#1006146000002 Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Licensing Act 2003 to prevent last-minute licence reviews of events held once a year; and if he will make a statement. [1906] John Penrose: The Department will be examining the Licensing Act 2003 and other regulatory regimes in order to consider the scope for streamlining and simplification. We want to ensure a careful balance between supporting the businesses affected by the regulation and ensuring the public are protected. We will consider the options carefully before making any firm decisions. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM (#2929228) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Shefield Council's submission is interesting. It is our view also that the music created by customers/members of the public is not a 'provision' by the premises owner and therefore not a licensable activity in itself and therefore not requiring the incidental exemption. It is the provision of the facilities themselves that are licensable not the music emanating from them. We therefore think that the question asked is based on a false premise. |
|
17 Jun 10 - 02:11 PM (#2929978) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2010-06-16a.975.1 Lord Colwyn (Conservative) Will my noble friend the Minister report any progress on the Live Music Bill, which so nearly became law in the past Parliament and would have given licensing exemption to small venues, thus encouraging musical performance, especially for young musicians? Lord Shutt of Greetland (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords; Liberal Democrat) My Lords, my noble friend may well be right about that. I am afraid that I have no news about any timescale for such a Bill. |
|
18 Jun 10 - 05:31 AM (#2930352) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Lord Shutt of Greetland (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords; Liberal Democrat) My Lords, my noble friend may well be right about that. I am afraid that I have no news about any timescale for such a Bill. Trust in the words of Lib Dems? http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/feature.php/28030/cultivating-culture So we'll exempt small venues with capacities of less than 200 and go back to the rule where any venue can put on a performance of un-amplified music by one or two people without a licence. That is how we can foster new talent and new community venues. And Liberal Democrats recognise how extraordinarily competitive careers in performance and the arts can be, and how many of the people working in them are struggling. |
|
18 Jun 10 - 05:35 AM (#2930355) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ism.org/news_campaigns/article/live_music_bill_must_be_passed_as_soon_as_possible/ |
|
18 Jun 10 - 05:38 AM (#2930357) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://newsfrombrighton.co.uk/brighton-pub-reviews/the-freebutt-hit-by-closure-threat/ Brighton and Hove City Council have threatened to enfore a current noise abatement order on the venue, which is located near to Phoenix Brighton, which would hinder the prospect of live music at the venue in the future. A press release from the owners explains: "Despite constant attempts to fix the problems and come to an agreement on how to move forward, owners now appear to have reached a dead end with council officials, after asking for some reasonable time to sort out the alleged sound issues which they had previously been told to do nothing about. This could lead not only to the closing of a historic venue but the loss of 15 creative jobs in the city and a dent in tourism figures after what owners believe to be a series of Environmental Health Department blunders." |
|
19 Jun 10 - 03:12 AM (#2930951) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: SPB-Cooperator Seems similar to what happened to the George and Dragon in Acton which was an established music venue, albeit rock, not folk. The problems arose when the old co-op store site was redeveloped into yuppie gated luxury apartments to which the buyers objected to the sound bleed, and got the venue closed down. I know it was awfully inconsiderate to build, more than 300 years ago, on a site next to where there would be luxury apartments..... |
|
19 Jun 10 - 09:47 AM (#2931034) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles |
|
19 Jun 10 - 09:48 AM (#2931035) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Ooops! http://www.actonw3.com/default.asp?section=info&page=egandd01.htm |
|
19 Jun 10 - 10:00 AM (#2931037) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www2.canterbury.gov.uk/committee/Data/Licensing%20Sub%20Committee/20070717/Agenda/Agenda%20Enclosure%208.pdf John King comments: Here we have Blean Primary School which has been saddled with restrictions on their premises licence for dancing and music. Even in the assembly hall. These bizarre restrictions were enforced as a result... of - yet again - ONE complaint from a neighbour. http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page3411/Hawkshead__Esthwaite_Primary_School.pdf Licensing of live music in primary schools is THRIVING. Hawkshead Esthwaite Primary School. Premises licence granted for two performances of Christmas productions during assembly. Entertainment facilities for rehearsals and music... lessons have also been licensed. Well done to the LGA for blocking Licensing Act reform. |
|
19 Jun 10 - 10:02 AM (#2931040) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page3026/Stramongate_School,_Kendal.pdf Stramongate Primary School - licence for choir practice, a film licence for watching a DVD in assembly and other trivial activities. |
|
19 Jun 10 - 10:08 AM (#2931041) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page3026/Allithwaite_CE_Primary_School.pdf Licensing of live music in primary schools (despite DCMS denials) really is THRIVING. A sure fire way of bulking up DCMS live music 'statistics'. By including in their statistics, all the applications from premises like these schools that the Licensing Act has now made neccessary - DCMS advise Ministers, who advise us, that an increase in application = an increase in live music. |
|
23 Jun 10 - 06:51 PM (#2933583) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/7150.aspx#a Govt publishes responses to the consultation to exempt small scale events from the Licensing Act. |
|
23 Jun 10 - 06:54 PM (#2933587) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-06-21a.5.0&s=speaker%3A10288#g5.5 John Whittingdale (Maldon, Conservative) Is my hon. Friend aware that the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee-that there should be an exemption for smaller venues of a capacity below 200-was supported by the previous Government, who were intending to introduce a regulatory order to provide an exemption for venues of a capacity below 150, and that there was widespread disappointment that that was not done? Will he confirm that he sees no need for any further consultation and that he will move to introduce the necessary order as soon as possible? John Penrose (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport; Weston-Super-Mare, Conservative) My concern is that my hon. Friend's proposal goes for a particular solution when there might be a broader and potentially more radical solution that should also be considered. If we go for other alternatives, we will need to consult on them, but if we decide to go down the route of ideas that have already been thoroughly canvassed, I would obviously want to move as fast as possible and reduce the level of consultation to the bare legal minimum. |
|
23 Jun 10 - 07:07 PM (#2933597) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Leadfingers 400 |
|
23 Jun 10 - 07:17 PM (#2933605) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Leadfingers And DONT hold your breath on any change !! |
|
24 Jun 10 - 03:19 AM (#2933747) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles My concern is that my hon. Friend's proposal goes for a particular solution when there might be a broader and potentially more radical solution that should also be considered. Yes Do I detect a move toward yet more consultation? As it would seem difficult enough to implement a solution that all parties to the present coalition Government are agreed on and which has already been subject to many delays and a consultation - perhaps it would be better to proceed with this NOW! Whatever this more broader and possibly more radical solution may be, the idea of yet more delay with the possible outcome that it may be considered too broad and too radical, is not one to be risked. Implement what has been agreed and then a move towards a broader and more radical solution can be given whatever time that such a solution may need. Whatever this solution might be? |
|
24 Jun 10 - 03:55 AM (#2933762) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: IanC Surely the "broader solution" can only be to repeal the whole of the entertainments provision in the licensing act, leaving us with a situation as in Scotland. This is what we should now be campaigning for. |
|
24 Jun 10 - 04:43 PM (#2934194) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1041612&c=1 12:28 | Tuesday June 22, 2010 By Robert Ashton The Live Music Forum has written to the chair of the UK Statistics Authority to complain that the DCMS is being misleading about the data it has on live music. The LMF and a number of other live music supporters is asking the UKSA to make an assessment on the statistics that the Government is using to underpin its report, Live Music: An Analysis Of The Sector. |
|
26 Jun 10 - 05:34 PM (#2935261) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Phil Little. Live Music Petition: Waiting for Downing Street's permission to deliver the petition. Presentation group; myself, HB two Lords and an MP. |
|
30 Jun 10 - 05:27 PM (#2937509) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Coalition Agreement specifically states that the new government will "cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music". I questioned ministers about this commitment only last week, and their aim remains to bring about changes as quickly as possible. That's why I am confident that, very soon, British musical talent will be flourishing in small venues once more. http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=20114&utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter |
|
30 Jun 10 - 05:30 PM (#2937510) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Meanwhile........................... http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Pubs-permit-application-ignites-residents-worries.htm Pub's permit application ignites residents' worries by ADRIAN JENKINS ANTI-SOCIAL behaviour may increase if a pub is allowed to become a 'nightclub' by staging live music, films, dance and indoor sports events, police, environment watchdogs and villagers have warned. |
|
30 Jun 10 - 05:34 PM (#2937512) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Torment-residents-earns-pub-hefty-fine/article-2324880-detail/article.html 'Torment' of residents earns pub a hefty fine THE owner of a pub in Totterdown has been ordered to pay more than £12,000 after repeated complaints about noise. Residents in County Street complained to Bristol City Council about customers shouting and screaming from a balcony and deafening music being played at The Bush in Wells Road. |
|
01 Jul 10 - 04:18 AM (#2937725) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall. Three respected academics, professors Alison Macfarlane, Simon Frith and Martin Cloonan, have signed a Live Music Forum letter to Sir Michael Scholar, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA), expressing concern that DCMS 'persists in making the misleading claim that "overall live music is thriving"'. Sent on 18 June, the letter follows the reinstatement on the DCMS website of its controversial report 'Live Music - An Analysis of the Sector': http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/research_and_statistics/6602.aspx The LMF letter concludes with a request that as a matter of urgency the UKSA 'make[s] a full and public assessment of the statistics on which the DCMS bases its claim': http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/hbtouksaletter.htm Alison Macfarlane is a statistician specializing in the interpretation and use of official statistics and is Professor of Perinatal Health at City University London. She is also involved in the performance and promotion of traditional folk music. Simon Frith is Tovey Professor of Music at the University of Edinburgh and Principal Investigator on the Arts and Humanities Research Council funded project, Researching Live Music in the UK. See: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/FundedResearch/Pages/ResearchDetail.aspx?id=136001 Martin Cloonan is Professor of Popular Music Politics at the University of Glasgow and co-investigator on the AHRC-funded project above. The LMF letter was prompted in part by the release of email correspondence between the UKSA and DCMS, following a Freedom of Information Act request by musician Gareth Huw Davies. The exchange provides an unprecedented insight into the way a senior civil servant with a fixed idea can influence not only government policy and ministers' statements, but also the policy positions of powerful agencies like the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (both have suggested that as live music is 'thriving', there is no need for a new entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs). Vivienne Avery, chief DCMS statistician, is convinced that the state of live music is 'healthy'. But the evidence is very limited and indirect. The correspondence suggests that the UKSA became increasingly sceptical of DCMS claims. John King of the Welwyn Live Music Forum has helpfully annotated Ms Avery's arguments. His analysis suggests that not only music, but also the alcohol statistics have been seriously misinterpreted: http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/welwyncommentsondcmscorrespondence.pdf Among other things, Ms Avery claimed in her UKSA correspondence that my own experience was '... confined to one genre of music'. I don't know where she got that idea. She has never asked me about my musical experience, and appears to have relied on second-hand, ill-informed advice. I wrote to her explaining that my 38 years of professional playing have included, and continue to include, a variety of genres, including swing, funk and soul. But despite my requesting an acknowledgement and an apology, neither has been forthcoming. ENDS |
|
01 Jul 10 - 04:59 AM (#2937741) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: IanC We already seem to have a decent presence on the new Your Freedoms website ... Pavane IanC Your comments would no doubt be appreciated. :-) |
|
01 Jul 10 - 04:54 PM (#2938100) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,polly lloyd The Hamilton Russell Arms in Thorpe Thewles will be having a beer festival on July 16th to 18th, to replace the June festival which was cancelled due to a licensing problem. There will be over 30 real ales over the course of the weekend (15 at a time) including beers from local breweries Consett Ale Works, Yard of Ale and Hill Island. The beer tent opens on Friday at 5pm and there will be 9 local bands on throughout the weekend. Tickets are on sale now at £5 for a day pass or £7 for the weekend. All tickets include a free taster drink and a branded festival glass. For more information, see the pub's website (www.hamiltonrussell.com). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
02 Jul 10 - 06:22 AM (#2938413) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/ Update 10am Friday 2 July We're working to create a more open and less intrusive society. We want to restore Britain's traditions of freedom and fairness, and free our society of unnecessary laws and regulations – both for individuals and businesses. This site gives you the chance to suggest how we can do this. Your ideas will inform government policy and some of your proposals could end up making it into bills we bring before Parliament to change the law. So if there are any laws or regulations you'd like us to do away with, then first, check if there are any similar ideas here already and then add your comments to it and rate it to move it up the list. If it's not here, then add it! And remember - we want you to suggest ideas for removing laws and regulations, rather than ideas for creating them. |
|
02 Jul 10 - 08:06 AM (#2938463) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles These might start you off... HERE are some of the things that have been formally prohibited by our loony laws... Change the Licensing Act 2003, under which publicans face a £20,000 fine and six months in jail for allowing live music without a licence. Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3035677/Your-chance-to-join-Sun-and-Government-in-Rip-Up-The-Red-Tape-campaign.html#ixzz0sWfb4q8m |
|
02 Jul 10 - 01:40 PM (#2938624) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.burnhamandhighbridgeweeklynews.co.uk/news/8245410.Protests_at_Oak_Tree_Arena_event/ Protests at Oak Tree Arena event 11:00am Thursday 1st July 2010 NEIGHBOURS have strongly objected to plans to hold a live music event at the Oak Tree Arena in Highbridge - claiming it would infringe on their human rights. |
|
02 Jul 10 - 02:24 PM (#2938653) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Leadfingers Government Consultation seems to mean - Yes , we hear what you say but we've made our minds up already ! |
|
02 Jul 10 - 07:32 PM (#2938837) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Tootler Too true Leadfingers, especially if the weasel words "No decision has yet been taken..." are included. |
|
05 Jul 10 - 11:50 AM (#2940116) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67408&c=1 Major groups making joint submission in response to coalition's alcohol plans All the major trade groups have united over a joint submission to government which sets out the industry's response to a planned "overhaul" of the licensing regime. In what is being seen as "pre-consultation consultation", the coalition has asked for the industry's initial thoughts on proposals to tackle alcohol-related problems. |
|
06 Jul 10 - 12:23 PM (#2940702) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Pub-wins-its-fight-stay-open-longer.htm Again, longer serving hours for alcohol are granted but restrictions are placed on live music. Yet there has been no crime in the area and following complaints the Environmental Health judged the volume of music to be acceptable. These type of restrictions are not showing up in the DCMS statistics, as the Enertainment Premission is seen to be granted. Thus from the number of applications, we are expected to accept that live music is thriving! Live music needs to be free from the whims of local authority employees before it is too late. |
|
06 Jul 10 - 01:34 PM (#2940736) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=135571066472562 The Live Music Forum was established in Hastings in June 1993 and has continuously campaigned for relaxation in the licensing of live music. |
|
07 Jul 10 - 01:59 AM (#2941048) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/hr_careerprofiles_senior_licensing_officer A day in the life of an Senior Licensing Officer. My proudest achievement working as a Senior Licensing Officer was during the six month transitional period of the Licensing Act 2003 when the Council went from licensing just over 100 premises to licensing nearly 700 premises and over 1000 people in a period of six months. As part of this transitional period I mediated on, wrote reports for and presented at committee 82 applications. |
|
07 Jul 10 - 11:06 AM (#2941198) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall A revamped Live Music Bill by Lib Dem peer Lord Clement-Jones will get a first reading this afternoon in the House of Lords. Among other things, the new Bill proposes: An entertainment licence exemption for performances of live music in bars between 8am and midnight to audiences of up to 200, rather than in premises of up to 200 capacity - but subject to review if there are problems; A similar exemption in places not already licensed under the Act, but which qualify as a workplace under health and safety legislation, including cafes, schools and hospitals; An exemption for solely unamplified live music between 8am and midnight, without restriction on the number of performers, subject to review in places already licensed under the Act, such as bars and pubs. The removal of the requirement to licence entertainment facilities. Full details, including copies of the Bill, should be available tomorrow on the UK Parliament website: www.parliament.uk ENDS |
|
07 Jul 10 - 11:16 AM (#2941202) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/downingstreetstatement.pdf The Live Music Forum have prepared a press release to coincide with the presenting of the Live Music Events Petition to 10 Downing Street tomorrow. Lord Clement-Jones, DCMS Select Commitee Chairman John Whittingdale, and Lord Colwyn will also be attending. The following is from that press release. Live music can never thrive where its mere provision is a potential criminal offence unless licensed, but where all broadcast entertainment and most recorded music in bars is automatically allowed. And live music can never thrive under the strict control of licensing authorities that have been encouraged by the LGA to invite and then uphold complaints about live music events before they have even taken place. We urge the Coalition to exempt grassroots live music from this draconian licensing regime, to introduce proper rules of evidence to licensing hearings, and to STOP Local Government from destroying our cultural heritage. |
|
07 Jul 10 - 11:23 AM (#2941208) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67426 Music campaigners to deliver 17,000-strong petition to Downing Street 7 July, 2010 By James Wilmore Liberal Democrat peer also resurrecting parliamentary Bill today Pressure on the government to relax the rules around live pub music is set to intensify as a peer resurrects a parliamentary Bill today – and campaigners prepare to deliver a 17,000 signature petition to Downing Street. Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones will re-introduce a modified version of his Live Music Bill in the Lords this afternoon. |
|
07 Jul 10 - 12:14 PM (#2941233) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ism.org/news_campaigns/article/ism_and_jazz_services_join_forces_to_back_the_live_music_bill/ The ISM and Jazz Services announced today that there are deep rooted concerns from the music sector that government plans for a further review could delay progress of the Live Music Bill. This could have a serious impact on all musicians, particularly Jazz and young musicians, fresh out of Conservatoires, who are likely to suffer the most. A stronger review hinted at by the minister, John Penrose MP, offering 'broader and more radical' de-regulation is welcome and wholly backed by the ISM and Jazz Services, but both organisations believe that this review should by no means hinder the immediate help needed and already consulted on for musicians by the previous government. |
|
07 Jul 10 - 01:15 PM (#2941251) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge Well, the new manageress in my local pub has at a stroke reduced noise nuisance from it that had gone unhindered by all of the rules and regulations to date. It's very simple. If she goes upstairs and can't properly hear her telly, then the jukebox/TV/karaoke/whatever downstairs gets told to turn down. Argue and you get unplugged and never come again. So the first of the proposed new exemptions is too wide. If I as a stroppy solicitor cannot get noise nuisance from the local pub reduced, existing noise controls do not work. I accordingly think that whenever live music would be licensable, so should jukeboxes and big screen TVs and anything else with an amplifier in. |
|
07 Jul 10 - 07:03 PM (#2941428) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles So the first of the proposed new exemptions is too wide. If I as a stroppy solicitor cannot get noise nuisance from the local pub reduced, existing noise controls do not work. If noise controls in the Environmental Protection Act do not work - perhaps you would agree that it is these which need to be addressed? And if this is really the case - with the existing measures contained in the Licensing Act - then changing these will make no difference at all, other than to further confuse the situation. The licensing Act's additional entertainment licensing, should no longer been seen and championed as any way of dealing with noise nuisence. This is plainly the case as the Licensing Act is limited only to possible noise nuisence emanating from entertainment and premises which are granted additional entertainment licensing, are instructed that their entertainments are still subject the Environmental Protection Act. Subjecting them to these measures in the Licensing Act is unecessary and expensive duplication. As it is required in advance, such measures in the Licensing Act affect all entertainment, whether these would subsequently prove to cause any noise nuisance or not. Can we please stop perpetuating the myth that the Licensing Act is any way connected with preventing noise nuisence? |
|
07 Jul 10 - 08:59 PM (#2941505) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge That is irrational. It is like saying that if your car engine oil overheats you should fit a larger oil cooler (which you should) BUT NOT an oil temperature gauge. The Safe Tea Elf also applies to noise - but no-one I think suggests that it should be otherwise because the EPA has application too. |
|
08 Jul 10 - 03:05 AM (#2941600) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles As it is required in advance, such measures in the Licensing Act affect all entertainment, whether these would subsequently prove to cause any noise nuisance or not. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/10274836.stm In the case of non-amplified shanty performances - there is little danger of any over-heating but there are dangers presented to the event by assumptions that all entertainment must be subject to the advance red-tape of additional licensing permission. The fitting of an oil temprature Encouraging this dangerous approach is to encourage the common but erroneous assumption, that the removal of the need for additional entertainment licensing means that this exposes the public to noise nuisance. Would you think is sensible to fit an oil temperature gauge to all bicycles? |
|
08 Jul 10 - 12:39 PM (#2941835) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Hello, we are looking for help and advice on a short film we are making. We aim to expose the ridiculousness of the current licensing laws, as they pertain to music in the public house. We're sure everyone knows the laws, and duly seeks their rapid amendment. The film will focus on the exceptions to the law which prove its absurdity - viz., it is alright to sing as long as you are doing something else to make it incidental, and it is alright to sing as part of a religious ceremony, or if someone is morris-dancing to it. We know there are many people actively involved in this campaign already, and we wanted to make sure our own efforts could co-ordinate with everyone else's, in order to make the pressure on C&C insurmountable. After all, the YOUR FREEDOM campaign seems built for this. So far, it is all fart and no poo, while the Live Music peoples are offering a perfectly good way for the government to prove their freedom mettle. That is the plan. Please advice, musicians and campaigners all. Ed and Will, www.awalkaroundbritain.com |
|
08 Jul 10 - 12:48 PM (#2941847) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The new Live Music Bill http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/012/11012.1-i.html Key points: ... An licensing exemption for any live music (whether amplified or not) for audiences of 200 or under. An outright exemption for any unamplified music in any licensed premises. An outright exemption for any live music in places defined as work places - which would include hospitals, schools, retirement homes. |
|
09 Jul 10 - 09:17 AM (#2942313) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.jazzwisemagazine.com/component/content/article/67-2010/11485-jazz-breaking-news-revamped-licensing-bill-begins-legisl |
|
09 Jul 10 - 09:25 AM (#2942319) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://app.southwark.gov.uk/Licensing/LicPremisesAppliedDetails.asp?systemkey=832414 The following from John King At Southwark Council, Form 696 is still THRIVING. Although the overtly racist 'ethnic profile' questions have been removed from the form, it is still being used to target premises popular with black and Asian citizens. |
|
09 Jul 10 - 09:30 AM (#2942323) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Again from John King. For those correspondents who wanted more details of the LGA bogus survey into noise complaints as mentioned in the LMF Press release - here is the original article from the LGA website. We obtained confirmation that NO council leader was in fact contacted. http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=6467844 Proposals to allow pubs and bars to put on live music without the need for a licence could lead to a massive increase in noise problems, council leaders warned today, as a survey was published into the possible impacts of planned changes to the 2003 Licensing Act. A poll of council licensing officers carried out by the Local Government Association Group found 9 out of 10 think proposals to relax the rules for venues would lead to an increase in complaints about noise and nuisance. More than half said they expected the increase to be considerable. |
|
09 Jul 10 - 11:30 AM (#2942393) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Also in that LGA article was the following: Cllr Chris White, Chair of the LGA's Culture, Tourism and Sport board, said: "Common sense measures to allow pubs and bars to put on live music with a minimum of bureaucracy are already in place and make further amendments pointless. Resisting the badly thought out plans for new exemption rules are not about automatically saying 'no' to live music. Councils want to be able to say 'yes', confident that local people have been considered as part of the process." Quite how Cllr White can feel he is speaking on behalf of 'Councils'is not clear but such things are all too common in the strange world of the LGA Group. It would be nice to think that these comments are really made on the behalf of local people. However not all local people feel they need to complain and many of these local people are also involved in live music and would feel that their concerns are seldom considered in the current process. For example, the LGA submission to the recent DCMS consultation on small premises, states that the LGA Group is against such exemptions as proposed. At the same time, there are are submissions from some member Councils which express a different view. One example is from a council where it was the Licensing Committee itself which made a submission in support of the proposal. The majority of submissions from employees claiming to speak as the Councils in question do tend to support the view already expressed on their behalf, in the LGA Group submission. It would be nice to accept at face value, Cllr White's view that Councils want to be able to say yes to live music. That many council employees and councillors feel they have every right to have a say in matters where many of us would rather they did not and in which many would doubt their basic understanding, is certainly the case. However, my experience is that this involvement and the expensive red-tape is presenting the one single obstacle to the health and spread of live music in all of its forms. Is it really Councils who should be saying yes or no to live music or is Cllr White presuming too much? A Councils role is to ensure only that premises are safe and suitable for whatever the public are to use them for. Their expertise is in these areas and not in the many forms of live music that they affect and those who have this expertise should be respected and consulted where too often they are ignored or worse. Thus we have a crazy system where the latest guidance is that the same live music is expected to be judged licensable by these councils if the name of the musician appears in the advert but not licensable if the advert simply states that some form of live music is to take place. Where it is true that Councils are not directly responsible for such legislation - one may hope that they would accept that their expertise is not in such matters and they would make some moves to address this. Sadly they would seem content to not only work with it but, in the form of the LGA Group, were the main movers in the development of the latest guidance on the interpretation of the Act's incidental exemption. The other parties in this consultation are also culpable but it is the LGA Group who would seem happy that Council employees continue to be expected to make vital subjective decisions that are not within their area of expertise. They are expected to rule if a live music activity is licensable or not, based on how the seating is arranged. Arranged in circle, it is not licensable but facing in one direction, it is licensable. If it is deemed to be licensable and proceeds without the required additional licensing permission, the operator could face prosecution, a £20,000 fine or 6 months in prison. This is madness. |
|
09 Jul 10 - 01:00 PM (#2942455) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles From the same article The LGA Group argues that further changes to the 2003 Licensing Act are unnecessary. Venues that want to have live music in the background rather than as a main attraction are able to make use of the 'incidental music' exemption. Since the Act's introduction, I have tried to ensure that unpaid, non-amplified folk music sessions in local pubs can benefit from this exemption. To date I have been unsuccessful. Even with the latest guidance, the elected councillors are still being advised that the only way such activities can take place is with additional entertainment as a performance of Regulated Entertainment and will be prevented without this. |
|
09 Jul 10 - 01:54 PM (#2942484) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87649 Video: Live music campaigners call for change. Hamish Birchall on Licensing Bill Changes. |
|
11 Jul 10 - 02:00 AM (#2943317) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.youtube.com/user/TheLivemusicforum |
|
11 Jul 10 - 10:56 AM (#2943423) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Tootler Don't be surprised if Councils - through the LGA or otherwise - fight this proposal tooth and nail. After all it is a nice little earner and provides lots of jobs for the boys. Of course they won't admit this, but it is likely behind their inconsistency and their somewhat lame reasons given as to why the new licensing regime is necessary. |
|
14 Jul 10 - 02:29 PM (#2944997) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Live Music Forum video statement on licensing and the Live Music Bill. http://www.youtube.com/user/TheLivemusicforum#p/a/u/0/ofKnV5mNKgs |
|
15 Jul 10 - 04:41 AM (#2945378) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall On 8th July, the 17,000 signature live music licensing petition was delivered to the prime minister at 10 Downing Street by Phil Little, founder of the original Live Music Forum: www.livemusicforum.co.uk The petition called on the prime minister to implement the entertainment licence exemptions for live music recommended by the all party Parliamentary Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2009 following its public inquiry into the Licensing Act. Mr Little was joined at the Downing Street presentation by Conservative MP John Whittingdale, Chair of the CMS Committee, Lib Dem peer Tim Clement-Jones - sponsor of the new Live Music Bill, Conservative peer Anthony Colwyn - a jazz trumpeter and long standing champion of live music in the Lords, and musician and entertainer John Otway among others. The group was filmed by John King and Charlotte Collingwood of the Welwyn Live Music Forum. The video, now on YouTube, is accompanied by an LMF statement read by Ms Collingwood: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheLivemusicforum#p/a/u/0/ofKnV5mNKgs It includes well documented examples of council enforcement against harmless events - examples of the sort dismissed by DCMS statistician Vivienne Avery as 'scare stories'. Lord Clement-Jones' new bill goes further than its predecessor in proposing an entertainment licence exemption for gigs with audiences of up to 200 in most places (rather than only in premises with a 200 capacity), including any place that qualifies as a 'workplace' for the purposes of health and safety legislation. Unamplified live music would be exempt without restricting the number of performers. But, as with amplified live music, this exemption would be subject to review in bars if there were problems. The complete text of the new bill can be viewed here (HTML): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/012/11012.1-i.html The petition presentation was also attended by licensing trade paper the Morning Advertiser. Its coverage is available online here: http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87649?N=598301&Ne=598325%2B598327&PagingData=Po_0~Ps_10~Psd_Asc ENDS |
|
18 Jul 10 - 02:32 PM (#2947194) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.harrow.gov.uk/downloads/file/3629/st_bernadettes_rc_primary_school_ha3_9ns Download this PDF to see Harrow Council licensing the 'provision of entertainment facilities' at a primary school in order to teach dance. Is this an example of the type of 'quality regulation' in the Licensing Act 2003, that is being promoted at great expense and defended as neccessary by LACORS, in order to protect the public? |
|
19 Jul 10 - 12:33 PM (#2947705) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://thedailygrowl.co.uk/2010/07/15/a-bad-week-for-live-music/ Yesterday, for propably the last time, I went down to Pure Groove in Smithfields. Since it opened there in 2008, I've been there many times – to buy records, to drink coffee and most of all for their excellent instore gigs. Their lunchtime shows have sustained me with live music when getting out to gigs in the evening have been difficult, so I'm gutted that they're having to close their doors. It's not that they've been unsuccessful; the problem is the age-old one of nimbyism. |
|
19 Jul 10 - 12:36 PM (#2947711) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Villagers-angered-by-festival-cancellation.htm Villagers angered by festival cancellation Chris Havergal A village festival attended by more than 1,000 villagers each year was cancelled – after a neighbour complained about the noise. |
|
19 Jul 10 - 12:47 PM (#2947718) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://councillors.herefordshire.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=10691&J=1&zTS=undefined A Specialist Science College applying for a premises licence for indoor sporting events and live music. 21 complaints were received. Idiots from Herefordshire Council inspected the application notice, found it to be incorrectly displ...ayed and forced the school to resubmit the application. Cost to the school about £2000. |
|
20 Jul 10 - 02:36 AM (#2948080) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones The Cambridge example is significant because the cancellation was not due to licensing difficulties but the organisers' perceptions of how any problems might be dealt with. It doesn't suggest that the new regime has created an environment supportive of live music, rather that the environment is one where organisers are reluctant to put on events out of fear that any licensing infringement could be penalised and cause them substantial financial loss. |
|
20 Jul 10 - 03:58 AM (#2948101) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Cambridge example is significant because the cancellation was not due to licensing difficulties but the organisers' perceptions of how any problems might be dealt with. It doesn't suggest that the new regime has created an environment supportive of live music, rather that the environment is one where organisers are reluctant to put on events out of fear that any licensing infringement could be penalised and cause them substantial financial loss. A further example. The following from Dave Wiggins Starfest all over again, this time the threat of such a loss was too much of a gamble for the event holders and the event never took place. We met with environmental health last week for a debrief of Starfest, and she said.... and I quote......... "UNFORTUNATELY during your event there were no complaints while our officers were on duty, therefore we couldn't do anything even though it was very loud"; this proves outright that they are looking for excuses and methods to prosecute and punish Live Music events. |
|
20 Jul 10 - 12:49 PM (#2948382) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7270.aspx The responsibility for licensing has been moved to the Home Office. That is, all licensing except that for regulated entertainment, which stays with the DCMS. |
|
20 Jul 10 - 12:57 PM (#2948390) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from The Live Music Forum Tuesday 20th July 2010 - Licensing responsibility changed to Home Office In a move expected by experts in the legal profession, the Government has moved the responsibility for licensing from the DCMS to the Home Office. All except the licensing "in relation to Regulated entertainment, which remains with the DCMS", writes Jeremy Allen for Popplestone Allen, a legal practice specialising in licensing. See, http://www.popall.co.uk/LicensingApplications/responsibilityforlicensingfinallymovestothehomeoffice.asp Mr Allen goes on to say, "In many ways this is sad news. DCMS was given responsibility for licensing in the early years of the decade and was responsible, arguably with inadequate resources, for the Licensing Bill which became the 2003 Act. They also dealt with Gaming. The Home Office made determined efforts to regain control and have now done so. It will be interesting to see how the law develops." So, for the time being, the Department of Culture Media and Sport continue to be responsible for licensing of live music, but not alcohol. There is sure to be much speculation on what this will mean to the prospects of the new Licensing Bill authored by Lord Clement- Jones. Let's hope they are just clearing the way for the quick passage of Lord Tim's Bill into law. Phil Little Live Music Forum |
|
20 Jul 10 - 01:03 PM (#2948399) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28970/private-members-bill-seeks-to-relax-live But the bill's opponents maintain there is no problem with the current licensing situation. Chris White, chairman of the Local Government Association's culture, tourism and sport board, said he thought it was "a very ignorant bill", adding that "the case that there is a problem with live music has not been made". |
|
20 Jul 10 - 03:29 PM (#2948499) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?id=18313 Cllr Geoffrey Theobald OBE, chairman of LACORS, said: "Councils have worked hard to make sure that the new music licensing regime works for the benefit of licensees, musicians and the music-loving public. It was clear from the Live Music Forum's report earlier in the year that the vast majority of local authorities have succeeded in doing so, and we are pleased that the Government too has praised councils' approach. "We recognise that a small number of problems have arisen, but only as a direct result of councils having to make very difficult local judgements with less than clear legislation and guidance. The recommendations put forward by the Government should go a long way towards clearing up some of these grey areas, allowing councils to concentrate on promoting live music whilst protecting local people from any associated safety concerns, nuisance, crime or disorder. Cllr Chris White, chairman of the LGA Culture, Tourism and Sport board, said: "Councils are committed to putting local people first and will continue to work with the Government, the music industry and other organizations to make sure that the live music regime works for the benefit of all. "The licensing regime is designed to allow live music where it does not compromise the licensing objectives, such as preventing public nuisance and ensuring public safety. The changes announced by the Government will make sure that councils are better equipped to make these decisions, and that licensees and musicians are fully involved in the process." |
|
21 Jul 10 - 04:05 AM (#2948788) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The move of licensing from DCMS would appear to mean that Entertainment Licensing will not be part of the promised Home Office review of the Act. Will it be subject of (yet another) DCMS review, to be sabotaged by the LGA Group or simply left in its current mess or will the two coalition parties be seen to actually honour their pre-election positions and statements and for a good start least, support the measures contained in the Live Music Bill? In the long-term, there can be no hope for any sensible treatment of live music, if all of it is still to be subject to additional entertainment licensing, the continuing prejudice against it of the LGA Group lobby, and to the post code lottery that is the individual likes and dislikes of local government employees. |
|
21 Jul 10 - 04:25 AM (#2948793) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This is the proposed Live Music Bill, which Chris White, chairman of the Local Government Association's culture, tourism and sport board, said he thought it was "a very ignorant bill", adding that "the case that there is a problem with live music has not been made". http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/012/11012.1-i.html I would suggest that Lib Dem Cllr White is a problem for live music (and his party). |
|
21 Jul 10 - 04:35 AM (#2948795) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67526&c=1 Plans to allow pubs to get a last-minute temporary event notice (TEN) for "low-risk" activities appear to have been scrapped. |
|
21 Jul 10 - 09:07 AM (#2948966) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jul/21/feargal-sharkey-life-peerage?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Lord Sharkey? |
|
21 Jul 10 - 02:25 PM (#2949206) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67538&c=1 Licensing 'overhaul' consultation will last just six weeks |
|
22 Jul 10 - 05:50 AM (#2949617) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87789?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n A senior councillor has stoked controversy by saying young people will be put at risk if the Government grants live-music licence exemptions for crowds up to 200. Crowded: Cllr White fears crisis if exemptions go ahead Local Government Assocication (LGA) chair for culture, tourism & sport Chris White also hit out at Live Music Forum members, saying they don't "know a lot about live music" and use "underhand, guerilla tactics to make personal attacks". John King, musician and member of the Live Music Forum, called for White's resignation and labelled the LGA's support of live music restrictions "irrational". |
|
22 Jul 10 - 06:15 AM (#2949626) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles White told the MA: "If you want a crowd surge and injured teens, then go ahead (with the Bill)." Responding to the view that pubs shouldn't need a licence for live music as they don't for football, White said: "A local pub that decides to show the World Cup final does not attract football-lovers from all around. "But a band might announce on Facebook or Twitter that it's appearing at a certain pub, and fans will come for miles around. The LGA group's continuing prejudice against live music is as irrational as it is damaging. Their stated position is that they are against a re-introduction of 'de minimus' exemption for small scale live music and continue to lobby against this. As they do not continue to lobby for any change to this, the assumption must be that they are in favour of the many illogical exeptions which already do litter this Act. The most important one being the one that Cllr White tries and fails to defend, the exemption for live TV sporting events. Cllr White's resignation from his influential role at the LGA would be a good start. His Lib Dem leader and now deputy PM is in support of measures in a Bill which Cllr White has declared to be "a very ignorant bill". |
|
22 Jul 10 - 07:02 AM (#2949656) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87795?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Moving control of licensing to the Home Office will mean a "more consistent approach" to the issue is taken, according to a Government minister. Brokenshire: plans changes in licensing Earlier this week it was confirmed that responsibility for licensing will switch from the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) to the Home Office, except around regulated entertainment. |
|
22 Jul 10 - 01:03 PM (#2949910) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardianpublic.co.uk/hunt-dcms-arts-budget-cuts >Hunt to cut his own department by half. Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has submitted plans to the Treasury proposing deep cuts in staff and a move to smaller government building |
|
23 Jul 10 - 06:15 AM (#2950496) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Another Parliamentary Early Day Motion for you to ask your MP to sign and support. http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41503&SESSION=905 EDM 546 LIVE PERFORMANCES19.07.2010 Whittingdale, John That this House celebrates the cultural value of live performances in enriching and entertaining communities; notes that small venues hosting live performances are the bedrock of the entertainment industry, providing opportunities for artists to begin their careers; is concerned that the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 has meant that there has been a decline in the number of small venues wishing to put on live performances; and therefore calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for an exemption to the Licensing Act for audiences of 200 to tackle the negative impact with regards to small venues hosting live performances. |
|
23 Jul 10 - 06:24 AM (#2950498) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: pavane Perhaps we could point out that the needless beaucracy involved in operating the scheme (issuing TENs, for example) is an example of waste which could easily be cut from LA's budgets. |
|
23 Jul 10 - 06:43 AM (#2950507) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The whole process of locally devolved additional entertainment licensing is now expensive duplication. Planning Legislation already deals in advance with any concerns about the premises. The Envirinonmental Protection Act already deals with any actual problems that may occur with the premises. |
|
23 Jul 10 - 03:03 PM (#2950864) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles You can find and contact your MP here. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/ |
|
24 Jul 10 - 06:08 AM (#2951241) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Are possible 'crowd surges' as likely (if not more so) for TV pub sport? Measures to deal with this, outwith the Licensing Act, are thought adequate. So what evidence is Cllr White presenting to support his claims about live music, first that there is such a problem and secondly that additional entertainment licensing is the only way to deal with it and that its proposed removal for small (and already safe) premises would result in an increase in the problem he refers to? The chances of additional entertainment licensing as contained in the Licensing Act 2003 being extended to cover the provision of TV sport is most unlikely. This recognises the political clout of that lobby. However, it should not be too difficult to create a level-playing field where any risks arising from live music are treated the same and no longer singled-out for special attention and the type of 'scare-mongering' so common in the damaging statements of the LGA Group. Sadly these statements continue to be damaging. Folk without all of the information tend to accept that those in influential positions (like Cllr White, the LGA Group and some individual licensing employees) not only know what they are talking about but are an impartial voice, with only the public's interest at heart. None of which are in fact true. What is becoming a truth is that it is this lobby which is presenting the main and serious threat to the good health of all live music. If demonstration of this is needed, then look no further than the following Report. http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council |
|
25 Jul 10 - 03:14 AM (#2951718) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/24/love-parade-festival-tunnel-stampede?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter This is a terrible incident of course but good timing for idiots like our friend Cllr White who will no doubt use it to continue justify the type of LA stupidity contained in the St Albans report. Over-regulation too has its dangers. Those contained in the Licensing Act 2003, which Cllr White would defend as the only way that small scale of live music (and live music only) can safely take place, would not have prevented an incident like this. This was taking place at the opposite end of the scale and involving vast crowds of people. The potential dangers of all such gatherings would not have been unforseen and measures would have no doubt been taken in advance to deal with these. Sadly, this time these measures quite clearly did not prevent the deaths and injuries and we will have to wait to establish the reasons for this. |
|
25 Jul 10 - 06:46 AM (#2951770) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Conservative MP John Whittingdale, chair of the all party Culture Media and Sport Committee, has tabled an Early Day Motion calling on the government '... to bring forward proposals for an exemption to the Licensing Act for audiences of 200 to tackle the negative impact with regards to small venues hosting live performances.' Intriguingly, Labour members make up the majority of the 21 MPs who have signed so far. EDMs are rarely debated, but can generate useful publicity for a cause, especially if signed by a large number of MPs. Why not ask your MP to sign, if they have not already done so? Contact via www.theyworkforyou.com (identifies your MP from your postcode). In May 2009 the CMS Committee concluded its public inquiry into the Licensing Act. It found that the Act had harmed small scale performances, and recommended that new exemptions should be introduced for live music in venues with a capacity of up to 200, and for one or two unamplified performers: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/492/492.pdf Lord Clement-Jones' new live music bill would, if successful, implement an exemption for gigs with an audience of up to 200 and allow unamplified live music without a restriction on the number of musicians. Its 2nd reading debate has not yet been scheduled, but may take place later this year: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/012/11012.1-i.html Cutting red tape for live music is a Coalition government commitment: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/409088/pfg_coalition.pdf [see p14] Responsibility for licensing is now shared between the Home Office (alcohol) and DCMS (regulated entertainment). DCMS licensing minister John Penrose recently hinted in Parliament at a 'radical' solution for live music (21 June): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100621/debtext/100621-0001.htm Full text of John Whittingdale's EDM 546 'Live performances': 'That this House celebrates the cultural value of live performances in enriching and entertaining communities; notes that small venues hosting live performances are the bedrock of the entertainment industry, providing opportunities for artists to begin their careers; is concerned that the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 has meant that there has been a decline in the number of small venues wishing to put on live performances; and therefore calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for an exemption to the Licensing Act for audiences of 200 to tackle the negative impact with regards to small venues hosting live performances.' http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41503&SESSION=905 General EDM info: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/Default.aspx ENDS |
|
26 Jul 10 - 02:58 AM (#2952247) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67560&c=1 So, the country will soon be rid of the scourge of 24 hour pubs thanks to the campaigning efforts of the Daily Mail. Hurrah! |
|
26 Jul 10 - 05:03 AM (#2952290) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87829?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n MPs back live music exemptions * By Gemma McKenna * 26/07/2010 09:46 Twenty-one MPs are backing calls to let pubs host live music without a specific licence for audiences of up to 200 people. |
|
26 Jul 10 - 05:16 AM (#2952296) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: IanC Kind of important to understand that this EDM is not just about music. It seeks to widen MPs' approach to include all "live performances". :-) |
|
26 Jul 10 - 12:01 PM (#2952520) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Kind of important to understand that this EDM is not just about music. It seeks to widen MPs' approach to include all "live performances". Does that mean that live music making, which is not 'performance' is not covered by the proposed exemption and that this will still be licensable and that only 'performance' is to be exempt? I suggest that the word 'performance' should be dropped from legislation. It is not defined and that as the Act has extended additional entertainment licensing permission beyond what was once generally understood as entertainment, that the word 'performance' now simply causes even more confusion. http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67563&c=1 |
|
26 Jul 10 - 12:16 PM (#2952530) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles "It's important that the trade's voice is heard at all of these consultations and licensees, particularly those located in the designated towns, really should do all they can to get along to one of the sessions," said Lee Le Clerq, the British Beer & Pub Association's north of England secretary. "It's worth noting that every seat not occupied by a licensee will be taken by a health professional or a police officer who will tell the Home Office exactly how your pub should be run." http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67570&c=1 |
|
26 Jul 10 - 02:36 PM (#2952628) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/01.htm#d2e696 Licensing Act 2003 11. Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): Whether he plans to bring forward proposals to exempt from the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 live performances at small venues; and if he will make a statement. [10680] The following from John King: Chris Heaton-Harris is MP for Daventry where the Headmaster of Danetre School was threatened with imprisonment for putting on the musical "We Will Rock You" without permission from the Council. The school has now wasted over £1,000 advertising the premises licence application in the media. |
|
26 Jul 10 - 04:45 PM (#2952695) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles A number of stakeholders—as the jargon has it—have to be consulted, and today I had meetings with people from the Local Government Association and Local Government Regulation in order to ensure that all the relevant people have been consulted. We will do it as fast as we can. A statement? What this translates into is: After all the stalling and all the consultations that have already been required by the LGA Group lobby - we will do what the LGA Group lobby will allow us to do and at a time when it suits them. |
|
26 Jul 10 - 06:26 PM (#2952769) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/content/twm/news/story.aspx?brand=Westonmercury&category=news&tBrand=westonmercury&tCategory=z The following comment from John King: A premises with a 'genre restriction' in the er... Licensing Minister's constituency. No dance music allowed. Does that include Morris Dancing? |
|
27 Jul 10 - 02:16 AM (#2952962) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/winchester/8292275.New_hall_given_green_light_to_sell_alcohol/ The following from John King; Yes, it can sell alcohol. Music? Forget it. No music after 9:00pm - plus a noise limiter - plus a device attached to the exits which cuts the power supply to the musicians (possibly killing them in the process). Of course this condition also applies and prevents all non-amplified live music. |
|
27 Jul 10 - 03:33 AM (#2952983) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Of course this condition also applies and prevents all non-amplified live music. Except of course, music for Morris dancing, for which the Act has a specific exmption for (based presumably on the genre). |
|
27 Jul 10 - 05:23 AM (#2953014) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Live music reform plans ramped up http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87845?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n |
|
27 Jul 10 - 07:14 AM (#2953054) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcumlst.htm Lord Colwyn to ask Her Majesty's Government what changes they are making to the methods of data collection for the Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing Statistical Bulletin to ensure that future bulletins comply with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. HL1780 Lord Colwyn to ask Her Majesty's Government how many licensed premises did not have authorisation to provide facilities for making music on 31 March 2009. HL1781 Answers due 9 August 2010. The following comment from John King; The point to Lord Colwyn's Question HL1781 is: It has come to light that of the 83,600 premises with live music authorisation - 31,400 of these do NOT have licensed facilities for making music. This means that the number of premises without... authorisation for live music is THRIVING. |
|
27 Jul 10 - 02:08 PM (#2953305) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67577 Live music reform plans being kept under wraps 27 July, 2010 By James Wilmore Minister says options being considered 'as quickly as possible' |
|
28 Jul 10 - 04:03 AM (#2953677) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41503&SESSION=905 The number of MPS is now 30. There is time during their break to write to your MP and ask them to sign on their return. |
|
28 Jul 10 - 04:29 AM (#2953684) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87857?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Residents and local authorities will be able to object to a licence if they believe it will or is having an adverse effect on public health under a major shake-up of the country's licensing laws. May: leading licensing shake-up Higher licensing fees, a late night levy to pay for police, tougher restrictions on the use of temporary event notices and giving residents even more powers to object to licences will all also form part of the Government's plan to overhaul the licensing regime. |
|
28 Jul 10 - 04:38 AM (#2953686) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67585&c=1 Plans to hike licence fees, clampdown on Temporary Event Notices (TENs) and scrap Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZs) are included in the coalition's bid to tear-up the licensing regime. Full details of the Home Office consultation are being unveiled today – and appear to go well beyond what the government had previously announced. Licence fees will be increased, the plans say, so councils can "cover costs linked to enforcement, leaving premises to pay rather than the local taxpayer". |
|
28 Jul 10 - 05:27 AM (#2953694) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles As there is now only a premises licence, any fee increase and for whatever reason - can only further deter live music. Unless there are any plans to restore an alcohol only licence - this can only be yet more bad news. What a mess! |
|
28 Jul 10 - 05:47 AM (#2953703) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87860?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Licensing expert Peter Coulson said a rise in licensing fee costs would cause deep concern to the trade. "The Local Government Association has been complaining from the start of the new licensing laws (in 2005) that the fees do not cover their costs. |
|
28 Jul 10 - 07:37 AM (#2953745) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Licence fees will be increased, the plans say, so councils can "cover costs linked to enforcement, leaving premises to pay rather than the local taxpayer". So a cafe serving no alcohol, not opening late but needing a Premises Licence to provide live music - is going to pay less? And will schools also be paying more, when the enforcement costs of their Premises Licence are so small? Why should any fee increase based on so-called enforcement costs and based on the premises which serve alcohol and open late, be paid by premises which do not? |
|
28 Jul 10 - 07:47 AM (#2953747) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Mr Murray says he believes granting of this application would be in conflict with the Licensing Board's objective to protect and improve public health and the objective to protect children. http://www.stornowaygazette.co.uk/news/Golf-Club-Sunday-License-to.6437025.jp This is what happens in Scotland - where the Licensing Act (Scotland) 2005 allows objections on the grounds on 'public health'. |
|
28 Jul 10 - 11:08 AM (#2953849) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST Home Secretary Theresa May is set to outline the plans in a key speech on anti-social behaviour this morning but she has already said that the licensing regime has failed. "The benefits promised by the 24-hour drinking cafe culture have failed to materialise and we have seen an increase in the number of alcohol-related incidents and drink-fuelled crime and disorder," said May "We know the majority of pubs and bars are well-run businesses but the government believes the system needs to be rebalanced in favour of local communities with tougher action to crack down on the small number of premises who cause problems." If this is the case, the proposals will do nothing to address the problems referred to. It is just another case of the majority having to suffer yet more cost and over regulation under legislation which has no effect on the few who cause problems. The whole 24hr licensing issue is bogus. We already have 24 hr drinking with the ability to buy alcohol from supermarkets. The cash cow is to be returned to local authorities and this proposal is music to the ears of the the LGA lobby and to the few who spend most of their live writing complaints about everyone else. |
|
28 Jul 10 - 11:19 AM (#2953852) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Sorry the last post was from me. Home Office seek views on Rebalancing the Licensing Act http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000452/2010/07/28/Home+Office+seek+views+on+Rebalancing+the+Licensing+Act.html |
|
28 Jul 10 - 11:27 AM (#2953854) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This thread has wandered a little since it was first titled. It now moves back on topic again. Now the consultation is with the Home Offce, whilst we still await the result of the DCMS consultation http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-2010-licensing-act/ |
|
28 Jul 10 - 01:50 PM (#2953908) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.licentiouslaw.co.uk/all-change-again-rebalancing-the-licensing-act ALL CHANGE (AGAIN): REBALANCING THE LICENSING ACT Jul 28th, 2010 by Maria Guida. Theresa May, the Home Secretary has published a consultation paper today entitled, "Rebalancing the Licensing Act." Whilst the consultation paper starts positvely, acknowledging licensed premises working with the police to reduce alcohol related harm and mentioning the acheivements of Business Improvement Districts and Best Bar None, it then goes on to make suggestions for improving the licensing system, which will make most licensees' toes curl. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 03:03 AM (#2954270) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87866?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Drinks giant Diageo has backed the Government's tough plans for licensing |
|
29 Jul 10 - 03:45 AM (#2954292) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87869?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n The transfer of responsibility for licensing to the Home Office should free up the culture department to positively promote pubs, trade leaders argue. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 05:47 AM (#2954340) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles All UK legislation published on one site. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ |
|
29 Jul 10 - 05:55 AM (#2954344) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Home Secretary Theresa May today claimed that the years following the change to licensing laws saw a rise in alcohol related crime. However when Full Fact investigated we found the figures hard to swallow... http://www.fullfact.org/articles/home_office_retracts_alcohol_crime_claim |
|
29 Jul 10 - 07:22 AM (#2954376) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Speaking to Full Fact, a Home Office spokesperson acknowledged that Ms May's quote "should have referred to the proportion of crimes, rather than the number." Of course now that the papers have supported the error, it is too late. Just like the last 'reform' undertaken by the previous Govt, the whole thing is based on prejudice rather than fact. Sadly just about the only good thing about the last reform, the removal of the ability for local authorities to increase fees, looks set to be returned to them. In fact it would appear that the LGA Group lobby will be given whatever they ask for. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 12:43 PM (#2954561) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The Following from Hamish Birchall The Home Office yesterday announced a six-week consultation on radical reform of alcohol licensing. The aim is to give more power to the police and local authorities to tackle alcohol-related crime: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/alcohol-licensing/ Leading licensing lawyer Jeremy Allen said: 'The proposals would, if implemented, signal the most radical change to licensing laws ever attempted in the shortest possible time.' See: http://www.popplestonallen.co.uk/licensingapplications/thegovernmentsproposalsforlicensingreform.asp '10 key points' on the government's proposed alcohol licensing reforms by the Morning Advertiser: http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87865 However, the proposals do not appear to affect the Coalition's plans to relax entertainment licensing for small gigs. Regulated entertainment remains the responsibility of DCMS. The Home Office consultation document includes this statement: 'The Government will be consulting separately on the Coalition's proposals to deregulate live music and similar performances.' Source: 'Rebalancing the Licensing Act: a consultation on empowering individuals, families and local communities to shape and determine local licensing,' Executive Summary, para 1.01, p4. See PDF file: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-2010-licensing-act/alcohol-consultation?view=Binary In the House of Commons on Monday 26 July, licensing minister John Penrose would not be drawn when asked to give a date for reform of the Licensing Act to exempt small gigs. Chris Heaton-Harris, the Conservative MP for Daventry, said: 'I wish to press my hon. Friend because I would like a date or time scale for the removal of these measures, which were introduced in the Licensing Act 2003 and which have been so detrimental to live music.' Penrose replied: 'I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise date, if only because the devil is in the detail. I can only assure him that we are working through these measures as quickly as possible. A number of stakeholders - as the jargon has it - have to be consulted, and today I had meetings with people from the Local Government Association and Local Government Regulation in order to ensure that all the relevant people have been consulted. We will do it as fast as we can.' See Hansard: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100726/debtext/100726-0001.htm And trade press coverage: http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67577 I asked the DCMS press office earlier this afternoon to confirm whether or not an entirely new public consultation on an exemption for small gigs was planned. At the time of writing DCMS had not replied. It may be that when the Home Office says the government will be 'consulting separately' for live music this does not mean repeating the public consultation on a small gigs exemption that was concluded earlier this year by the previous government. ENDS |
|
29 Jul 10 - 12:49 PM (#2954569) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles What exactly is going on? The following comment from John King Is 'binge drinking' on the increase? No. Are there more licensed premises? No. Is alcohol related crime rising? No. http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/britain-really-drowning-booze Everybody knows that drinking in the UK is out of control, driven by a combination of feckless consumers and complacent supermarkets offering cheap deals. But is everybody right? |
|
29 Jul 10 - 02:19 PM (#2954617) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/07/29/governments-claim-on-alcohol-crime-blown-apart/ Government's alcohol crime claims fall down. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 05:58 AM (#2955028) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87882?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Home Office minister James Brokenshire "The majority of pubs and bars are well run businesses but the Government believes the system needs to be rebalanced in favour of the local communities they serve, with tougher action to crack down on the small number of premises who cause problems." Translated: In a vain attempt to satisfy those who still read the Daily Mail and despite the statistics, the LGA Group lobby will be given yet more powers to further over-regulate and penalise the law-abiding majority in our local communities in a vain attempt to address the already illegal activities of a minority, which no one appears to have any idea on how to prevent. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 06:30 AM (#2955040) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Pub-landlord-fears-for-his-licence-over-complaints.htm Pub landlord fears for his licence over 'complaints' A FRUSTRATED landlord in Burton fears his licence will be revoked following what he claims is a catalogue of "unfair and unfounded complaints". |
|
30 Jul 10 - 06:44 AM (#2955049) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.itgen.co.uk/occold/nvh/noisenotice.pdf It is with great regret that we inform you that, because of complaints by a resident from within the village, and possible enforcement of a Statutory Noise Abatement Notice issued by Mid Suffolk District Council Environment Health Department, and a possible breach of Planning Conditions, ORAC have found it necessary at this point in time, to strictly regulate the provision of amplified or live music at any functions held within the village hall. These halls are for the use of the community they are not built for just looking at. There is no such thing as an alcohol licence. All the measures proposed by the Home Office to deal with alcohol related crime, will also apply to anyone who needs a Premise Licence, even when they do not serve alcohol or open late. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 03:19 PM (#2955310) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7322.aspx Live Music We also received comments on the Live Music Bill and the 2003 Licensing Act. All comments asked for the repeal of some restrictions on live music. We recognise that the licensing regime may deter certain venues from putting on live music and we are committed to cutting red tape around this and possibly other types of performance such as street theatre. We want to do this as quickly as possible, but we think there may be broader and more radical solutions than those being suggested already. We will, of course, consult those who may be affected by any new proposals, and ensure that we do not remove necessary protections for local residents and businesses. I think we have little choice but to view The Home Office review as if nothing else has changed. For nothing is proposed - is it? This despite the DCMS consultation process being completed some time ago. We have consultations on just about everything but again an obscure reference to 'more radical' solutions is hinted at but whatever this may be, there appears to no talk of any consultation on this. There is also no hurry to address an area where all of the reports agree there to be a problem being presented to small-scale live music but the Home Office are rushing to address an area where the facts are not in support of what is claimed to be the situation. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 03:32 PM (#2955318) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000454/2010/07/29/MPs+back+Motion+for+live+music+at+small+venues.html Thirty-two MPs have so far signed an Early Day Motion tabled by John Whittingdale MP who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. The Motion urges Government "to bring forward proposals for an exemption to the Licensing Act for audiences of 200 to tackle the negative impact with regards to small venues hosting live performances." |
|
31 Jul 10 - 09:37 AM (#2955670) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7322.aspx Programme for Government: your responses 30 July 2010 We respond to your comments on the Programme for Government. We recognise that the licensing regime may deter certain venues from putting on live music and we are committed to cutting red tape around this and possibly other types of performance such as street theatre. We want to do this as quickly as possible, but we think there may be broader and more radical solutions than those being suggested already. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-06-21b.5.0 Oral Answers to Questions — Culture, Media and Sport House of Commons debates, 21 June 2010 John Penrose (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport; Weston-Super-Mare, Conservative) My concern is that my hon. Friend's proposal goes for a particular solution when there might be a broader and potentially more radical solution that should also be considered. If we go for other alternatives, we will need to consult on them, but if we decide to go down the route of ideas that have already been thoroughly canvassed, I would obviously want to move as fast as possible and reduce the level of consultation to the bare legal minimum. The situation is the same now - as it was prior to this process, on 21 June 2010. Once again mention is made to a 'broader and potentially more radical solution'. But still no one has been informed of what this might be. |
|
01 Aug 10 - 04:33 AM (#2956018) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles In the lack of any firm proposals on the long promised reform of live music licensing, what we do have is this. Date: 28/07/2010 Author/Solicitor: Jeremy Allen The Home Office has published a consultation entitled "Rebalancing the Licensing Act". It talks about empowering individuals' families and local communities to shape and determine local licensing. Whilst it starts by praising licensed premises working with the police to reduce alcohol related harm, mentioning BIDs and BBNs, it then goes on to make suggestions for improving the licensing system, which will make most licensees' hair stand on end. The changes suggested could have a bigger impact than those made when the Licensing Act 2003 came into force. That was consulted upon and took around five years to come into force. Here the response is required by the 8th September and the intention appears to be to legislate as soon as possible using the Police Reform & Social Responsibility Bill, which will be produced later this year. In this eNews, I will attempt to highlight the Government's proposed measures for change with a few of my own initial comments. In future eNews, I hope to deal in more detail with some of the proposals: • Give licensing authorities the power to refuse licensing applications or call for a licensing review without requiring relevant representations from a responsible authority - A major change with licensing authorities being able to rule on their own representations. It is additionally proposed that the authority will have to accept all representations from the police, and adopt all their recommendations, unless there is clear evidence that they are not relevant. • Remove the need for licensing authorities to demonstrate their decisions on licences "are necessary" for (rather than of benefit to) the promotion of the licensing objectives. - The Government is consulting on shifting the onus onto applicants to show how their licensing application will impact on the local area. • Reduce the evidential burden of proof required by licensing authorities in making decisions on licence applications and reviews - Making it much easier to take decisions which may impact adversely on the licensed trade. There are a number of proposals which would give the licensing authority much greater powers to make decisions that would be difficult to challenge. There are proposals to affect the appeal process to reduce the number of appeals that go to Magistrates. In addition, and very surprisingly, there is a proposal that the licensing authority's decision should take immediate effect pending any appeal. If the licence was therefore revoked, no trading could take place prior to the appeal being heard. • Increase the weight licensing authorities will have to give to relevant representations and objection notices from the Police. • Simplify Cumulative Impact Policies to allow licensing authorities to have more control over outlet density - The Government feels that there are too few CIPs - only 129 in March 2009 - it believes that the evidential requirement is too high and should be reduced. It is worth remembering that Cumulative Impact Policies weren't even included in the Licensing Act 2003 but were introduced by local authorities. There legitimacy has never properly been challenged. • Increase the opportunities for local residents or their representative groups to be involved in licensing decisions without regard to their immediate proximity to premises - They will remove any need for residents to be within the vicinity. This could raise the possibility of an organisation objecting to licences all over the Country. The government also proposes to increase the definition of interested parties to include school governors, housing associations and registered social landlords. • Enable more involvement of local health bodies in licensing decisions by designating health bodies as a responsible authority and seeking views on making health a licensing objective - It is difficult to see what representations health bodies could make unless health is a licensing objective. This would follow Scotland. • Amend the process of appeal to avoid the costly practise of rehearing licensing decisions - This would give licensing authorities almost complete control over the whole process of licensing without it being capable of being challenged. It is difficult to see how this proposal will be compliant with Human Rights' Legislation and European Community Law. • Enable licensing authorities to have flexibility in restricting or extending opening hours to reflect community concerns or preferences - The Crime & Security Act 2010 - if it comes into force - would enable local authorities to restrict the sale of alcohol between 3am and 6am. The suggestion is to amend this to enable local councillors to decide between which hours (e.g. from midnight to 6am) they would like to prevent premises from opening. If the Crime & Security Act is used, this would mean all premises having to close between those hours rather than allowing, say, night clubs to operate later than pubs. • Repeal the unpopular power to establish Alcohol Disorder Zones and allowing licensing authorities to use a simple adjustment to the existing fee system to pay for any additional policing needed during late night opening - ADZs were always difficult, so the new proposal will make it easier to cover all premises selling alcohol and will also pay for the police and possibly taxi marshals and street cleaning etc. • Substantial overhaul of the system of Temporary Event Notices to give the police more time to object, enable all responsible authorities to object, increase the notification period and reduce the number that can be applied for by personal licence holders - Bang goes the power to reduce the application period for a Temporary Event Notice, in fact longer periods of notice are proposed, e.g. pub/ off licence, one month instead of the current ten working days. It suggests the police period of objection could be extended to five working days and allow other responsible authorities to object using the licensing objectives. • Introduce tougher sentences for persistent underage sales. • Trigger automatic licensing reviews following persistent underage sales - In other words, there will be an automatic licensing review regardless of whether the police think it necessary. There is also a suggestion that the 48 hour closure notice should be increased to 168 hours or seven days. • Enable local authorities to increase licensing costs so that they are based on full cost recovery - No surprise here. Mention made of the Elton Report proposing increases in licensing fees but surprisingly no mention of the Government contributing some ?£50 million to the shortfall! No surprises that the increase in fees should be based on full cost recovery so, if you are in an area where the local authority takes greater action, you could be paying more. • Enable licensing authorities to revoke licences due to non payment of fees - This goes back to the old system of automatic revocation of a licence if the fee wasn't paid on time so, if you don't pay the fee for whatever reason, then you lose the licence. • Consult on the impact of the Mandatory Licensing Conditions Order and whether the current conditions should be removed - They will probably still come into force but could be scrapped later. I make no apologies for the fact that this eNews is much longer than most. The proposals would, if implemented, signal the most radical change to licensing laws ever attempted in the shortest possible time. |
|
02 Aug 10 - 05:46 AM (#2956557) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87903?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n |
|
02 Aug 10 - 06:57 AM (#2956578) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: nickp full details here Communities Secretary Eric Pickles wants to stem the flow of relentless form filling, high costs and red tape for organising summer street parties and fetes. Extortionate, inconsistent costs and paperwork for road closures, risk assessments, and temporary event notices are barriers to community events. It can often take weeks and cost thousands of pounds for councils trying to process these applications, which can deter both councils and organisers from putting on events. There are examples of local communities having to apply for up to five separate licences, pay up to £5,000 for a temporary road closure and obtain insurance cover for £2million for a typical outdoor event. |
|
02 Aug 10 - 02:35 PM (#2956855) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.advertiser24.co.uk/content/advertiser24/news/story.aspx?brand=NOROnline&category=News&tBrand=NOROnline&tCategory=News |
|
02 Aug 10 - 02:37 PM (#2956857) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Merry-Harriers/98564557186?ref=mf The Merry Harriers Some of you may already be aware that we have been served a Noise Abatement Notice by Waverely Borough Council. This stems from a complaint from one neighbour about our less than once monthly music nights and could result in The Merry Harriers losing it's music license which would mean the end of live music at the pub.... On hearing about this some of the village 'elders' have put together the attached letter and addressed it to Martin Shorten Head of Environmental Health at Waverely. Many of our regulars and people from the village have added their names and addresses to the letter and sent it to Mr Shorten. If you would like to support us in this matter and help to make sure we keep live music at The Merry Harriers please feel free to print the attached letter and send it to Mr Shorten or sign it electronically and email it back to us at juliestoneley@btconnect.com. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Julie & Colin |
|
02 Aug 10 - 02:43 PM (#2956864) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67623&c=1 Chief executive Brigid Simmonds writes to Theresa May voicing "fundamental concerns" Trade chief Brigid Simmonds has sent a strongly-worded letter to Home Secretary Theresa May warning pubs face losing basic legal protections, over the shake-up in licensing laws. |
|
03 Aug 10 - 06:47 AM (#2957244) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87912?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n The jolly old DCMS is to carry on with the entertainment bit, and presumably the rather tricky job of squaring the circle on small-scale live music, with a House of Lords bill to contend with and still no clear indication as to how far the exemption can be allowed to go. From its track record of indecisiveness on licensing matters — of which we have had much evidence recently — it may still be wrestling with the problem well after the Olympics have come and gone. |
|
03 Aug 10 - 03:39 PM (#2957488) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/content/twm/news/story.aspx?brand=Westonmercury&category=newsNorthSomerset&tBrand=westonmercur Any music from the venue must not rise above background noise level for the nearest neighbour and management has been ordered to carry out regular checks to make sure this is maintained. |
|
04 Aug 10 - 09:19 AM (#2957939) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87924?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n It was a good, open meeting where the trade got to put its points across but concerns remain about whether the licensing overhaul is already a done deal. That's the verdict of John Hayes, a member of the Noctis committee and chairman of the four-strong Bamboogy chain, after he attended a Home Office consultation session on the proposed changes to the Licensing Act. |
|
04 Aug 10 - 09:24 AM (#2957940) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/news/Grand-piano-noise-annoys-woman/article-2446184-detail/article.html John King Comments: The Noise Abatement Notice was not issued because the piano was creating a disturbance. The complaint was upheld because the piano was audible. |
|
04 Aug 10 - 01:39 PM (#2958113) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=16&storycode=67638&c=1 Poorly represented by the pub trade and over attended by the civil servants who enforce the laws, it was clear from the outset that the mentality of those helping shape the next stage in the Licensing Act were not in favour of licensees' |
|
04 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM (#2958151) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.sefton.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=7801 John King Comments: Sefton Council's scandalous licence register is now online. Merchant Taylor School for Boys has live music restrictions normally reserved for nightclubs with a history of gun-crime. The school's premises licence contains the word 'terrorism'. The provision of regulated entertainment - Live music Saturday - from 09.00 to 22.00 Sunday - from 09.00 to 22.00 The provision of regulated entertainment - entertainment of a similar description to that falling within the category of live music, recorded music, or performance of dance Saturday - from 09.00 to 22.00 Sunday - from 09.00 to 22.00 The Licence Holder shall only employ, to carry out security activities, individuals who are either: a) authorised to carry out that activity by a licence granted under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, or b) entitled to carry out that activity by virtue of Section 4 of that Act. Where applicable the Licence Holder shall also ensure that such individuals at all times when on duty wear an identity badge, conspicuously displayed and in a form and manner prescribed by the Security Industry Authority. A letter & form for application of tickets shall be sent to parents. Local residents shall be advised of events. Parents shall provide their own food as a picnic and shall be asked not to bring alcohol onto school premises. SIA qualified staff x 4 shall patrol the site. Sefton Mobile surveillance unit shall be present 16:00 – 20:30 There shall be large school staff presence. School insurers shall be notified. All appropriate local services shall be cognizant of events. There shall be no parking for audience on school grounds. There shall be security barriers in front of the stage. Stewards shall wear high visibility vests. Staging, sound, lighting shall be provided by Tega – a specialist company (Reg no 3157162). Sound lighting engineers shall be provided by Tega for events. School nurse & six first aiders shall be present. No alcohol shall be consumed on site. Parents & pupils shall be encouraged to depart soon after entertainment has finished – 21:00 latest. Designated staff shall supervise pupils whilst they are performing. Young pupils shall be supervised by their parents at other times. CCTV shall be provided in the form of a recordable system, capable of providing pictures of EVIDENTIAL QUALITY in all lighting conditions particularly facial recognition. Cameras shall encompass all ingress and egress to the premises and all areas where licensable activities occur. Equipment shall be maintained in good working order and be correctly time & date stamped, recordings shall be kept in date order, numbered sequentially and kept for a period of 31 days and handed to Police on request. The Recording equipment and tapes/discs shall be kept in a secure environment under the control of the Premises Licence Holder or other responsible named individual/body. Appropriate signage representative of the above in conspicuous positions. Admittance to any event will be ticket only. Occupancy levels will be strictly monitored at all times and presented to the Police upon demand. An Incident logbook will be maintained throughout any event and produced to the Police upon demand. The Provision of Frontline Security Industry Licensed staff will be in alignment with occupancy levels on a ratio of 1 per 100, in addition main access /egress points will by covered by two Licensed Security Guards per access /egress point. SIA approved Licensed staff will wear smart clearly marked attire utilising at least the words 'SECURITY ATTENDANT" and clearly display their licence at all times. A Door Supervisors Logbook will be used at all times that front line Licensed Security Staff are operative and will be presented to the Police upon demand (Logbooks are supplied free of charge by Sefton Local Authority Licensing Unit). A copy of the Event Operational Plan for all events shall be lodged with the Police Licensing Unit for the Borough of Sefton & Merseyside Police Event Planning Unit (Sefton Area). The Event organisers Operating Plan will be incorporated as part of the premises Licence Conditions (Operating Schedule) and will incorporate additional measures that will be taken to manage crime and disorder on these occasions. All events which involves an attendance of between 1,000- 5,000 shall be communicated to the Sefton Police Licensing Unit at least 28 Days in Advance (Notice period) All events which involves an attendance of more than 5,000 shall be communicated to the Sefton Police Licensing Unit 90 days in advance (Notice Period) The Operating schedule must carry a clear disclaimer that give assurances that events which require any Policing (whether at Public or Private Cost) must not be staged when Merseyside Police consider that they are unable to meet demand to any other Operational Commitments, pre- determined, anticipated or spontaneous eg Riot, Civil Unrest, Terrorism. |
|
05 Aug 10 - 10:28 AM (#2958769) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Green Man The then culture secretary should have been subjected to rigorous examination to see if there was a single cultured bone in her body. This was one of the most destructive things to happen to live music since Cromwell. This should be a non issue as the law should never have been tampered with. Pubs with Sky or MTV screens make far more noise and when football is on generate far more trouble than a whole football pitch full of folkies could do. I don't know about cool Britania, more like fool Britania. GM |
|
05 Aug 10 - 10:49 AM (#2958786) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: IanC People are frequently unfair about Oliver Cromwell. He didn't shut down any theatres (even if he had wanted to), liked music and is recorded as having danced at family weddings. :-( |
|
05 Aug 10 - 11:38 AM (#2958825) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Licensing Act 2003 was, for many observers, not a deregulation of alcohol licensing, but a re-regulation. Pubs had originally wanted a few extra hours of trading at weekends. http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87944?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n |
|
05 Aug 10 - 11:48 AM (#2958834) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://app.southwark.gov.uk/Licensing/LicPremisesAppliedDetails.asp?systemkey=832414 John King Comments: Form 696 still THRIVING. But this is a NEW premises licence, so what is Southwark Council's justification for this? This in ref to condition 303 - If any individual or member requires to hire the premises for their use they shall be made to complete the Venue Hire Agreement Form 696 as provided by the Metropolitan Police. Form 696 is to be provided to the Licensing Police at least 14days prior to the date of hire. |
|
05 Aug 10 - 01:13 PM (#2958892) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://app.southwark.gov.uk/licensing/LicPremisesGrantedDetails.asp?systemkey=830615 The following comments from John King: Southwark Council doing their best to clamp down on music at Dulwich Preparatory School: 'The head teacher of the nursery or designated deputy shall be on duty when the doors are open to greet and monitor students; parents, guests and ...authorised visitors' 'Whilst licensable activities are taking place, all windows and doors shall be closed except for access and egress, to minimise any potential noise nuisance to local residents and/or businesses.' 'Step and stair edges shall be highlighted so as to be conspicuous' 'Noise shall be monitored and kept to within agreed levels' And lastly... 'Attendants shall be present at performances for unaccompanied children' What the hell does that mean, and why do Southwark Licensing Officers need to advise teachers how to supervise children? |
|
05 Aug 10 - 02:29 PM (#2958929) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67652&c=1 The Home Office has confirmed its overhaul of the licensing regime will be covered by the new "one-in, one-out" rules on regulation. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) announced today the new rules would begin on September 1. This means when ministers introduce new regulations which "impose costs on business" they will have to remove a similar rule. |
|
05 Aug 10 - 08:20 PM (#2959133) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-10881392 Jamstand Organisers were unavailable for comment. This year's event was due to be the fourth annual festival, headlined by Roots Manuva and Ugly Duckling. Herefordshire Council and West Mercia Police said the event needed a premises licence or temporary event notice. They said the application deadline had passed and the event must be cancelled. I would have thought that, if this (the forth such event) needed permission - then so would the first three................. |
|
05 Aug 10 - 08:38 PM (#2959151) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ledburyportal.co.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3242:jamstand-festival-2010&catid=1:latest&It This sounds like the sort of event that everyone should be supporting and which the local authority should be ensuring has all the permission it requires. It is a disgrace that such an event is prevented and that the local authority is happy to prevent it, as long as the blame can be placed at someone else's door. |
|
06 Aug 10 - 05:52 AM (#2959323) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones As you know, I am no supporter of the current licensing arrangements, and I agree that Jamstand looks like a worthwhile event, but I cannot help feeling it is a little unfair to blame the local authority when according to the BBC report they have not even received an application for a licence. An event for 5000 people takes a lot of organising, and a lot of things need to be thought about including meeting any statutory requirements. If the organisers didn't think to apply for a TEN, what else haven't they thought of? |
|
06 Aug 10 - 06:33 AM (#2959338) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles It is difficult to apportion blame when we do not know all of the facts. But it would seem to be a fact that the event planned for 2010 had taken place for the previous 3 years. It is not clear if permission was in place for these. If the organisers had not needed permission for these, they may have resonable concluded that they would not need it for the 2010 event. So the issue here is that the event this year, with all its benefits, is being prevented, by the local authority as if the issue of licensing was their only responsibility. It was not as if the event planned for 2010 was the first time the LA and the police would have been aware of it. They had plenty of time to ensure that whatever licensing was required was in place to enable the 2010 event. If LAs continue to use licensing as a means only to prevent valuable cultural activities, then licensing must be removed from them before they can prevent any more. |
|
06 Aug 10 - 07:27 AM (#2959355) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,Free I wouldn't trust this Condem Gov't on anything, as their sole aim so far seems to be make the oldest, sickest, poorest responsible for their banking friends incompetence (crime is a better word) But if it can be raised to 200 then great. Our Folk club plans to hold 2 events over the next 10 months catering for around 150 each, if he limit was 100 both would have to be cancelled |
|
06 Aug 10 - 07:51 AM (#2959374) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I wouldn't trust this Condem Gov't on anything, as their sole aim so far seems to be make the oldest, sickest, poorest responsible for their banking friends incompetence (crime is a better word) But if it can be raised to 200 then great. Our Folk club plans to hold 2 events over the next 10 months catering for around 150 each, if he limit was 100 both would have to be cancelled The current Govt have yet to actually propose anything. The previous lot did at least consult on their proposal of a figure of 100 to be exempted. We still await any proposal following the completion of this consultation. So if they are relying on an exemption - it would not really be safe for your Folk Club to assume that there would be an exemption based on any figure in the next 10 months. |
|
06 Aug 10 - 10:36 AM (#2959455) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,Nims There is more to this story than meets the eye. The license was applied for this year and in previous years. The notice of application was posted on 5th July in local papers and on telephone poles in the area inviting objections and none were raised. Herefordshire district council have yet to explain why they claim that the license was not applied for. Ross is a small town that relies heavily on its vistors to generate income - this will spell disaster for our already struggling small traders and is a massive shot in the foot for Herefordshire council when it comes to future votes. |
|
06 Aug 10 - 12:40 PM (#2959515) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from the S 182 Guidance to the Licensing Act 2003. 13.58 Care will be needed to ensure that only necessary, proportionate and reasonable licensing conditions impose any restrictions on these events. Where there is any indication that events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. Broader cultural activities and entertainment may also be affected. In developing their statements of licensing policy, licensing authorities should also consider any views of the local authority's arts committee, where one exists. Whatever the full facts of the 2010 Jamstand Festival may turn out to be, it is at least clear that this valuable cultural activity has been deterred by local licensing requirements. The local Licensing Authority are now required to investigate with a view to reverse the situation. |
|
06 Aug 10 - 12:55 PM (#2959531) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones Curiouser and curiouser - it is also suggested that the organiser doesn't have permission from the landowners: Ross on Wye Journal Definitely more than meets the eye. |
|
06 Aug 10 - 02:09 PM (#2959585) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Curiouser and curiouser - it is also suggested that the organiser doesn't have permission from the landowners: It is suggested by the owners of this land, who are Herefordshire Council. "Not only does the event not have a licence, but the organiser has not obtained permission from the owners of Caroline Symonds Gardens (Herefordshire Council) and the bandstand (Ross-on-Wye Town Council) to use those areas. "We will be taking every action possible to prevent the event taking place," Paul Nicholas, Herefordshire Council assistant director public health. |
|
06 Aug 10 - 02:30 PM (#2959601) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.wyenot.com/news/2010-letters.htm 'Dear Wyenot, Ross Gazette and Herefordshire Council In relation the council banning the Jamstand event due to Jack Baldus not applying for a license, this is sheer rubbish! If you go down to the site I have counted five blue "Premises License" dotted around, signed and laminated by the council ! This is either a admin slip up by the council and they do not want to admit the mistake after it going in the papers and radio, or they just do not want it to go ahead full stop, due to a few minority residents complaining about noise levels. These are the same "fat cats" who have ties in the council that complain that nothing ever happens in Ross!. This is the one event the younger generation of Ross and the surrounding area look forward to each year since the festival was set up. For us to penalized and the event organiser made out to be extremely incompetent by the Council and Ross Gazette is unacceptable when the right thing has been done. The police have already given an aggressive message to Jack to pass on to us, that anyone on the public grounds between the 13th-14th will be arrested for breaching the peace. Does this apply to anyone just walking by as well, people walking dogs etc? I believe the event needs to go ahead as nothing has been done incorrectly and also an apology made to Jack by the council and media after being villianised by both. This is a very large event and for it to be banned for no valid reason will cause a backlash. I am one of many that would be happy to stage a protest at this decision. Regards Josh Hancox joshhancox@btinternet.com' |
|
06 Aug 10 - 05:04 PM (#2959710) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thegrassrootsfeastival.co.uk/ We regret to advise that we're no longer able to continue with the GrassRoots Feastival due to licensing issues. Much love & peace to all x |
|
08 Aug 10 - 10:59 AM (#2960559) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-10906378 Police had to break up a gathering of more than 3,000 people on Bournemouth beach because the organisers failed to secure a licence. The Sierra Leone Brighton Association advertised the "Sierra Leone Day" but no-one told the authorities. |
|
09 Aug 10 - 05:20 AM (#2960985) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles And another event cancelled due to licencing. http://www.strawberry-fair.org.uk/what-you-are-missing.php "As you know the 2010 Strawberry Fair has been cancelled, but we thought we'd give you a taste of what we were planning so you can see what you're missing out on!" "For 2010 the Strawberry Fair committee were planning big changes in response to public feedback. The idea was to create even more opportunities for all ages and interests to get involved, take part and have fun. Read on to find out more…" |
|
09 Aug 10 - 05:40 AM (#2960991) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.strawberry-fair.org.uk/cancel-2010.php It is with regret that the Strawberry Fair Committee have been forced to cancel the 2010 event. Earlier this year elected Councillors made the decision to grant a license for the Fair this year. The Police then took action to appeal this decision which left the organising Committee is a very tricky position. It was impossible for us to commit the resources, time and funds needed to satisfy the appeals process whilst continuing to organise the 2010 Fair. Also, the timetable for the appeal meant that we would not find out if the Fair could go ahead as planned until very close to the actual date. We did not want to pass this risk on to the many supportive suppliers, traders, and artists whose livelihoods would be severely damaged by a last minute cancellation. Since taking this tough decision, the Committee have opened up discussions with the Council and the Police to ensure that there is a secure future for Strawberry Fair. So far the discussions have been constructive and we are continuing to pursue this route. With the support of local residents we are doing all we can to make sure Strawberry Fair returns in 2011 and beyond. |
|
09 Aug 10 - 05:47 AM (#2960992) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.efestivals.co.uk/news/10/100512a.shtml With great sadness we have been forced to cancel the Glade Festival 2010. When we started back in 2004 we did so out of a love of electronic music, free spiritedness and alternative culture and in response to the vibrant free party scene in the UK. We wanted to have our own version of the kind of colourful, creative and non-corporate events that happen in many places across the planet… Looking back it is amazing that it happened. As many Glade fans will know over the years we have fought hard to maintain the integrity of the event against steadily increasing restrictions imposed by local authority and police. The resulting compromises have led to increased costs, increased ticket prices and a throttling of the very essence of what we wanted to do. It led to us finally having to move from the lovely Wasing estate due to late night noise restrictions and the police's demands for an ever-increasing security and police presence at the event. |
|
09 Aug 10 - 07:11 AM (#2961020) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones A common thread running through these cancelled events is objections by the police or the increased cost of policing. It would be interesting to know whether any of these events had a history of policing incidents, or whether the police are simply adopting a default position for all music events (as would appear to be the case in the Merchant Taylor's School licence quoted earlier in the thread). |
|
09 Aug 10 - 07:22 AM (#2961025) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Tootler There does seem to be a couple of other features common to many of these events.
|
|
09 Aug 10 - 02:38 PM (#2961299) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following comments from Fee Lock (on the EFDSS site) Forgive me, Roger, but I think the thinking here is wrong. Professionally-acting festival organisers manage to apply for licenses in good time, because that's what the law requires. There's no point berating a law because you don't like it: either comply with it properly or put up with it. The information required to put on a gathering is freely available from local authorities, who in my experience fall over themselves to help if approached in reasonable time from someone who's actually going to do it properly. It's not rocket science to understand that there are going to be dozens of Acts and bye-laws that need compliance in order to put on any large event, and labelling what seems to me to be poor organisation, tardy communication and a naive belief that shaking a collection tin for a worthy cause is enough to overlook the potential safety of attendees, does a disservice to those of us who work closely with our local councils and police to avoid what happened in Germany just a few weeks ago. |
|
09 Aug 10 - 03:05 PM (#2961324) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20100805_livebill.shtml Lord Clement-Jones talks about the Live Music Bill on BBC Radio 6. |
|
09 Aug 10 - 03:12 PM (#2961333) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67664&c=1 Two more sessions planned after concerns that trade will not get a voice The Home Office has added two extra dates to its licensing consultation roadshows in London and Nottingham. Pub trade figures had voiced fears the industry would not be represented at the events, as health and councils officials were quick off the mark in securing a place. |
|
10 Aug 10 - 06:03 AM (#2961829) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles There seems to be a limited number of councils involved. In other areas, events seem to go ahead with relatively little trouble. License refusals often seem to be on the basis of objections by only one or two people, which makes me wonder if the councils in question are looking for an excuse - any excuse - to say no. Perhaps the Coalition Govt's idea of 1 in 1 out can be extended to LAs? For every Festival/Event they pervent - they take the responibilty for the loss and have to organise and pay for one to replace it? We may then see more effort made to ensure that what is needed is provided to enable the event to take place as planned rather than LAs thinking that the object of the legislation is to prevent them and that their responsibility ends at this point. |
|
10 Aug 10 - 07:33 PM (#2962464) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Tootler For every Festival/Event they pervent Pervent! Now there's an interesting word. A combination of pervert and prevent - seems appropriate somehow [g] |
|
11 Aug 10 - 06:36 AM (#2962694) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Flos Headford on the EFDDS forum: I must have missed out on something - I don't recall any safety features in the Licensing Act. My reading of recent correspondence on this is that it seems that some Local Authorities seem to be using the Act as an excuse for barring what they see as exciting (for which they read 'dangerous') activities on their home patch which involve outsiders coming in. And that, in some cases, the local constabulary feel they don't have the manning to cope (because they've never been to Sidmouth). Safety law is in place. Noise regulation is in place. The question is - why would anyone need this part of the legislation? Let alone devolve the criteria to local councils, who have too much on their plate already? I know what the Spanish or Italians would do -and so do you. Fiesta! The problem is simply this: assuming we rescind all references to public performance in that Act, could *you* draught anything that would help to quell the unseemly behaviour which afflicts even country market towns at weekends? The honest answer is NO. We have legislation that was designed to combat a perceived threat to inner city areas being applied to Nempnett Thrubwell. It is the implication that music is to blame that we ought to focus on. Rant over... Love to one and all, Flos |
|
11 Aug 10 - 06:53 AM (#2962712) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://menmedia.co.uk/news/s/1312753_promoter_defeats_council_in_legal_battle_over_bob_marley_gig Promoter defeats council in legal battle over Bob Marley gig Susannah Wright August 02, 2010 |
|
11 Aug 10 - 06:58 AM (#2962716) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The problem is simply this: assuming we rescind all references to public performance in that Act, could *you* draught anything that would help to quell the unseemly behaviour which afflicts even country market towns at weekends? How about this? http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67672&c=1 Newquay crackdown on pub crawls could bring new law 11 August, 2010 By Glynn Davis Code of conduct for crawl organisers proves a success in tackling problems. |
|
11 Aug 10 - 11:03 AM (#2962866) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10940402 Ken Livingstone has attacked a police check form used by authorities in London, calling the way it was based on the ethnicity of a concert's audience "divisive" and "wrong". Currently battling to be Labour's candidate for London mayor he said given the powers he would scrap the form if he returns to office. Err....wasn't he Mayor when Form 696 was first introduced? |
|
11 Aug 10 - 11:14 AM (#2962879) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=414950&NewsAreaID=2 The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has today confirmed that a review of the Local Better Regulation Office (LBRO) will be carried out. The local regulation of businesses by environmental health, fire safety, licensing and trading standards services can place unnecessary burdens on them, hampering economic growth. The LBRO was set up to address this issue, combining an independent, expert perspective on local regulation with the statutory powers required to drive progress |
|
12 Aug 10 - 05:17 AM (#2963448) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/88027?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Ken Livingstone: I'll save music pubs * By John Harrington * 12/08/2010 09:21 Ken Livingstone has revealed a plan to save live music in pubs if he becomes London mayor again. |
|
12 Aug 10 - 06:02 AM (#2963463) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67676&c=1 Cafes should open later as 'alternative to pubs', says report |
|
12 Aug 10 - 11:25 AM (#2963641) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://consultations.homeoffice.gov.uk/index.php?survey=3 |
|
12 Aug 10 - 08:30 PM (#2964021) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/8327206.Landlady_hits_back_at__noisy__pub_slur/ Gill Matthews, 47, started at The Oak pub in Oakridge Road, Basingstoke 15 weeks ago, but has been ordered to leave by owners Silver Keg Ltd, after a noise abatement notice was issued by the borough council |
|
13 Aug 10 - 01:41 PM (#2964468) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=14&storycode=67682 Enough is enough? 12 August, 2010 By James Wilmore Despite the rising cost of offering Sky Sports, many licensees have traditionally decided it was a service worth having and reluctantly kept paying. But with its new 'fairer' pricing system still likely to mean a hike for the majority, are pubs finally deciding that the benefits no longer outweigh the cost? Of course the showing of TV sport does not require that licensees have to pay for the additional entertainment permission and red-tape which is considered vital to protect the public for just about any other gathering. This article suggest quiz nights as an alternative to Sky Sports. I wonder how long it will be before quiz nights require licensing or are subject of some kind of stealth taxation? |
|
14 Aug 10 - 12:40 PM (#2965114) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.malverngazette.co.uk/news/8330789.School_licence_is_extended_despite_objections/ Another school employing a barrister to defend speculative objections from difficult neighbours and even then, the original application needed to be limited. Perhaps schools should start showing TV sport? |
|
16 Aug 10 - 11:56 AM (#2966402) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/8329460.Extra_Time_for_Dorchester_Town_FC_marquee/ Officers recommended temporary permission for three months with conditions not to use the marquee after midnight, no live music and a limit on amplified music and the recommendations were approved by members. This is good example of why entertainment licensing as currently practiced by local authorities is continuing to present the biggest single danger to the health of live music. The employees are not content with a ban after midnight, and a noise limiter. How can a total ban on all live music, including non-amplfied live music be justified or indeed legal? |
|
16 Aug 10 - 12:05 PM (#2966411) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.surreyherald.co.uk/surrey-news/news-surrey/2010/08/16/apps-court-accuses-council-of-harrassment-86289-27071601/ DIRECTORS of Apps Court Farm in Walton say they are being 'victimised and harrassed' by Elmbridge Council after being singled out for noise abatement notices and 'threats' of £20,000 fines. The farm in Hurst Road has been battling the council for the right to continue its popular Sunday car boot sales, and received the noise abatement notice in July after holding a private event which received seven complaints from residents in Sunbury. However, under information revealed in a Freedom of Information Act request by the Herald on Thursaday (August 6) other venues including Mercedes Benz-World, in Weybridge, Imber Court, in Molesey, Esher Rugby Club, in Hersham, Sandown Park, in Esher, and Painshill Park, in Cobham, have never received a noise notice or been faced with a fine despite having several complaints. John King comments: Elmbridge Council using Noise Abatement Notices to stop events whenever a nasty neighbour complains. (see page two for the reply to the FoIA request) Eventually, there won't be any events anywhere. |
|
16 Aug 10 - 02:50 PM (#2966544) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones It should nevertheless be borne in mind that these situations arose because of complaints about noise. I don't think we do our cause any good by implying that music doesn't cause disturbance, or that all complaints are unjustified. Nevertheless, I fail to see why live music should be more objectionable than recorded music. Surely the problem is the volume, rather than the source. What we should continue to challenge is the assumption that live music = amplified music = nuisance. |
|
16 Aug 10 - 08:36 PM (#2966782) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I don't think we do our cause any good by implying that music doesn't cause disturbance, or that all complaints are unjustified. We possibly wouldn't, if that was the implication being made but any complaints about noise should not result in all non-amplified live music being prevented. It is interesting to note that the Dorchester example was not a licensing hearing but a planning meeting. It shows additional entertainment licensing, which is defended as a way of heading-off potential problems relating to live music in advance - is now expensive duplication of the planning process. And as any real noise concerns that do actually arise later, can be dealt with by the Environmental Protection legislation - additional entertainment licensing can be scrapped without any adverse affect on the public. |
|
17 Aug 10 - 04:47 AM (#2966952) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2010/100817-redtape.aspx Not too hopeful this. The first step this Govt takes to deal with red tape - is to set up a quango......... |
|
17 Aug 10 - 05:52 AM (#2966981) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8335529.Row_over_Grays_Court_alcohol_licence_application/ But the application by the property's owners, Helen Heraty and John Edwards, has drawn a wave of objections from people living nearby, and from the Dean and Chapter of the Minster, who claim the noise created would "severely damage the setting and relative tranquillity" of the area around the cathedral. |
|
17 Aug 10 - 05:56 AM (#2966982) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: nickp Maybe a quango (post 04:47) but in the article: "The taskforce is time limited and will report to Ministers early in 2011. The chair and members will be unpaid." |
|
17 Aug 10 - 10:25 AM (#2967106) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following condition imposed by Three Rivers Council on The Stag. D) The prevention of Public Nuisance Any live music will end no later than 23:00 hours. Doors and windows to be closed when live music is playing. No live music will be played or transmitted to the outside areas. In the event that live entertainment is provided the number of performers will be limited to a maximum of two at any one time. The premises may continue to play incidental music until closing time. Any Live Music to be non-amplified. No karaoke will be played at all in the premises. http://www.threerivers.gov.uk/GetResource.aspx?file=Stag.doc |
|
17 Aug 10 - 11:21 AM (#2967145) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: IanC If you read the document, you'll see that (d) above is not a condition but forms part of the proprietor's original application. In fact, the licensing authority - after their hearing - removed the requirement for "no karaoke". From what I can see, the original proposal from the pub was accepted unaltered except that the licensing authority freed it up a bit. We really need to avoid trying to suggest that the licensing authorities are requiring things when they're not. It makes our case less than believable if we're accusing them of doing things they aren't. |
|
17 Aug 10 - 02:33 PM (#2967272) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles We really need to avoid trying to suggest that the licensing authorities are requiring things when they're not. It makes our case less than believable if we're accusing them of doing things they aren't. Point taken but: A licensee cannot use the excuse that they supplied alcohol to an under-age customer because that is what they requested. The licensing authority know that even when the applicant asks for something, that it is NOT a condition that should appear in the final licence. They use this as an excuse that in such occasions as this, that it was not them imposing the condition but this will not wash. The licensing authority is responsible for the legally binding conditions of this and every licence. There is no justification for allowing a condition limiting the number of performers and the licensing authority are perfectly aware of this. A licensee has no need for conditions such as those in this case which specifically prevent them holding karaoke. They should be able to make such choices as and when, but this choice has been taken away from them. The licensee will face serious penalties should they stray from these. The idea that the licensing authority have freed up anything is also not really supported. We know why licensees (or the owners) put in such limited applications. It is done only in the hope that the process will proceed quickly. This is by no means an uncommon situation and it should not be defended. |
|
19 Aug 10 - 06:54 AM (#2968489) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.nosher.co.uk/news/article/id/45/ It seems that not a day goes by without some argument over a venue and its music license. When will we ever have a definitive answer to the problem? |
|
19 Aug 10 - 07:21 AM (#2968507) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2076654_harpers_lido_events_objection_not_welcome ENTREPRENEUR Michel Harper's objection to a bid to hold late night functions at Guildford Lido has been ignored by the borough council. One wonders how many of the complaints raised to other premises and which cause the licensing authoriy there to go into 'headless-chicken' mode in order to address them, are actually valid. |
|
19 Aug 10 - 08:44 AM (#2968555) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67735&c=1 A leading licensing lawyer has slammed the Home Office for allowing just six weeks for responses to its plans for licensing reform as "a nonsense". Barrister Anna Mathias of law firm Joelson Wilson went on to say that the coalition governments' plans are potentially more radical than the Licensing Act itself. |
|
19 Aug 10 - 08:56 AM (#2968566) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/88093?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n The first thing you notice is that this is not a free-wheeling discussion but a box-ticking exercise overseen by five Home Office civil servants. Quite frankly, it feels like a done deal on the major changes — a late-night levy, changes to temporary events notices and the extension of the "voluntary" closure period; we were reminded that this workshop was to discuss how and not if the proposals should take effect. The consultation was more like a post-lunch conference day activity rather than a chance to seriously influence Government policy. |
|
23 Aug 10 - 04:01 AM (#2970922) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/88118?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Trade pleas for more time on licensing * By Ewan Turney * 23/08/2010 08:02 A senior trade figure has made a final plea to the Government to extend the consultation period for its proposed licensing overhaul. |
|
24 Aug 10 - 01:56 PM (#2971892) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=3619 The following comments from John King: Here's the Don Club applying for a licence variation in order to host live music. Unfortunately they failed to spot the trick question, and didn't tick the box authorising the provision of facilities for making music. No gigs here then. |
|
26 Aug 10 - 11:13 AM (#2973254) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Research by the Live Music Forum (www.livemusicforum.co.uk) has revealed that the previous Government inflated the number of live music licences by a massive 60%, and the 2003 Licensing Act resulted in a 74% decrease in the number of licensed premises able to host small-scale performances of live music. Government answers to questions tabled by Lord Colwyn in July (see below) have confirmed that 145,500 licensed premises do not have authorisation for 'facilities for making music'. Even if a premises is authorised for performances of live music, without the additional permission for facilities, actual performances are likely to be illegal. John King, musician and member of the Welwyn Live Music Forum, said: "The damage to live music caused by the Licensing Act was carefully covered up by the last Government. DCMS have admitted that there are now only 52,400 premises with live music authorisation. Even this number is hopelessly optimistic as it includes schools, colleges, retirement homes, hospitals, shops, public spaces and closed premises, and is also distorted by a definition of a live music event which included pretty much anything from a pack of carol singing Brownies to a clown playing a comedy trumpet. "Only 26% of licensed premises can now stage any form of live music, but many of these face further restrictions on the frequency or regularity of performance, the number of performers, bans on amplification, or even the genres of music allowed to be performed. But even that is not the whole truth; a significant proportion of premises licensed for live music don't actually put on any gigs. In 2007 DCMS reported that 43% of premises with music licences have never staged live music and have no plans to do so." Former Licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe announced last year that 83,600 premises were licensed for live music and that claims that the Licensing Act had damaged the live music sector were a 'myth'. Then DCMS Secretary of State Ben Bradshaw stated in Parliament that there had been 'significant growth in the amount of live music'. With the true extent of the damage finally clear, the Live Music Forum calls on the Coalition Government to move swiftly to implement an entertainment licence exemption so that performances of live music can take place in licensed premises and elsewhere as a normal activity, regulated by existing legislation for public safety and nuisance. In other words, the same treatment accorded to big screen sport by the last government. The Live Music Forum |
|
27 Aug 10 - 05:28 AM (#2973821) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Full text of Lord Colwyn's questions and government replies: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many licensed premises did not have authorisation to provide facilities for making music on 31 March 2009.[ HL1781] The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde): On 31 March 2009 there were 197,900 premises licences in force and 17,300 club premises certificates in England and Wales. The estimated total premises licences without authorisation for facilities for making music was 145,500, and the total club premises certificates without authorisation for facilities for making music was 11,500 as at 31 March 2009. The estimated total premises licences without facilities for entertainment similar to making music or dancing was 164,500, and the total club premises certificates without facilities for entertainment similar to making music or dancing was 13,500 as at 31 March 2009. Multiple activities can apply to a particular premises. To ask Her Majesty's Government what changes they are making to the methods of data collection for the Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing Statistical Bulletin to ensure that future bulletins comply with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.[ HL1780] The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde): The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's official statistics already comply with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics so no methodological changes are needed for the Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment bulletin. The UK Statistics Authority has, however, asked us to provide clarification on how to interpret a specific data item on live music licences. We will do this. See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/writtens/23082010.htm#toptop ENDS |
|
27 Aug 10 - 05:42 AM (#2973824) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/no_opposition_at_festival_meeting_1_612811 ORGANISERS of a controversial music festival in Suffolk faced an empty room at a public meeting into the event. PEACE AND QUIET: Cllr Trevor Beckwith was the only attendee at an open meeting into the Waveform Festival |
|
27 Aug 10 - 05:48 AM (#2973828) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisscunthorpe.co.uk/news/Crown-Inn-landlord-defends-late-licence-plans-despite-residents-objections/article-257750 A BELTON pub landlord has defended his plans to open later and host live music and karaoke events at weekends. The plans to change the licensing conditions of the Crown Inn have been submitted to North Lincolnshire Council. But 16 residents have lodged objections, fearing the changes would pose a noise nuisance to the neighbourhood. John Green, owner of the Crown Inn, said: "The general public think there's going to be lots of late night parties, and that's simply not the case. |
|
27 Aug 10 - 06:43 AM (#2973857) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67781&c=1 Government figures show that there are now only 52,400 premises with a licence for live music. Last year former Licensing Minister Gerry Sutcliffe said there were 83,600 such premises and dismissed claims the Licensing Act had damaged live music as "a myth". |
|
27 Aug 10 - 09:44 AM (#2973951) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles "76% of pubs and clubs have a licence allowing them to stage live music... Don't trust me, read the report... The above words in 2009 are from the person responsible for these claims. See the following story and the associated comments which followed. I would not trust any claim or statistic emanating from the DCMS, who do not actually appear to understand the legislation they are responsible for. http://www.facebook.com/l/b67ef;www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=64798" |
|
27 Aug 10 - 01:25 PM (#2974088) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/08/3500_pubs_closed_under_Labour.aspx Official figures show there was a net closure of 3,530 pubs across England under Labour from 1997 to 2010. The Government is reforming licensing rules to make it easier to play live music in local pubs. The jury is still out on this LIBCON coalition Govt over this last bit.............I do wish they would show some urgency and actually come up with some proposals. |
|
27 Aug 10 - 02:15 PM (#2974123) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2077257_residents_backing_for_licence_review_pub It requires one properly made application for a review to take place," said Waverley's licensing manager Paul Hughes. "Interested parties, as defined under the Licensing Act 2003, have until August 31 to make representations. "A verification process to determine that each representation meets the Licensing Act definition of 'interested parties' will then take place." What this means is that most of the representations referred to as being made in support, will not be considered as valid. For example, even regular customers but who may not live close to the pub will not be judged to be 'interested parties'. (3)"Interested party" means any of the following— (a)a person living in the vicinity of the premises, (b)a body representing persons who live in that vicinity, (c)a person involved in a business in that vicinity, |
|
28 Aug 10 - 07:24 PM (#2974854) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles To ask Her Majesty's Government how many licensed premises did not have authorisation to provide facilities for making music on 31 March 2009.[ HL1781] You ask a simple question and ................. The question seems to be clear enough. The answer is not clear and perhaps this is intentional. DCMS alway went to great pains to explain that there was to be only one licence. The answer gives the impression that there are now two - Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde): On 31 March 2009 there were 197,900 premises licences in force and 17,300 club premises certificates in England and Wales. The estimated total premises licences without authorisation for facilities for making music was 145,500, and the total club premises certificates without authorisation for facilities for making music was 11,500 as at 31 March 2009. The estimated total premises licences without facilities for entertainment similar to making music or dancing was 164,500, and the total club premises certificates without facilities for entertainment similar to making music or dancing was 13,500 as at 31 March 2009. Multiple activities can apply to a particular premises. So can someone explain to me from this answer, on the the 31 March 2009, how many licensed premises there were in total and how many of them were not authorised to provide facilities for making music? |
|
30 Aug 10 - 01:11 PM (#2975993) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.popall.co.uk/news/general/responsetothehomeofficerebalancingthelicensingact.asp Poppleston Allen have now responded to the Home Office on their consultation document "Rebalancing the Licensing Act". It is a fairly hard hitting response as we think that the Government's proposals are badly thought out. We also think they are foolish to rush this through with an inadequate consultation period. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 04:41 AM (#2976504) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/88181?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Shapps said the Coalition would help pubs by banning the sale of below cost alcohol, reforming licensing laws to make it easier for pubs to host live music and provide expert advice to communities looking to buy pubs. Where is there any firm proposal from this Govt to reform licensing laws to make it easier for pubs to host live music? "The new Coalition Government has scrapped Labour's unfair cider tax, will give local residents a community right to buy to save local pubs, will stop unfair selling by supermarkets and is cutting red tape on live music in pubs." Where is there any firm proposal from this Govt to cut red tape on live music in pubs? |
|
31 Aug 10 - 05:47 AM (#2976521) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles In response to the concerns raised by Local Government Regulation, the Home Office have confirmed that any proposed changes to the Licensing Act 2003 contained in its consultation "Rebalancing the Licensing Act" will not be brought into force until 2012 at the earliest http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/ |
|
31 Aug 10 - 11:08 AM (#2976699) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67796&c=1 Again the quote from Local government minister Grant Shapps that "The government is reforming licensing rules to make it easier to play live music in local pubs." The Home Office is not proposing this and the DCMS remain silent, so what is he referring to? |
|
31 Aug 10 - 11:11 AM (#2976702) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Meanwhile..............out in the real world. http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2077218_remix_bar_no_longer_playing_a_happy_tune A WOKING town centre bar is counting the cost of a ban on live music events after it was forced to partially close. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 04:51 AM (#2977292) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/publications/7246.aspx DCMS Structural Reform Plan Structural reform plans are the key tool of the coalition government for making departments accountable for the implementation of the reforms set out in the coalition agreement. No mention here of any reform of licensing laws to make it easier for pubs to host live music in pubs nor any proposal to cut red tape on live music in pubs? |
|
01 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM (#2977497) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Local Government Association has taken the decision not to hire a replacement group director of comms as it prepares for further public sector cuts. http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1025341/Local-Government-Association-takes-axe-top-comms-post/ >The news follows the redundancy of 13 staff at the LGA Group earlier this year, as part of a strategy to consolidate comms across the group.< |
|
01 Sep 10 - 10:48 AM (#2977501) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.denbighshirevisitor.com/news/denbighshire-news/2010/09/01/row-in-prestatyn-over-noise-from-karaoke-105722-27171729/ Row in Prestatyn over noise from karaoke. While Mr Schwarz was in the area he was approached by several customers who were annoyed with the neighbour for complaining. And 11 residents have written in support of the licensees. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 12:28 PM (#2977594) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.shieldsgazette.com/south-shields-news/Fears-over-pub39s-live-music.6506453.jp The opponents have the support of Coun George Elsom, the Real Independent representative for the Cleadon Park ward. He says: "There have already been problems with this establishment when they had a wedding reception. "These problems were relayed to environmental health officers and to Northumbria Police. "I believe that if the application is granted, we will get an increase in disorderly, criminal conduct, vandalism, anti-social behaviour, as well as more litter." Committee members will be told that Northumbria Police have raised no objections to the proposals. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 01:58 PM (#2977682) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://mobile.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/8365485.Pubs__threatened__by_neighbours_complaints/ THE survival of three pubs in Wooburn Green is being threatened by neighbours' complaints about noise and live music, say landlords. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 02:10 PM (#2977687) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/968012/Local-Government-Association-Group-plans-consolidate-comms-functions/ 18 November 2009. The Local Government Association (LGA) is carrying out a review of its comms functions as it looks to implement significant consolidation, reflecting the drastic cuts being considered by its members. The LGA Group is made up of the LGA, the Improvement and Development Agency (Idea), Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (Lacors), Leadership Centre & Local Government Employers (LGE). All of these have their own decentralised comms functions, but are likely to be merged as a result of the review. LGA programme director for media and public affairs Iain Wilton said: 'It's part of a process of getting closer together across the LGA Group. It's all about improving co-ordination of services and looking at options for consolidation across the group.' Although numbers have not been confirmed, it is thought the LGA's comms staff could drop from 50 to about 37 should the centralisation go ahead. Wilton said an announcement would be made next Monday. |
|
02 Sep 10 - 01:46 PM (#2978610) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ryeandbattleobserver.co.uk/eastbourne-news/Eastbourne-restaurant-not-allowed-to.6506161.jp This is not going to cause a nuisance," said Chris. "There will be up to twenty middle-aged and older people enjoying a three-course meal and some jazz music. They will all be gone by 11.30pm at the latest - it is a very low key event. "The silly thing is, we actually have a licence to serve alcohol until 12.30am and can play disco music. "It is only because we are having a jazz singer that we need to apply for this licence." Chris and Bo will have to cancel the singer and refund the deposits the customers have paid for their tickets. He added, "There will be disappointment among our customers who had bought tickets and it all seems so unnecessary." |
|
03 Sep 10 - 04:58 AM (#2979101) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/aug/lord-stanley-pub-bids-upstairs-licence Brian Looney, who shares a party wall with the pub, said revellers had at times been caught "peering directly into my home" from its terrace, which he described as "an unspeakable intrusion into my privacy". And Laura Bacharach, former beauty editor at Cosmopolitan magazine, said: "At present it is possible to hear conversation from the pub in our bedroom and sitting room since the walls are adjoining and not soundproofed. Anything louder would be intolerable and seriously affect our quality of life." A spokeswoman for Punch Taverns, who own the pub, said: "We haven't received any formal noise complaints but would like to reassure the local residents that we will listen to any concerns." John King comments: It's now the norm for live music applications to receive negative coverage in the local press. |
|
03 Sep 10 - 03:05 PM (#2979432) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ukwirednews.com/news.php/87022-Noise-concern-over-late-night-closing-times-for-village-pub Wraxall and Failand Parish Council leaders have written to residents in the village giving them details of who to complain to if they are disturbed by noise as a result of functions at the Old Barn. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 04:43 AM (#2979743) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/03/hooligans-sentenced-uefa-violence-manchester Hooligans jailed for causing 'worst violence in Manchester since the blitz'Eleven football hooligans sent to prison for causing havoc after the 2008 Uefa cup final Most did not have tickets for the game against Zenit St Petersburg but descended on the pubs, with trouble erupting after a giant television screen in the city centre failed close to kick-off time. Lords Debate Yesterday, 15 June 2006, Lord Addington asked the government: 'Whether local authorities and the police have adequate powers to control crime, disorder and public nuisance at premises or open spaces where World Cup football matches are shown on large screens.' Reading between the lines of Home Office minister Baroness Scotland's replies it would seem that the answer is 'yes'. The disproportionate regulation of live music was raised by Lords Addington and Redesdale. Baroness Scotland suggested that Lord Redesdale 'should raise changes in legislation if and when there is a passing bus onto which he can jump'. Entertainment on moving vehicles is of course exempt under the new licensing laws: The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the police have a wide range of powers at their disposal to control public order at large screen events. Following incidents of disorder, including at events showing England's last match, local police forces are liaising with event organisers and local authorities about safety and security at public viewing events. Decisions on whether further big screen events should go ahead will be taken on a case-by-case basis by local police. Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she not agree that there is an element of absurdity the system when these large screen events do not need a licence but somebody who wishes to have three or four musicians playing acoustic instruments in a pub does? Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. However, some of us would say that, fortunately—many will say unfortunately—the World Cup does not often come our way. Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, will my noble friend comment on what is happening in Germany, where tens of thousands of England fans are watching the football matches on big television screens and are not causing any trouble to anybody at all? Will she send a message to them saying "Thank you, please keep it up", while paying attention to what our ambassador in Berlin said yesterday about deterring the uncouth tiny minority who seem to derive pleasure from singing Nazi songs, goose-stepping, giving Nazi salutes and otherwise engaging in inappropriate World War II behaviour? Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend's first comment. England fans have achieved a great deal in recent years to help transform their reputation. The Frankfurt experience is the latest example of England fans travelling abroad and enhancing their reputation as the best fans in the world. It is a disgrace when a small minority tarnish that good reputation. We endorse all the efforts to ensure that those who do that feel the consequences of having done so. Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, it appears that part of the problem, in some instances, has been the sheer numbers that have turned up rather than the incidents of violence. The Minister referred to the ability of the police to cope, but does she not agree that the police, local authorities and the BBC should sensibly address this matter day by day during the World Cup? Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Viscount that that is exactly what is happening. A lot of organisation is going on between the police, the event organisers and local authorities. For instance, for big screen events in Manchester, it has been decided by the Manchester police, in consultation with the event organisers and the local authority, that they should be ticketed. This planning is going on and is much to be commended. Lord Redesdale: My Lords, when the Licensing Act 2003 was going through Parliament there was a great deal of discussion about why large screen television was exempt and the issue of violence, which has unfortunately come to pass, was raised. However, rather than saying that perhaps we should now license large screen television events, will the Government look again at taking unamplified music out of the licensing regime? There have not been the same headlines of punch-ups at folk festivals. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. However, noble Lords will remember some of the reasons why large screen events were excluded. First, there is no consistency in when they can happen; and, secondly, the arrangements between organisers, the police and local authorities were felt to be a better way of managing them and getting agreement on when and if they should occur. Of course, it is always open to the noble Lord to raise any changes in legislation, if and when there is a passing bus onto which he can jump. ENDS |
|
04 Sep 10 - 04:52 AM (#2979747) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall On 14 May 2008, riots broke out in Manchester during outdoor big screen broadcasts of the UEFA cup final. Questions were raised in Parliament. Would the government review the broadcast exemption in light of the violence? Answer: no. Why? Answer: Alcohol is the problem, not the broadcasts. Here is the Q&A: Lord Colwyn asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether, in view of the serious violence and disorder that broke out in Manchester when a big screen showing the ITV broadcast of the UEFA cup failed on 14 May, it will review the exemption for broadcast entertainment in the Licensing Act 2003. [HL3715] Lord Davies of Oldham: The screening in Manchester of the broadcast of the UEFA cup final in a public place on 14 May only took place with the consent of the local authority and under restrictions agreed with the police. It is therefore difficult to see what added control would have been available had the event been subject to the licensing controls under the Licensing Act 2003, or that such controls would have prevented the disorder that arose. It remains the Government's position that big-screen television broadcasts in themselves do not cause disorder, but that it is the consumption of alcohol at such events that can lead to problems. Decisions on whether big-screen events should go ahead are the responsibility of the local authority in consultation with the local police, who are involved at an early stage, and event organisers. It is already possible under existing legislation to control consumption and drunkenness in public places. Under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, it is possible for a local authority to designate any area to which the public have access a place where alcohol may not be consumed. It is also an offence under the Licensing Act 1872 to be drunk in a public place. The Government are confident that the police and local authority in Manchester will ensure that safety and security arrangements provide a controlled environment at any future big-screen events. The Government therefore have no current plans to review the licensing of any form of entertainment not currently covered by the existing licensing laws. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 07:02 AM (#2979805) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Don't forget that the deadline for making representations concerning the Government's proposed Rebalancing of the Licensing Act is 8th Sept. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-2010-licensing-act/ |
|
04 Sep 10 - 12:41 PM (#2979958) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles John King comments: ý145,500 licensed premises cannot host any form of live music but they can show live sport. They can also broadcast live music and play the sound through a PA system. In these cases, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 deals with noise.... Lord Davies of Oldham: It is therefore difficult to see what added control would have been available had the event been subject to the licensing controls under the Licensing Act 2003, or that such controls would have prevented the disorder that arose. These are the (expensive) controls that DCMS and the LGA group would have us accept are vital to protect the public for live music in pubs. As the boss of Sky TV has now switched his support from the previous Govt to the Conservative Party - there is little chance that the showing of TV sport will ever be subject to the controls of the Licensing Act 2003 - but there must be some hope that the legislation will be ammended to enable live music to be treated the same. One can only hope that it is not already too late. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 12:45 PM (#2979960) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/proposed_licensing_policy_for_2011___8211__2014.pdf Musicians working in Hackney will be required to complete a Form 696 for temporary events from 2011. According to Hackney Council's draft Statement of Licensing: 'The Police will normally object to TEN 's where: ... A risk ass...essment of the event in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the Police has not been provided to the Police 14 days in advance of the event. The Police recommend completion of a Form 696 to help satisfy this.' |
|
05 Sep 10 - 02:54 PM (#2980513) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2010/09/05/48227-golf-club-seeks-more-entertainment/ Eighty objections were received, including a petition from 10 residents in Mansion Lane. A petition of support with 122 signatures was also sent during the consultation period. John King Comments: The local rag ignores the alcohol issue and leads with objections to a variation of an entertainment licence. They have a vested interest in doing this. DCMS Select Committee reported that licence applicants spend an average of £1,000 advertising applications in the local press. |
|
06 Sep 10 - 10:37 AM (#2980928) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/88240?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) has proposed a number of "positive alternatives" to the Government's planned overhaul of licensing laws and called for a new approach to tackling problem drinking. The BBPA said it would: • Make licensing officers the responsible authority rather than the licensing authorities believing it would speed up the process and help protect its independence. Current government proposals would see licensing authorities acting as both judge and jury. |
|
06 Sep 10 - 03:46 PM (#2981079) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles From the Home Office consultation document: Reducing burden and bureaucracy of licensing and covering its cost (part 1) Licence fees have not been increased since their introduction and therefore some sort of increase is long overdue. This would be hugely welcomed by licensing authorities who have long argued that their enforcement costs exceed their fee income. The Government also acknowledges that adopting a tougher licensing regime as outlined in these proposals may lead to an increase in the number of licence reviews conducted, and a subsequent risk of increased burden on local licensing authorities. Any additional burdens on licensing authorities should also be reflected in the level of licence fees. This is worrying. An argument that my wages had not been increased for some time and that this fact alone justified an increase, would be unlikely to succeed without some increase in productivity. But it would appear that this Govt intend to reward the LGA Group lobby with an increase in fees, despite the current mess and the fact that this was always the fear expressed about moving alcohol licensing from the courts to the local councils. The idea that the income from fees should reflect enforcement costs - without any examination of these cost or any attempt to reduce them, at a time when every other area of public service is supposed to be doing this is a great concern. For it follows from this equation that an increase in fees will reduce even further the number of licensed premises and and that a reduction in the total number of licensed premises will further reduce the total income from fees. If the fear is that there will be an increase in the already high number of costly licensing reviews, as a result of these proposals, perhaps the cost of these should be made by those currently being encouraged to initiate these reviews. Perhaps this would result in less objections? |
|
07 Sep 10 - 04:51 AM (#2981411) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/88237?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n This week, the coalition has announced that it intends to allow local authorities to sweep away "antiquated" by-laws on carpet-beating and moving animal carcasses, which have been on the town hall list since the 1800s. At the same time, however, they want to make it easier for local councillors to pass fresh bylaws on modern problems, such as street-drinking and low-cost alcohol, without reference to central government. A crowd-pleaser? Certainly. A step in the right direction? Highly debatable. Local democracy is bandied about as a "good thing", on the basis that local decision-making suits the people. But experience shows that this is not necessarily so. There has never been that much cohesion between local bureaucrats and the people they "serve", and it seems to me that this will be no different. A motivated minority will set the laws they want to, and the devil take the hindmost! |
|
07 Sep 10 - 08:55 AM (#2981524) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Liberal-Conservative coalition government's proposed licensing reforms were whisked out for a brief consultation in August, which comes to a close this Wednesday (8 September). The anodyne title of the consultation ('Rebalancing the Licensing Act') and the rhetoric of 'empowering communities' are little more than pretty wrapping: the content is sinister stuff. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9488/ |
|
07 Sep 10 - 09:05 AM (#2981529) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/business/business.php?id=805403 The spokesman said it was a business decision to end the tenancy as the terms of the licence presented too many restrictions that made the pub "not viable". "Even if we had very small numbers of customers in the pub before an event, whether it was a student night, a live band or DJ, we had to have staff on the door," he said. "We had no choice but to give notice." |
|
07 Sep 10 - 09:54 AM (#2981552) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles If filling in the whole consultation document is problematic - you can send your views in a message to the following: Alcohol.consultation@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk I have sent the following: I have responded online to the questions but this is only half the story and I would like to add the following, for your consideration. The whole package is flawed as it is based on a concern over alcohol and rather overlooks the fact that there is no longer an alcohol licence and that the document does not refer to any attempt to create one. There remains but one licence with one level of fees - The Premises Licence. As a result, the measures proposed in this document to address alcohol-related problems will apply equally to premises which may not in fact serve any alcohol. To take but one example: The proposal to increase licensing fees - due to some perceived problem with alcohol-related issues at some premises - will result in a school, hospital, cafe or coffee bar (which requires a Premises Licence to provide live music or the facilties to enable them) also having to pay any increase in fees. It is quite unfair to proceed with any of these proposals until an alcohol only licence is re-introduced. The existing over-regulation needs to be addressed and the split of responsibilities between the Home Office and DCMS needs to be detailed and an full explanation needs to be agreed and suppled so that all proposals by this LibCon Govt to deal with areas currently covered by the Premises Licence are dealt with openly and at the same time. To the disgrace of the previous Govt, the current expensive shambles which is the additional entertainment permission aspect of the Licensing Act 2003 has always suffered because the alcohol aspects were judged to be more important. One can only hope and trust that the current Govt will not make the same mistake - but in rushing through this consultation and these proposals, it would appear that they already have. |
|
07 Sep 10 - 10:01 AM (#2981556) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/743432006CollegeBallGuidance.pdf John King comments: Oxford Council's guidance for college balls demands that the Environmental Health Officer is notified in advance of the 'type' of music to be performed. 'A schedule of events listing the times of the bands, DJ's and any other music, including the locatio...n within the College and the type of music etc. should be provided to the Environmental Health Officer as soon as reasonably possible (see attached Noise Risk Assessment form).' |
|
07 Sep 10 - 01:52 PM (#2981683) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7984917/Local-Aged-Concern-elderly-charity-in-neighbourhood-noise-row.ht Local Aged Concern elderly charity in neighbourhood noise row A local charity has become embroiled in a neighbourhood noise row amid claims that Vera Lynn songs have been played too loudly. |
|
07 Sep 10 - 02:44 PM (#2981721) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://enquire.hertscc.gov.uk/qol/2006/noise06.cfm The following comments from John King: Local Authorities receive about 350,000 noise complaints per year. How many of these are related to live music? Hardly any. Live music doesn't even get a mention in this research. The Local Authorities (with help of local press) do seem to working hard to encourage more to be made.... |
|
07 Sep 10 - 04:58 PM (#2981805) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2010/09/03/strictly-no-dancing-in-huddersfield-town-centre-what-do-you- NEVER MIND Strictly Come Dancing – it's strictly no dancing for one Huddersfield youth group. Performing arts group Avenue2broadway Star have been told by Kirklees Council they can't perform in the town centre tomorrow. It is shame that our protectors are not as good at making our streets safe and protecting us from crime as they are at preventing positive cultural activities. |
|
08 Sep 10 - 05:50 AM (#2982179) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/ehws/licensing/premises-licence-guidance.en Cambridge Council looking to impose genre restrictions on premises licences. 'If music is to be provided, then the type of music must also be stated.' |
|
08 Sep 10 - 05:53 AM (#2982180) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.calderdale.gov.uk/business/licences/licensingact/premiseslicence/guidancenotes/premises-guidance.html Calderdale Council also want to know: 'how many musicians it is proposed will be performing, what type of music they may play, and whether the music will be amplified or unamplified?' |
|
08 Sep 10 - 05:57 AM (#2982183) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/stockton/premlic.htm Stockton-on-Tees Council: 'If music is to be provided, it is important that clear indication is given of the type of music to be provided.' John King comments: Why does this matter? Because if an applicant describes the type of music as "jazz" on the operating schedule, then this is automatically added as a condition to the licence. The premises would be unable to book a "soul" act unless it first applied for a new licence or Temporary Event Notice. LACORS are fully aware that it would be nearly impossible for a Court to define a genre of music, but this is a terrific deterrent for anyone thinking applying for a live music licence. |
|
08 Sep 10 - 06:07 AM (#2982190) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Subtone-nightclub-Cheltenham-wants-party-6am/article-2618184-detail/article.html Alcohol abuse specialist Con Twomey, from Chipping Campden, has supported residents' arguments against the extension. He added: "I just don't see the benefits that are gained from having alcohol supplied at that hour." John King comments: If 'promotion of public health' becomes a licensing objective every licence application will face objections from prohibitionists. |
|
08 Sep 10 - 06:35 AM (#2982203) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/88260?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Late night trade group Noctis said it has "major issues" with the way the Government's licensing consultation has been conducted, believing it has been compromised to fit in with an "overly ambitious parliamentary timetable". The trade body, which represents late night bars and clubs, stressed it was no coincidence that the other two pieces of legislation to breach the Better Regulation principles of a 12-week consultation had been the "flawed" Alcohol Disorder Zones and the Mandatory Code. |
|
08 Sep 10 - 07:25 AM (#2982223) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/8364235.Council_to_review_Blake_Hall_licence_after_noise_complaints/?ref=mc THE owner of a popular Bridgwater venue has described claims that his club is too loud as "ridiculous". Sedgemoor District Council's licensing panel is meeting tomorrow to review the premises licence at Blake Hall in St Saviours Road following a complaint about noise levels. John King comments: Blake Hall 'backed by an army of supporters' face a premises licence review on the basis of ONE complaint which, according to the Bridgewater Mercury, the complainant denies having made. Is this really in the public interest? |
|
08 Sep 10 - 07:41 AM (#2982229) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2010/09/07/huddersfield-new-street-restaurant-shabab-gets-go-ahead-for- John King comments: After a premises licence hearing, Kirklees Council finally allow an Indian Restaurant permission for six tables in the street during the day. But an object...ion from a prohibitionist councillor means alcohol cannot be served outside. (The meeting was held at a Methodist Housing Mission) So much for the 'continental cafe culture' promised by DCMS. Clr Christine Stanfield said she "liked the idea" but queried the menu. Mr Nazir told her the outside area would have a separate, set menu. Is what is on the menu covered under the 4 licensing objectives? |
|
08 Sep 10 - 04:33 PM (#2982639) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/6-living/hcs/licensing/public-register/restaurant/pdf/tamarind-chadwell-heath2.pdf The following comments from John King: Another premises with a genre restriction, this time 'jazz duet with amplifier'. Live music is only allowed on Fridays and Saturdays, but any genre of recorded music is allowed seven days a week. LACORS:... "councils are not against live music" How can live music possibly survive when it is so totally placed in the hands of those with no understanding of its requirements. It would not be so bad if this approach was intentional but it is simply over-regulation for its own sake and careless - which is really far worse. As these premises only have permission for a jazz duet with amplifier - a non - amplified jazz duet or any other type of live music will be a breach of the Premises Licence. For which the licensee faces a £20,000 fine or 6 months in prison.......... |
|
09 Sep 10 - 02:18 AM (#2982902) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-09-06b.12173.h Licensing Laws: Entertainers Culture Media and Sport Written answers and statements, 6 September 2010 John Whittingdale (Maldon, Conservative) To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (1) if he will (a) publish the findings of and (b) respond to the previous administration's consultation on an exemption to the Licensing Act 2003 for small venues with a capacity of 100 hosting live performances; (2) what recent discussions he has had on the operation of the Licensing Act 2003 with trade unions representing performers; (3) what plans he has to review the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 affecting venues hosting live music performances; and if he will make a statement; (4) what assessment he has made of the merits of reviewing the Licensing Act 2003 with a view to creating a portable licence for travelling performers; and if he will make a statement. Jeremy Hunt (Secretary of State, Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport; South West Surrey, Conservative) The Government are committed to moving quickly to reduce red tape around live music and other forms of live performances, including those by travelling performers. However we want to get this right, so I have been talking to people from the sector and from local government to get their views. I hope to bring forward proposals as soon as possible. Responses to the live music consultation were published on 26 June 2010 and can be accessed at: http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/7150.aspx. |
|
09 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM (#2983215) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/7963707/Festival-boss-forced-to-monitor-sound-levels.html Festival boss forced to monitor sound levels A festival boss is being forced to monitor sound levels at the house of the only person ever to complain about noise from his carnival - even though the homeowner is on holiday. The festival, which was attended by 30,000 people last year and is now in its 20th year, is a celebration of brewing heritage and combines 'music, traditional dance, crafts and food and drink' The cultural enjoyment of 30,000 over a weekend -v- one complainent: The answer is here. It must be cheaper for the council to pay for the complainent's holiday than the cost they incur in weekend wages for the council employees attendence. There is a harmful lack of balance here, against the pleasures of the many, toward over-regulation in favour of a few. The claim that this complaint involves has any additional and real public safety concerns is bogus and is is a common theme being shown eleswhere. |
|
09 Sep 10 - 12:42 PM (#2983220) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Residents-complain-over-restaurant-noise.6521689.jp Residents complain over restaurant noise! Published Date: 09 September 2010 A SOUTHSEA restaurant faces having its licence to stage live music taken away after complaints from neighbours. Portsmouth City Council's licensing committee will meet on Friday to review the licence of Restaurant 69 in Castle Road, after neighbours raised objections about live music. |
|
09 Sep 10 - 01:17 PM (#2983242) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/88280?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Pubs deemed to make a "substantial contribution to the local community" - and those receiving business rate relief - should be exempt from the proposed late-night levy. Elsewhere, CAMRA's submission includes a range of suggestions to make the Government's plans fairer for pubs, For example, it opposes the plan to increase licence fees based on full cost recovery, saying this will remove the incentive for councils to maximise their efficiency. CAMRA wants fees to be frozen. CAMRA also opposes the idea of including the prevention of harm as a licensing objective, saying an "unintended consequence" could be health bodies opposing every application in an area. This would increase the costs of the licensing system and fail to distinguish between "well-run community pubs" and "premises which could potentially pose a health risk". Overall, the submission is highly critical of the planned policies. It says: "Unless substantially amended, this package of measures will impose significant harm to consumers, the hospitality sector and tourism." |
|
09 Sep 10 - 01:47 PM (#2983270) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.music-dash.co.uk/news/news.asp?item=2743 News reaches us that Saki, one of ours and every supporter of up and coming music in Manchester's favourite live venues, is under threat once again from a local resident or residents complaining to the council about noise. A petition has been launched in support of this excellent little venue - that's at the bottom of the page, and we humbly request that if you enjoy the music of Manchester and beyond enough to be reading this, that you consider signing it. |
|
10 Sep 10 - 05:57 AM (#2983790) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000466/2010/09/09/Institute+responds+to+Home+Office+'Rebalancing+the+Licensing+R Proposal to Enable local authorities to increase licensing fees so they are based on full cost recovery – 81.4% AGREED. |
|
10 Sep 10 - 06:00 AM (#2983792) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This link seems to work....... http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/ Proposal to Enable local authorities to increase licensing fees so they are based on full cost recovery – 81.4% AGREED. |
|
10 Sep 10 - 10:10 AM (#2983902) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Meanwhile. http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/National-chain-keen-sell-noise-complaint-pub/article-2486758-detail/article.html A CITY pub is to go on the market just months after the Echo revealed it faced closure over repeated noise complaints. The Showman, in Cowick Street, St Thomas, had its licence reviewed by councillors in June. And the pub, which recently changed hands, was the subject of an environmental health investigation after reports of noise coming from both inside and outside the premises. With the nunber of premises continuing to decrease - this Govt look set to reward local authorities with an increase in fees. Not sure how this can be justified on grounds of cost, as the cost of processing less and less premises must have reduced. |
|
10 Sep 10 - 02:39 PM (#2984078) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/news/Pub-abandons-music-plan-noise-fears/article-2618435-detail/article.html THE OWNER of a Chulmleigh pub has withdrawn an application to stage live music after objections from nearby residents. Local businessman Laurence Delamar, who owns the Globe Inn on Church Street, applied to North Devon Council for a live music licence in July this year. Mr Delamar, who bought the pub in March, said he wanted to treat customers to calming, classical music played by a live pianist. However, residents living near the pub said the licence would also grant permission for electrically amplified music which they felt would cause disturbance and excessive noise. |
|
10 Sep 10 - 02:48 PM (#2984084) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisdorset.co.uk/news/Protests-soccer-club-plans/article-2625962-detail/article.html But, says Juliet Piddington, one of the directors of Wimborne Town Football Club, objectors have got it all wrong. "We are not planning on having events every weekend. At the moment we hold two a year and at present are hoping to have possibly one more. |
|
11 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM (#2984729) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Restaurant39s-marquee-could-be-pulled.6524569.jp Restaurant's marquee could be pulled down! 10 September 2010 By Michael Peel IT could finally be curtains for a "temporary" tent used for parties at a restaurant for at least four years. John King comments: If councils can't stop live music with the Licensing or Environmental Protection Acts they can still get you with planning regulations. With planning and environmental legislation - the additional entertainment licensing legislation is expensive and needless duplication. |
|
13 Sep 10 - 04:11 PM (#2986022) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/eastbourne-news/Eastbourne-pub-forced-to-shut.6524577.jp In a bid to avoid a one-month licence suspension, Ms Johnson said Enterprise Inns would be happy for its license to play music to be removed. She said, "We will remove everything which has caused the problems, which is the noise that has been coming from the live music and the DJs. "As a result I suggest that door staff are removed because it will be put back to a traditional style pub." |
|
14 Sep 10 - 06:33 AM (#2986434) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://reggiestyles.blogspot.com/2010/09/inquiry-over-anti-urban-music-stance.html A Manchester promoter is calling for a public inquiry to investigate what he claims is widespread and systematic discrimination against urban music concerts. Gold National Events director Mike Forrester, whose own planned festival fell victim to over-zealous council officials, now believes there is a case for an investigation as part of a wider public inquiry into the licensing of events. |
|
14 Sep 10 - 02:45 PM (#2986746) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67901&c=1 A Home Office minister has argued the controversial licensing shake-up is not an attempt to "get at pubs", but admitted the consultation period would have been longer "in an ideal world". |
|
14 Sep 10 - 02:49 PM (#2986748) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=67901&c=1 John King comments: Another case study into licensing restictions for live music. This time Three Rivers District Council, where 83% of all licensed premises now have NO authorisation for making music. |
|
14 Sep 10 - 02:51 PM (#2986751) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles |
|
14 Sep 10 - 02:52 PM (#2986753) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles OOps! Wrong link. this is the one. http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/welwynthreeriverscasestudy.pdf |
|
14 Sep 10 - 04:49 PM (#2986799) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles From the Report on Three Rivers District Council. Prior to the Licensing Act 2003 coming into force in November 2005, all licensed premises would have been able to provide live music under the 'two in-a-bar' rule, and other exemptions from licensing. As at August 2010, 83% of all licensed premises in Three Rivers are not now authorised to stage live music. |
|
16 Sep 10 - 01:08 PM (#2988066) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.exeter.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=14319&p=0 The following from John King: In Exeter anything is possible. The neighbour who just moved in is pregnant and a noise limiter is installed in order to 'protect children from harm'. There has been a pub on this site for 200 years. Is it really acceptable that people who choose to move close to an exisiting pub can effectivly complain about the normal operations of a pub and such a complaint will be judged as valid? |
|
16 Sep 10 - 01:17 PM (#2988076) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://news.leicester.gov.uk/newsArchiveDetail.aspx?Id=294 First seizure of noise equipment from city club 10/09/2010 NOISE control officers have seized equipment from a city nightclub after ongoing complaints about late-night loud music. Leicester City Council's Noise Control Team seized 18 items of noise equipment, including loudspeakers, amplifiers and mixing desks, from La Belle Africaine, in Jubilee Road, off Belgrave Gate, on Friday, September 10. It is obvious that the use of additional entertainment permission as contained in the Licensing Act 2003 (which was obtained in this case) is not an effective means of dealing with noise. |
|
17 Sep 10 - 01:28 PM (#2988790) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/8397270.No_drunks_in_our_tearoom__say_residents_of_Burley/ WORRIED residents claim a licence for music and alcohol at a village tearoom will spark drunken disorder. And they are set to descend on a district council meeting today, to drive home their concerns over crime, pedestrian safety and noise. Last week's meeting ended with a compromise agreement reached for no alcohol to be served after 6pm and no music. But at the last minute, Mr Bruske has decided to continue with the original application. Resident Jane Kendall, who has organised the campaign, said: "I am furious. "I am against the application for music and alcohol because there are lots of elderly people who live here and they get very distressed at the disruption alcohol can cause. "This is a very quiet residential area. We already have coaches encroaching on the pavements here and elderly people, children and mothers with pushchairs are forced off the pavements. We have our horses and our cows roaming the streets every day. We thought we had reached an agreement but at the eleventh hour it's all been changed." |
|
17 Sep 10 - 01:47 PM (#2988808) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1311628/David-Camerons-big-society-dream-free-red-tape.html It was interesting how many of our staff helped to produce the list. Not everybody in the public sector relishes being a jobsworth bureaucrat. Many who became Licensing Officers, or Planning Officers or Highways Officers wanted to provide decent public service. We want to abolish the regulation stating that schools, churches and village halls must apply for a licence in order to hold an event involving music. Currently, the organisers of such events are required to complete in triplicate a ten page form, most of which is irrelevant. We back an exemption for small businesses from licensing requirements for live entertainment for all events attracting an audience of fewer than 200. The Environmental Protection Act legislates for dealing with loud music in any case. Why discriminate against live music? |
|
17 Sep 10 - 01:56 PM (#2988816) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://ww3.watford.gov.uk/egenda/akswatford/images/att3957.pdf John King comments: At West Herts College, ONE representation results in the banning of amplified live music. Recorded is music is allowed. 'Following discussions with Environmental Health the applicant requested that the following conditions be added to their operating schedule: Plays and live music will feature acoustic sounds only; there will be no amplified music or speech.' The following from Watford Council's Statement of Licensing Policy: 'We encourage greater live music, dance, theatre and other forms of entertainment for the wider cultural benefit of the community. However, we will seek to strike a balance between the potenti...al for limited neighbourhood disturbance and the benefits of cultural activities and we will not allow the views of vocal minorities to predominate over the general interests of thecommunity. We will as far as possible avoid measures that deter live music, dance, theatre and entertainment...' |
|
17 Sep 10 - 02:05 PM (#2988822) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waveney.gov.uk%2Fagendas%2F2010%2Fmarch%2Flicensing%2Fitem4appc.doc&h=ad89e The following from John King: Waveney Council's response to the DCMS licensing consultation states: 'We are very strongly of the view, from our experience in this district that live music is NOT being deterred by the provisions of the Act... The majority of licensed premises in o...ur area had a live music permission of some description' According to the last licensing 'statistical' bulletin, Waveney had 456 licensed premises, and only 96 premises have authorised facilities for 'making music'. That's 21%. Not 50%+ is it? This document also states - Having carefully reviewed the proposed legislative reform, subject of the above consultation, key members and officers of Waveney District Council are very strongly of the view that the proposed Legislative Reform Order (LRO) to exempt as 'regulated entertainment' small live music events for performances to up to 100 persons should NOT be passed, and request that this Council's views be seriously considered as part of the consultation by the Department. |
|
18 Sep 10 - 10:24 AM (#2989212) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles More from the submission from Waveney Council (b) there is no statistical evidence that live music is being deterred. The unspecified 'anecdotal' instances of deterrence referred to in the consultation paper are in our view likely to be exceptional and unusual occurrences rather than normal practice. |
|
19 Sep 10 - 08:03 AM (#2989637) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-11340226 Selby school cancels outside break in row over noise. Children at a school near Selby have had a play break cancelled and hard ball games banned after neighbours complained to the council about noise. Barlby Community Primary School has also put up a soundproof fence because it fears a noise abatement order. The school said the decisions were "regrettable" but necessary to prevent the chance of a notice being served. |
|
19 Sep 10 - 08:04 AM (#2989638) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.selby.gov.uk%2Fupload%2FMinutes_to_Tadcaster_Boys_School_Hearing-270209.doc&h=1 The following from John King: Selby Council now require prior written approval for Carol singing in a Sunday School. Boy's Sunday School, Tadcaster applied for a premises licence for '...School Concerts which could supply cheese and wine, Christmas Carol Evening with m...ulled wine instead of having to apply for a special licence to hold such events...' Selby Council added this condition: 'Amplified and non-amplified music, singing and speech associated with the regulated entertainment shall only be carried out inside the premises expect with the prior written approval of the Licensing Authority' |
|
19 Sep 10 - 08:05 AM (#2989639) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.selby.gov.uk/upload/Minutes_to_Capri_Hearing-261107.doc John King Comments: Here's Selby Council hard at work stamping out incidental music in a restaurant. Capri Restaurant had this restriction imposed on their licence: 'live music will consist of one performer using an instrument not powered by electricity'. |
|
19 Sep 10 - 12:44 PM (#2989755) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Howard Jones 'live music will consist of one performer using an instrument not powered by electricity'. Presumably this would be permitted, then. |
|
20 Sep 10 - 02:11 AM (#2990098) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Limits on the type of music or the number of 'performers' are not to be made conditions of licenses. But our licensing employees, if they are aware of this limitation of their powers, do not seem to have any intention of following the legislation and no one seems to be able to make them. |
|
20 Sep 10 - 06:29 AM (#2990164) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/feargal--sharkey-the-act-killing-live-music-2083883.html Feargal Sharkey: The act killing live music. However, outdated stereotypes about "the industry" do raise some pertinent questions: for one, if the rest of the world perceives the UK as a musical powerhouse, why are we apparently unable to recognise what's in our own backyard? And why aren't we doing more to harness what is undoubtedly a growth sector? Especially in times of economic uncertainty. The current Licensing Act offers a case in point. Back in 2003, it was anticipated that this legislation – aimed primarily at relaxing drinking regulations – would lead to an "explosion" in live music. The Act brought in a number of changes. The "two in a bar" rule was discontinued, while any venue wanting to put on live music events now had to receive authorisation from their local authority. That such red tape has stifled the provision of live music in small venues is irrefutable. Under the previous government, this was a conclusion reached by eight separate consultations, two government research projects, two national review processes and a Parliamentary Select Committee report. All recommended that small venues were exempt from the licensing regime. With exquisite timing, Government announced yet another consultation on New Year's Eve 2009, and – as predicted – it was timed out with the announcement of a General Election. |
|
20 Sep 10 - 06:36 AM (#2990168) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/news/Bar-faces-losing-late-night-licence/article-2573329-detail/article.html Christopher Lewis said: "On a Friday and Saturday night it's like being in Ibiza. "It's the bang, bang, bang which is really unbearable. When it used to be live music it wasn't so bad. |
|
20 Sep 10 - 06:58 AM (#2990174) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles That such red tape has stifled the provision of live music in small venues is irrefutable. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/feargal--sharkey-the-act-killing-live-music-2083883.html But the bill's opponents maintain there is no problem with the current licensing situation. Chris White, chairman of the Local Government Association's culture, tourism and sport board, said he thought it was "a very ignorant bill", adding ...that "the case that there is a problem with live music has not been made" http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28970/private-members-bill-seeks-to-relax-live |
|
20 Sep 10 - 10:26 AM (#2990255) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/tidnews/8402256.Forest_Tea_House_can_sell_alcohol/ A RESTAURATEUR has won permission to sell alcohol at his New Forest tea rooms despite local opposition. But following a raft of worries from residents, Charles Bruske dropped his application for a music licence for the Forest Tea House and Restaurant in Pound Lane and accepted hours limited to 9am to 7pm. John King comments: Alcohol yes. Afternoon jazz no. ...'full permission for booze and music will shatter the peace and security of their village' |
|
20 Sep 10 - 10:35 AM (#2990262) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://online.carmarthenshire.gov.uk/agendas/eng/LICC20100504/REP06.HTM The following comments from John King: A unique twist to the two-in-a-bar rule. Two musicians are OK. Three or more musicians and Carmarthenshire Council insist on door supervisors. "Whenever regulated entertainment takes place with more than two performers door supervisors should be ...employed". Of course the 'two-in-a-bar rule' is no longer in the legislation and the number of musicians is not a factor but the employees will pay no attention to these small technical points. |
|
21 Sep 10 - 11:57 AM (#2990872) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/politics/tories_set_to_face_excess_noise_probe_following_conservative_club_complaints_1_1 In March this year, the Conservative and Unionist Club in New Street, Weedon, had its licence revoked by members of Conservative-led Daventry District Council following complaints of noise nuisance and disturbances. The following month, the managers of the club successfully applied for a new licence which gave the venue permission to play recorded, but not live, music. Nobody from the Towcester Conservative Club was available for comment as the Chronicle & Echo went to press last night. The hearing about the club's licence will be held at South Northamptonshire Council's offices in Towcester next week. |
|
21 Sep 10 - 12:14 PM (#2990884) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following month, the managers of the club successfully applied for a new licence which gave the venue permission to play recorded, but not live, music. So once again - non- amplified live music, which would not be a noise concern is being needlesly prevented by legislation which seemingly is so unfocused that it, or those who are paid to enforce it, are unable or unwilling to make the distinction. This now common approach - for local authority employees to see live music only in terms of any public order concerns that may be associated along with it - is a bit like an approach by the fire services that would ban all the joy and knowleged contained in books, simply because they are combustable and a potential fire risk. All cultural activities urgently need rescuing from this approach and taken out of the hands of the vandals that we are paying, before it is too late. |
|
22 Sep 10 - 04:24 AM (#2991280) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1042610&c=1 Lib Dem peer Lord Clement Jones, who was also on the panel at the fringe meeting, added that he hoped his recently-reintroduced Private Members Bill to reduce Licensing Act red tape and encourage music at the grass roots level would also get a fair hearing from Licensing Minister John Penrose. Clement -Jones' bill is likely to get a reading next month and the peer added, "Given a fair wind, I hope it can happen. Penrose is highly sympathetic. He might even want to go further." |
|
22 Sep 10 - 02:01 PM (#2991581) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p009ztkq/Bea_Udeh_19_09_2010/ Interview with Mike Forrester - promoter who successfully sued Manchester City Council for cancellation of a Bob Marley Tribute Festival. Scroll to 1:21 |
|
23 Sep 10 - 02:56 AM (#2992007) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/23/police-ukcrime?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Police see tackling antisocial behaviour as beneath them Report reveals many officers do not regard such incidents as 'real police work' |
|
23 Sep 10 - 06:13 AM (#2992091) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11394354 The following comments from John King: South Lakeland Council take a hard line on regulated entertainment. Here are the council's heroic licensing officers hard at work in Sedbergh Primary School. This is a premises licence operating schedule for gymnastic displays (but only on ...Wednesdays between 16:00 and 16:45) and for the school orchestra to performances on a Saturday (between 10:00 and 10:45 only). P14 of the schedule states that 'where sensible the police will be informed beforehand'. DCMS have always been adamant that councils would not and could not behave in this way. |
|
23 Sep 10 - 06:18 AM (#2992094) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/8407215.Eatery_fails_over_late_licence_bid/ Moe's Grill, situated in the new K Village shopping centre, had applied for a late alcohol and live entertainment licence to serve customers until midnight. However, at a special sitting of South Lakeland District Council's licensing sub-committee, the owners were left disappointed. After five hours, councillors decided to refuse the permit for both licences. They did, however, award an alcohol licence between 9am and 11pm. The pattern continues - No live music but permission for booze is OK. |
|
24 Sep 10 - 06:32 AM (#2992800) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.citylocal.co.uk/HemelHempstead/news-in-HemelHempstead/councils-successful-licensing-prosecution-60673/ The following from John King: Dacorum Council successfully prosecute a publican who left his windows open while a jazz band were performing. Councillor Colette Wyatt-Lowe, Portfolio Holder for Residents and Regulatory Services, said: "In the interests of the public, the Council will not hesitate to take action against licensees who flout their Premises Licence conditions." This is the type of B/S that Councillors seem only too willing to be spokesperson for. In practice and because of the sort of detail now being placed in licensing conditions - I doubt if there are any premises who are not in breach of their licensing conditions. |
|
24 Sep 10 - 01:35 PM (#2992997) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/88418?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-news+%28Rss+news+feed+for+Morning+Advertiser%29&utm_content=Twitter Licence updates threaten pub live music By John Harrington 24/09/2010 09:20 Councils across London are standing by the use of controversial risk-assessment forms for promoted events at bars. The pub industry and live-music campaigners argue that Form 696 — which requires venues to state details for promoted events, including names and ages of every promoter or performer — is an unnecessary burden and should instead be scrapped. But the Morning Advertiser has learnt that several authorities in London have flagged up the forms in their updated licensing policies — these have to be renewed every three years. For example, Islington's policy says that all licensees who host live performers, whether "musicians, DJs, MCs or other artistes", will be "expected" to carry out a risk assessment. The authority "recommends" Form 696, which it says should be completed "in consultation with police. |
|
24 Sep 10 - 01:38 PM (#2992998) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/pdf/Licensing%20-%2025-09-2008%20-%20Minutes.pdf The following from John King: Dacorum Council just don't like live music. Here they are banning musicians from using amplification in a vegetarian restaurant. Councillors Taylor and Bhinder were of the considered opinion: 'People would not want live ...amplified music when they were having a meal with their guests.' |
|
24 Sep 10 - 01:52 PM (#2993006) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.kyeo.tv/2010/09/20/outrage-as-live-music-threatened-in-newcastle/ John King comments: The 'rights' of one person to move next to an existing business and have it closed down on the grounds of noise distubance are now enshrined in law. llogical laws and new housing developments could put an end to live music and band rehearsals in the thriving cultural heart of Newcastle. Two major new housing developments received planning permission at Newcastle City Council's Planning Committee last Friday. One is for a development of 42 flats in blocks on the former Stephen Easten site in Foundry Lane, Ouseburn. The second site is immediately adjacent and is a development of 10 residential and five commercial units by Brackenshaw Ltd, the former Kelly Plant site. The applications had been objected to strongly by businesses in Ouseburn, which see residential development in the central Ouseburn valley as a threat to the noise-producing businesses in that part of the valley, which include the Cluny, Ship and Cumberland Arms pubs, and the rehearsal rooms in the Off Quay Building on Foundry Lane, just yards from the developments, and in the Garage in Hannington Street to the north, to name but some. |
|
26 Sep 10 - 02:31 PM (#2994048) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hambledonsurrey.co.uk/content/view/293/37/ Council Reviews Village Pub Premises Licence A complaint of excessive noise from music events at the Merry Harriers will be considered by Waverley Borough Council on Monday (Sept 27th) at a licence review hearing. John King comments: The future of music at the Merry Harriers will be decided tomorrow. The council here is taking ONE complaint very seriously, and is deciding whether to cancel all music, or install a noise limiter (effectively the same thing) - or removing the licensee from the licence. |
|
26 Sep 10 - 02:50 PM (#2994055) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge This appears to relate to the playing of electrically amplified music. So why is it of relevance here, a folk forum? Moreover, it appears to relate to the use of statutory powers to abate nuisance - precisely reflecting the argument of many opponents of the Licensing Acts that other powers render the use of Licensing Act powers unnecessary. Neighbours of pubs do not necessarily want to have the pub's noise imposed on them. What is so hard to grasp about that? A nuisance is a nuisance whether or not those inconvenienced came to it. |
|
27 Sep 10 - 03:03 AM (#2994308) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This appears to relate to the playing of electrically amplified music. So why is it of relevance here, a folk forum? The wider picture shows that all live music is under threat from local authorities enforcement of planning, licensing and envirionmental legislation and non-amplified music in particular suffers because measures they introduce to deal with actual or potential noise make no distiction. Moreover, it appears to relate to the use of statutory powers to abate nuisance - precisely reflecting the argument of many opponents of the Licensing Acts that other powers render the use of Licensing Act powers unnecessary. I think that these examples demonstrate exactly that point. Many of these premises who have noise abatement procedures will have already obtained the additional entertainment permission required under the Licensing Act 2003, showing that this (as it only applies to noise from music etc) is no answer to noise problems. Neighbours of pubs do not necessarily want to have the pub's noise imposed on them. What is so hard to grasp about that? A nuisance is a nuisance whether or not those inconvenienced came to it. People who move to live near a farm, do so aware of the problems associated with an activity which has taken place on that site, often for hundreds of years. Is it suggested that farms stop operating because these new neighbours object to the normal processes? |
|
27 Sep 10 - 04:20 AM (#2994323) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/Live-music-plan-aims-revive-trade-market-town-s-forgotten-street/article-2688269-d TOWN councillors are introducing live music to Beverley's "forgotten" shopping area to try and bring in more customers. From next month, live bands will be striking up in North Bar Within every Saturday, as civic bosses try to reverse the dwindling fortunes of the historic shopping street. Sounds OK so far, until someone complains. |
|
27 Sep 10 - 04:59 AM (#2994331) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This is not an excuse but. Many of the licencees in trouble for noise concerns emanating from their live music are probably as confused about the legislation as most of us are. They may (wrongly) assume that as so much time and trouble was involved in obtaining (and paying for) the additional licensing permission required for their premises to provide live music, that they could just go ahead with it. When of course, even with this permission,the premises are still subject to The Environmental Protection Act. So then, what use is this additional entertainment permission? So as far as noise is concerned, The Licensing Act 2003, is of no use and can only further confuse us all on the serious issue of noise. The LGA Group lobby (who know better but have an agenda of their own, which this position suits) tend to encourage the impression that many councillors are under, that the removal of additional entertainment permission would result in residents being subjected to uncontrolled noise. |
|
27 Sep 10 - 06:30 AM (#2994349) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7445.aspx John King comments: One of the review's objectives is 'how best to offer quality live music experiences to all young people'. In many areas it is no longer possible for school leavers to find full-time work in live music due to licensing restrictions. For example, in Three Rivers, only ...17% of the council's 188 licensed premises have any live music authorisation. Live music is prohibited in ALL restaurants, shops and public spaces, and in the remaining handful of premises with live music authorisation, there are further bans on amplification, the regularity of live music events, and in one case even a ban on under 18s listening to live music. |
|
27 Sep 10 - 01:35 PM (#2994614) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8411523.Brighton_pub_boss_fined___2_000/ After the hearing Mr McGrory said: "We take the noise hugely seriously and have done everything the council has advised us to do and more." John King comments: Two complaints lead to a £1,855 fine. A member of staff was dismissed for breaching a premise licence condition by leaving a window open when music is playing. What is more important to Brighton & Hove Council: 'distress' caused to neighbours who move next to a pub - or distress caused to people who lose their job (or business)? |
|
27 Sep 10 - 01:43 PM (#2994617) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: stallion "People who move to live near a farm, do so aware of the problems associated with an activity which has taken place on that site, often for hundreds of years. Is it suggested that farms stop operating because these new neighbours object to the normal processes? " Don't bank on it, we once had a pig farm in the country which was surrounded by houses and then closed because of the offensive smell. Residents refused to pay their rates till the council sorted out the smell, the hassle caused us to give up, the buildings were wrecked by yobs and the land is a fly tippers heaven. (we rented the land from the council) |
|
27 Sep 10 - 03:48 PM (#2994692) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Don't bank on it, we once had a pig farm in the country which was surrounded by houses and then closed because of the offensive smell. Residents refused to pay their rates till the council sorted out the smell, the hassle caused us to give up, the buildings were wrecked by yobs and the land is a fly tippers heaven. (we rented the land from the council) We kept pigs too but then we lived a long way from anyone who may have complained. You have my sympathy but I still think the general principle should apply. We have one life and all have to try to get on with our thing whilst hopefully respecting the fact that others have to try to get on with their's. A complaint from a new resident about the normal functions of a long established establishment should perhaps be given less weight than one from an established resident about a newer function. Many of the complaints reported in this thread are about the fact that a long-established pub is simply trying to be a pub, or a school is trying to be a school. Some sort of common sense is going to have be shown if live music is not going to be prevented entirely, as now a single resident who is set on preventing many others from enjoying their thing can complain under planning, licensing and under environmental legislation. Sadly many council employees seem equally set on the impossible task of reducing the number of complaints, (even when this is not a licensing objective). When to do this is by acting on every complaint (whether it is valid or not), only encourages everyone and their cat to complain about everything. |
|
28 Sep 10 - 03:58 AM (#2995013) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=1224 John King comments: If you think Form 696 is bad, here's Brent Council going one step beyond what should be acceptable in a civilised society... Dicey Reilly's had this condition added to their premises licence: ... 'The premises shall operate only as a Cabaret / Comedy / Live Entertainments venue and alcohol may only be served to customers present at the premises to attend such a performance. Live bands and solo musicians may not perform on the premises unless 14 days written notice is provided to the police licensing officer and the police licensing officer have given his/her prior written approval for the performance to take place.' So it will be a breach of the council imposed licensing conditions for a non-amplified solo musician to play without the prior written approval of the police licensing officer!!! |
|
28 Sep 10 - 04:07 AM (#2995021) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The stand-up comedy performance (even with music) in this same club has no such conditions as this is totally free from the Licensing Act's requirement of additional licensing permission............ |
|
28 Sep 10 - 04:13 AM (#2995027) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles From the Statutory S182 Guidance to the Licensing Act 2003. 3.23 Stand-up comedy is not regulated entertainment and musical accompaniment incidental to the main performance would not make it a licensable activity. |
|
28 Sep 10 - 09:52 AM (#2995178) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.oldham.gov.uk/print/search_agendas.htm?docrefno=10040034 John King comments: Oldham Council like to tell licensed premises exactly what music they are allowed to play: 'The premises shall operate a music policy. Between 02:00 - 03:00 popular chart music shall be played and between 03:00 - 04:00 softer and quieter music will be ...played to assist with the winding down period' Any other kind of music would be a criminal offence. Details like this are business matters for the licensee to decide in the first place and for the customers to decide whether such a policy suits them. If such details do not suit, the customers can go elsewhere. In this case they may do this and the licensee can do is watch their business go down the drain. I would not go near a place with all these licensing conditions. |
|
29 Sep 10 - 04:43 AM (#2995853) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.coventry.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=35773042 John King comments: Local Authorities are again drafting their new Statements of Licensing Policy. Coventry Council's Licensing Officers have had an idea: 'The objective of preventing crime and disorder will include the Licensing Authority taking appropriate decisions and/or imposing appropriate conditions, upon a representation being received containing evidence that a licensed premise has a music policy which might incite violence, crime or disorder or the threat of such against minority groups.' |
|
29 Sep 10 - 11:17 AM (#2996104) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Five years since the Licensing Act came into force, and no sign of a let up for live music. Earlier this year the government revealed in answers to questions from Lord Colwyn that only about 25% of bars and restaurants could lawfully host live music (because they don't have authorisation for 'entertainment facilities'): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/writtens/23082010.htm#toptop But many councils still treat the minority of venues where live music is legal as potential sources of mayhem, crime and disorder. Consider this premises licence condition for a venue in Brent: '... Live bands and solo musicians may not perform on the premises unless 14 days written notice is provided to the police licensing officer and the police licensing officer have given his/her prior written approval for the performance to take place...' http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=1224 Or this criminal prosecution of a pub by Dacorum Borough Council for not having their windows closed while jazz was being played: http://www.citylocal.co.uk/HemelHempstead/news-in-HemelHempstead/councils-successful-licensing-prosecution-60673/ These are just two of many examples reported by campaigner John King on The Publican's 'Listen Up!' Facebook page - where the pub trade campaigns for more live music: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141223114767&ref=ts#!/group.php?gid=141223114767&v=wall&ref=ts The impression is that councils and nimby local residents would rather promote the sale of alcohol than the playing of innocuous live music. And that is indeed what happened to a Dorset Tea house earlier this month: http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/tidnews/8402256.Forest_Tea_House_can_sell_alcohol/ The irony is that the social and economic cost of alcohol abuse to local authorities and the police must exceed by several orders of magnitude the cost of occasional noise nuisance enforcement against live music. For a new and up-to-date investigation into the shrinking infrastructure for live music as a consequence of entertainment licensing, see the 'Three Rivers Case Study' link on the Live Music Forum website: www.livemusicforum.co.uk It would seem that none of the area's 34 restaurants can legally host live music. ENDS |
|
29 Sep 10 - 11:24 AM (#2996116) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.stalbansreview.co.uk/news/8420766.City_centre_restaurant_withdraws_licensing_hearing_appeal/ A CITY centre restaurant's appeal against the district council's decision to suspend its licence has been withdrawn. Buon Amici will no longer be able to provide live music as the council considered that this contributed to the noise nuisance for neighbours. The restaurant has been closed since September 20, while these changes were being put in place, and is due to open on Monday, October 4. |
|
29 Sep 10 - 11:31 AM (#2996119) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/BROWNED/article-2693539-detail/article.html Another live music pub under threat - this time from a Travelodge. BUDGET hotel chain Travelodge wants a town centre pub to stop playing live music until the early hours, because its customers cannot get to sleep. Travelodge opened its £3 million, 82-bedroom hotel on Newcastle's Georgia Pacific site in June. But within three weeks Travelodge officials had complained about late-night noise coming from the Old Brown Jug's pub and beer garden. Now the hotel chain is demanding a review of the pub's premises licence by Newcastle Borough Council. Newcastle historian Mervyn Edwards said: "The Old Brown Jug is an established pub with an established name in live music." Newcastle MP Paul Farrelly added: "It's bad enough to have such an ugly design of a hotel in such a historic town centre, but for Travelodge to complain about a staple of Newcastle life really takes the biscuit." |
|
29 Sep 10 - 11:48 AM (#2996126) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=68044&c=1 Home Office 'looking carefully' at trade's licensing fears 29 September, 2010 By James Wilmore BBPA chief says officials are listening to industry's concerns. |
|
29 Sep 10 - 11:56 AM (#2996135) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1042731&c=1 15:34 | Wednesday September 29, 2010 By Robert Ashton New Government figures suggest bands have more venues to showcase their talents after publishing statistics that show the number of licenced premises with provision to stage music has increased slightly over the last year to nearly 86,000 venues. The DCMS National Statistics Bulletin on Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing states the number of outlets with live music was 85,900 in 2010, up 2% on the 84,500 premises in 2009. However, the figures for England and Wales April 2009-March 2010, also suggest that the number of club premises with provision for putting on live music fell slightly by 1% making 96,700 live music licences in total. However, the new report is careful to point out that the 1% increase in live music provision does not necessarily mean an increase in the amount of live music being put on. The number of Temporary Event Notices, often used by small promoters to stage one off musical events, also increased: by 2% from 122,100 to 124, 400 by March 2010. John King comments: New Government, same old DCMS 'statistics'. Last year's statistical bulletin was rightly described as "Alice in Wonderland" statistics by then shadow minister Ed Vaizey. Yet, here were are 12 months on - same report, same conclusion and the same basic errors. Try this one for starters: The report shows that the number of premises licences has increased by 4,000 since last year. How can this be possible if scores of pubs are closing every week? Clearly, the increase in premises licences (and live music licences) is caused by Local Authorities licensing public spaces (as they have been instructed to do by DCMS), and an ever increasing number of schools. There is NO evidence to suggest that there are more performances of live music. |
|
30 Sep 10 - 02:10 AM (#2996584) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316267/British-booze-licences-hit-record-high-traditional-pubs-suffer-shutdowns.html Booze licences hit record high: 166,000 venues can now sell alcohol while 30 traditional pubs shut down each week By James Slack Last updated at 12:36 AM on 30th September 2010 John King comments: The Daily Mail didn't understand the report. But perhaps they weren't meant to. The number of 202,000 includes schools, hospitals etc (which DCMS conveniently forgot to mention as it bulks up the live music stats) but in any case is not the number of premises licensed to sell alcohol. The report actually shows that there are 182,800 of premises with alcohol authorisation, an increase of about 1%. This number is questionable though. At peak, 53 pubs were closing every week, so hundreds possibly thousands of these premises are actually closed at the moment. Licensing Authorities do not record whether a premises is in fact open on their licensing registers. |
|
30 Sep 10 - 01:40 PM (#2996960) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/2079322_pub_under_review_after_noise_complaints Pub under review after noise complaints. Mr Betts said the majority of the noise complaints had come from the Friday night discos, which have now been stopped. "We just want to get the message across to all the residents that we are doing everything we can to control the noise," he added. Noise is from recorded disco music but you can bet that further restrictions will be placed on live music or it will end. |
|
30 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM (#2996998) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=68059&c=1 The myth of 24hr drinking |
|
01 Oct 10 - 02:37 PM (#2997709) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/rbnews/8427801.WANSTEAD__Cafe_owners_amend_entertainment_plans/ Mr Sing-Digpaul, 44, said he has designers over from Italy at the moment drawing up plans to remodel the popular cafe. He said he has spoken with Mrs Nolan and a licensing officer at Redbridge Police. Mr Digpaul, of Newbury Park, said: "We've adjusted the times of closing and people seem to be happy with it. "There's been a considerable amount of adjustment and as far as I'm aware I have put a lot of issues to bed. "I wanted to accommodate and satisfy the authorities. "I have made it so you can only drink if you are having food and there will be no dance floor. "I have minimised the live music down to 18 occasions a year." He said he hopes the changes help the application to gain approval as he is keen to keep the business open for longer. He added: "We can't be accused of not trying to reassure and not being accommodating. I suspect that even limiting live music to 18 time per year will still not satisfy some people. |
|
02 Oct 10 - 02:22 AM (#2997951) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/wreningham_pub_plans_in_the_balance_1_659958?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4ca6720faa6a8134,0 Not clear if the plans include live music - but it is doubtful that the plans would be supported by the council (as they are without the houses) if this were the case. |
|
02 Oct 10 - 02:52 PM (#2998231) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Facebook site to save Old Brown Jug from the newly built Travelodge: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=121606114559262&ref=search |
|
02 Oct 10 - 02:56 PM (#2998233) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://lic.south-norfolk.gov.uk/protected/wca/publicRegisterLicActPremisesLevel1.jsp John King comments: South Norfolk Council's Premises Licence Register is now online and there are FIFTY schools named on it. Some have a premises licence, others have been applying for TENs for regulated entertainment. Why do the latest DCMS licensing 'statistics' not mention that schools are included in the figures for live music? |
|
02 Oct 10 - 03:19 PM (#2998244) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.newsguardian.co.uk/news/national-news/war_on_health_and_safety_culture_1_1663316 'War' on health and safety culture Published on Sat Oct 02 16:02:37 BST 2010 Town halls which wrongly ban events and activities on health and safety grounds could face big compensation payouts under plans being considered by the Government. "Once you start restricting the right of the individual to go to court to complain then you are, in my view, heading for trouble." Not sure anyone wants to take away the right for the individual to go to court to complain but that course of action is expensive and perhaps it should be? Under Planning, Licensing and Envionmental legislation it is often the case that those complained against need to pay to go to court in order to face complaints that the legislation and those who are paid to enforce it, seems to encourage to be made without needing to go to court and at no cost to the complainant. It is a paradox that employees of local authorities seem to be motivated to preventitive action by a fear that someone might possibly complain but almost fall over backwards to provide satisfaction to any that do, whether these are valid or representitive. Which of course just encourages the same people to complain even more. |
|
02 Oct 10 - 06:15 PM (#2998342) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/news/local/late_licence_application_angers_neighbours_of_warwick_pub_1_1374419 Director of the Wild Boar Steve Ridgeway said: "We've got a meeting with the residents tonight (Thursday) to put their fears at rest. These big forms get condensed and I think people were worried we would have karaoke into the early hours, but we won't." The brewery stated that all doors and windows would be closed when music is playing and there would be notices asking patrons to be quiet when leaving. The pub is due to reopen on October 23. John King comments: Scott and Emma Alford, of Woodcote Road, wrote: "We are all concerned about the possibility of loud music" Scott and Emma needn't worry. All they have to do is write a letter to the council, and live music will be banned. In his objection Keith Harvey of Lakin Road said: "My children have often been woken by screaming and fighting drunkards from the pub late at night." They still will, as no doubt the brewery will do a deal with the Licensing Authority's employees that will enable the pub to go on selling alcohol and will sacrifice the live music as a sop to the complainants but at least the screaming, fighting drunkards will be deprived of live music. So will us all. |
|
03 Oct 10 - 06:07 AM (#2998569) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Where in the Licensing Act 2003 does it tell Licensing Authorities which licensable activity can be safely sacrificed, scapegoated, limited and generally misused as a bargaining tool to enable another licensable activity? It is clear that live music (with all its benefits) is being treated by local authority employees as an expendable bargaining tool to placate those who complain (often not about live music at all) in order to enable alcohol (with all of its problems) to be sold. Live showings of TV sport, and stand-up comedy, even when music is used, cannot be not misused in this fashion as this is not classed as Regulated Entertainment. So "screaming and fighting drunkards from the pub late at night" will continue but we can all relax as they will have been deprived of live music. |
|
05 Oct 10 - 04:03 AM (#2999848) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Licencees get critised for their trangressions - this story shows that we are all only frail human beings - even those employed by Local Authorities to enforce licensing legislation. http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2010/10/02/ex-council-licensing-officer-turned-cocaine-dealer-jailed-97319-273861 Ex council licensing officer turned cocaine dealer jailed Oct 2 2010. A FORMER licensing officer with a Midland council who started dealing in cocaine to fund his 'champagne lifestyle' has been jailed for three and a half years. |
|
05 Oct 10 - 05:56 AM (#2999902) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles A reminder for you to write and ask your MP to sign EDM 546 http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41503 EDM 546 LIVE PERFORMANCES 19.07.2010 Whittingdale, John That this House celebrates the cultural value of live performances in enriching and entertaining communities; notes that small venues hosting live performances are the bedrock of the entertainment industry, providing opportunities for artists to begin their careers; is concerned that the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 has meant that there has been a decline in the number of small venues wishing to put on live performances; and therefore calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for an exemption to the Licensing Act for audiences of 200 to tackle the negative impact with regards to small venues hosting live performances. |
|
05 Oct 10 - 12:57 PM (#3000255) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.merton.gov.uk/working/licensing/premises_licence_register_240910.pdf The following comments from John King: Jazz is more dangerous than opera and that's a fact. Here's Merton Council graciously permitting jazz performances in Cannizaro Park for two hours, while opera is allowed three hours. 'This will include opera, jazz, pop, and world music, s...uch performances may last 2 hours and opera performances may last 3 hours depending on the production.' See page 55 of Merton's Licensing Register for Cannizaro Park. Also, page 165 shows bizarre licence conditions for Kings College School which prohibit live music before midday, but authorise provision of facilities for making music after 9:00am. And you're not allowed to dance before 18:00. Why? Often, when asked why they did something, teenagers quite honestly can't find a reason and reply that they do not know. Possibly it is because they do something for no other reason than it is something they are able to decide. The same would appear to be the case with our local authorities............ I suggest that such things as this, are no longer left for them to decide? |
|
06 Oct 10 - 04:34 AM (#3000764) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/pages/licensing_reviews_and_weekly_applications John King comments: Charnwood Council disallow a TEN, and cancel an event at Woolden Hill County Primary School. '8th October 2010, by Mr A J Baker (application refused and returned, as received 29 September 2010, not 10 working days).' |
|
06 Oct 10 - 06:05 AM (#3000807) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/crawley/news/people/Farm-promises-festivals/article-2694479-detail/article.html Farm promises no 'festivals' A FARM owner has reassured Turners Hill residents that "Glastonbury-style" events will never take place at his venue. The owner of family run Tulleys Farm, Stuart Beare, has stepped in after the parish council raised concerns over the farm's licence application. He said he respected the village's concerns and agreed the parish council made some valid points. He said: "It wasn't our intention to run large music events at the farm, the provision for live music was included to save us applying for a temporary events notice on the odd occasion that we may run a jazz band alongside one of our local food festivals." |
|
06 Oct 10 - 06:09 AM (#3000809) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Mr Beare added: "We have agreed a firm set of restrictive conditions to the licence which the parish council and ourselves are both happy with. "We apologise for any undue concern and I would like to reassure residents that we have no intention now or in the future of running large music events at the farm." Just as well, for that option would now appear to have been removed. |
|
06 Oct 10 - 07:48 AM (#3000855) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles BBPA chief plays down May's tough talk on licensing 6 October, 2010 By James Wilmore Simmonds says she feels "more comfortable" with the proposed changes to the licensing regime Trade chief Brigid Simmonds has played down Theresa May's tough talk on licensing, arguing it goes against what Home Office officials are saying in private. http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=68105&c=1 |
|
06 Oct 10 - 11:47 AM (#3001037) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.merton.gov.uk/working/licensing/premises_licence_register_240910.pdf John King comments: The Licensing Act explicitly exempts stand-up comedy from licensing. But that won't stop Licensing Officers at Merton Council from licensing the provision of a microphone for a comedian at Alexandra in Wimbledon. Page 23 of Merton's licensing register. |
|
07 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM (#3001662) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.norwich.gov.uk/intranet_docs/corporate/public/committee/reports/2010/Regulatory%20sub/REP_Regulatory_04_Strangers_Caf John King comments: Norwich Council bans live music for three tables outside a cafe. ----------- Interesting wording they use here: No amplified music or live music shall take place on the licensed area.DCMS have told me (in aswer to my pointing out that all recorded music needs to be amplified) that they do not consider recorded music to be amplified music. They appear to be wanting it both ways - as usual and confusing everyone else in the process. In most circumstances, the mechanisms for the transmission of recorded music are and would remain entirely outside the definition of entertainment facilities.The definition refers to facilities for enabling persons to take part in 'making music' and 'dancing'. It does not otherwise include the playing of recorded music.<< BUT>> There may nevertheless be circumstances when the making of music involves recorded music. Karaoke might be an example. It is the intention of the Act that the provision of facilties to enable people to take part in (electronically amplified) karaoke is licensable, and it will remain licensable under the current proposals. [Ronnie Bridgett] Q Why is a regulatory sub committee under the Highways Act determining whether live music is allowed or not? It was not asked to do this, it was just asked to provide permission for the 3 tables and chairs. >>Recommendation That members determine the application to place tables and chairs on the highway submitted in respect of the Strangers Café 21 Pottergate Norwich NR2 1DS.<< ENDS |
|
07 Oct 10 - 09:53 AM (#3001664) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.slough.gov.uk/documents/Licensing2007.pdf The Licensing Act 2003 repealed the two-in-a-bar rule. Except in Slough. 'Where the Council considers that the type of entertainment to be provided may affect residential amenity, or the character of the areas either directly or indirectly, it will attach conditions specifying the type of entertainment which can be provided under the licence and the maximum number of performers.' - P18 of Slough's Statement of Licensing Policy. |
|
07 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM (#3001834) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Scrapthe696/ Government response. Thank you for the above petition. Form 696 is a risk assessment form which the Metropolitan Police requests promoters and licensees of events to complete and submit 14 days in advance of an event in 21 London Boroughs. Non compliance with this may result in police opposition to event licenses being granted. As you may be aware, the 696 form has been updated. The original form asked for details of ethnic groups likely to attend the performance, but that version was revised to omit those parameters in December 2008. In September 2009, the Metropolitan Police announced that venues would no longer be asked for details of the music style. A requirement to provide the telephone number of the performing artist will also be dropped and an independent scrutiny panel will be set up to ensure that the form is not misused. |
|
07 Oct 10 - 01:36 PM (#3001842) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles John king comments: The coalition responds to the Form 696 petition. The Lib Dems are reneging on a pre-election promise to ban Form 696 which Don Foster described as 'racist'. So much for the 'bonfire of bureaucracy' and 'cutting red-tape' for live music events. That the Lib Dems are renaging once again is not really surprising but it is deeply depressing, especially to those who were misguided enough to vote for them. It was a deal the Lib Dem peers did with the last Labour Govt which gave us the Licensing Act 2003 and now a deal the Lib Dems have done with the Conservatives looks set to leave us with Form 696. |
|
07 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM (#3001850) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 17:36 | Tuesday July 28, 2009 By Robert Ashton Culture select committee chairman John Whittingdale has criticised the Government for its "utterly pathetic and hopeless" response to his Licensing recommendations. Whittingdale had set out 26 recommendations in May, but earlier this month the Government overruled most of the key suggestions including the introduction of a licence exemption for smaller venues and to scrap the controversial Form 696. So it is not just the Lib Dems who have renaged. Now that Mr Whittingdale's Party is the Government - his Committee's recomendations to scrap Form 696 are still thought to be of no value. I don't suppose that he will be describing this Govt's response on Form 696 as "utterly pathetic and hopeless" but I will. |
|
08 Oct 10 - 06:21 AM (#3002338) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles See also this thread on the Travelodge complaint: thread.cfm?threadid=132613&messages=16 |
|
08 Oct 10 - 11:56 AM (#3002559) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Rose & Crown, Warminster applies for extended hours, but ends up with a noise limiter and other live music restrictions... http://www.warminster-web.co.uk/warminster_news.htm There is a pattern appearing here. The lesson is that if you are currently lucky enough to be reasonably free of restrictions, don't apply for anything else (and pay for the process) as the Licensing Authority will take this opportunity to further limit what they have already granted. Not exactly what the application for a variation was intended for. |
|
10 Oct 10 - 08:40 AM (#3003699) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/news/local/intolerable_noise_scuppers_art_bar_s_bid_to_extend_opening_hours_1_1506925 John King Comments: Music and dance in an art gallery/wine bar? 'One tearful resident said that she had not spent a weekend at her home since Christmas due to the noise.' Allegedly. |
|
11 Oct 10 - 05:28 AM (#3004276) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7476.aspx Ask Ed Vaizey www.culture.gov.uk When Ed Vaizey became Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, he made clear his wish to maintain a level of direct contact with many of the people who want to get in touch with him to ask questions, raise issues or make comments and suggestions |
|
11 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM (#3004518) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1042861&c=1 John King comments: 'Live music campaigners and lawyers are calling on the Government to clarify live music licensing rules after dismissing recently released figures from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as "fundamentally flawed".' Two major problems for the ...latest DCMS live music 'statistics'. They failed to take account of premises which do not have licensed facilities for provision of 'facilities for making music'. Without this secondary authorisation most performances of live music would probably be illegal. And, as usual, the 'statistics' include schools, hospitals, public spaces etc. |
|
11 Oct 10 - 01:13 PM (#3004556) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://southharrow.harrowobserver.co.uk/2010/09/south-harrow-pub-the-half-moon.html The three member licensing panel met on Tuesday September 21 at Harrow Civic Centre, Station Road, Harrow, and decided to add a condition to the venue's licence requiring the owners to install a noise limiter and ordered that live music stop daily at 9.30pm until the equipment is in place. Mrs Clifford-Varley said afterwards: "I welcome the decision and I'm very grateful to the environmental health team and the panel for the decision they made. "Hopefully it will bring to an end the noise disturbance to our lives." XXX PUB COMMENT XXX Tracey Kelly, joint leaseholder of The Half Moon, said: "The main cause was one particular resident that complained. We went round all the houses all round the pub and not one other person had a problem. "We're happy with the result [of the review] because we're complying with it totally and we're spending the best part of £30,000 sound-proofing the doors, lobby and windows - a total refurbishment in and out. It's being carried out immediately. "We have live music from Wednesday to Sunday and I'd like to thank all our customers and residents for all their support." A Harrow Council spokeswoman said there will have been four licence reviews sparked by environmental health officers although they are not part of a concerted crackdown but rather the result of complaints of noise nuisance being more frequent in the summer and there then being a time lag in processing them. Besides The Half Moon, two other premises have already had their licences reviewed - The Life of Reilly in Warwick Parade in Belmont Circle and ISHQ in High Road, Harrow Weald - while another review application is in process for The West Bar in Northolt Road, South Harrow. The same old story. Sympathy is of course due to anyone who is subject to actual noise concerns. However, possibly some sympathy is also due to those who have already applied and paid for entertainment permission and who may reasonably assume that this process would have enabled them to provide it. These council employees have already met and given licensing permission for these premises. As part of this process, they would have taken into account any representations from interested parties as well as residents complaints. These representations would at that time have included the same environmental health officers who are now reviewing the licenses. It also is likely that the complaints which are said to have instigated these reviews would no doubt have been made at that time. As protecting the public from noise is always stated by those who promote it, to be its object - the question must be, what is the point of the expensive process of additional entertainment permission required under the Licensing Act 2003? For whether this permission was in place or not (and for any exempt form of live music) - any noise emanting from the permitted activity is obviously still subject to effective noise abatement processes under the Environmental Protection Act. With the Enviornmental Protection Act and Planning Legislation - the additional entertainment licensing required for these type of premises under the Licensing Act 2003, is expensive duplication and could be scrapped without any effect on the public. The idea that it has any effect on dealing with noise is plainly absurd. |
|
11 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM (#3004565) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/chairman_apologises_after_meeting_adjourned_in_pub_dispute_over_opening_a_beer_garden_1_66 One moaning neighbour strikes again. However Lydia Payne and Steven Jevon who run the pub have refuted the allegations and said that when police had been called to the pub following complaints by Mrs. Ashley "they have found nothing to warrant a call out". The licensees want the outside of the pub to be included in their license so they can open a beer garden and a smoking area. Lydia and Steven also refute claims by Mrs Ashley to be acting on behalf of other residents and will provide the committee with a petition from six nearby residents in favour of the changes. Council officials say there have been no other objections to the changes but the committee must decide the issue since they have been unable to "negotiate away" the comments raised by Mrs Ashley. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 04:32 AM (#3005007) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Not only is additional entertainment permission still unable to deal with noise concerns, historically this requirement has actually made the situation worse and has led directly to the present situation. You could never obtain licensing permission to enable you to make noise. However, in practice that was exactly what happened when premises paid the local authority for the old PEL. As some LAs received considerable income from the fees, the LA had a vested interest in finding ways to allow any permitted entertainment, even where it was clear that it was constituting a real noise concern. Thus the approach to complaints was different to the one we see now. One of the sensible intentions of The Licensing Act 2003 was to do away with local authorities being able to set the level of their own fees but without the vested interest involved in enabling live music - it is difficult to see how live music can survive in our pubs (even non-amplified music). As we can see from the reports in this thread, if it survives through the Planning and Licensing stages it will fall foul of the Environmental Protection legislation. All these processes are encouraging complaints which the local authority members (as advised by their employees) seem to think they are duty bound to address. Even when, as in the following example, there is one complaint compared to six in favour! Lydia and Steven also refute claims by Mrs Ashley to be acting on behalf of other residents and will provide the committee with a petition from six nearby residents in favour of the changes. Council officials say there have been no other objections to the changes but the committee must decide the issue since they have been unable to "negotiate away" the comments raised by Mrs Ashley. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 10:43 AM (#3005194) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://junctionward.mycouncillor.org.uk/2010/07/11/response-to-licensing-application-gilak-restaurant-holloway-rd/ The following comments from John King: Live music in a small family restaurant? No chance. Not if the Liberal Democrat Ward Councillor is an idiot. Cllr Arthur Graves: 'Can I suggest that before any licence is granted, the premises have to adhere to a sound test by the local authorities environmental health team and that the premises have to install any soundproofing equipment as required by that test? Can I also suggest that the applications for dance, live music, indoor sporting events, etc as set out above, are thrown out in their entirety? I am all for new businesses coming to the Archway area that set out to be of benefit to our community and look to help improve the local amenity for all but I am vehemently against allowing the setting up of potentially dangerous and at the very least noisily disruptive new premises.' |
|
12 Oct 10 - 02:34 PM (#3005373) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles So applications for dance, live music, indoor sporting events, to be thrown out in their entirety but once again alcohol is seemingly not thought to be too much of a problem for our Lib Dem Councillor. There is something badly wrong here. John King comments: Latest stats show that the Licensing Act has led to TWO premises losing their licence for selling alcohol to under-18s. Contrast that with the ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY FIVE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED licensed premises which can now ...no longer stage even the smallest live music performance. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 04:26 PM (#3006319) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www2.canterbury.gov.uk/committee/mgConvert2Pdf.aspx?ID=5783&T=9 John King comments: ONE complaining neighbour and the Maiden's Head in Canterbury faces a premises licence review. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 08:29 PM (#3006482) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/13/menzies-cambell-joins-lib-dem-revolt-tuition-fees?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_med In a letter to all Lib Dem MPs, Nick Clegg yesterday stressed that no decision had yet been taken but suggested he was likely to break the election pledge. He called it "one of the most difficult political decisions I have ever had to make". As Mr Clegg is to renage on this pledge - what hope is there of him honouring his pre-election support for the 200 exemption? http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/feature.php/28030/cultivating-culture We'll also end the bureaucratic nightmares that hold performers back, like Labour's live music licensing system, for example. It has become a complicated, time-consuming regime which has even caught schools, hospitals and colleges in its tentacles, and is stifling the kind of small-scale live music that is so important for the future. So we'll exempt small venues with capacities of less than 200 and go back to the rule where any venue can put on a performance of un-amplified music by one or two people without a licence. That is how we can foster new talent and new community venues. And Liberal Democrats recognise how extraordinarily competitive careers in performance and the arts can be, and how many of the people working in them are struggling. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 02:57 AM (#3006614) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=68168&c=1 Mass support for pub over clash with Travelodge 14 October, 2010 By James Wilmore Popular Staffordshire music pub faces threat of licence review over noise complaints Nearly 3,000 people have thrown their support behind a popular music pub threatened with a licence review after noise complaints from a newly-opened Travelodge hotel. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 06:22 AM (#3006706) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7484.aspx DCMS cuts quangos. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 06:29 AM (#3007611) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.nailseapeople.co.uk/news/Nailsea-pub-open-late-play-live-music-despite/story-10100630-detail/story.html A Nailsea pub can open late at night and play live music despite protests from neighbours, North Somerset Council licensing sub-committee ruled this week. The couple told the sub-committee they were 'shocked' at the level of protests as none of the neighbours had approached them with any complaints. Mr Jacobs said he was a member of Pubwatch and he had ensured his four-strong bar staff were well-trained. The pub was given permission to open Monday to Thursdays 10am to midnight; Friday and Saturday 10am to 12.30am; Sunday 10am to 10.30pm with 30 minutes 'drinking up' time. Live music could be played from 10am-11pm daily. Mr Jacobs said he had no intention of opening for those hours but wanted the option for 'occasional' functions. The sub-committee imposed certain conditions which included regular 'noise' checks, no glasses in the car park and doors not to be left open. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM (#3007894) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ccskills.org.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AdJZCyRdP2A%3D&tabid=81 A number of quangos seem to have left us but the Creative and Cultural Skills Council lives to fight another day. The following from John King: The Creative and Cultural Skills Council have published another absolutely hopeless analysis of the performing arts sector. If you have spent £29.99 on this 'report' I suggest you ask for your money back. If you have been financing this quango out of your taxes, write to the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport. The live music employment statistics are still two years out of date (as confirmed in Parliament by questions from Lords Colwyn and Clement-Jones). Apparently there are 28,545 actors, singers, musicians and other entertainers in the UK in 2008/9. This figure includes part-time workers. A ridiculously low number, as this definition potentially includes all professional and amateur entertainment in the UK (including schools). A note on p17 claims: 'as well as these, significant numbers work in the area of live music performance: 42,480 in 2006/07, rising to 50,776 in 2008/09 (an increase of 20%). Creative & Cultural Skills. (2008). Performing Arts: Impact and Footprint 2008/09. Creative & Cultural Skills.' Even if either of these figures are accurate, 50,776 cannot be in ADDITION to the 28,545. Pretty obvious mistakes - but enough to fool DCMS 'statisticians' who have been relying on the accuracy of these 'statistics'. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 02:17 AM (#3008260) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Cllr Bateman said to the protestors: "It seems strange you buy a place next to a pub with a garden and you don't seem to like laughter and loud talking." |
|
17 Oct 10 - 02:13 AM (#3008849) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/local/8456267.A_song_and_dance_to_save_music_pub/ A song and dance to save music pub www.worcesternews.co.uk SUPPORTERS have rallied around a Malvern pub amid fears its sale will spell the end of a vital hub for live music. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 05:58 AM (#3008946) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/CIS/PDF/10-09-17%20Licensing%20Sub-Committee%20Minutes.pdf The follow comments from John King: Bored with imposing live music restrictions on primary schools, licensing chiefs at Southlakeland District Council ban music in a restaurant. 'The Sub-Committee was concerned that the provision of live music and late night refreshments would be likely to have a seriously adverse effect on the quality of life for local residents in this predominantly residential area.' Again - alcohol is OK but live music (even non-amplified) is not. A late night curry is likely to have a seriously adverse effect of the quality of life for local residents (who live across the river). The following from the document: The prevention of public nuisance is a licensing objective. Noise disturbance can be a public nuisance. The authority is required to promote the licensing objectives. Granting a licence in circumstances where nuisance is likely to be caused will undermine that objective. The Council recognises that noise from licensed premises can cause great disturbance to people living and working near these premises if not properly managed or controlled. Not sure that I follow the tenuous logic here to deny any form of live music in advance, because it might be likely to cause a nuisance. It is just a likely that it may not be likely to cause a nuisance and local authorities are required to promote many other objectives. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 06:18 AM (#3008955) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/pdf/Licensing%20Policy%202008.pdf The following is from Southlakeland Council's Statement of Licensing Policy: 2.5 The Authority is keen to promote the artistic and cultural life of the District and licensing will be approached with a view to encouraging cultural activities and innovative forms of public entertainment for the wider cultural benefits of communities generally. Only conditions strictly necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives will be attached to a licence for activities of this nature, as the Authority is aware of the need to avoid imposing substantial indirect costs. Where there is any indication that licensing requirements are deterring such events, the policy may be reviewed with a view to investigating how the situation may be remedied. As the Council must follow their own policy - perhaps a locally resident musician can ask for such a review? |
|
17 Oct 10 - 07:32 AM (#3009007) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Dennis the Elder "The Chairman then allowed questions to be put to the applicant by the Sub-Committee. Members queried the measures the applicant had in place for measuring noise, and the applicant's representative confirmed that there was a limiter in place on their internal sound system. They would also be happy to work with the Environmental Health Department in measuring the noise levels and making sure they did not exceed acceptable levels, they also offered to employ SIA accredited door staff when live music is provided and to have secondary, internal doors fitted to prevent noise breakout when people are entering or leaving the premises." The above sounds very reasonable and it would be interesting to know if the Environmental Health Department had been asked for their comments on the application. There seems to be no reference made to them by the committee. As an Environmental Health Officer with responsibilities for noise pollution working for a small Local Authority I find this disturbing. The above quote is exactly what we are looking for when assessing a possible noise problem. If the precautions outlined above were instigated, then the major problem would be persons leaving the Grill not the music. As previously stated many times in this thread, "There is ample legislation to deal with noise rather than through refusal of an application" |
|
17 Oct 10 - 01:33 PM (#3009236) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The S182 Statutory Guidance to the Licensing Act 2003: 13.58 Care will be needed to ensure that only necessary, proportionate and reasonable licensing conditions impose any restrictions on these events. Where there is any indication that events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. Broader cultural activities and entertainment may also be affected. In developing their statements of licensing policy, licensing authorities should also consider any views of the local authority's arts committee, where one exists. There a difference between the words - statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. And the words that this council have chosen to use in their SOLP - the policy may be reviewed with a view to investigating how the situation may be remedied. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 03:15 PM (#3009315) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge I've told you before and I'll tell you again the "Guidance" does not make law and does not overide the words in the Act. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 03:53 PM (#3009339) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles A licensing authority must carry out its functions under this Act ("licensing functions") with a view to promoting the licensing objectives AND must also have regard to— (a)its licensing statement published under section 5, and (b)any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 182. When a council chooses to use different word in its SOLP to those in the S182 Guidance how can it 'have regard' to them both? Especially when they seem to see this as secondary to promoting the licensing objectives..... The words of the Act: 4General duties of licensing authorities E+W (1)A licensing authority must carry out its functions under this Act ("licensing functions") with a view to promoting the licensing objectives. (2)The licensing objectives are— (a)the prevention of crime and disorder; (b)public safety; (c)the prevention of public nuisance; and (d)the protection of children from harm. (3)In carrying out its licensing functions, a licensing authority must also have regard to— (a)its licensing statement published under section 5, and (b)any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 182. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 04:21 PM (#3010054) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles As previously stated many times in this thread, "There is ample legislation to deal with noise rather than through refusal of an application" It is less a case here of cutting red-tape as it is of finally burying a very troublesome red herring. The use of the Licensing Act 2003 to deal with a potential noise concern is clumsy and totally unsatisfactory. It is counter-productive as it conflicts with a local authority's other responsibilities. Many non-amplified cultural activities are being prevented or limited under this process, when these show little or no prospect of providing any form of noise concern. This practice must cease and it places where it has been used for this purpose, these should be reviewed and overturned. Many people are still being encouraged to accept that without the additional entertainment licensing permission in the Licensing Act 2003, the public would be left unprotected from the effective method of dealing with excessive noise concerns. This is the myth which is, if is not encouraged, is seldom corrected by those who are fully aware of the true situation. In cases where permission is limited or refused for Regulated Entertainment on grounds of potential noise, this process does not of course provide any protection for residents, from any actual or potential general noise. It is obvious that this process cannot deal with noise concerns as is limited to only noise emanating from that which qualifies as Regulated Entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003. More importantly, as it is limited only to noise emanating from Regulated Entertainment, this process cannot in fact provide any protection from any actual noise concern emanating from any music (live or recorded) which either does not qualify in the first place as Regulated Entertainment or which is specifically excluded by any of the Act's many exemptions. These activities cannot be limited or prevented in advance by the Licensing Act 2003. So any noise concern that may emanate from activities which either does not qualify in the first place as Regulated Entertainment or which is specifically excluded by any of the Act's many exemptions can only be dealt with by other legislation. This legislation protects the public from all general noise concerns. It is most effective in protecting the public from noise concerns emanating from all music (live or recorded) as it applies equally to premises where permission under Licensing Act 2003 is in place (for Regulated Entertainment) and where it is not. Any noise concern emanating from premises with entertainment permission will still always be subject to other legislation. Which really begs the question of why the additional entertainment licensing under the Licensing Act 2003 is being so defended on grounds of noise, by the LGA Group lobby. It is a very expensive process but it is now mostly duplication of measures available under Planning, Environmental and other legislation. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 03:45 AM (#3010367) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/Published/C00000430/M00004597/$$$Minutes.doc.pdf John King comments: Leeds Council ban live jazz in Cafe Jazz & Restaurant. Recorded jazz is allowed. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 03:48 AM (#3010369) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/14338512 John King comments: The LGA's Licensing and Localism Conference is Wed 20th Oct. Taking part in the panel discussion are Susan Holden - Entertainment Licensing Section, Leeds Council (see below) and head of the Met Police Form 696 Unit. The "Music to your Ears?" workshop promoting the virtues of the "...incidental music" licensing exemption appears to have been cancelled. http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/12673160 Intriguingly, no representatives from DCMS are now attending this conference. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 03:53 AM (#3010372) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/12673160 14.50 – 16.00 Workshops Places will be allocated on first-come, first-served basis according to room capacity. Refreshments available at the back of each syndicate room. W1. Music to your ears Horace Trubridge, Assistant General Secretary, Musicians Union Lesley Cameron, Principal Licensing Officer, St Albans Council - tbc Cllr Chris White, Chair, Culture, Tourism and Sport Board, LGA |
|
19 Oct 10 - 12:27 PM (#3010767) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestar.co.uk/headlines/West-Street-dubbed-neighbourhood-from.6587837.jp John King comments: What has all this urinating and fighting got to do with live music? Nothing of course, but invariably local authorities allow extended opening hours with permission for recorded music while banning live music. ... So a DJ is allowed where an unamplified piano is illegal. The application itself already limits the entertainment. The licensee could and should be able to decide for themselves, the time that various activities cease, there is no need to have entertainment ending a full hour before closing time as a licensing condition. But again and again we see one licensable activity (live music) being limited and used in order to enable another (serving alcohol). The activity which is being limited, is the one with many benefits and the one being encouraged, is the one presenting the problems. How did this crazy situation happen? The Licensing Act 2003 list all the licensable activies - it does not require Licensing Authorities to limit and use one to enable another. As the Act does not state which licensable activity should take priority over another - the reasonable assumption is that they should be treated equally. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 12:16 PM (#3013748) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/news/Bleak-House/article-2785927-detail/article.html John King comments: Bleak House gets a live music licence - with restrictions of course. One of the neighbours who described live music as a 'nightmare for residents' has just started building his home next to Bleak House. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 12:19 PM (#3013751) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.babergh.gov.uk/Babergh/Home/Council+and+Democracy/Council+and+Committee+Papers/Licensing+Sub-Committee/Minutes+-+1+Oc John King Comments: Live music at Sudbury Hockey Club? Sorry that's only allowed on two occasions between Sepember and April to appease terrified residents. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 12:27 PM (#3013757) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/licensing_duke_of_york-2.pdf John King comments: The Duke of York in Hounslow is given permission for live music - restricted to Fridays and Saturdays only between 8:00 and 11:30. Note that that applicant's solicitors appear to have failed to tick all the boxes necessary for live music and provision of entertainment facilities... |
|
25 Oct 10 - 11:14 AM (#3014994) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/gaza-theme-park-attack-arson John King comments: Here's how Hamas go about live music licensing in Gaza: 'First he was told he must apply for a permit to hold live music evenings. Then he had to sign a pledge that such parties would be within unspecified "morals and traditions". Finally, last mont...h his restaurant was raided during a party.' Sounds extreme? All of the above happens right here right now... In the UK all music in restaurants is licensed. In some cases, music has been completely banned as a result of ONE resident raising a purely speculative objection. In may other cases live music in restaurants may face restrictions such as a ban on amplification, a noise limiter, a restriction on the genre of music to be played, retrictions on the number of musicians or types of instruments played, a restriction on the number of singers, the days of the week they can perform, the number of times they can perform, the hours they can work, a ban on dancing, a restriction on under-18s attending etc |
|
25 Oct 10 - 01:36 PM (#3015122) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=livemusicevents Government respond to the live music petition: 'Currently the Coalition Government is reviewing the situation concerning live music performance at smaller venues, and the Minister for Tourism and Heritage, John Penrose MP, is considering the result of the Consultation on Live Music which closed in March. The Coalition is committed to cutting Red Tape, to encourage live music and is keen to find the best way forward. A number of options are being considered and the Minister will make an announcement in due course.' |
|
26 Oct 10 - 04:05 AM (#3015535) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=68248&c=1 Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Save the Pub Group and Kate Nicholls, head of communications at the ALMR, are to put their case to the Home Office later today. They will meet with Home Office minister James Brokenshire, who is responsbile for overseeing the controversial changes, due to be in place by November 2011. The changes include giving more power to licensing authorities over decisions, allowing councils to charge a late-night levy and increasing licence fees. Can't think of anything less likely to encourage live music than to introduce an increase in the required licensing permission. Of course, the intention of the Home Office is a knee-jerk reaction to address alcohol concerns (mainly for Daily Mail readers) but as we no longer have an alcohol only licence - any increase will also affect all the non-alcohol related activities that now require Premises Licenses. A point that if the Colaition Govt have noticed, it is a point that they seem determined to try to ignore. Sadly the increase in fees shows that it is the LGA Group lobby that is really still in control. |
|
26 Oct 10 - 08:55 AM (#3015709) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/local/gothic_weekend_bar_licence_appeal_cancelled_1_2618928 John King Comments: A triumph for lazy policing. Music at Goth weekend banned. "We have one night of complaints and we are not able to run one now. There are certain residents that had no problems with it and stated that to us as well." |
|
26 Oct 10 - 09:06 AM (#3015721) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Bar-owner39s-joy-as-it.6598764.jp One way to thwart the plans of neighbours who move next to a pub and complain is to move the pub. This will also confuse licensing officers. Seems to have worked - so far. Despite closing down after losing its music licence a wine bar and restaurant has reopened. Number 69 Restaurant in Castle Road, Southsea, closed down after neighbours complained of noise levels. It had its licence revoked and was given a noise abatement notice by the city council's environmental health. But the bar has reopened in Palmerston Road, Southsea |
|
26 Oct 10 - 05:10 PM (#3016199) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.m-magazine.co.uk/?p=4457 Throughout October and November, visitors to a selection of Sue Ryder's charity shops nationwide will be entertained by Chris Ford, during a series of live music performances. Chris, who cites his musical influences as including Bruce Springsteen and Nick Drake, will use one of Sue Ryder's signature guitars during his tour. The free-to-attend gigs are taking place to encourage people to visit Sue Ryder's shops, as well as raise awareness of how money raised in its shops is vital to support the charity provide end of life and long term care to thousands of people each year. This from the PRS magazine. It is no doubt a good way to ensure that all these shops obtain PRS licences but I wonder if anyone has obtained Entertainment Permission. From the photo, the performance appears to be amplified and as a named performer is being advertised (according to the latest guidance document) it cannot qualify as exempt under the incidental exemption. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 05:17 AM (#3016539) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=68257&c=1 Government still stalling on plans for live music 27 October, 2010 By James Wilmore Coalition promises announcement on pub gigs will come in 'due course' in repsonse to petition The government has responded to a 17,000 signature-strong petition calling for licence exemptions on live music – but still refused to reveal its plans to tackle the issue. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 05:33 AM (#3016546) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7519.aspx Ask Ed Vaizey part one 27 October 2010 Ed Vaizey's answers to your questions. Over the past fortnight, members of the public have been invited to send Ed Vaizey their questions. We have received more than 30 questions, most of which were about arts and culture. The most popular subject was the Crosby Garrett helmet, and a number of people asked about a review of the Treasure Act. We have tried to cover a broad range of questions and include as many different topics as possible, although some questions were hard to include as they were very long. We hope to answer some of the shorter questions that were not included this time in future editions. Thanks to everyone who sent in questions. |
|
29 Oct 10 - 04:06 AM (#3018282) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/88746?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Councils call for licence fee powers* By John Harrington 28/10/2010 11:58 Councils have asked the Government for the right to set their own alcohol licence fees to plug shortfalls in their funding. Morning Advertiser legal editor Peter Coulson said: "I think there's a danger ahead for the licensed trade, which could face quite large licence fee increases, particularly in urban areas." Coulson feared a return to the kind of high fees charged for Public Entertainment Licences (PELs) before they were scrapped. It seems to be overlooked but there is of course no longer an 'alcohol' licence. Any increase in the fees for Premises Licenses will only further limit live music and affect all the other non-alcohol activities that currently require this licence. |
|
29 Oct 10 - 04:26 AM (#3018291) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/8476423.Supervisor_axed_for_playing_loud_music/ John King comments: A pub supervisor is fired after residents complain about music. In addition, Warrington Council punish the premises and future licensees by imposing a noise limiter and changing the licence so that music finishes at 11pm instead of 12. Any live music, including non-amplified folk sessions which are very unlikely to cause any noise concern are also being limited and prevented. This is the danger when in practice the only real way any music can take place is as licensable Regulated Entertainment. As there is no legal way to licence excessive noise - the use of permissions under the Lcensing Act to deal with noise is a complete nonsense but is still the reason why many would be concerned when there are any moves to address the effect this has on the health of all live music. |
|
29 Oct 10 - 04:37 AM (#3018295) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Scout-hut-to-hold-parties.6601515.jp John King comments: The 1st Clanfield Scout Group apply for an entertainment licence (without alcohol). East Hampshire Council's licensing department do their best to obstruct it. No outdoor music allowed after 8:00pm. Indoor events to finish by 10:00pm. Not because of 'noise fears' but because of 'parking concerns'. 'There has been a Scout hut here for 60 years.' In a submission to East Hampshire's licensing sub-committee, resident Louise LePage said: 'One of the reasons we bought our house in our lovely lane is because of its rural and quiet location. 'We did not envisage having to live 30 yards from a site that hosts parties and discos, the music for, and the vibrations from, which we would hear and feel. 'I note that parking at the Scouts' new premises appears to be fairly limited. Where would visitors to a disco or a play performance park?' After hearing the concerns, councillors decided that no events could be held outside after 8pm and any events inside the building must end by 10pm. Scout leaders said the hut will not be available for hire for parties between the ages of 12 and 24. Jo Barden-Hernandez, head of legal services in East Hampshire, said: 'The committee took on board the objectors' comments and as a result reduced the time activities can be carried out outside the scout hut to 8pm and the time activities can be carried out inside to 10pm, which the committee felt was reasonable.' Alan Burton, scout group chairman, said the vast majority of events would be children's birthday parties. |
|
29 Oct 10 - 04:44 AM (#3018299) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://princeofwales.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/the-future-of-moseley/ John King comments: Sinister goings-on in Moseley. The Prince of Wales reports: 'The Moseley Society will be leading the charge to stamp out live music, force pubs to close early and stop cafes and bars from offering what many folks moved to the village to enjoy.' |
|
29 Oct 10 - 04:49 AM (#3018302) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hart.gov.uk/licensing_hearing_minutes_11.10.10.pdf John King comments: Despite a 200-strong petition supporting the premises, Hart Council throw the book at the Bell Inn, Blackwater. A noise limiter, live music banned on Sundays (perversely recorded music is allowed), an acoustic lobby, external seating areas to be closed at 22:00. |
|
29 Oct 10 - 05:01 AM (#3018307) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-18382-talks-due-over-controversial-booze-licence-submitted-by-school/ John King Comments: So-called 'controversial' licence application by a prep school faces 60 objections from moronic neighbours. For a sample of the kind of music and dance event held at the school which is caught by the ...Licensing Act see: http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/m/news/article-16794-video-st-piran-s-pupils-get-creative-for-arts-week/ |
|
29 Oct 10 - 05:06 AM (#3018312) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://se11actionteam.blogspot.com/2010/10/licensing-application-for-arch-145.html John King comments: Any premises applying for a live music licence in Lambeth is in for a fight. The local Labour Party has assembled an action team to co-ordinate objections. Strangely, this is Kate Hoey's constituency. Kate Hoey was one of only two lab...our rebels who voted AGAINST the Licensing Act in Parliament, and has signed EDMs supporting exemptions for live music licensing. |
|
29 Oct 10 - 05:13 AM (#3018316) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://newsfeed.leedsvirtualnewsroom.co.uk/2010/10/restaurant-owner-handed-bill-for.html "This conviction shows how important it is for businesses to have the right licences for their premises." Leeds City Council entertainment licensing officers and West Yorkshire Police have visited the restaurant Barakas on four different occasions over the past two years, and on each occasion the premises was being used for unauthorised licensable activities such as the playing of recorded music, even with the prior warnings. After the first inspection on 25 September 2008 the defendant attended council offices and obtained a premises licence application pack, but to date, an application for a premises licence authorising regulated entertainment has still not been made to the Council's Entertainment Licensing Section. Mr Ahmed was cautioned by council officers on a second visit in August 2009 and advised that licensable activities cease until such time as a Premises Licence had been granted or Temporary Event Notice issued. On 20th October 2009 officers from Entertainment Licensing visited the premises again to conduct a follow-up check. The provision of facilities for regulated entertainment was being provided without the benefit of a Premises Licence or Temporary Event Notice. The owner was verbally and physically obstructive towards a council licensing enforcement officer. He was cautioned and advised to cease all licensable activities until such time as a Premises Licence had been granted or Temporary Event Notice served. John King comments: Restaurant owner convicted for 'The provision of facilities for regulated entertainment was being provided without the benefit of a Premises Licence or Temporary Event Notice' This makes a mockery of DCMS claims that it is possible t...o host entertainment without authorisation for provision of entertainment facilities. |
|
29 Oct 10 - 05:59 AM (#3018331) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles There is a possibilty that the sort of treatment dished out to Mr Ahmed could have been avoided. I don't know enough about this particular case but this is the wider view. It could have been that he simply did not accept that he required what he was told that he did. In such a situation there is no easy way forward. I have experience of this, for the Cove's (then) licensee did not accept that our session was a licensable Public Entertainment. Licensing employees do not like it when their word is questioned and any licensee brave enough to do this and stand their ground, is likely not to be on the top of the Licensing Dept's popularity list. And anyone else who may be forced to formally complain is not likely to receive any joy from a process that is slanted - to say the least. The focus is then firmly set on ways of dealing with the complainant - rather than ever on addressing the complaint. This is very complicated legisltion but where there are means contained in and it could be argued, actually encouragment for residents to complain about premises - it is not so simple when the concern may be over specicific interpretations being used by licensing enployeees, especially those about what is or is not licensable. There really needs to be a process built in where these differences can be taken to and decided by the elected council long before there are threats about possible prosecutions. Even then, the outcome is a 'post code lottery' but the situation where the law becomes in effect, what those who are paid to enforce it, say that is its, is a dangerous route leading only to a police state. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 01:23 PM (#3020868) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317844/Council-killjoy-tries-stop-Cancer-Research-charity-event-Milton-Keynes.html Jobsworth council killjoy puts spoke in the wheels of cancer charity bike ride By Andrew Levy 6th October 2010 With their annual charity bike ride in its eighth year, the organisers were confident the wheels were in motion for a perfect day. But they hadn't counted on an over-zealous council jobsworth. After receiving a handful of complaints about the noise coming from a public address system, an environmental health officer arrived at the event. Carol Osborne, 66, who spent a year helping to organise the event, said the council worker's attitude was... 'unpl...easant, uncalled for and unprofessional'. She added: 'He came up to me with no introduction and just started yelling. He was shouting, "Do you realise I can close you down?" He was on some sort of power trip. He was right up in my face yelling and screaming through his teeth, practically growling at me. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 01:30 PM (#3020876) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3166894/Gaffe-as-lock-in-is-probed.html A JOBSWORTH council lawyer reported a pub which displayed a poster reading 'Lock-In, 8pm till late' - before finding out it was an ad for a BAND. The legal officer raised concerns about Greyfriars Bar in Perth, thinking it was promoting an illegal after-hours party. But when local authority chiefs sent in a licensing official he found the advert was for a gig by local folk band Lock-In, who finished at 11pm. Licensee Pauline Marshall said: "We just thought it was a routine visit, none of us had thought twice about the posters. "When he turned up he realised immediately and was nice about it, but it beggars belief this could happen. "You just have to laugh - have people lost their common sense?" Lock-In drummer Sandy Stirton said: "We couldn't stop laughing. "It's sounds like a case of a jobsworth who spotted the poster and thought they'd hit gold." Perth and Kinross Council chiefs said the blunder was caused by 'unfortunate phrasing'. A spokesman added: "It was decided to find out what it meant." |
|
03 Nov 10 - 05:15 AM (#3022338) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/localnews/Pub-music-out-of-tune.6607017.jp One objector told the licensing board: "When we first moved here 20 years ago there was music four nights a week and the noise levels continued long after the music had finished. Drunken fights were the norm after closing time. "Obviously we will oppose any extension of the Blue Bell's licence which is going to contribute to recreating that situation." People living in nearby Hutton Croft have also joined together and formed a petition, bearing 20 signatures so far, that they have submitted to the licensing board. The petition complains of fighting outside the pub, excess noise and glasses being smashed in the street. Also objecting to the variations to the Blue Bell's licence are officials from Sheffield Council's environmental protection service. They say the pub is in a residential area and could therefore cause "excessive noise disturbance" for neighbours. Councillors will decide whether the changes to the licence should be permitted what they meet at Sheffield Town Hall at 10am tomorrow. |
|
03 Nov 10 - 05:27 AM (#3022342) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/news/John-beats-council-fruit-delivery-battle/article-2811967-detail/article.html When folk are brave (or rich enough) to make a legal challenge - this case shows that complaints which council employees feel they are obliged to support can be be viewed far more sensibly by the courts. After deliberation the chairman said the bench had decided in favour of Mr Prentis and added that the matter should not have come to court in the first place. In his closing remarks he said: "As ordinary citizens we are extremely disappointed a public body should not seek to resolve these issues with the parties involved. "Instead they have committed everyone to money spent from the public purse and put unnecessary stress and strain on a local trader of good repute. We wonder why we should be here." After the hearing Mr Cagney said: "I feel very pleased indeed for a client who has had a very troubled year from the date this notice was served without any prior warning, any discussion or negotiation." Mr Prentis said: "The council should be supporting local businesses, not trying to stop them trading. They have used taxpayers' money for something that shouldn't have happened. In the end the black and white word of the law threw it out and I want to thank the people who have been so supportive. I especially want to thank the Broadstairs and St Peters Chamber of Commerce and the 4,000 people who signed the petition in support." |
|
03 Nov 10 - 05:47 AM (#3022356) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000502/2010/10/28/Saki+Bar+wins+noise+appeal.html Anthony Horne of Licensing Legal, acting for the premises said: 'The Appeal was lodged on the basis that Revocation was neither necessary nor proportionate – the Committee gave no thought to any other possible outcome – and the fact that the complaints regarding noise all emanated from the occupier of the flat adjoining the pub next door.' Councillor Jim Battle, Deputy Leader of Manchester City Council, said at the time: "This premises was having a detrimental effect on local residents, who complained about noise and other problems linked to the bar. There were only complaints about noise from the same single resident. |
|
03 Nov 10 - 06:03 AM (#3022361) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Cases like the Saki bar highlight the problems of using the additional licensing permission in the Licensing Act as a means to deal with noise pollution. It is classic 'Catch 22'. The only way that the local authority can claim there to be a noise problem after granting permission and after they have imposed conditions that are supposed to prevent any noise concern emanating from the Regulated Entertainment, - is for them to subsequently find that these conditions were not being correctly followed by the premises. For if they are being followed - there cannot be a noise concern emanating from the permitted Regulated Entertainment. |
|
03 Nov 10 - 07:56 AM (#3022409) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Old Vermin Email received today about suspension of events license for The Barn in Farnham - Part of Jeremy Hunt's South-West Surrey constituency. Waverley Borough Council. I heard about it because the Surrey Storytellers Guild event tomorrow - 4th November - is cancelled. Also casts doubt on Anna [Tabbush] and the Odd Socks plus Tristan Seume on the 20th. Guest - The Shambles - PM doesn't, of course, work for you. May I ask if and how information such as this item gets fed back to anywhere in the body politic - does it go to, say, to Mr Hunt or for consultation. Would I be right to assume it's best that I contact Mr Hunt and Waverley Borough Council direct and that this thread is for information only? |
|
04 Nov 10 - 03:51 AM (#3023162) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Would I be right to assume it's best that I contact Mr Hunt and Waverley Borough Council direct and that this thread is for information only? LAs, Mr Hunt, the DCMS should of course be informing the public about the true state of live music under the Licensing Act 2003. But as they seem to have every intention of continuing the pretence that live music is 'thriving', it is up to all of us to try to ensure that the true situation is presented. Anything you or anyone else can do will be much appreciated. http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=68327&c=1 Licensing Law: TENs to transform 3 November, 2010 By Joelson Wilson & Co The coalition is looking to abandon the previous government's 'light touch bureaucracy' approach to TENs, so more forethought will be required when organising events. |
|
04 Nov 10 - 04:31 AM (#3023171) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST Joining this Facebook site may help. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141223114767&ref=mf http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/london-loses-another-music-venue-as-the-flowerpot-closes-2122616.html London loses another music venue as The Flowerpot closes |
|
04 Nov 10 - 08:28 AM (#3023293) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Old Vermin Thank you both. And here's me, the last of the Facebook refuseniks.... Oh,well. |
|
08 Nov 10 - 02:48 AM (#3026427) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/news/local/rose_and_crown_wish_to_serve_toast_1_1590645 Warwick Police object to three musicians in a restaurant. POLICE licensing officer Keith Duncan is objecting to an application to vary the licence at a popular Warwick restaurant. The Rose and Crown, which was bought by the Peach Pub Company, wants to lift some of the restrictions imposed on previous owners, Punch Taverns. The new owners, who also own The Almanack in Kenilworth, want to have some restrictions lifted to allow entertainment from more than just two singers. They also want longer opening hours including 9am for breakfast, instead of 10am. But on Novewmber 4, when the licensing panel meets, Mr Duncan will say the police object on the grounds that increased the hours and relaxed music conditions could lead to noise nuisance and crime and disorder problems. |
|
08 Nov 10 - 03:01 AM (#3026428) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/music_venue_must_wait_to_hear_fate_1_1598415 A MuSIC venue will suffer a tense wait to hear the outcome of a planning row. Mama Liz's Soulfood Shack and Voodoo Lounge in North Street, Stamford, was served with a planning notice banning it from holding music events and comedy acts by South Kesteven District Council in April. The council said it did not have planning permission to hold them. It's very disappointing because we have done everything by the book. "Ever since we opened we have been guided by South Kesteven District Council and have done everything they asked of us." The council granted a licence for food, alcohol and live music when the venue opened in 2008 but now says it does not have planning consent for live events. So the same council as granted additional entertainment licensing permission - is now saying that it has not given planning permission? What point was there in the venue paying for the additional entertainment permission? This is just another example of where the Licensing Act's measure are simply expensive and clumsy duplication of existing legislation. |
|
08 Nov 10 - 04:06 AM (#3026454) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/local-headlines/opening_hours_objections_overruled_as_village_inn_set_to_reopen_this_w John King Comments: Live music prejudice is spreading in Scotland. Here is a pub with a licence for live music.. but only occasionally. Prior to the Licensing Act (Scotland) 2005 such restrictions were unheard of. Unticketed live music events did not need a licence, and noise was dealt with by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 - which applies across the UK. |
|
08 Nov 10 - 03:10 PM (#3026949) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-04a.20912.h&s=%22live+music%22#g20912.q0 Mike Weatherley (Hove, Conservative): 'To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent steps his Department has taken to encourage the performance of live music' John Penrose (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport; Weston-Super-Mare, Conservative): 'The Department is currently considering how best to deliver the coalition agreement to cut red tape and encourage the performance of more live music, while ensuring that appropriate protection for local communities continues. We have had discussions with representatives from the music industry, the Local Government Association and the police among others and will continue to do so in our quest for consensus on this issue.' |
|
08 Nov 10 - 03:22 PM (#3026957) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/DCMS-Business-Plan_2010-15.pdf DCMS publishes the business plan 2010 to 2015 Section B - Coalition Priorities, states: The Department will no longer... over-regulate. We will remove unnecessary red tape and barriers, ensuring that people remain protected by only essential regulation. For example, we will cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music. These word are accepting that the DCMS have been and currently are over-regulating but they are still not making any proposals on how exactly they will cut the red tape to encourage the performance of more live music. |
|
09 Nov 10 - 04:07 AM (#3027361) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bristol.gov.uk/committee/2010/re/re004/0511_4.pdf John King comments: This effort from Bristol Licensing Officers places the following conditions on the premises licence at Agora: 'Live music - limited to indoors only. Live band of 5 to 6 people, mixture of jazz and Latin. The music is amplified through the club's system.' Once again, all non-amplified live music is limited by conditions which are more stringent than those for recorded music. How can live music possibly survive (let alone thrive) when it continues to be automatically scapegoated at the slightest excuse? This is over-regulation imposed for no other reason than the powers exist. These powers MUST be removed from those who have no effective watchdog and as a result, take no responsiblity for damage their actions are creating. There is already perfectly adequate legislation to deal with public order, safety and noise. There are exemptions for live music and other activities where additional entertainment licensing, contained in the Licensing Act 2003 is not required. So it cannot be argued that the other existing legislation is ineffective, as it is this that is already protecting the public from any concerns that may arise from these. If these were thought to be inadequate - the LGA group lobby and the police would be lobbying for all exemptions to be removed. They may yet ask for this and possibly for licensing officers to be armed...... |
|
09 Nov 10 - 09:41 AM (#3027557) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/letters/letters_more_views_on_the_planners_and_mama_liz_s_1_674862 The following from John King: Letters from local residents to the Rutland & Stamford Mercury in support of Mama Liz's, where South Kesteven Council banned music and comedy in April. Not because of any speculative objections about noise, but appa...rently because of planning regulations. |
|
10 Nov 10 - 05:14 AM (#3028164) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles From Equity's Magazine Autumn 2010 (not available online): 'Assistant General Secretary Stephen Spence and Louise McMullan met with John Penrose MP, minister for tourism, on 20 September. The minister, who has responsibility for the Licensing Act, was keen to open up a channel of communication with the union and was ve...ry receptive to Equity's arguments concerning the 'regulated entertainment' provisions of the Licensing Act. He stated that he was committed to working with us to find a solution to the issues faced by our members that can also accommodate the concerns of local authorities. John King comments: This is a pity. It is not possible to accommodate the 'concerns' of the LGA. The LGA misled their own members and the press with a bogus survey of 'licensing chiefs', and published false statistics about live music licensing. Their concerns are for their own interests only and are not relevant when the issue is the fair enforcement of delegated legislation. The LGA Group lobby must be seen to enforce fairly, all of its responsibilties under the Licensing Act 2003. It is now clear that this is not the case and that this approach is actually the cause of the issues faced by Equity's members. As demonstrated in many of the examples in this thread, there are many instances where they have been prepared to be seen to sacrifice one licensable activty in order to enable another. This is evidence, not of this lobby protecting the public but of using the legislation to illegally discriminate against the interests of live music and other cultural activities. |
|
11 Nov 10 - 02:47 AM (#3029022) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/time-pub-noise-row/article-2860566-detail/article.html The Travelodge -v- The Brown Jug saga. A DISPUTE between a pub and a hotel over live music will not be resolved until February. Hotel giant Travelodge had asked Newcastle Borough Council's licensing sub-committee to review the Old Brown Jug's licence after it claimed noise from the Newcastle pub was stopping its guests getting to sleep. Travelodge made the complaint just three weeks after it opened its £3 million 82-bedroom hotel on the Georgia Pacific site in June. But a licensing meeting yesterday heard Travelodge had asked for the matter to be adjourned to give it more time to collect information. |
|
11 Nov 10 - 03:49 AM (#3029054) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.threerivers.gov.uk/GetResource.aspx?file=10+10+13+LI+i+-+%2805%29+noise+complaints+from+licensed+premises.doc John King comments: Councillors at Three Rivers District Coucil are trying to find out from their Licensing Dept why only 17% of all premises in the area are authorised for live music. TRDC Licensing Officers reveal how a... co...mbination of the Licensing Act 2003 and Environmental Protection Act 1990 result in a zero-tolerance of live music. The licensed premises noise complaint flow chart in Appendix 1, shows how a premises licence review can be triggered by one complaint, even 'if no noise nuisance is witnessed'. Premises can expect anything from a complete ban on live music to prohibitive restrictions, such as a ban on amplification, requirements for SIA registered doorstaff to regulate gigs, restrictions on the number of musicians, and so on. Most premises give up hosting live music at this point. One more complaint can result in a heavy fine - even without evidence. Not only is the licence holder punished, but the premises itself will not be able to put on music in the future. In many cases even unamplified live music is banned, while recorded music and broadcast sporting events are allowed. And we have other examples where additional Entertainment licensing permission is paid for and granted but is prevented as Planning permission is not granted. The net result of all this duplication of legislation and effort is an Amozonian jugle of red tape in which live music is very shortly going to be a thing of the past. A small venues exemption may help (if it ever arrives) but it is time for a total re-think of way to rescue live music from the 'vandals'. |
|
11 Nov 10 - 03:52 AM (#3029056) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This bit was me and not John King. And we have other examples where additional Entertainment licensing permission is paid for and granted but is prevented as Planning permission is not granted. The net result of all this duplication of legislation and effort is an Amazonian jugle of red tape in which live music is very shortly going to be a thing of the past. A small venues exemption may help (if it ever arrives) but it is time for a total re-think of way to rescue live music from the 'vandals'. |
|
16 Nov 10 - 04:03 AM (#3033252) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2010/11/15/coventry-cafe-applies-for-late-night-music-licence-92746-27661710 John King comments: Costa Coffee applies for authorisation for live music on Sundays only and until 7pm. Any takers for bets on the number of objections, or the conditions imposed by Coventry Council? As it is from 9am to 7pm - I am not too sure how the headline writers came up with 'late night'? Unless of course they intentionally wish to stir things up...? |
|
17 Nov 10 - 04:42 AM (#3034137) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Hotel-given-live-music-ban-complaints/article-2903684-detail/article.html I am puzzled as why the noise limiting devices that are required to be used so that recorded and DJs can continue to take place, cannot also be used to enable live music............ |
|
18 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM (#3035240) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Coalition plans to cut red tape for live music have been postponed. Hints of the reasons why appear in recent correspondence between licensing minister John Penrose and Phil Little of the original Live Music Forum about the entertainment licence exemption for small gigs, a solution backed by the music industry, performers unions, and the All Party Culture, Media and Sport Committee. In a letter dated 5th November, the minister wrote: 'I promise I haven't given up or simply "parked" the issue but finding an answer which solves the problems without opening unwanted public safety loopholes elsewhere isn't easy.' And on 17th November: '...I am aware of the points you raise and will bear them in mind as I develop the policy which will, as you know, need to be agreed across Government before I can make any announcement.' (See www.livemusicforum.co.uk click on 'Documents'). But this is very strange. Public safety arguments against a small gigs exemption faded from the Parliamentary licensing debate some time ago, partly because of a greater understanding about the scope of existing safety legislation, and partly because of new fire safety legislation that came into force in 2006 (Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005). And only a few months ago the minister was talking optimistically in Parliament about a 'radical solution'. See Hansard, 21 June 2010: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100621/debtext/100621-0001.htm At that time, the word on the music industry grapevine was that Penrose was poised to agree an historic live music exemption with the Local Government Association, following intensive talks. So what has gone wrong, and why is he now resurrecting public safety concerns about live music? In an attempt to find out, Lord Clement-Jones has this week tabled a written question (search on the page for 'Clement'): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/minutes/101116/ldordpap.htm#qwa Penrose's reference to agreement 'across Government' probably means that the Home Office and Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) are making trouble behind the scenes. A reliable Parliamentary source claims that Home Office licensing mandarins believe that Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, which would implement a 200-audience gig exemption, 'drives a coach and horses' through the Licensing Act. If this claim is true, it would mean that ignorance and prejudice are once again in the ascendant. The exemption debate will be set back by years rather than months. It would seem that the best hope for an entertainment licensing exemption now rests with Lord Clement-Jones' bill, backed by the whole music industry. A second reading is due early next year. Text of the bill: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/012/11012.1-i.html ENDS |
|
18 Nov 10 - 12:50 PM (#3035257) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles If there really are any public safety or any other concerns over the exemption which the previous Govt proposed (even if this was only based on less than 100 people rather than 200) - then these concerns are also real for all the Act's many existing exemptions. The Tories and Lib Dems supported the proposal when in opposition but now they are in power, are this Govt proposing to scrap the existing exempions? For if the other existing legislation is not adequate to protect the public on the proposed small events exemption then it must also be inadquate for all the others. |
|
19 Nov 10 - 05:23 AM (#3035789) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/minutes/101116/ldordpap.htm#qwa Lord Clement-Jones to ask Her Majesty's Government what risks to public safety or public amenity arise from the performance of live music in workplaces that are not adequately covered by existing public safety and nuisance legislation, irrespective of licensing. HL4100 To be 'answered' on 26 November 2010. |
|
20 Nov 10 - 06:28 AM (#3036576) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000528/2010/11/19/Culture+Minister+updates+Live+Music+Forum+on+licensing+proposa John King Comments: Do turkeys vote for Christmas? Institute of Licensing publish the latest campaign bulletin (omitting the arguments about existing safety legislation covering live music performances) Yes, it would be nice to have a little honesty shown by this lobby. The Act's existing exemptions already have largely driven a coach and horses through the entertainment licensing aspects of the Licensing Act 2003. It is dishonest for this body, the LGA Group lobby and the Govt to pretend that it is necessary to continue to duplicate other existing legislation in the Licensing Act. This over-regulation just continues, for no good reason, to strangle the life out of live music in particular - whilst most everything else is either already exempted or not licensable in the first place. This course of action (i.e. exemptions) is only possible because of the other legislation which is already in place and judged to be adequate (without any measures contained in the Licensing Act 2003 to deal with any real concerns which may emanate from the long list of activities which are already exempted from the Licensing Act's measures. Although it is easy to understand why the LGA Group lobby would like to hang on to something for thir members to licence - it is very unfair for those concerned with the remaining activity to be singled-out for the red-tape of outdated and expensive duplication, that is now additional entertainment licensing. Perhaps the LGA Group lobby etc. would tell us what exactly is the concern for the public that the proposed exemption would expose us to - that is not presented (and already dealt with by other existing legislation) by all of the Act's existing exemptions? |
|
21 Nov 10 - 06:34 AM (#3037262) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/local-news/noisy_pub_to_open_again_after_closure_1_1665291 The spokesperson said the pub would become a "family friendly pub' with 'traditional values". It was decided by councillors at August's meeting that when the pub reopens it will not be able to use the outside decked area for licensable activities and will only be allowed to play background music instead of the live music license it previously held. John King comments: It appears that ONE complaint about noise from a pub has led to the council suspending the premises licence - with of course more job losses Of course one of the 'family friendly' and 'traditional' values in our pubs, has been the customers making various forms of live music for their own enjoyment. Sadly, the licensing authority has ensured no non-amplified live music will be taking place here in the future. This as a response to noise concerns (seemingly from one complaining neighbour. However, the 'traditional' practice of amplified recorded (background) music is set to continue................ |
|
23 Nov 10 - 02:39 AM (#3038468) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/22/petitions-website-shelved E-petitions website shelved The infamous site launched by the previous government is under review, according to Whitehall. |
|
24 Nov 10 - 08:18 PM (#3039960) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=68501&c=1 Rumour is rife on what government proposals will cover Operators and practitioners alike are still anxiously awaiting the publication by the government of its proposals for licensing reform, following the consultation which closed on September 8. Something that was so rushed at the outset now seems to be a long time coming. In the meantime, our snouts tell us the following are likely to feature: |
|
24 Nov 10 - 08:46 PM (#3039969) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://beaconsfield.buckinghamshireadvertiser.co.uk/2010/11/garden-centre-applies-for-7-da.html Residents are concerned about what the centre has planned and the town council is has objected to the application which will be decided by South Bucks District Council. The former Wyevale garden centre on London Road has applied for permission to supply alcohol between 8am and 9.30pm seven days a week, and to play live and recorded music in during the same hours. Councillor Alan Wilson, who lives in Tilsworth Road on the Wattleton Estate near the site, said: "The live music could be a public nuisance, the attraction of extra traffic could be against public safety and we should object to the sale of alcohol to protect children from harm." Martin Andrews, regional manager for Beaconsfield Garden Centre, said the store may be holding promotional evenings for the sale of wines, local beers and ciders. Shoppers would be entertained with live music such as jazz or carol singing. However no alcohol would be consumed on the premises. He added: "The centre normally closes at 6pm and if we do host an event or promotional evening we will never extend to opening later than 8pm." When premises have to go through this process, even to stage something like this - it raises fears that are often unfounded but starts a process where complaints make a successful outcome very unlikely. This is why, places that are already made safe for the public) should not be subject to additional entertainment licensing. The whole thing is further complicated when it is the same licence required for alcohol. Whoever played any part in permanently associating alcohol and entertainment in one licence, a move which enabled council employed vandals to use it as a bargaining tool and to strangle it in red-tape, as in the Licensing Act 2003, has dealt one live music a blow that it is unlikely to recover from. And the current Govt is equally to blame in making knee-jerk proposals to deal with alcohol, which make no mention of live music - as if there was still a licence which dealt exclusivly with alcohol............. |
|
24 Nov 10 - 09:01 PM (#3039971) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich_pub_in_danger_of_losing_its_licence_1_728038 The Edith Cavell pub in Norwich's historic Tombland area is to undergo a review of its premises licence by Norwich City Council's licensing team. Another instance highlighting the problems of the use of the Licesing Act to deal with noise concerns. Having obtained additional entertainment licensing the premises should reasonably expect to able to supply it. Again, the only way the same council can find there to be a noise concern from the activity they provided permission for, is to try and find a way to contend that the premises are at fault for not following whatever conditions which were imposed as part of the Premises Licence. For if the premises are following these conditions - then there cannot be a noise concern. For it is not possible for a council's licensing section to give permission for excessive noise. |
|
25 Nov 10 - 12:48 PM (#3040324) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/nov/lantern-england's-lane-new-restaurant-battle-live-music THE couple behind a new restaurant will learn tonight (Thursday) if their bid to serve alcohol and host live music will be given the go-ahead after strong protests from neighbours. Yolandie and Clifford Harrop opened European-style venue Lantern, in England's Lane, Belsize Park, on Friday. After living in Parkhill Road for five years, they say their dream is for a "community" restaurant open to "man, child and beast". The couple say they would like to have classical acoustic guitar performers to entertain customers "every so often". |
|
29 Nov 10 - 10:28 AM (#3042762) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.fulhamchronicle.co.uk/fulham-and-hammersmith-news/local-fulham-and-hammersmith-news/2010/11/26/residents-win-battle-t The following from John King: Hammersmith and Fulham Council limit live music, plays & dancing to four events a year in Furnivall Gardens. |
|
29 Nov 10 - 10:40 AM (#3042772) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Licence-threat-to-town-bar.6639855.jp A POPULAR night spot could have its licence revoked after complaints by police and businesses about the level of music blasting out from the premises. Environmental health officers at Hartlepool Borough Council claim The Office, in Church Street, has continued to breach the conditions of its premises licence. A premises without addtional entertainment licensing, which was presenting the problems claimed here - would be said to require and have to pay to obtain this to protect the public from noise. But cases like this show that using this process to address noise, is a complete waste of time and money. For every time noise complaints are made to premises which have this permission, the same local council which granted permission will now claim that the premises are in breach of the licensing conditions. |
|
01 Dec 10 - 02:42 AM (#3044051) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-29a.410.6&s=speaker%253A13517#g410.7 An answer: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat) To ask Her Majesty's Government what risks to public safety or public amenity arise from the performance of live music in workplaces that are not a...dequately covered by existing public safety and nuisance legislation, irrespective of licensing. Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat) The Government believe that, in the light of specific health and safety and fire and noise legislation to address public safety and public nuisance, it is not always necessary or proportionate to require the additional layer of regulation through the licensing regime. This is part of our current thinking about how best to deliver the coalition commitment to remove red tape from live music and other entertainment. However, before finalising any proposals, it is important to test these assumptions with relevant stakeholders, and that is what we are doing ahead of announcing our preferred solution. It is not an assumption that needs any more testing. The simple and plain fact is that if none of the other existing legislation were adequate to protect the public - then the Act's existing exemptions would also have been placing the public at risk since the Act's introduction. |
|
01 Dec 10 - 02:48 AM (#3044058) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-29a.26129.h Bob Neill (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government; Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative) The Department for Communities and Local Government believes that community pubs are important local assets and they, along with other institutions such as village shops and community centres, play an important role in strengthening community relationships and encouraging wider social action. The Department is currently undertaking a range of actions to support the sector. As part of our determination to shift power to local neighbourhoods, we aim to ensure through the Localism Bill that community organisations have a fair chance to bid to take over assets and facilities that are important to them, including local pubs. As part of this, we are working with Co-operatives UK to pilot the use of community shares as a means to develop community finance. A number of community-owned pubs have already used community share issues to develop their business. The Department is currently considering proposals under the Sustainable Communities Act to prohibit the imposition of restrictive covenants on pubs when they are sold. We intend to make an announcement about this later in the year. We are also committed to helping firms with business rates: simplifying the process and making small business rate relief automatic; introducing a more generous small business rate relief scheme for a year from October; and considering proposals to give councils powers to levy discretionary business rate discounts-which could, for example, be used to support local pubs. Support for public houses remains a cross-Government issue and we will continue to work closely with colleagues across Whitehall to champion the place of local pubs as the social heartbeat of life in our towns and villages. The Government are also to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price, helping protect local pubs from unfair "loss leading" by some shops. Licensing rules will be reformed to make it easier to play live music in local pubs, and the Government have already scrapped the planned 10% rise in cider duties (the so-called cider tax). |
|
01 Dec 10 - 02:57 AM (#3044060) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2003-03-24.51.0 Our current Prime Minister seemed to care in 2003: Mr David Cameron (Witney, Conservative) I apologise to the right hon. Lady for missing the start of her speech, but she has now reached the part of the Bill about which I care a great deal. Is she aware that the morris dancers at Bampton in my constituency have been dancing in the pubs there for 600 years—without a break, as they tell me? The Secretary of State says that it will be easier to get an entertainment licence. Is she aware that, because the dancers have only two musicians accompanying them, they have never had to have a licence before, but that in future they will have to have one? That is going to cost the pubs a lot of money and time. Is it really necessary? Of course an exemption was subsequently introduced: Can his Govt now contend that the public have been placed at risk by this exemption but would be by a small venues exemption or any other move that will free live music from our council employed vandals? |
|
01 Dec 10 - 08:21 AM (#3044083) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000544/2010/12/01/Police+Reform+and+Social+Responsibility+Bill.html Interesting that 70% of the cost of introducing police Comissioners will come from the levy on premises operating between midnight and 6 am. For this knee-jerk reaction against late night drinking - the Govt must be hoping that late night drinking will continue. For if these premises are not willing to open and pay - this 70% of the costs will have to be found eleswhere. |
|
01 Dec 10 - 08:29 AM (#3044089) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/116/11116.pdf John King comments: The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill is here, and it's not good news for live music. It will allow Local Authorities to object to TENs. And it clamps down on TENs being used to bypass licence conditions. This would prevent pubs from u...sing TENs to get round restrictions on the number of musicians allowed to perform. Looking on the bright side - should the proposed exemption ever surface - most live music would no longer require a TEN. |
|
01 Dec 10 - 05:30 PM (#3044479) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/late-drinking-set-to-be-cut-by-new-charge-2148532.html The new measures will also give power to communities to end 24-hour drinking in their area. Licensing authorities will be able to make an early morning alcohol restriction order, effectively banning premises from selling alcohol during set times - such as between midnight and 6am. We see the return of the cash-cow. Seems to me to reflect the very worst thinking of this Govt. If the industry is to continue with something which is thought to present a problem and to make money out of late night alcohol - the Govt and the LGA Group lobby will happly ensure that they take their cut of this revenue. But if the measure succeeds in what appears to be its objective, in stopping premises opening from midnight to 6am, there will be no resulting revenue to fund this scheme and to pay for the introduction, elsewhere in this Bill, of police Comissioners. If the objective is really to stop premises serving alcohol from midnight to 6am - then why not stop issuing any licenses for this period? |
|
01 Dec 10 - 06:00 PM (#3044493) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Noisy-bar-given-time-to.6644789.jp LICENSING chiefs have given the owners of a popular nightspot more time to sort out problems with the level of music blasting out from the premises. Owners of The Office, in Hartlepool's Church Street, could have had their premises licence revoked after claims they continued to breach the conditions. Difficult to see how the premises can be accused of not following conditions which were not part of their licence and which are only now to form part of that licence. |
|
01 Dec 10 - 06:09 PM (#3044500) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-30a.27235.h&s=%22live+music%22#g27235.q0 Mike Weatherley (Hove, Conservative) To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what plans he has to reduce the (a) regulatory and (b) administrative burden on organisers of live music performances. John Penrose (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport; Weston-Super-Mare, Conservative) We are currently considering how to deliver the coalition commitment to cut red tape and encourage the performance of more live music, while ensuring that there is appropriate protection for local communities. We will continue to have discussions with representatives from the music industry, the Local Government Association and others so that we can find the best possible solution. |
|
01 Dec 10 - 08:13 PM (#3044554) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Leadfingers Waffling around Acoustic Sessions , as always !! And 800 |
|
02 Dec 10 - 05:21 AM (#3044734) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The more we write and pester our MPs, the less likely it will be that this Govt will continue to be able just waffle..... When they are actually making things worse, they should certainly not be able to continue with waffle like this, from the Pubs minister - until they actually make a firm proposal as to what they intend to do, to make it easier to enable live music in our pubs (and elsewhere). Licensing rules will be reformed to make it easier to play live music in local pubs, and the Government have already scrapped the planned 10% rise in cider duties (the so-called cider tax). As there remains only one licence - what has actually been proposed by the Home Office is to increase the red tape involved in making live music in pubs and elswhere. For until the provision live music is removed from the requirement for a Premises Licence - any measure to deal with alcohol concerns - can currently only also apply to all live music (whether alcohol is being served or not). We have the previous Govt to thank for linking together in a Premises Licence, the known benefits of live music forever with the known problems of alcohol. We have our local authorities to thank for seeing their role to prevent or limit one form of licensing activity (live music) to enable another (alcohol). But we have the present Govt to thank for saying all the right things but not actually doing anything but to continue to watch as council employed vandals are allowed to strangle live music - often for no other reason than they have been given the power to do this and do not seem to be accountable to anyone for the resulting mess. In practice, this is a seemingly unaccountable power that urgently needs to be taken away from those who have demonstrated time and again that this in an area that they do not understand, are not equipped to deal with and which they can only be trusted to treat as if live music had no benefits to society. Any problems associated with live music are already dealt with by other existing legislation. When there was not other legislation - there may have be a case for additional entertainment licensing. Like the stabilising wheels on a child's bicycle, there comes a time when such measures have outlived their useful function and can only hamper forward progress. The LGA Group lobby have discredited themselves in maintaining that this expensive duplication of existing legislation is the only way the public can be protected. The current Govt are further discredited if they continue to treat the claims of LGA Group lobby as if these were really based on a concern for the public and were something more than a powerful lobby just trying to look after their own vested interests. Make all premises safe for the public by all means - but please do not continue the pretence that the mere provision of any form of live music requires any more to protect the public's interests, than what has already been provided in Planning, Health and Safety, Environmental and other existing legislation. This other legislation must be thought able to deal with any problems which may arise from the live music that is already exempted so it is not credible to claim (as the LGA Group lobby do) that any future exemption cannot also be dealt with in the same way. |
|
02 Dec 10 - 05:37 AM (#3044741) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/facebook_page_calls_for_return_of_live_music_at_norwich_club_1_742054 John King coments: It doesn't matter how many people support live music at a venue. One complaint is still enough to get it stopped. |
|
04 Dec 10 - 07:12 AM (#3046128) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall A Coalition bill published on 30 November would make it a potential criminal offence to play a musical instrument, listen to a radio or even use a mobile phone in Parliament Square Garden, without a special permit. The maximum penalty would be a £5000 fine. The measures, which include a ban on tents, are intended to tighten control over public demonstrations in the Square. See Part 3 of the wide-ranging Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (starting from page 103 of the PDF file): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/116/11116.pdf See also the Home Office summary: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/legislation/police-reform-bill/ Parliament Square Garden is situated within Parliament Square, on the west side of the Houses of Parliament. Peace campaigner Brian Haw has been camped there since 2001. Ministers suggested last month that they wanted to clear the area in time for the royal wedding in Westminster Abbey, which is on the south side of the Square. The bill defines 'amplified noise equipment' in paragraph 141(4): '... any device that is designed or adapted for amplifying sound, including (but not limited to) - (a) loudspeakers, and (b) loudhailers.' This covers many musical instruments, iPods, radios, mobile phones and even hearing aids. Their unlicensed use would be a 'prohibited activity' if a police constable or other 'authorised officer' believes that people in the vicinity 'can hear or are likely to be able to hear' them (see paras 141(2)(a) and 142(5)). iPods or hearing aids may be unlikely candidates, but instruments and mobile phone ring tones would certainly be audible. The bill makes many significant changes to the Licensing Act, most of which are intended to tackle alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, including measures to allow local authorities to attach conditions to Temporary Events Notices. But inevitably this would lead to an increase in the daft conditions for live music so beloved of local authorities, like St Albans whose licence conditions include restrictions on the number of performers and musical genres: http://www.musictank.co.uk/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council ENDS |
|
05 Dec 10 - 07:55 AM (#3046796) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST This from The Shambles http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768 Not sure how this can be reported as this resaurant winnging anything but the following demonstrates clearly why all live music must be taken out of the hands of council employed vandals. They are not only ignoring (because it suits them) the Act's exemption for incidental live music but also their own body's latest Guidance issued in 22 November 2009. (See above link). http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/dec/restaurant-wins-music-battle |
|
05 Dec 10 - 08:42 AM (#3046809) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768 The following from the above: Some examples to illustrate the difference between "incidental music" and music that generally would require a licence (NB this is NOT an exhaustive list) Pub with pianist (or other single instrument playing background music Restaurant/bistro with duo/trio providing background music for dining Pub/restaurant/bistro/café has band playing quiet music – main activity is drinking/eating/talking What can be done when councils like this one not only ignore the legislation (because it suits them) but also ignore their own body's (LACORS) guidance on interpretaion. And what of the other parties (like the MU) who have agreed with LACORS to produce this Guidance? Are they happy just to do nothing and watch whilst councils ignore their jointly agreed interpretations and coninue to trample over live music - for no other reason than they can and are seemingly being allowed to......? |
|
06 Dec 10 - 09:57 AM (#3047415) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall A small restaurant has just won permission from Camden council to provide an unamplified live guitarist or harpist until 10pm: http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/dec/restaurant-wins-music-battle But wait a moment. Why should provision of such innocuous live music be made a criminal offence unless licensed? Isn't it just the sort of music that qualifies for the Licensing Act's 'incidental music' exemption? Indeed it is, according to both local and central government guidance: 'The music is incidental if it is NOT the primary purpose for attending the premises i.e. the performer is there whilst the public are engaged in another (non-regulated entertainment) activity and that other activity would still take place even if there was no music playing. The public must be allowed to talk during the performance of incidental music i.e. there should be no expectation to listen or to watch (even if the public spontaneously sing along with the music).' 'Advice for licensing authorities about incidental music', LACORS, September 2009: http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768 (click on the 'incidental music' link in the third paragraph) The government's own statutory licensing guidance is broadly the same. The exemption should apply if the music is not the main attraction and the volume 'does not predominate over other activities': http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/alcohol/guidance-section-182-licensing?view=Binary ('Licensing Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003', p31, para 3.22) So why is Camden apparently ignoring official guidance? Did they explain the incidental music exemption to the licence applicants? There is no mention of the exemption in the press reports. Perhaps the council is encouraged to over-regulate by Coalition havering over the small gigs exemption. And recent Ministers' replies to Parliamentary Questions on the subject have been somewhat ambiguous. On 29th November, the evocatively named Baroness Garden of Frognal answered Tim Clement-Jones' question about the rationale for entertainment licensing: '... what risks to public safety or public amenity arise from the performance of live music in workplaces that are not adequately covered by existing public safety and nuisance legislation, irrespective of licensing.' [HL4100] The Baroness replied: 'The Government believe that, in the light of specific health and safety and fire and noise legislation to address public safety and public nuisance, it is not always necessary or proportionate to require the additional layer of regulation through the licensing regime. This is part of our current thinking about how best to deliver the coalition commitment to remove red tape from live music and other entertainment. However, before finalising any proposals, it is important to test these assumptions with relevant stakeholders, and that is what we are doing ahead of announcing our preferred solution.' See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101129w0001.htm#column_WA410 Congratulations to the wiley civil servant who penned that reply. It gives something to both sides. Those against new exemptions can use it to justify their position (e.g. the Act's existing exemptions are adequate); those for reform can take it as a hint that more exemptions are being seriously considered. But on 30th November, an answer from licensing minister John Penrose suggested that the government is sliding back into jobsworth jargon: Mike Weatherley (Hove, Conservative): 'To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what plans he has to reduce the (a) regulatory and (b) administrative burden on organisers of live music performances. Penrose: 'We are currently considering how to deliver the coalition commitment to cut red tape and encourage the performance of more live music, while ensuring that there is appropriate protection for local communities. We will continue to have discussions with representatives from the music industry, the Local Government Association and others so that we can find the best possible solution.' http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/bydate/20101130/writtenanswers/part021.html [search on page for 'Weatherley'] That there is adequate public protection from small gigs, irrespective of entertainment licensing, should be obvious. How else could big screen sport be exempt in bars or indeed anywhere else. Consider the riot in Manchester city centre on 14 May 2008 during a big screen broadcast of the UEFA Cup final: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1049714_battle_of_piccadilly When asked whether they would review the broadcast entertainment exemption in light of the Manchester riot, the government said 'no'. See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80603w0003.htm#080603100000499 ENDS |
|
07 Dec 10 - 03:35 AM (#3047943) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.philmellows.com/ The Politics of Drinking......and more: Interesting reading but which can only highlight the folly of the last Govt in linking permission for live music and alcohol in one licence. A situation the current Govt only make worse.............. |
|
07 Dec 10 - 04:46 AM (#3047959) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles A solution to the problems for live music in pubs and other places where either a Premises Licence is in place or where the public interests are already taken care of (like schools and hospitals)- would be for a simple definition of what is incidental live music, to be inserted into the Act. Something like................ Where live music is not the Primary activity - the live music is incidental and therefore exempt: Then all the embarrassing and unworkable rubbish in the LACORS Guidance about how the chairs are arranged and how adverts are worded - can be stuffed back where the sun don't shine. ...Or is this too simple? How can any exemption be expected to work when the Act does not contain a definition of what is to be exempted? |
|
07 Dec 10 - 05:18 AM (#3047968) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The LGA Group lobby can hardly oppose this definition as they have already agreed and produced the following - The music is incidental if it is NOT the primary purpose for attending the premises i.e. the performer is there whilst the public are engaged in another (non-regulated entertainment) activity and that other activity would still take place even if there was no music playing. http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=22768 Their wording means that they are agreeing that it can only be incidental live music when this is part of a non-licensable activity. This is a rather strange position, which would mean of course that there would be no protection provided to the public in the form of additional entertainment licnesing. Quite where this would be taking place is not clear and nor is the reason why they would be in agreement with a position so alien to their concerns for the public. Can they really be seen to argue that in venues where a premises licence was already in place and ensured the public's interests for the serving of alcohol, that the introduction of live music to these premises could not also be defined and exempt as incidental? Or that in places where the public's interests were already taken care of by other exsisting legislation (like cafes, schools, shops, hospitals etc)- that the introduction of live music to these premises could not also be defined and exempt as incidental? The LGA Group lobby are also supporting a position where a Glastonbury-size festival for a "non-regulated entertainment" like stand-up comedy (even when live music formed a part of this) could be staged without any of the measures in the Licensing Act 2003, which they claim to be nessessary - on the same site for a similar but exclusivly live music festival. |
|
07 Dec 10 - 05:28 AM (#3047973) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/12/the_myths_of_24-hour_drinking.html Tony Blair's text pledge to students at the 2001 election - "cdnt give a xxxx 4 lst ordrs? vote labour on thrsdy 4 xtra time" - translated into one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented pieces of legislation ever passed. To many people, the Licensing Act 2003 was either about the madness of introducing 24-hour drinking or the futility of trying to create a continental cafe culture in England and Wales. |
|
07 Dec 10 - 11:55 AM (#3048149) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.havant.gov.uk/havant-4236 John King comments: Havant Council like to go several nanny-state steps beyond their powers under the Licensing Act. Even if a premises does have authorisation for live music, their website warns: 'It is advisable that no regulated entertainment is carried out in outside areas in the evenings without prior consultation with the licensing authority.' It is OK to consume alcohol in outside areas without consultation with the licensing authority but not antyhing already licensed as regulated entertainment. If the concern here is a potential noise concern - there is only one way to estabilish this and if the already regulated entertainment should subsequently prove to be a noise concern - it is then a matter to be dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act. |
|
08 Dec 10 - 07:25 AM (#3048694) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.medianation.co.uk.preview.exa.net.uk/content/newsdetail/135/// Live Music - Boom or gloom? |
|
08 Dec 10 - 01:03 PM (#3048945) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall In moving from visual to sound art, lawyers agree that this year's Turner Prize winning entry has unwittingly become a licensable entertainment - but Tate Britain's galleries are not licensed under the Licensing Act 2003 for the playing of recorded music. This plan of Tate Britain shows the areas outside the gallery space where Westminster City Council allows 'licensable activities' (within the red lines): http://tinyurl.com/2cu739c 'All art constantly aspires to the condition of music', wrote Walter Pater, the distinguished 19th century essayist and critic, in his 1877 essay 'The School of Giorgione'. No doubt he would be surprised just how literally his observation has been realised by this year's Turner Prize winner, Susan Philipsz. Her installation consists of a recording of her singing a traditional folk song, 'Lowlands Away', played through two loudspeakers in the Tate Britain Turner Prize exhibition gallery. See Daily Telegraph news video: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/turner-prize/8185380/Susan-Philipsz-wins-Turner-Prize-for-folk-song.html 'Lowlands' can still be heard in folk clubs across the country. The artist explains in her interview: '... the song is about a sailor who appears in a dream to their loved one... to say a final farewell' [there are different sets of lyrics - see this folk discussion group: http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=123027 ] The problem is that the recording falls within the description of entertainment in the Licensing Act 2003, Sch.1 para 2(1)(f): '... any playing of recorded music... where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience.' Within the Act '"Music" includes vocal or instrumental music or any combination of the two.' (LA2003, Sch.1 para 18). It might be argued that this playing of recorded music is not entertainment. But that is problematic, and would have wide implications. If adopted it would mean that many very similar examples of the otherwise licensable playing of recorded music, in cafes and bars for example, could with equal justification be described as art installations, and thereby exempt. Many musicians (working in jazz and classical music particularly) could reasonably argue that the purpose of their performances is entirely artistic expression, not entertainment, and therefore not licensable as regulated entertainment under the Act. It is in any case difficult to argue with conviction that such art installations have no intention whatever to entertain (an Oxford English Dictionary definition is 'to occupy agreeably'). The Act is worded so that however subordinate entertainment may be to the main purpose, it is nonetheless caught. It might be argued that there is no audience as such. People wander through; some may sit and listen. But spectators are of course explicitly included within the meaning of the word 'audience' (Sch.1 para 2(2)). The installation is not a film, so cannot benefit from the Act's exemption for films shown in museums or galleries by way of an exhibit (LA2003, Sch.1, para 6). It cannot qualify for the 'incidental music' exemption (LA2003, Sch.1, para 7) because the recorded singing is the focus of the installation and as the winner of the Turner Prize it is now a featured exhibition: http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/turnerprize2010/prize/announce.shtm As it has now been very widely publicised thousands of people will come specifically to hear and view it. Being the main reason for people attending is one of the key reasons that incidental music exemption would not apply. See the government's statutory Licensing Guidance ('Guidance issued under s182 of the Licensing Act 2003', p31, paras 3.20-3.22): http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/alcohol/guidance-section-182-licensing?view=Binary Lastly, the installation recording meets the necessary licensing conditions: a) it is public for the purposes of the Act (Sch.1, para 1(2)(a)); and b) the gallery has been made available to enable the entertainment to take place (Sch.1, para 1(3)). Does this mean that Tate Britain is breaking the law? Only the courts can put that beyond doubt, and whether the courts will have an opportunity to rule on the matter depends on whether or not Westminster City Council issues proceedings. But independent lawyers Simon Mehigan, a leading licensing QC, Robin Bynoe (solicitor, senior counsel at Charles Russell) and Richard Bridge (solicitor, partner at King Prior MacDonald Bridge) have considered the entertainment licensing implications of the Susan Philipsz installation, and all agree that it is regulated entertainment for the purposes of the Licensing Act 2003. ENDS |
|
09 Dec 10 - 05:51 AM (#3049456) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldordpap.htm Question in the House of Lords re 'Lowlands Away' from Lord Colwyn: 'to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the entertainment licensing implications of the Susan Phillips Turner Prize winning installation, Lowlands Away", at Tate Britain where the galleries are not licensed under the Licensing Act 2003 to play recorded music.' HL5087 |
|
09 Dec 10 - 06:07 AM (#3049470) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=68603&c=1 As Parliament debates the governments plans to shake up the licensing system, we look at what could be in store for the industry. |
|
09 Dec 10 - 12:35 PM (#3049740) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall For some reason two key links in my Turner Prize licensing piece yesterday are not working today. Here are updated versions as Tiny URLs: Daily Telegraph coverage, including video of the Turner Prize winner's sound installation: http://tinyurl.com/39dph26 Tate Britain Turner Prize exhibition info page: http://tinyurl.com/2whxezo Note that entry to the Turner Prize exhibition is ticket only (£8, or £6 concessions). ENDS |
|
10 Dec 10 - 11:15 AM (#3050399) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/89222?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n A local authority has been ordered to pay record costs of almost £25,000 after wrongly revoking the licence of a Welsh nightclub. |
|
10 Dec 10 - 11:53 AM (#3050423) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2010-12-09a.143.0 The following from John King: Transcript of yesterday's Westminster Hall debate on the future of pubs. Contributions from Coalition MPs Therese Coffey, Mike Weatherley, Greg Knight, Jane Ellison, Dan Rogerson on live music licensing. From Mike Weatherley's speech: 'The Government have an important role to play in removing unnecessary regulation. The previous Government brought in the Licensing Act 2003, along with a big promise that live music would flourish as a result of the change in the law. In truth, the Act has made it difficult, costly and administratively time-consuming to make live music a part of the licence for premises whose main business is not to provide music. The 2003 Act had four fundamental objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the protection of children from harm; and the prevention of public nuisance. None of the primary objectives, and in particular the objective on crime and disorder, has ever been substantiated as a concern with regard to live music. Furthermore, there is no evidence that high levels of background music-live or otherwise-in pubs and bars can lead to customers drinking faster or being disorderly.' |
|
10 Dec 10 - 12:32 PM (#3050445) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Cove House Inn's trad tunes session is now 10ys old! Any celebrations are on hold until Council no longer insist that it is a performance of licensable Regulated Entertainment which cannot benefit from any of the Act's exemptions and recognise it as the valuable cultural activity that is undoubtably is. |
|
10 Dec 10 - 01:37 PM (#3050487) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/sop/2010/101209/09/#fn003-back John King comments: The Form 696 team [of the Metropolitan Police] has a vehicle called Scarlet 100, 'crewed by experts in licensing legislation who are able to provide immediate support to borough Duty Officers'. The Proactive Licensing Team supports boroughs in tackling violence in problematic and high risk licensed premises, working with partners such as the Security Industry Authority (SIA), London Ambulance Service (LAS), and borough licensing teams. The unit offers a range of tactical solutions including carrying out covert and overt licensing visits, implementing action plans and assisting with applications for closure orders. The unit also offers a fast time solution to critical incidents occurring in licensed premises in the form of 'Scarlet 100', a vehicle crewed by experts in licensing legislation who are able to provide immediate support to borough Duty Officers. This particular tactic has been a key contributor in tackling gun crime in the nighttime economy. |
|
10 Dec 10 - 02:41 PM (#3050527) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/local/frustrated_after_appeal_dismissed_1_1810290 John King Comments: South Kesteven Council ban live music at Mama Liz's from 3 Jan. The venue was previously fined £2000 following a noise complaint from ONE neighbour. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 11:57 AM (#3052523) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.licensingadvice.org/ John King comments: Westminster Council actively seek to encourage complaints about licenced premises. At tax-payers' expense, the Licensing Advice Project offers free advice to residents who are 'concerned' about, among other things, 24 hour drinking and loud music. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 12:11 PM (#3052534) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000552/2010/12/09/£24,600+Costs+Against+Council+in+Licensing+Appeal.html Some more disturbing (if not surprising) details from this case. The District Judge found that the new management was responsible, and making appropriate changes, but that the Police and Council had given conflicting messages, indicating that they were happy with the new management, but then making review applications without warning. The District Judge found that the Company was rightly confused and concerned by the Police and Council Officers' behaviour. DISCLOSURE OF POLICE EVIDENCE. The District Judge was deeply critical of the presentation of police evidence of incidents implicating the premises. In a style commonly used by licensing officers around the country, the police presented to three separate Committees a "Summary" of incidents, in the form of a document prepared for the hearing by police officers, and including a 'Summary Log', and 'Analysis', and a "Hot Spot" Map. The police sought revocation three times upon this evidence, and the Committees' decisions were squarely based upon it. No 5 Chambers and Hillier McKeown made repeated requests for disclosure of the original incident records upon which these police summaries were based, but those records were not forthcoming, between July and November, despite two clear Court directions requiring their disclosure. Some original records were served three working days before the Appeal hearing, and others were served on the first morning of the Appeal. That disclosure clearly revealed that the police presentation of evidence had been selective. Numerous residents' complaints about the premises had been reported to the police, but original incident logs showed that the police at the time had rejected a number of them as being clearly mistaken or exaggerated. Nevertheless, those same complaints were included in the police "Summaries" and "Hot Spot" maps, presented to the Committees. Further proper analysis of the original incident reports showed that certain allegations could not have been the responsibility of the licensed premises, and still more were ambiguous in nature. In his critical judgment, District Judge Shaw found not only that the police had misled the Committees in their presentation of this evidence, but that the Council also had to bear responsibility for not scrutinising what they were being shown with more care. He made it plain that he regarded it as the responsibility of the Council to call for original and reliable evidence – certainly pending an appeal, and to assure themselves, based on that evidence, that resisting the appeal was the appropriate course. In this case, the Council had made no attempt to secure the records that the Appellant was struggling to obtain, and the Council resisted the appeal until the eleventh hour, when it was finally accepted that the evidence was deeply flawed. The appeal was resolved by way of the imposition of conditions that could have been agreed many months before. The outcome was that the District Judge awarded the Appellants their costs against the Council. Having considered the key costs authorities, and notably Bradford v Booth, the District Judge gave a fully reasoned decision as to why an award of costs against the Council was appropriate. The full judgement may provide valuable guidance to police and Councils as to how to approach "Summaries" of evidence in the future, and the dangers of presenting, or relying upon, information which transpires to be inaccurate or unfair. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 12:43 PM (#3052558) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST From The Shambles http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west-london-news/local-harrow-news/2010/12/13/police-object-to-licence-change-at-pinner-pub-1164 He told the Observer: "The existing condition is to clear the area at 11pm, which stops punters disturbing local residents. "I know some areas where the local residents are not that fussed but I believe the residents will be objecting to this. "As police, we don't want to be called up there to deal with disorder because patrons are congregating outside." No comment............ http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/Published/C00000271/M000...04514/AI00046439/$PoliceObjectionnoticeHarrowontheChill28Aug08.docA.ps. John King comments: The 2nd link above is Sgt Davis rejecting a TEN on the grounds that a Form 696 had not been submitted. This was an alcohol free charity event organised by a councillor. |
|
13 Dec 10 - 08:53 PM (#3052902) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles With some justification, it would seem that it is the police (in the form of Sgt Davis) who could be accused of anti-social activity. "As police, we don't want to be called up there to deal with disorder because patrons are congregating outside." I suggest that Sgt Davis needs reminding that it is the job of the police to deal with any crime and disorder which may occur and that if this is not what he wants to do - he is in the wrong job. His job is certainly not to stir-up residents who have yet to complain and abuse the law to prevent any form of social gathering in order to suit his wants with the idea of giving his police force an easier time. What next for this approach? Preventing us from leaving our homes to prevent the police from having the bother of addressing burgulary? |
|
13 Dec 10 - 09:22 PM (#3052924) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles In these days where the wish would appear to be prevention of what is often admitted to be, alcohol induced, crime and disorder - there does not seem to be any loud call for the prevention of alcohol. It could well be that the lessons of previous attempts at prohibition have been taken on board. I suggest that it is not this but a very powerful industry and Govt's which gain much revenue from taxing this industry. Perhaps the lessons of prohibition can be taken on board by those who would see the prevention of social gatherings in general and those with live music in particular as any sensible way of dealing with crime and disorder? For which there remains no evidence or statistical link to support what is simply a historical prejudice against live music. If this live music = crime and disorder 'herring' is a red one - it is because it has now been allowed to be almost totally covered in all forms of 'red tape'. The Metropolitan police claim Form 696 to have been effective in dealing with gun crime and in Harrow, Sgnt Davis demands that Form 696 be completed to enable a small-scale alcohol-free charity event, which already requires licensing permission........... How have WE allowed it to get this late - and now WE have - how can we reverse this and remove live music from local council employed vandals and the likes of Sgnt Davis? |
|
15 Dec 10 - 03:49 AM (#3053799) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles John King comments: Willowman Music Festival 2011 faces opposition from 'locals'. A taste of things to come? http://mobile.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8735558.Neighbours_oppose_new_festival_licence/ |
|
15 Dec 10 - 03:55 AM (#3053804) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.eastwoodadvertiser.co.uk/news/eastwood-kimberley-news/noise_at_mfn_charity_day_sparks_complaints_1_2792336 THE OWNER of a former nightclub has told the Advertiser that he is 'at a loss as to what to do' over complaints about noise from his pub during outdoor charity events. Malcolm Allured says MFN at Shipley Gate has helped to raise tens of thousands of pounds for charity through hosting the fun days. But now he has received a notice from Amber Valley Borough council outlining noise levels recorded and complaints made during events in April, May, July and August. The document warns Mr Allured that if the situation fails to improve the matter will 'be passed to our (Amber Valley Borough Council's) legal section to commence prosecution proceedings.' |
|
16 Dec 10 - 10:04 AM (#3054734) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cardiff.gov.uk%2Fobjview.asp%3Fobject_id%3D18275&h=ae37b John King Comments: An Indian Restaurant in Cardiff applies for (and gets) a licence for a sitar player. But, a) isn't this supposed to be incidental music and therefore outside the scope of licensing? & b) the prospect of live music attracted several pages of hysterical objections from residents. This is a premises being forced to ask permission for a form of live music which if left alone, would take place without any concern to anyone. It currently is and should remain out of the hands of our locally council employed vandals. These vandals may choose and be allowed to ignore bits of legislation they do not like but if they were to actually follow the latest guidance issued by their own body LACORS - they would know this. Perhaps they do but just choose to ignore this fact? As exempt incidental live music, this should escape, firstly the council employees and secondly any council committee members from feeling they needed impose any conditions, before granting permission (or from refusing permission altogether). However, by insisting that it can only take place as a performance of Regulated Entertainment - this opens up a totally needless can of worms. For as the process then invites representations (in practice this means complaints) - these will no doubt follow, as those complaining will assume that as the live music in question is being subject to the whole expensive and long-winded process - there must be something for them to worry about. |
|
16 Dec 10 - 10:39 AM (#3054757) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles If the local council employed vandals were ever to accept that the law exempts live music like this - they would not be able to place any conditions on it in order to 'protect the public'. Thus here, food continues until 00.30, drink until 00.00 but this subversive live music must end at 23.00........ In their defence, the vandals will often claim that they did not actually impose conditions like these but only granted what was requested. In practice of course - the applicants are instructed that any application made beyond what the vandals advise - will be unlikely to be accepted. A predition that they are in position to deliver. There is no need for a time for live music to end to appear as a licensing condition. All that is required under a Premises Licence is for the opening hours to be agreed - the times the various activities begin or end should be an operational decision for the licensee only. Where such a curfew is imposed, any over-running will be a breach of the licensing conditions and grounds for a future review in which the permission granted for live music could be further limited or even reversed. All for something which the Licensing Act 2003 has taken out of their hands...................... |
|
20 Dec 10 - 02:51 AM (#3057642) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2084264_council_to_decide_on_pub_noise_level John King comments: Reading Borough Council seek to ban live music at the Clifton Arms. Landlady Miss MacKenzie told getreading: "All this has cost me a fortune in trade and stopped me raising money for charity." Yet again, this looks suspiciously like ONE person complaining. |
|
21 Dec 10 - 03:01 AM (#3058307) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ilkestonadvertiser.co.uk/news/licence_refused_for_long_eaton_night_spot_1_2871898 Let's see - A site for such a club in a (residential area) would be a problem and a site (in a non-residentail area) where there are other such clubs, is also a problem................ |
|
22 Dec 10 - 04:00 AM (#3059124) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-12-20a.257.0&s=%22licensing+act%22#g257.1 John King comments: The Govt's feeble reply to Lord Colwyn's question. Lord Colwyn (Conservative) To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the entertainment licensing implications of the Susan Philipsz Turner Prize-winning installation, Lowlands Away, at Tate Britain, where the galleries are not licensed under the Licensing Act 2003 to play recorded music. Baroness Rawlings (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative) It would be inappropriate for Ministers to comment on any individual case regarding the enforcement of the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003. The 2003 Act devolved the administration and enforcement of the licensing regime to licensing authorities. It is for the premises operator in the first instance to determine whether or not activities at their premises require licensing, and in the light of that decision, for the local licensing authority to decide if any action should be taken by them. The Government are currently considering possible changes to the licensing law relating to regulated entertainment. |
|
22 Dec 10 - 04:17 AM (#3059130) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The weakness of locally delegated enforcement is shown in this answer. The whole point of all of it is that when poorly drafted legislation causes the predictible problems in practice - Central Govt can blame Local Govt - and we all continue to suffer whilst no one takes any responsibilty. It is the Local Govt lobby (LGA Group)that is presenting the problems to live music and it is the power of this lobby (for their own self-interest) that is preventing any change. The irony is that this body is invited to all consultations and seems to be viewed as impartial when it is in fact presenting all the obstacles to any sensible reform. |
|
22 Dec 10 - 09:38 AM (#3059272) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles It is for the premises operator in the first instance to determine whether or not activities at their premises require licensing, and in the light of that decision, for the local licensing authority to decide if any action should be taken by them. Should the local licensing authority decide that in this case the Tate Gallery did and does require that these premises need to obtain additional entertainment licensing and that the Turner Prize-winning exhibit was a performance of Regulated Entertainment - perhaps someone, either in Central or Local Govt, will take responsibilty and address a situation which has placed the public at risk? |
|
23 Dec 10 - 02:38 AM (#3059821) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/a_hogmnay_hitch_for_hall_1_692014 John King comments:~ Merry Christmas to DCMS 'statisticians' still claiming there is 'no evidence of negative effect of live music licensing'. Here a charity Hogmanay gig in Norwich cancelled after 70 years because nearby residents objected. (from 2006) And a Happy New Year............ |
|
23 Dec 10 - 06:50 PM (#3060338) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.nsbaker.co.uk/2010/12/whitstable-wetherspoons-looking-likely/ John King coments: Live music banned in Wetherspoons, Whitstable. Councils don't need the Licensing Act to ban live music for no apparent reason. They can use planning regs in any way they like. Recorded music is allowed of course.... I am not sure that the situation for recorded music (or non-amplified live music) is really made very clear from the following wording - 2. Subject to conditions relating to opening hours, restricting the hours of use of the beer garden, restricting the playing of amplified music/live music, requiring details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority relating to the enclosure of the beer garden, details of all new kitchen extract equipment/air conditioning units and other vents and flues. |
|
23 Dec 10 - 09:31 PM (#3060416) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,Guest - THEETHA Dear Shambles DUST THA NOT GET FED UP WI TARKIN TO THESSEN? |
|
24 Dec 10 - 06:25 AM (#3060555) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall Westminster City Council has told Tate Britain to get an entertainment licence for Susan Philipsz' Turner Prize winning sound installation. The objectives of the licensing regime (Licensing Act 2003) are public safety, the prevention of crime, disorder and public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. The maximum penalty for providing a licensable entertainment without a licence is a £20,000 fine and six months in prison. Some parts of Tate Britain are licensed under the Act for regulated entertainment, but not the main galleries. Ms Philipsz's prize winning exhibit features a recording of her singing 'Lowlands Away', a traditional folk song, played through two loudspeakers. See Daily Telegraph report of 6th December: http://tinyurl.com/39dph26 Westminster's head of licensing, Andrew Ralph, initially rejected the idea that the exhibition was licensable. On 9th December he told the Live Music Forum: 'The Tate Britain does not need a licence for the exhibition as the primary reason people visit the gallery is to view art and the music is ancillary to that.' But, following discussions with the LMF, Westminster's legal department overturned that position and advised that the exhibition did need a licence. It would seem they agreed that the Act's 'incidental music' exemption could not apply in this case. On 20th December, a council spokesperson said: 'The legal situation surrounding licensing can be very complex, and whilst initially a decision was taken that no separate licence was needed, subsequent legal advice has suggested otherwise. We do our utmost to keep any paperwork for these types of events to an absolute minimum, but we do have to abide by national legislation.' The spokesperson added: 'The Tate will not have to stop the exhibition in the meantime as such sort of enforcement is not deemed proportionate.' This light touch contrasts markedly with enforcement action Westminster has taken in the past. In November 2002 Westminster successfully prosecuted Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries (W&DB), owner of the high street chain Pitcher & Piano, after licensing officers reported customers 'swaying rhythmically' to music in two of its sites, Trafalgar Square and Soho. W&DB was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £1,600 costs in addition to its own legal fees. Public dancing remains illegal under the Licensing Act 2003, unless the venue is appropriately licensed, or the dancing is morris dancing or dancing of a similar nature. Indeed, the morris dancing exemption offers Tate Britain an intriguing way around Westminster's licensing requirement. It allows unamplified live music if it is an 'integral part' of a performance of morris dancing or dancing of a 'similar nature'. If Susan Philipsz herself, or another vocalist, were to sing 'Lowlands Away' unamplified in the gallery, to some morris dancing, or dancing of a similar nature, this should be exempt (LA2003, Sch. 1, Part 2, para 11). But if that would compromise the integrity of Ms Philipsz' artwork, then a licence seems unavoidable. The cost of Tate Britain's licence application could be as low as £89 for a 'minor variation' (see DCMS guidance: http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Application_for_a_Minor_Variation.pdf ) If a full variation application is required, however, the cost would be the same as a full licence. For a property like Tate Britain this would be in the region of £635 plus the cost of 28 days advertisement in the local press. Annual charges of about £350 would also apply. The public advertisement might provoke local objections, as it often does, and this may in turn lead to a public hearing. Lawyers Robin Bynoe (solicitor, senior counsel at Charles Russell) and Richard Bridge (solicitor, partner at King Prior MacDonald Bridge) commented: 'The main point here is that legislation ostensibly designed to prevent antisocial levels of noise in pubs was so clumsily and illiberally worded that it has the effect of criminalising the showing of a prize-winning piece of art by one of the world's leading art institutions. The calculation of the fee that has to be paid to redeem the criminality, which should never have arisen in the first place, is rather beside the point. 'The embarrassment at the Tate underlines that this legislation criminalised a range of musical and other performances, and the provision of "facilities" for them, that could not conceivably produce antisocial levels of noise - in pubs or elsewhere – and did so despite the presence of existing and perfectly adequate noise controls. 'Previous experience of the way that councils have dealt with these anomalies suggests a tendency to nod through the pastimes of the rich at the expense of the pastimes of the poor. It's an unfortunate consequence of this kind of lazy legislation, which is worded very generally in the hope that the authorities can be relied on to enforce it without making waves. Undoubtedly, however, Westminster Council will act in an even-handed manner.' ENDS |
|
24 Dec 10 - 06:39 AM (#3060559) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk/news/wood_green_restaurant_owner_prosecuted_1_745095 Different treatment to the Tate Gallery....... The spokesperson added: 'The Tate will not have to stop the exhibition in the meantime as such sort of enforcement is not deemed proportionate.' Prosecution was judged by this Council to be proportionate. Diep visited council offices last week, accepted a caution under civil legislation, and was asked to pay costs. Councillor Nilgun Canver, cabinet member for neighbourhoods, said: "It's important that anyone seeking to lease rooms like this is aware of the law and complies with the regulations, otherwise they can be prosecuted." |
|
24 Dec 10 - 07:32 AM (#3060591) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The only time you see mention of whether enforcement action is 'propotionate' is in high profile case like the Tate/Turner Prize-winner. Cases which may be likely to cause embarrassment or onw which may be challenged. In most cases, like this restaurant, it is enough for prosecution that the letter of the law is broken. In those case, the council officers claim to have no choice....Clearly the Tate/Turner Prize-winner demonstrates that Councils do have a choice - or that when it suits them - they assume they do.... Does the law give those who are paid to enforce it - such a choice? If so it would appear in practice to be choice given to a bully. |
|
02 Jan 11 - 05:38 AM (#3065439) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/dec/31/live-venues-licensing-laws-luminaire John King comments: Interesting article with a pathetic contribution from the MU |
|
02 Jan 11 - 05:42 AM (#3065440) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=68696&c=1 Campaigners step up pressure over live music in pubs |
|
02 Jan 11 - 05:48 AM (#3065443) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ukmusic.org/policy/198-uk-music-reveals-huge-support-to-exempt-small-music-venues-from-licensing-act-red-tape UK Music reveals huge support to exempt small music venues from Licensing Act red tape. |
|
02 Jan 11 - 05:54 AM (#3065445) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2084717_live_music_ban_for_the_clifton_arms The committee demanded: - No live or recorded music, except on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve - Any jukebox to be fitted with a noise limiter, to be inspected by a council environmental protection officer How can you prevent live or recorded music but still have a jukebox? |
|
02 Jan 11 - 06:00 AM (#3065446) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge There is a point being overlooked here. The majority of pubs seeking exemption want to put on electric music. That is precisely the sort of music most likely to create disturbance and the need to invoke non-Licensing Act measures regarding noise and nuisance. What could and should be done immediately without any need for contention would be to exempt any music not using electrical or electronic amplification - leaving the existing law to deal with opera singers who can bring down the walls of Jericho, massed great pipes, steam organs, and itinerant troupes of Japanese drummers - all of which are -er- rare, unlike the 10,000 watt PA rig or 2,000 watt bass guitar amps that are all but ubiquitous. |
|
02 Jan 11 - 06:14 AM (#3065455) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles There is a point being overlooked here. The majority of pubs seeking exemption want to put on electric music. That is precisely the sort of music most likely to create disturbance and the need to invoke non-Licensing Act measures regarding noise and nuisance The only point being confused is that the Licensing Act 2003 is not the correct legislation to deal with any form noise nuisance. The pretence that the requiement for additional entertainment licensing in advance can do anything but only further confuse an already confused situation for noise issues, is now a very smelly red-herring which could and should have been buried some time ago. Any premises which obtained exemptions under either the proposed exemption or the Act's many existing exemptions - are still subject to the Envirionmental Protection Act. If this was not thought adequate to deal with noise - there would be a call from the LGA Group lobby to remove the Act's existing exemptions. There is no such call. http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/pub-to-become-flat-after-noise-dispute-1.794382?referrerPath=news Pub to become flat after noise dispute |
|
02 Jan 11 - 07:10 AM (#3065469) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge No. In the first place you focus on noise only, and not other matters. Second, even if one looks at noise alone it is precisely because noise control is a messy issue under the laws of private or public nuisance or under the law relating to environmental health that it can only be left to those laws where enforcement is unlikely to be necessary. Where, as with electric music, noise abatement is routine and a constant concern, and indeed conduct is a frequent concomitant issue as with recorded music (have you EVER stood outside a nightclub like Aaron Stone's Casino in Rochester and watched the blood run in the drains?) a sensibly drawn Licensing Act should apply. The drafting of this act is appalling. It applies to many things to which it should not apply - but control of electric music is necessary. |
|
02 Jan 11 - 07:14 AM (#3065470) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge PS - as the facts of the Middle Tap in Maryport seem to bear out - increased complaints from neighbours. Now they can get a night's sleep. |
|
02 Jan 11 - 08:12 AM (#3065488) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles but control of electric music is necessary. As no one is taking an opposite view, this is not an argument that should be repeatedly wheeled-out when talking of proposed or current exemptions to the additional entertainment licensing measures contained in the Licensing Act 2003. Lack of additional entertainment licensing measures does not mean a lack of control. Legislation that deals with all forms of noise pollution is of course neccessary. This legislation already includes noise pollution emanating from electric music and from all other sources. If this legislation is not effective in enabling neighbours to get a good night's sleep, then it is this legislation that should be changed in order to make it effective in this regard. It is the wide misuse of the Licensing Act's measures in order to address noise emantaing from entertainment, which is currently presenting problems to all non-amplified live music. This is why Richard, you need to call for this to be exempted. There should of course be no requirement for additional entertainment licensing for non-amplified live music but just proposing an exemption for this - is to help prolong the myth that additional entertainment licensing is an effective way of preventing noise pollution emanating from live music. Most if not all of the premises which have action taken against them on the grounds of noise pollution emanating from live music - already have additional entertainment licensing permission granted and in place. So it is self-evident that this requirement is having no effect on noise pollution emanating from live music except to further confuse an already confused situation and that its removal in current or proposed exemptions will have little effect but to possibly reduce this confusion. |
|
04 Jan 11 - 04:12 AM (#3066801) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Most if not all of the premises which have action taken against them on the grounds of noise pollution emanating from live music - already have additional entertainment licensing permission granted and in place. So it is self-evident that this requirement is having no effect on noise pollution emanating from live music except to further confuse an already confused situation and that its removal in current or proposed exemptions will have little effect but to possibly reduce this confusion. However, the adverse effect of this complex and confusing regime on all forms of live music is only too well demonstrated. It is clear that a very effective way of removing any noise pollution emanating from live music (or any other form of entertainment) - is for local authorities to ensure that no live music takes place. http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/8763583.WALTHAMSTOW__Noise_nuisance_concern_over_pub/ John King comments: Even if the neighbours don't complain, environmental health officers will object to live music before it has even taken place. No evidence is required... This is just another example of where non-amplified is limited, or in this case, totally prevented before a note has been played, because local council employees insist on using the wrong legislation to deal with possible noises problems which may emanate from entertainment. The Govt continuing to allow local Govt to use the Licensing Act 2003 in this way, is an expensive way of duplicating both the Environmental Protection Act, which is designed to protect the public from actual noise and Planning legislation which is designed to protect the public in advance. |
|
04 Jan 11 - 04:28 AM (#3066805) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/89327 UK Music found that of the 181 respondents to the DCMS consultation that expressed an opinion on the subject, 134 (74%) favoured some exemptions for small music venues. |
|
04 Jan 11 - 10:34 AM (#3067011) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=68696&c=1 Sharkey said there was "immense frustration" that the new coalition government had yet to deliver on its promise to cut red tape around live music in pubs. |
|
04 Jan 11 - 11:52 AM (#3067065) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://move.southbankcentre.co.uk/ Following on from the Tate galley being allowed by the local Licensing Authority to place the public at risk by providing unlicensed entertainment - do we assume that the Hayward Gallery has obtained the correct licensing permisssion (for Entertainment Facilities) for what it is providing here to enable the public to entertain themselves in music and dancing? |
|
04 Jan 11 - 09:04 PM (#3067419) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2011/jan/04/headingley-cricket-ground-concert-licence John King comments: Headingley Cricket Ground get a live music licence... but are limited to three events a year and (if the report is accurate) a limit of 65 dB. They objected on the grounds of noise, public nuisance, mass drinking in the community and light pollution. Lee Davidson, chairman of the Turnways and Laurel Bank Residents' Association, said there would be a 'major expansion of mass drinking' and rowdiness in a residential area which would 'degrade the quality of life' for families and older residents'. He told the Civic Hall meeting: "We accept the sporting activities at the stadium, but the alcohol, noise and litter nuisance from concerts would be totally inappropriate for that part of Headingley." Other residents said that restricting the number of events could be 'the thin edge of the wedge'. Leeds council's environment protection unit also objected and said residents would be 'adversely affected' by noise and the council's planning department said the plans contravened a planning approval for the site which was there to protect nearby householders from noise. Once again and without a note being played, all non amplified live music which is very unlikely to cause any noise pollution is limited or prevented. Not sure if the cricketing public (and trumpet player) are limited to making live music for their own enjoyment on the three occasions allowed by the new licence? Would the stands be considered as being provided for that purpose and require licensing permission as Entertainment Facilities? |
|
05 Jan 11 - 05:05 PM (#3068017) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8768583.Aristocrats_at_odds_over_Cornbury_events_licence/ John King comments: An insane neighbour commented: "I understand incessant noise is used as torture, and this is illegal. How on earth can this situation be different?" Some of us would consider fox-hunting to be torture - others wouldn't and it's legality would also be questioned...... |
|
06 Jan 11 - 03:24 AM (#3068285) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=68717&c=1 PPL, the music royalties collection firm, has come under fire for alleged heavy-handed tactics in collecting late payment fees. The company's approach has been thrown into the spotlight after a licensee was fined half the total of her bill for paying just over two weeks late – and told she could face jail if she challenged the fine. The 50 per cent surcharge has been in place since last February, but the case serves as a major warning to other licensees who are late with their PPL fee payment. |
|
06 Jan 11 - 07:59 AM (#3068394) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1043760&c=1 PRS for Music has received 31 official responses to its long running consultation on live music royalty rates, which closed at the beginning of the year. The Concert Promoters Association, Festival Republic and the Glastonbury Festival are among the respondents to the consultation, which opened last June and looked at a number of associated issues from secondary ticketing to kickbacks on booking fees. |
|
07 Jan 11 - 07:33 AM (#3069163) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=16&storycode=68746&c=1 Some interesting views here from the license of The Artful Dodger! I have bought the music legally, the artist has been paid for the work, I don't charge customers to listen to it, if anything it is giving a showcase for the latest music that my customers can then go out and buy for themselves' This week we have seen the contempt with which those at the PPL treat the licensees with a huge legally enforceable fine for late payment. |
|
07 Jan 11 - 09:17 AM (#3069217) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10060/ Now even clowns are spied on by the state In modern-day Britain, a man in a comedy suit can't even blow up balloons for children without first being okayed by the authorities. |
|
07 Jan 11 - 09:23 AM (#3069221) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/premises-told-to-improve-security-36628.aspx Sgt Voller said he made safety recommendations because the pub attracted trouble on live music nights — a view disputed by Wendy Blake, the pub's manager. John King comments: Live music? Not without polycarbonate glasses and door staff. |
|
11 Jan 11 - 03:30 AM (#3071900) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.leyland-guardian.co.uk/blackpool-news/Fears-over-new-bar-bid.6685459.jp "The playing of live music will cause more disturbances in the area and we already hear car doors banging at all hours in the morning." |
|
11 Jan 11 - 03:36 AM (#3071903) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Bar-bid-play-live-music-later/article-3080322-detail/article.html John King comments:Just about every live music licence application faces objections from a handful (or often only one) of residents. The council's noise team has objected to the application. In a letter to the licensing team, pollution control officer Chris White said: "If this extension is granted, I believe that it is likely to cause a nuisance to the local residents. "We have already received several complaints from a resident about this premises and a nuisance has been witnessed when the premises was still open at 11.40pm." |
|
12 Jan 11 - 10:07 PM (#3073468) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Government has today launched a consultation proposing a relaxation of licensing hours to mark the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton on 29th April 2011. The consultation proposes that all licensed premises in England and Wales should be able to open until 1am on Friday 29th April and Saturday 30th April for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises and the provision of regulated entertainment. The Government is inviting views on this proposal. The consultation will run for two weeks starting from today, Wednesday 12th January 2011 and will close on Wednesday 26th January 2011. The full consultation document and information on how to respond can be found on the Home Office website. The link to access the consultation document and online consultation response form is below. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/royal-wedding-licensing-hours/ We look forward to receiving your response. |
|
12 Jan 11 - 10:10 PM (#3073470) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall 'On 29 April 2011, the nation will celebrate the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.' So begins the Home Office consultation launched today to find out how many people back their plan to allow pubs and bars in England and Wales to stay open till 1am on Friday 29th and Saturday 30th April: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/royal-wedding-licensing-hours/ If the nation approves, the proposal will be implemented under Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003. This allows the Secretary of State to relax opening hours for special occasions using a 'licensing hours order': http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/section/172 But the extra fun time would not automatically extend to the provision of live music, recorded music, or dancing. Only venues that already have live music and entertainment facilities permissions could benefit. The consultation explicitly asks 'Do you agree that the order should apply to the provision of regulated entertainment?': http://consultations.homeoffice.gov.uk/survey.php?survey=2 The wording of the question and the yes/no tick box answer means that no-one can indicate a preference for live as opposed to recorded music, or indeed for any of the seven different entertainments included within the term 'regulated entertainment'. Many people who might tolerate unamplified or moderately amplified live music till 1am may not be keen on extended hours for nightclub-style entertainment. More significantly there is no question seeking public consent to apply the extra hours order to the provision of entertainment facilities. This is a serious oversight. 'Entertainment facilities', as described within the Act (Sch.1 para 3), cover not only amplification, but also dance floors, musical instruments, a stage or even a karaoke machine. In other words, pretty much anything that enables people to be entertained, or to entertain themselves, through music and dancing. In failing to seek public consent on extending operating times for this crucial licensing permission, as far as music and dancing is concerned the consultation is void. Even if Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt allows extra time over the Royal Wedding weekend for alcohol and the provision of regulated entertainment, only about a quarter of licensed premises have the necessary authorisation for the provision of 'entertainment facilities' that would allow dancing to live bands or recorded music. But with the consultation as it stands, he will not have public approval to allow even these venues to host music and dancing beyond their existing operating times. The entertainment facilities statistics were confirmed by the government last year in a Written Answer to a question from Lord Colwyn: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100927w0004.htm#1009013001399 By contrast most bars and pubs could provide a DJ without dancing, as permission to play recorded music was granted automatically to all bars converting their old licences in 2005. And big screen broadcast entertainment needs no Licensing Act permissions at all. ENDS |
|
14 Jan 11 - 06:52 PM (#3074760) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2085465_landlady_left_bitter_by_unfair_ban John King comments: Live music banned in yet another pub. DCMS liars STILL claim there is no negative effect of licensing on live music. Licensing panel chair Cllr Jeanette Skeats said: "This was not just about someone complaining. The council's environmental protection team went to the pub and there were noise problems and it was agreed something should be done. We judge every case on its merits and feel it was a fair decision." |
|
14 Jan 11 - 06:58 PM (#3074767) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.osadvertiser.co.uk/news/ormskirk-news/2011/01/13/the-water-s-edge-banned-from-playing-live-music-after-complaints-809 John King comments: This is what happens when you give too much power to Local Authorities. Mr Coen also asked for a noise limiter to be added to the premises to address the issues complainants had with loud noise. This would control the pub's sound system and he invited Mr Hill to set the volume limit. The Committee decided against this, however, and banned the pub from playing live music. Closing time on Friday and Saturday nights was cut back and a DPS or senior member of staff must always be present while open. |
|
14 Jan 11 - 07:05 PM (#3074772) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://yourcardiff.walesonline.co.uk/2011/01/13/licensing-committee-preview-january-14-2011/ John King Comments: Police are objecting to Sultans Shisha Gardens, which intends to serve light refreshments, tea and coffee and deserts as well as live music indoors. Police are objectingon the grounds of crime and disorder, public safety an...d preventing children from harm Police are also objecting to Sultans Shisha Gardens, City Road, Roath, which plan to have a back garden tent to allow 18 year-olds to enjoy smoking a pipe. Owners also intend to serve light refreshments, tea and coffee and deserts as well as live music indoors. Potential opening hours will be midday – midnight with music from 7pm and refreshments between 11pm and midnight. Police will make an objection to the committee on grounds of crime and disorder, public safety and preventing children from harm. Councillor Richard Jerrett is also objecting. He said: "The council has a has a saturation zone which was put in place because of the concern that there are too many licensed premises in the City Road Area. "Any addition to the number of licensed premises could lead to a greater number of problems in the vicinity and exacerbate the number of problems that already exist in this area of City Road." |
|
14 Jan 11 - 07:13 PM (#3074780) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8791378.Noise_fears_over____new____Barbican_Centre/ John King comments: Yet again, ONE resident is all it takes to get the Local Authority to place unnecessary and prohibitive conditions on a live music licence. But Roy Haddon, who lives off Heslington Road near the centre, has written to the authority to say he already suffers between 2am and 4am from a certain amount of noise, such as people talking loudly to each other or on mobile phones as they walk away from the city centre. "Is there not a significant risk that this kind of nuisance will be increased by people dispersing from a late-night facility that is considerably closer than the city centre?" he asked. He said he was also concerned that a significant number of Barbican visitors would try to park in already congested local streets where they will not have to pay. Mr Haddon said he would like to see tighter restrictions imposed on the terms of the licence by the licensing committee to provide a "balance of convenience" between the applicants and local residents. |
|
14 Jan 11 - 07:22 PM (#3074789) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thebirminghampress.com/2011/01/14/development-setback/ Permission for a block of 50 new flats next to the Prince of Wales public house was renewed yesterday despite more than 300 letters to Birmingham city council from pub regulars and objections from local police who claimed that the development, overlooking Moseley police station, would present a security risk. There are now worries that the sort of problems which have followed the arrival of residents into the city centre will threaten the future of one of Birmingham's best-known drinking establishments. This type of conflict has been taking place for decades but first came to public notice in 2004 when the Fiddle & Bone in the city centre was forced to close following the loss of its music licence after complaints by people living in nearby luxury developments. |
|
14 Jan 11 - 07:31 PM (#3074794) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This seems to make sense................... While the trend towards urban living is to be welcomed as a way of regenerating inner cities and of easing housing shortages, common sense surely should prevail in such matters. If you move next to a live music venue, particularly one in a city centre, you accept there will be some disturbance. If, as a developer, you want to build flats next to such an establishment, you make sure they've got adequate sound insulation. Most importantly, if you, as a citizen, want your city to be seen as a vibrant, 21st century place, you don't let property developers ruin its culture and you find out a way of sorting out these problems before you allow any more building to take place where it might cause friction. It doesn't seem too difficult to me, so why does it happen time and again? |
|
15 Jan 11 - 10:20 AM (#3075112) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://yourcardiff.walesonline.co.uk/2011/01/14/roath-shisha-bar-plan-rejected/ John KIng comments: It goes on... No music licence for an alcohol free shisha bar. A Cardiff council spokeswoman said: "The use of Shisha pipes is not a licensable activity within the UK.. Shisha bars only need to be licensed if they are undertaking licensable activities such as providing late night refreshment, selling alcohol or providing regulated entertainment. If no licensable activities are taking place this does not preclude the need for appropriate planning consent where necessary. The sub-committee – made up of Coun Robert Smith, Coun Geraldine Grant and Coun Derrick Morgan – rejected the application on grounds that it was in the saturation zone. Satuation zones apply to licensed premises and are usually justified on grounds of alcohol consumption. So we have live music prevented here not because the main activity is licensable nor because of alcohol concerns. Interesting. As the main purpose of the premises is not licensable - any live music is exempt from the need for additional entertainment licensing as incidental live music. |
|
18 Jan 11 - 03:38 AM (#3076935) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2011-01-12a.18WS.3&s=%22live+music%22#g18WS.4 John King comments: Home Office Minister James Brokenshire cocks up the dates of the Royal Wedding! And pubs will still need a Temporary Event Notice to put on live music due to incompetant legal advice (probably from DCMS) |
|
18 Jan 11 - 03:48 AM (#3076938) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/8795221.Kendal_restaurant_owners_win_licensing_fight/ John King comments: Restaurant 'wins' battle to stage live music. However, South Lakeland Council impose a noise limit of 90dB. The ambient noise of many restaurants is well in excess of 100dB, and 90dB can easily be exceeded by clinking of ...cutlery, mobile phones or even customers sneezing... Interesting that neither party seems to even consider the the live music in this restaurant to be incidental. If it were, then the Licensing Authority would not be able to place any advance conditions on it. |
|
18 Jan 11 - 04:31 AM (#3076949) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Interesting that neither party here seems to even consider the the live music in this restaurant to be incidental, but there are probably factors for this. If it were incidental, then the Licensing Authority would not be able to place any advance conditions on it. But LACORS does not seem to see it this way.............. From the LACORS 'Guidance': Lacors is also aware that the provision of any form of live music in premises, incidental or licensable, has the potential to generate much concern amongst residents, particulary where the premises is close to residential areas. Licensing authorities may err on the side of caution and advise the premises to apply for a licence so that noise control conditions are put in place. However, even if the music is deemed to be incidental, colleages may wish to discuss with the premises, measures to mitigate the potential for noise complaints. We must assume that all the other parties to this document are in agreement with the above nonsence. If this or any other activity is exempt for any reason - if the Licensing Authority do choose to advise the premises to apply for a licence - for any reason - they are exceeding their authority. LACORS have done a good old-fashioned magic switch over this exemption and have fooled many. Noise is simply not an issue which arises from the Act's wording of this exemption. It is drafted with the assumption that any concerns arising from any activity that is exempted in the Act for any reason, is covered by other existing legislation. Do we have LACORS 'advising' that stand-up comedy should apply for a licence it is exempt from, so that noise control conditions are put in place? Or that live TV sport should apply for a licence it is exempt from, so that noise control conditions are put in place? LACORS seem to understand and accept what these EXEMPTIONS allow or prevent them from doing - why do they not understand this one? I think they understand alright - they just refuse to accept it and no one seems to have any power to make them. In this case, what LACORS call to 'err on the side of caution' - is illegal. They use the word 'advise' in this document when they mean 'insist' and that is the way that council licensing employees will read it. But there is nothing preventing the Licensing Authority from simply advising anything to anyone, at any point. ENDS |
|
18 Jan 11 - 02:27 PM (#3077325) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles In this case, what LACORS call to 'err on the side of caution' - is illegal. They use the word 'advise' in this document when they mean 'insist' and that is the way that council licensing employees will read it. But there is nothing preventing the Licensing Authority from simply advising anything to anyone, at any point. The law of the land applies to everyone. Would that we could all just ignore and break the law and excuse this by saying we 'err on the side of caution'. Here we have the LGA Group lobby re-making a law they obviously do not like and consider to be lacking in some respect. But this is not the function of those who are employed only to enforce the law but the function of Parliament. If the LGA Group lobby or anyone else consider current legislation to be lacking - there is a process for addressing this, one which the LGA Group lobby does not not think applies to them. Why is the LGA Group lobby being allowed to flout the law and re-write it in practice, in order to suit them? These are the words of the legislation. Music incidental to certain other activities 7 The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not itself— (a)a description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or (b)the provision of entertainment facilities. |
|
19 Jan 11 - 06:23 PM (#3078240) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://tradescant.blogspot.com/2011/01/wheatsheaf-tia-maria-licence.html The following from John KIng: Form 696 for musicians at Tia Maria Brazilian Restaurant in Stockwell. The licence conditions state Form 696 compulsory for: 'any occasion in a premises licensed under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, where there will be a live performer...(s) – meaning musicians...' Not the first time the Met Police have mistakenly linked Brazilians with terrorists is it? A look at the list of conditions link to here, is a truly surreal experience. This remember is a restaurant..... |
|
21 Jan 11 - 02:12 PM (#3079515) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Portscatho-club-close-comfort-8211-woman-53/article-3116502-detail/article.html The Portscatho Social Club is asking Cornwall Council's licensing committee to extend its closing from midnight to 1am. It regularly stages live music events, bingo and quiz nights as well as running a popular film club on Monday nights. But Elizabeth Walters, 53, of North Parade, who has written to the licensing committee, is urging club officials to enforce its rules and stop the noise. She said: "I have already complained to the committee and was told that they were treating the issue extremely seriously. But nothing has changed." She claimed the problems were worse at weekends when the club stages live music events and drinks promotions. Hanging around "I knew the club was there when I bought the property and I appreciate people need somewhere to go. "But I regularly find I am awake at 3am unable to sleep because of people hanging around after the club has closed, smoking and drinking outside." John King Comments: Second-home owner from Derbyshire (woman 53) buys house with bedroom 4 metres from door of social club. Now she is objecting to it's licence. Yet again these purely selfish actions will be rewarded by t...he Licensing Authority. So much for the Big Society. Do you get the impression that licensing officers take these kinds of cases up because they have NOTHING else to do with their time? |
|
26 Jan 11 - 12:46 PM (#3082768) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?gid=2011-01-25a.62.0 My hon. Friend has mentioned two issues concerning the broader deregulation agenda. One is licensing, particularly of live music and entertainment events. He gave some good examples of the great breadth of entertainment that is frequently provided by owners of historic houses up and down the country. The creativity and range of those events is continuously growing, and we can all cite examples of the events being held at historic properties in almost every constituency around the country, which is all to the good. The fact that such events take place is superb, because it provides a sustainable reason for many of these properties to continue to exist. It will make sure that they are living and thriving and that they are not just museums or mausoleums, but have a current purpose, which is excellent. ----------------------------------- In the case of the licensing regime, a great many people have concerns. Musicians' unions, for example, are calling for deregulation. My hon. Friend will understand that if one chose to go down that route, it would be important to make sure that there were no unintended consequences. There are real risks associated with live entertainment of one kind or another, simply because it can involve a large number of people in a comparatively small space. There are therefore concerns about health and safety, the disturbance caused by people arriving at and leaving a venue, public order and so on. All those issues have to be dealt with, so the devil in deregulating, or reducing the amount of regulation involved in, the licensing of entertaining is very much in the detail. I am, however, happy to reassure my hon. Friend that we are in the middle of discussions. I hope to have something to announce in due course, but that will rather depend on collective responsibility. My hon. Friend will understand that other Whitehall Departments are concerned to ensure that the right things are done on, for example, health and safety legislation or public order. The Department for Work and Pensions would be involved on health and safety, while the Home Office would be involved on public order. They have to sign off and approve these things, which have to be carefully and properly considered so that everybody is sure that we are not creating an unintended consequence. In other words, no one in the current Govt knows what to do or who is supposed to be doing it.... |
|
27 Jan 11 - 06:16 AM (#3083226) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Licensing minister John Penrose has suggested that plans to cut red tape for live music are out of his hands, and dependent on consent from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office. In a Westminster Hall debate last Tuesday, 25th January, he said: 'In the case of the licensing regime, a great many people have concerns. Musicians' unions, for example, are calling for deregulation. My hon. Friend [Tony Baldry, Banbury, Con] will understand that if one chose to go down that route, it would be important to make sure that there were no unintended consequences. There are real risks associated with live entertainment of one kind or another, simply because it can involve a large number of people in a comparatively small space. There are therefore concerns about health and safety, the disturbance caused by people arriving at and leaving a venue, public order and so on. All those issues have to be dealt with, so the devil in deregulating, or reducing the amount of regulation involved in, the licensing of entertaining is very much in the detail. 'I am, however, happy to reassure my hon. Friend that we are in the middle of discussions. I hope to have something to announce in due course, but that will rather depend on collective responsibility. My hon. Friend will understand that other Whitehall Departments are concerned to ensure that the right things are done on, for example, health and safety legislation or public order. The Department for Work and Pensions would be involved on health and safety, while the Home Office would be involved on public order. They have to sign off and approve these things, which have to be carefully and properly considered so that everybody is sure that we are not creating an unintended consequence.' See: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?gid=2011-01-25a.62.0 Safety risks arising from of 'a large number of people in a comparatively small space' are already addressed in health and safety and fire safety legislation. The potential for nuisance is addressed in environmental legislation. Crime and disorder is similarly addressed by separate legislation. This wide-ranging legislative framework is deemed quite adequate by the government to regulate such risks where big screen broadcast entertainment is provided in pubs, bars, restaurants, city centres and indeed anywhere in England and Wales. The only arguable justification for a licensing regime pre-emptively criminalising the provision of live music subject to prior consent from the public or the local authority, or both, is where there is the potential for a significant negative impact on the local community that cannot be adequately regulated by existing legislation. This is clearly not the case for the vast majority of small gigs taking place within reasonable hours. For the umpteenth time a minister directly involved in the deregulation debate fails to grasp this by the horns and explain why live music should be a special case. |
|
28 Jan 11 - 01:41 PM (#3084174) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=68917 However, Tory MP John Whittingdale voiced his frustration over talk of public safety concerns around live music and said he would "disappointed" if the reforms were watered down. "We have always believed the argument around public safety is a false one. There are already laws in place to cover that." Whittingdale is chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport committee which previously recommended the licensing around live music be relaxed – to include an exemption for venues with a capacity below 200. |
|
28 Jan 11 - 01:44 PM (#3084178) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044030&c=1 A Liberal Democrat spokesman said Clement-Jones' private members bill, which has suggested an exception for audiences of 200 people or less, is now likely to go before the Lords in early March. He also expects the Government will now wait until then before making its mind up on an exception. |
|
28 Jan 11 - 01:50 PM (#3084182) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.westendextra.com/news/2011/jan/%E2%80%98gigs-plan-not-music-our-ears%E2%80%99-say-mayfair-residents-call-rejection-7- John King comments: Objections to live music at Guy Ritchie's pub. DJ's are already allowed - and apparently have caused no problems. |
|
02 Feb 11 - 02:57 AM (#3087018) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110131/text/110131w0001.htm#11013113001942 John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what timetable he has set for his consultation on changes to Schedule 1 of the Licensing Act 2003; and if he will publish a timetable for consultation on changes to the Licensing Act 2003. [36350] John Penrose: The Government are currently considering options to remove red tape from live music and other entertainment. I hope to be able to announce our conclusions, including the timetable for reform, shortly. |
|
03 Feb 11 - 03:00 AM (#3087731) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/8826908.Wetherspoons_try_to_change_licence/?ref=rss Variations to the conditions of the licence for the Blackwater Stream, formerly the Stepping Stones in Lower Blandford Road, Broadstone, Poole, are being sought by Wetherspoons. These include removing all categories of regulated entertainment, permitting the sale of alcohol from 9am each day and opening hours from 7am. One person has objected on the grounds of noise and disturbance. The Borough of Poole's licensing sub-committee will consider the application on February 8 at the Civic Centre John King comments: This is SO stupid! It is but it is an inevitable result of combining entertainment permission and alcohol licensing in the same licence. There are countless examples provided in this thread of where entertainment and especially live music, is seen as secondary by both the licensee and the licensing authority and is limited or prevented in order to allow alcohol to be served...... Stupid it is but it is also official vandalism. Local authorities have many more responsibilities than just ensuring that alcohol is served. They choose and are allowed to ignore these responsibilities. |
|
03 Feb 11 - 01:01 PM (#3087958) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-02-02a.37572.h Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West, Liberal Democrat) To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport how many live music licences were issued to premises with a capacity of under (a) 100 persons and (b) 200 persons in (i) England, (ii) Yorkshire and (iii) Leeds in each year since 2005. Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 2 February 2011, c820W) John Penrose (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport; Weston-Super-Mare, Conservative) The Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not collate data specifically on premises licence applications for the provision of live music, and does not collate data by premises size. This is because the Licensing Act 2003 defines activities, not premises type. |
|
04 Feb 11 - 10:02 AM (#3088558) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2011-02-03a.1530.0 The current situation over the licensing of live music, which has had such a detrimental effect on young musicians, is confusing. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is waiting for the second Second Reading of his Live Music Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, was encouraging in June 2009, and the coalition Administration have made sympathetic noises, but the problem is not resolved. The Licensing Minister, John Penrose, has suggested that plans to cut red tape for live music are out of his hands and are dependent on consent from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office. In a Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday 25 January, he referred to the many aspects of licensing for live music that are covered by existing legislation, but live music at small events is not exempt. The only arguable justification for a licensing regime pre-emptively criminalising the provision of live music subject to prior consent from the public or the local authority, or both, is where there is the potential for a significant negative impact on the local community that cannot be adequately regulated by existing legislation. This is clearly not the case for the vast majority of small gigs taking place within reasonable hours. It would be very helpful if the Minister would write to me with an easy-to-read explanation of the current licensing situation on live music and small venue exemptions. John King comments: Lord Colwyn reveals the astonishingly low number of jazz, folk and classical performances in the UK. At any given time, there are more licensing authorities than there are jazz performances taking place. The situation is even worse for folk and classical. |
|
07 Feb 11 - 09:40 PM (#3090852) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/news/East-Grinstead-restaurant-reapplies-alcohol-licence-following-mistake/article-3174401-detail/ John King comments: Lucky for Star Burger they were only serving alcohol without a licence. Had they been holding unlicensed live music they'd be in real trouble... |
|
10 Feb 11 - 06:45 AM (#3092348) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/livemusichl.html Latest news on the Bill First reading took place on 7 July. This stage is a formality that signals the start of the Bill's journey through the Lords. Second reading - the general debate on all aspects of the Bill - will 4 March. Summary of the Bill A Bill to amend the Licensing Act 2003 with respect to the performance of live music entertainment; and for connected purposes John King comments: Finally, a date for the second 2nd reading of the Live Music Bill. But still no proposals from a Govt of which Lord Clement Jones's Party (Lib Dem) is part of and where both Parties supported the measures proposed in this Bill, when they were in opposition. |
|
10 Feb 11 - 11:39 AM (#3092502) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall: Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill will get its 2nd reading on Friday 4th March: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/livemusichl.html Among other things, the bill proposes an exemption from entertainment licensing for live music performed to audiences of up to 200 people, between 8am and midnight in bars and restaurants, schools, hospitals and other workplaces: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/012/11012.1-i.html This will be the first time that Lord Clement-Jones' bill gets a full debate. Both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in opposition publicly supported the 200-capacity gig exemption recommended by the Culture select committee in May 2009: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/492/492.pdf On Monday 31st January 2011, licensing minister John Penrose suggested that a government announcement about entertainment licensing reform was imminent: John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what timetable he has set for his consultation on changes to Schedule 1 of the Licensing Act 2003; and if he will publish a timetable for consultation on changes to the Licensing Act 2003. [36350] John Penrose: The Government are currently considering options to remove red tape from live music and other entertainment. I hope to be able to announce our conclusions, including the timetable for reform, shortly. See: http://bit.ly/gmkgek The timing of the live music bill represents an opportunity for the government. It could implement its reform by supporting the bill, and putting forward amendments at Committee stage (which would follow about two weeks after 2nd reading). ENDS |
|
10 Feb 11 - 11:44 AM (#3092508) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044187&c=1 Pressure is mounting on the Government to show its hand on live music licensing after the House of Lords set a date for the second reading of the Clement-Jones Live Music Bill. |
|
10 Feb 11 - 11:51 AM (#3092517) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.instituteoflicensing.org/article_id/1000592/2011/01/31/Reduce+Red+Tape+for+Live+Music.html Licensing minister John Penrose has stressed there are "real risks" associated with live music events and that any decision on deregulation will be taken by a number of departments. |
|
11 Feb 11 - 06:49 AM (#3093046) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Not sure where Mr Penrose STRESSED what the Institute of Licensing reported - perhaps any Mudcatter who is a member can read the article in full and inform us? http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/8846836.Lances_at_the_ready_for_battle_of_Rhinefield/ John king comments: Cultural events are strangled by red tape and loony local councils with nothing better to do. Here is a jousting competition - with live music - facing 80 objections and a 177 page 'report'. |
|
11 Feb 11 - 05:05 PM (#3093484) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Tootler There is no use in posting links to sites where you have to login to read the article. Similarly some of your links are to news pages which have a constant url but whose content changes on a daily basis. Please check that the content of your links is generally accessible and that the content is likely to remain there for a reasonable time before posting. |
|
12 Feb 11 - 05:47 PM (#3094043) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles "There are therefore concerns about ...health and safety, the disturbance caused by people arriving at and leaving a venue, public order and so on." The risks Mr Penrose is reported as referring to, as being associated with live music, as he later lists and explains are not of course exclusive to live music. However, far too much of the existing red tape is adversly affecting this as current licensing legislation and its local enforcement concentrates on the possibility of concerns and is allowed to ignore the definite cultural benefits of live music. |
|
14 Feb 11 - 02:06 AM (#3094824) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=69032 Mr Penrose is again wrongly reported in this article to have "argued there was "real risks" around live music." He actually referred to "real risks associated with live entertainment of one kind or another." |
|
15 Feb 11 - 02:57 AM (#3095495) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110210/text/110210w0001.htm#11021079000131 The Government have in place a package of measures designed to help community pubs, including: - reforming licensing rules to make its easier to play live music in local pubs. In what place is this measure..........? |
|
15 Feb 11 - 03:02 AM (#3095497) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.borehamwoodtimes.co.uk/news/8852363.Cricket_centre_granted_extended_times_for_music_at_licensing_hearing/ John King comments: Live music reinstated at Shenley Cricket Club, but they had to fight hard for it (and hire Poppleston Allen to do it). No matter how long ago a complaint was made, Environmental Health Officers will bring it up for all eternity. |
|
16 Feb 11 - 04:39 AM (#3096253) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles With major football matches which involve gatherings of many people, there is little doubt that measures like police and private stewarding are only sensible to ensure crowd safety are required. But this response is proportionate to the matches in question. There is seen to be no requirement for police and private stewarding to attend all of the many matches which take place every weekend, on parks and recreation grounds all over the country. But if it was thought to be necessary - would anyone try to maintain that such an approach would not harm the public's participation in football but would encourage it? But this is the approach that is now thought necessary by local licensing authorities and the LGA Group lobby, for all the small-scale live music which takes place in the nation's remaining pubs and other venues. |
|
16 Feb 11 - 01:24 PM (#3096603) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.alcohollicence.org/will-the-big-society-support-live-music/ The MIA has again pledged to back the campaign to support live music – but has asked whether the much-hyped Big Society initiative will take this issue to heart. |
|
17 Feb 11 - 08:38 AM (#3097087) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2011-02-16a.299.1 'That is why, separately, the Government are proposing to reform the licensing law to make it easier for live entertainment to take place without some of the bureaucratic licensing requirements, particularly in smaller venues.' Bob Neill (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government; Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative) John King comments: Sadly the Govt is now proposing to reduce only 'some' of the bureacracy. Historically, ANY bureacracy will be gold-plated and abused by Local Authorities. |
|
17 Feb 11 - 08:49 AM (#3097093) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles It is wrong for this lot to keep on claiming credit and refer to this Govt's proposals being in place, when there remain no such proposals to reform licensing and no one seems to even know whose responsibilty this would be....... |
|
18 Feb 11 - 06:24 AM (#3097810) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044254&c=1 Thursday February 17, 2011 By Robert Ashton An early day motion about live music and licensing exceptions for small venues has been submitted by Culture Select Committee chairman John Whittingdale. The Conservative MP has already attracted eight signatures in support of his EDM, which noted "that it is now more than 12 months since the Department for Culture, Media and Sport launched a consultation to exempt small live music events from the bureaucracy of the Licensing Act 2007." Whittingdale also suggested that an exemption for small venues has not yet been granted despite a commitment from the Coalition to cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music. He called on the Government to introduce an exemption "without delay John King comments: John Whittingdale's EDM says EXEMPT small scale live music from red-tape. REDUCING the amount of red-tape simply won't work... A good example of why this approach will not work is S177 of the Act and the 'minor variations' measure which was introduced by the last Govt. Neither of these has or could have any effect because this method is beloved of those whose whole being is red tape and who care little about anything else. |
|
18 Feb 11 - 06:44 AM (#3097820) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles EDM 1465 LIVE PERFORMANCES (No. 2)16.02.2011 Whittingdale, John That this House notes that it is now more than 12 months since the Department for Culture, Media and Sport launched a consultation to exempt small live music events from the bureaucracy of the Licensing Act 2007; further notes that an exemption has not yet been granted despite the commitment to cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music in the Coalition Agreement; and calls on the Government to introduce an exemption without delay. |
|
18 Feb 11 - 06:45 AM (#3097821) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42496&SESSION=905 Please write and ask your MP to support the above EDM... |
|
18 Feb 11 - 10:16 AM (#3097948) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/whittingdale-calls-on-government-to-speed-up-live-exemption/ Whittingdale's motion calls on the government to introduce the exemption for smaller venues "without delay", noting such an exemption has been much previously discussed, that it has much support across parliament, and that a consultation on the issue was started over a year ago. Other MPs already backing the motion include Mike Weatherley, Peter Bottomley and Jeremy Corbyn. |
|
18 Feb 11 - 10:18 AM (#3097950) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The ways to contact your MP and ask them to support EDM 1465. http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-your-mp/ |
|
21 Feb 11 - 07:01 AM (#3099631) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Meanwhile................. It is likely that licensing minister James Brokenshire will consider last week's committee stage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill something of a triumph: very few banana-skin moments, lots of unsubstantiated waffle which was not challenged and a completely unscathed licensing section. http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/89817?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n |
|
23 Feb 11 - 04:32 AM (#3100921) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.newstatesman.com/pdf/20110221socialising.pdf Feargal Sharkey's New Statesman article on page 6. '...our less progressive councils insist on viewing live music as a potential threat to the fabric of society' |
|
23 Feb 11 - 04:38 AM (#3100927) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12505772 Is live music under threat in the UK? John King comments: Apparently Feargal Sharkey is only 'fairly convinced' that the Licensing Act is causing problems. Is he about to let the side down again? |
|
23 Feb 11 - 04:43 AM (#3100932) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://bluesmatters.com/magazine/2011/02/an-end-in-sight-to-the-damage-caused-to-live-music-by-the-last-government%E2%80%99s-ill AN END IN SIGHT TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO LIVE MUSIC BY THE LAST GOVERNMENT'S ILL ADVISED LICENSING LAWS? Posted on February 17, 2011 |
|
23 Feb 11 - 04:47 AM (#3100935) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://blog.musicroom.com/music-news/mia-supports-live-music-venue-amendments Paul McManus, chief executive officer of the MIA, explained: "While it is encouraging that the Bill will be debated, the fact that it remains unclear whether the government will provide the necessary support is of concern. |
|
23 Feb 11 - 04:52 AM (#3100938) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Police-opposition-to-later-licence-for-restaurant.htm John King comments: How much crime is caused by entertainment in Chinese restaurants? Probably zero. The police are objecting to this licence because they have forgotten how to serve the community that pays their wages. |
|
23 Feb 11 - 05:28 AM (#3100965) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: sian, west wales I've had a call from a researcher working for Jenny Randerson, a LibDem Welsh Assembly Member who (apparently) has 'gone up' to the House of Lords recently. She's making her maiden speech in the Licensing Debate in the Lords, the morning of March 4th. I sent her trac's response to the last consultation plus a variety of market stats and other background info on traditonal music. Wait and see, I guess. sian |
|
23 Feb 11 - 09:28 AM (#3101125) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall An Early Day Motion calling on the government to introduce an entertainment licence exemption for small gigs 'without delay' was tabled last week by John Whittingdale: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42496&SESSION=905 'EDM 1465: That this House notes that it is now more than 12 months since the Department for Culture, Media and Sport launched a consultation to exempt small live music events from the bureaucracy of the Licensing Act 2007; further notes that an exemption has not yet been granted despite the commitment to cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music in the Coalition Agreement; and calls on the Government to introduce an exemption without delay.' 2007 is a misprint and should read 2003. Mr Whittingdale is the Conservative chair of the all party Culture, Media and Sport select committee. In 2008/9 the committee held a public inquiry into the Licensing Act. After taking evidence from all stakeholders, including local government representatives and the police, it recommended, among other things, an exemption for gigs in venues up to 200 capacity: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/492/492.pdf To date the new EDM has 15 MPs' signatures in support. But it needs to do much better if it is to have any significant influence on the government. Please ask your MP to sign. You can send them a message using this website: www.theyworkforyou.com Support for this EDM is particularly important in view of the 2nd reading of Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill on Friday 4th March, and the announcement on entertainment licensing deregulation promised 'shortly' by DCMS minister John Penrose on 31st January. The bill, and Penrose's imminent announcement, represent the best opportunity in many years for real improvement and modernisation of the way performances of live music are regulated. ENDS |
|
23 Feb 11 - 09:41 AM (#3101130) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=69113&c=1 Culture committee chairman John Whittingdale adds to pressure on DCMS to reveal its hand An influential Tory MP has called on the government to introduce a licence exemption on small pub gigs "without delay". John Whittingdale, chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee, has increased the pressure on the coalition to act by tabling a parliamentary motion on the long-running issue around live music. |
|
23 Feb 11 - 09:46 AM (#3101136) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=102752489786607&ref=search CAMPAIGN FOR THE FREEDOM OF MUSIC After winning a groundbreaking court case against Manchester City Council for cancelling a Bob Marley Tribute Festival in Manchester, Mike Forrester from Gold National Events now wants a public enquiry into the practices of Councils and the Police in their procedures towards urban music so that other promoters, festival organisers and club owners can give the public the freedom of music without the bureaucracy and bias. Please sign this petition that you agree that an enquiry should be held, we want to get 250,000 signatures. |
|
25 Feb 11 - 05:56 AM (#3102498) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/guy-ritchie-drops-bid-for-live-gigs-at-pub_1203935 Locals worried about noise levels were outraged by his proposal, while Father William Pearsall at the nearby Jesuit Church of the Immaculate Conception claimed nightly gigs would "contribute" to nuisance. Ritchie dropped his bid on Wednesday (23Feb11), a day before his application was due to be considered by Westminster Council's licensing sub-committee on Thursday (24Feb11). It is believed the request was withdrawn with a view to reapplying later this year (11), after Ritchie has consulted residents. |
|
25 Feb 11 - 06:00 AM (#3102502) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ism.org/news_campaigns/article/first_debate_on_the_live_music_bill_friday_4_march/ Deborah Annetts, Chief Executive of the Incorporated Society of Musicians, urged peers to back the Bill saying: 'So many musicians rely on performing live during their career but the current licensing regime is causing opportunities to dry up. In these testing economic times, removing these unfair restrictions can only help musicians. 'Live music is a vital part of our culture and the House of Lords has a real opportunity to begin the process of reducing the bureaucracy which is crippling the small live music event industry and hampering fledgling careers.' |
|
01 Mar 11 - 04:14 AM (#3104792) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.artscampaign.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=413%3Alive-music-bill-to-have-second-reading-in-the- The Live Music Bill seeks to amend the Licensing Act in four ways: An exemption for live music in small venues that are licensed under the Licensing Act 2003, conditional on a new Section 177 A reintroduction of the "two-in-a-bar" rule An amended Section 177, which will act as an effective licence review mechanism for complaints about live music in licensed premises A total exemption for hospitals, schools and colleges from the requirement to obtain a licence for live music when providing entertainment where alcohol is not sold, and the entertainment involves no more than 200 people The NCA has given its full support to the Bill, which is also backed by Equity, the Musicians Union, the Incorporated Society of Musicians, the Live Music Forum, UK Music, and the Publican. |
|
01 Mar 11 - 04:20 AM (#3104794) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisislichfield.co.uk/news/City-pub-faces-music-noise-complaint/article-3260878-detail/article.html Mr Rackham, who also hosts Lichfield Folk Club singing sea shanties once a fortnight, says he is aiming to meet the demand for live music in Lichfield and has been organising acts for the past six years. He said: "It is important for the city. And there is a good atmosphere at the King's Head. There's no trouble – people just come along to enjoy themselves." One fan is Lichfield MP Michael Fabricant who, after attending an open mic night, declared the King's Head his "very favourite pub". But Mr Rackham is under no illusions – losing his music licence would have a serious effect John King comments: ONE anonymous complaint and Lichfield Council start proceeding to ban live music. It's time for the LGA 'Culture' spokesman to step down. |
|
01 Mar 11 - 01:41 PM (#3105081) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2011-02-28a.96.1 John King comments: Live music licensing gets several mentions in the Big Society debate |
|
02 Mar 11 - 04:20 AM (#3105435) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.mi-pro.co.uk/news/32017/MIA-backs-live-music-Bill Paul McManus, the chief executive of the MIA, urged peers to back the Bill. "We offer our full support to Lord Clement-Jones on these vital amendments," he said. "Live music is the lifeblood of the music industry and small venues are often the first chance a young or new musician gets to perform and we must do all we can to ensure government legislation does not frustrate this." |
|
02 Mar 11 - 09:58 AM (#3105606) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles *Correction* The NCA referred in error to the original live music bill, not the revised one (which doesn't seek to reintroduce the 'two in a bar rule'). Attention has been drawn to this and they are going to correct and update that webpage. http://www.artscampaign.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=413%3Alive-music-bill-to-have-second-reading-in-the- |
|
02 Mar 11 - 10:05 AM (#3105610) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The legislation itself is of course a problem to be addressed but mainly because the expectation from those who make the legislation is that those who are paid to enforce it, will do so sensibly and that they are impartial. The LGA Group lobby has shown this not to be the reality. for it was never sensible or impartial for them to interpret the exemption that was the old 'two-in-a-bar' rule, to mean that any form of live music made by more than two people was automatically a licensable performance had had to be paid for or urgently prevented. Live music has to be taken out of the hands of these vandals who have proved that they only look after their own self-interests, whilst hiding behind fine words about protecting the public. I am a member of that public and have had no protection from the LGA Group lobby but I and all live music and culture do need protection from them. One can only hope that this Govt will finally provide this protection........ |
|
03 Mar 11 - 07:52 AM (#3106142) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall New Conservative Peer Michael Grade will use his maiden speech in the House of Lords tomorrow, Friday 4th March, to back Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, reports Robert Ashton in Music Week: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044397&c=1 Other notable speakers include broadcaster and journalist Joan Bakewell (Labour), and former Playschool presenter Floella Benjamin (Lib Dem). Both were made Baronesses last year. In the past week, public support for the bill has also been voiced by the Incorporated Society of Musicians, the Music Industry Association, and the National Campaign for the Arts: Deborah Annetts, chief executive of the ISM, said: 'So many musicians rely on performing live during their career but the current licensing regime is causing opportunities to dry up. In these testing economic times, removing these unfair restrictions can only help musicians. Live music is a vital part of our culture and the House of Lords has a real opportunity to begin the process of reducing the bureaucracy which is crippling the small live music event industry and hampering fledgling careers.' See: http://bit.ly/dSCLnV Paul McManus, chief executive of MIA, said: 'We offer our full support to Lord Clement-Jones on these vital amendments... live music is the lifeblood of the music industry and small venues are often the first chance a young or new musician gets to perform and we must do all we can to ensure government legislation does not frustrate this.' See: http://www.mi-pro.co.uk/news/32017/MIA-backs-live-music-Bill NCA statement: 'The NCA has given its full support to the Bill, which is also backed by Equity, the Musicians Union, the Incorporated Society of Musicians, the Live Music Forum, UK Music, and the Publican. We hope to see the bill clear its Lords stages, as it has done previously, and the NCA will be pressing for the Government to allow the Commons time to debate the bill and support its passage into law.' See: http://bit.ly/ejXtjw [Note that their reference to a reintroduction of the two performer exemption is a mistake. It was included in the first live music bill last year, but is not included in the bill to be debated tomorrow, which imposes no limit on the number limit of performers]. The bill has also received consistent and high profile support from UK Music, the lobbying agency for the music industry, and its Chief Executive Feargal Sharkey: http://bit.ly/hZeJB1 See Sharkey also in The Independent, 'The Act killing live music', 20 September 2010: http://ind.pn/algz0c The Publican, a leading licensing trade paper, has been campaigning in support of the bill for over a year: http://www.thepublican.com/section.asp?navcode=399 ENDS |
|
03 Mar 11 - 08:43 AM (#3106167) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044397&c=1 If the Bill passes through this stage it will be moved to the committee stage in the Lords in a few weeks time, where amendments – either proposed by opponents or Clement-Jones' himself – can be debated. If that is successful it can pass to a third reading before moving to the Commons where it will have to be sponsored by an MP. It is likely Lib Dem MP Don Foster, who pushed the Bill under the last parliamentary session, would again support it. Kiehl added that unlike the last parliamentary session, this time around the Bill has plenty of time to be debated. |
|
03 Mar 11 - 09:19 AM (#3106183) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42496&SESSION=905 28 MPs have now signed this EDM - has your MP signed? |
|
04 Mar 11 - 03:10 AM (#3106660) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles You can find out who your MP is and ask them to sign EDM 1456 on the following site. www.theyworkforyou.com |
|
06 Mar 11 - 12:42 PM (#3108172) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following form Hamish Birchall In a surprise and welcome move, the government yesterday announced its support for Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, subject to certain conditions. Government support significantly increases the bill's chances of success. The conditions include an 11pm cut-off time for performances of live music exempt from entertainment licensing, and a full impact assessment before the bill could become law. Speaking for the government in yesterday's 2nd reading, Baroness Rawlings said: 'I offer my congratulations once again to my noble friend on his Bill, and reiterate the Government's general support, qualified as I have outlined earlier for the measures. We wish to see the Bill amended to take account of the 11 pm noise cut-off for unlicensed live music performance, to make certain that he has continued support. We would like to explore consequential drafting and other amendments with my noble friend in Committee. We are delighted to see that the Bill retains the key protections from the Licensing Act 2003, while making certain that low-risk community events are no longer prevented, or overburdened, by red tape and bureaucracy. The consequences of the Licensing Act 2003 have been to disadvantage many of the cornerstones of local life. It should not be the role of government to restrict creativity and community interaction, but to promote it.' She concluded: 'I congratulate my noble friend once again and wish the Bill a safe and swift passage.' The bill now moves to Committee stage in the Lords, probably within a month. There its provisions will be put under detailed scrutiny, and the government is likely to table its own amendments. Eloquent and passionate support for the bill came in speeches from a number of Peers, including Michael Grade (Conservative, maiden speech), Jenny Randerson (Liberal Democrat - maiden speech), Robin Teverson (Liberal Democrat), Anthony Colwyn (Conservative), Joan Bakewell (Labour), Floella Benjamin (Liberal Democrat), Rupert Redesdale (Liberal Democrat), Merlin Hay (Earl of Erroll, Cross-bencher) and of course the bill's sponsor, Tim Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat). Opposition Labour spokesperson Lord Stevenson of Balmacara admitted that his government had 'got it wrong' with the Licensing Act and live music. Winding up the debate, Lord Clement-Jones thanked his colleagues for their contributions and for the government's 'encouraging words': 'We have been inspired during this debate by the description of the key role played by live music in all our lives and how we want it to make an even bigger impact on them. The Live Music Bill aims to rebalance the Licensing Act and restore some fairness to the treatment of live music and musicians by the licensing authorities. I hope that noble Lords will support it as it goes through the House and I request that it be given a Second Reading. ' Full Hansard text of the debate: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/05.htm Media coverage includes this morning's BBC Radio 4 'Today', with a clip of Lord Clement-Jones' opening speech (from about 2'30" to 3'20"): http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9415000/9415587.stm '... we had the ridiculous situation where Westminster City Council told Tate Britain to get an entertainment licence for Susan Philipsz's Turner Prize-winning sound installation. Ms Philipsz's prize-winning exhibit features a recording of her singing "Lowlands Away", a traditional folk song, played through two loudspeakers. Westminster's legal department ruled that the Act's incidental music exemption could not apply in this case.' The Publican 4th March, 'Live music bill gets government backing': http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=69168&c=1 and the same story in Music Week, 4th March: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044422 The Stage 4th March: 'Grade uses first speech in the Lords to back live music bill': http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/31478/grade-uses-first-speech-in-house-of-lords-to The Incorporated Society of Musicians welcomed the government's backing for the bill. ISM Chief Executive Deborah Annetts said: 'We're delighted that the Live Music Bill has passed its first parliamentary test and has received the support of the government. It's vital that we demolish the bureaucratic barriers of the current licensing regime and allow live music to thrive. Live music-making is a crucial part of our creative economy and many musicians receive their first break by performing in a small venue. We will continue urging peers and MPs to support the Bill as it progresses through Parliament.' http://www.ism.org/news_campaigns/article/leap_forward_in_lords_for_live_music/ Watch the debate on the Parliament website: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/march/live-music-bill-2nd-reading/ Debate text with hyperlinks from theyworkforyou.com http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2011-03-04a.1313.2&s=votes ENDS |
|
06 Mar 11 - 12:51 PM (#3108178) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=69168 Lord Clement-Jones said he was "delighted" the Bill had received such a "positive reception". He later added: "The Live Music Bill will benefit hundreds of small pubs, restaurants and church and community halls who want live music at their venue by generally removing the need to apply for a complicated licence. "I'm glad the government has responded so positively to this Bill and I look forward to working with them to fulfil the coalition agreement's pledge to put an end to red tape and bureaucracy." The coalition had committed to cutting red trap on small scale live music, but so far stalled on announcing its plans on how to tackle this. Earlier, the Bill received plenty of support from peers, including Michael Grade, the former ITV chairman, who was making his maiden speech in the Lords. |
|
06 Mar 11 - 12:55 PM (#3108180) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/31478/grade-uses-first-speech-in-house-of-lords-to [Lord] Grade said that under the current act, anyone who plays without a licence "can tune up and get banged up" and added that acts such as Gilbert and Sullivan and the Beatles would not have been so successful had they been forced to operate under the act. "They all had to start somewhere, and I am certain that wherever they did start, they were not burdened with the redundant bureaucracy of filling out forms to apply for a licence for a harmless pursuit," he said. Grade also said that in an "iPod and headphone world" more should be done to "encourage and promote live performance". He also claimed the act "threatens musical life in our nations at its most fragile point – grassroots level". |
|
06 Mar 11 - 02:46 PM (#3108275) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This is certainly better news. However, I am concerned at the thinking behind the strange idea, proposed to address noise, that at some point in the day, whether at 11.30pm or at midnight, all non-amplified live music requires Additional Entertainment Permission, which it does not require earlier in the same day........... As this cannot give permission to make noise pollution but only give Additional Entertainment Permission - what is the point of having such a curfew? 1. For if the non-amplified live music is not judged to be noise pollution prior to wherever the curfew time is placed - then it will not automatically become noise pollution after this time. 2. If this or indeed any form of music is judged to be noise pollution after this curfew time - then it must have been noise pollution prior to this curfew time. 3. If anything is noise pollution at any time of the day - then the correct legislation must be used to deal with it. I am also concerned that it is our side which is making the proposal. I can understand the wish to take away the opposition's wind but this measure would create a situation where all non-amplified music automatically becomes noise pollution at a certain time of day. This is plainly nonsense. It is encouraging the opposition's (The LGA Group lobby) continuing pretence that additional entertainment permission is a method of dealing with noise pollution. As it can only apply if the noise pollution is emanating from some form of Regulated Entertainment, it cannot be this. For example, if a license decided to operate a chain-saw or some other noisy equipment at any time of the day - this would have to dealt with by the correct noise pollution legislation. Things like when live music ends should not be a licensing matter. They do not currently need licensing conditions imposed for what time they start or stop other pub activities. If they wish to stop serving food at 9.00, it is and should be a matter for them. If they decide to carry on to the time when they have to stop serving alcohol and this leads to complaints - then the validity of those complaints can be assessed at that point. I can see that there might be view that this may not be the right time to examine the whole noise/permission issue - but this debate should have been conducted some time ago...... ENDS |
|
06 Mar 11 - 02:52 PM (#3108279) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles My Live Music Bill amends the Licensing Act 2003 in five main respects, including an exemption for live music in small venues for audiences of up to 200 that are licensed under that Act. This exemption is conditional on a new Section 177, which could be triggered to review a licence and make live music in that venue licensable if complaints by local residents are made. The Bill reinforces the rights of residents by allowing conditions to be placed on the premises' licences, following complaints upheld under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Unamplified live music is exempted anywhere between 8 am and midnight on the same day, but this can be disapplied in alcohol-licensed premises if complaints are upheld. Conditions could then be applied. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/05.htm |
|
07 Mar 11 - 02:08 AM (#3108680) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles There is a new exemption under the Bill to allow live and recorded music to accompany morris dancing, which I am sure my noble friend Lord Redesdale will approve of. Why do the Lords have this obbsession with Morris (which has not suffered under the Act) to the exclusion of other folk arts like Mumming plays, sessions and the like (which have)? Is non-amplified for Morris going to be the only type of non-amplified live music that is not to be automatically licensable between midnight and 8 am? If not and it is brought into line with what is now proposed for other types of non-amplified music and exempted amplified and recorded music - this will mean that all Morris pre 8am (well dressing and dawn welcoming etc) will now require licensing. |
|
07 Mar 11 - 03:24 AM (#3108701) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles In the many pubs which can now serve alcohol well past 11pm - all non-amplified live music will still require additional entertainment licensing permission if it to continue past 11pm - on grounds of noise? The scapegoating of live music for no purpose other than to enable alcohol to be served, is set to continue. There is an opportunity here to remove the link created by the last Govt between the licensing of alcohol and the licensing of live music and doing it in one licence. This opportunity should be taken. This would allow the controls that are required to address the problems associated with alcohol and would enable the benefits that live music undoubtable brings. Our Govt and Peers seem finally to have recognised these benefits but just seem unable to move far enough away from long-engrained assumptions to do what is requred. There are Home Office proposals which are intended to deal with alcohol related problems but will also affect live music, as the same licence and procedure is in place for both activities. Lord Clement Jones To address the point about residents which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, picked up, the Local Government Association and others have commented on that and it is the reason why these proposals have sometimes got rather stuck in the pipeline. I do not believe that this Bill will adversely affect local residents. The Bill explicitly safeguards residents from public nuisance caused by noise from live music, by allowing licence conditions to be imposed as part of the process under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If these exceptions under the Bill are not granted we may well go backwards, as the coalition Government's Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill proposes changes to the Licensing Act 2003 that are aimed at dealing with alcohol-related crime. Two proposals in particular may have the unintended consequence of stifling live music. The vicinity test for making representations is proposed to be removed, so that any party can now object to a live music event even if they are located in the licensing authority area. Also under the same proposals, "necessary" will be replaced with "appropriate" in the powers given to councils when imposing licensing conditions. In 2009, the DCMS Select Committee rightly expressed concerns about the automatic association between live music and public disorder, so if we are not careful we will very much be again in the area of unintended consequences of combining the two forms of licensing: alcohol and music. That will not produce an effect which will advance the cause of live music. |
|
07 Mar 11 - 07:11 AM (#3108825) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.efdss.org/news/newsId/156 |
|
07 Mar 11 - 08:29 PM (#3109307) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=24894 John King comments: LACORS publish Lord Clement-Jones Live Music Bill press release. Charlotte Meller (architect of the notorious bagpipe licence) writes: 'We will let colleagues know when we have further details of this will be taken forward' (sic) |
|
08 Mar 11 - 03:13 AM (#3109432) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=23359 John King comments: Optimism about the Live Music Bill may evaporate when LACORS issue their revised edition of the Event Safety Guide for small/medium music venues. Register to be consulted at http://www.eventsindustryforum.co.uk/purple_guide/form.shtml |
|
08 Mar 11 - 02:40 PM (#3109812) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ukmusic.org/news/post/133-uk-music-welcomes-government-support-for-live-music-bill Commenting on the bill's passage, Feargal Sharkey, CEO UK Music said: "Not for the first time, I think the entire music industry will want to show its gratitude to Lord Clement-Jones for his perseverance and support. Cutting red tape around the performance of small-scale live music will have a major impact on the careers of fledgling artists and jobbing musicians. "With Government now openly supporting the common sense measures in this Bill, there is growing confidence that we can move quickly forward to unshackle and promote one of this country's greatest and most identifiable assets." |
|
10 Mar 11 - 02:44 AM (#3110906) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-03-08a.44278.h&s=%22live+music%22#g44278.q0 John Penrose: 'We have also provided warm support for the Bill proposed by Lord Clement-Jones in this area, albeit with some concerns over details of some of its proposals.' John King comments: Concerns no doubt wildly exaggerated by the Local Government Association. |
|
10 Mar 11 - 02:54 AM (#3110907) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42496&SESSION=905 30 MPs have now signed this EDM - has your MP signed? You can find out who your MP is and request that they sign Early Day Motion 1465 on the following http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ |
|
13 Mar 11 - 07:44 PM (#3113142) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Neighbours-oppose-bar-s-late-licence-bid/article-3314780-detail/article.html But Westcotes councillors Sarah Russell and Andy Connelly said the changes would increase noise and crime in the area. Councillor Russell said: "If you have a family or have to get up for work it is very unpleasant to hear loud noise." John King comments: Yet another live music application provokes pre-emptive complaints from neighbours. It remains to be seen whether the Council will ban live music (even unamplified) before it has happened. DJs are allowed already. |
|
15 Mar 11 - 12:05 PM (#3114228) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Rather unhelpfully and with poor timing - the EDMs on the Parliamentary website has been updated and the link given previously does not work Has your MP signed it yet? This is the new link: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1465 31 MPs have signed so far - has your MP signed EDM 1465 yet? |
|
16 Mar 11 - 01:35 PM (#3115066) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=16&storycode=69183&c=2 "Though there was backing for it, the coalition's advisers will know there is next to no chance of a private members' Bill becoming law" The government's backing of Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill caught observers a bit off-guard last week. Baroness Rawlings' repeated support was welcomed, but such warm words from a government spokesperson sounded almost too good to be true. And this is where I would urge campaigners – myself included – to delay any victory parade. |
|
16 Mar 11 - 01:39 PM (#3115070) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044560&c=1 Lib Dem Lord Clement-Jones has begun discussions with the Government about the sort of changes it wants to see in his Live Music Bill before it moves in to the House of Commons. Clement-Jones, whose Bill passed through its second reading in the Lords earlier this month, has been told that the Government planned to support the Bill – with caveats. |
|
17 Mar 11 - 06:19 AM (#3115560) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/City-pub-loses-bid-stay-open-2-30am/article-3328664-detail/article.html Leicester city centre pub loses its bid to stay open until 2.30am By Tom Mack Residents have won a fight to stop a Leicester city centre pub staying open later. The owners of the Goose on Hotel Street, near Leicester Cathedral, had applied for permission to serve alcohol and keep the pub open until 2.30am at weekends – an hour later than at present. John King comments: Although there had been no noise complaints about the pub or police objections to the application the Council has told the owners to install a noise-limiting device. Which will of course prevent most amplified music. |
|
17 Mar 11 - 09:34 AM (#3115653) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Prior to the Licensing act 2003 - there was live music in pubs which was exempt under the 'two-in-a-bar' rule. There was no evidence ever produced which showed that this was a problem that needed addressing by the abolition of this exenption. This live music ended when the pub closed (or a little before) but although there was general closing time for the serving of alcohol - there was never a set time by which this live music would automatically end or where it automatically required additional licensing permission. In theory, at least, there was nothing preventing this live music from continuing in pubs after closing time - but as pubs exist to sell alcohol - it was an unlikely event. The Licensing Act 2003 has done away with a generally set closing time for alcohol, in favour of a more flexible approach, which is generally appreciated. But now, despite the many problems associated with alcohol - it is live music, with its undoubted benefits, which finds itself with a set closing time or a time when it requires additional entertainment licensing to continue past a set time. This on the grounds that even non-amplified live music will automatically become a noise concern at this set time. And all this in advance, before a note has been sounded...... The really ilogical thing about this is that live music which proves in practice to be an actual noise concern and has not been granted additional entertainment licensing will be subject to the very same legislation to control noise, as would live music which has not been granted additional entertainment permission. So as permission to make noise is not possible - what purpose can the need for this additional licensing permission possibly provide to address noise? Additional entertainment licensing under the licensing Act 2003 is a very expensive and time consuming process - and as it cannot be used to deal with noise emanating from sources other than from entertainment - the pretence maintained by the LGA Group lobby and others, that additional entertainment permission can be any practical use to deal with noise, is one which is not credible and which must end. But now we find that our own side is agreement with this. The Live Music Bill first proposing a midnight point at which all live music must (except it would appear, non-amplified music for Morris dancing) requires additional entertainment licensing. The Govt are proposing an 11.30 point at which all live music requires the 'protection' afforded by this as part of the 'price' for their conditional support for the Private Members Bill. There is an argument that as all live music will be exempt prior to this curfew - that this is an improvment. Possibly but I contend that no proposal should be made or agreed where there is no logical underlying reason for it. The Morris exemption is a good example. There was no logical reason why the exemption for non-amplified Morric performances could not have been extended to cover all non-amplified live music. The possibly inconvenient fact remains, that there is now already in the Licensing Act 2003, an exemption for non-amplified live performances which are not thought to automatically become a noise concern and require additional entertainment licensing at 11.30 or midnight. |
|
17 Mar 11 - 09:37 AM (#3115655) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Sorry - this para should read - The really ilogical thing about this is that live music which proves in practice to be an actual noise concern and has not been granted additional entertainment licensing will be subject to the very same legislation to control noise, as would live music which has been granted additional entertainment permission. So as permission to make noise is not possible - what purpose can the need for this additional licensing permission possibly provide to address noise? |
|
18 Mar 11 - 06:55 AM (#3116327) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall The Information Commissioner has upheld a refusal by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to disclose in full correspondence with the Local Government Association concerning a small gigs entertainment licensing exemption. The LGA has consistently opposed an exemption for small scale performances of live music, implicitly endorsing a regime that criminalises the mildest of live music while going easy on DJs and canned entertainment, on the grounds of public safety and noise risks. The ICO decision dated 7th March, reference FS50304461, is available on the ICO website:http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fs_50304461.ashx Although running to 19 pages and 88 numbered paragraphs, the decision boils down to this: full disclosure would embarrass the LGA. Why? Apparently because their officials expressed '... frank and candid opinions regarding the proposed licensing exemption' [para 59] and 'premature disclosure' would '... deny officials the space they need to consider the relevant issues without fear that their opinions could be subject to ridicule in the process.' [para 61] The Commissioner also notes DCMS assertions that some of my licensing updates 'contained criticisms of a personal nature of individual civil servants.' [para 33] This allegation was one of the grounds put forward by DCMS against full disclosure of their LGA material - a fear that this could lead to officials being targeted for criticism although 'not strictly accountable for the policy decision in question'. In my view, none of the licensing circulars cited contain any criticisms of a personal nature: see www.livemusicforum.co.uk [click on Hamish Birchall Articles] - 9 July 2009, 14 July 2009, 7 August 2009, 9 September 2009 and 23 April 2010. In 'Musicians in thrall to caterers', 9 July 2009, I pointed out that LGA music licensing policy officials Mark Du Val and Charlotte Meller had a food science background, highlighting the irony for professional musicians (for some reason there is a long history of uneasy relations between musicians and caterers at gigs). I implied that food science was not the best qualification for developing live music licensing policy. The LGA is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, its officers are not publicly elected or accountable. Many draw high salaries sourced ultimately from the public purse. For years its opposition to relaxation of a licensing regime that criminalises the mere provision of unlicensed live music, where a licence is required, has prevented any chance of reform. The LGA has never, to the best of my knowledge, explained in clear terms where subsisting safety and noise nuisance legislation is in its view inadequate to regulate small gigs. Their opposition to reform therefore seems to be based more on prejudice than rational argument. The fact that this opposition has been expressed 'in a forthright manner' to DCMS [ICO decision, para 59] tends to reinforce concerns that prejudice and resistance to change underpins their position. It is clearly in the public interest to understand why a small clique of unelected local government officers appear to be so emotional about maintaining very strict licensing control over live music. For that reason I will be appealing the ICO decision. ENDS |
|
18 Mar 11 - 07:31 AM (#3116347) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The fact that this opposition has been expressed 'in a forthright manner' to DCMS [ICO decision, para 59] tends to reinforce concerns that prejudice and resistance to change underpins their position. The stated grounds and concerns that the LGA Group use in their active opposition to any proposed exemptions are equally applicable to the many (and often illogical) existing exemptions already contained in the Licensing Act 2003 - to which the LGA Group do not activly oppose and which have not been shown to menace the public. Producing the requested information is the only one way that the ICO, LGA, DCMS could demonstrate that the LGA Group's continuing, active and seemingly automatic opposition to any propsed exemptions is NOT due to prejudice and resistance to change. The extent of their reluctance to do this is probably answer enough. Sadly this and my personal experience shows that the safeguards and appeals (such as those under the FOI Act and Local Government Ombudsman) that should enable the public to be treated fairly contain far too many opportunities for the offending authority to not only maintain their original positions but to be able to launch personal attacks on members of the public trying to use the process for its stated pupose. This only proves, if proof was neeeded, that considerable power is exerted in licensing matters (both nationally and locally) by those who are not prepared to be held to account for their actions. Until this is changed to enable open examination by the public - should we be surprised if prejudice (and possobly even worse factors) continue to be responsible for some of the actions that affect us all? |
|
19 Mar 11 - 04:06 PM (#3117162) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7950.aspx John King comments: Licensing Minister John Penrose leading a conga off Weston-Super-Mare's Pier into an area not licensed for dancing. Max penalty £20,000 fine or 6 months in jail. |
|
24 Mar 11 - 04:25 AM (#3120239) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NeHKy_euxs&feature=youtu.be Lord Clement-Jones speaks about the Live Music Bill |
|
24 Mar 11 - 07:04 PM (#3120759) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall In a letter to Tessa Jowell MP dated 21 March, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has hinted that entertainment could be removed from the Licensing Act altogether: 'As you may well have heard, Baroness Rawlings announced during the recent debate on the Live Music Bill that it is the Government`s intention to be supportive of the Bill. We will also be looking into whether we can go further than the Bill by deregulating entertainment from the Licensing Act 2003, and John Penrose [licensing minister] hopes to be in a position to say more in the coming weeks.' The letter was sent in response to an enquiry from Annie Bright via her MP, Tessa Jowell. Ms Bright is a jazz singer, former Equity Council vice-president and currently an elected Equity Councillor. In 2002, when she herself was Culture Secretary, Ms Jowell launched the then Licensing Bill as 'a licensing regime for the 21st century'. On 8th March 2006, about three months after the Licensing Act 2003 came into force, Ms Jowell found herself on the wrong side of her own Department's legislation. She participated in what turned out to be an unlicensed and illegal singalong while celebrating International Women's Day in Victoria Tower Gardens, next to the Houses of Parliament. The licensing authority, Westminster council, generously said they would not prosecute, as it was a first offence. See contemporary coverage in The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article742042.ece and BBC video of the singalong: http://bbc.in/fhrQCQ Jeremy Hunt's 'deregulation' could be the 'radical solution' to which Penrose referred on 21 June 2010 in response to a question from John Whittingdale, chair of the all party Culture, Media & Sport Committee: Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): 'Is my hon. Friend aware that the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee - that there should be an exemption for smaller venues of a capacity below 200 - was supported by the previous Government, who were intending to introduce a regulatory order to provide an exemption for venues of a capacity below 150, and that there was widespread disappointment that that was not done? Will he confirm that he sees no need for any further consultation and that he will move to introduce the necessary order as soon as possible?' John Penrose: 'My concern is that my hon. Friend's proposal goes for a particular solution when there might be a broader and potentially more radical solution that should also be considered. If we go for other alternatives, we will need to consult on them, but if we decide to go down the route of ideas that have already been thoroughly canvassed, I would obviously want to move as fast as possible and reduce the level of consultation to the bare legal minimum.' On 16 February this year, Whittingdale tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM 1465) calling on the government to implement an exemption 'without delay'. 35 MPs have signed so far: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1465 Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill is awaiting its Committee stage in the Lords, possibly by June: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/012/11012.1-i.html Given that the government is already supportive of the bill, what better vehicle to implement a radical deregulatory solution for live music. |
|
05 Apr 11 - 08:16 AM (#3128912) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://mobile.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/8942607.Facebook_face_off_over_Charlbury_festivals_noise/ John King comments: Rival campaigns have been set up to fight for and against noisy (sic) festivals in Charlbury. Mark Hofman is seeking a reduction in festival noise (sic) in the town centre from 65dB to a yet-to-be decided lower limit. 65...dB is lower than a sneeze, a barking dog, a mobile ring-tone... |
|
13 Apr 11 - 05:26 AM (#3134195) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/couple-defend-proposals-for-former-hotel-38071.aspx John King comments: "Right from the outset a number of people decided they were going to try to bully us and take away our livelihood." 'Frightened' residents persuade the Council to install a noise limiter for music at a wedding venue. And yet weddings are EXEMPT from licensing... |
|
13 Apr 11 - 05:33 AM (#3134200) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/local/8958018.Mamma_Jammas_in_Hereford_s_West_Street_gets_go_ahead_for_live_music_and_dancing/ John King comments: Because of hearsay evidence about noise from recorded music (which means DJs), environmental health officers at Hereford Council ban live music for six days a week, while allowing DJs to carry on. |
|
14 Apr 11 - 10:53 AM (#3135104) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/home/index/ 1. We publish Every few weeks we publish all the regulations affecting one specific sector or industry 2. You respond You tell us what's working and what's not, what can be simplified and what can be scrapped 3. We act Based on your feedback, we start getting rid of unnecessary red tape. * 6 May Hospitality, food and drink * 20 May Road transportation * 2 June Fisheries, marine enterprises and internal waterways * 16 June Manufacturing * 23 June Healthy living and social care * 7 July Media and creative services * 21 July Utilities and energy * 4 August Rail and merchant shipping * 18 August Mining and quarrying |
|
14 Apr 11 - 12:45 PM (#3135168) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: BanjoRay It's worth listening to BBC4's You And Yours (today's prog 14/4/11) Should be here. Listen especially to the last 10 minutes where Feargal Sharkey corrects David Cameron's statement that you won't need a PEL for entertainment at a Royal Wedding Street Party. Only Morris Teams will be exempt, so book one now..... Ray |
|
15 Apr 11 - 06:39 AM (#3135649) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Thanks Ray Perhaps Mr Cameron's position should be tested and all this day's non- licensed events should be reported to the local Licensing Authority. And if they take no action - they can be reported for failing to enforce the legislation that they would claim to have a duty to do on any other day. Is it that the only partly useful role now played by our royalty - is to give us a a day's respite from the nit-picking legislation and oppressive red-tape that we have to endure and have to see and be defended on every other day? This day has highlighted the hold that all forms of red-tape now have. Now that it has been highlighted, Our Prime Minister should be telling us what his Govt proposes to do address and reverse this situation. Instead, because it is inconvenient, the advice is for the public to ignore the legislation and presumably for those who employed to enforce it on every other day, to also ignore it............ Perhaps this instruction can be given for every other day? |
|
15 Apr 11 - 08:32 AM (#3135685) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.westendextra.com/news/2011/apr/song-guy-lock-stock-director-ritchie-could-reapply-live-music-licence-punchbowl-pub John King Comments: Guy Ritchie reapplies for a live music licence. Westminster Council allow DJs to play in the pub, but unamplified live music is banned, as is now the case in the majority of licensed premises. |
|
18 Apr 11 - 02:54 AM (#3137210) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.southwestbusiness.co.uk/cornwall/events-eco-park/article-3441485-detail/article.html John King comments: A Porthtowan "eco-park" has been granted a licence to stage 30 live music events each year. Unfortunately, the council has banned amplification for outdoor events, and has reduced the number of people who can attend to 200. Explaining its decision, the committee said: "It is considered that reducing the number of those allowed to attend and the conditions in respect of non-amplified music outside, together with the requirement for windows and doors to be closed while regulated music takes place, will alleviate the concerns in respect of public nuisance." The committee's use of the term regulated music (here for indoor entertainment) is confusing as the outdoor entertainment must also be considered by them to be Regulated Entertainment - or they would be unable to place conditions on it. |
|
21 Apr 11 - 06:48 AM (#3139564) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/90396 |John King comments: If the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill goes through Parliament without amendment, you won't have to live in the vicinity of a premises to object to a live music licence - and in Camden you can now send in objections by text. Although in practice, the vast majority are objections and it objections that are already being encouraged by the local process - the legislation does not in fact limit submissions from the public to licensing applications, to objections. So it will also be possible for those who do not live in the vincinity to support applications. |
|
26 Apr 11 - 08:35 PM (#3143081) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.london24.com/news/late_night_woodford_pub_plans_canned_1_873540 John King comments: Another venue bites the dust. A live music venue applies for a later licence and ends up with a noise limiter. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 05:37 AM (#3144594) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall '... This is fantastic for the branding of Britain... this is our Beijing moment. This is having thousands of people marching in precise step, in absolute lockstep, in a way that is so impressive when you look at it, it's so difficult to do, we do it brilliantly, and do you really think that a billion people are going to be tuning into Britain for the marriage of a president's grand-daughter?' Historian Dr Andrew Roberts speaking in support of the royal wedding, BBC Radio 4 Today, Thursday 28 April 2011, approx 8.58am: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9470000/9470102.stm [from 3'50"] One wonders whether Dr Roberts is similarly moved by the precision marching of the Red Army in Red Square, or the Nazis in Nuremburg. The lockstep is also a dance move, but dancing in pubs and bars in England has been illegal unless licensed since the 1750s. In 2002, Westminster council successfully prosecuted Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries (W&DB), owner of the high street chain Pitcher & Piano because licensing officers witnessed the 'rhythmic moving' of customers to music in two of its sites, Trafalgar Square and Soho. Neither venue was licensed for dancing. W&DB was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £1,600 costs in addition to its own legal fees: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2164697-pubs-fined-over-dancing-drinkers.do Despite its billing as 'a licensing regime for the 21st century' by former culture secretary Tessa Jowell, the Licensing Act 2003 actually extended the criminalisation of unlicensed music and dancing, catching private charity fund-raising dances and concerts for the first time. Somewhere between 50% and 80% of bars, hotels and restaurants remain unlicensed for dancing. But marching is surely 'rhythmic moving', so will there be mass public arrests today? Unlikely. If licensing officers were looking forward to a bit of action, the Prime Minister no less has fired a shot across their bows: 'The Department for Culture, Media and Sport can see no reason why venues should require a separate permission to simply allow customers to sing or dance as they celebrate the Royal Wedding. I am sure that, in interpreting and enforcing licensing laws, local authorities will agree with the Prime Minister that unnecessary regulation should not get in the way of the celebrations. Premises which are already authorised to provide entertainment facilities will, of course, be able to do so during the extended hours under the Order.' [Written answer, not yet published online, from Baroness Rawlings to a question from Lord Clement-Jones HL8487] ENDS |
|
29 Apr 11 - 05:53 AM (#3144597) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles [Written answer, not yet published online, from Baroness Rawlings to a question from Lord Clement-Jones HL8487] 'The Department for Culture, Media and Sport can see no reason why venues should require a separate permission to simply allow customers to sing or dance as they celebrate the Royal Wedding. I am sure that, in interpreting and enforcing licensing laws, local authorities will agree with the Prime Minister that unnecessary regulation should not get in the way of the celebrations. Perhaps it could be explained why venues should require a separate permission to simply allow customers to sing or dance as they celebrate all things except Royal Weddings and why licensing officers would continue to advise that the law gives them no alternative but to follow what they claim to be their statutory duty to prosecute unlicenced singing and dancing on every circumstance except Royal Weddings? The DCMC may agree with the Prime Minister and may indeed be sure that local authorities will also agree but none of these parties can alter the words of the legislation - which apply on every day of every year. If it is considered by the DCMS, the Prime Minister and local athorities that such legislation is "unnecessary regulation" which gets in the way of celebrations - what is being proposed to alter this? |
|
29 Apr 11 - 06:17 AM (#3144605) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/90448 During a debate yesterday, during the second reading of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, Lord Clement-Jones said he is particularly worried about the impact the proposed "vicinity test" would have on live music. The 'vicinity test' allows anyone in the country to issue a complaint against a licence. Despite all of this Gov't's rhetoric about reducing red-tape and encouraging live music - the only thing it has yet proposed are these. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 09:50 AM (#3144697) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Clever use of words by the Prime Minister. It sounds tough and purposful but of course it means nothing. Can there ever be such a thing as unnecessary regulation on the part of a local licensing authority? They would claim only the be enforcing the requirements of the legislation and by what process could they be made to alter their view and actions? If there is unnecessary regulation it is the legislation and its local devolved enforcement which needs to be addressed and the Prime Minister proposes no such change. |
|
03 May 11 - 06:59 AM (#3146991) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 'The Department for Culture, Media and Sport can see no reason why venues should require a separate permission to simply allow customers to sing or dance as they celebrate the Royal Wedding. I am sure that, in interpreting and enforcing licensing laws, local authorities will agree with the Prime Minister that unnecessary regulation should not get in the way of the celebrations. The following celebrations are not a Royal Wedding - so it is OK for regulation enforced by local authorities to get in the way!!! http://www.redditchstandard.co.uk/story-Blocking-move-halts-planned-music-event-40326.html A CONTROVERSIAL May Day celebration event planned to be staged in Inkberrow will not now go ahead after councillors moved to block the plans. As reported in the Standard last week, the Horsedrawn Camp had submitted a temporary event notice which would have allowed them to have up to 499 people at Lower Farm from today to Monday (April 29 to May 2), as well as live music and entertainment. But following an objection from West Mercia Police, Wychavon District Councillors decided to put a stop to the event at a licensing sub-committee meeting last Thursday (April 21) on the grounds it could have caused crime and disorder. The proposal had caused uproar in the village with more than 100 residents believed to have contacted police to express their concerns. |
|
03 May 11 - 07:05 AM (#3146993) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Should the Mayday 'entertainment' here be limited to Morris dancing to non-amplified music - it would be exempt from the licensing requirement. |
|
10 May 11 - 08:13 AM (#3151351) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.redditchstandard.co.uk/story-Organiser-in-vow-to-host-more-camps-41224.html THE ORGANISER of an unlicensed event held in Redditch has vowed to keep holding meetings without being granted permission as a show of defiance to authorities. Up to 400 members of the Horsedrawn Camp descended on a field off Crumpfields Lane in Webheath for the Beltane Bash over the bank holiday weekend (April 29 to May 2). Would our Prime Minister consider that the same regulation thought neccesary for this celebration is not necessary for celebrating a Royal Wedding? Whatever he thinks - he does seem to accept that there IS regulation which is not necessary - so what changes to this legislation is he proposing? |
|
13 May 11 - 11:02 AM (#3153362) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall As part of a renewed drive to cut red tape, the Government has launched a website - Red Tape Challenge - seeking public feedback on the Licensing Act: http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/licensing/ Should licensing regulations be simplified, reduced or scrapped altogether? Comments include these from Louise McMullan, Parliament & Research officer for Equity, the performers union: 'We remain of the opinion that the inclusion of regulated entertainment in the Licensing Act 2003 is not necessary and has greatly increased bureaucracy for very little benefit to the licensing objectives.' But despite the pledge to cut red tape, and government support for Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, licensing problems for live music are likely to get worse before they get better. Ironically, the cause will be the very legislation cited on Red Tape Challenge as the remedy for antisocial behaviour and alcohol-related crime: the Police Reform and Social Responsibility bill, expected to gain Royal Assent by the autumn. The bill includes these measures which will entangle in more live music in licensing red tape: a) Councils will be allowed to impose conditions on Temporary Event Notices (TENs), the licence required if the premises is not already licensed for live music. At present only the police are allowed to object on crime and disorder grounds; b) anyone within a council area will be allowed to object to a licence application, not just those living in the vicinity of the venue; and c) the evidence test for imposing licence conditions will lowered from 'necessary' to 'appropriate'. Lord Clement-Jones has already questioned the need for these changes, and warned of the potential problem. During Parliamentary debate on 27 April he said: 'Where is the justification for these changes? Where is the evidence that these additional powers of objection are needed? Are we just creating more bureaucracy for community groups for no purpose? What price the big society and local initiative?' Once again it looks as though within Government there are contradictory approaches to the regulation of live music. Which has the upper hand is likely to remain uncertain until the Committee stage of Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill, for which a date has yet to be announced. ENDS |
|
13 May 11 - 11:28 AM (#3153373) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Ironically, the cause will be the very legislation cited on Red Tape Challenge as the remedy for antisocial behaviour and alcohol-related crime: the Police Reform and Social Responsibility bill, expected to gain Royal Assent by the autumn. The majority of the support for increased legislation to address antisocial behaviour and alcohol-related crime comes from those (including those in our coalition Govt) who seem not to be aware, that since the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, there is no longer such a thing as an alcohol licence. And until once again, there is such a thing (and this is not even proposed) - all the anti-drink measures will also apply and make life even more difficult to many activities and in all premises, rangeing from school concerts to exhibition games of darts, many of which will not involve the sale or consumption any alcohol. For example - a cafe, serving no alcohol but wishing to provide any form of live music, will need to obtain the same Premises Licence as a pub and be open to the same objection process. |
|
13 May 11 - 11:58 AM (#3153390) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1420365_residents-up-in-arms-over-plans-for-heaton-park-to-host-music-festiva John King comments: 42 people - out of the entire city of Manchester - object to a live music festival. This does not mean that 'residents are up in arms' and should not be a green light for the Local Council ...to ruin an event for the enjoyment of 210,000 people. |
|
13 May 11 - 07:32 PM (#3153660) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Tootler Have you made your views known on the govt. website linked above? |
|
17 May 11 - 07:51 AM (#3155627) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles You can fill a millitary plane with all the deadly instruments of war that it can take - but not it would seem - with even more deadly instruments, like trombones, drums and trumpets! http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-05-13a.251.6 Lord Berkeley: To ask why they transported a military band to the Falkland Islands to celebrate the Queen's birthday on 21 April after their musical instruments were removed before take-off; what contribution the band was able to make to the celebrations with...out any instruments; and what were the costs of such personnel transport to and from the UK John King: Comments: Apparently, the reason musical instruments cannot be taken as hand luggage is because of terrorism. But this was not a civilian flight - it was the ARMY. |
|
17 May 11 - 08:02 AM (#3155637) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Red Tape Challenger said on May 16, 2011 at 3:15 pm Thanks for all of the comments. So I'm picking up very different views on entertainment licensing – which people seem to think should be relaxed – and alcohol licensing where the views are much more mixed. Keep them coming – we will make sure that the Departments that own the regulations see the comments and answer the points raised. I'm particularly interested in examples of where the rules have held back either businesses or other groups. On alcohol licensing it would be great to get even more practical suggestion for the way processes could be improved. Thank you for getting involved! The official Govt person above would appear to want more comments from us on the subject of licensing.......... //www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/licensing/#comments |
|
18 May 11 - 08:08 AM (#3156244) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://bathlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2011/487967/foster-hails-changes-to-live-event-licensing John King comments: Licensing Minister John Penrose described music licensing as 'mostly bonkers red tape, and it's time we consigned it to the bin.' LGA 'Culture' Spokesman Chris White described licensing as 'common sense legislation'. In St Albans, where White is on the Licensing Committee, five premises have restrictions on the genre of music live musicians are allowed to perform. All of these premises are allowed DJ's who can play whatever music they like. |
|
18 May 11 - 08:12 AM (#3156246) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles GOVERNMENT TO SLASH 'BONKERS' RULES ON LICENSING LIVE EVENTS The Government will next month move to scrap regulations controlling licensed entertainment in England and Wales. The current regime, established in the Licensing Act 2003, has been widely criticised by the music industry, schools, community groups and arts organisations who believe it has stifled new talent getting through, and put hundreds of small venues at risk of closure as well as discouraging community and fund raising events.. The current regime means you need a specific licence to: put on an opera, but not a stock car race; allow a folk duo to play in the corner of a village pub, but not for a packed city centre bar to show an England game on a big screen; stage an athletics meeting indoors, but not for one outdoors; put on a circus, but not a funfair; hold a carol concert in a church hall, but not if it's in a church The Government is therefore going to consult on scrapping licensing regulations apart from where there is a clear and overriding need for additional protections such as safety for spectators and noise nuisance for neighbours. But in most cases, these factors are already covered in long-established and effective legislation. The licensing rules to be retained are therefore likely to be no more than those controlling: events where alcohol is also available (but this would be simply an alcohol licence, and landlords\managers would not need an extra licence for live music or to host a film night, as they do at present; very large scale events attracting thousands of spectators; and 'adult' entertainment like pole dancing and lap dancing (where not already covered by the Police and Crime Act). The plans would complement the work of the Home Secretary on alcohol licensing. The Government believes that it should be easier to put on entertainment, while at the same time tightening up on the sale of alcohol. Tourism Minister John Penrose said: "Live entertainment is a good thing. It improves our cultural life, provides enormous pleasure for millions and should be encouraged, not stifled by the clammy hand of bureaucracy. The current regime makes it harder for new talent to get a chance to perform in front of audiences, imposes a deadweight cost on small businesses and voluntary bodies who want to put on shows, and in a small but significant way, reduces our free speech. "As long as we have proper controls on alcohol, and spectator safety and noise nuisance are controlled, the rest is mostly bonkers red tape, and it's time we consigned it to the bin." Technical Note 1. The Government expects the entire reform programme to be deliverable through a combination of existing powers in the Licensing Act and Legislative Reform Orders. 2. Licenses currently cost between £100 and £1,905. 3. There are currently around 133,000 premises in England and Wales licensed for regulated entertainment; most also sell alcohol. 4. The Licensing Act 2003 requires a licence for a performance of a play; showing a film; indoor sporting events; boxing or wrestling (indoors and outdoors); live music; any playing of recorded music; or any dance performance. This can take in brass bands in local parks, Punch and Judy shows, travelling circuses, school plays and concerts, and school discos where an admission charge is made to benefit the PTA. 5. Licences cover free events to which the general public is admitted, and any public or private events where a charge is made with the intention of making a profit (even when raising money for charity). |
|
18 May 11 - 09:20 AM (#3156285) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: nickp Sounds really hopeful - what's the source Roger? |
|
19 May 11 - 05:35 AM (#3156894) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Sounds really hopeful - what's the source Roger? Yes - yet another consultation.... How hopeful this turns out to be is largely up to us. I fear that all those who have made contributions to the many previous ones - make be suffering from 'consultaion exhustion'. As to the source - you can find it on the following site. It was touched upon in last weeks Sunday Times and later in the Times but it seems to have crept out.......... http://bathlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2011/487967/foster-hails-changes-to-live-event-licensing |
|
19 May 11 - 08:11 AM (#3156958) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Government is therefore going to consult on scrapping licensing regulations apart from where there is a clear and overriding need for additional protections such as safety for spectators and noise nuisance for neighbours. But in most cases, these factors are already covered in long-established and effective legislation. The reference to not scrapping additional protections such as those for noise nuisance is a concern. Before any move is made on this, the Govt would need: 1. To provide evidence to show where the safeguards under the existing noise legislation and other legislation are considered adequate to protect the public from noise pollution emanating from all other sources except that which is emanating from all forms of entertainment. 2. To demonstrate, if this legislation is considered to be inadequate in this regard, why any short-coming in this legislation cannot be improved in order to address these? 3. To demonstrate - as permission to make any form of noise pollution is not possible - why and how obtaining licensing permissions, from one council department and which need to be applied for in advance of a note being played but are still then subject to the protection of existing noise and other legislation, which is administered from another council department, can do anything but to continue to further confuse this situation and add to the red tape burden? |
|
19 May 11 - 11:30 AM (#3157045) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1045261&c=1 Today's sitting is expected to involve discussion about amendments to the licensing aspects. One of the key areas the government is looking to address is provisions in the Licensing Act 2003, with the intention of 'rebalancing' it in favour of local authorities, the police and local communities. That could have serious consequences for live music and campaigners are worried that the so-called vicinity test might result in licences being revoked. In an earlier reading of the Bill this month, Lord Clement-Jones stated that a proposed blanket ban on late night opening would be unfair to responsible venues which operate after the midnight deadline. |
|
23 May 11 - 04:19 AM (#3159018) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall The government will launch a public consultation next month to scrap entertainment licensing altogether, except for very large scale events and adult entertainment such as pole dancing. Under the proposals, trailed in the Sunday Times of 15 May under the headline 'No more licences to party', an alcohol licence would be sufficient to allow live music, without an additional authorisation. Licensing minister John Penrose said: 'Live entertainment is a good thing. It improves our cultural life, provides enormous pleasure for millions and should be encouraged, not stifled by the clammy hand of bureaucracy. The current regime makes it harder for new talent to get a chance to perform in front of audiences, imposes a deadweight cost on small businesses and voluntary bodies who want to put on shows, and in a small but significant way, reduces our free speech. As long as we have proper controls on alcohol, and spectator safety and noise nuisance are controlled, the rest is mostly bonkers red tape, and it's time we consigned it to the bin.' Radical deregulation of the entertainment licensing regime was first hinted at by Penrose during Parliamentary debate nearly a year ago (21 June 2010). In a letter to Tessa Jowell dated 21 March this year, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt wrote: 'As you may well have heard, Baroness Rawlings announced during the recent debate on the Live Music Bill that it is the Government`s intention to be supportive of the Bill. We will also be looking into whether we can go further than the Bill by deregulating entertainment from the Licensing Act 2003, and John Penrose hopes to be in a position to say more in the coming weeks.' Set against the sweeping deregulation now being proposed, the small gig exemptions in Lord Clement-Jones' bill look modest. But a DCMS source confirmed last week that government support for the bill would continue. A date for its Committee stage debate, where the government is expected to put forward some amendments, has yet to be fixed. One likely reason for this continued support is that while the bill's exemptions could be implemented within a year, the bolder solution could take much longer. Curiously, DCMS itself did not issue a press release. However, a more detailed account of the deregulation proposals was published by Lib Dem MP Don Foster on his Bath constituency website: http://bathlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2011/487967/foster-hails-changes-to-live-event-licensing ENDS |
|
26 May 11 - 06:24 AM (#3160718) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/aif-raises-concerns-over-police-reform-bill/ John King Comments: More concerns over the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. New powers to be given to councils to ban live music events, and rules of evidence to be relaxed. In practice, councils already allow any Tom, Dick or Victor Meldrew to complain about live music before it has ever happened. This FB group contains scores of examples. |
|
27 May 11 - 06:52 AM (#3161195) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlington/9044552.Families_oppose_bid_to_reopen_club/ John King comments: Again.. a selfish neighbour moves next door to a pub and objects to a licence, saying: "This really is about my quality of life." Never mind the quality of life for people who may be employed by the pub, and the benefits to the local economy. |
|
31 May 11 - 04:35 AM (#3162972) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://blogs.culture.gov.uk/main/2011/05/package_holidays_backpackers_a.html The following from Mr Penrose's blog. >What else? Well, new data reveals that people from overseas - and here in the UK, of course – who go to music festivals and gigs in this country are contributing a record £1.4 billion to the economy, and supporting around 20,000 full time jobs. Live music is something we're really good at in this country and it's reassuring to know that its undoubted cultural value is backed up with a real and growing impact on the economy. Whether it's Glyndebourne or Glastonbury, or just a band in the back room of a pub, we know how to put on a show and these shows are feeding a visitor economy that draws in people from far and wide. In a different part of the forest I've been doing a lot of work on helping deregulate this sector, by the way. Live music is chronically over-licensed in this country and we're going to take the shears to all the red tape, but more of that shortly.< |
|
31 May 11 - 04:39 AM (#3162975) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/local/dowsby_village_hall_loses_bid_for_alcohol_and_entertainment_licence_following_oppost Dowsby Village Hall loses bid for alcohol and entertainment licence following oppostion from neighbours South Kesteven District Council objected to the application, saying it was concerned that the hall is close to residential properties and live music being played outdoors late at night could lead to public nuisance. The council said it could not give any further details about the committee's decision and the reasons for it because the minutes from the meeting had not been prepared. |
|
31 May 11 - 04:44 AM (#3162979) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/cotswolds/9053372.Party_poopers_fail_to_scupper_late_night_venue_bid/ Conditions of the license included pre-booking for all private functions and no promoting of events on social network sites. |
|
31 May 11 - 01:55 PM (#3163190) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1045375&c=1 Venue operators and promoters are worried that tweaks to the Licensing Act, as a result of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill which is currently working its way through Parliament, will make it harder to organise live music events. Chief among the controversial proposals are options for local authorities to ban alcohol sales between midnight and 6am, while there is also a suggestion that venues could be taxed with revenues split between the police and councils |
|
02 Jun 11 - 07:29 AM (#3164121) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.artshub.co.uk/uk/newsPrint.asp?sId=184186 The government has announced its plans to move ahead with de-regulating live music. Don Foster, culture spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, has confirmed that the government plans to overhaul existing licensing regulations and will be launching a consultation next month. |
|
07 Jun 11 - 08:55 PM (#3166815) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bridportnews.co.uk/news/9058917.Charmouth__Deal_is_struck_over_hall___s_new_licence/ CHARMOUTH residents have warned they will not tolerate late-night disturbance after a community hall was given an alcohol and music licence. Residents feared St Andrew's Community Hall in Lower Sea Lane, a former church hall, would become a 'night club' if the late-night application was granted by West Dorset District Council. Once again - live music is being limited - on grounds of noise and before a note has been sounded. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 10:49 AM (#3167666) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/90797 The latest suggestion to come from the Government is that small-scale public entertainment should be 'de-licensed' entirely. At this stage it is not entirely clear what the thinking is in this regard. Obviously, music campaigners will be overjoyed at the idea of a complete de-regulation. But local authorities and others will take a different view, feeling that musical activity in particular ought to be restricted or controlled from the outset. |
|
09 Jun 11 - 01:26 PM (#3167777) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertyadvice/propertymarket/3305817/Sleepless-in-Birmingham.html Sleepless in Birmingham A new breed of city dweller bought into a dream - but they didn't take to the soundtrack, says Chris Arnot |
|
10 Jun 11 - 07:00 AM (#3168327) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles If (under pressure from the LGA Group lobby) any form of additional licensing is still said to be required for live music - as the other existing legisltion and licensing is deemed inadequte to protect the public in pubs - then by the same token, all the other of the Act's exemptions (including the TV sport one) would then also have to be scrapped. Logic decrees that the existing exemptions are only possible because the other existing legislation IS currently judged to be adequate. If the LGA Group lobby thinks otherwise - it is up to them to prove that the other existing legislation is inadequate to deal with for any problems that specially may arise from live music alone......... |
|
18 Jun 11 - 08:35 PM (#3172634) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2011-06-16a.928.0 John King comments: Unless amended, the Police Reform & Spcial Responsibility Bill will create MORE red-tape for live music. |
|
18 Jun 11 - 08:38 PM (#3172637) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Noise-nuisance-bar-told-music/story-12780187-detail/story.html John King comments: Nottingham City Council's incompetent licensing officers ban singing and live music at The Loft. The club's event listing (www.theloftbar.net) shows that the noise at 3:30am would have come from DJs. And yet, live music has been banned while DJs have not. |
|
21 Jun 11 - 10:40 AM (#3173878) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.andoversound.com/pages/extranet/andover-pub-keeps-license-i-10882.php Live music banned at Piston Broke. Again, DJs are allowed. Local Authorities clamp down hard on live music often with no evidence whatsoever, while turning a blind eye to alcohol promotions which are potentially in breach of the Licensing Act. See http://thepistonbroke.web.officelive.com/AboutUs.aspx |
|
21 Jun 11 - 10:43 AM (#3173880) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/9094769.Objections_to_Barlow_Institute_s_bid_for_alcohol_and_live_music_licence/ John King comments: Live music at private functions is outside the scope of the Licensing Act. But don't let that stop Darwen Council's licensing committee... |
|
21 Jun 11 - 10:45 AM (#3173883) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicliveuk.com/latest-news/the-live-music-bill Live Music Bill 2011 The Licensing Act 2003 has caused significant problems for the live music scene when it came into force in 2005. It meant that venues wanting to put on live music had to apply for a licence to do so and has been blamed for the decline in music venues. This has meant there are fewer places for musicians to play due to the unnecessary bureaucracy. It was introduced due to the suggestion that live music and social disorder are linked. The cost of applying for a licence meant that many venues decided against live music altogether. |
|
21 Jun 11 - 11:05 AM (#3173892) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: nickp Well, you made the 1000, Roger, and let us hope that there's enough sense being slowly seen that won't need a 2000. |
|
23 Jun 11 - 04:44 AM (#3175040) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles We can hope - but perhaps we need more than simply hoping? The following shows just how bad it has become and how urgent the need is to remove live music from the hands of those who do not understand it and who are paid to enforce licensing. http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1998&T=1 John King comments: As a result of no evidence, other than 'advice' from a Licensing Officer, Lewisham Council bans amplified music in a coffee shop and restricts live music to one performer. NO mention of the incidental music exemption, NO mention of any cultural impac...t, NO mention of employment opportunities for musicians. |
|
23 Jun 11 - 05:24 PM (#3175391) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/553C6E16-E715-4F02-A58F-53FF6468228D/0/STA2Applicationform.pdf John KIng comments: The Premises Licence for the Olympic Stadium. Spot the mistake. Box i (provision of entertainment facilities for making music) has not been ticked. Now if it was anyone else, they'd have to start the application over again, and pay the fee and advertising twice. |
|
23 Jun 11 - 05:29 PM (#3175394) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://notices.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/legal/20198 John King comments: A pub chain applying for a "two-in-a-bar" restriction to be replaced by "four-in-a-bar". So much for the Licensing Act removing "two-in-a-bar" limits back in 2005 - because it didn't. And so much for the Minor Variations process, which - according to the LGA - was supposed to be used in these situations. "EXCITING TWO MEMBERS" - that sounds intersting. I think it should read 'existing' |
|
23 Jun 11 - 05:33 PM (#3175398) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hackney.gov.uk%2FAssets%2FDocuments%2FHT257.pdf&h=be0d7 John King comments: The Morna Jazz Lounge in Hackney is applying to vary it's licence in respect of live music. This should be an £89 minor variation. Here, it's a licence to extort money from a local business. Hackney Council have made the venue apply for a full licence variation and... to advertise in the Council's propaganda sheet 'Hackney Today'. See P28. |
|
23 Jun 11 - 05:38 PM (#3175404) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/18819474 John King comments: LGA briefing document for the Police Reform Bill. If this amendment is successful, premises with restrictions on the number of live music events in a given period will NOT be able to use a TEN to put on an extra live music event. Similarly, a premises with a notorious "genre" restriction of 'jazz', would not be able to put on a folk event by way of a TEN. |
|
23 Jun 11 - 05:41 PM (#3175409) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/90951?PagingData=Po_0%7EPs_10%7EPsd_Asc Jeremy Allen, the UK's foremost legal practitioner in licensing issues, has died aged 66. |
|
24 Jun 11 - 09:27 AM (#3175717) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Extending the duration of TENs could mean they are increasingly used as ways to circumnavigate licensing controls. The above from the LGS Group lobby document: This is crazy - The Home Office work on measures to block holes in the red holes introduced in the Licensing Act 2003 as regards entertainment licensing and which can only further increase it - whilst the Govt still only talk about measures to reduce the red tape regarding entertainment licensing. If these further measures are introduced by the Home Office - it is most unlikely that the DCMS will be allowed to scrap the existing controls. Am I the only one who was under the impression that entertainment licensing remained with the the DCMS? |
|
26 Jun 11 - 04:47 AM (#3176585) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hertsandessexobserver.co.uk/Dunmow-Stansted/Stansted-hotel-in-bid-for-longer-hours-24062011.htm John King comments: Councils frequently accept pro-forma letters of objection to live music licences. Why the sudden concern about pro-forma letters of support? |
|
26 Jun 11 - 04:53 AM (#3176588) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Sadly, licensing employees and councillors still think that hearings are only about objections - even though the legislation now clearly refers to representations (including those in favour of applications). |
|
26 Jun 11 - 04:56 AM (#3176591) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2094927_valuable_asset_or_noise_nuisance John King comments: The Jolly Anglers in Kennetside wants to put on occasional acoustic live music until 10:00pm. Unfortunately the local (Labour) Ward Councillor and former quango boss Tony Page is also a big cheese at the virulently anti-music LGA and is "very concerned" live music would cause a "major disturbance". |
|
28 Jun 11 - 04:40 AM (#3177630) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/90983 In spite of very well-argued criticism, it seems that the Government is determined to press ahead with its idea of 'strengthening' the position of local authorities in dealing with pubs, as if the sanctions and controls they have are not good enough already. Even some of my local authority friends are somewhat bemused by this. They do not recognise the picture painted of them in Home Office and ministerial pronouncements — as scared lame ducks, unable to stop the progress of powerful, monolithic brewers and retailers as they corrupt the young and create mayhem on the streets. They point to the range of sanctions already available, to the increased police powers, to the review system and the use of these powers regularly to suspend or revoke licences. They do not see themselves as lame at all, but they like to take a balanced view of what is going on. Yet there are few voices raised against this move, even in the Lords, where a sense of justice might still be seen to be paramount. True, Lord Clement-Jones, that redoubtable campaigner, has had a few words to say about the manipulation of the wording of the Licensing Act and the lack of clarity this will bring. But there is no sense that in the long run the Government will not get its way, and the so-called 're-balancing' will simply mean stronger controls by those local authorities who wish to impose them. |
|
01 Jul 11 - 04:08 PM (#3179918) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110627/text/110627w0001.htm#11062716000003 Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent progress his Department has made on its proposals for live entertainment licensing; and if he will make a statement. [61973] John Penrose: I intend to issue a public consultation in due course about proposals to reduce the licensing burdens on most forms of entertainment regulated under the Licensing Act. How many public consultations will this one make? |
|
01 Jul 11 - 04:14 PM (#3179924) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/90993 Both licensees and their legal representatives have revealed horror stories about how one single objector can cause havoc, ether with an application or with a persistent series of complaints to the council. |
|
05 Jul 11 - 05:15 AM (#3181655) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Meanwhile - out in the real world.... http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=LicenceDetails&REF=4027&TYPE=Premises Live music permitted on no more than two days in any one week (Monday to Sunday) One or two musicians playing amplified music. Playing acoustic guitar or saxophone (not both at once) (Indoor) John King comments: What possessed a licensing officer to legislate against a musician playing guitar and sax at the same time? If anyone could play both simultaneously they would be committing a criminal offence subject to £20,000 fine of six months in prison, but only in Magoo's, Henley. Just as importantly - what can be done now to change such unlawful conditions and prevent local Govt employees from imposing them? |
|
05 Jul 11 - 05:26 AM (#3181658) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST More conditions on Magoo's DJ only (no karaoke) DJ will only play on a total of two nights per week (Indoor) Dancing shall be permitted in the back bar on no more than twelve occasions in the year. (Indoor) |
|
05 Jul 11 - 06:39 AM (#3181681) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91039 Sanctions to improve timing By Peter Coulson 04/07/2011 11:15 During the recent committee stage in the House of Lords for the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, one peer (no doubt prompted by a local authority 'minder') put down an amendment to allow councils to postpone the 28-day objection period for licence applications until they had put the material on their website. The argument was that members of the public would not necessarily be aware of the proposal when the notice went up the day after the application was lodged, so that the clock should only start when the authority got round to refreshing their web pages, probably the following week. I am glad to say that this proposal did not go forward, but it is an indication that some councils think they are a breed apart when it comes to complying with statutory timescales, whereas they stick rigidly to notice periods when it comes to the applicant. |
|
05 Jul 11 - 07:01 AM (#3181688) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.lgcareers.com/careers-az/licensing-officer/ Licensing Officer job description. The following from John King: The last Govt entrusted the strict supervision of working musicians to the same petty officials who suffocate taxi-cabs in red-tape. Here the minimum qualification is 4 GCSEs. Some LAs ask for 2. They have the power to object to a music licence and are rarely over-ruled. From experience of my local authority, their primary object seems to be to avoid applications from ever being placed before either a meeting of full Licensing Committee or a Sub Committee to ensure that their decide the matter themselves. Although the Licensing Act 2003 requires every council to set up such committees with a remit to decide on all licensing matters - where there are no representations made by the public - the employees are permitted to decide. Where there are representations made by the public, the employees can still decide by the simple measure of encouraging those representations to be withdrawn in face of an amended application. In practice, the applicant is told at this stage, by the employees that their application will not be passed unless it is changed. In the face of this, it is usually changed (and limited). Thus the employees use the representations to get what they decide is convenient to them, no committee is ever involved and the employees then claim (technically correctly) not to have imposed any conditions. |
|
06 Jul 11 - 03:41 AM (#3182238) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/%28S%28czobl0450xbqi155ede3ifez%29%29/mgAi.aspx?ID=60693 Hounslow council bans outdoors live music at Kings House School Sports Ground. Restrictions on indoor live music include: 'Events will not be open to the general public.' 'Security and trained staff will be present at all events.' |
|
09 Jul 11 - 03:35 PM (#3184510) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/livemusichl.html Committee Stage for the Live Music Bill will be 15th July - 10:00am. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 03:38 PM (#3184512) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hastings.gov.uk/licensing/licensing_applications.aspx#minor_variations John King comments: Cafe Relax in St Leonards applying for a variation to permit a DJ 7 days a week between 11:00 and 23:00hrs. Live music is to be restricted to Thu to Sat 19:00 to 22:00hrs, and Sun 14:00 to 17:00. Further restricted to max 3 musicians plus a potential genre restriction of jazz. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 03:46 AM (#3185881) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/32313/dcms-looks-to-cull-live-entertainment John King comments: Where is the Govt's promised consultation into the scrapping of "bonkers" live music licensing? According to this report in The Stage, the consultation document was to have been published by the end of June. |
|
12 Jul 11 - 03:49 AM (#3185883) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://webapps.allerdale.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=3472&T=10 John King comments: Police object to two Blues Gigs in Allerdale unless SIA door-staff (eg retired police) are hired. The Council have already banned percussion at the Maryport Navy Club and imposed a noise limit of 90dB (see P11). Apparently this decision has no employment implications. Drummers may disagree... |
|
13 Jul 11 - 11:44 AM (#3186753) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill inches closer to becoming law with its Committee stage in the House of Lords this Friday morning, 15 July: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/livemusichl.html The bill would roll back draconian licensing restrictions imposed on live music by the Labour government's 2003 Licensing Act. It is supported by the music industry, campaigners and performers' unions. As amended, it would exempt from entertainment licensing performances of live music between 8am and 11pm to audiences of up to 200. The exemption could be disapplied in pubs and bars if noise complaints were upheld at a licence review. Performances in hospitals, schools, and other workplaces, often caught by the existing regime, would be exempt. The entertainment facilities provisions would be removed entirely. Unamplified performance would be exempt, subject to the hours condition, and recorded as well as live music could accompany morris dancing (only unamplified accompaniment is allowed at present). A number of amendments will be put forward at Committee: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/012/amend/am012-a.htm Most are technical, reflecting the complexity of the Licensing Act's music provisions, but include changing the exemption cut-off time from midnight to 11pm. This was one of the conditions required for government support announced by Baroness Rawlings during the bill's 2nd Reading on 04 March: http://bit.ly/ol4H3A After Committee, two further stages remain in the House of Lords, Report and 3rd reading, before the bill can go to the House of Commons. There is no sign yet of the more radical entertainment licensing deregulation consultation promised by culture minister John Penrose in May (see The Stage 26 May: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/32313/dcms-looks-to-cull-live-entertainment ) A number of recent developments emphasise the urgent need for reform. The Olympic Stadium, for example, has failed to apply for entertainment facilities authorisation for live music: http://bit.ly/o4c3nw [see p4, box i] Without such authorisation, no live music using stadium-provided amplification, staging or lighting, could take place. Last week I asked Newham Council for comment. To date they have not replied. In St Leonards, Cafe Relax is applying for a variation to permit a DJ 7 days a week between 11:00 and 23:00hrs. Live music is to be restricted to Thu to Sat 19:00 to 22:00hrs, and Sun 14:00 to 17:00. It is further restricted to a maximum of 3 musicians plus a potential jazz genre restriction: http://bit.ly/pc6gmp Hounslow Council has banned outdoors live music at Kings House School Sports Ground. Restrictions on indoor live music include: 'Events will not be open to the general public' and 'Security and trained staff will be present at all events': http://bit.ly/qJIz3h South Oxfordshire District Council has restricted live music to two days a week at Magoo's, Henley-on-Thames. This is further restricted apparently to no more than two musicians playing acoustic guitar and saxophone, but not both at once! http://bit.ly/qAsNME Last but not least, the Red Lion in Whitehall, where in 2001 the Lords Redesdale and Colwyn, in the company of Billy Bragg and others, famously got 'thrown out' to draw attention to the daft 'two in a bar rule', is STILL restricted to two musicians. It is free to host 3 or more DJs, however, and - like every pub or bar - unlimited big screen broadcast entertainment. See: http://bit.ly/rsI3ak My thanks to campaigners John King, Charlotte Collingwood and Roger Gall for these examples. ENDS |
|
13 Jul 11 - 12:26 PM (#3186779) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Most are technical, reflecting the complexity of the Licensing Act's music provisions, but include changing the exemption cut-off time from midnight to 11pm. This was one of the conditions required for government support announced by Baroness Rawlings during the bill's 2nd Reading on 04 March: http://bit.ly/ol4H3A Sorry but perhaps the price to pay for this Govt's support here is not one we can afford to pay and perhaps it is better to proceed without this Govt's support. There is an imprtant principle at stake here. All live music does not present problems which automatically require additional licensing permission at 11pm, midnight or any other time. By accepting any curfew time - we are accepting that it does. It was a backward step to propose midnight in the Bill and one understandably made in the hope of Govt support. It is leap backwards to then change it. The Act removed fixed serving times for alcohol. Prior to this generally welcomed relaxation - there was no fixed curfew placed on live music, which stopped when the alcohol stopped. This inculded all of the live music in pubs which was excluded under the 'two-in-a-bar. When it is genenerally now accepted that it is alcohol related issues which cause most of the concerns - we are to have a fixed curfew on all live music. In all reality, if passed and if left to our current system and to our licensing employees, there would be little or no live music permitted after 11pm. That which was permitted would be subject to many further restrictions and conditions. This, not because it presented any problem but simply because it took place after the curfew. Our licensing employees will love getting paid overtime to listen out for any live music after curfew. We we not under martial law or being bombed, when such curfews may have some justification. Why is live music OK to be unregulated prior to a certain time of night but the same activity then needs to be subject to expensive and additional entertainment licensing after this? If the issue is one of noise, then the fact that an activity has permission or not will not make any difference, as it is subject to the Environment Protection Act, which already has its own built-in restrictions. Yet more restrictions on live music are not required under entertainment licensing, which can now be safely scrapped. This Bill, as worded, encourages the very additional entertainment legislation that most of us wish to see scrapped. Are we now turkeys voting for Christmas? It is people, not live music or musicians which cause problems. I suggest that these curfews and fees are not placed on premises but on people who cannot behave at night in a socially acceptable mannner and it is they who should need to pay for licence to be out after 11.00, which can be taken away if they transgress. Any chance of such an ammendment being made? |
|
13 Jul 11 - 12:50 PM (#3186799) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Police-object-Jika-Jika-late-opening-plan/story-12935338-detail/story.html John King comments: Police opposed to live music at a cafe in Bath. Inspector Steve Mildren said "The variation application is to extend the hours that the premises operate and to add live music to this, the police feel, adds a dimension that is very different from the high quality coffee house that was portrayed" The premises already has permission for a DJ. Do the police have any justification for deciding that a coffee house would not be 'high quality' if it had live instead of recorded music? This is hardly 'high quality' police work. |
|
15 Jul 11 - 07:23 AM (#3188144) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8777&wfs=true John King comments:Live Music Bill passes Committee stage. The Govt announces support of the Bill following amendments, and Labour DCMS spokesman Lord Stevenson of Balmacara expresses 'much regret' at his previous Govt's handling of live music licensing. |
|
15 Jul 11 - 10:13 AM (#3188233) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill cleared an important hurdle this morning when all its amendments were passed at the House of Lords Committee stage debate. Crucially, this included the 11pm cut-off for a small gigs licensing exemption, which cleared the way for unqualified government support provided by their spokesperson in the debate, Baroness Garden of Frognal. The bill's chances of becoming law are now significantly increased. Lord Clement-Jones raised the possibility that the 11pm licensing threshold for acoustic events might be subject to review under the government's proposed consultation on further entertainment licensing deregulation, expected before the autumn. The amended bill was praised by Labour's DCMS spokesperson, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara who also expressed 'much regret' at his government's handling of entertainment licensing and live music. Report and 3rd Reading stages in the Lords should now proceed within a few weeks, after which the bill goes to the House of Commons, possibly in September. The written Hansard record will not be available for a few hours, but you can watch on Parliament TV. Note that the debate begins about 25 minutes after the first debate of the day - and there doesn't appear to be a time-slider: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8777&wfs=true A full report will follow early next week. ENDS |
|
15 Jul 11 - 08:56 PM (#3188548) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/87789 As his views are now seen to be so out of step, unrepresentitive and damaging to culture, should Local Government Assocication (LGA) chair for culture, tourism & sport Chris White be expected or asked to resign his influential position? Responding to the view that pubs shouldn't need a licence for live music as they don't for football, White said: "A local pub that decides to show the World Cup final does not attract football-lovers from all around. "But a band might announce on Facebook or Twitter that it's appearing at a certain pub, and fans will come for miles around. The LGA chair's weak defence of the Act's exemption for live TV sport or the 'Rupert Murdoch clause' is not currently seen as being very wise. That the advertised showing of TV sport to a pub full of football supporters is not considered to need the expensive 'full monty' of additional entertainment licensing but that a single musician is considered to place everyone at risk without it - says all that is needed to be said about the additional entertainment licensing measures contained in the licensing Act 2003. If Rupert Murdoch's entertainments are safe without it (before and even after 11pm) - then so is everything else. Now that Mr Murdoch no longer seems to be in charge of this country, it should be possible for his activities to be seen to be receiving equal licensing treatment, along with everyone else. |
|
15 Jul 11 - 09:56 PM (#3188566) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/28970/private-members-bill-seeks-to-relax-live But the bill's opponents maintain there is no problem with the current licensing situation. Chris White, chairman of the Local Government Association's culture, tourism and sport board, said he thought it was "a very ignorant bill", adding that "the case that there is a problem with live music has not been made". The case that there is a problem with live music is plainly accepted now that the Live Music Bill is supported by the Govt's side in the Lords. Is the chairman of the Local Government Association's culture, tourism and sport board still of the view (assuming as he does, to be speaking on behalf of all of the council tax payers in England and Wales) that it is a "a very ignorant bill"? Or will he now resign before his unrepresentitive but influential views can inflict any more damage on culture? |
|
18 Jul 11 - 03:51 AM (#3189854) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/whereilive/localheadlines/9142172.Father_of_autistic_man_handed_abatement_notice_for_humming_ Autistic man Dean Harman received an abatement notice for humming too loudly in Kidbrooke council flat John King comments: Greenwich Council can't afford to keep libraries open but they can afford to pay for this idiocy. |
|
18 Jul 11 - 11:28 AM (#3190061) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hertsmere.gov.uk/business/licensing/alcoholentertainmentlicensing/dnld_alcoholentertainmentlicensing/Premise_licenses John King Comments: The premises licence for the Purcell School in Bushey does NOT allow the provision of facilities for making music (meaning a stage, musical instruments etc). The school's lunchtime recitals are currently illegal - penalty £20,000 fine or 6 months in prison. |
|
18 Jul 11 - 11:36 AM (#3190068) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.epolitix.com/1832-blog/blog-post/newsarticle/lords-reassured-over-spontaneous-dancing/ John King comments: There is a serious point to the question of spontaneous dancing. Under previous legislation there were prosecutions for unlicensed dancing. In 2002, Westminster council successfully prosecuted Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries because licensing officers witnessed the 'rhythmic moving' of customers to music. Although not mentioned in the words of the Act, The S182 Guidance does detail spontaneous music and does regard this as being exempt. |
|
19 Jul 11 - 07:36 PM (#3191041) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1422646_police-officer-and-salford-town-hall-staff-arrested-in-100000-fraud-p Salford Council's ex-Principal Licensing Officer and a Licensing Dept Support Assistant arrested in connection with a £100,000 fraud. John King comments: Some Licensing Authorities like to suggest that musicians themselves cause crime. One example of this practice is the Form 696 - aimed mostly at musicians who aren't 'white'. One London council - as a premises licence condition - made the searching of musicians compulsory when entering the premises. St Albans Council issued guidance to TEN applicants to make sure they agree a fee with musicians before hiring them. |
|
19 Jul 11 - 07:41 PM (#3191043) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/9145882.New_pop_up_cafe_not_for_all_tastes/ John King comments: Pop-up restaurant wants to hold spoken word, talks, cookery demonstrations and classes, debates, poetry and acoustic music. A petition from neighbours will put a stop to that. |
|
20 Jul 11 - 06:37 AM (#3191269) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/19/is_this_trumpet_legal/ 'The law, intended to promote musical events at small venues, must be one of New Labour's most absurd and bureaucratic legacies. Leaving a piano in a school or church hall without the necessary paperwork and approval risks a £20,000 fine and six months in jail' |
|
20 Jul 11 - 06:42 AM (#3191271) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.popall.co.uk/news/general/onesmallstepforlivemusic.asp There is still a way to go - the Bill must proceed to Report stage and Third Reading and then to the House of Commons - but in the words of the old ZZ Top song, this particular Private Members Bill has Legs … |
|
20 Jul 11 - 06:51 AM (#3191276) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hertsmere.gov.uk/business/licensing/alcoholentertainmentlicensing/dnld_alcoholentertainmentlicensing/Premise_licenses Premises licence for Haberdashers Askes Boys School. One condition reads: "A letter drop shall be conducted informing residents of the proposed event and the times of the intended music". |
|
20 Jul 11 - 05:16 PM (#3191631) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.generator.org.uk/blog/government-back-live-music-bill John King comments: The Live Music Bill is 'thriving'. The same cannot be said for the live music sector. PRS have announced that live music revenues fell in 2010 for the first time in a decade. |
|
21 Jul 11 - 04:37 AM (#3191850) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/28/music-royalties-fall-for-first-time Music royalties fall for first time• PRS for Music reports 1% annual fall in total royalties. |
|
21 Jul 11 - 05:52 PM (#3192233) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91203 Senior industry figures have called plans to increase music royalty fees by up to 4,000% as "devastating" and "unsustainable". |
|
24 Jul 11 - 06:12 AM (#3194135) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hertsmere.gov.uk/business/licensing/alcoholentertainmentlicensing/dnld_alcoholentertainmentlicensing/Premise_licenses John King Comments: Here's Hertsmere Council placing restrictions on performances of school plays at Shenley Primary School. "Siblings of performers are not allowed to attend" plus a ban on amplified live music. |
|
24 Jul 11 - 06:17 AM (#3194136) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hertsmere.gov.uk/business/licensing/alcoholentertainmentlicensing/dnld_alcoholentertainmentlicensing/Premise_licenses John King comments: Hertsmere Council don't approve of children listening to music. Here they are banning children (in Hertfordshire that means under-18s) from a premises during live music events. They are allowed on the premises at all other times. Children being prevented from going to their own school - interesting concept. |
|
24 Jul 11 - 06:25 AM (#3194138) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.hertsmere.gov.uk/business/licensing/alcoholentertainmentlicensing/dnld_alcoholentertainmentlicensing/Premise_licenses This is the correct link |
|
24 Jul 11 - 06:31 AM (#3194140) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8657058/Tories-did-deal-with-Murdoch-over-BBC-licence-fee.html Tweet from Ben Bradshaw--- Well done S.Telegraph for showing how Tories changed licence fee policy to suit Murdochs. Did same on free TV sport eg cricket too What short and convenient memories our politicians have. Ex DCMS Minsister Bradshaw' Party did not of course do a similar deal with Murdoch to exclude his SKY TV sport from the requirement for additional entertainment licensing? |
|
24 Jul 11 - 06:40 AM (#3194145) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The 'Murdoch' exemption.... Schedule 1. Use of television or radio receivers 8 The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it consists of the simultaneous reception and playing of a programme included in a programme service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42). |
|
26 Jul 11 - 09:36 AM (#3195764) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2096829_application_prompts_chobham_common_wildlife_fears John King comments: Cllr Diane Beach (Ind) has whipped up local hysteria to object to a licence for an equestrian centre. The applicant Cllr Lee Chivers (Con) said "the licence would be used to provide lunch for children visiting the centre and dinner in the evening". Now, Mr Chivers is lucky he is a Parish councillor. If he was a Ward Councillor, the objectors could ask him to represent them at the licensing sub-committee hearing. Cllr Beach can't ask Cllr Chivers to represent her, because she doesn't live in his his ward. Nor does she live in the vicinity of the premises - but she is a horse rider. Now - if musicians who work in premises are not allowed to make representations in respect of live music licence applications (councils will use the vicinity test to disallow them) - why should horse owners be any different? |
|
26 Jul 11 - 09:43 AM (#3195768) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Controversial-nightclub-given-councils-all-clear-25072011.htm John King comments: Hordes of local government officials add an "unprecedented number of conditions" to the licence of the Jam House, Cambridge. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 09:50 AM (#3195775) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/1/15%20july%202011%20letter%20to%20lord%20lucas%20on%20music%20licensing.pdf John King comments: Letter from Dept of Education to Lord Lucas confirming the Govt's intention of deregulating music in schools. But why has it taken the Govt over a year to scrap legislation that criminalises sibli...ngs of performers attending primary school music events? See Shenley Primary School... The letter quotes the no of schools holding a premises licence as "very small". This isn't correct, and there are plenty of examples on this FB Group. DCMS 'statisticians' disingenuously claim they don't know how many schools hold premises licences as there isn't a legal definition of a school within the Licensing Act. DCMS Select Committee reported that over half of all TENs are for PTA events (let alone schools). |
|
26 Jul 11 - 09:53 AM (#3195777) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.threerivers.gov.uk/Default.aspx/Web/LicensingSub-Committee-7July2011 Three Rivers Licensing Sub-Committee 7 July 2011. Conditions on the premises licence at the Whip and Collar PH. DJs are allowed, but live music restricted to two unamplified performers. Staff to check noise levels 'especially when live music is provided'. Windows and doors closed aftter 23:00 during live music. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 09:55 AM (#3195778) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.threerivers.gov.uk/Default.aspx/Web/LicensingSub-Committee-28July2009 John King comments: Three Rivers Council have restricted live music at the British Legion Rickmansworth to (usually - whatever that means) two or three performers. Solo musicians are apparently banned - usually. This is not 'usual' - it is fortunately quite rare, but very very stupid. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 01:37 PM (#3195940) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: nickp Two years old that one, Roger |
|
27 Jul 11 - 09:49 AM (#3196541) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05134 Updated version of Live Music In Small Venues on the Parliament website. |
|
27 Jul 11 - 09:53 AM (#3196546) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Licence-granted-River-Cottage-eaterie-Plymouth/story-13015716-detail/story.html John King comments: HFW's restaurant in Plymouth receives a ban on live music if performed for more than two hours (including breaks) and more than once a week. On Saturday DJs are allowed to finish half an hour later while unamplified music becomes a criminal offence. |
|
30 Jul 11 - 09:17 AM (#3198442) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.stourbridgenews.co.uk/news/9162918.Relieved_Lye_residents_joy_as_nightspot_plan_withdrawn/ RELIEVED residents in Lye have welcomed news a controversial application for a new High Street bar has been withdrawn. |
|
30 Jul 11 - 09:22 AM (#3198443) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Objections-late-night-licence/story-13024622-detail/story.html "We have two other pubs within 40 yards of us, The Sandpiper and the Britannia. Neither of them are required to have door staff and they both have later licences. "It might be that we are being made an example of, but all we would ask is that there is a level playing field." Mr Troughton said he and his father would be attending the meeting of North Devon Council's licensing sub committee next Tuesday when a decision would be made on the licence variations. |
|
30 Jul 11 - 09:27 AM (#3198447) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.heybrookmusic.co.uk/news/?p=290 We know this is a bit dry, but if you like gigging it's important. There are people out there actively working to remove some of the pointless restrictions that are throttling the live music scene in the UK |
|
30 Jul 11 - 09:33 AM (#3198449) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-festivals/8671203/Am-I-a-nimby-a-Luddite-or-a-party-pooper.html I asked the landlady next time I was in the snug. She rolled her eyes, dragged out a sheaf of paper as thick as a Scotch egg and talked me through the detailed fine-tuning. "You can't just phone up the magistrate for your late-night extension on New Year's Eve any more," she said. "You've got to tick loads of boxes about health and safety and the rest of it. You've got to apply in advance. Temporary Event Notification [TEN], they call it. Go in person for your hearing. Got to flipping pay for it as well. I thought I might as well apply for more than just the one while I was there, to save time come the May Fayre. They've got no idea, these people objecting." I inspected some of the objections from my village neighbours – to the granting of said licence. Gosh, they were brutal. But I had to schlepp around and make an effort to see how stingingly rude some people can be. Not like now. |
|
03 Aug 11 - 06:51 AM (#3200804) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Morris dancers' bells breached Samuel Smith's ban on music. http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91296 |
|
04 Aug 11 - 06:38 AM (#3201526) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Swansea-s-Monkey-Cafe-banned-playing-recorded/story-13060968-detail/story.html PPL spokesperson Jonathan Morrish said: "It is a legal requirement in the UK for any business that plays recorded music in public to have a PPL licence." John King comments: Oh really? |
|
04 Aug 11 - 06:48 AM (#3201530) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91299 Parliament has, of course, now gone into recess for the summer, but not before the Government put its support behind Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill, with the main trade-off being an 11pm terminal for the exemption instead of the previous midnight hour. The Government's position was that this cutback would represent a fair compromise between the needs of the licensed trade and those of neighbours who would not want to be disturbed for an extra hour at that time of night. I it was accepted with reluctance by the Bill's sponsors, although there may be scope for an extension of this when the Government's own review of music legislation has taken place. |
|
04 Aug 11 - 06:52 AM (#3201533) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1046133&c=1 This summer festival line-up is destined to make the record books – but for all the wrong reasons as cancellations and postponements threaten to reach a new high. 31 events have already been cancelled this year, just three short of the 34 festivals axed in 2010. But in the past fortnight the rate of casualties has escalated leaving in fear that record numbers of live music fans will be left disappointed this year. |
|
06 Aug 11 - 03:54 AM (#3202517) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://media.weymouth.gov.uk/docstore/demdocs/lic_committee/LIC-R-20110811.pdf This variation is to add live music (until midnight) and film (to 2am) to the existing permission for recorded music and alcohol (up to 02.00). There are two objections to this. One from Environmental Health. It will be interesting to see on what grounds this variation is being objected to. |
|
06 Aug 11 - 04:58 AM (#3202544) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: DMcG Now the ePetition idea for the UK has reappeared, have you thought about creating one like the original petition against the bill? I thought of something like: === Revise the 2003 Licensing Act so that all music is treated equivalently, whether live, televised or otherwise recorded, and that all restrictions concerning noise under the Licensing Act are transferred to separate noise control legislation in which all noise, whether live music, recorded music, televised events or other sources are subject to the same conditions. === One of the big problems with the ePetition site at the moment is that there are dozens of petitions for essentially the same thing, but because the words differ, they can't really be combined. So if we did try to get the equivalent of the old petition together, we would need to prevent that sort of fragmentation. |
|
08 Aug 11 - 06:53 AM (#3203766) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I agree that the promlem with the E petition idea is in thinking of the right wording. Perhaps it is just better to stop thinking and just to write what you think? Smiles. http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91347?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ma-rss-all-n Credit where it is due. This week's observations on the legal process come from a colleague who is a local authority licensing officer and whose wry observations on local and central government practices have caused me a great deal of entertainment, not to say enlightenment. |
|
08 Aug 11 - 07:47 AM (#3203784) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The 'demise of LACORS' - or just a change of name? http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/static.aspx?N=0&Ne=0+2000+3000+4000+5000+6000+7000+8000+9000+10000+11000&groupid=1 |
|
09 Aug 11 - 06:02 AM (#3204462) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91346 The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR) has welcomed Government plans to tighten up the conduct of copyright collection firms that would include PPL and PRS. The Government plans to clampdown on firms such as PPL and PRS, with a planned statutory code next Spring if they fail to clean up their act. The proposal came this week in the Government's response to the Hargreaves review of Intellectual Property and Growth. John King comments: If the GOvt wants to act on misleading claims from PRS, then they should take a hard look at the same claims being made by civil servants at DCMS/LGA/LGR. |
|
09 Aug 11 - 06:04 AM (#3204464) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-14406849 They said the organisers failed to submit an event safety plan, details of security, first aid provision and planning documentation. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 08:52 AM (#3208832) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/news/local/controversial_warwick_lazy_cow_late_licence_gets_the_green_light_1_2958169 John King comments: Lazy Cow gets late alcohol licence but live music gets the boot. DJs are allowed. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 08:54 AM (#3208835) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petersfieldpost.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flocal-businesses%2Flicence_granted_despite_compl John King comments: One resident feels that any recorded music, live music, or dancing would be detrimental to the peace and health of residents living in Chapel Street. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 08:56 AM (#3208836) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thesprout.co.uk/en/news/cardiff-musiext-to-close/05734.html Cardiff Music Venues; Who's Next To Close? |
|
18 Aug 11 - 08:58 AM (#3208838) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/noise_limiter_to_be_installed_at_wisbech_restaurant_after_complaint_over_thumping_bass_1_9 John King comments: Noise limiter installed to control the sound of 'thumping bass'. 99 times out of 100 this would mean that recorded music is too loud. But Councillors do not seem to understand the difference, and have cut the times of LIVE music. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 09:00 AM (#3208840) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.midweekherald.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fnoise_complaints_threaten_pub_s_weekend_trade_1_97 Noise complaints threaten pub's weekend trade. |
|
18 Aug 11 - 09:08 AM (#3208844) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Taxis, Street-Trading and the future of live music. The Licensing Act 2003 is the worst example of bad legislation but if anything provided evidence of the mess that the combination of alcohol and entertainment in one licence is creating under local interpretations and current set-ups, it was the two recent applications ...which I attended (the first case as an observer only). http://media.weymouth.gov.uk/docstore/demdocs/lic_committee/LIC-R-20110811.pdf The first case was a variation to add live music (up to midnight) to the existing permission for recorded music (up to 02.00). The variation received a hearing because there was one objection from the public. As it turned out - the objector was under the impression that the variation for live music was up to 02.00 and had no objection to the earlier curfew time of midnight as specified in the variation. So on this count alone, there was in fact no need for this hearing. But when the applicants informed the committee of the type of live music that they hoped to have - it was clear that they really had no need to expose themselves to objections by making the variation for Regulated Entertainment. The exemption for a performance of incidental live music would have easily fitted in the qualification set out in the LACORS advice which was issued in September 2009. But even at the point when the single objector was happy with the application - the committee insisted on imposing an additional condition which required that all windows be shut during the live music. This condition not presumably required or applicable for the existing recorded music. If this was a recommendation of the Environmental Dept for the variation, (it may have been written one) I did not hear it discussed and their was no officer present at this point, for the case for this objection to be made verbally. The venue seemed to have lost an existing condition requiring CCTV but gained one for the installation of a noise limiter. There was no question during the hearing about the fact that alcohol was the be served until 02.00 or on what grounds, any form of live music was considered to present more concern to the licensing objectives than recorded music, requiring this to finish 2hrs earlier and additionally for the windows to be closed. It is difficult to see any positives in the part that Environmental Officers play in licensing hearings. In this case, there did not seem to be anyone objecting to the existing recorded music and any open windows (other than presumably the Environmental Health dept). Action could have been taken by them at any point in the past to address this concern, but this variation simply presented an opportunity - which the Environmental Health dept seemingly jumped at - to place a binding licensing condition for an intervention made on behalf only of themselves. An example of the confusion caused by the duplication of many environmental and planning issues into what are supposed to be licensing only hearings. http://media.weymouth.gov.uk/docstore/demdocs/lic_committee/LIC-R3B-20110811.pdf The situation was even more confusing for the second case, for which an Environmental Health officer did attend and had presumably made some form of objection. He totally confused a licensing hearing by insisting on talking about a proposed temporary marquee, which he admitted was not relevant to this hearing and would need to be subject to a future planning meeting. He stated that he would consider the noise of people drinking and dining in this marquee to be noise pollution and that his dept would object to this. None of this was actually relevant to a licensing hearing, especially as the marquee was not yet in place and no event had taken place in it, but this contribution made at this hearing did manage to confuse many at this hearing, especially the objectors. However it does fit in with the current practice of these hearings imposing real conditions in advance on activities that remain untested and which at this stage, can only provide hypothetical concerns and potential issues. In the face of the opposition, the applicants decided to restrict their application's curfew time for inside live music from 02.00 to midnight and any outside live music to a sundown finish. The Licensing Manager said (without any apparent consultation with the Committee) that the sundown finish would not be acceptable and that they would need a set time. This was later set by the sub-committee to 20.00 (8pm). Once again, there was no question during the hearing about the fact that alcohol was to be served until 02.00. And although mention was made of parking and the noise of people leaving, the only restrictions placed as a result of the hearing was to the application for live music. I suspect that had the applicants not themselves volunteered the further restrictions on the live music, that this would have been the outcome in any case. At one point, when the applicants were explaining that the dancing and live music would be inside the castle and that the outside live music would be limited to that being played during the wedding ceremony itself, I was amazed to hear the Licensing Manager answering that the latter would qualify as incidental and not require permission for Regulated Entertainment. What does or what does not qualify locally for this exemption still resides only in the head of the Licensing Manager but had her view been made clear previously by the Licensing Manager, it could have avoided the whole expensive hearing process. I was surprised that it appeared to be the first time that the applicants had heard of this exemption. If the Committee members had heard of it, they made no comment and seemed content for the details of its local qualifying requirements to remain in the Licensing Manager's head. The last minute concessions made by the applicants made a bit of a nonsense of my representation, which was stated on the agenda to be in support of the application but was certainly in favour of the originally requested times. This support was really only conditional on there being no further restrictions placed on the live music and stated that if there were any further restrictions, for these also applied to the serving of alcohol. This was obviously, if not altogether surprisingly, ignored. My submission contained a request to the full committee to conduct a review on the indications of the deterrent effect of the so-called local licensing requirements on cultural activities like the sessions at the Cove House Inn and the New Star Inn. The Chairman did say that the "committee' would be writing to me on this. My ward Councillor was largely responsible here for stirring up his fellow local residents and at one point he stated that "all music was noise" and then went on to say that he would welcome a string quartet. In conclusion, we have a situation where the public and to some extent Environmental Health, who have concerns unconnected to the provision of live music are using objections to this to obtain licensing hearings and these hearings are prepared to further limit or prevent live music for no good reason other than to appear to these objectors, to be doing something. In reality, this process satisfies no party and the affect of all this on live music and related cultural activities could not be much worse in countries which unlike this country, do not bother to even pay 'lip-service' to supporting culture and free expression. These hearings cannot grant licensing permission to create noise pollution so why are hearings accepting objections as being relevant when these are based only on attempts to prevent the applicants from creating noise pollution and as a result, giving Environmental Officers the opportunity, at these hearings, to recommend any condition they may choose to and often before a note has been sounded? Perhaps we should not expect much when our Parliament has placed the future of all of our cultural activities into the hands of those who mainly deal with the licensing of street-trading and taxis? |
|
18 Aug 11 - 09:12 AM (#3208846) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles *CORRECTION* In the face of the opposition, the applicants decided to restrict their application's curfew time for inside live music from 02.00 to midnight and any outside live music to a sundown finish. The above should read In the face of the opposition, the applicants decided to restrict their application's curfew time for inside live music from 01.00 to midnight and any outside live music to a sundown finish. |
|
19 Aug 11 - 10:01 AM (#3209403) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2011/08/18/karaoke-crooner-slinced-at-coventry-pub-after-complaints-92746-29 John King comments: Complaints about karaoke lead to suspension of live music. Karaoke is NOT live music and requires a different permission. |
|
19 Aug 11 - 10:10 AM (#3209406) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Jane-seeks-harmonious-fix-licence-issue/story-13155841-detail/story.html PRS/PPL is the problem here. Not too sure of how accurate the reporting of this story is. My understanding is that here, it is less the status of the performer but the status of music being performed. |
|
22 Aug 11 - 01:21 PM (#3210963) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/music_venue_s_support_plea_1_999790 A HONITON businesswoman is urging the community to keep supporting her bar to ensure live music plays on in the town. Elaine Montgomery, the leaseholder of Montgomery's Hotel and its in-house bar, The Orange Tree, has been forced to reduce the hours of live music entertainment in the bar following noise complaints. After holding a meeting with representatives from East Devon District Council, she has agreed to finish live music at midnight. |
|
25 Aug 11 - 06:41 PM (#3212735) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91510 Feargal Sharkey, CEO of UK Music, gives Jessica Harvey his views on the pub industry's role in the live-music scene. |
|
25 Aug 11 - 06:44 PM (#3212738) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisscunthorpe.co.uk/Caf-eacute-s-OK-music/story-13199402-detail/story.html Danny Fox, North East Lincolnshire Council Pollution Control Manager, objects to a live music licence for a cafe on the grounds that "the go-ahead will open the floodgates for other applications". |
|
02 Sep 11 - 06:01 AM (#3216940) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/karaoke_bar_concern_over_late_hours_plan_1_3723464 The following from John King 'Concerns' over karaoke licence. Many licensing officers (minimum qualification 2 GCSE's) do not understand that karaoke is NOT live music. |
|
02 Sep 11 - 06:06 AM (#3216941) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/licensing_setback_for_eye_show_1_1006822 John KIng comments: Mid Suffolk District Council get it wrong. Events for over 500 people need a premises licence, not a TEN. Live music was banned, but a childrens show was allowed to proceed. Wrong. Plays need a licence, but the music could have modified to qualify as incidental. |
|
02 Sep 11 - 06:11 AM (#3216943) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/91526 M&B wins licence conditions case Phil Crier, partner and head of the licensing team at law firm Blake Lapthorn, who represented M&B, said: "This was a common sense judgment, which reinforces the fact that conditions on licences should only be imposed where they are justified both on grounds of necessity and proportionality and have relevance to the licensing objectives." "In respect of the imposition of conditions on the premises licence for the Goat in Clapham, we did not believe these were justified and are satisfied that our appeal has been upheld." The PMA's legal editor Peter Coulson argued this was a ground-breaking case and said: "The police were trying to impose general crime prevention conditions that are not relevant to the holding of the licence." |
|
03 Sep 11 - 09:25 AM (#3217550) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=16578 Pubs putting on live music run one hell of a risk. ONE complaint about the Chippenham Folk Festival leads to the Black Horse facing a premises licence review. John King comments: Even though the Licensing Sub-Committee ruled that there has been 'no substantiated complaints of noise nuisance', conditions have been added to the premises licence forcing the venue to submit to a noise management plan before future events. And we know what those are like... |
|
03 Sep 11 - 09:52 AM (#3217559) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.mirror.co.uk/most-popular/headlines/2011/08/30/parents-of-four-year-old-boy-threatened-with-5-000-noise-fine-115875-2 The authority insisted it has a legal obligation to investigate complaints. A spokesman said: "In compliance with the law, we informed Mr and Mrs Lansdell a complaint was received." I the above statements are actually true - then perhaps the law needs to be changed to prevent nieghbours and council employees from hiding behind it. Currently the law is encouraging people to make complaints because those whose job it is to establish the validity of such complaints are seeing their, is to reduce the number of complaints being made. Which is a fruitless and impossible task but one which is liable to keep them employed for ever. If the sound of social discourse and of kids is judged as being measurable noise pollution (simply as a result of a single complaint)and a matter for environmental employees - then we are all in trouble. |
|
05 Sep 11 - 04:03 AM (#3218361) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Historic-building-s-fate-decided-city-magistrates/story-13253537-detail/story.html Magistrates will decide the fate of a developer's controversial plans to turn a historic city centre building into an entertainment centre. Belgrave developer Ashik Madlani wants to stage plays, films, wrestling, live music and dance events at the former Edwardian Guild for the Disabled building, now called the Charles Venue, in Colton Street, Leicester. He is appealing against a decision by the city council's licensing committee in March which ruled the proposed use of the grade II-listed building – which would open until 5am, Monday to Friday – would disturb neighbours. |
|
09 Sep 11 - 10:55 AM (#3220636) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/07/live-music-pubs-licence-bands Band aid: ministers to call time on pub live music restrictionsGovernment aims to stimulate grassroots music by allowing bars to host gigs without a licence |
|
10 Sep 11 - 01:04 PM (#3221190) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall The Department for Culture, Media and Sport today launched its long-awaited public consultation on scrapping entertainment licensing for all but very large events. DCMS press release: http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/8413.aspx Links to consultation document (44 pages, 48 questions) and impact assessment: http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8408.aspx Tourism minister John Penrose said of his promise to cut licensing red tape: " I want to set a match to all this nonsense, and trust sensible people to act sensibly, with regulation retained only where rightly needed to keep audiences and performances safe." http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/8418.aspx Under the proposals, already warmly welcomed by performers unions, the music industry and arts organisations, entertainment licensing would cease to apply to performances of music, dance, films and plays for audiences up to 5,000. The consultation is open until 03 December. Responses can be emailed to regulatedentertainmentconsultation@culture.gsi.gov.uk Or by post to:Nigel Wakelin, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2-4 Cockspur Street, London W1Y 5DH But what does this mean for Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill? Backed by the government and the opposition in the House of Lords, it sets out entertainment licence exemptions for gigs with audiences up to 200. The bill is also backed by performers, performers unions, many arts organisations and the music industry. Although modest in its aims when set against the sweeping deregulation now being proposed, it could be implemented by next spring - provided government support continues. By contrast, it will take DCMS at least that long to evaluate the thousands of responses expected in this latest consultation. Addressing the likely objections from residents associations, the police and local authorities, could also take many months. Legislation could take at least a year to implement. Last Tuesday, Music Week, which had early sight of the DCMS announcement, suggested that government support for the bill was waning: 'It was also thought that the Government might at one time put its weight behind that.' http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1046481&c=1 If this were the case, Lord Clement-Jones' bill would almost certainly fail, probably by not being given time in the Commons. Private members bills rarely succeed without government backing. Allowing the bill to fail in favour of the bigger prize of radical reform would be a risky strategy. Live music suffered particularly badly under the Licensing Act - the historic exemption for one or two performers in pubs and bars was lost, while DJs and big screen sport were given a free pass. Small gigs need help now. But contrary to Music Week's suggestion, today's DCMS consultation document explicitly confirms continued government support for the live music bill: '4. The Coalition Agreement committed to cutting red tape to encourage the performance of more live music. 4.1. We intend to honour this agreement in two ways. The first is to honour our public commitment to support the Live Music Bill, a Private Member's Bill tabled in 2010 in the House of Lords by Lord Clement Jones, which followed a recommendation for live music deregulation by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in 2009 and a full public consultation on the subject in 2010. Because of this, the Live Music Bill is not the subject of this consultation.' [p20, 'Regulated Entertainment - A consultation proposal to examine the deregulation of Schedule 1 of the Licensing Act 2003', September 2011] So it would seem the government has a twin-track approach: if the radical deregulation runs into trouble, the live music bill at least should lead to modest reform soon. Background: Licensing minister John Penrose first hinted at radical entertainment licensing deregulation last year, responding to a question from culture select committee chairman John Whittingdale (see note below). On 15 May this year, in a Sunday Times piece entitled 'No more licences to party' by Marie Woolf, Penrose said: 'As long as we have proper controls on alcohol, and spectator safety and noise nuisance are controlled, the rest is mostly bonkers red tape, and it's time we consigned it to the bin.' The following day, 16 May, Coalition culture spokesman Don Foster MP provided more information on his website and optimistically suggested that the consultation would take place in June: http://bathlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2011/487967/foster-hails-changes-to-live-event-licensing Live music campaigners have long called for most, if not all, live music to be removed from entertainment licensing, a position shared by the Musicians' Union and UK Music, the lobbying body for the music industry. In a recent interview, Feargal Sharkey, CEO of UK Music, said: 'We don't think that live music, overall, should have anything to do with the Licensing Act whatsoever. In terms of the smaller premises, we're somewhat confused and bewildered that anybody thinks that regulating those kind of small-scale venues and pubs is either reasonable, necessary or, indeed, proportionate.' ['Still getting his kicks (from pubs)', Morning Advertiser, 25 August 2011] http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Business-Support/Still-getting-his-kicks-from-pubs Note: 'Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): Is my hon. Friend aware that the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee - that there should be an exemption for smaller venues of a capacity below 200 - was supported by the previous Government, who were intending to introduce a regulatory order to provide an exemption for venues of a capacity below 150, and that there was widespread disappointment that that was not done? Will he confirm that he sees no need for any further consultation and that he will move to introduce the necessary order as soon as possible? 'John Penrose: My concern is that my hon. Friend's proposal goes for a particular solution when there might be a broader and potentially more radical solution that should also be considered. If we go for other alternatives, we will need to consult on them, but if we decide to go down the route of ideas that have already been thoroughly canvassed, I would obviously want to move as fast as possible and reduce the level of consultation to the bare legal minimum.' [House of Commons, Oral questions - Music Venues - Mon 21 June 2010] See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100621/debtext/100621-0001.htm#1006219000008 ENDS |
|
10 Sep 11 - 01:08 PM (#3221194) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/8413.aspx Government plans to slash live entertainment red tape Following the Red Tape Challenge, Minister vows to reduce 'pointless bureaucracy' for smaller events. |
|
11 Sep 11 - 12:26 PM (#3221580) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles At the moment all that we have is yet another consultation....... It is vital that we all make sure that this is the last one and the only way to do this is for all of us to make a contribution to it. Which you can do by following the following link. http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8408.aspx |
|
12 Sep 11 - 03:58 PM (#3222135) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall It sounded too good to be true - and, sadly, it was. Contrary to ministers' claims, 'bonkers red tape' is to be kept for small gigs in bars and restaurants under the government's sweeping 'deregulation' proposals published last Saturday. Only new businesses and existing venues without alcohol licences would enjoy the full benefit. As ever, the devil is in the detail. In this case page 11, paragraph 2.25 of the DCMS consultation document: 'Premises that continue to hold a licence after the reforms (for example, for alcohol, late night refreshment, or remaining forms of regulated entertainment) would be able to host entertainment activities that were formerly regulated without the need to go through a Minor or Full Variation process. We propose that all existing conditions on such licences would continue to apply unless the premises decided to apply for a variation to remove or amend them - a situation that should prevent the need for a wholescale reissue of licences by licensing authorities...' http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/consultation_deregulation-scheduleone_2011.pdf In other words, even if the entertainment licensing requirement is abolished, live music licence conditions would remain in pubs, bars, restaurants and any other premises with an alcohol licence, however small. Such conditions quite often include restrictions of performer numbers, genres, times or days of performance. The onus would be on the licensee to pay to apply to have these removed, either £89 (minor variation) or several hundred pounds (full variation), and the final decision would remain with the council. Credit for spotting this time-bomb within the consultation goes to John King of the Welwyn Live Music Forum, the group that conducted the first systematic review of local licence conditions in 2009, uncovering a raft of petty restrictions at small venues in St Albans: http://www.musictank.co.uk/resources/reports/licensing-act-2003-case-study-st-albans-district-council Their press statement today (full text below), highlights the possibility that red tape would actually increase, and includes this telling comment: 'For the largest licensed sector: premises already licensed to serve alcohol and provide live music there is no proposal to cut any red tape whatsoever. There will be no reduction in licensing costs for affected businesses, and there are no measures to encourage live music.' This also means that Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill represents the only genuine deregulatory measure in the legislative pipeline for small-scale performances of live music. Full text of Welwyn & Hatfield Live Music Forum statement today: The Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum – Statement on DCMS Proposal to Deregulate Entertainment Licensing On 9th September 2011, DCMS published a "consultation proposal to examine the deregulation of Schedule One of the Licensing Act". The introduction to the document written by Licensing Minister John Penrose concludes: '…this is a golden opportunity to deregulate, reduce bureaucratic burdens, cut costs, give the big society a boost and give free speech a helping hand as well. Our proposals are, simply, to remove the need for a licence from as many types of entertainment as possible.' But the actual content of the Government's proposal falls way short of it's own spin, and a coalition agreement to slash entertainment red tape. For the largest licensed sector: premises already licensed to serve alcohol and provide live music there is no proposal to cut any red tape whatsoever. There will be no reduction in licensing costs for affected businesses, and there are no measures to encourage live music. In this sector, DCMS are proposing an increase in red tape and costs; and with increased powers for Local Authorities to veto events, there is likely to be less live music. Critically, paragraph 2.25 of the document reveals that existing premises licence conditions relating to regulated entertainment are to be retained. Entertainment in breach of these conditions will remain a criminal offence – maximum fine £20,000 or 6 months in jail. Licensing Authorities will continue to use the previous government's comprehensive definition of regulated entertainment that includes pretty much everything from carol singing to reciting poetry. Since 2004/5, Licensing Authorities have wasted £millions hiring thousands of licensing officers, and here is a selection of some of the restrictions on live music now found on premises licences across England and Wales: • Restrictions on the days of the week live music can be performed • Restrictions on the number of live music performances per week/month/year • Restrictions on the instruments musicians may play • Restrictions on the genre of music musicians can perform • Bans on under-18 year olds listening to live music • Bans on amplification • Requirements to leaflet the surrounding area warning of impending live music events • Requirements to display a sign outside the premises signalling that live music is in progress • Restrictions on the number of musicians allowed to perform • Restrictions on the lyrical content of songs • Bans on all live music (including unamplified) even where recorded music is still permitted. • 10 working days notice of live music events to be given to the principal licensing officer. • Form 696 (look it up – get used to it – it's here to stay). This is bad news for musicians who aren't 'white'. DCMS is proposing to retain all the existing red tape in premises licensed for alcohol. And this is the very sector which needs URGENT deregulation. And yet, Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen in both Houses have heavily criticised existing restrictions. A DCMS Select Committee described restrictions as "draconian" and "absurd". The Labour spokesman in the Lords admitted that the previous government "got it wrong" on live music – a matter which they "deeply regret". Even Licensing Minister John Penrose described live music restrictions as "mostly bonkers red tape". The document (para 2.25) indicates that existing conditions will be retained in order to "prevent the need for a wholesale reissue of licences by licensing authorities". After waiting a year for this consultation to appear, this reason is unacceptable. The document is proposing a welcome reduction in existing red tape with the removal of the requirement to license entertainment in the small number of premises which do not have alcohol permissions. But many of these are public spaces or schools or even derelict bandstands, and will be of little benefit to the core live music sector or licensed trade. As for the increase in red tape – this is concealed within paragraph 3.6 of the document. Currently, if a premises wants to put on an event falling outside the restrictions on its licence – for example a pub wanting to put on a folk duo, or a restaurant wanting to put on a pianist – it can apply for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN for short). Under the previous government's Licensing Act, only the Police can object to a TEN. Paragraph 3.6 states that this proposal operates in tandem with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill currently before Parliament. Though not mentioned in the DCMS proposal, for the first time (and given their previous track record, inexplicably) Local Authorities are to be given the ability to object to a TEN and impose yet more restrictions on entertainment. Or, indeed, ban it. If licence conditions are retained, we are looking at more red-tape for existing live music venues, more powers for local authorities to restrict or ban one-off events, and – unless there is a sudden and massive enthusiasm for live music in currently unlicensed venues – we are looking at a possible decrease in live music. We are deeply concerned at DCMS proposal to retain entertainment licence restrictions. We urge the Government to scrap this proposal and give genuine support and Parliamentary time to the Lord Clement-Jones Live Music Bill as an interim measure. John King David Robertson Prof. Phil Jaggar Les Rayner 12 Sep 2011 Welwyn Hatfield Live Music Forum welwynhatfieldlivemusicforum@yahoo.co.uk |
|
12 Sep 11 - 04:20 PM (#3222145) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The document (para 2.25) indicates that existing conditions will be retained in order to "prevent the need for a wholesale reissue of licences by licensing authorities". After waiting a year for this consultation to appear, this reason is unacceptable. The reason why these licenses would need to be reissued is because even without this latest consultation, the conditions were unlawful when they were imposed. If the four main objectives of the Act remain unchanged and such conditions cannot be imposed on new premises, the existing licenses will remain unlawful. We all must follow the law but those who are employed to enforce this legislation do not appear to have to follow the law - if it involves them in work that they may find inconvenient...... The reason given here, for not following the law is quite preposterous. There simply is no requirement for any licence holder to adhere to conditions which are unlawful, so the concept of there being any need to reissue such licenses or for such licences to remain binding, is based on a false premise. |
|
13 Sep 11 - 05:24 AM (#3222371) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Why does the new consultation propose both a need to reissue licenses and a need to avoid this (by leaving existing conditions in place) when the introduction of the original S177 required only for any existing conditions to be suspended? Why cannot the same principle now be applied? This is poor legislation because it was was always based on what those who were paid to enforce it found most convenient to them. It enabled those more used to licensing street-traders and taxis to trample all over valuable cultral activities. It is time not only for this basis to be changed for future venues but for redress to made for venues with to conditions contained in exsisting licenses. Sadly it is too late for the many cultural activities which were actually deterred by being subject to this enforcement and which never did obtain the required licensing permission. |
|
14 Sep 11 - 06:35 AM (#3222984) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following is the Forward to the consultation. http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/8413.aspx It sounds very hopeful but it is up to us to ensure that what results in practice, is the "golden opportunity to deregulate, reduce bureaucratic burdens, cut costs, give the big society a boost and give free speech a helping hand as well." At the moment, the law and regulations which require some (but not all) types of entertainment to be licensed are a mess. For example, you will need a licence if you want to put on an opera but not if you want to organise a stock car race. A folk duo performing in the corner of a village pub needs permission, but the big screen broadcast of an England football match to a packed barn-like city centre pub does not. An athletics meeting needs licensing if it is an indoor event, but not if it's held outdoors. A free school concert to parents doesn't need a licence, but would if there is a small charge to raise money for PTA funds or if there are members of the wider public present. A travelling circus generally needs a permit whereas a travelling funfair does not. A carol concert in a Church doesn't need a licence, but does if it is moved to the Church Hall. There are many other examples where types of entertainment are treated differently for no good reason – the distinctions are inconsistent, illogical and capricious. But they cause other problems too. Whenever we force local community groups to obtain a licence to put on entertainment such as a fundraising disco, an amateur play or a film night, the bureaucratic burden soaks up their energy and time and the application fees cost them money too. Effectively we're imposing a deadweight cost which holds back the work of the voluntary and community sector, and hobbles the big society as well. Equally importantly, the various musicians' and other performers' unions are extremely concerned that all these obstacles reduce the scope for new talent to get started, because small-scale venues find it harder to stay open with all the extra red tape. There is also evidence that pubs which diversified their offer to include activities other than drinking were better able to survive the recession. Making it easier for them to put on entertainment may therefore provide an important source of new income to struggling businesses such as pubs, restaurants and hotels. Last but not least, laws which require Government approval for such a large range of public events put a small but significant dent in our community creativity and expression. If there's no good reason for preventing them, our presumption should be that they should be allowed. So this is a golden opportunity to deregulate, reduce bureaucratic burdens, cut costs, give the big society a boost and give free speech a helping hand as well. Our proposals are, simply, to remove the need for a licence from as many types of entertainment as possible. I urge you to participate in this consultation so that we can restore the balance. John Penrose Minister for Tourism and Heritage |
|
14 Sep 11 - 07:43 AM (#3222997) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge thread.cfm?threadid=140189 Bear in mind that the "Big Society" is a fraud proposed by the present government to assist it to weasel out of its obligations. |
|
14 Sep 11 - 10:20 AM (#3223075) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge refresh - and other thread is probably a wiser choice at this stage anyway. |
|
15 Sep 11 - 08:21 AM (#3223533) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST John King comments: Music Week reports on the deregulation consultation, with a passing reference to the proposal to RETAIN all existing licence conditions. In practice, this proposal will mean MORE red tape for the core live music sector. http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1046583&c=1 |
|
16 Sep 11 - 04:39 AM (#3224063) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Sorry - the last post was from me. http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/news-events/2011/09/14/consultation-on-the-licensing-act-for-small-venues/ The Government has announced another consultation on the Licensing Act. This one proposes that pubs, clubs and other small venues offering live music should no longer have to apply for an entertainment licence, and the MU will be responding to it. John Smith says: "We welcome this consultation and the Government's intention to cut red tape for live music. At the very least, we hope that the result will be to implement an exemption for small venues putting on live music with fewer than 200 people in attendance, for which we have been lobbying for many years now. We therefore also support the proposals outlined in Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill, which state that an exemption to the Licensing Act should take place when 'the live music entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience of no more than 200 persons'." Posted: September 14, 2011 |
|
18 Sep 11 - 05:34 PM (#3225276) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://blogs.culture.gov.uk/main/2011/09/lets_put_on_a_show_right_here_1.html John Penrose 'Let's put on a show right here, in the barn' I've heard it said that anyone who believes that 'you can't take it with you' has obviously never packed a car for a family camping holiday. In the same vein, the person who said 'you can't be too careful' has clearly never tried to put on a fund raiser in a community hall or organise any kind of public entertainment, regardless of how small and localised it might be. Because the bureaucracy you have to clamber through to get the necessary permissions would do Sir Humphrey proud. Labyrinthine is too small a word for it. That's because if what you're planning to do is licensable, by which we mean pretty well anything you might want to put on in the field of entertainment, down to and including school discos, magic shows, showing children's films to a toddler group, putting on a Punch and Judy show or even, if you run a bar or restaurant, having a pianist in the corner tapping out moody and barely audible Cole Porter improvisations, you need a licence. 2,640 words to help keep you out of jail If you or I wanted to apply for one in, let's say, Westminster (chosen simply because it is where I'm sitting as I write this), you would need to: Fill out a form with nine questions about yourself, and provide short prose pieces on the nature of the premises to be used and the event you are planning (you may need to provide the Ordnance Survey grid reference for the venue if the address is unclear, by the way); Answer further questions on what 'licensable activities' you have in mind, including the precise times when it will all be happening and – a particular favourite of mine, for which you'll need to take a deep breath before you start: 'the maximum number of people at any one time you that you intend to allow to be present at the premises during the times when you intend to carry on licensable activities'; and finally Discuss your – and your 'associates and business colleagues' history of licence applications, with particular reference to 'events in the same calendar year', before signing on the dotted line (noting the friendly advice that you could get six months inside and\or a £20,000 fine if you stray from the licensing straight and narrow). Then you send two copies and the relevant fee to the Town Hall, and a separate copy to the police. But don't worry if you get confused, because they also provide 17 notes to help you out, running to a modest 2,640 words between them. So are you absolutely sure you want to put on that film show for the toddlers? Crime, nuisance, harm and safety Now let's be clear. This is not, of course, intended as any kind of reproach on Westminster City Council, who are simply applying the rules. The real point is that the rules themselves are out of all proportion to the thing they are trying to regulate. Indeed, some decadent souls might even go as far as to say that it's not so much a case of them being out of proportion, but that we don't really need any rules for a lot of this sort of thing at all. And what do I think? A sane and civilised society needs some sort of regulation – it's right and proper that we do what we can to prevent crime and public nuisance, protect children from harm and generally keep an eye on public safety, but a tipping point can swiftly be crossed when the bureaucrats get on the case. So we're consulting on all this with a starting point that if there's no good reason for preventing something, our presumption should be that it be allowed. Do let us have your views but, in the meantime, don't even think about having fun in public unless you've done the relevant paperwork. |
|
19 Sep 11 - 06:04 AM (#3225447) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Olympics-apply-now-for-TENs-to-avoid-red-tape Speaking at the Institute of Licensing conference in London, Stephen Walsh QC of law firm The Raymond Buildings, told operators to act now to avoid any new regulations as part of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act. John King comments: The Government's INCREASED red tape for events kicks in. |
|
19 Sep 11 - 02:22 PM (#3225657) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://idocs.westminster.gov.uk:8080/WAM/doc/Licence-1664087.doc?extension=.doc&id=1664087&appid=5003&location=VOLUME20&contentType=application%2Fmsword&pageCount=1 John King comments: Paste the above link into a browser. An example of licence conditions which DCMS is proposing to RETAIN. The Royal Academy of Arts, Burlington House: live music only permitted May to Sep, Fridays only between 18:00 and 22:00hrs. Amplification is banned. If a new venue opened right next door to Burlington House, such conditions as those exsisting on the Royal Academy, which place needless limits on the live music, could no longer be placed and would be illegal. Quite how the resulting unlevel playing field can be defended by the Govt proposing it - will make very interesting reading. Could such a prosecution be upheld if the Royal Academy where to be found to have breached an existing condition on activities which could no longer have such conditions legally imposed upon their newer competition? I just love this condition: No noise shall emanate from the premises nor vibration be transmitted through the structure of the premises which gives rise to a nuisance. The local licensing authority could not of course give permission for any form of noise nuisance and as it can only concern itself with that which may emanate from the entertainment activities specifically listed in Schedule 1, - the licensing authority can have no say in noise which may emanate say from the snoring of the members or of a chain saw being used as part of some future art installation..... |
|
19 Sep 11 - 02:40 PM (#3225668) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2011/09/16/residents-concern-over-coventry-airport-entertainment-plans-92746 John King Comments: Concerns over live music noise from residents living next to an airport. Are these objections as absurd as it sounds? |
|
19 Sep 11 - 02:48 PM (#3225675) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.northnorfolknews.co.uk/news/businessman_s_anger_as_cafe_culture_plan_for_holt_falls_short_1_1025011 John King comments: There is a myth that licensing authorities do not impose conditions on licences, and that they are somehow volunteered by the applicant. Here is Holt Town Council restricting live music ("a couple of violins playing Vivaldi") to indoors only and not after 9:00pm. |
|
19 Sep 11 - 03:15 PM (#3225697) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/community/no_warwick_town_centre_return_for_alibi_as_warwick_district_council_bans_live_music_at John King comments: Warwick District Council bans live music and another venue is put out of business. This venue did not have any permission to make noise pollution - so why are environmental officers asking for permission for its live music permission to be removed, as a solution to what they claim to be noise pollution? For now, any form of non-amplfied live Regulated Entertainment, which would not cause any noise pollution, is also prevented. If the live music in question was not licensable or was exempt - this course of action (of getting the licensing staff to do their work for them) would not be open to them. Is the claim being made that the environmental officers do not have effective noise pollution controls in other existing legislation and have to use the Licensing Act to deal with noise pollution, in this clumsy and unfocused way? |
|
19 Sep 11 - 04:56 PM (#3225752) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge Roger, most of your links don't work. Obstruction of the Highway is a BAD THING - I feel almost more strongly about highways than about live music. That disposes of Fish Hill. "Could be a nuisance" - a classic example of a bad condition because it is uncertain. The old Scottish condition (I think it was Glasgow, but it might have been Edinburgh) of "inaudible in any habitation" has much to be said for it. You should not have the liberty to impose music on others. The "other" restrictions on noise simply don't work. What is needed, and it is simple, is for the use of electrical or electronic amplification equipment in any premises or place (ie not vehicle in motion) except for a private residence and then not so as to be audible in any other habitation) should be licenseable. |
|
22 Sep 11 - 03:05 AM (#3226990) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://ww3.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=14624 n) That a Metropolitan Police risk assessment, currently form 696, shall be completed and submitted to the police at least 21 working days prior to any new regulated entertainment event taking place. John King comments: Form 696 for "any new regulated entertainment" at Gatton Road Post Office. |
|
22 Sep 11 - 02:05 PM (#3227260) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.granthamjournal.co.uk/community/villagers_back_beleaguered_british_legion_after_music_ban_1_3076061 A spokesman for SKDC said the council reviewed then varied the licence because of complaints about noise. The spokesman added: "Here at SKDC we want to continue to work closely with the British Legion and we have advised them what work they need to carry out in order to reach a point when we can hopefully see a return to live music. "The door is still very much open for live music to return if they can address the noise problems." |
|
22 Sep 11 - 02:15 PM (#3227271) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles There would appear to be some problems in getting the link to this article to work - so here it is in full. Published on Tuesday 13 September 2011 08:00 OVER 40 noise complaints were made over the past five years against Alibi and its predecessor, Kozi Bar, Warwick District Council has revealed. In July Alibi bar and restaurant closed down after the owners claimed they had been hounded out by Warwick District Council Environmental Health. The trio of Rosa Chillari, Stefano De Palma and Barry Keen were furious, with Mr Keen calling Environmental Health the "do-gooders of dinosaur town". But on Tuesday the district council licensing panel met following recommendations by Environmental Health officers to change the premises' licence. Senior Environmental Health officer Peter Lawson said: "The premises is in the centre of the town and has a history of noise nuisance in the form of loud music and noise escaping from the premises and people talking, drinking and smoking on the pavement. "Abatement notices have been repeatedly breached and criminal investigations are ongoing. "No actions have been taken to close the premises despite their claims to the contrary. They said they had another event on July 17 which was hard to reconcile with the statement that they'd been put out of business by us. "We have received no response from them. The premises is not suitable for this kind of regulated entertainment. "We feel that if the premises was properly run with the conditions we suggest it would be perfectly suitable." Mr Lawson talked the panel through all noise complaints and abatement order breaches since 2006, but did point to the period between November 2007 and January 2010 where there were no complaints as live music was not being held at the venue. But from that point on complaints were much more frequent, particularly from residents of The Wool Pack, and Mr Lawson said that on occasion Environmental Health officers witnessed music that could be heard as far away as Shire Hall and all the way down Swann Street. The panel voted to approve the recommendations that live music be removed from the licence, the premises be closed by midnight, and that there be no admission or readmission after 11pm due to the "substantial amount of evidence of noise concerns." Rosa Chillari, one of the co-owners of Alibi, said they had no further plans for the premises but may look elsewhere. She added: "When we could no longer do what we needed to do we left. I'm not surprised about the new licence conditions because that's what they want to do with the town centre. There will be no live music at all in the town centre now." |
|
23 Sep 11 - 12:30 PM (#3227804) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/33585/venues-fear-licensing-changes-could-increase Campaigners have hit out at the government's proposals to reform live entertainment licensing, claiming the plans will in fact increase costs and red tape for some venues. |
|
23 Sep 11 - 12:35 PM (#3227808) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musictank.co.uk/newsletters/sept-2011 The UK live business has seen an array of deals, consultations and closures this summer, as each element of the sector has aimed to innovate against a struggling economy. Those in the corridors of power are often accused of not providing enough assistance to the fledgling or enough control over the aggressive. In this piece we will investigate venue licensing, government planning, ticketing fraud and secondary ticketing to ask whether the red tape is, in fact, in the right place. |
|
23 Sep 11 - 12:41 PM (#3227811) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.manifestoclub.com/node/825 The UK has a truly absurd system for licensing 'entertainment' - under which any pub wanting to host a single guitar player, or poetry reader, or choir, or just about any other form of performance needs to get a council licence, which comes with high costs and piles of forms. The coalition government has made very encouraging promises that it would cut this red tape, and indeed has been feeding suggestions to the press that it would abolish music licensing altogether. Now the Live Music Forum - the campaign group that has been leading the rebellion against these ridiculous laws - reveals that, in fact, the new plans would increase the red tape on live performance. Read their detailed analysis here. |
|
23 Sep 11 - 12:46 PM (#3227812) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.business-lawfirm.co.uk/Blog/2011/09/Licensing-Update/ I suspect that a hard rearguard battle may be fought by the Home Office, the Police, licensing authorities, and environmental health officers, so it will be interesting to see what comes out of the mill. It is also rather strange that if the red tape is removed it will not automatically be removed from those who already have a Premises Licence with regulated entertainment and conditions attached. It will be necessary for an application for variation of the Premises Licence to remove the conditions. |
|
23 Sep 11 - 12:51 PM (#3227814) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.edp24.co.uk/lifestyle/food-and-drink/norfolk-food-features/red_tape_and_credit_crunch_force_closure_of_cromer_bar_1_1 Red tape and the recession have been blamed as the catalyst behind a decision to shut a popular Cromer nightspot. |
|
23 Sep 11 - 12:54 PM (#3227815) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Red tape and credit crunch force closure of Cromer bar By Lucy Clapham Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:45 PM Red tape and the recession have been blamed as the catalyst behind a decision to shut a popular Cromer nightspot. Buddies bar and lounge, which opened less than two years ago, will close its doors for the last time this weekend with a farewell party. Owner Gavin Armstrong said he did not want to close the Holt Road venue but "silly" licensing restrictions and the bleak economic climate had forced his arm. Since opening in December 2009 he had struggled to overcome the district council's rules and regulations, which he said stifled his trade and cost him more than other Cromer pubs. This combined with dwindling customer numbers as customers - in the face of the ongoing credit crunch - chose to drink at home had sounded the final death knell for the bar. Mr Armstrong said: "I have had a long laborious battle with the authorities. The restrictions they have placed on my licence were initially OK because of the numbers of people we used to get in. "Obviously in today's climate there's no one around, no one's got any money anymore. But the licence still required me to have a minimum of four doormen if I had a band or karaoke on, and an 11pm curfew. Just recently we were turning 80 people away on a Saturday because we can't let anyone in (after 11pm)." Soon after Buddies opened in December 2009 it was granted a 24 hour licence, despite neighbours' complaints over rowdy revellers, and was attracting up to 400 people on its busiest nights. But Mr Armstrong said this number had now fallen to 20 on a Friday and 100 on a Saturday. He also said an increase in business rates and the bar's location outside the town centre had taken its toll. The closure now means he will have to let his nine members of staff go as he returns to work in the construction industry. "It's just not viable to run it," he added. "It's such a shame because it's such a nice venue. It hasn't been my decision to close it, it's (been) forced upon me for various different reasons." The large venue has had a turbulent past having often changed hands after previously being run as the Buffers and the Station House pub. Mr Armstrong, who invested £500,000 in refurbishing the bar when he took it over, questioned what more could be done to the former station house to make it viable again. "For what I have done there I don't think anyone can top that. What else can you do?" he added. North Norfolk District Council cabinet councillor for licensing Trevor Ivory said the council regretted the Buddies closure, but added: "We have been working with the tenant, Mr. Armstrong, and others over the past 12 months in the attempt to help him run a viable business, in which he has invested a large amount of money. "However, we have also had to consider the legitimate concerns of local people and the police regarding the operation of a late night venue in a residential area and the licence variation granted with conditions in January 2010 reflected this attempt to reconcile the interests of the business with the interests of local residents. "It is disappointing that the worsening economic climate over the past months has led Mr. Armstrong to decide to terminate his tenancy. It is, unfortunately, a reflection of problems facing the licensing trade right across the country |
|
23 Sep 11 - 12:59 PM (#3227818) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Residents-object-Bath-Road-Market-s-music-alcohol/story-13387980-detail/story.html ARCADE owners have caused a storm among residents by unveiling plans to serve alcohol and play music. - If the plans are approved, the business intends to host book readings, puppet shows and character play acting including Dickensian events and choirs during the festive period. Live music will be performed by buskers and would be "on the whole" un-amplified. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 05:35 AM (#3229107) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2011/09/24/newcastle-falcons-apply-for-entertainment-licen Newcastle Falcons want permission to place a marquee on the West Stand training pitch at their Kingston Park ground for two separate events next month. But residents have objected to the licence just months after a high-profile music event was scrapped after local opposition. The doomed Ignition festival was originally due to be held at Kingston Park before organisers switched it to Gosforth Park because of residents' concerns |
|
26 Sep 11 - 05:44 AM (#3229109) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://thesilhillian.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-dorridge-cafe-and-bar-opens.html John King comments:One speculative objection from a neighbour leads to an amplification ban for live music in a tiny cafe. This - and thousands of other - petty and pointless restrictions will remain in place under DCMS proposals. Mr Bullock said one resident officially objected to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council when it was considering whether to grant a music and alcohol license. A meeting with the resident, organised by the council, led to the objection being dropped, he said, after he stressed live music would only be acoustic. He said the alcohol and music license – reported on The Silhillian – "caused quite a stir". This was how the original application was reported and perhaps the tone of this report was what led to the objections? A CAFÉ which could open in the former HSBC bank in Dorridge would sell alcohol and play music to midnight under new plans. A licensing application has been made to allow live music, sell alcohol and play recorded music as late as midnight. It is not stated whether this will be used to its full extent if granted. It comes after a planning application was submitted to turn the closed branch into a café. The branch closed in November with bosses saying it was under-used because of the use of telephone and internet banking. Accounts were to the branch in Poplar Road, Solihull. A consultation is being held on the licensing application. Update: this article originally said 1am and has now been changed to reflect the online application, which states midnight. I don't have time to check at the moment but the application might have been ammended. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 01:55 PM (#3229438) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Opinion/Peter-Coulson/Singing-consultation-s-praises The most striking aspect of the new consultation issued by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) on de-regulation of musical and other activities under the Licensing Act 2003 is the change of tone and the lack of the usual cautionary and circumspect language of the recent Home Office manifestations. It is as if Tigger has taken over from Eeyore! |
|
26 Sep 11 - 03:17 PM (#3229498) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The real test of this Govt's conviction in these proposals is shown in that there is no attempt to repair the damage in the areas which they identify. That they propose to allow all existing licensing conditions to remain - even when many of these conditions were illegal when they were imposed and when such conditions could no longer be imposed on new licenses - is perhaps less worthy of our praise. Yes the language is different in this proposal to what we have become so used to but talk is cheap. This exercise is classic example of the magician getting us to concentrate on one hand, whilst it is what the other hand is doing, that we should be looking at. The majority of live music does take place where alcohol is served and the language used in this Govt's Police Reform Bill - where the Home Office now deals with alcohol licensing, has a very familiar sound. The sound is the tightening of red tape. |
|
28 Sep 11 - 06:16 AM (#3230446) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.matlockmercury.co.uk/community/your-say/live_music_no_thankyou_1_3810586 You do not publish the fact that this application was discussed and rejected by Tansley Parish Council as "totally unsuitable in a village such as Tansley" for several reasons, ie, no parking facilities at the premises, noise from music and outdoor diners, odour from cooking smells, late night drinking etc, following receipt of a petition from 18 local residents living near to the premises. Also that the Parish Council letter of objection to Derbyshire Dales District Council was not delivered on time so was not deemed relevant at the hearing, doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of objections to this from Tansley residents and they will be taken forward to any future planning application for change of use of premises. John King comments:The Licensing Act "empowers" moaners. I am not sure that the Act itself does empower moaners. It is the way that local authorities are seemingly permitted to enforce it that does this and worse. Helped by media coverage that tends to concentration on the number of objections - it is the number of objections which seem to be important and the local authorities seem to be under the impression that the Act charges them with reducing the number of objections and complaints made - when it does no such thing. Local authorities are charged with many responsibilities including the promotion of cultural activities and have to strike a balance which currently they do not. A start would be for them to ensure that all submissions to applications are not encouraged to be objections and that all submissions are better examined for their validity. If this were the case, there would be many less objections heard at application hearings and often the need for a hearing to take place, would be avoided altogether. |
|
28 Sep 11 - 06:38 AM (#3230455) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/licences-needed-play-music/story-13406211-detail/story.html PLYMOUTH businesses have been reminded they need two copyright licences if they want to play recorded music – even if it is "incidental" music. John King comments: Oh no it doesn't. The incidental exemption does not of course apply only to recorded music. Currently exempt from additional entertainment licensing, as a performance of incidental live music, traditional folk music sessions, which can take place without playing any music which is under copyright - do not of course require such licenses. And even those sessions which may include the occasional tune which is under copyright, would require such a small fee, as to make the exercise to calculate it, from PRS etc. a waste of time. |
|
28 Sep 11 - 03:19 PM (#3230673) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Opinion/Peter-Coulson/No-mention-of-licensing-issues As I predicted, the final stages of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill were taken up with a last-ditch attempt to derail the Government's proposals for elected commissioners of police and the licensing aspects were not touched upon at all. John King comments: Licensing was mentioned extensively in the House of Lords. The Home Office aren't listening... |
|
28 Sep 11 - 03:33 PM (#3230681) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Late-night-levy-and-EMROs-unlikely-to-be-used "There is some suggestion from going around the country talking to licensing officers that they are not hugely excited by either of these powers".[Late-night-levy-and-EMROs] John King comments:More likely they wouldn't be able to fill out the paperwork. Early-morning restriction orders (EMROs) and the late-night levy (LNL) are unlikely to be put into practice because licensing authorities are simply "not excited" by them, according to licensing specialists. Here we go again....... What does this say about so-called democracy and the rule of law? Sadly we know it to be true but is it seriously being accepted that legislation is unlikely to put into practice because those who are paid to enforce it are not 'excited' by it? The Licensing Act 2003 is a fine example of the resulting mess when those who are paid to enforce it, are hugely excited by it. |
|
30 Sep 11 - 08:26 AM (#3231617) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Music-bonanza-warning The ALMR warns "The claims of the massive impact deregulation will make to the trade are not going to happen. We are quite concerned about this." The Department for Culture, Media & Sport proposes to exempt regulated entertainment, including live music and other acts such as theatre and dance, from licensing requirements, as long as audiences are under 5,000. However, the consultation document said that existing premises licence conditions re-lating to regulated en-tertainment will be re-tained. This can include adding double glazing, keeping doors closed and limits on the number of live music events a pub can hold.? If this and the Live Music Bill go through as currently proposed - not only will existing conditions (that could not be imposed on entertainment on new licenses) be retained - all live music will be subject to automatic aditional entertainment licensing at a set curfew time. This automatic curfew is not being introduced in the Govt' proposals - which in fact argues against such move. This combined with the measures introduced in Police Reform Bill - is not the good news reduction in live music red tape that this Govt are being praised for introducing. This is a total screw-up.......... |
|
30 Sep 11 - 11:09 AM (#3231704) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles What good is it for this Govt to introduce proposals which will only benefit prospective venues but which cannot now free the vast majority of existing venues from conditions which could no longer be placed upon entertainment taking place in them? They present a good arguement about the damage that is already being caused by subjecting all the activities listed in Shedule 1 of the Act but are proposing nothing to repair this damage. The vast majority of current venues (which do serve and require alcohol licensing permission) will receive no benefit at all from these proposals. And as a result of what is currently proposed in the Live Music Bill - all live music will be subject to an automatic curfew when this can only take place with additional entertainment permission in place...... |
|
03 Oct 11 - 12:12 PM (#3233087) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/livemusichl.html Report Stage of the Live Music Bill - Monday 10th October. |
|
04 Oct 11 - 03:01 AM (#3233475) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I wonder if the the Live Music Bill also propose to leave existing licensing conditions on live music in place, as well as introducing a set curfew time when all live music will require to be exposed to the whole process of additional entertainment licensing permission? This on the grounds that it automatically becomes a noise concern which can only be dealt with by a costly time-consuming process, the short-comings of which, the Govt's own proposals have pointed out has so damaged small-scale live music? And why do these proposal from the Govt also argue against the introduction of such a set curfew time when the setting of an earlier time than was originally proposed, was a condition of the Govt's support for the Private Members Live Music Bill? |
|
06 Oct 11 - 09:27 AM (#3234797) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Noise-concern-late-night-closing-times-village-pub/story-11278542-detail/story.html "It clearly states in the premises licence that no music will be heard at the nearest noise sensitive location." |
|
06 Oct 11 - 09:33 AM (#3234802) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I wonder if the the Live Music Bill also propose to leave existing licensing conditions on live music in place, as well as introducing a set curfew time when all live music will require to be exposed to the whole process of additional entertainment licensing permission? I am informed that under the bill conditions would not apply unless they had been imposed as a result of a licence review where complaints had been investigated and upheld. --------------- One more thing on the Govt's proposal to retain existing licensing conditions imposed on entertainment and their reasons. It is a bit like a past Govt gaining much praise for their proposals for the abolition of slavery, when they are only intending to apply this to any new slavery transactions and not freeing the existing slaves - on the grounds that they would need to avoid the required paperwork involved! |
|
06 Oct 11 - 09:38 AM (#3234805) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 2.25. Premises that continue to hold a licence after the reforms (for example, for alcohol, late night refreshment, or remaining forms of regulated entertainment) would be able to host entertainment activities that were formerly regulated without the need to go through a Minor or Full Variation process. We propose that all existing conditions on such licences would continue to apply unless the premises decided to apply for a variation to remove or amend them - a situation that should prevent the need for a wholescale reissue of licences by licensing authorities. Conditions are an integral part of a licence authorisation, so this consultation seeks evidence with regard to any potential transitional issues, to ensure sufficient certainty for both licensee and those monitoring compliance to ensure all parties are aware of what is required of a premises. Taking account of any such issues, full guidance would be issued to licensing authorities and other interested parties before any changes would be made. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 09:25 AM (#3236678) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/10/mpshadow-secretary-state John King comments: Bad news. Harriet Harman demoted to shadow DCMS: Harman misled Parliament in May 2009: "The fact is that there was an 8 per cent. increase in premises licensed with live music authorisation between March 2007 and March 2008" |
|
14 Oct 11 - 06:05 AM (#3238788) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1046961&c=1 Live Music Bill continues journey to law. |
|
14 Oct 11 - 06:09 AM (#3238790) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.toryclubs.co.uk/page/phonographic-performance-limited-ppl John King comments: Not Licensing Act, but the Association of Conservative Clubs are objecting to the proposed hike in PPL fees. |
|
14 Oct 11 - 06:25 AM (#3238795) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: nickp re the 06:09 post for 14th Oct. I assume this is a misprint on the web site... 'As a rough guess we could be currently be paying around £25,000 for a Friday night disco but in 3/4 years time the cost would be over £200 according to their tiered increase system. As we provide discos every week this will take our PPL fees from around £750 well into the thousands. Looking at the document as proposed it seems to us that PPL will price us out of entertainment'. Remind me not to book the same disco they use. £25,000 a night seems excessive. |
|
17 Oct 11 - 05:20 AM (#3240102) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/loughborough-news/2011/10/11/fears-voiced-over-changes-to-licences-for-live-events-73871-29 MAJOR concerns have been raised by Charnwood Borough Council about new licensing proposals which could see certain live music and sports events take place in the borough without any local authority control. This of course is nonsense. 1. It is not the policy of Charnwood Borough Council but only the views of the person employed to enforce licensing. 2. The proposal is NOT to remove local authority controls but simply to remove the requirement for additional entertainment licensing. |
|
18 Oct 11 - 07:48 PM (#3241017) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9309478.Poole_bar_is_working_to_tone_down_noise/ Members were happy the bar's management had been working well with environmental officers in a bid to minimise noise levels. However, they did elect to reduce the minimum period of licence review from one year to six months. And they suggested the licence holder carry out further work to reduce the level of noise |
|
21 Oct 11 - 07:25 AM (#3242379) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1047074&c=1 Leading gig listings site Livemusic.fm has anticipated the Government's Licensing Act consultation will unlock a new explosion in grass roots live music - and has launched a new service for upcoming bands to take advantage of it. John King comments: The Government's proposal to cut licensing red tape is highly unlikely to provide an explosion of pub live music. Pubs with existing live music permissions will gain nothing whatsoever from the proposal, as any existing licence conditions will remains in force, while councils have new powers to restrict live events under the Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act 2011. Pubs without current live music permission will not need to apply for live music permissions, but councils will have powers to impose conditions on a premises licence whether a pub has live music permission or not. Anyone in the local authority area can now complain about a forthcoming event, and Councils can serve a noise abatement notice or even instigate a premises licence review prior to the event taking place. If an event is called "Live and Loud" it is asking for trouble. |
|
21 Oct 11 - 07:32 AM (#3242387) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Opinion/Peter-Coulson/Reforms-are-just-window-dressing Reforms are just window dressing John King comments:In fact the Govt has created MORE licensing red tape - and there's more to come. |
|
21 Oct 11 - 08:20 AM (#3242403) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The Live Music Bill successfully passed its third reading in the House of Lords and now goes to the House of Commons. Please ask your MP to vote for the Live Music Bill. You can do this easily through www.writetothem.com |
|
21 Oct 11 - 08:24 AM (#3242405) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/newforest/news/9311763.Council_objects_to_Framptons_plan/?action=complain&cid=9752524 But members of Ringwood Town Council's town, planning and environment committee objected to using the courtyard for entertainment such as live music. Cllr Neville Chard said: "We should make it clear that the application should be kept for indoors and not extend outside at all." Councillors unanimously recommended the licence should be for inside only and that alcohol is served between 10am and 11pm only. John King Comments:Yet again, speculative nanny-state "concerns" over noise abatement take prioirity over plans for a new business. |
|
21 Oct 11 - 08:31 AM (#3242407) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.paulfarrelly.com/newcastle-under-lyme/wards/town-centre/news/local-news/news.aspx?p=102201 One of Newcastle's oldest town centre pubs – the Old Brown Jug – has won the support of local MP Paul Farrelly in its fight to carry on playing live music. The pub has come under legal pressure from officials of the Travelodge hotel who claim their guests cannot get to sleep because of loud music being played into the early hours. Lawyers acting for Travelodge have asked Newcastle Borough Council to review the pub's premises licence, raising fears that it could mean the end of gigs at one of North Staffordshire's most popular live music venues. |
|
21 Oct 11 - 08:36 AM (#3242411) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Opinion/Peter-Coulson/Progressing-on-music-licensing While the consultation on de-regulating most forms of entertainment goes on, I note that Lord Clement-Jones's Live Music Bill is back in play after a long break. Coulson: music legislation has never been easy to follow This private members' bill has a specific target, which is the amendment of Section 177 of the Licensing Act, to make it easier for pubs to have small-scale musical entertainment unrestricted by onerous conditions as a result of objections. John King comments:The Live Music Bill is thriving... for now. The LGA is lobbying behind the scenes (at taxpayers' expense) to oppose the Bill. |
|
21 Oct 11 - 09:18 AM (#3242434) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles In the case of unamplified live music, the local authority conditions are removed entirely from the premises licence when it takes place between 8am and midnight, but for amplified performances, the local authority can impose some conditions relating to crime and disorder or public safety, but not otherwise. Perhaps it can be explained why the Govt's proposal is to retain all existing conditions on live music, why they see that new licenses would be required, why this mass-issuing would need to be avoided and why this method of suspension, already used by the DCMS for S 177 and described above - cannot be used to suspend conditions on live music for existing licenses, when these could no longer be placed on live music for new applications? |
|
24 Oct 11 - 11:40 AM (#3243980) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Opinion/Peter-Coulson/Minor-variations-major-grief However, in spite of the Guidance making reference to this, I have heard of cases where the removal of the 'under 14' rule has been refused by a licensing authority as impacting on the licensing objectives in a standard pub with no special entertainment or adult profile. The problem is that the decision on whether or not to accept the variation is entirely in the gift of the licensing officer. There is no hearing and no appeal. Even if you are told in ad-vance that it should be OK, if the officer gets any sort of adverse view from elsewhere, he can change his mind and refuse at the end of the consultation period. Despite the many asurances given at the time of the introduction of the licensing Act 2003, so much of what is wrong with additional entertainment licensing is down to ikes/dislikes of individual licensing officers being set in stone and taken as being the policy of individual licensing authorities. The Act requires that licensing committees are established to deal with ALL licensing matters. In practice, such committees or sub committees only sit when those employed to enforce licensing set up meetings or hearings for these committees. Matters of policy, such as what locally is to qualify as exempt incidental music, are left to those who are paid to enforce the legislation and not those who are empowered to set policy under it. John King comments:The Govt's proposal to reform licensing envisages that premises can apply for a minor variation to remove conditions whcih restrict live music. Translated from doublespeak this means they aren't really proposing anything at all. |
|
24 Oct 11 - 07:14 PM (#3244191) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.makingmusic.org.uk/our-work/lobbying/our-lobbying-diary/our-lobby-diary/live-music-licensing-consultation-at-the-dcms A couple of music groups raised their concern with me of whether these proposals might lead to alcohol licensing being made more complicated. I was told at DCMS that this work would have no impact on licensing laws, other than to remove the 'tick box' for entertainment from the form. However, the alcohol licensing laws are being reviewed by the Home Office separately, and the spirit of the present government seems to be about deregulation; so there's every reason to think it will become easier in general for groups to apply to sell alcohol at performances. |
|
24 Oct 11 - 07:28 PM (#3244201) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/headlines/9320655.Council_vows_to_fight_change_in_licensing_laws/ The city council has vowed to officially oppose the changes, which will be compulsory if passed by the Government after the consultation ends in December. As consultation seem to be the thing - it would be better for those who still believe in local demoncracy - if this city council were seen to first consult those it claims to be speaking for. |
|
24 Oct 11 - 07:35 PM (#3244206) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/churches_charities_and_community_groups_rejoice_norfolk_councils_being_consulted_over_licensing_act_ First up on the bonfire of red tape promised by the coalition government could be a law which has had parents, publicans, and parish clerks tearing their hair out for nearly a decade. Bert Jobsworth must have thought all his birthdays had come at once when Labour amended the Licensing Act. |
|
25 Oct 11 - 01:27 PM (#3244612) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Oxford City Council is probably the first of many hysterical over-reactions to the government's proposed relaxation of control of entertainment through licensing: http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/headlines/9320655.Council_vows_to_fight_change_in_licensing_laws/ Why do licensing officers and councillors lose their heads over live music? Two things are clear: they haven't read the small print and are ignorant of the way licensing legislation works. The DCMS entertainment licensing deregulation consultation, which closes on 03 December, includes a proposal to KEEP noise limiting licence conditions on existing venues where alcohol is sold. See p11 para 2.25 of the DCMS deregulation consultation proposals: http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/consultation_deregulation-scheduleone_2011_vs2.pdf There is in any case a raft of nuisance legislation irrespective of licensing. Contrary to opponents of reform, noise abatement notices can be issued pre-emptively under the Environmental Protection Act. Licensed premises can be given on the spot fines if they cause a noise nuisance between 11pm and 7am. The police can close licensed premises immediately if they believe a venue is causing a serious problem. There are other powers available, all detailed in paras. 3.31 onwards in the deregulation consultation document. Under section s177 of the Licensing Act, many if not most noise conditions on pubs and bars of 200 maximum capacity, such as the operation of a noise limiter, are unenforceable when live music is being performed within certain hours. That small concession for live music was granted by the previous government in 2003 when the then Licensing Bill was going through Parliament. Big screen broadcast entertainment, including sport, MTV and other music programmes, is not regulated by entertainment licensing, and in 2005 nearly all pubs and bars were granted automatic permission to play recorded music, by DJs if they want, without any licence conditions. No doubt this explains why the present government has concluded that separate legislation is adequate to regulate noise for most entertainment events. The DCMS deregulation impact assessment exhaustively considers the possibility of increased noise nuisance. It concludes that the risk is small and is outweighed by the wider cultural benefit. See paras 61-90, pp19-25: http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/consultations/IA_deregulation-scheduleone_2011.pdf But if the government and MPs are swayed by council hysteria about radical entertainment licensing reform, there is always Lord Clement-Jones live music bill which offers an exemption from entertainment licensing for gigs to audiences of up to 200, between 8am and 11pm. The bill has completed its House of Lords stages, and awaits a 2nd reading date in the Commons. It is supported by the government and the Opposition. ENDS |
|
31 Oct 11 - 09:24 AM (#3247576) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/pub_sails_into_a_storm_over_live_music_plan_1_3915431 But the plan faces major objections as several letters of protest have been received from residents living nearby. Many express concern over the potential for noise and disorder if the music bid proves successful. One resident writes: "When, oh when, is this saga over The New Ship and the determination to change the pub into something you would find in the centre of South Shields going to end. "We fear that the playing of live music will bring an influx of younger people into an area that is semi-rural with a high proportion of elderly residents. "We have witnessed first hand unruly behaviour, swearing and fighting among youngsters, and others who should know better, and do not want to see the area and its inhabitants living in fear of the misery and mayhem this causes." But despite more than 30 objections to the application, neither the council's environmental health section or the police are opposing it |
|
01 Nov 11 - 01:35 PM (#3248588) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/top_stories/9335870.Entertainment_licence_for_Foots_Cray_Meadows_rejected/ Bexley Council's licensing sub-committee last Wednesday rejected the application from the council's parks and open spaces team to hold outdoor events, after more than 30 objections. The kind of events proposed included family fun days, live music, drama and boxing. John King comments: Residents' Association sabotages plans for entertainment licence. Never mind the economy, Bexley Council gives in to NIMBY pressure despite stating in planning documents "there has not been one single complaint made" since the first licence was issued in 1996. |
|
01 Nov 11 - 02:02 PM (#3248605) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The reason why local authorities need to obtain additional entertainment permission for open spaces like these, was to avoid a situation caused by the Act, where circus, Punch & Judy shows etc. would have to apply for additional entertainment permission for each and every performance. By refusing their own application, this council has now ensured that there can never be any such performances. |
|
01 Nov 11 - 02:06 PM (#3248608) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Folkiedave Aye the wranglings of councils over the licensing act has is simply amazing! |
|
07 Nov 11 - 02:01 PM (#3252216) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2011-11-03a.1391.0 John King comments: The Govt repeats it's support for the Live Music Bill, but refers to "concerns on the other side" - probably a reference to the Local Government Association's opposition to licensing reform. My noble friend Lord Colwyn also pointed out the need for clarification around the licensing of sites for live music. The Government remain committed to scrapping unnecessary red tape. We support the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and are consulting on a broader approach. I will make sure that my noble friend's concerns are made known, and I will take them back to my department. However, I must not pre-empt the consultation, and there are concerns on the other side. |
|
07 Nov 11 - 02:22 PM (#3252246) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2011-11-03a.1379.0 My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has been successful with his Live Music Bill, which has completed its passage in this House, but the current situation over the licensing of live music, which has such a detrimental effect on young musicians, is utterly confusing. Licensing Minister, John Penrose, has described live music restrictions as "mostly bonkers red tape" and suggested that plans to cut red tape for live music are essential but out of his hands and dependent on consent from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office. The only arguable justification for a licensing regime pre-emptively criminalising the provision of live music, subject to prior consent from the public or the local authority, or both, is where there is the potential for a significant negative impact on the local community that cannot be adequately regulated by existing legislation. This is clearly not the case for the vast majority of small gigs taking place within reasonable hours. It is gradually becoming clear that the red tape is being retained for small gigs in bars and restaurants under the Government's sweeping "deregulation" proposals published in September. It would be helpful to have a definitive statement on licensing and small venue exemption. Even if the entertainment licensing requirement is abolished, it seems to me that live music licence conditions will in fact remain in pubs, bars, restaurants and any other premises with an alcohol licence, however small. Such conditions often include restrictions on performer numbers, genres, times or days of performance, with the onus on the licensee to pay to apply to have these removed. It can cost £89 for a minor variation or several hundred pounds for a full variation, with the final decision remaining with the council. The promise is to get rid of the red tape. The Live Music Bill of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones represents the only genuine deregulatory measure in the legislative pipeline for small-scale performances of live music. Earlier this year, I asked my noble friend the Minister whether she could clarify this situation. May I repeat my request for clarification? |
|
07 Nov 11 - 02:37 PM (#3252264) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Existing conditions will remain in place and of course any new venues will have conditlons imposed upon any live music taking place in them, them via the planning process. So sadly, what is proposed is simply a very clever trick which has fooled many people into gushing praise, thinking that the arguments made in the Govt's proposals are to be taken to their logical conclusion. The Govt's proposals argue against the introduction of a set time of night where all live music will be subject to additional entertainment licensing. But the moving of this set time in the Live Music Bill was a condition set by the Govt, for their support of this Private Members Bill........ "Utterly confusing" this certainly is. |
|
11 Nov 11 - 09:06 AM (#3254933) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/nov/11/feargal-sharkey-resigns-uk-music?CMP=twt_fd Feargal Sharkey stands down as chief of UK MusicFormer singer of the Undertones has announced his resignation from the industry body in order to 'continue other journeys' |
|
16 Nov 11 - 03:42 AM (#3257912) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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? |
|
16 Nov 11 - 06:55 AM (#3257988) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
18 Nov 11 - 05:36 AM (#3259191) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST 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 |
|
18 Nov 11 - 06:20 AM (#3259215) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
21 Nov 11 - 04:40 AM (#3260759) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
22 Nov 11 - 03:02 PM (#3261647) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
23 Nov 11 - 04:01 AM (#3261917) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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 0114 273 4264 Fax 0114 273 5410 E-mail: general.licensing@sheffield.gov.uk 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 |
|
23 Nov 11 - 08:18 AM (#3262002) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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?" |
|
23 Nov 11 - 08:24 AM (#3262007) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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." |
|
23 Nov 11 - 08:38 AM (#3262021) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
23 Nov 11 - 11:56 AM (#3262119) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST 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 0114 273 4264 Fax 0114 273 5410 E-mail: general.licensing@sheffield.gov.uk Website www.sheffield.gov.uk ENDS |
|
24 Nov 11 - 07:11 AM (#3262591) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
24 Nov 11 - 07:41 AM (#3262602) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
24 Nov 11 - 09:54 AM (#3262684) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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? |
|
24 Nov 11 - 10:01 AM (#3262687) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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." |
|
24 Nov 11 - 10:32 AM (#3262700) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
24 Nov 11 - 12:26 PM (#3262749) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
25 Nov 11 - 06:34 AM (#3263168) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
25 Nov 11 - 10:56 AM (#3263313) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Live Music Bill passes 2nd Reading. |
|
25 Nov 11 - 02:06 PM (#3263430) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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 |
|
25 Nov 11 - 09:09 PM (#3263605) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
26 Nov 11 - 03:40 PM (#3263873) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
27 Nov 11 - 06:38 PM (#3264421) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
28 Nov 11 - 07:06 AM (#3264689) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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 |
|
28 Nov 11 - 07:47 PM (#3265105) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
30 Nov 11 - 10:08 AM (#3266034) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
30 Nov 11 - 10:12 AM (#3266040) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
30 Nov 11 - 10:17 AM (#3266045) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
30 Nov 11 - 10:21 AM (#3266047) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
30 Nov 11 - 10:26 AM (#3266050) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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). |
|
30 Nov 11 - 10:30 AM (#3266055) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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". |
|
30 Nov 11 - 08:16 PM (#3266429) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
01 Dec 11 - 07:41 AM (#3266621) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
01 Dec 11 - 07:45 AM (#3266623) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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... |
|
01 Dec 11 - 11:52 AM (#3266751) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
01 Dec 11 - 11:57 AM (#3266753) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
01 Dec 11 - 12:03 PM (#3266755) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST 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 |
|
03 Dec 11 - 05:10 AM (#3267716) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
03 Dec 11 - 05:15 AM (#3267718) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
03 Dec 11 - 05:28 PM (#3268022) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles "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. |
|
04 Dec 11 - 03:38 PM (#3268427) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
05 Dec 11 - 08:35 AM (#3268718) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
05 Dec 11 - 08:38 AM (#3268719) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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.' |
|
06 Dec 11 - 06:00 AM (#3269158) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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? |
|
06 Dec 11 - 06:46 AM (#3269184) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
06 Dec 11 - 06:59 AM (#3269192) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge It's shatteringly simple. Amplification needs the control of licensing. |
|
06 Dec 11 - 09:16 AM (#3269252) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
06 Dec 11 - 09:32 AM (#3269258) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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? |
|
06 Dec 11 - 09:45 AM (#3269267) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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 |
|
06 Dec 11 - 12:59 PM (#3269351) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles 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. |
|
06 Dec 11 - 06:32 PM (#3269503) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge Nonsense. Find me somewhere in South East England where on a quiet night a man with decent sized guitar amp cannot be heard in the nearest house. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. By way of contrast the occasions when unamplified music will be so annoying are scant. |
|
07 Dec 11 - 03:46 AM (#3269684) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles I can't really believe that anyone who has had first-hand experience of and has been through the all processes involved with live music and additional entertainment licensing and knows how this process damages it by actually encouraging all manner of people to come up with all kinds of objections (many which have nothing to do with the live music in question) and which process still exists mainly because of and for the benefit of those who are employed to enforce it, and their various organisations - can actually support a situation where any live music should be subjected to it. For that is the form of 'regulation' that is being proposed for all amplified activities (which would include PA at school concerts etc.) |
|
07 Dec 11 - 07:55 AM (#3269760) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Licensee-fears-drop-in-trade-after-breathalyser-licensing-condition Chief Inspector Robyn Mason said: "Thanks to the determination of our officers we have now removed the premises' ability to hold youth discos, which were largely the root of the problem. The evidence from Aberaeron and Cardigan officers made this protracted case have a successful outcome possible. "In addition to sending out a clear message to licensed premises who attempt to fall out of line, this challenging episode is an excellent example of efficient and effective neighbourhood policing." To solve porblems associated with an activty (a youth disco) - the efficient and effective neighbour hood policing answer - is to simply end the activity. So the young people who once attended the youth disco are back out roaming the streets. |
|
07 Dec 11 - 12:23 PM (#3269886) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://newsfrombrighton.co.uk/brighton-hove-city-council/council-strongly-rejects-governments-unlicensed-venue-proposal/ The council's letter said: "Members agreed unanimously to ask officers to write to you to in the strongest terms to object to these proposals. The committee consider that deregulating regulated entertainment is not justified, unlikely to assist entertainment pubs and removes necessary protections to local residents. "Regulation is needed to provide necessary protection for audiences and residents in terms of prevention of disorder and public nuisance and protection of public safety." I seriously question if any of these council members had actually read the Govt's proposals? What are they being advised by their officers, is being proposed? |
|
07 Dec 11 - 12:53 PM (#3269902) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Richard Bridge Shambles, have you heard how hard a kid with a guitar amp can crank it? Do you remember? I nearly took the roof off Meopham village Hall when I was about 17 using one 30 watt Geloso and one probably 20 watt Selmer bassist Major - enthusiasts for the sort of music I was disco-ing were coming in from the road 100 yards away and heaven only knows what the neighbours were doing. Stick to defending the defensible - unamplified music. |
|
07 Dec 11 - 01:42 PM (#3269926) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles It would appear from the general concern about the current situation that additional entertainment licensing is NOT ensuring that everyone can have a peaceful night's sleep. Or are you now saying that this type of regulation is effective in ensuring that we can all have a peaceful night's sleep? It is a good way for uncaring licensing employees to carry on limiting and detering all live music by imposing actual conditions and before a note has even been sounded, as to them all live music is simply becoming another way of saying noise pollution. To create an exemption for non-amplified live music alone would simply mean that all amplified live music would be limited and deterred as if it were always noise pollution on all occasions, at all times and in all venues. At least where the legislation does not currently make a distinction (except in the Morris exemption) between amplified and non-amplified live music - the claim can safely be made, that not all live music is noise pollution and that the attempt to treat it as such, often before a note is sounded is totally unjust. It is a bit like claiming that locking up those who look like they may be likely to commit a crime is a measure that will prevent crime and that, although you may have locked-up more than a few innocent people - is acceptable It is not acceptable to impose conditions in advance, which limit and deter all live music on the grounds of it causing noise pollution. This what additional entertainment licensing is currently doing and much live music that will never present any form of noise pollution, is needlessly limited and deterred as a result. This is a pretty poor way of treating something that should be celebrated for the added value it brings into our lives. This is why all live music must be taken out of the hands of those who are more comfortable issuing licenses to street traders and taxis. As with crime, you can take sensible prevention measures but the imposition of actual conditions and punishments must wait at least until a crime has been committed. After some form of measurable noise pollution has occurred and hopefully stopped, it is sensible to take measures to prevent it happening again on other occasions. |
|
08 Dec 11 - 09:50 AM (#3270455) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/livemusichl.html A Bill to amend the Licensing Act 2003 with respect to the performance of live music entertainment; and for connected purposes |
|
08 Dec 11 - 09:56 AM (#3270458) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/livemusichl/committees/houseofcommonspublicbillcommitteeonthelivemusicbillhl201011.h The Public Bill Committee has been named: Attendees include Don Foster, John Penrose and John Whittingdale. |
|
08 Dec 11 - 02:34 PM (#3270592) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/category/cmunews/gigstoursnews/ John King comments:Islington Council objects to plans for a Jamaican-themed festival planned to coincide with the Olympics. Islington's licensing policy states: All licensees and applicants that intend to allow live performance of music, by either musicians, DJ's, MCs or other artistes, are recommended to undertake comprehensive risk assessment. The Licensing Authority recommends that the Metropolitan Police Promotion/Event Risk Assessment Form 696 be used for this purpose. |
|
09 Dec 11 - 05:07 AM (#3270916) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stedmundsbury.gov.uk%2Fsebc%2Flive%2Fdocuments%2Freports%2FC178%2520Consultatio John King Comments:St Edmundsbury Council concoct the most pathetic reason for keeping licensing for plays: "Smoking is still permitted on stage where it is integral to the plot of a play, and this could present safety risks were plays to be de-regulated and there is no other mechanism in place for ensuring this objective." How about an exemption for smoking that is incidental? |
|
09 Dec 11 - 05:10 AM (#3270917) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Try this link: http://www.stedmundsbury.gov.uk/sebc/live/documents/reports/C178%20Consultation%20Proposal%20to%20Examine%20the%20Deregulation%2 Poor old turkeys... |
|
09 Dec 11 - 05:16 AM (#3270922) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.cieh.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=39900 John King Comments:Response from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. That fine body of professionals famed for: issuing a noise abatement to an autistic man for humming, banning running in a pancake race, and now they've even banned Santa. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2070352/Santa-Claus-aint-coming-town-health-safety-monsters-attack-Christmas.html |
|
09 Dec 11 - 05:17 AM (#3270924) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Last post was from me (also) |
|
09 Dec 11 - 07:21 AM (#3270970) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles https://www.bristol.gov.uk/committee/2011/wa/wa004/1123_5.pdf John King comments:Bristol Council's response. Not very interesting, but then again Licensing Officers aren't... However, Bristol's officers along with many others, with their professional and the LGA Group lobby - are prepared to provide what I could most kindly describe as, somewhat less than impartial advice about these proposals and especially omit to mention the many imposed conditions which currently limit, needlessly deter and currently strangle all forms of live music. The LGA submission actually tries to place ALL of the blame on the Licensing Act, claiming that it does not allow council enforcement to be flexible. It is the very flexible and variable interpretations that live music suffers from and which are entirly dependent on where you happen to live. As can be seen from the nature of the responses - the only thing that they are in agreement about is that the total control of all live music must remain with them and be unchanged. All this of course is disguised as only being a concern for the public's interest. A public that seemingly does not include anyone who makes or appreciates live music. |
|
10 Dec 11 - 12:00 PM (#3271544) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2012/0241/cbill_2010-20120241_en_2.htm#l1g1 The Live Music Bill. |
|
12 Dec 11 - 05:44 AM (#3272447) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles When defending additional entertainment licensing, what those who are employed to enforce the legislation are in effect saying is that: The playing of any type of live music in a pub, club, school etc, which must have aleady been made safe for the public by Planning, Environmental and Health and Safety legislation - will present an additional concern to the public's interest that only the advance requirement of additional entertainment is able to provide. None of the submissions that I have read, which make all sorts of scaremongering claims about the dire consequenses which will result if the Govt's proposals be come law, actually state what this concern is or what is defective in the raft of existing legislation, which is considered to be sufficient where no form of live music takes place or where this live music (or TV sport) is already exempted from the requirement for additional entertainment licensing.... Until the proposals's opponents provide this - we can safely dismiss all of their claims as the self-interested calls of turkeys who are in no hurry to be eaten and who, understandably, do not want to be seen to be voting for an early Christmas. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 09:08 AM (#3273590) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall In a remarkable u-turn the Local Government Association has announced qualified support for the live music bill, which has today passed its Committee stage in the House of Commons: http://bit.ly/ve6Uu0 Two minor technical amendments were agreed during Committee which require the bill to return, briefly, to the House of Lords. But there is every expectation that it will move to Report and 3rd reading in the Commons early next year. If enacted, entertainment licensing would no longer apply to most performances of live music to audiences of up to 200, between 8am and 11pm. In alcohol-licensed premises, that freedom could be subject to conditions if there were problems. For years the LGA has been hostile to any relaxation of entertainment licensing for live music. But faced with a government committed to cutting red tape, and the more radical exemptions recently proposed by DCMS in a public consultation, it would seem that the bill represents an acceptable deregulatory compromise - for live music at least. One factor in the LGA u-turn is likely to be their belated recognition that, under the existing Section 177 of the Licensing Act, many conditions relating to live music are not in fact enforceable in bars and restaurants where the maximum permitted capacity is 200. The complexity of the s177 provision has been widely criticised and indeed misunderstood by licensing authorities and residents' groups alike. The Act's live music provisions generally remain difficult to interpret - one reason, no doubt, why the LGA itself mistakenly suggests today in its press statement that a small unamplified gig in a room within a theatre would not be covered by the bill's exemptions. ENDS |
|
14 Dec 11 - 09:25 AM (#3273604) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.local.gov.uk/web/10161/live-music-bill/-/journal_content/56/10161/3222993/ARTICLE-TEMPLATE John King comments:The LGA announce support for the Live Music Bill. While this is entirely welcome, the LGA has suggested an innocent looking amendment which could take months of redrafting for little benefit to live music. Although mindful of Parliamentary time, the LGA proposes an amendment to extend the exemption for provision of late night food to also include low risk regulated entertainment. For example, under current proposals a theatre wanting to host a small unamplified live music event in a room adjacent to a play being performed, would still be subject to the Licensing Act even though the PMB deregulates unamplified live music in other circumstances. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 07:31 PM (#3273913) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.audioprointernational.com/news/read/live-music-bill-passes-committee-stage/03847 http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1047869&c=1 |
|
15 Dec 11 - 05:44 AM (#3274088) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2010-11/Live_Music_Bill/01-0_2011-12-14a.2.0 Committee Stage. Mike Gapes: "Some of the concerns that residents' associations have expressed are overblown. People who move next to a pub or a club often seem shocked when people start attending that facility" |
|
15 Dec 11 - 06:40 AM (#3274103) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/livemusichl.html Next date. |
|
15 Dec 11 - 10:29 AM (#3274183) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles John Penrose (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport; Weston-Super-Mare, Conservative) It is a pleasure to have you here in the Chair looking after us this morning, Mr Scott. I echo both sides of the Committee in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath and Lord Clement-Jones, who initiated the Bill at the other end of the corridor. The Bill is tremendously welcome, and I am delighted that it has had cross-party support in both Chambers of Parliament. It is greatly to everybody's credit that we can create such a level of cross-party unanimity to back up this important measure. I am delighted that it has been introduced, and I urge everybody to support it when we reach the end of our deliberations. I want to address the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath asked me to clarify in his response to questions from the hon. Member for Bristol East about noise control. I confirm that my right hon. Friend was entirely right about how the changes in the Bill will affect the previous legislation, and we are happy to reissue or provide any necessary guidance to make it clear how that can be used in future. I echo him in confirming that, as a result of the Bill, there will be plenty of ways for local communities and local licensing authorities to continue to exercise effective control via licence conditions, particularly for alcohol on premises. In the very few or theoretical circumstances in which isolated licensed premises have grandfathered rights, which are unusual—we think there are few of those—a simple solution is to have a quick licence review, which local authorities do all the time, and that would also fix the problem. If problems arise, plenty of solutions and powers are still available to local communities, should they need them, to ensure that there are sufficient protections. The Bill is a welcome and overdue step in the right direction. As everybody here is aware, the Government have been consulting on other proposals over the past few months. As an update, we have had about 1,400 responses to those proposals. They are somewhat wider than the measures we are debating today; many were extremely positive, but some legitimate concerns are being raised, and we will evaluate and address them carefully during our consideration of the consultation responses. The fact, however, that wider potential amendments are out there should not distract from this being a sensible, contained Bill that moves us firmly in the right direction. I commend it to the Committee and add that the Government are very happy to support it as it stands. |
|
15 Dec 11 - 05:20 PM (#3274406) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/42006/don_foster_live_music_bill_needs_a_fair_wind.html Don Foster: Live Music Bill needs a fair wind |
|
16 Dec 11 - 05:24 AM (#3274663) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Mr Foster and all those behind the LMB and the Govt's own proposals both need to openly recognise the elephant in the room. The LGA Group lobby is the reason the Licensing Act so comprehensivly covered so much and it was they who provided the redtape for local govt enforcement to finish the job of strangling so much live music and other activities. The LGA Group lobby is the reason why these proposals need to be made, why they have been so delayed and why future local govt enforcement of whatever changes may eventually be made, can still find ways of rendering even the fairest - worded legislation totally ineffective in providing any intended benefit to live music. Behind this approach seems to be the hope of some sort of return to the days when local athorities would set their own licence fees. This along with what can only been seen as a deep-seated prejudice against live music, a refusal to accept the added value that live music brings to all of our lives and that its treatment needs to be different to with how they would treat street-trading and taxis. I have yet to see any direct criticism of the way that the LGA Group Lobby has acted and more importantly - no real attempt to ensure that this self-interested lobby cannot carry on exactly as before in obstructing all attempts to finally provide live music with controls that are propotionate to any direct risks which it may present. |
|
16 Dec 11 - 05:33 AM (#3274666) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.kerrymccarthymp.org/news/westminster_news/news.aspx?p=109994 The MP for Bristol East, Kerry McCarthy, has welcomed news that the Live Music Bill is now one step away from becoming law |
|
16 Dec 11 - 05:49 AM (#3274673) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.kerrymccarthymp.org/news/westminster_news/news.aspx?p=109994 Significantly, the Local Government Association which represents councils has also announced that they are now fully supporting the Bill, following some important amendments. In a statement, the LGA said: "We are pleased that the Bill will leave councils with more levers to protect residents than other proposals currently being consulted on by DCMS, and that is has more stringent requirements on group size and a pre-determined finish time of 11pm." I don't like to put a damper on things but the writing is clearly on the (LGA Group lobby) wall. I see no real hope of the Govt's proposals bringing any more benefit to live music, than what eventually surfaces from the Live Music Bill. The 11pm curfew, where all live music is to subject to additional entertaiment licensing, whether it is a cause of noise pollution or not, will be set in legislation. I suspect that even should the Govt's proposals go on - that all the measures for live music will be excluded and the group size will remain at the figure set by the LMB. The argument being that the level of red tape has already been sufficiently lifted from live music but that other activities may still require some help. |
|
16 Dec 11 - 09:17 AM (#3274743) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=61f5629e-4ef2-48e9-a386-82cf2b5f6a98&groupId=10161 Here is the LGA's Briefing Document. Councils already have a strong track record of working in partnership with communities to run successful events that can be enjoyed by all and which deliver substantial benefits for local areas. Who is saying this? The LGA Group lobby don't really seem to understand that communities do not need or even wish to work in partnership with council employees - they simply wish to be allowed to enjoy such events without needing permission at every step from the council for every little aspect and for the events to be placed at risk as a result. Only those who cannot see beyond regulation and control would consider this over regulation to be desirable. It is a bit like football referees who seem to think that the spectators have paid to come and see them. Regulation and control, at football games is most effective when no one notices that there is even a referee on the pitch. The public areas for which my local authority has applied to itself for and granted itself additional entertainment licensing to, has an automatic 8.30pm curfew - whatever the form of entertainment taking place, even a mime act! |
|
17 Dec 11 - 10:36 AM (#3275460) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=61f5629e-4ef2-48e9-a386-82cf2b5f6a98&groupId=10161 John King comments:Southwark Council have a strong track record. Here they are licensing a piano for one day a week between 7 and 10pm. (page 17 - Simon the Tanner PH). DJs are allowed at all times, while poetry reading remains a criminal offence. |
|
17 Dec 11 - 10:46 AM (#3275464) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/Reg_entertainment.pdf John King comments: Manchester City Council's response to the licensing consultation. "We have no experience or evidence that the current licensing regime has actually prevented performances from being arranged." Really NO evidence? Manchester Council was successfully sued for a large sum of money after illegally cancelling a Bob Marley Tribute Concert last year http://www.nme.com/news/bob-marley/52322 |
|
17 Dec 11 - 11:09 AM (#3275468) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southsomerset.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2F383891%2Fclick_here_to_view_agenda_as_one_docume John King comments:South Somerset Council's response to the consulation. "Live music and performers can be less predictable and harder to control". "The cost to the venue of providing Regulated Entertainment. It is our opinion, that it is this reason, which prevents venues from putting on live and recorded music, not the cost of applying for authorisation. In this area the cost of a local (not well known) band is approximately £200, with the cost rising to the thousands for those that are well known. The cost of a TEN is set at £21." I wonder what salary the person speaking for the whole of South Somerset Council, is on? I suspect that were their workplace subject to any cost, which needed to be paid by another party, to enable them to work - I wonder if they would be quite so sure? They simply do not understand that on top of the practical problems being presented, it is the basic principle behind it that is unacceptable. That their support of the idea that live music is presenting some sort of risk that can only be dealt with by ADDITIONAL entertainment licensing and which is ADDITIONAL to that which is required for alcohol and other activites, that is the real problem. For the LGA Group lobby have still yet to identify the risk associated with live music that only ADDITIONAL entertainment licensing can address and which other legislation is unable to deal with or is not already doing. |
|
17 Dec 11 - 11:15 AM (#3275470) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This link to South Somerset Council's submission should work - even if this region's highly-priced pub performers do not. http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/383891/click_here_to_view_agenda_as_one_document.pdf |
|
17 Dec 11 - 06:56 PM (#3275677) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles John King comments:This licensing dept has generated an annual income of £276,242. http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/356238/agenda.pdf |
|
17 Dec 11 - 07:30 PM (#3275681) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.basildonmeetings.info/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1680 John King cmments:Basildon Council allow DJs to work at any time, but restrict live music to Thu to Sat, maximum of three performers and a noise limiter and a personal licence holder to be present on the premise whenever regulated entertainment is being provided. In a tapas-style bar. The above is a fairly standard example of what those employed to enforce licensing legislation would consider to be - not a licensing failure - but a success for additional entertainment licensing. As this would show up statistically as a venue with permission to provide live music. In fact - as a result of being exposed to the requirement - not as a result of any actual problems and before a note has been sounded - only the live music is limited to only being able to take place on three days (2 of which when alcohol can be served for an hour longer), to a maximum of 3 performers, with a noise limiter and a personal licence holder to be present - not for the serving of alcohol - but for when any live music is taking place! It also fairly standard in that prior to the hearing, the applicants have further self-limited parts of the application, in an attempt to placate the objections, that the application process tends to encourage to be made. There may have been representations made which supported the application but if there were, this was not identified. The point about this is that anyone making a representation of support would be supporting the original application and not the self-limited application that would either be presented at the hearing or which could even result in acceptance of this self-limited application without a hearing. |
|
18 Dec 11 - 03:33 PM (#3276150) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles John King comments: "Without thinking, Basildon council have banned unamplified music (eg carol singers) between Sunday and Wednesday. Carol singing quartets are criminalised at any time - but a quintet of DJs is apparently OK." |
|
19 Dec 11 - 05:05 AM (#3276406) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Most of the music at the venue would be unobtrusive background music. This should qualfiy as exempt as incidental live music and should not have been subjected to this process in the first place. Why were the premises not advised of this by the licensing authority? My recent local experience was that the applicants were not aware that there was such an exemption, until the Licensing Manager mentioned it in passing, at the hearing. Had they been so advised, this may have prevented the whole process and saved the applicants a lot of money. Sadly what live music may or not qualify under this exemption is entirely in the head of each Licensing Manager and would seem to be a matter only for them to decide............ |
|
19 Dec 11 - 08:41 AM (#3276498) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-16231842 An Oxford drumming tutor has been told to stop using his shed as a teaching venue after complaints about the noise. |
|
19 Dec 11 - 03:43 PM (#3276710) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/#!/calendar/Commons/MainChamber/2012/1/20/events.html The Live Music Bill is 2nd on the order paper for Report Stage/3rd Reading on the 20th Jan. The Bill then returns to the Lords for agreement of amendments followed by Royal Assent. |
|
20 Dec 11 - 12:48 PM (#3277195) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9424526.Meeting_over_nightspot_noise_postponed/ John King comments: One person moves next door and complains... |
|
20 Dec 11 - 12:53 PM (#3277198) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.sevenstreets.com/blog/loud-allowed-static-gallery-hit-with-abatement-order/ Static Gallery today revealed on Facebook they'd been hit with a Noise Abatement Notice – by someone who's recently moved into Roscoe Lane. Right next to Static. Although the venue are formally appealing the notice, the space, which houses gigs, clubnights and exhibitions as well as being home to design and creative studios, confirmed all future events will go ahead. But they'll be keeping a close eye on the decibel levels. John King comments: One person moves next door and complains... |
|
22 Dec 11 - 01:54 PM (#3278497) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9427129.Licence_threat_for____noisy____pub/ John King comments:Complaints about a DJ (which is RECORDED music) lead to York Council's Licensing Sub-Committee deciding whether to ban LIVE music. |
|
23 Dec 11 - 10:31 AM (#3278916) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.osadvertiser.co.uk/news/ormskirk-news/2011/12/08/burscough-fc-s-live-music-plans-suffer-blow-as-council-refuse-licenc John King comments:Cllr Brian Bailey, of Burscough Parish Council, said: "We're not against bringing things to Burscough" Oh yes you are... |
|
23 Dec 11 - 10:35 AM (#3278919) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1720&T=10 John King comments:Thanks to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (so much for the coalition agreement to cut licensing red-tape), here's Brent Council Licensing Sub-Committee meeting to discuss Temporary Event Notice applications. One TEN application was refused on the grounds that a risk assessment had not been prepared. http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MID=1709 |
|
24 Dec 11 - 09:58 AM (#3279330) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.efestivals.com/news/11/111223a.shtml John King comments:Merry Christmas from Westminster Council Licensing Dept: "Future concerts in Hyde Park by Live Nation could come to an end under controversial new restrictions proposed by Westminster Council." |
|
27 Dec 11 - 04:58 AM (#3280428) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2011/12/23/wedding-marquee-dispute-in-honley-86081-29999750/ John King Comments: Neighbours object to plans to create jobs for "20 to 30 people". Weddings are actually exempt from the Licensing Act, but many councils ignore this. |
|
27 Dec 11 - 10:29 AM (#3280512) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tauntondeane.gov.uk%2Firj%2Fgo%2Fkm%2Fdocs%2FCouncilDocuments%2FTDBC%2FDocument John King comments:Thanks to the half-baked Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act, here's Taunton Deane Council giving "approval" for harmless events such as: Taunton Choral Society, a Rotary Lunch, a carol singing evening, RSPB film and fundraising, and more. |
|
27 Dec 11 - 10:55 AM (#3280531) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.ehn-online.com/news/article.aspx?id=5928 John King comments: CIEH principal policy officer Howard Price said: "music at licensed premises was the third most common source of noise complaints received by environmental health departments". This is a pack of lies. But responding to a consultation run by the Department for Media, Culture and Sport, the CIEH said the Licensing Act had proved to be a success in tackling noise complaints. The Licensing Act is not designed to tackle noise complaints. How would this legislation tackle a complaint made about a noisy chain saw? You can't have a complaint about noise - until some measurable noise pollution has ACTUALLY OCCURED for someone to complaint about. What these fools are saying is that the Licensing Act has proved successful in encouraging residents to make objections about noise -in advance of a note of music being sounded and for council employees to then feel obliged to respond with the imposition of actual limitations under binding licensing conditions, also before a note has been sounded. This is only successful in needlessly deterring all live music in advance, whether this will ever cause measurable noise pollution or not. |
|
28 Dec 11 - 11:37 AM (#3281042) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/victims_of_bullies_1_1148896 John King comments:East Devon Council accused of bullying a social club "Our EHOs always seek an amicable solution to problems where they can be found and spend a good proportion of their working lives advising and supporting businesses to find such solutions. "Records will confirm that very few of the 1,000 of so noise complaints we receive each year end in formal action." |
|
28 Dec 11 - 11:55 AM (#3281051) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/victims_of_bullies_1_1148896 This is a good example of where the Licensing Act can be of no possible use to EHOs to tackle a noise complaint, as it concerns (not noise from a chain-saw but)noise from air conditioning. They would have to find another piece of existing legislation to use. If this legislation is considered to be adequate to deal with an actual complaint about noisy air conditioning - In what way is this legislation not also adequate to deal with any possible complaints resulting from live music? ENDS |
|
29 Dec 11 - 09:37 AM (#3281447) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.m-magazine.co.uk/views/music-and-pubs/ On the regulation of music, however, there is a somewhat brighter picture. The government deserves credit for its current proposals to deregulate live music, something we have been calling for over a number of years. The current regime is unnecessarily restrictive and hampers small gigs. |
|
29 Dec 11 - 09:56 AM (#3281455) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: Tootler http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/victims_of_bullies_1_1148896 Just a thought, Nowhere in the article does it say whether or not anyone actually measured the noise levels as there are statutory limits. As a result there is no objective comment on whether there was an actual noise nuisance rather than the council assuming that because there was a complaint there must be one. I would be surprised if a pub's air conditioning was that noisy even if it was old or in need of servicing nor would I expect it to create a high pitched whine which can be intensely annoying even at quite low noise levels. |
|
30 Dec 11 - 07:19 AM (#3281875) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles There is not really enough information provided in this article. However, as a noise abatement notice has been served (at some point)- it does at least show that it is perfectly possible for councils to use the correct anti-noise legislation to takle noise complaints. This rather destroys the argument provided by The Local Government Association (LGA) who warned that "deregulating music events would leave councils powerless to respond to noisy events." Any council's response to an actual occurance of measurable noise pollution, emanating from any source, would be made under this legislation and the proposed removal of additional entertainment licensing permission would do nothing to change this. CIEH principal policy officer Howard Price said: 'The clear consequence of enacting the paper's proposals will, in our view, be an increase in complaints which, as local authority resources continue to diminish, will go increasingly unanswered.' Mr Price said music at licensed premises was the third most common source of noise complaints received by environmental health departments and denied the government's assertion that obtaining a Temporary Event Notice was a bureaucratic burden. I am not sure if this statement can be supported by Mr Price but whatever the first two most common source of noise complaints may be - all of these would have to be tackled by the exsisting anti-noise pollution legislation. If the statement had any truth, it would show that all the current anti-noise legislation is in need of reform and that the Council's preferred use of the additional entertainment licensing in the Licensing Act 2003, which is effective in limiting and deterring all live music - is pretty ineffective in preventing what is referred to as noise complaints. What he and the LGA Group lobby refer to as noise complaints are in fact objections made to potential noise pollution at planning and licensing applications, often in advance of a note of music being sounded. What council employees may lose, if the proposals are accepted, is to their current ability to deter and limit all live music in advance of a note being sounded, based only on the incorrect assumption that all live music, in all venues and on all occasions WILL always present a measurable source of noise pollution, which needs actual binding licensing conditions to address what, in advance, can only be a potential for noise pollution. The bottom line here is that if the LGA Group lobby consider the existing anti-noise legislation to be inadequate, in any form, then it is this legislation which they should be activly seen to be lobbying to improve. For the only time they refer to any problems is in response to any attempt to address the damage this lobby has and is determined to continue to inflict upon live music. |
|
30 Dec 11 - 11:49 AM (#3281989) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.darlington.gov.uk/PublicMinutes/Licensing%20Sub-Committee/January%204%202012/Item%204.pdf John King comments:The Old Vic Darlington applies for live msuic permission, but is met with page after page of hysterical drivel from the Elf and Safety Dept. On 30 March 2011 an application was properly made for a Premises Licence in respect of 95-97 Victoria Road, Darlington DL1 5JQ in accordance with Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003. The application was properly advertised as required by the 2003 Act and, as a result, 8representations were received from Interested Parties, i.e. persons living in the vicinity of the premises in respect of the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance and an indication was given that there would be a further representation from a Responsible Authority, namely the Environmental Health Manager on the same basis. The Applicant was advised of the concerns expressed in the representations and as a result she amended her closing hour from 01.00 am to 23.30 pm and also removed everything from the regulated entertainment part of her application except indoor sporting events. Letters were sent to all objectors indicating the change in the application and as a result 3 Interested Parties withdrew their representations and the Environmental Health Manager indicated that in light of the amended hours and activities he would no longer be making a representation. On 27 May 2011 the revised application was considered by the Council's Licensing Sub Committee, along with the representations made by the Interested Parties. After careful consideration Members granted the Premises Licence subject to the following conditions, which were in addition to the mandatory conditions for the sale or supply of alcohol: This is another example of where, because some form of application was eventually granted - it will show up in statistics as a licensing success. It will be ignored that the licensee had already been forced to withdraw the application for any live music. This before a note had been sounded but in the face of a few objections which were based only on the assumption that any form of live music at any time in this venue would result in measurable noise pollition. So the live music has been prevented, simply as a result of the need to obtain additional entertainment licensing permission......... |
|
30 Dec 11 - 01:11 PM (#3282032) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Perhaps we should stop referring to applications for live music and replace this instead with applications to cause live public nuisance? The application was properly advertised as required by the 2003 Act and, as a result, 8 representations were received from Interested Parties, i.e. persons living in the vicinity of the premises in respect of the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. Where we may accept that live music (and many other things) may have the potential to cause public nuisance - it should not be acceptable that all the unquestionable benefits of live music are considered to be one and the same thing or are first viewed as being a public nuisance. Is preventing live music to be thought successful in preventing public nuisance? It would seem so. Where, like in this case, the baby is thrown out along with the bathwater and simply as a result of the live music having to be exposed to the licensing process - we will never know if the once proposed live music had anything other than simply the potential to cause a public nuisance. Not that that those who are employed to enforce the legislation would see that the total loss of live music in this case as being a problem - for they can congratulate themselves on having prevented a public nuisance. Perhaps, (partly as it obviously did not work), applicants should not have been able to self-limit and exclude live music from their own original application and the hearing be left to decide if the proposed live music did constitute a public nuisance? However, from my experience this does not really happen. The assumption has already been made by the officers and Cllrs that any form of live music, in any venue and at any time is a public nuisance, to be prevented or limited in advance with binding licensing conditions and that this is the whole purpose of the hearing. That is why it is so vital that live music be finally taken out of the hands of those who simply do not understand the true value of what they have been entrusted with. |
|
31 Dec 11 - 09:38 AM (#3282389) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Batty-ideas-targeted-drive-tele-1887437580.html John King comments:'The Business Department said there would be "wholesale deregulation of entertainment licensing to make it easier and cheaper for community groups to put on fundraising events and amateur productions."' Perhaps the Government could remove the "batty" red tape generated by it's very own Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act. |
|
31 Dec 11 - 09:42 AM (#3282391) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.manchesterit.com/blog/?p=5136 John King comments:One person moves next door and complains. "All we want is this nightmare to end so we can start to live the life that we hoped we would have." Well don't move next door to a club and expect everyone else to lose their jobs to keep you happy. |
|
31 Dec 11 - 09:48 AM (#3282396) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/express-and-chronicle/2011/12/31/villagers-oppose-plan-to-extend-opening-hours-of-the-golden-cock John King comments:The Golden Cock wants an extension and permission for live music. DJs are already allowed, but the suggestion of live music sends neighbours into a spin. |
|
01 Jan 12 - 06:47 AM (#3282881) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16366194 John King comments:Helena Bonham Carter gets a CBE for services to the arts saying "not sure that I deserve it". She may be right. In 2006, Helena Bonham-Carter showed her support for the arts by moving next door to the Sir Richard Steele Pub and objecting to the live music licence. Live performances of "rock and pop" music at The Sir Richard Steele are now a criminal offence. DJs can play any genre they like. http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/hbbulletin225.htm |
|
01 Jan 12 - 06:48 AM (#3282882) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The last posting was from me. |
|
03 Jan 12 - 09:36 AM (#3284041) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAASPZke_a4 Heart and Soul Sung by Helena Bonham Carter (Heart of Me Soundtrack) |
|
05 Jan 12 - 08:16 PM (#3285524) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8986957/Bill-to-aid-live-music-set-to-become-law.html "The old Licensing Act just did not do the job it was supposed to. We were promised an explosion of live music, but in fact we have had even less." |
|
06 Jan 12 - 05:09 AM (#3285729) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://louderthanwar.com/featured/support-the-live-music-bill How to the support the Live Music Bill. |
|
06 Jan 12 - 10:47 AM (#3285942) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall Please circulate Despite its progress so far, the success of the Live Music Bill is not guaranteed: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/livemusichl.html On 20th January it must be debated again in the House of Commons, a stage known as Report and 3rd Reading. This is in effect the last hurdle. The more MPs that attend and support the Bill, the greater its chances of becoming law. PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR MP: Ask them to attend the debate and if necessary vote in favour of a closure motion on the preceding business (to allow time for debate on the Live Music Bill) and, of course, to vote for the Live Music Bill itself. It is important to write a personal letter, but general points to make include: The entertainment licence exemptions for live music proposed by the Bill are essential if live music in grassroots venues is to flourish. The exemptions apply only to performances between 8am and 11pm, and, for amplified live music, to audiences of no more than 200. The Bill preserves licence review safeguards for residents near pubs and bars. The Bill is supported not only by the Government and the Opposition, but also by the music industry, performers' unions, arts organisations, and now by the Local Government Association. If you don't know who your MP is this website enables to identify them using your postcode and email them:www.theyworkforyou.com Many thanks Hamish Birchall |
|
06 Jan 12 - 11:06 AM (#3285951) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles www.theyworkforyou.com |
|
06 Jan 12 - 11:08 AM (#3285952) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This link should work.... http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/ |
|
06 Jan 12 - 03:39 PM (#3286123) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://testing.selcamra.org.uk/hoopers-bar-se5-under-threat/ John King comments: If this person had moved to a property near a railway line or a bus garage, it would be unheard of for them to be able to stop train services or curtail use of buses. You would ask why that person choose to live near something, such as a pub,that could cause a little bit of noise occasionally. After all, there are numerous streets or estates that ONLY consist of homes. However current legislation allows Licensed Premises to have their Conditions to be reviewed (and possible restrictions imposed) if a person living nearby can persuade the Licensing Panel of their complaint. |
|
08 Jan 12 - 07:22 AM (#3286957) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Some questions here that you may suggest that your MP asks the Govt? As it is not possible under the Licensing Act 2003 to apply for permission to provide a public nuisance and it is not possible for a local Licensing Authority to grant such permission, why is this Govt supporting [in the Private Members Live Music Bill] a requirement to kick-in at 11.00pm, for additional licensing permission for all live music and especially for that live music which this Govt itself propose to be exempt from this requirement and when such a measure does not appear in these proposals and is one which the Govt's own proposals argue against? What role can this additional entertainment licensing permission actually play in dealing with noise pollution which the existing anti-noise pollution cannot ? Any actual noise pollution subsequently arising from any entertainment venue - whether additional entertainment licensing permission under the Licensing Act 2003 is in place or not - will have to be dealt with by exactly the same anti-noise measures as will noise pollution emanating from the playing of any form of music in private homes and any form of noise pollution which emanates from any other source. If this legislation is thought to be inadequate to deal with noise pollution, then it is this legislation which needs to be improved. If the Govt accept that there is already existing special anti-noise legislation that kicks-in at 11.00pm and which is thought adequate to deal with public nuisance in the form of noise pollution - do the Govt accept that for them to propose that even further controls, in the form of additional entertainment licensing permission to also kick-in at 11.00pm, is costly red tape and is not a proportionate approach to live music which may only have the potential to cause a problem that already has legislation in place to address and which recognises the problems associated with this time of night? All live music, in all venues and at all times is not an automatic source of noise pollution. However, currently all live music is treated, by those employed locally to enforce licensing legislation, as if this were the case. As a result, much live music, when it is not totally prevented, it is needlessly limited under this process by licensing conditions which make no distinction between live music which may have some potential to cause noise pollution and live music which will never have this potential. This thinking in effect, equates all live music in advance of a note being sounded, as firstly being an automatic source of noise pollution, in all venues and which only the requirement for additional entertainment permission under the Licensing Act 2003 can address. How can such an approach - ever be expected to enable live music to flourish and bring the added value to our lives that only this music can provide? |
|
08 Jan 12 - 07:33 AM (#3286959) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles All live music, in all venues and at all times is not an automatic source of noise pollution. The bottom line is that all though the above is true - (most of) those employed to locally enforce licensing legislation will consider that where live music is prevented or limited, in advance of a note being sounded, by the requirement for additional entertainment licensing - that this is will be a perfectly acceptable way of avoiding noise pollution and that they will have done their job........... Meanwhile those of us who still manage to find venues to play non-amplified traditional folk tunes - will only be allowed when subject to binding condition which impose noise limiters and require the music to end before the venues finishes serving alcohol. |
|
08 Jan 12 - 06:03 PM (#3287225) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jan/08/police-accused-discriminating-urban-music?CMP=twt_gu Police say that following "concerns" the form had been modified to remove "any reference to music genre". But the current form, which asks for details about events "that predominantly feature DJs or MCs performing to a recorded backing track", clearly targeted urban artists, said Dipple. "This is unacceptable. Performers being searched goes way beyond the stated guidance of this supposedly voluntary process," she said, arguing that police were hampering one of the UK's successful music exports, which has seen artists like Dizzee Rascal and Ms Dynamite achieve international success. In a statement the Met said the form was a "voluntary risk assessment form", but the current form recognised that it may be "a licence condition on some premises licence", in which case it would be "mandatory". A spokeswoman said that form 696 was "intended to identify where an event might be at risk from crime and take steps to prevent it. "To date shootings linked to licensed premises have been significantly reduced and we believe the risk assessment process has contributed to this. It is an inconvenient fact that musicians refuse to be criminals. Especially for those employed in the police and local authorities, who really seem to think that increasing the red tape involved in live music and activly preventing and limiting live music, is some form of short-cut answer for them to address crime. |
|
10 Jan 12 - 12:23 PM (#3288171) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a359111/police-accused-of-racism-over-risk-assessment-at-urban-gigs.html An anonymous booking agent told The Guardian that police insisted on searching 18 performers for weapons with an airport-style scanner at a recent live show before they were permitted to go on stage. Perhaps where police have seen to be involved in criminal activities, the introduction of such screening and being subject to the need to fill out forms for all members of the police, may not be thought by them to be a necessary measure or attempted to be justified by them on such flimsy claims for the measure's success? The only success such measures have is in making things worse. It is quite wrong to introduce and to defend such requirements to any section of society. The Commons Select Committee has recognised this, in the case of this form - but it would appear that it is the police who are in charge, and not our elected MPS. |
|
11 Jan 12 - 12:56 PM (#3288791) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/10/police-stigmatising-hip-hop-696-form?fb=optOut "Our recommended guidance to music event organisers, management of licensed premises or event promoter on when to complete Form 696 is where you hold an event that is – promoted/advertised to the public at any time before the event, and predominantly features DJs or MCs performing to a recorded backing track, and runs anytime between the hours of 10pm and 4am, and is in a nightclub or a large public house." |
|
11 Jan 12 - 01:34 PM (#3288804) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles John King Comments: Actually, performers being searched before going on stage has nothing to do with Form 696. This is sometimes a condition of the premises licence. Here's Lambeth Council approving the searching of musicians at a resaurant: http://tradescant.blogspot.com/2011/01/wheatsheaf-tia-maria-licence.html In 2010 the MU announced their support for the revised Form 696. |
|
11 Jan 12 - 01:41 PM (#3288811) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://vocalzone.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/the-urban-music-scene-my-kind-of-place/ John King comments: More Form 696 coverage. The Met do NOT have reliable statistics justifying their claim that Form 696 has reduced shootings. In fact, they do not have any evidence at all. The only stats they have produced (which they did to the London Mayor) were derived from some highly dubious DCMS licensing statistics regarding LIVE and not RECORDED music. Pretty inept stuff... |
|
11 Jan 12 - 01:53 PM (#3288818) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kensingtonandchelseatoday.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flocal-news%2Fpadq8h82bk.html&h=GAQFvyt John King comments: There is a legal definition of "live music" in the Licensing Act: live music performed by instrument or voice or any combination of both. Sounds simple? When the details of this case become clear, it will be interesting to see whether the magistrates court has mixed up live and recorded music. This does look like a DJ venue, with no history of using live musicians. http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pressrelease/pressreleasepage.aspx?id=3967 |
|
11 Jan 12 - 01:58 PM (#3288822) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Last post was from me - the following link should work. http://www.kensingtonandchelseatoday.co.uk/news/local-news/padq8h82bk.html |
|
11 Jan 12 - 08:59 PM (#3289047) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.buckinghamtoday.co.uk/community/objections_flood_in_over_licensing_application_1_3404058 AN application for a premises licence at a former shop in a residential street in the centre of Buckingham has attracted fierce opposition from neighbours. The application, by Louis Myhill of Louis Kitchen Ltd, would enable the former the Holland Electrical store to operate as a restaurant. It would have seating for about 50 people, with a licence to serve alcohol with food and play recorded music between 8am and 11pm seven days a week. Mr Myhill has told the licensing services department at Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) there will be no live music and no music will be audible from outside the premises. About 20 letters of objection have been submitted to AVDC from local people. Objections include hazards due to the limited space for parking on Nelson Street, noise and public disorder. One objector said: "Do we want even more inebriated youths lurching down Nelson Street? I have already had my door kicked in and people are always banging on th door as they walk past." The application is due to be heard next Tuesday. |
|
12 Jan 12 - 07:21 AM (#3289220) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://kerrymccarthy.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/live-music-bill-this-friday/ Kerry McCarthy writes on Live Music Bill report stage and explains some of the pitfalls. |
|
13 Jan 12 - 02:49 PM (#3290133) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/9471276.LEYTON__College_allays_fears_over_opening_hours_bid/ Patrick Sedgwick, 59, of Peterborough Road, Leyton, signed the petition against the application. He said: "The concern that does arise is about the effect on the neighbourhood if people are leaving late at night. There's the potential for disturbances even if it's just noisy people leaving." Neighbour Helga Haack added: "There could be anti-social behaviour. A crowd of young people could attract people who want to cause trouble that late, while people nearby will be kept up at night after long performances." John King comments: No matter what a premises applies for, someone will always complain. Local authorities LOVE this because they have nothing better to do. Leyton Sixth Form College faces a 248-strong petition objecting to a licence extension to "cover longer plays such as Hamlet being performed very occasionally while the college runs only about eight activities per term". And - of course - the last Government claimed that there was NO evidence that schools had been adversely affected by the Licensing Act. I wonder how many activities have been prevented or limited - noy because they present problems but simply because they are exposed to the licensing process? |
|
13 Jan 12 - 03:15 PM (#3290152) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/downloads/page3971/Milnthorpe_Primary_School.pdf John King comments: An example of school licensing by South Lakeland Council (from last year). Here is Milnthorpe Primary School applying for a premises licence to cover (among other things) "recorded music played daily in assembly", "Christmas productions", "indoor ball games (with NO music)". The Live Music Bill will rid schools of this nonsense IF it passes 3rd reading on 20th January. |
|
14 Jan 12 - 06:32 AM (#3290461) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.noda.org.uk/news/National_News/NODA-response-to-Licensing-Act-consultation We suggest that there may well be a benefit in treating all types of live performance equally under the regulations. |
|
14 Jan 12 - 06:41 AM (#3290463) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1806 John King comments: More Form 696 racism. Police withdraw their objection to a Temporary Event Notice (?!) following the applicant's submission of a Form 696. The Met have been ADAMANT that Form 696 is voluntary except where it is a licence condition. BTW the applicant's name is Mrs Patel - not a name that crops up regularly in "black on black" gang shootings one would have thought... http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1720&T=2 Several TEN's were refused by Brent Council because the applicant had failed to provide a Form 696. http://www.brent.gov.uk/hsl.nsf/Files/LBBA-35/$FILE/Statement%20of%20Licensing%20Policy%202011%20Final.pdf Brent Council's statement of licensing policy clearly states the a Form 696 requirement will only apply if it is a licence condition. |
|
14 Jan 12 - 06:45 AM (#3290465) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The last post was from me. It shows that those employed in the police and those employed to enforce licensing legislation would appear to think that that they can do exactly as they wish and that there does not seem to be anything to prevent them from carrying on doing this, whatever damage this may cause..... |
|
16 Jan 12 - 06:44 PM (#3291653) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall By this Friday afternoon, 20th January, the Live Music Bill could be a historic success - or a historic failure. It all turns on the number of supportive MPs that attend the debate. A minimum of 100 must be there to ensure that, if necessary, there is a successful 'vote of closure' on debate on the Daylight Saving Bill, which precedes the Live Music Bill. The Daylight Saving Bill is controversial and there may be MPs intending to 'talk it out'. If that happened the Live Music Bill may not have enough time to be debated and would fail. It might be revived in the next Parliamentary session, but reform could be delayed for months or even years. Labour MP Kerry McCarthy, who sat on the Live Music Bill during its Committee stage, has already warned of this possibility in her blog: http://kerrymccarthy.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/live-music-bill-this-friday/ So if you have not already written to your MP, please do so now: Ask them to attend the debate and if necessary vote in favour of a closure motion on the preceding business (to allow time for debate on the Live Music Bill) and, of course, to vote for the Live Music Bill itself. It is important to write a personal letter, but general points to make include: The entertainment licence exemptions for live music proposed by the Bill are essential if live music in grassroots venues is to flourish. The exemptions apply only to performances between 8am and 11pm, and, for amplified live music, to audiences of no more than 200. The Bill preserves licence review safeguards for residents near pubs and bars. The Bill is supported not only by the Government and the Opposition, but also by the music industry, performers' unions, arts organisations, and now by the Local Government Association. If you don't know who your MP is this website enables to identify them using your postcode and email them: www.theyworkforyou.com Once again, many thanks. Hamish Birchall |
|
16 Jan 12 - 07:02 PM (#3291658) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles More Local Council stupidity. Here is the Elderfield in Hackney applying for a minor variation to raise the limit on the number John King comments: More Local Council stupidity. Here is the Elderfield in Hackney applying for a minor variation to raise the limit on the number of performers from 2 to 5. Live music is limited to 2 occasions a week. DJs however can play every day of the week, but according to the licence register recorded music is "limited to two entertainers". http://apps.hackney.gov.uk/servapps/lpr/?tab=2&ps=48264&pn=1&pi=1 |
|
18 Jan 12 - 07:06 AM (#3292038) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/ALMR-urges-MPs-to-back-last-stage-of-Live-Music-Bill ALMR strategic affairs director Kate Nicholls said: "We are strongly urging MPs to support this Bill in Parliament, as it reaches its final hurdle. "The potential benefits from the Bill becoming law are vast – both culturally and economically. It will free venues from burdensome red tape and create diversity of service and offer, helping to boost trade and sustain viability. "More pubs could play a vital part in their community by being able to host young up-and-coming bands and artists, encouraging others to take up a musical instrument." |
|
18 Jan 12 - 07:56 AM (#3292062) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16600243 John King comments: Preview of Friday's proceedings in the House of Commons. Looks like it will be a photo finish for the Live Music Bill... |
|
18 Jan 12 - 08:07 AM (#3292067) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/residents_hit_out_at_events_plan_for_park_1_4148353 John King comments: More NIMBY moaning about a live music licence application. Perhaps if it is sensible to expect NIMBY based objections from vocal locals - it is NOT sensible to have a system which seems to be designed to encourage only - the few to be able to deny the undoubted benefits of live music to the many? Would be too difficult to have legislation where live music was first encouraged and which only dealt with any issues which may prove to be associated with it as a second matter? Additional entertainment licensing starts from the 'loony' idea that places which have already be made safe for the public will automatically become unsafe should any form of live music take place. |
|
19 Jan 12 - 10:08 AM (#3292793) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2012/0260/amend/pbc2601801a.4011-4017.html Amendments to the Daylight Saving Bill mount up threatening to talk the Live Music & the Local Government Ombudsman Bills out of time. |
|
19 Jan 12 - 10:19 AM (#3292801) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1048174&c=1 UK Music is calling on the industry to urge local MPs to support the Live Music Bill in the House of Commons tomorrow, making sure it is kept on the agenda, giving it a chance of final approval. With a total of 64 bills up for debate tomorrow, most of them will be delayed simply due to lack of time. The Live Music Bill, which aims to stop bureaucracy from smothering small scale live music, stands a good chance by occupying the second spot on the schedule but follows a contentious Daylight Saving Bill, which could take up the House's time if opposition MPs are determined enough to drag out discussion and avoid a vote. |
|
20 Jan 12 - 05:55 AM (#3293238) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16628724 And I gather most SNP MPs will be around tomorrow to put their concerns about the implications for Scotland. The bill's best prospect of getting through the Commons and being sent on to the Lords would be if the chair allowed a closure motion - which is unlikely to happen much before 1pm. That in turn threatens the widely-supported Live Music Bill - although it is possible to rush a bill through its remaining stages in remarkably little time, if no-one objects. |
|
20 Jan 12 - 11:09 AM (#3293386) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1048175 In today's Music Week, on the front page the abolition of Form 696 is once again called for and senior industry executives chat about their UK artists 'on the cusp of achieving the American dream' |
|
20 Jan 12 - 11:13 AM (#3293390) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.morningadvertiser.co.uk%2FOpinion%2FPeter-Coulson%2FBang-the-drum-for-live-musi Today sees the Commons Report Stage of Lord Clement-Jones' Live Music Bill, which has progressed more smoothly recently and had a very amiable time of it during the MPs' committee in December, with much inter-party back-slapping and a general view that it was a good thing. |
|
20 Jan 12 - 11:15 AM (#3293391) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Try this link. http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Opinion/Peter-Coulson/Bang-the-drum-for-live-music |
|
20 Jan 12 - 11:28 AM (#3293400) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/text/plbulletin19.html The following from Phil Little. Friday 20th January 2012 - Live Music Bill passes Report stage Today Lord Clement Jones' Live Music Bill passed the Report stage in the House of Commons. Although the live music lobby's target of 100 plus MPs were present, things looked decidedly risky when the debate on the Daylight Saving Bill, the first Bill on the list, occupied the entire session and at 1-30 pm the Live Music Bill looked doomed, with not enough time to be debated. However, at the end of the session the names of the Bills that have not been dealt with are read out, and, if nobody shouts "Objection !", then the Bill can proceed. It is unusual for a Bill to proceed without objection at this stage, but, this was the case with the Live Music Bill which was passed in about two seconds. "Even Chope said Aye!" tweeted Kerry McCarthy (Labour MP for Bristol East) who has been quite vocal in supporting the Live Musc Bill. This is perhaps the most difficult obstacle the Live Music Bill has had to overcome and it is difficult to see how the Bill can fail to becomem law now. More celebrations ! I hear UK Music are already throwing a party in the Parliament buildings. Keep Live Music |
|
20 Jan 12 - 12:17 PM (#3293425) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/MPs-vote-in-favour-of-live-music British Beer & Pub Association chief executive Brigid Simmonds said: "This really is music to our ears. Pubs are where live music begins – and for years, we've been saying that many of the regulations surrounding it are unnecessary – they have prevented publicans from making the most of Britain's pubs as the place where live music acts first get a foothold. "Well done to MPs for voting this through – let's make it the first of many measures to cut the red tape surrounding pubs." John King comments: Royal assent is a formality and is expected when the Bill returns to the Lords next week. |
|
20 Jan 12 - 12:24 PM (#3293432) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles This thread was started in December 2009. Some 1300 posts (and it seems like there have been the same number of consultations) later and it looks as if we may finally have some action, in the form of modest but real changes to the legislation. Thanks for everyone's efforts. |
|
20 Jan 12 - 12:57 PM (#3293451) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Don_Foster%3A_Live_music_licensing_regulation_will_strengthen_the_British_music "The support received this afternoon from all MPs from all political parties just goes to show how important live music is in our country and the overwhelming support for changing our obstructive licensing laws. "We're now only one step away from the Bill becoming law and creating an even more vibrant and successful live music culture. This will benefit hundreds of small pubs, restaurants, schools, churches and community halls, and strengthen the British music scene immensely." |
|
20 Jan 12 - 01:46 PM (#3293477) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://networkedblogs.com/sYfor AT LAST (1). After years of fighting the disproportionate and unnecesary powers given to Local Authorities by the 2003 Licensing Act, Don Foster's Live Music Bill which removes the need for small venues to have licenses for events ending before 11pm has been passed. The devil will be inthe detail, and never underestimate the complexities and "transition provisions" yet to be dreamed up to complicate the system and make it more costly...but this is a victory, most notably for that completely indefatigable campaigner on the issue, jazz drummer Hamish Birchall. |
|
20 Jan 12 - 04:21 PM (#3293572) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16657152 Separate to the private member's bill, the government is conducting its own review of the Licensing Act. A consultation paper launched by Tourism Minister John Penrose in September proposed scrapping much of the act. Mr Penrose called current regulations "a mess" and said licences were being issued "for many events where there is little or no risk of trouble". Potentially more far-reaching than the private member's bill, his paper looked at relaxing the rules on everything from plays and live music to indoor sports. |
|
21 Jan 12 - 06:22 AM (#3293832) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.basca.org.uk/news/live-music-bill-passes-third-reading-and-report-stage/ Jo Dipple, acting chief executive of UK Music, the UK commercial music industry's umbrella body, said: "This is a great day for music. The Live Music Bill will make a real and positive difference to lives of musicians. There is no doubt that the current Licensing Act has created needless layers of bureaucracy - making it complicated and expensive for pubs and other small venues to host live gigs. The entire industry would like to thank Lord Clement-Jones and Don Foster MP who have made this change possible." John Smith, Musicians Union General Secretary, added: "We are delighted that the Live Music Bill has finally made it through Parliament. It is a real achievement for a Private Member's Bill to get through and the MU would like to thank Lord Clement-Jones, Don Foster and all of the other MPs who helped to pass this Bill. |
|
22 Jan 12 - 06:55 AM (#3294328) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST The following from Hamish Birchall The Live Music Bill, co-sponsored by Lord Clement-Jones and Don Foster MP, cleared its last Commons hurdle on Friday (20th Jan). It is now on the home straight to becoming law. Two minor amendments agreed in Commons Committee must be ratified in the Lords, probably within a fortnight, and dates set for Royal Assent. Implementation will require secondary legislation. A lead-in period of several months is likely to allow time for the live music sections within statutory Licensing Guidance to be rewritten. The Bill represents a historic shift in the treatment of live music under the law. The Licensing Act 2003, and many preceding Acts, embodied a presumption against most performances unless first licensed, on pain of criminal law sanctions. This harsh treatment, dating back more than 250 years, will end for performances within certain hours and to a relatively small audience. The potential risks are already regulated by separate legislation. While there were and are rational grounds for licensing large events, there is also a puritanical streak in English culture that was amplified by licensing legislation. The enduring puritanism was expressed in often unreasonable objections to even the mildest live music licence applications, with absurd over-regulation and enforcement by many local authorities. The Bill could easily have been sunk by a combination of tedious filibustering on Daylight Saving Bill amendments and arcane Parliamentary procedure. Indeed, it came very close to failing, not because of insufficient numbers in the House to carry a vote (over 130 MPs), but lack of time. Debate yesterday started at 9.30am and had to finish by 2.30pm. The end time arrived and MPs were still on the Daylight Saving Bill. Many observers present thought the Live Music Bill had been lost. Lord Clement-Jones said: 'I was sitting there and I was absolutely, completely confounded. I had no idea what was happening when the Daylight Saving Bill was up.' Then, as one observer in the public gallery put it, 'something weird happened'. MP Philip Davies, the last in a succession of honourable members grinding through DSB amendments, suddenly sat down as the Speaker, Nigel Evans, stood up and shouted 'Order, order'. The remaining private members bills titles were read out. Next up was the Live Music Bill. There followed a short exchange between the Speaker and Don Foster, and the Bill was passed to a loud chorus of 'Ayes', with no objections. (View on Parliament tv, scroll to 4hrs 55mins: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9853 ) The good news flashed quickly around arts and music media: Jo Dipple, acting chief executive of UK Music, the UK commercial music industry's umbrella body, said: "This is a great day for music. The Live Music Bill will make a real and positive difference to lives of musicians. There is no doubt that the current Licensing Act has created needless layers of bureaucracy - making it complicated and expensive for pubs and other small venues to host live gigs. The entire industry would like to thank Lord Clement-Jones and Don Foster MP who have made this change possible." John Smith, Musicians Union General Secretary, added: "We are delighted that the Live Music Bill has finally made it through Parliament. It is a real achievement for a Private Member's Bill to get through and the MU would like to thank Lord Clement-Jones, Don Foster and all of the other MPs who helped to pass this Bill." http://www.basca.org.uk/news/live-music-bill-passes-third-reading-and-report-stage/ Links to other press coverage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16657152 http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/34983/live-music-bill-close-to-becoming-law Heartfelt thanks is certainly due to Lord Clement-Jones, Don Foster, the licensing minister John Penrose, many other MPs and Peers who have tenaciously campaigned within Parliament, especially John Whittingdale, Chair of the Culture Select Committee, also to the civil servants and lawyers who have worked hard behind the scenes on the bill, and indeed to the Coalition government. But the time is not yet ripe to celebrate. That should be saved for the day the new law comes into effect. And it will take many months, perhaps years, for the full benefit to be realised by musicians, venues and the music loving public. The sharp decline of small gigs in pubs coincided with reform of entertainment licensing in 1982, when local authorities were given powers to set their own fees. These quickly rose by several hundred percent, and by 2000 the Home Office estimated fewer than 10% of pubs had entertainment licences, although all of them could still have one or two live performers (the 'two in a bar rule'). But even that modest musical provision was abolished by the 2003 Licensing Act, legislation that marks the highwater point of regulation of live music through licensing. It was under this Act that even providing musical instruments became a potential criminal offence unless licensed. This ranges from pub pianos to instruments provided by schools for concerts. The Live Music Bill does away with that requirement. One long-time campaigner asked me yesterday what I would do next. I am not against licensing regimes per se. Where there are serious risks to the public, inadequately regulated by separate legislation, prior public consultation may be necessary and proportionate. To that end, perhaps MPs should be licensed. ENDS |
|
22 Jan 12 - 07:03 AM (#3294334) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles the last post was from me https://isa.chiltern.gov.uk/democracy/Published/C00000230/M00002368/AI00006683/$PennFestivalPenn3112012.doc.pdf John King comments. Chiltern District Council meet on 31 Jan to decide the fate of the Penn Festival. The local (unelected) Safey Advisory Group is refusing to sanction the event. And no, the Live Music Act 2012 can't help them. It only applies to events for 200 or under. The Campaign to reform the Live Music Act starts now! |
|
22 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM (#3294586) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles https://isa.chiltern.gov.uk/democracy/Published/C00000230/M00002106/AI00006556/Appx5DraftlicenceconditionsWinkers3.pdf John King comments.The fight against loony licensing authorities is NOT over. More bad news for DJs and musicians who aren't "white" as Form 696 spreads to Buckinghamshire. In response to a premises licence review at Winkers Farm Nightclub, Adams Solicitors have volunteered a Form 696 licence condition. The Live Music Act won't help non-"white" DJs at Winkers Night Club. The Act's suspension of licence conditions does NOT extend to recorded music events. |
|
23 Jan 12 - 08:06 AM (#3294913) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/news-events/2012/01/23/live-music-bill-passed-its-final-stages-in-the-commons-on-friday/ John King comments: Musicians Union pays tribute to Hamish Birchall? Not before hell freezes over. |
|
23 Jan 12 - 08:21 AM (#3294919) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/14184/mu-criticised-for-refusing-to-challenge The Musicians' Union has been accused of failing to protect its own members after it turned down a motion, signed by more than 100 performers, calling on it to take a stand against the government's Licensing Act. However, the MU's executive committee voted against the motion and assistant general secretary Horace Trubridge has written to signatories, informing them that the union cannot support such a policy because there is insufficient evidence to back up claims about the damage caused by the Act. Trubridge said there had in fact been a "widely-acknowledged boom in live music" in the UK. Members say they are confused because the union carried out a survey earlier this year to discover how the Act had affected live music and concluded there had been "a marked drop in live music in smaller venues, especially the ones that previously benefitted from the 'two or fewer performers' exemption". Now, the union says that when it contacted those surveyed, it found only one example given in London had actually been a direct result of the act. "We would need hundreds of examples to change the law," Trubridge said. "If we publicly announce that we oppose the Act we won't be able to influence how it is being employed at the moment, because civil servants and ministers won't talk to us." I remember Mr Trubridge (with others) willingly signing up to the quite ludicrous LACORS 'guidance' on the Act's exemption for a performance of live music that was incidental. I suggest that if this is an example of what is referred to as being able to influence the Act, MU members may be better off if civil servants and ministers won't talk to the likes of Mr Trubridge. For it rather depends on what goes on in such talks. |
|
23 Jan 12 - 09:06 AM (#3294942) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The fact is that gatherings of people can cause problems - whatever the purpose for which they have gathered. Even if no live music were adversly affected by the Licensing Act 2003, the MU should still support their members by openly opposing the Act's requirements for live music. The MU, in refusing to publicly oppose the main issue for their members which is contained in Licensing Act 2003 - are supporting the 'spurious' basic premise on which the requirement for the Act's additional entertainment licensing permission is based. This premise is that, in advance of a note of music being sounded, live music and musicians will automatically present concerns which existing planning, environmental, health, safety and other legislation is inadequate to deal with and which only additional entertainment licensing permission is adequate to deal with. If the MU's high-ups do support this basic premise, perhaps they (the LGA and Govt) can inform us, what these concerns are and why these concerns only arise over live music and musicians? even with the the Live Music Bill - all live music will require additional entertainment licensing to take place later than 11pm. |
|
23 Jan 12 - 10:09 AM (#3294965) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2461 John King comments:A No10 petition supporting the LGA's opposition to licensing reform attracted 3 signatories. What sort of gigs do these people attend - or do they not attend any? Live music is linked to shootings, serious crime, binge drinking, and drug dealing. Live music events attract customers to public houses from outside the local area causing a serious threat to public safety. It is really? Does the fact that people who are involved in shootings, serious crime, binge-drinking and drug dealing may like music, justify making life as difficult as possible for musicians and other law-abiding people who may also like music? Are we to take a similar approach to other perfectly acceptable activities simply because some criminals may also like them? |
|
23 Jan 12 - 03:41 PM (#3295100) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://pad.newham.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/18218928.pdf John King comments: The London Olympic opening ceremony is on 27th July. No thanks to Newham Council's unhelpful licensing dept, the Olympic Stadium is NOT licensed for performances of plays (therefore criminalising poetry reading, mime, juggling and so on), nor is it licensed for "facilities for making music", which would make playing of national anthems through the stadium PA illegal. The Live Music Act will remove the requirement to licence entertainment facilities at the stadium, but not if DCMS don't implement the Act by the time it opens. |
|
24 Jan 12 - 07:50 PM (#3295726) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/boost_to_norwich_pubs_and_live_music_1_1183885 Norwich publicans celebrate the Live Music Act. |
|
24 Jan 12 - 07:57 PM (#3295728) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/23/live_music_bill/ The bill repeals some of the worst red tape introduced in the 2003 Licensing Act, which empowered bureaucrats, curtain-twitchers and the police at the expense of music fans. Small venues with a capacity under 200 were particularly affected, as they were required to apply for licences. As a consequence, almost a third of such venues that used to promote music did not apply. This typically meddling legislation also had the bizarre consequence of making the unlicensed use of musical instruments illegal in public, and in schools. Foreign visitors, many of whom are attracted to Britain by its global musical reputation, must have been perplexed by this. It's hard to imagine a more insulting, or less justified, piece of legislative meddling. |
|
24 Jan 12 - 08:09 PM (#3295734) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Drunken-youths-barred-Somerset-Zero-night/story-14333750-detail/story.html John King comments. How much money has been wasted on this idiocy? Alcohol-free music and dance events for 14-17 year-olds are suffocated by local government to such an extent that the number of "workers" from the police, youth service, community safety partnership & South Somerset Council OUTNUMBER the number of youths who attended. Their solution? NHS and youth workers to provide education in schools before any more events take place. |
|
24 Jan 12 - 08:28 PM (#3295741) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1048239 Chair of the Local Government Association's Culture, Tourism and Sport Board, Cllr Chris White said: "Councils already have a strong track record of working with a wide variety of groups to run events which enrich their local communities. We are fully in favour of making it easier for people to hold concerts, plays and public events and we support the aim of making the process as easy, transparent and free from red tape as possible. When will the embarrassing Mr White finally resign to enable a person with some remaining credibility to replace him? |
|
24 Jan 12 - 09:10 PM (#3295758) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/weymouth_olympics_2012/news/homepage/9402870.Weymouth_s___700_000_Bayside_Festival/ A FAMILY festival will be bringing an 'extreme skate park' and reverse bungee jump to Weymouth seafront during the Olympic Sailing events. Weymouth Bayside Festival is costing organisers around £700,000 to stage and will encompass a 13,300 square metre site behind the Pavilion theatre. Highlights will include performances from 250 bands across the two-week period, an arena and food court, street theatre, more than 50 retail stands, plus a Discover Dorset zone featuring up to 20 local artists and craftsmen. The site, which has a capacity for 8,500 people, will also boast a Jurassic exhibit, a technology zone with all the latest innovations and gadgets, giant screens throughout the site and a Try Sailing or Kayaking simulator. On the required and only just posted - Public Notice, my Council have a new Premises License application for the above event , including a line which is asking for "Entertainment Facilities e.g skateboard display park". Since when is skateboading, music and dancing? |
|
25 Jan 12 - 08:27 AM (#3295962) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=86669 The Bill, which allows live music to be played in pubs and other small venues without red tape licensing restrictions, has been welcomed by Cambridge MP, Julian Huppert. "This Bill will bring huge advantages to small venues that are being crippled by unnecessary licensing restrictions," he said. "It means publicans and the organisers of small events held in school and village halls across the city will not have to apply for licenses to play music. "This simple easing of the present restrictions could mean the difference between a pub surviving or struggling to attract customers in this difficult economic climate. |
|
25 Jan 12 - 08:36 AM (#3295965) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Tourism-taskforce-Government-must-cut-red-tape The Government has been urged to make applying for a premises licence easier and to cut red tape on health and safety regulations. The Tourism Regulation Taskforce – chaired by the British Hospitality Association president Alan Parker – has submitted more than 80 proposals to tourism minister John Penrose as part of the Government's Red Tape Challenge. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 01:34 PM (#3297343) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thebreaker.co.uk/2012/01/27/curbs-to-be-relaxed-for-live-music-in-pubs/ The Bill covers protects venues with a capacity of less than 200 people. Even authorities are flummoxed by the objective behind this Bill. "The government is ticking off a bureaucratic hurdle from their list, because this Bill will likely benefit village halls and small community spaces only. However, they did not require a licence for hosting musical gigs in the first place. They only required one in the event they served alcohol," says Frank Wenzel, Licensing Manager, Borough of Poole. An article which manages to miss every point and totally ignores the fact that the Bill has removed Entertainment facilites. And what Poole's licensing Manager may be quoted on is unclear but what is printed here is rubbish. If it were true - there would have been no need for the Live Music Bill. |
|
27 Jan 12 - 01:45 PM (#3297349) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-16748566 John King comments: 30 noise complaints? Or is that just 1 person complaining 30 times? In any case, the club has been closed by the council and that means job losses. Who has suffered the greatest injury: the person moving next door to a licensed premises oblivious to potential for noise disturbance; or the people thrown onto the dole? It is not clear if any of the music here was played live but what certainly clear is that any non-amplified live music that may have had permission as Regulated Entertainment, is now prevented (on the grounds of noise). |
|
27 Jan 12 - 01:56 PM (#3297358) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall What better day than Mozart's birthday for the conclusion of Parliamentary debate on the Live Music Bill. The two minor amendments agreed in Commons Committee were ratified in the House of Lords. We now await dates for Royal Assent and implementation. Speaking to the amendments, Lord Clement-Jones offered his own 'Brit Awards' to those organisations and individuals who had helped him make the Bill a success. Lord Colwyn added his thanks and congratulations. Both expressed the hope that the Bill would be enacted in time for the Queen's Jubilee and Olympics. Lord Clement-Jones added: 'At that time there will be suitable celebrations and performances, I hope, in pubs and clubs up and down the land.' Baroness Rawlings responded: 'My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I would like to add my thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on his persistence and for having successfully steered through this very worthwhile Bill. Regarding the Olympics and Her Majesty the Queen's Jubilee, it would seem appropriate. I will, of course, take the wishes of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones back to the DCMS.' Watch on Parliament tv here (it only lasts a few minutes): http://www.parliamentlive.tv/main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9923 Read in Hansard: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/l_01.htm#d2e25 ENDS |
|
28 Jan 12 - 07:24 AM (#3297755) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/29192 This discussion shows more undeserved praise for the MU and much confusion on the subject. "I thought there was already seperate legislation to deal with noise nuisance".< Of course there is and it is this raft of existing anti-noise legislation that LAs should be using to deal with any form of noise pollution and which makes possible, this small but welcome relaxation in ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing permission. This is only a start........... There is for example special noise legislation measures which automatically kick-in at 11pm. HOWEVER, even after the Live Music Bill and on the grounds of (only potential noise) - non-amplified sessions will still be subject to the full requirement for ADDITIONAL Entertainment permission, automatically on the stroke of 11pm!!! Without obtaining this permission, any session which extends after 11pm (even in pubs which remain open to serve alcohol to much later) will be illegal and will render the licensee (and possibly the session organiser/leader) liable to a max of 6 months in prison or a £20,000 fine. There is still a long way to go.......but please do not perpetuate the myth that ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing - often required in advance of a note of music being sounded - can be any use in dealing with noise pollution. The use of thismeasure can only continue to needlessly prevent and limit live music, and especially non-amplified sessions, when these activities in practice present no measureable noise pollution. |
|
28 Jan 12 - 12:19 PM (#3297913) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles With the Live Music Bill, there has been some move in the legislation back to before when Alcohol and Entertainment were linked together and required the same licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act). For the LMB has once again secured some sensible safeguards for small-scale live music, which were lost under the Act. It has obtained these for venues which would not normally serve alcohol, when such safeguards as there were previous to the Act, like the 'two-in-a-bar rule' were confined to pubs etc. But we now have a new situation which was not previously an issue for live music, as venues licensed for alcohol were all mainly closed around 11.30pm, unless permission (usually in the form of additional licensing permission) was obtain to enable later closing times. We have the situation where pub & clubs can now serve alcohol until much later than 11pm but where additional entertainment licensing must be obtained in order for live music to continue past 11pm. With the Live Music Bill in place, should any session which is taking place in any venue without additional entertainment licensing in place, extend past 11pm - the activity will become illegal at this point and the licensee (and possibly the session's organiser) will be liable for the Max of 6 Months in prison or a £20,000 fine. This 11pm curfew is said to be required on the grounds of preventing noise - and automatically applies even where the music is non-amplified and despite the fact that special anti-noise measures already kick-in at 11pm and before a note of music has been sounded to establish if the live music is a noise pollution concern or not. The irony is that the Govt's support for the LMB (the reason it passed) was conditional on this 11pm curfew being set in the LMB but when the consultation for the Govt's own proposal contain a very good argument against the introduction of such a set time. As the main argument against continued additional entertainment licensing is that it is now duplication of issues already covered by other existing legislation - it seems that this set curfew when additional entertainment will automatically kick in, is already covered and is duplication of issues that are already covered. The MU, in refusing calls from their membership to publicly oppose the main issue for their members which is contained in Licensing Act 2003 - are supporting the 'spurious' basic premise on which the requirement for the Act's remaining additional entertainment licensing permission is based. This premise is that, in advance of a note of music being sounded, live music and musicians will automatically present concerns which existing planning, environmental, health, safety and other legislation is inadequate to deal with and which only additional entertainment licensing permission is adequate to deal with. Any remaining supporters of the expensive additional entertainment permission measures contained in the Licensing Act 2003, need to finally inform us of exactly what the concerns are, which only this additional entertainment licensing permission is adequate to deal with, why this other existing legislation is inadequate and why this cannot be made fit for purpose? Until and unless they can convince us of this, perhaps the poor old and long-suffering scapegoat - that is live music and musicians - can finally be set free? The DCMS now have the results of the latest of many such consultations and perhaps will be either prepared to try and convince us or be brave enough to finally bury the concept on which additional entertainment licensing permission (for every occasion) is based. There comes a time when the stabilising wheels on a child's bicycle have served their purpose and where retaining them can only impede forward progress. At this point, these wheels can safely be removed. This is the point that the use of additional entertainment licensing permission (for all occasions) has now reached. |
|
29 Jan 12 - 08:28 PM (#3298796) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Live-music-regulations-set-to-become-law The de-regulation of live music licensing is now all-but inevitable after lords approved the Live Music Bill in Parliament. John King comments: Tourism and heritage minister John Penrose said: "This is just one step in what I hope will be a much larger process of removing burdens across all forms of regulated entertainment. ...Following our public consultation on this I hope to set out how we might take this forward in the next few months." |
|
30 Jan 12 - 09:02 AM (#3299002) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://licensing.suffolkcoastal.gov.uk/protected/wca/publicRegisterLicActPremisesLevel3.jsp John King comments: In the Suffolk borough of Snape, Licensing Officers are hard at work protecting locals from the village hall. Snape Village Hall has this licence condition: "In the event of fire, the Fire Service shall be called immediately". It also has this condition on the performance of plays: "The Licensee shall not allow any lewd, obscene or indecent performance to take place on the licensed premises". The Licensing Act 2003 explicitly forbids councils from censoring plays. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 09:09 AM (#3299008) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16743143 John King comments: As was widely reported, all Olympic venues will have to abide by Sunday trading laws. But they will also have to abide by music licensing laws, which in the case of the premises licence of the Olympic Stadium, prevent the playing of music through the Stadium PA. The opening ceremony won't be much fun if the Live Music Act isn't enabled in time. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 09:50 AM (#3299045) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.local.gov.uk/web/10161/legislation/-/journal_content/56/10161/3168126/ARTICLE-TEMPLATE It is clear from the above, that the LGA Group lobby do not intend to support any further deregulation for live music - which they continue to maintain is presenting more concerns than the same-size gatherings for any other purpose than live music. We therefore propose that the following low-risk activities would benefit from deregulation between 07:00 and 23:00 and for audiences up to 500: a performance of a play an exhibition of a film an indoor sporting events a performance of dance. They are continuing the position that all live music presents special risks that the other gatherings, listed above do not present, that planning, environmental, health & safety and other existing legislation is inadequte to deal with and which only the requirement of the ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing permission contained in the Licensing Act 2003 is able to address. The supporting evidence as to why live music and musicians present such serious problems is not very convincing and it never has been. Indoor music events – recorded and live Events using both live and recorded music help to generate a healthy, world-class music industry. Councils want to help music events to continue to prosper to ensure that music can be enjoyed by as many people as possible. However, it is also the role of councils to balance this with the views of residents living nearby whose quality of life will be impacted by excessive noise and nuisance. Councils also have a duty to protect the welfare of staff and attendees at the music events. The clear message from councils is that events playing live or recorded music inevitably generate more noise and attract more people. This means the risk to attendees is higher and inevitably the nuisance for local residents is greater. It is vital that councils can still protect both of these groups by working in partnership with live and recorded music venues to minimise risks. The current licensing process facilitates this relationship and provides clear powers for a council to respond to issues that do arise. Before councils consider supporting any form of deregulation of live or recorded music we must first understand more about how the proposed deregulation of entertainment events will impact on premises' licenses for the sale of alcohol. We consider this in more detail from paragraph 34 onwards. This will be crucial in determining whether councils feel they have sufficient powers to support the deregulation of live or recorded music. Before the LGA lobby wander off the subject into alcohol related concerns as if these were connected and they consider continuing the case that all live music presents special risks that the other gatherings, listed above do not present, that planning, environmental, health & safety and other existing legislation is inadequte to deal with and which only the requirement of the ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing permission contained in the Licensing Act 2003 is able to address - perhaps they MUST first provide some convincing evidence? If current alcohol licensing and anti-noise legislation is inadequte or the local enforcement of these areas is insufficiently staffed - then it these which need to be addressed and the long suffering scapegoat that is live music and musicians can be finally free of the prejudice that continued to prevent and limit it. The staff currently wasting our time and money in Entertainment Licensing can be deployed in areas where their best efforts may ensure that we all can get a good night's sleep. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 12:29 PM (#3299142) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://voice-online.co.uk/article/brand-jamaica-comes-town-olympics John King comments: Predictably, Haringey Council ruins Jamaican music event with demands for an army of 200-225 security staff. 'When contacted Haringey council confirmed Jamaica Village's licensing application had been received "well within recommended timelines" but declined to comment on why it had placed tough rules on the organisers.' It reveals that Jamaica Village, which will operate from 11.00 am to 11.00 pm each day, must have: • Three quiet days during the event * 200 to 225 security staff every day • Bars closed at 10.00 pm • All visitors searched • Live music on the main stage shut down by 8.00pm and other entertainment by 10.30 pm Of course all visitors to the Olympic events which are taking place at the same time - will also have be subjected to a search......As a pig is seen flying across a blue moon.... |
|
30 Jan 12 - 12:40 PM (#3299146) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9497771.Pub_to_open_longer_despite_opposition/ A STRATTON pub has been granted longer opening hours in the face of opposition from residents after the proposed time periods were reduced. The Wheatsheaf, in Ermin Street, has been granted an extra half an hour to its licensed hours at the weekends, meaning it can supply alcohol until midnight on Friday and Saturday and 11pm on Sunday John King comments:Again, one person moves next door and complains. Any conditions restricting live music will be removed by the Live Music Bill (before 11pm), but the Govt has yet to come up with proposals to protect businesses and jobs from vexatious locals. |
|
30 Jan 12 - 12:52 PM (#3299151) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbrian-pub-welcomes-bid-to-ease-live-music-rules-1.919904?referrerPath=news A Carlisle bar has welcomed a bid that will make it easier for pubs and clubs to hold live music – potentially boosting business. Alex Murrell, supervisor at the Thin White Duke on Carlisle's Devonshire Street, said that the relaxed law would encourage the venue to put on live music. He said: "We have never done live music before but that would be cool."It's something that we are looking into anyway and the easier it is the better. We're well up for it." |
|
30 Jan 12 - 01:07 PM (#3299159) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4093227/Olympics-news-Giant-bell-to-open-Olympic-Games.html John King comments: Giant Bell to open Olympic Ceremony? Provision of facilities for making music at the stadium has not been licensed. The £27million show "Isles Of Wonder" is inspired by Shakespeare? Performance of plays at the stadium have not been licensed. Madness to perform at closing ceremony? There's no licence to provide a stage for live music. They can however mime, but mime itself remains a criminal offence. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 04:53 AM (#3299540) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/jamaica-village-consultation-on-details-closes-29th-february?commentId=844301%3AComm John King Comments:More details of the Jamaica Village licence fiasco. As part of the deal to allow the event to go ahead Haringay Council have helped themselves to 4,000 free tickets. "The Police asked for a number of measures to be put in place for the event and these have been incorporated into the license conditions." It remains to be seen if Form 696 is a requirement. It certainly wasn't for Madness. But Madness aren't "black". In addition as part of the Land Use Agreement we secured 4000 free tickets for the event which we will be distributing to those who otherwise would not be able to afford to attend the event. If you have any thoughts about a worthy group or idea to distribute tickets then please feel free to include this in your response also. It is difficult to see how this event could even break even when it has to lose the ticket money for 4,000 people. Can you see such extortion by Westminster Council to enable "those who otherwise would not be able to afford to attend the event" to attend The Royal Opera? Most of us would be included in the category of those who otherwise would not be able to afford to attend that and similar London events. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 08:37 AM (#3299604) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2012-01-30a.92606.h&s=music John KIng comments:What's good for the goose... Another question might be: Did management at the O2 Arena run a Form 696 background check on a US musician (Rihanna) when she performed in 2011? Greenwich Council made Form 696 check a COMPULSORY licence condition at the O2. It would have been a potential criminal offence for a Form 696 NOT to be completed. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 08:49 AM (#3299614) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/news/gatwick-news/landlord_welcomes_change_to_music_bill_1_3453707 But some believe relaxing music licensing could cause disturbances. Crawley MP Henry Smith, who attended the debate, said: "I believe licensing for live music venues of under 200 people between 8-11pm should continue so that the needs of local residents who may be affected can be taken into account as can safety and security concerns of concert-goers. "It is important that elected councils should be allowed to act in the interests of local people." It was a good job that Henry Smith MP, who claims to have attended the debate, did not vote. It was so quick, he must have missed it! |
|
31 Jan 12 - 08:50 AM (#3299615) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles |
|
31 Jan 12 - 08:56 AM (#3299617) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles OOOOPS! "It is important that elected councils should be allowed to act in the interests of local people." It is equally important to remind those who make statements like this - that the interests of local people also incude those who play,are interested in live music and earn their living from it and that local councils very seldom do act in the interests of anyone who is not sending them letters of objections and complaints. |
|
31 Jan 12 - 08:27 PM (#3299976) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles Crawley MP Henry Smith, who attended the debate, said: "I believe licensing for live music venues of under 200 people between 8-11pm should continue so that the needs of local residents who may be affected can be taken into account as can safety and security concerns of concert-goers. John King comments: Henry Smith may not realise - as many people do not - that all premises licences converted in Nov 2005 inherited an embedded right to hold DJ events. In effect DJs were not licensed - as they did not require prior permission to perform. Why then is this sudden concern over the capacity of 200 for LIVE music, when RECORDED music (and pub quizzes, dart matches, televised football etc) has been able to stay within the licensed capacity of the premises using existing legislation. Any remaining supporters like MR Smith MP, of the expensive and complicated process involved in the ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing permission measures which are contained in the Licensing Act 2003, need to finally inform us of exactly what the ADDITIONAL concerns are, which do not currently arise at non-musical gatherings and which only this additional entertainment licensing permission is adequate to ensure the public's interests. The whole premise of why ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing is still stated to be required - is the bizarre argument that, in places already risk assessed for the public to safely gather - the playing of live music (and live music only) creates such an ADDITIONAL risk to the public's interest that only ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing can deal with this ADDITIONAL risk. What exactly is this ADDITIONAL risk that threatens the public gathered in pub or school in order to listen or play live music that is not present in the same venue for their other activities and for a performance of stand-up comedy (which does not currently require ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing) for example? Again, it quite bizarre that the LGA Group lobby find themselves in general acceptance of the Govt's proposed removal of other activities, like the performance of a play - but not for live music which they still maintains presents ADDITIONAL risks but for which no supporting evidence is supplied. It is also implied (by those who do not understand and by those who would intentionally mislead) that the current anti-noise legislation is somehow inadequate to protect the public's interest - but only it would appear in response to where there is any proposal to further remove ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing. The further removal of ADDITIONAL Etertainment Licensing will certainly help live music but it will not have any effect on the level of actual noise concerns. |
|
01 Feb 12 - 03:52 AM (#3300093) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.classicfm.co.uk/music/interviews/orchestra-age-enlightenment-take-pubs/ The Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment are embarking on a very special tour at the end of this month, bringing the works of Handel, Purcell and Tartini to pubs. |
|
01 Feb 12 - 08:19 AM (#3300215) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://blogs.culture.gov.uk/main/2012/01/red_tape_lester_piggott_and_a.html As part of all this, I was also pleased this week to start the formal process of scrapping a particularly bonkers pair of regulations that came into being as part of the 2005 Gambling Act. Did you know, for example, that it's against the law to employ anyone under 18 in any capacity or in any job on a racecourse where betting takes place? Or that you can't locate a fruit machine in an 'airside bar' at a British airport? Neither rule has any logical basis. Any more examples for Licesing Minister Mr Penrose? |
|
02 Feb 12 - 07:21 AM (#3300750) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Red-tape-curbs-likely-by-year-end-claims-DCMS The Government could act to cut further red tape on the industry by the end of the year, the Department for Culture Media & Sport (DCMS) has confirmed. |
|
03 Feb 12 - 04:04 PM (#3301653) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://blogs.culture.gov.uk/main/2012/02/jedward_world_heritage_hors_do.html Good News from Parliament So, what else can we talk about? I know. A Private Member's Bill – The Live Music Bill – finally made its way through the many and various stages of the legislative process. Parliament-watchers will know just how impressive this is. PMBs, as they are known, can be blown off course by the slightest thing – whether it's the Government of the day withholding support at a critical moment or one of the back-bench awkward squad shouting 'object' at just about any point. So congratulations to the people behind it, and to everyone who supported it, and most of all to the collective common sense without which etc. As you'll have guessed, the Bill wouldn't be about to become an act without Government support in the shape of my team at DCMS beavering away to help behind the scenes. My thanks to them, and now we can move on to build on the spirit of the Live Music Bill ourselves, with a broader reform of licensing rules and regulations affecting entertainment more generally. I've written about this in the past and we spent a fair slice of last year consulting the trade and the public on what they thought of our plans. There were hundreds of responses so inevitably we have to move at a slower pace than the PMB was able to do. But be assured, we'll get there as quickly as we possibly can. Do I detect an attitude that ammounts to a message to live music - saying 'that's your lot mate'.....? |
|
03 Feb 12 - 04:12 PM (#3301659) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/letters/feature.php/35112/rejoicing-as-bill-is-passed And a great big note of thanks is due to Hamish Birchall, the musician who relentlessly made it his business to follow every twist and turn of the campaign and keep us all up to date with what was going on. The success of the Live Music Bill will give a tremendous boost to the entertainment industry, particularly in this Olympic year, when we are all in the world's spotlight. But one question occurs to me: Will there be any pubs left to play in? Annie Bright Equity Councillor - Variety, Light Entertainment and Circus Poplar Walk London SE24 |
|
03 Feb 12 - 04:16 PM (#3301662) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://chriswhite.mycouncillor.org.uk/2012/02/03/farmers-boy-application-for-more-live-music-nights/ John KIng comments: Why are there so many objections about live music licences? Here's the Farmer's Boy in St Albans applying for an extra live music night - and here's the LGA "culture" spokesman soliciting objections from residents. |
|
04 Feb 12 - 08:32 AM (#3301976) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.leamingtonobserver.co.uk/2012/01/29/news-Priest's-protest-over-pub-license-bid-28547.html About a dozen other letters of objection have been sent to the council about the license application, from a school chair of governors and neighbouring residents including Carolyn Gifford who has logged every incident of nuisance around the bar – under its previous management - over the last four years. Bosses of the bar want permission to sell alcohol from 10am to midnight Sunday to Thursday, and from 10am to 1am Friday and Saturday, as well host and play live and recorded music and operate as an off-licence on the site until 11pm throughout the week. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 06:57 AM (#3303591) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/business/licensing_and_permits/entertainment_and_alcohol/licensing_act/licensing_consul John King comments: Here's Chester and Chester West Council advertising for objections to licences. From their website: "If you have concerns that an application will have a negative effect for you or your family or organisation you can make a representation (an objection to it)". No mention that a representation can be in SUPPORT of a licence, and that councils are supposed to equal weight to both sides of an argument. |
|
07 Feb 12 - 07:46 AM (#3303612) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.dorsetforyou.com/401679 The above link does make reference to Representations can be either for or against proposals in the application. I will take full credit for this (later) insertion - however this document is still on the site and is unchanged since my first dealings of the Cove House Inn, way back in 2001! http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=163584&filetype=pdf WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND BOROUGH COUNCIL LICENSING COMMITTEE PROCEDURE The Chair introduces Members of the Committee and Council Officers present and invites identification of other persons present at the meeting. The objectors will be asked to identify one or at most two representatives to speak on their behalf. If the applicant is not represented he/she is informed of their right to be so represented. The Licensing Manager outlines details of the application. The applicant is invited to present the case. Committee Members will be invited to ask questions. The objectors' representative will be invited to question the applicant. The Chair will ask other objectors whether there is anything they wish to add. Where appropriate the Police or technical advisers to the Committee will make their observations. Ward Members may assist the Panel in matters of local knowledge but if objecting must do so in writing in advance in the usual way. The applicant will be invited to ask questions of the Police and/or technical advisers. The objectors' representative will be invited to make submissions. Committee Members may wish to seek clarification on the points raised. The applicant will be invited to ask questions of the objectors. The applicant will be permitted to 'sum up'. The applicant, objectors, Officers and Legal Officer (other than the Minute Taker) and third parties will withdraw. Note that with the exception of the Legal Officer, if one party is to be recalled, then all should be recalled. If the Legal Officer is recalled without the other parties being recalled, the legal advice they give will be repeated when all other parties are recalled. Committee Members consider the merits of the application. The Chair may recall the Legal Officer to provide legal advice and assistance. The parties are invited back into the meeting. 18. The Chair will: (a) Notify the applicant of the Committee's decision and will usually state that confirmation of it will be in writing. (b) Give brief details of any conditions attaching to the Licence approval; or (c) Outline the reasons for the refusal (if any). Note that this will not always be the case and often the detailed reasons will be set out in the written confirmation. (d) Inform the applicant of his/her right of appeal to the Magistrates' Court if available. (Taxi, Private Hire and Public Entertainment applications only.) These rules of procedure are issued for guidance and may be departed from at the discretion of the Chair where necessary to deal with the application expeditiously and fairly. |
|
08 Feb 12 - 07:53 PM (#3304612) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Opinion/Peter-Coulson/How-to-get-rid-of-surplus-conditions "One practitioner told me last week she had yet to see a licence returned after grant that was accurate. My own experience is similar." |
|
08 Feb 12 - 07:58 PM (#3304618) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles https://www.musictank.co.uk/blog/form-696-lives We should remember that far from being scrapped, this form is still in use and is currently a condition of license for more than a 100 London venues as well as a standard part of a risk assessment in 21 London Boroughs. |
|
11 Feb 12 - 12:18 PM (#3306029) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.john-gaunt.co.uk/news/299/scotland-public-entertainment-licensing Currently a licence is required when anyone intends to have entertainment, such as a dance, concert, variety show or other entertainment to which members of the public are to be admitted and where some payment for admission is to be paid. The Act repeals the words "on payment of money or money's worth" from section 41(2) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. This allows licensing authorities to control large-scale public entertainments that are free to enter. Further, authorities will have the discretion to license events such as gala days or school fetes. |
|
14 Feb 12 - 09:52 AM (#3308326) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/ACPO-wants-risk-assessments-for-live-music He added: "The question we are asking ourselves is why we have the regulation in the first place? Quite clearly it is there to assist us and you in preventing harm to people. By this logic of course - once you have regulated (or over-regulated) something - there can never be any de-regulation of anything. |
|
23 Feb 12 - 08:09 AM (#3312079) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-bar-familiar-with-rowdy-scenes-7400844.html The Strangers Bar - scene of an alleged brawl last night - has for long been the rowdiest bar in the Palace of Westminster, with the possible exception of the Press Bar. It has for long been nicknamed either The Stranglers or more frequently The Kremlin, because its patrons were more likely to be Labour MPs than anyone else. And it gained a reputation as a kind of spit-and-sawdust venue, whose customers preferred pints of bitter to the more "sophisticated" drinks imbibed in other Westminster bars. |
|
06 Mar 12 - 02:17 PM (#3318314) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1048749 The Live Music Bill is on course to receive Royal Assent on Thursday, but won't be implemented into law until October. |
|
07 Mar 12 - 11:45 AM (#3318713) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall The Live Music Bill will become the Live Music Act tomorrow morning when it receives Royal Assent in the House of Lords: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/livemusichl.html However, the legislation is unlikely to come into force until October. On 27th January, when the Bill completed its Parliamentary stages, the possibility of early implementation in time for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations and the Olympics was raised by Lord Colwyn and Lord Clement-Jones, co-sponsor of the Bill with Don Foster MP. But the statutory licensing guidance that accompanies the Licensing Act ('Guidance issued under s182 of the Licensing Act 2003') must first be substantially revised, with input from key stakeholders, including the police and Local Government Association (LGA). This is essential if the legislation is not to be misunderstood and misapplied by all sides, as has so often happened in the past. Some in the music press seem to think that the Bill marks the culmination of a few years lobbying by musicians and the music industry. In fact, it has taken more than 30 years of lobbying and campaigning by musicians, backed by a coalition of the music industry, arts organisations and performers' unions, to arrive at this historic moment for the regulation of live music in England and Wales. Since at least the mid-1980s, musicians have been making representations to central government to relax entertainment licensing because it was hindering or actually preventing small gigs. Hopes were raised when New Labour announced an overhaul of licensing in 1998, but dashed when it became clear in 2002 that controls were actually to be increased, with the scrapping of the exemption for one or two musicians in bars, and the introduction of licensing for 'entertainment facilities'. When implemented, the Live Music Act will do away with the entertainment facilities licensing requirement. The unlicensed provision of pianos, or other instruments, for use in live performance will no longer be a potential criminal offence. Performances of live music between 8am and 11pm will be exempt in pubs, bars, restaurants, schools, hospitals, and indeed all premises falling within the definition of a 'workplace' for the purposes of health and safety legislation. For amplified music, audiences are limited to 200. There is no audience limit for unamplified live music. In premises already licensed for alcohol, existing conditions relating to the provision of live music will not be enforceable for performances between 8am and 11pm. But if there are noise problems, and complaints, a licence review could result in enforceable conditions. The Bill also amends the Licensing Act to allow amplified live music to accompany performances of morris dancing or dancing of a similar nature. Ironically, while deregulation for live music is going ahead in England and Wales, in Scotland entertainment licensing is being increased, much to the annoyance of those at the receiving end: http://bit.ly/A1ekNr This is an untenable position for the Scottish government. The rationale for entertainment licensing there is the same: to control public safety and noise. But the legislation that regulates public safety and noise applies across the UK. It is absurd to have within one jurisdiction essentially the same gig legal in one part, but illegal in another, unless licensed. ENDS |
|
09 Mar 12 - 05:05 AM (#3320350) Subject: RE: Licensing consultation announced! From: GUEST,The Shambles http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/news-events/2012/03/08/live-music-bill-passed-its-final-stages-in-the-commons-on-friday/ The LMB goes somewhere to repair the damage done to live music and to all musicians by the Licensing Act 2003. Whoever's watch on the MU, under which this damage was allowed to take place should be expected or asked to resign. |