Licencing Exemption discussion.
This is a brief summary of the government's documents - it has no legal authority and vast chunks of informative and helpful text have been omitted - please look at the original if you have the time. - Beau Webber.
The Government’s proposal :
The Government proposes to introduce a revocable exemption for small live music events performed for 100 people or fewer in licensed and unlicensed premises from the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to the licensing of live music as regulated entertainment.
"In general, the regulation of live music under the Act is justified by the potential impact of some live music event on the promotion of the licensing objectives
"For example, residents living next door to a public house in a residential terrace, may be disturbed by loud performances of live music late at night, or by large numbers of people leaving the venue. Some live music events may also give rise to crime and disorder or endanger public safety."
"The Government considers that small live music events for 100 people or fewer are, in practice, extremely unlikely to give rise to these concerns."
This paper discusses the financial and other costs of the present act -
i.e. "At the top end, a noise limiter can cost around £3000".
"We have tentatively estimated that this administrative saving could be around £406K - £881k per year. This does not take into account some costs of putting on live music that are difficult to quantity, such as the cost of new conditions applied when new applications or variations are granted. We also estimate that there will be fee savings of around £379K - £503K."
"We think that this measure will primarily benefit many small venues that wish to hold live music events, but are deterred by the licensing requirements and costs. It will also benefit musicians who may find more opportunities to perform."
Who will be affected by the proposals?
The proposals will affect:
• Licensed premises such as clubs and pubs, unlicensed premises such as cafes, restaurants, scout huts, record shops, etc. and individuals that wish to stage small, live music events;
• Musicians particularly those starting out in the business - who will benefit from the greater availability of venues;
• Licensing authorities, who will have to administer the new process.
• Responsible authorities, who will need to be aware of the new process and their right to call for the revocation of an exemption;
• The wider public and communities who will benefit from the increased opportunity to hear live music, but will also need to be aware of how they can take action if an exempt live music event leads to problems at a premises near them.
Conditions of exemption
5.1 The Government proposes to exempt from the Act small live music events in licensed and unlicensed premises subject to the following conditions:
a) The performance takes place wholly inside a building.
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.
b) The audience does not exceed 100 people and is accommodated entirely inside the building where the performance is taking place.
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.
c) The performance does not take place between 11pm and 8am.
Question 4: Do you agree that exempt performances should not take place between 11pm and 8am? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.
d) The performance does not take place in a premises which is subject to an ‘exclusion’ decision.
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.
Licence conditions relating to the performance of exempted live music.
5.3 Unlicensed premises that wish to stage live music events that qualify for the exemption will not need to make any kind of application to the licensing authority; the exemption will automatically apply. However, licensed premises that already stage live music and qualify for the exemption may still have conditions attached to their licence in connection with their live music provision.
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.
Legislative Reform Order: Pre-conditions
Precondition (a): non-legislative solutions :
The Government is therefore satisfied that this proposal cannot be achieved by non-legislative means.
Question 8: Do you agree that this proposal cannot be achieved by non-legislative means? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.
Precondition (b): the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective
Question 9: Do you agree that the effect of the proposal is proportionate to the policy objective? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.
Precondition (c): the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it.
6.6 The public interest lies in: ensuring that live music can flourish, to the benefit of the wider community; providing more small venues where musicians, particularly young musicians who need to hone their skills in front of smaller audiences, can perform; and in ensuring that small venues can diversify their offer and generate income by putting on low risk live music. Any person who is adversely affected by an exempt live music performance will be able to apply to the licensing authority to have the exemption reviewed and if necessary, excluded. An exclusion decision will take effect as soon as it is made (even if there is an appeal), ensuring that residents and others are not exposed to further noise nuisance or other problems. The Government therefore considers that this proposal strikes a fair balance.
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.
Precondition (d) the provision does not remove any necessary protection
6.7 The requirements of the Act in relation to live music are intended to ensure that local residents, businesses etc are protected from potential noise nuisance, crime and disorder, etc. that may arise from live music events. The
The Government does not therefore consider that this proposal would remove any unnecessary protections.
Question 11: Do you agree that the proposal does not remove any necessary protection? Yes/No. If No, please explain why
Precondition (e) the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise
6.8 Residents and responsible authorities currently have the right to call for a review of any premises licence or club premises certificate if there are problems at a specific premises which affect the licensing objectives. They will continue to exercise this right in relation to exempt live music through the exclusion process. The restrictions on the exemption and existing sanctions under other enforcement regime will preserve freedoms from noise nuisance, crime and disorder, etc that any person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.
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.
Precondition (f): constitutional significance
6.9 The proposal is considered to have no constitutional significance.
Question 13: Do you agree that the proposal has no constitutional significance? Yes/No. If No, please explain why.