Responses to consultation1 Introduction

1.1 The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea encourages business and cultural activities. However, we also need to promote the well being of our residents. We must balance the interests of business and cultural activities against the interests of our residents. We believe that the Licensing Act 2003 offers us the tools to maintain a proper balance between the interests of residents and those of business and cultural activities.

1.2 Large scale deregulation of entertainment activities will upset the delicate balance between commercial or cultural activities and residents’ desire to have peaceful enjoyment of their homes. This borough is one of the most densely populated areas in Europe, and the Licensing Act gives us the power to regulate noise from licensed premises and is key to maintaining that balance. Many of our premises are of small or medium size and will be deregularised under these proposals. Removing the regulation of live music, recorded music and dance from a large number of premises in the Royal Borough will, inevitably, create a significant decrease to the quality of life of our residents contrary to the declared general aim of improving the quality of life.

1.1 It should be appreciated that the density of population in RBKC means that many residents live either above licensed premises or are immediately adjacent with a common party wall. In reality the overwhelming majority of our licensed premises are in residential areas.

1.2 We remain to be convinced that there is any need for these changes, bearing in mind the conclusion in the DCMS paper “Changes in live music between 2005 and 2009” (attached as Appendix A) which states:

“Overall the live music sector is thriving. DCMS data show an increased number of premises licences with provision for live music and an increased proportion of the adult population attending live music events which are consistent with industry data on the live music sector. However this growth has been concentrated at medium and larger venues…”

1.5 Evidence suggests that this is not due to live music licensing but wider economic factors such as the decline in the overall number of pubs and bars and changes in the live music industry itself, responding to the falling profitability of recorded music by promoting events at large venues.

1

1.6 Deregulation is likely to lead to increase in noise nuisance arising from wholly unsuitable premises with poor sound proofing which could cause unnecessary disturbance and distress to residents.

1.7 The Notting Hill Carnival takes place mainly within this borough. Over many years the Council, Police and Carnival organisers have worked hard to ensure that the event starts to close down at a reasonable time in order to ensure the safety of the one million plus attendees and to minimise noise disturbance through the night for local residents. Permissions for music events connected to Carnival are limited to 7pm to assist in the “closedown”. Deregulation as proposed would result in significant difficulties for the Police, Council and recognised Carnival organisers in trying to maintain a 7pm “closedown”. This will create a significant risk of crime, disorder and disturbance late into the night.

1.8 2012 is also the year of the London Olympic Games, during which time the Emergency Services and London Councils will have their resources significantly stretched ensuring that notified events take place peacefully. If any deregulation becomes effective before the Games there is a high risk that the already stretched resources of these services will not be able to deal effectively with additional, unregulated events. We recommend that no deregulation becomes effective until the London Olympic and Paralympic Games have come to a close

1.9 The Royal Borough’s overall position is to oppose the proposals to deregulate live music, recorded music and dance. However, we see some benefits in deregulating some parts of what is now collectively known as “regulated entertainment”. We ask that you bear this in mind when considering our answers to the questions.

2.0 We believe that this shows that the existing Licensing Act works. Deregulation will bring no significant benefits. Instead, deregulation as you propose will result in adverse environmental impacts.

2.1 All parts of the country are not identical. Should there be a need for a national deregulation policy then local authorities should be allowed to impose certain restrictions, as approved under their respective Statements of Licensing Policy, to protect residents from unreasonable levels of nuisance and to ensure that their rights under the Human Rights Act are protected.

2.2 Previous licensing legislation gave Local Authorities the ability to exempt certain types of activities from licensing fees. We believe that extending this to allow Licensing Authorities to exempt some events from all licensing requirements would be a more sensible

2

method of deregulation than that contained in these proposals. Licensing Authorities know their own areas and know which events would be unlikely to cause noise, nuisance and crime and disorder.

3

Q1: Do you agree that the proposals outlined in this consultation will lead to more performances, and would benefit community and voluntary organisations? If yes, please can you estimate the amount of extra events that you or your organisation or that you think others would put on?

In the vast majority of cases in the Royal Borough, applications for the provision of live and recorded music have already been approved. 83% of premises with premises licences have been granted permission to provide at least one of the activities that DCMS is proposing to deregulate. We are content that operators who wish to provide this type of entertainment already have the relevant permissions, or submit Temporary Event Notices for special occasions. We do not believe that any significant numbers of additional music/dance events will occur if this deregulation is approved. Within the borough we have a number of community and voluntary organisations, many of which put on events that include regulated entertainment. The current requirements in the Licensing Act have not proved to be a barrier against these organisations holding events. We do not believe that this proposed deregulation will result in any significant increase in these events.

While we do not expect any great increase in the number of events, we can expect an increase in the hours they operate and this will be the major problem in a densely built up area. Our officers always make themselves available to assist organisers in completing applications or Temporary Event notifications, thereby simplifying the process where necessary.

Q2: If you are replying as an individual, do you think this proposal would help you participate in, or attend, extra community or voluntary performance?

Not applicable.

Q3: Do you agree with our estimates of savings to businesses, charitable and voluntary organisations as outlined in the impact assessment? If you do not, please outline the areas of difference and any figures that you think need to be taken into account (see paragraph 57 of the Impact Assessment).

No Comment

Q4: Do you agree with our estimates of potential savings and costs to local authorities, police and others as outlined in the impact assessment? If you do not, please outline the areas of difference and any figures you think need to be taken into account.

4

We believe that the costs to this local authority will exceed the estimates given in the Impact Assessment. This document estimates that the cost of carrying out a review of a premises licence is £1,200. The cost to the Royal Borough for carrying out this duty is in excess of £2,600, and this does not include the significant follow up costs of defending appeals against review decisions at the Magistrates Court. On average this borough holds 6 review hearings per year but, should this proposed deregulation take place, we estimate that this will at least double. This alone will result in an increased cost of at least £15,600. In 40% of review cases the decision of the Licensing Committee is subject to an appeal lodged at the Magistrates Court. Each appeal costs in excess of £20,000, resulting in a further additional cost to the council of £48,000. The total, additional, costs for this borough in relation to review hearings is estimated to be in excess of £63,600.

The Noise and Nuisance service currently receives in excess of 10,000 service requests (complaints) a year. The estimated increase of 5-10% (an estimate factually unsupported which we believe is likely to be a significant underestimate) in noise complaints would represent up to an extra 1000 complaints per year that would need to be handled and this would have a significant impact on resources in this authority. It would increase already high officer caseloads and this will affect the ability of officers to deal effectively with their cases. The risk is that residents will receive a reduced service unless officer numbers are increased and in this climate that is very unlikely. This change would see a reduction in service to service-users in the current structure. A costing exercise in February 2011 calculated that every complaint received was on average costing the Council in the region of £40 to investigate. On this basis an increase in 1000 complaints would cost £40,000. This is close to equating to one member of staff.

Q5: Would you expect any change in the number of noise complaints as a result of these proposals? If you do, please provide a rationale and evidence, taking into account the continuation of licensing authority controls on alcohol licensed premises and for late night refreshment

RBKC is a densely populated Borough with commercial premises and residential premises sitting in close proximity to each other. Commercial areas, unlike in other parts of the country, are not separate and residential accommodation sits either above or adjacent to commercial businesses. If operators of commercial premises know that current constraints in this area are likely to be relaxed then they are likely to take a more relaxed approach to the processes and procedures they currently have in place at these events. This will have a negative impact on residents. As noise controls are relaxed by commercial operations it will lead to increased complaints being made to the Council by its residents and could cause nuisance.

5

This Council, even with licensing law as it stands, operates a Noise and Nuisance service that operates until the early hours of the morning 7 days a week, and a high proportion of this demand responds to complaints from residents about music noise. This service responds to noise issues affecting the quality of residents’ lives in the borough and with this proposal the demands on this service will increase. We have significant evidence of business and resident tensions in this borough around disturbance by noise and any relaxation of the law will exacerbate this.

The continuation of local authority controls on alcohol licensed premises and for late night refreshment will not, by themselves, be sufficient to prevent later hours of loud music with the possibility of increased nuisance.

Reduced regulation would almost certainly see an increase in complaints from residents. Our current service would need to be extended to cater for this with a corresponding increase in running costs. This could well mean the employment of at least two further members of staff to operate increased shift hours. This would see a cost in the region of £100,000.

Q6: The Impact Assessment for these proposals makes a number of assumptions around the number of extra events, and likely attendance that would arise, if the deregulation proposals are implemented. If you disagree with the assumptions, as per paragraphs 79 and 80 of the Impact Assessment, please provide estimates of what you think the correct ranges should be and explain how those figures have been estimated.

We do not anticipate at this stage that there will be any significant increase in the numbers of events held in this borough as a result of this wholesale deregulation. As we have already stated in this response, we generally approve applications for premises’ entertainment provision in this borough, but we impose safeguards to protect neighbouring residents’ interests through licence conditions. We are concerned that, rather than increasing the number of extra events, deregulation will allow existing operators to exceed their current permissions and, for example, allow music/dance events to take place later into the night or early morning. This is the danger and not an increased number of events.

We receive about 850 TENs annually and only one, or maybe two, receives any opposition from the Police. We have little concern that the number of this type of “one-off” event will increase to any significant degree. However, under the current system we are made aware of the events and can advise the organiser on containing sound, security levels, closing hours, dispersal methods etc. Under the proposed deregulation we will have no advance warning. We are concerned that, as a consequence, public nuisance incidents will increase significantly, putting a further strain on the resources of both the Police and Environmental Health Officers.

6

Q7: Can you provide any additional evidence to inform the Impact Assessment, in particular in respect of the impacts that have not been monetised?

We have said in our answer to Question 4 that defending appeals against the decisions of the Licensing Committee can be extremely expensive, both in financial and human resource terms. These costs have not been included in the Impact Assessment, even though you have mentioned licence reviews being a powerful disincentive in paragraph 38. At least 40% of licence reviews carried out in this borough result in an appeal against the decision of the Licensing Committee, most of which fail in whole or in part. With costs in excess of £20,000 for each defence of an appeal, we feel that the Impact Assessment should give details of these associated costs throughout the country when considering the financial suitability of these deregulatory proposals.

We are also concerned about the legality of applying for a licence review where unregulated music causes nuisance and disturbance to neighbours. As music would not be a licensable activity we are concerned that the legality of a review application would be challenged by the licence holder. If any level of deregulation is allowed we would require specific provisions to ensure that reviews could still take place where they relate to music or other currently regulated entertainment causing nuisance to neighbours.

Even if reviews can take place in the circumstances set out above, reviews are not always immediately effective in dealing with noise and nuisance as appeals mean the decision of the licensing authority may not take effect for a further 9/10 months, due to delays in court hearings.

Q8: Are there any impacts that have not been identified in the Impact Assessment?

We have no way of estimating precisely any percentage increase in noise complaints. However, in our experience with this service when music/dance events take place we see a direct correlation in complaints increasing. We also observe that many of our complaints are as a result of businesses not following their own procedures and operating outside of their normal routine. With less regulation there must be an increased risk that this will happen more and we will see, on the basis of current trends, an increase in service requests.

Q9: Would any of the different options explored in this consultation have noticeable implications for costs, burdens and savings set out in the impact assessment? If so, please give figures and details of evidence behind your assumptions.

The Impact Assessment attached to this consultation paper mentions three options:

7

1. Do nothing 2. Remove all regulated entertainment, as defined in Schedule 1 of the 2003 Act. 3. (Preferred Option) Retain regulated entertainment in Schedule 1 of the 2003 Act where audiences are 5,000 or greater and for a small number of higher-risk forms of entertainment.

We prefer Option (1). Options 2 and 3 both carry a high risk of an increase in disturbance complaints. The fact that one option has no capacity limit and the other proposes 5,000 makes little difference in this Borough, as we only have one premise that could cater for anywhere near 5,000 people, let alone more than 5,000. Any increase in noise complaints, and/or disorder, will have cost implications for the Council as well as putting pressure on our, and the Police’s, staff resources.

Q10: Do you agree that premises that continue to hold a licence after the reforms would be able to host entertainment activities that were formerly regulated without the need to go through a Minor or Full Variation process?

If these deregulation proposals become law there would be no need to vary licences unless the licence conditions become inappropriate. This section of the proposal is particularly confusing as you propose that all existing licence conditions remain. If live and recorded music is deregulated what would be the legal position in relation to conditions that relate solely to that music? The same can be said in relation to plays, dancing, films and indoor sports?

The Role of Licensing Controls: Questions

Q11: Do you agree that events for under 5,000 people should be deregulated across all of the activities listed in Schedule One of the Licensing Act 2003?

No. The safeguards built into the Licensing Act 2003, and the four licensing objectives, enable Licensing Authorities to balance business needs and cultural activities, against the rights of residents to have a peaceful home life. Deregulating “regulated entertainment”, particularly live music, recorded music and dance will inevitably lead to an increase in noise disturbance.

Q12: If you believe there should be a different limit – either under or over 5,000, what do you think the limit should be? Please explain why you feel a different limit should apply and what evidence supports your view.

8

In relation to live and licensable recorded music we do not believe that any deregulation would be sensible, regardless of audience numbers. We say this for two main reasons as there will be an increase in:

1) Sound transmission at levels that will disturb residents from premises hosting music events – with no controls in place, and

2) Noise from customers leaving – voice sound levels will be raised after listening to a music event, events would not have a “closing time”, with possible disturbance to neighbours 7 nights a week late into the night.

Where dancing is an integral part of a music event we would also say that deregulation is not suitable. As we mention in Q30, the environment of alcohol, loud music and dancing is a potent mix which can result in violence or noise and disturbance as customers leave these premises. The ability to regulate this type of event through licensing legislation is imperative in order to promote the prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder licensing objectives.

We accept that there may be a case to deregulate the need for licensing permissions for plays, film, indoor sports and dance performances. However, we feel that an audience of 5000 is too high without the protections against disturbance that the Licensing Act currently provides.

In the case of plays we feel that a maximum capacity to benefit from any deregulation should be set at 1000. Our largest theatre has a capacity slightly lower than this and causes little problems when patrons leave at the end of performances. However, we believe that larger capacities would result in nuisance being caused to local residents late at night as people leave, wait for taxis, get buses or start car engines, particularly if performances ended after 11pm.

In relation to indoor sports we feel that any deregulation should only apply to events where capacities are under 1000 for the same reasons as above.

In relation to films we feel that capacities should be set at 500 to benefit from any deregulation. In relation to multi screen cinemas we believe that this limit should relate to each screen. This would mean in reality that a high percentage of film showings would be deregulated from licensing requirements. In exceptional cases where audience figures are higher than 500 Licensing Authorities would be able to set conditions on licences to ensure that local residents were not disturbed by large crowds of people entering and leaving premises late at night. The audience profile for cinema attendees can vary significantly according to the type of film being shown. It is for this reason that we suggest that the maximum attendance figure be 500 rather than 1000 as suggested for plays and indoor sports.

9

Q13: Do you think there should there be different audience limits for different activities listed in Schedule One? If so, please could you outline why you think this is the case. Please could you also suggest the limits you feel should apply to the specific activity in question.

Please see our answer to question 12

Q14: Do you believe that premises that would no longer have a licence, due to the entertainment deregulation, would pose a significant risk to any of the four original licensing objectives? If so please provide details of the scenario in question.

We do believe that there would be a significant risk to the licensing objectives, particularly the Prevention of Public Nuisance.

This Authority has already had experience of commercial unlicensed properties using Temporary Event Notices to provide live music to relatively small numbers of paying customers. These events caused significant noise nuisance and the Council was forced to serve Notices under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A number of the complaints that triggered our action related to noise from the customers rather than from the music.

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 has just received Royal Assent. In this Act the Government has given Environmental Health Officers the responsibility to prevent noise pollution as a body that can raise an objection to a Temporary Event Notice. This is a strong indication that the Home Office has concerns that music and dancing events may not promote the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objective. Why is it that one Government Department has concerns about this type of Regulated Entertainment and yet another department is proposing legislation to the opposite effect?

Q15: Do you think that outdoor events should be treated differently to those held indoors with regard to audience sizes? If so, please could you explain why, and what would this mean in practice.

We see no reason why sporting events should be treated differently just because they are held inside premises. We support deregulation of this activity as long as audience levels are no larger than 1000.

Plays and films have potential noise issues that may be unacceptable for residents in a densely populated inner city borough like ours. Such activities should, therefore, remain in a building or be subject to licensing regulation if an event is proposed outside.

10

All events which include outdoor music and dance should be subject to licensing regulation. Noise and disturbance issues are inevitable in a densely populated area such as the Royal Borough. The controls available in the Licensing Act are a necessity to strike a balance between the needs of the event organisers and customers, and those of residents.

Q16: Do you think that events held after a certain time should not be deregulated? If so, please could you explain what time you think would be an appropriate cut-off point, and why this should apply.

In relation to live music, recorded music and dance we believe that the current regulation requirements should remain at 24 hours a day.

In relation to plays, indoor sports (capacities of 1000) and films (capacities of 500), we believe that any deregulating should only be effective for events that end before 11pm. Our reason for this is that background noise levels diminish significantly after this time and noise from departing customers after 11pm will carry a significant risk of disturbing local residents. The tools contained within the Licensing Act enable Licensing Authorities to control the risk of noise disturbance and should be retained for these types of events that carry on after 11pm.

Q17: Should there be a different cut off time for different types of entertainment and/or for outdoor and indoor events? If so please explain why.

Please see our response to question 16.

Q18: Are there alternative approaches to a licensing regime that could help tackle any potential risks around the timing of events?

In relation to plays, films, dance and indoor sports we have made deregulation proposals that we would ask you to consider. We have also made a proposal that Licensing Authorities have the ability to exempt community/charitable or similar events from licensing requirements if it is thought appropriate.

Q19: Do you think that a code of practice would be a good way to mitigate potential risks from noise? If so, what do think such a code should contain and how should it operate?

Codes of Practice in themselves are an excellent theoretical method of maintaining a standard of operation in any aspect of business. However, they are only effective if compliance with the Code is maintained throughout the relevant industry. The Licensed Trade did have its own Code of Practice but adherence levels were so low that the Government introduced standard mandatory conditions for licences in order to try to maintain an acceptable standard of operating. There is a significant risk

11

that if reliance on a Code of Practice is the only method of regulating “entertainment” then it will fail. We know of no evidence to the contrary.

Q20: Do you agree that laws covering issues such as noise, public safety, fire safety and disorder, can deal with potential risks at deregulated entertainment events? If not, how can those risks be managed in the absence of a licensing regime?

Experience has shown that, in respect of the Licensing Act 2003 and the activities that it regulates, the tools within this legislation are focused mainly on noise, crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm.

We agree that legislation covering public safety and fire safety may be sufficient to deal with any potential risks at deregulated entertainment events.

However, noise related legislation is comparatively cumbersome in comparison to what is available in the Licensing Act. It does not offer an acceptable remedy for residents where the operation of events in premises causes noise and disturbance. Crime and disorder issues are also closely considered when applications for licences are received and the Police make recommendations to mitigate risk. This ability will be lost if the proposed deregulation is accepted. Applicants for premises licences would be under no obligation to inform the relevant authorities that they intend to put on music and dance events and licences would be granted without taking these matters into consideration. There would be no protections for residents and customers.

Q21: How do you think the timing / duration of events might change as a result of these proposals? Please provide reasoning and evidence for any your view.

With no controls on entertainment events it would be inevitable that some would carry on late into the night. Even premises authorised to sell alcohol would be able to continue operating music and dancing late into the night and well after the closing hour for alcohol sales. Controls that the Licensing Authority thought were appropriate would become ineffective as premises continued operating later providing music and dancing. Safeguards for residents and customers would fall away resulting in noise, disturbance.

Q22: Are there any other aspects that need to be taken into account when considering the deregulation of Schedule One in respect of the four licensing objectives of the Licensing Act 2003?

We have already been clear that the Royal Borough opposes these proposals, particularly in relation to live and recorded music, and dance.

12

If controls are not available to us the risk of noise and disturbance to residents will be significant in the absence of licensing regulation.

Performance of Live Music: Questions

Q23: Are there any public protection issues specific to the deregulation of the performance of live music that are not covered in chapter 3 of this consultation? If so, how could they be addressed in a proportionate and targeted way?

Please see our answers to Questions 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21 and 22.

Q24: Do you think that unamplified music should be fully deregulated with no limits on numbers and time of day/night? If not, please explain why and any evidence of harm.

No, the Royal Borough does not agree that unamplified music should be deregulated. The term itself is ambiguous, and can refer to the noisiest percussion instruments though to gentle strumming. From experience we know that a number of musicians playing unamplified music in premises not designed to prevent sound transmission will disturb close residents. In particular, we have many residential premises with party walls adjoining licensed premises. Without acoustic work on these walls sound transmission from even acoustic musicians is inevitable and we will not have the ability to condition licences to prevent, or minimise, disturbance. Licensing legislation allows the Licensing Authority and other interested parties to consider each application on its own merits. Conditions are attached to licences on the merits of each individual application. In this way, in order to promote the licensing objectives, some premises have many conditions attached and others have little, or no, discretionary conditions attached. This ability will disappear if these proposals are accepted.

Q25: Any there any other benefits or problems associated specifically with the proposal to deregulate live music?

See answer to Question 24.

Performance of Plays: Questions

Q26: Are there any public protection issues specific to the deregulation of the performance of plays that are not covered in chapter 3 of this consultation? If so, how could they be addressed in a proportionate and targeted way?

We are willing to accept that the performance of plays inside premises may be considered for deregulation. However, the audience size of 5,000 is excessive and we would propose a maximum audience figure of 1000.

13

Complete deregulation as proposed would mean that theatres could carry on performances late into the night and disgorge up to 5,000 people into residential or semi residential streets with no controls at all. Numbers of this size would inevitably cause some disturbance late at night where background noise is low.

Q27: Are there any health and safety considerations that are unique to outdoor or site specific theatre that are different to indoor theatre that need to be taken into account?

No comment

Q28: Licensing authorities often include conditions regarding pyrotechnics and similar HAZMAT handling conditions in their licences. Can this type of restriction only be handled through the licensing regime?

This type of restriction could be controlled through health and safety and fire safety risk assessments.

Q29: Any there any other benefits or problems associated specifically with the proposal to deregulate theatre?

See our answer to Question 26

Performance of Dance: Questions

Q30: Are there any public protection issues specific to the deregulation of the performance of dance that are not covered in chapter 3 of this consultation? If so, how could they be addressed in a proportionate and targeted way?

The main issue with the general heading of “Performance of Dance” is that it includes both dancing in a nightclub or bar as well as dance exhibitions, whether at a school, a restaurant, or other place. Dance exhibitions, a dancer in a restaurant, or similar activities are very different to dancing being part of a nightclub atmosphere where it is an integral part of drinking and loud music.

We can appreciate the argument for deregulating performances of dance, a small dancing troupe performing in a restaurant type environment, and similar activities to an audience below 500, but we argue against extending that deregulation to dancing in nightclubs and bars.

The licensable activities applicable to bars and nightclubs should not be the subject of deregulation – the environment of alcohol, loud music and dancing is a potent mix which can result in violence or noise and disturbance as customers leave these premises. The controls contained within the Licensing Act now are often used to mitigate against these

14

possibilities, but if the music and dance parts of the Licensing Act are deregulated then this opportunity will disappear.

Q31: Any there any other benefits or problems associated the proposal to deregulate the performance of dance?

Please see the answer to Question 30

Exhibition of Film: Questions

Q32: Do you agree with the Government’s position that it should only remove film exhibition from the list of regulated activities if an appropriate age classification system remains in place?

Yes

Q33: Do you have any views on how a classification system might work in the absence of a mandatory licence condition?

No comment

Q34: If the Government were unable to create the situation outlined in the proposal and above (for example, due to the availability of Parliamentary time) are there any changes to the definition of film that could be helpful to remove unintended consequences, as outlined earlier in this document - such as showing children’s DVDs to pre-school nurseries, or to ensure more parity with live broadcasts?

We agree that there should be little need to regulate the showing of DVDs at pre-school nurseries and similar occasions but to differentiate between different kinds of film in legislation would be difficult. Films shown for educational purposes are already exempt from legislative requirements and showing DVDs to pre-school children could already come into that exempt category. Under previous legislation Local Authorities had the ability to exempt certain types of entertainment activity from licensing requirements. We suggest that this ability to exempt is included in any proposed deregulation.

Q35: Are there any other issues that should be considered in relation to deregulating the exhibition of film from licensing requirements?

We argue that any deregulation should only relate to films being shown inside premises – and then limited to a maximum audience of 500. Audience profiles vary significantly dependent on the type of film being shown and the controls in relation to the prevention of public nuisance and public safety should be retained where audiences are in excess of 500. In the case of multi screen cinemas the limit should apply to each

15

screen individually and not to the whole cinema. We argue that, because of noise and disturbance issues, the screening of films outside premises should be subject to licensing controls.

Indoor Sport: Questions

Q36: Are there any public protection issues specific to the deregulation of the indoor sport that are not covered in chapter 3 of this consultation? If yes, please outline the specific nature of the sport and the risk involved and the extent to which other interventions can address those risks.

No comment

Q37: Are there any other issues that should be considered in relation to deregulating the indoor sport from licensing requirements?

We argue that a limit should be set of audiences no larger than 1000 people if deregulation is to be considered. Our main concern is the complete removal of a Licensing Authority’s ability to consider placing controls on licences to ensure any potential disturbance is minimised, where audiences are in excess of 1000, when entering and leaving stadia, and that the safety of attendees is given priority over any financial gain.

Boxing and Wrestling, and Events of a Similar Nature: Questions

Q38: Do you agree with our proposal that boxing and wrestling should continue to be regarded as “regulated entertainment”, requiring a licence from a local licensing authority, as now?

Yes

Q39: Do you think there is a case for deregulating boxing matches or wrestling entertainments that are governed by a recognised sport governing body? If so please list the instances that you suggest should be considered.

No

Q40. Do you think that licensing requirements should be specifically extended to ensure that it covers public performance or exhibition of any other events of a similar nature, such as martial arts and cage fighting? If so, please outline the risks that are associated with these events, and explain why these cannot be dealt with via other interventions.

We believe that the same arguments apply equally to cage fighting as apply to boxing and wrestling. The audience profile for boxing and cage

16

fighting is similar and safeguards and controls are necessary to ensure a safe environment for both spectators and participants. The controls available within the Licensing Act have a place in ensuring that public safety is achieved at these events.

Recorded Music and Entertainment Facilities: Questions

Q41: Do you think that, using the protections outlined in Chapter 3, recorded music should be deregulated for audiences of fewer than 5,000 people? If not, please state reasons and evidence of harm.

We acknowledge that there could be a significant difference between some events where recorded music is played at a disco at a village hall and music being played at an inner city nightclub. However, to differentiate between the two within legislation would be extremely difficult. We argue that licensing controls are necessary in the case of recorded music in bars and nightclubs. The music, usually played at a very high level, is an integral part of the nightclub experience along with drinking alcohol and dancing. The three combined can easily result in violent behaviour as well as noise and disturbance as customers leave these premises. Similarly, some music/dance and alcohol events at village halls can also cause noise nuisance and crime and disorder problems. In the absence of licensing controls the mix of alcohol, music and dancing can cause similar problems, whether in a village hall or in an inner city nightclub. Licensing controls are essential to maintain a balance in the night time economy between the provision of live and recorded music, dance and alcohol, and the promotion of the licensing objectives.

However, it may be appropriate to give Licensing Authorities the ability to exempt some community/charity events from the need to have a licence or other permission under the Licensing Act. A local Licensing Authority is best placed to have the ability to decide whether a community event requires licensing controls to provide music or not.

Q42: If you feel that a different audience limit should apply, please state the limit that you think suitable and the reasons why this limit is the right one.

Please see our answer to Question 41.

Q43: Are there circumstances where you think recorded music should continue to require a licence? If so, please could you give specific details and the harm that could be caused by removing the requirement?

Please see our answer to Question 41.

17

Q44: Any there any other benefits or problems associated specifically with the proposal to deregulate recorded music?

In the Royal Borough we have prevented events, the subject of Temporary Event Notices, where the Police believed that members of gangs were going to attend to cause violence. If recorded music was deregulated as proposed we feel that a valuable tool to prevent violence will be taken away.

There is also the possible risk that completely unregulated large scale music events could take place where the audience bring their own alcohol. With no controls on these events there is a high risk that crime, disorder and public nuisance could occur.

Q45: Are there any specific instances where Entertainment Facilities need to be regulated by the Licensing Act, as in the current licensing regime? If so, please provide details.

Over the years we have received a number of complaints regarding noise escape from premises providing karaoke facilities. In order to combat the disturbance caused to nearby residents we have used the controls in the Licensing Act to minimise noise escape while still allowing the karaoke to take place. We would argue that there is a good case to keep the use of karaoke machines within the controls contained within the Licensing Act – whether it is to remain within the heading of “Entertainment Facilities” or to be a distinctive activity within the Act.

Unintended consequences: Questions

Q46: Are there any definitions within Schedule One to the Act that are particularly difficult to interpret, or that are otherwise unclear, that you would like to see changed or clarified?

Yes. In paragraph 2(1)(h) it states that the following are “regulated entertainment”:

(h) entertainment of a similar description to that falling within paragraph (e), (f) or (g),These being:

(e) a performance of live music,(f) any playing of recorded music,(g) a performance of dance,

18

This has caused confusion since the Act commenced in 2005 and clarity is needed as to what “similar description” to these activities actually means.

Q47: Paragraph 1.5 outlines some of the representations that DCMS has received over problems with the regulated entertainment aspects of the Licensing Act 2003. Are you aware of any other issues that we need to take into account?

No comment

Adult Entertainment: Question

Q48: Do you agree with our proposal that deregulation of dance should not extend to sex entertainment? Please provide details

Yes.

19

Appendix B

Changes in live music between 2005 and 2009

Our aim is to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, support the pursuit of excellence, and champion the tourism, creative and leisure industries.

20

Changes in live music between 2005 and 2009

Summary

DCMS collects a range of high quality data on live music. No one source provides a complete picture but when these statistics are analysed together with relevant industry data they provide evidence of how the sector has fared in recent years. Overall the sector is thriving. During this period, the number of licences with provision for live music has increased, the proportion of adults attending live music has grown and there has been an increase in the number of professional musicians. However, this growth has been concentrated at medium and larger venues, and there has been a fall in the adult population who attend music at smaller venues. Evidence suggests that this is due to the decline in the overall numbers of pubs and bars, and the growth in live concerts at larger venues (as established acts respond to falling profitability of recorded music).

Aim

This article explains how three sources of DCMS statistics provide details of changes in the live music sector between 2005 and 2009 and set these in context of wider industry data:

• Statistics on entertainment licensing, taken from the Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing Bulletins

• Analysis of cultural participation among adults from the Taking Part survey

• Research surveys of live music

Further information about each source can be found at Annex A and details of the Licensing Act 2003 at Annex B. Annex C answers a number of commonly asked questions about live music measurement.

Increase in live music licences

Between 31 March 2007 (the first collection of licensing statistics following implementation of the Licensing Act in November 2005) and 31March 2009, the overall number of live music licences or certificates increased by 10%, from 86,100 to 94,400. This increase comprised an 11% increase in premises licences with provision for live music from 75,200 to 83,600 and a 1% decrease in club premises certificates with this provision to 10,700. Further information on the Licensing Act 2003 and live music is found at Annex B.

For this period, 240 of the 378 Licensing Authorities in England and Wales provided numbers of premises licences with live music provisions for both dates. Of these 240, 185 reported an increase, 37 reported a decrease and 18 reported no change.

• The largest increases were in North Somerset (up by 204), Islington (up by 198), City of London Corporation (up by 177), Stoke-on-Trent (up by 176), Sefton (up by 173)

21

• The largest number of decreases were reported in York (down by 254), Bradford (down by 98), Bridgnorth (down by 84)

The number of Temporary Event Notices (TENS) also increased by 4% between 2008 and 2009 (from 118,200 to 123,400), although it is not possible to identify how many of these events involve live music. TENS allow premises users to carry out licensable activity on unlicensed premises or in addition to those included in their existing licence (for further information on TENS see Annex C).

Does this mean there are more live music venues and more gigs?

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 for the following reasons:

• Not all venues have to be licensed e.g. school concerts where no alcohol is sold or funds are raised

• Some premises possess a licence with provision for live music but do not hold events. For example, the 2007 Survey of Live Music showed that while 64% of premises held a licence with provision for live music, only 42% actually held events.

• The number of licences does not equate to the number of venues because some licences are still held for premises that have closed, and it is possible to have more than one licence for a premises (e.g. a pub licensed for alcohol rents out a separate room for events for which the promoter holds an entertainment licence)

• There are currently no regular industry statistics on the actual number of gigs per year, only limited regional data covering specific types of music

An increase in the number of premises licences with live music provision may indicate a number of things:

• an increase in the proportion of new licensed premises who include live music on their licence

• a change in the intention or likelihood of holding live music (e.g. a venue owner decides to include it on the licence for the first time)

• an actual increase in the proportion of venues holding live music, or

• an overall increase in the number of licensed premises while the proportion with provision for live music remains constant.

Licensing statistics cannot directly measure all these possibilities to show where the 8,400 extra music licences come from. But they do show a small increase in the proportion of licences with live music provisions between March 2007 and March 2009 from 40% to 42%. The figure for club premises certificates was constant at around 62%.

However, licensing statistics are only one part of the picture. In the absence of national data on the number of gigs, other DCMS statistics provide evidence of the health of the live music

22

sector. These include data on the demand for live music – the proportion and numbers of the adult population who attend live music events, and the supply of live music – the numbers of professional musicians, and amateur musicians who perform in public.

Increased proportion of adults attending live music events

Data from the DCMS ‘Taking Part’ survey covering England, show an increase in the proportion of adults (aged 16 and above) attending live music events. Between 2005/06 and 2008/09, there was an increase in the proportion of adults attending the following types of live music events at least once in the previous 12 months (rock, pop, country, folk, soul, R&B, world regional music). This increased from 24.4% in 2005/06 to 27.6% in 2008/09, an increase of around 1.64million adults (Figure 1). Attendance at other types of music events was stable e.g. jazz. The Arts Council for England also publish annual participation rates based on TGI Tracker data which provides a trend going back to 1994/95, and which indicate larger increases during this period (Table 1).

Figure 1 Increase in proportion of adults attending live music, 2005/06-2008/09

Taking Part Survey

23

Table 1 Proportion of adults attending different types of live music, 1994/95-2008/09

Arts Council for England, TGI data

Year Sample Jazz Pop/Rock Classical music

% % % 1994/95 26,259 6.4 22.1 12 1995/96 25,132 6.2 22.3 12.1 1996/97 25,386 5.9 22.7 11.9 1997/98 25,560 5.7 21.5 11.8 1998/99 24,497 5.8 21.6 11.4 1999/00 26,155 6 22.2 11.6 2000/01 25,493 6 21.6 11.9 2001/02 24,659 6.4 22.5 12.2 2002/03 24,984 6.4 23.9 12.7 2003/04 23,874 6.8 24.6 12.6 2004/05 24,343 7.3 25.2 13.5 2005/06 26,481 9.4 27.9 15.9 2006/07 24,442 9.4 29.1 15.5 2007/08 24,492 11.5 35.5 17.7 2008/09 24,836 11.6 37.5 17.3

Increases in those performing live music – are there more 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. Taking Part survey data shows no statistically significant change in the proportion of amateur musicians performing music in public between 2005/06 to 2008/09 (Table 2).

Table 2 Proportion of adults performing live music in public (Taking Part Survey)

Year All ages 16-24 25-44 45-64 2005/6 3.4% 7.4% 3.3% 2.6% 2006/7 3.2% 7.6% 3.1% 2.5% 2007/8 3.4% 7.8% 3.2% 2.8% 2008/09 3.3% 6.7% 3.7% 2.2%

Size of venue

As well as attendance at live music events, Taking Part also provides data on the size of venue that people attend. This shows that the increase in people attending live music between 2005/06 and 2008/09 was based at medium and large live music venues, and that there was a decline in numbers of people attending music at pubs/bars and small clubs in the previous 12 months (Table 3) . During this period there was a 26.2% increase in numbers attending at medium and large venues, compared with decreases of 2.7% and 4.1% for pubs/bars and small clubs respectively. Numbers attending pubs/bars and small clubs actually increased between 2005/06 and 2007/08 but have declined following the economic downturn (Figure 2). This information is not available for jazz, classical music and opera. DCMS Live Music

24

surveys comparing 2004 and 2007 showed no significant change for pubs and bars but a decline in events at two other types of small venues – community halls and restaurants. Table 3 Attendance at live music events by venue size, 2005/06-2008/09 (rock, pop, country, folk, soul, R&B, world regional music) (Taking Part survey)

Adult population, millions

2005/6 2008/09 Difference Difference % All venues 9,706,400 11,351,921 1,645,521 17.0Pub/bar 3,436,229 3,344,889 -91,340 -2.7Small club 2,347,680 2,250,616 -97,064 -4.1Medium/Large venue

5,846,317 7,379,672 1,533,355 26.2

Unweighted 6,235Sample size (all venues)

2,722

Figure 2 Changes in live music attendance by venue size (Taking Part Survey)

Discussion – What lies behind these figures?

Although the data seem to suggest that live music as a sector is thriving, this is not uniform throughout the sector and larger, primary music venues appear to be faring better than smaller, secondary venues (whose main purpose is not live music). This does not necessarily mean there are fewer gigs at smaller venues , merely that a smaller proportion of the adult population are attending music at these venues i.e. changing demand for live music as well as supply.

No evidence of negative impact of live music licensing

25

Some people have suggested this is due to the Licensing Act. But the increase prior to the downturn and DCMS Live music surveys show that it is not this but other factors which affect the decision to hold live music such as the local market, and the cost. The 2007 Live Music survey was conducted with those responsible for putting on live music in secondary venues and showed that licensing was not a significant barrier:

• Around 90% of respondents/venues said the Act had been neutral on the number of events, size of groups, size of audiences, number of acts per event and diversity of acts/genres

• A high proportion (72%) of venues said it made no difference to their decision to stage live music (including 66% of respondents from pubs and bars, 78% from small clubs and 77% from church halls and community centres)

• 8% of respondents said the Act made it easier (including 15% of pubs and bars)

• 10% said the Act made it more difficult (10% pubs/bars, 12% members clubs, 10% church halls and community centres)

• Of those with actual experience of staging live music, 18% said it made it easier, 68% saying it made no difference, and 8% negative (6% said they did not know).

Fall in numbers of pubs/bars

The two main quantifiable reasons behind the relative changes in venue size are the fall in the actual number of potential small venues, mainly pubs and bars, and the greater emphasis on promoted events at large venues due to the fall in the profitability of recorded music. Industry data estimates that the number of public houses in England and Wales declined by 4% between 2004 and 2007 (Table 4). Since the downturn, this figure has accelerated according to figures released by the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA). The figures for the first six months of 2009 show the rate of pub closure has increased by a third, up from 39 pubs a week in the last six months of 2008 to 52 pubs a week closing in Britain. The report claimed that 2,377 pubs closed in the 12 months up to June 2009. In the last 3 years a total of 5,134 pubs have closed. Note the BBPA figures are for Britain, not the UK, and are not official statistics.

Table 4 Industry estimates of the number of public houses in the UK (MBD analysis of data from the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) and trade estimates

Year Number % change year on year

2001 59,558 negligible 2002 57,965 -3% 2003 58,788 1% 2004 59,673 2% 2005 59,400 negligible 2006 58,200 -2% 2007 57,500 -1% 2008* 56,350 -2% 2012* 57,071 +1%

26

* forecast figures

The recession may also be a reason for an increase in number of premises licences surrendered (from around 4,000 in 2007/08 to over 4,500 in 2008/09) and lapsed (from around 450 in 2007/08 to around 600 in 2008/09) and a decrease in around 2,200 new applications for licences compared to 2007/08 levels (note these data relate to all premises licences not just those for live music).

As well as the recession, the pub industry has been affected by the Smoking Act introduced in 2006 (note there is no robust evidence on how this has affected live music, other than evidence of an increased concentration on food) and increased sales of alcohol in supermarkets.

Increase in promoted events at large venues

The second reason is the decline in the profitability of recorded music and associated increase in promoted events at large venues. Industry analysis suggests that the decline in revenue from recorded sales has changed the industry to focus more on large volume live concerts. PRS for Music recently estimated that there had been a 13% increase in the value of the live music sector in 2008.

This is backed up by international evidence which shows that in North America in the first half of 2009, the tickets sold by the Top 100 tours was 18 million. That represents an additional 1.1 million tickets or 6.5% increase over the same period for 2008 (no data are currently published separately for the UK). Again, these industry data are not UK Official Statistics but used for illustrative purposes.

Conclusion

Overall the live music sector is thriving. DCMS data show an increased number of premises licences with provision for live music and an increased proportion of the adult population attending live music events which are consistent with industry data on the live music sector.

However, this growth has been concentrated at medium and larger venues, and there has been a fall in the adult population who attend music at smaller venues. Evidence suggests that this is not due to live music licensing but wider economic factors such as the decline in the overall numbers of pubs and bars, and changes in the live music industry itself, responding to the falling profitability of recorded music by promoting events at large venues.

27

Annex A – Live music data Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing statistics

The main purpose of the Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing statistics collection is to monitor licensing policy. It provides information to help Licensing Authorities benchmark their position and provide understanding in the context of the national picture. The information collected asks for much of the regularly requested information about licensed premises.

Data are collected annually from all Licensing Authorities in England and Wales via a statistical return. Data have been consistently collected since 2007. Coverage includes licences for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment or provision of late night hot food and drink.

These data are National Statistics and as such are produced to the high professional standards set out in the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.

Further information, full bulletins and online tables are available at: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/research_and_statistics/4865.aspx

Taking Part Survey of Cultural and Sporting participation

Taking Part is DCMS’s key evidence source, providing nationally representative data on participation for both adults and children. The survey enables the Department to better understand the drivers and impacts of participation in culture and sport. The survey is commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and its partner Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs): Arts Council England, English Heritage, Sport England, and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.

The adult survey measures participation by those aged 16 and over living in private households in England. No geographical restriction is placed on where the activity or event occurred. Participation in activities is measured for the purpose of recreation or leisure, including voluntary work. It excludes involvement in activities where the prime motivation is paid work or academic studies.

The survey is a National Statistic and as such has been produced to the high professional standards set out in the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.

Further information and reports from Taking Part are available at: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/research_and_statistics/4828.aspx

Surveys of Live music

1. A Survey of Live Music Staged in England & Wales in 2003/4, Ipsos-MORI.

An initial baseline survey of smaller venues assessing the staging of live music and attitudes towards impending changes in licensing.

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/4558.aspx

28

2. Licensing Act 2003: The experience of smaller establishments in applying for live music authorisation, 2006. Ipsos-MORI

An interim survey with smaller establishments who would be affected by the licensing changes to understand their experience and likely take up of live music licences.

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/research_and_statistics/4836.aspx

3. A survey of live music in England and Wales in 2007, TNS-BMRB.

The follow up to the 2003/4 survey looking at changes in the staging of live music in England and Wales in smaller ‘secondary’ venues whose main business is not staging live music.

http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/research_and_statistics/4854.aspx

29

Annex B - The Licensing Act 2003 and Live Music The Licensing Act 2003 regulates four Licensable Activities::

• The sale by retail of alcohol;

• The supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club;

• The provision of regulated entertainment (including live music); and

• The provision of late night refreshment.

The Act replaced several licensing regimes, including Public Entertainment Licensing, which regulated most forms of live music. It also removed the old “two in a bar” exemption, which applied to no more than two musicians performing in a venue licensed to sell alcohol. The Act introduced an exemption for incidental music and a limited exemption, which has been little-used, for dancing and live music in small premises where consumption of alcohol is not the primary activity.

In general, therefore, venues that wish to host regulated live music are required to hold a premises licence or club premises certificate with the correct authorisation. Authorisation for different licensable activities, including the various forms of regulated entertainment, does not add to the cost of obtaining a licence, or the annual fee. However, varying a licence or certificate to add or amend an authorisation involves a fee (in most cases). There may be conditions attached to the variation (e.g. restrictions in opening hours, need for soundproofing).

A premises will fall into a fee band based on its non-domestic rateable value. The current application fees associated with each band for a new licence or certificate are as follows: Band A (£100); Band B (£190); Band C (£315); Band D [no multiplier] (£450); Band D with multiplier (£900); Band E [no multiplier] (£635); Band E with multiplier (£1,905). The annual fees associated with each fee are as follows: Band A (£70); Band B (£180); Band C (£295); Band D [no multiplier] (£320); Band D with multiplier (£640); Band E [no multiplier] (£350); Band E with multiplier (£1,050).

Seventy seven per cent of premises licences are either exempt or fall into the two lowest fee categories and pay fees of £190 or less. Some premises licences and club premises certificates have a fee exemption e.g. a school or college, church or village hall, as set out in Regulation 9 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Fees) Regulations 2005.

A new process for Minor Variations was introduced in 2009, with a flat fee of £89. A ‘minor’ variation such as the addition or amendment of an authorisation for live music must be one that “could have no adverse impact on the licensing objectives”. For variations that do not qualify as Minor Variations the fee is equal to the cost of the initial licence.

Many organisations choose to use the light touch Temporary Event Notice (TENS) regime. TENS cost £21 and allow premises to carry out occasional licensable activity on unlicensed premises or in addition to those included in their existing licence.

30

Annex C – Commonly asked questions about official statistics on live music

Q Licencing statistics on live music are very limited to changes in overall numbers. Why don’t you collect more information on licensable activity?

A The Code of Practice for Official Statistics requires us to consider and measure the cost involved in collecting statistics, primarily to meet government targets to reduce data burden on businesses and local government. Statistics on licensing are collated and processed for us by local authorities based on information they collect in the operation of licensing law. DCMS has a target to reduce our data collection from frontline organisations like Local Authorities by 30% and Licensing is our main data collection. Although DCMS recognises the importance of these data in informing policy-making and in making Government accountable, we cannot make requests for all the data we would like to have and must balance the various demands on licensing statistics. Many of these demands relate to crime and disorder and the use of police powers, rather than the provision of regulated entertainment.

Even if there were no restrictions on our volume of data collection we are still required to take into account the ease with which the questionnaire can be answered. Live music is an area for which Licensing Authorities find it difficult to supply data - 75% supply data on licence numbers, compared with 100% response to the main questionnaire. Although 75% is still a good response rate for this type of data collection, we have to maintain our high overall response rates to ensure the highest quality data on other areas of licensing.

Q Why can’t you show more data by premises type?

A People want information on premises types for which there is no official definition, for example, how many ‘pubs’ there are. We all think we know a ‘pub’ when we see it but it is not possible to define this in a measurable way that distinguishes it from a bar or other types of premises. For example, is a gastropub a pub or a restaurant? Other premises may function as a traditional bar by day and a nightclub by night. Due to these difficulties in classification, the Licensing Act defines activities, not premises types. Industry data are less dependent on actual activities but they are not Official Statistics and we don’t know exactly what is and is not included in these data. As such for our purposes they are illustrative.

Q What kind of premises are included in the figures for regulated entertainment? Are they just pubs, bars, clubs and hotels or do they include schools, hospitals, community centres, village halls, museums, art galleries, and shops?

A Any place with a premises licence is included. It is sometimes suggested that premises such as schools and hospitals are obtaining licences for regulated entertainment in such great numbers that they are making up a significant proportion of the recent increases. There is no evidence that this is true. It is unlikely that a typical music performance at a school or hospital would be a licensable activity, as it would most likely be a private event where no charge is made with the intention of making a profit. When we have asked representatives of local government and school administrators for their impressions of licensing arrangements at these premises, they have confirmed that they are more likely to use a Temporary Event Notice to hold events when necessary (see below). There will certainly be some exceptions. For example, some music schools hold programmes of public events and may hold premises

31

licences for this purpose. Hospitals may need a licence if they provide late night refreshment rather than for regulated entertainment.

There have been some scare stories about prosecutions (e.g. for shop owners), but these are not a statistics issue. Genuine impromptu performances don’t need a licence.

Q What else do we know about Temporary Event Notices (TENS)?

A Data on TENS (especially year on year change) provide a useful indication about the number of occasional events staged by non-licensed venues. Although Licensing Authorities collect some data on type of venue and event, this is not standardised or stored in a suitable format for statistical analysis. DCMS are considering whether we can collect and code these data as part of a pilot exercise in 2009, but it is unlikely we could do this on a national level due to the burden issues both for Local Authorities as outlined above, and for the Department to undertake coding on this scale.

However, external evidence (National Confederation of PTA associations) suggests about 40,000 of the annual numbers for TENS are for schools. This is despite the fact that schools and colleges are exempt from paying the application fee and annual fee for a licence which authorises regulated entertainment only. This is perhaps because a TEN can be used to authorise sales of alcohol, and many events (such as those typically held by PTAs) that may qualify as regulated entertainment are fund raising events.

Q To what extent do the live music surveys provide an evaluation of the impact of the Licensing Act?

A The live music surveys do not provide a comprehensive economic evaluation but they do provide robust data on the views of secondary live music venues about the impact of the Act. They were designed to talk to the person at secondary music venues with most knowledge i.e. those who were responsible for putting on live music. In order to thoroughly explore the possible impact of the Act, the survey asked both an open question on what affected their decisions to stage live music, and then a direct question to remove the possibility that they forgot about this. But very few people attributed the Act as a barrier to live music, and roughly the same proportions said it helped as hindered. The factors affecting the decision to stage live music tended to be the local market and the expense of staging. This correlates well with Taking Part which suggests people are going to larger venues – as social preferences and market forces are changing consumption patterns.

32

2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5DH

33