MUSIC AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND DISORDER
ISSUE
93. The linking of the provision of live music with
public order issues is a matter of particular concern to the music
industry.[130] In July
2003 Chris Fox, the then President of ACPO, linked live entertainment
to public order issues, saying that: "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".[131]
During the passage of the Act it was clear that the Government
also regarded music as having a public order dimension, and the
Guidance to the Act both encourages local authorities to have
due regard to the need to promote live music "for the wider
cultural benefit of communities"[132]
and also warns that live music could lead to public order issues.[133]
94. In contrast to this the situation on the ground
seems to be much less clear cut. We have heard scepticism from
both the music industry,[134]
and the pub trade,[135]
that music causes anti-social behaviour at all. Local authorities
did suggest that live music could contribute to public order issues,
but did not see this as a barrier to working with venues to find
a solution.[136] Commander
O'Brien of ACPO told us: "I do not think we can see major
statistics that would say that a particular venue playing music
necessarily brings more crime and disorder than another venue
that has that amount of footfall going through it".[137]
95. The music industry also believes that the coming
together of the licensing of music with the regimes for the sale
and supply of alcohol, and control of crime and disorder has led
to a negative perception of the impact of live music and a needlessly
authoritarian approach to entertainment licensing in many areas.[138]
In written evidence to us British Music Rights cited the difficulties
faced by the Moonfest festival:
"The recent case of Wiltshire police, who
persuaded magistrates to order the cancellation of the first day
of the Moonfest music festival because of fears that the appearance
of Pete Doherty would lead to public disorder, shows how the Licensing
Act is open to abuse. The Wiltshire constabulary used Section
160, which provides that premises may be closed in an area where
there is expected to be disorder, to cancel the show. This last
minute court case came weeks after the original application which
included security provision had been submitted by the organisers
of Moonfest, scrutinised by local Responsible Authorities including
the police, and approved".[139]
96. Feargal Sharkey also pointed to a steady move
towards an increasingly authoritarian approach on the part of
police authorities,[140]
especially the Metropolitan Police, who have asked London licensing
authorities to include new conditions for live music events "in
the interests of public order and the prevention of terrorism".[141]
The conditions, which are set out in the Metropolitan Police's
Promotion and Event Assessment Form, commonly known as Form 696,
include specifying the "musical style" to be performed
at live music events and giving the name, address and date of
birth of all performers. Mr Sharkey gave an example of a youth
concert in aid of a local teenage cancer trust in London which
had to be cancelled as the police objected to the granting of
a TEN on the grounds that the applicant had not filled out Form
696.[142]
97. Form 696 goes beyond the requirements of the
Act itself and its use is in our view beyond even what the Guidance
accompanying the Act suggests might be appropriate. Licensing
authorities should resist pressure from "interested parties"
to impose unreasonable conditions on events. We believe that Form
696 is indeed unreasonable. Such a form goes well beyond the requirements
of the Licensing Act, and has a detrimental effect on the performance
of live music. We recommend that Form 696 should be scrapped.
98. As discussed above there is little evidence to
link the majority of live music performances to public order issues.
Music can also be perceived to be a noise nuisance, though research
conducted by the Live Music Forum showed that the vast majority
of actual complaints about noisy music related to neighbours playing
their music too loud at parties, rather than music from commercial
premises.[143] Indeed
the Forum found that there were more noise complaints in 2006
about burglar alarms and barking dogs than about entertainment
premises.[144] In 2006
the Taylor Report, commissioned by the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, came to the same conclusions, stating
that: "In many Local Authorities, almost all the complaints
are about (music from) domestic premises, and it is typical for
a Local Authority to have about 90% of their complaints about
this source."[145]
99. There will of course sometimes be genuine objections
from the public about noise or crowds around live music events,
and it is important that the public have the opportunity to contribute
to the decision making process as to whether to grant a licence,
be it through their own representations with regards to a premises
licence, or, as we recommend in paragraph 51 above, through representations
made by a local councillor on their behalf with regards to a TEN.
But while every person has the right to enjoy a peaceful private
life, we see no reason why the promotion of culture in general
and music in particular should be presumed to interfere with this.
Music is in itself a positive thing, which many people enjoy,
and which should not automatically be treated as a disruptive
activity which will inevitably lead to nuisance and disorder.
We recommend that the Statutory Guidance to the Act should
be reviewed and reworded to remove the overt linkage of live music
with public disorder.
114 
