Covid rules event

[Junior8]

Just a word on behalf of councils - and those who know me will know that I rarely bat on their side - but outsiders need to realise that many of them seem to be in a state of permanent reorganisation. For fifteen years I had to deal with every one of the London Boroughs that was running a street trading operation and it was rare with one or two of them to speak to the same department let alone person from year to year. Pretty well everywhere staff churn was colossal meaning that often quite junior staff were left to make decisions quite beyond their skill level - hence safety first and standard forms. Some other large metropolitan councils were as bad. It seemed to me that by the time a staffer had mastered the role the powers that be (usually to be fair reacting to yet another central government diktat or some scandal like that emerging in Liverpool) put in place yet another departmental shuffle-houses and it all started again. The worst development was the sharing of back office functions between adjoining authorities and the use of arms length semi commercial entities set up for some contract functions. When you have had, as I have, an officer near to tears asking you what to do faced with an issue in your specialist area you do tend to be a bit more sympathetic. Edited May 15, 2021 by Junior8

[richb]

Notwithstanding all of the above, it's handy to be able to see their (LAs) guidance too for context...

 

https://www.gov.uk/g...cal-authorities

Edited May 17, 2021 by richb

[jmdh]

Thanks richb, that article about advice for LAs is illuminating (in some ways much more than the performing arts specific pages).

 

In the end though, my interpretation is that LAs would only be involved if the event was a licensable event (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/entertainment-licensing-changes-under-the-live-music-act) or if there were a serious public health threat per The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020. ("These powers should only be used if the event, venue or gathering in an outdoor public place poses a serious and imminent threat to public health that cannot be mitigated in conversation with the event organiser")

 

For small events (eg a play ending by 11pm with < 500 audience) it's back to self-management of risks by the event organiser.

 

Does anyone disagree with this interpretation? I don't think that it's written out explicitly anywhere, but I don't see what legal basis LAs would have to impose restrictions contained in that guidance other than the existing premises licensing arrangements and the imminent threat to public health powers. I understand that people in this thread are thinking of lots of different types of event in mind, and we should take care to not over-generalise.

[ImagineerTom]

Something with <500 audience is still a licensable event and there are frameworks within the TEN system for various departments and statutory bodies to lodge an objection to your event. Also, Police & Environmental Health departments have overarching regulatory responsibilities for events regardless of if they are licensed or not.

 

Strangers on the internet can only give you their experience; the only opinion that actually matters is that of you local regulatory people so you would be better off seeking their guidance now rather than finding out too late that they won't let it go ahead.

Edited May 17, 2021 by ImagineerTom

[kerry davies]

Dominic, it is the entertainment which is regulated not the scale of that entertainment. A play with a paying audience of one is officially licensable. A decent explanation is HERE.

 

The reason it is complex is that the 2003 Act was designed to be a "light touch" but was seen by some as taking away power from councillors on licensing committees. The government provided courses to train EHO's saw about 50 of the 550 Licensing Departments send anyone at all. This is why it is vital to get in touch with the relevant local Licensing Office(rs) in plenty of time. Their interpretation counts and, as Tom can confirm, they can vary wildly from one authority or one individual to the next.

[richard]

But performance of plays to less than 500 persons, before 23:00 is clearly deregulated - and so do not require a license, or a TEN (see gov.uk

 

In particular a licence may be required by:

...

anyone that puts on a performance of a play or a dance to an audience of more than 500 people, or an indoor sporting event to more than 1,000 spectators

...

 

Whether a licence is needed for a performance of a play or a dance will depend on the circumstances. A licence is not required to stage a performance of a play or a performance of dance if:

 

it takes place between 8AM and 11PM; and

the audience is no more than 500 people.

 

 

Which I think is pretty clear.

[ImagineerTom]

Sadly it's far from clear - if you use any kind of music (and different local authorities interpret music as anything from a bing-bong at the start of a PA announcement right up to a full music show differently) then it changes the criteria for if you do need a license. Many parks and public squares already have licenses in place (the smart local authorities pre-license all their event spaces and then rent out the license to events that take place on them) so would need a license or ammendment. If you want to sell any alcohol (or the site has previously been licensed for alcohol) then you will need a license. If the site is in certain types of conservation areas or has ASBO's / Anti-nusance-behaviour court orders covering it then you'll need a license.

 

Above all though; it doesn't matter what we here /think/ are the rules that apply - as I mentioned above there are lots of statutory bodies who have overarching regulatory control over "events" and if they decide your event shouldn't go ahead they will shut you down. This happened a lot in 2020 - as an example https://www.brighton...us-performances the circus were using council owned land, had ALL the correct paperwork in place, had some of the highest covid-safe protocols in the country, had held discussions with the council right up to the last moment, had been on site setting up for several days and still the council stopped the show going ahead at the eleventh hour and made it VERY clear to the show that if they tried to move to a non-council owned space they would still be prevented from opening.

 

Pretending that a vague internet opinion means that an event doesn't need a license and can probably go ahead regardless is pure folly - all the smart producers and promotors get it in writing from the people who have the power to shut the show down first.

Edited May 19, 2021 by ImagineerTom

[kerry davies]

I agree that the amendments to the Act make all sorts of things now non-licensable, Richard, but that never stopped an LO banning it. DCMS states that plays are regulated entertainment "broadly speaking" and that "broadly speaking" premises which show plays need a premises licence and that you must contact your local licensing authority to learn what they regard "broadly speaking" to mean. Even Gov.UK sets out conflicting advice that is not always compliant with the latest statutes.

 

The amendments which you quote also state that circus is no longer a licensable activity but Tom has explained that made not a bladder of difference to the LO. I had plenty of examples where insane LO's demanded crazy things but they are not the only ones who can stop an event. The list of "statutory authorities" is almost double what it started out as.

[Junior8]

I covered the 2003 Act throughout for the trade press and became more and more depressed as it went on. In my view the motivation for this legislation was never to tidy things up or to be light touch or anything of the sort - no matter what the Blair government were saying at the time. Entertainment Licensing which had been doing the job very nicely for years needed no reform. LO after LO confirmed this to me. No it was the alcohol trade who had been lobbying for relaxation for years who were the trigger and giving them that relaxation but getting all drink licensing well and truly under local authority control which was the driving force. I thought this at the time and am more convinced as the years go by that we were added simply to disguise this. (More liquor premises lost their licenses in the first year than I think in the previous ten.) That it turned into a license to print money for many a LA was I am sure a completely unintended consequence. (I also wondered if the TENs system was intended as a way to some years down the line replace the 14 day permitted development rules on which many an outdoor event still relies.)

 

It was a bad, diabolically drafted, act when it was passed - the list of exemptions was purile - and all the amendments have made bad law worse.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Junior8