Response to Bath and North East Somerset Council Busking PSPO Consultation

Response to Bath and North East Somerset Council Busking PSPO Consultation

 

Bath and North East Somerset Council are consulting on using a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to ban all amplification in key busking pitches in the city. PSPOs are a controversial power contained in the Police, Crime and Antisocial Behaviour Act 2014 which has been described as a ‘law against nearly everything’. This would mean that any street performer who used amplification to support their performances in these areas would be committing a criminal offence.

The Keep Streets Live Campaign opposes the use of a PSPO to ban amplification in the vicinity of the Abbey. The PSPO will not address the root issue which is that the Abbey want ALL street music to be banned outside the Abbey whether amplified or not and have even mentioned xylophones as a source of noise nuisance! We see this as an attempt to ‘privatise’ the public spaces in the vicinity of the Abbey through the criminalisation of grassroots culture.

We oppose a blanket ban on amplification because it affects all buskers, not just the minority who have caused issues for other people. We propose an alternative solution which uses existing legislation to prosecute individuals who cause noise nuisance rather than criminalising buskers collectively. We would like to see Bath and North East Somerset Council follow the example of Liverpool, York, London, and Canterbury amongst others by adopting a code of conduct approach to busking which protects spontaneity and openness and promotes harmonious relationships on the streets. This is the best practise guide agreed in Liverpool between buskers, businesses and the local authority. It is a template for resolving disputes without the need for new legislation or coercive blanket bans.

You can respond to Bath’s online consultation here. If you agree with our points and would like to see buskers find a workable compromise with the Abbey and the Council please follow this link and fill in the short questionnaire emphasising that you don’t want the council to ban amplification:

http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/consultations/public-space-protection-order-0

Here are the answers we submitted to the consultation:

Question 1

Which of the following best describes you? Tick all that apply

Busking advocacy organisation

Question 2

Are you responding on behalf of an organisation? If so, what is the name of the organisation:

Keep Streets Live Campaign

Question 3

Have you ever been adversely affected by amplified music / sound from street entertainers in Abbey Church Yard, Kingston Parade or Abbey Green?

Please tick one

No

If you answered ‘yes’ to this question, on average how frequently were you affected by amplified music/ sound in these locations?

Please tick one

Daily

One a week

Once a month

Less often; please write in

The structure of the survey ‘begs the question’.

 

The phrase ‘adversely affected’ is vague and nebulous and is open to an enormous range of interpretations and bias. Some respondents may consider busking ‘per se’ to have an ‘adverse affect’ upon their ‘quality of life’. How will the council establish what constitutes a significant enough threshold of ‘adverse affect’ to implement a PSPO with all the curtailment of the cultural life of the city that entails?

 

For balance a supplementary question should be included with the words ‘Have you ever been positively affected by amplified music/sound from street entertainers? If you were positively affected please tell us how this affected your quality of life’.

 

If you were affected, please explain in the space provided, telling us how this affected your quality of life:

n/a

Question 4

Do you think that the noise level from amplification in the areas specified above is unreasonable at present?

Yes

No

Don’t know

Please tick one

You can use this space to expand on your answer, if required.

The question is not specific enough to be meaningful because it does not differentiate between the hundreds of different musical acts that incorporate some amplification in their performances the vast majority of whom do so reasonably without creating an adverse impact upon the quality of life of those within the vicinity. On the contrary, their performances have a positive effect on the local environment and make a valuable contribution towards Bath’s growing visitor economy. If any individual performance incorporating amplification is unreasonable than enforcement action under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 against such a performer is available to the local authority and enables the council to respond to a specific issue of noise nuisance without targeting the majority of performers who are not causing problems.

Question 5

Would you support a ban on the use of amplifiers by street entertainers in Abbey Church Yard, Kingston Parade, and Abbey Green?

No

Question 6

Please use this space to list any benefits or drawbacks you see from proposals to ban amplification in the three areas of Bath city centre mentioned above, or to add any other comments:
A ban on amplification will have an extremely adverse effect on the vibrant and diverse street culture scene in Bath and marginalise its talented street performing community. Amplification is a significant part of the toolkit of the modern street musician. An enormous range of instrumentalists and musicians incorporate amplification to support and enhance performances. Many musicians use electric instruments and music technology which can’t work without amplification. These include electric violins and guitars as well as loop pedals which are an increasingly common part of contemporary musical performances. The use of amplifiers allows musicians to play and sing more quietly and still be heard just above the ambient street noise. This is especially important for vocalists who can face voice damage straining to be heard over the sounds of the street. It is not difficult to find a volume level which is not intrusive and volume levels can always be adjusted upon request. A ban on amplifiers to be consistent would logically have to extend to wind, percussion and brass instruments, all of which have the potential to be significantly louder than ‘amplified’ sound depending on the context. The issues in Bath, such as they are, have been caused not by amplification per se, but by excessive volume on the part of a few individual performers. The local authority should target enforcement action against performers who have caused a persistent issue with noise nuisance, whether amplified or unamplified, using their existing statutory powers such as the power to issue noise abatement notices and confiscate musical instruments under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A blanket ban is a blunt instrument which strikes the wrong note.

 

 

Response to Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Busking Consultation

Response to Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Busking Consultation

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea are consulting on bringing in a busking license which will be almost as restrictive as Camden. We have taken part in their consultation and have reproduced our responses here. You can take part in the consultation which closes on October 19th by clicking on the link below and using our responses as a guide if you wish. The more people who complete this consultation the greater the chance we have of persuading Kensington and Chelsea’s Councillors not to adopt this proposed scheme.

 

http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/survey/busking/snphase2busking1.htm

 

1.) Appendix A shows the pilot area to which the Street Entertainment (Busking) Policy refers to. Do you agree with the selected pilot area?

The Greater London Authority has convened a mayoral taskforce specifically for the purpose of agreeing a code of conduct for busking across London between all stakeholders. In the light of this process alone, which Kensington and Chelsea are part of, the imposition of a statutory licensing regime is highly prematureSection V of the London Local Authorities Act is a contentious piece of legislation which empowers local authorities to criminalise street culture, impose fines and seize musician’s instruments. The local authority has other statutory powers (Environmental Protection Act 1990, Highways Act 1980) that can be used to address problematic busking. The imposition of a licensing regime is contrary to the nature of busking as a spontaneous and informal cultural pursuit.

 

2.) Busking will not be allowed in the piloted area without a licence on Fridays and Saturdays from 10.00 to 18.00. Are these controls appropriate?

 

 

In the busking tradition performers typically perform in many different localities in the course of a working season. Busking licenses create unnecessary obstacles for travelling performers and always lead to a decline in the circulation of performers and greatly reduce variety. Camden have introduced a license under these powers alongside Hillingdon. If the 30 remaining boroughs followed suit the result would be the total fragmentation of the London busking community. Very few performers will have the resources to pay for 32 separate licenses, the result will be greatly reduced variety and quality of performances and the diminishment of the cultural life of the capital. A license regime also criminalises unlicensed performers who may not have been aware of the license arrangements and will be put off from coming to the Borough to perform. It creates an arbitrary barrier to the use of public space for the arts and would be resource-intensive to enforce. The threat of instrument confiscation and punitive fines is disproportionate to the issues that can arise from busking and is an unwarranted interference with Freedom of Expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. An ongoing legal challenge to Camden Council’s license regime under Section V powers is being heard by the Court of Appeal on November 13th. These restrictions will be open to a similar challenge.

 

3.) On a Friday and Saturday, during the hours of 10.00am and 6.00pm the council will issue a maximum of 6 x 70 minutes slots per day, per location. Do you feel this number of slots is appropriate?

 

Busking performances differ in length according to the nature of the performance and the context in which it takes place. The Keep Streets Live Campaign Best Practice Guide recommends that performers do not repeat material in the same location but move between locations. We also recommend that buskers swap and share pitches informally. This scheme will lead to more co The proposed scheme is too prescriptive because it will lead to performances being cut short arbitrarily and doesn’t take account of the nature of busking as a primarily informal and spontaneous activity. The proposed scheme is too prescriptive because it will lead to performances being cut short arbitrarily and doesn’t take account of the nature of busking as a primarily informal and spontaneous activity. Some musical performances will be longer than 70 minutes, some will be much shorter. The booking system does not allow the flexibility and informality that is part of the nature of busking.

 

4.) Of the 42 slots available, each busker will be able to pre-book two slots per day. is this an appropriate number of pre-bookable slots?

 

Having to pre-book slots is unnecessarily bureaucratic in the first instance. Buskers typically turn up to a location and make an evaluation as to whether a space is suitable for a performance. They will then negotiate with other performers and come to arrangements in an informal way. Requiring pre-booked slots means that inevitably people will not turn up to their allocated spot but it won’t be open to people who could otherwise have used it. The scheme will have to be administered which will be resource intensive. Keep Streets Live Campaign strongly recommends not having pre-booked slots at all and encouraging buskers to swap and share pitches on an informal basis.

 

5.) If all the slots have not been filled in advance, then on the day before noon a busker can take up an additional slot provided that they have not already used that same site on the same day. Is this restriction appropriate to allow fair distribution of slots?

 

 

Some buskers will have a large repertoire which would allow to play different performances at the same location on the same day. Pre-booking slots is unnecessary and will, in itself, lead to an unfair and uneven distribution of slots. Existing statutory powers can be used against buskers who cause issues by not moving. The introduction of a licensing regime with pitch allocations and pre-booked slots will greatly reduce the vibrancy and circulation of performers.

 

6.) Do you agree that the council should allow street buskers to apply for an additional street trading license?

 

 

This question relates to CDs of busker’s music. Having recordings available to the public enhances the busking experience by allowing performers to make their music available to a wider audience and allowing the public to enjoy a tangible souvenir of the busker’s performance. Nonetheless, CDs are a secondary element to busking and should therefore be made available on a voluntary basis to those who wish to take one. Best Practice Guidance agreed between Liverpool City Council and the Keep Streets Live Campaign recommends that CDs be made available for a ‘suggested and voluntary contribution’. It is emphasised that members of the public are free to take a CD without making payment, just as they are free to enjoy the performance without making payment. Requiring an additional street trading license for busking is another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy which will put off performers from registering under the scheme, and discourages buskers from making their music available to the public to the detriment of the busking experience. Whereas for a market trader the sale of stock is the primary purpose of their business, for a busker CDs are a secondary aspect of the busking performance. This is an important difference that needs to be recognised.

 

7.) If you are a busker will you be willing to pay the initial £15 fee for a period of 6 months?

 

Whilst the £15 fee in itself is not prohibitive it accompanies a huge range of terms and conditions and restrictions that, taken together, greatly inhibit the ability of working musicians to make a living on the streets. It criminalises an informal cultural pursuit, it creates obstacles for travelling performers and it attempts to impose a highly formalised set of regulations upon an informal cultural pastime which has always relied on spontaneity and democratic access to public space. Busking adds vibrancy and colour to public spaces, increases dwell time for local businesses and is an enormous part of the visitor economy to London. Musicians should not have to pay for the privilege of providing free entertainment to the general public whilst enhancing the shared public spaces of the borough. The license scheme is a misconceived attempt to address problems that have been caused by a small minority of performers who could be dealt with using existing statutory powers. We recommend that Kensington and Chelsea engage with the Greater London Authority taskforce and agree a code of conduct for busking that works for all parties. If the aim is to attract high quality performers into the borough, this scheme will achieve the opposite. It will create a narrow pool of performers who are willing to sign up to the restrictions (who may well not be buskers in the traditional sense, and will predominately only perform within the Borough), and will deter many other performers from ever visiting. Over time it will greatly diminish the vibrancy and variety of street performances on offer in this part of London

 

8.) If you are a busker would you pay £40 for a period of 4 weeks to sell associated items?

 

Whilst we welcome the fact that RBKC recognise that ‘associated items’ are a legitimate aspect of busking, we recommend that buskers do not sell CDs but make them available for a suggested and voluntary donation. A street trading licence is unnecessary to that end and the cost of it is prohibitive relative to the amount of time slots RBKC are making available for busking.

 

 

9.) Do you have any further comments concerning this draft Street Entertainment (Busking) Policy?

 

On behalf of the Keep Streets Live Campaign of which I am the founding director I will send you a PDF document containing the best practice guidance agreed between the City Council, Business Improvement District and the busking community in Liverpool over a period of five months. It aims to give businesses, buskers and residents the resources they need to resolve disputes and to allow street culture to flourish. It could be adapted for use in Kensington and Chelsea at a fraction of the cost of the imposition of the Licensing Regime that is proposed. Keep Streets Live is part of the Mayoral taskforce for busking alongside RBKC and would be very happy to work alongside your officers and other bodies such as the Musician’s Union to agree a scheme that works for all parties.