|
After the government last week rejected recommendations made by Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport committee to exempt small scale venues from needing to obtain a licence for live music, this month’s MusicTank featured editorial focuses on another challenge facing small live music venues across the UK - that of noise abatement orders…
It may be crass and a tad melodramatic to see a single complaint against you as the sword of Damocles, but it didn’t surprise many in Birmingham’s creative community to hear the adage used by Kent Davis, landlord of The Rainbow pub in 'the second city’s' vibrant Digbeth community.
Birmingham is at the forefront of what many people see as a war against grassroots live music by councils up and down the country, and is rapidly becoming the poster boy for noise abatement orders. The orders are handed out by councils to people or places it deems are generating too much noise, and despite their sole position in the mainstream media being of ridicule – handed out to weightlifters who grunt, people with wind turbines on their home, and a couple who enjoy intimacies a little too much for the neighbours’ liking – in Digbeth, and increasingly in other areas of the country, they are having a very real impact on the grassroots of the live music industry.
And for Birmingham, those roots are firmly set in Digbeth, which is host to the annual, critically lauded Supersonic festival based in the area’s Custard Factory along with GodsKitchen-owned nightclub AIR, Barfly Birmingham and a multitude of other tiny venues that are the hub of all the great and good in the city’s music scene.
One of these venues, The Spotted Dog, was the first to be served with a noise abatement order in 2007. After 22 years of live music under the current ownership of John Tighe, the pub, which hosted music in its outdoor area, came under scrutiny after a block of 178 flats was erected next door and three residents complained about the sound levels. After a long, bitter and ultimately unsuccessful campaign, The Spotted Dog was served with its noise abatement order. Two years on, the campaign to overturn to order continues.
The Rainbow, whose unique covered outdoor area has been the stomping ground for a large number of local and touring musicians, was issued with a noise abatement order at the end of June, meaning that a venue that has hosted the likes of The Prodigy and Andrew Weatherall cannot now offer a rung on the ladder for artists to start on.
Of course, this is a sorry tale worthy of an editorial of its own, but larger issues surround this that impact on small venues across the UK. A recent Music Week editorial from UK Music’s Fergal Sharkey highlighted a report from the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in May that discussed challenges faced by small venues due to red tape and excessive bureaucracy. He stated that, "it is vital that live music’s grassroots are sustained and nurtured," and that, "it is essential that both emerging artists and amateur players can gain access to it." This is echoed in the Government’s own goals, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s main objective for the next three years being to "encourage more widespread enjoyment of culture."
This in itself then raises a huge conflict for local councils. In areas such as Digbeth in Birmingham, Shoreditch in London or many others in cities around the country, there is a clash between vibrant community venues and city living developments. Councils want seemingly derelict areas to have new flats for young professionals to live in close to the city, and they also want everyone in those flats to be happy.
Unfortunately, the same councils seem to be overlooking their responsibilities to preserving and allowing culture to thrive and the whole argument looks a tad one-sided.
Back in Digbeth, the recent Rainbow noise abatement order was a result of one complaint. A quick Google search will bring you to the Save the Rainbow Facebook group – a group with over 21,000 supporters – so it seems rather obtuse for the council to essentially fly in the face of large public opposition in support of a single complainant. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the complaint over his pub, Davis offered to soundproof the venue at a cost of £30,000 to help satisfy the complainant’s issue. Despite this, the venue was still served with its noise abatement order, putting The Rainbow in a catch 22 situation whereby its ability to raise the funds for the necessary improvements has been restricted by the reason it wants to make said improvements.
This situation makes the position for small venue owners untenable. In an industry said to be thriving, venues are still working off non-existent profit margins. Noise abatement orders then cut off a major income stream for these venues, which are often forced to close, removing one of the key reasons for people to take up residence in the flats that the councils so desperately want to encourage.
It is hard to understand councils’ short-sightedness in these cases, and frustrating to small venue owners that they are seemingly unwilling to utilise commonsense and discuss the issues with landlords and venue owners in order to come to an agreeable resolution. It’s clouded further by the Home Office’s guidelines on the issuing of noise abatement orders, which state that they should be issued if, "the noisemaker cannot be persuaded to desist or restrict
occurrences of the nuisance." This clearly isn’t the case when the owner of the offending venue is willing to shell out £30,000 to help one complainant get a good night’s kip, and it’s unfortunate that councils do not do more to protect the cultural status of individual wards.
So what is the solution? Unfortunately all regulations seem to be in favour of a minority of complainants rather than the majority who benefit from live music events. Of course, councils cannot dismiss the concerns and issues that local residents hold, but more needs to be done to protect the grassroots of the live music sector and – if the councils want to regenerate areas and attract residents to areas that are entertainment hotspots – they must become mediators, rather than planting themselves firmly on one side of the fence.
Such an example of this does come from The Spotted Dog case, in which it emerged that there was little to no assessment of noise levels in the granting of planning permission, nor was the potential for noise taken into account in the design to prevent sound from the beer garden disturbing people in the residential apartments next door.
In this case, it seems to be gross negligence on the part of the developer in order to save money, and although it would then be irresponsible of the council to not address the issue for residents, passing the costs that the developer has saved onto the venue in lost revenue is an equally irresponsible act. Developers can be held accountable when basic amenities have not been catered for – whether than be unsafe electrics or poor plumbing – and the same powers that the law can wield in these situations should be utilised in cases of sound pollution.
What certainly isn’t the answer is driving away the few remaining attractions that degenerated areas hold. Nor is the answer introducing segregation between venues and residential areas. There are large numbers of people who are attracted to live in an area by local venues, and local venues – especially pubs – welcome local residents. The flats next to The Spotted Dog should have been a match made in heaven, with the vast majority of people moving in to be closer to the venues of Digbeth, and The Spotted Dog having a whole host of new locals to become patrons. These matches are what should regenerate areas, but responsibility falls upon those who are in charge of the regeneration – the council and developers – to ensure that all parties are ultimately happy with the changes.
It would be nice to see councils stop taking the seemingly easy way out of noise complaints by issuing noise abatement orders, to pull developers to task and to actively protect and encourage culture. This can be done, and actually buoyed, by utilising commonsense and by listening to all parties from the very beginning, rather than short-sightedly allowing developments to go ahead without a thought for future individual concerns. This shouldn’t be left to government to step in and start putting in legislation, this should already be covered by local governance and planning permission protocol. The question is, what can we do before short-sightedness in councils across the UK starts shutting down all our grassroot live music venues?
Feature Editorial by Gareth Main
Do you agree? Do you disagree? Have we completely missed the point or are we right on the money? Would you like to see us take this further by way or a think tank or other activity? Let us know your thoughts by clicking the link below.
mailto:editor@musictank.co.uk
|
