CAMPAIGN SUCCESS AT TUESDAY'S MEETING!

Environmental Health’s Response to our Report and Central, South and West Area Committee Meeting, Tuesday 12th February, 2008.
Before beginning this posting I would just like to say a big ‘thank you’ to everyone who has supported this campaign and it gives me great pleasure to be able to announce that our report was very well received by the Central, South and West Area Committee on Tuesday night. Most significantly, rather than just opting for improvements to the buskers’ code of practice, great concern was voiced over proper enforcement, especially regarding noise levels – an issue which Environmental Health have not addressed fully in the past. This posting will detail the recommendations made by Environmental Health in response to our report (with some comments) before going on to give a summary of Tuesday night’s area committee meeting.

Summary of Environmental Health's Response to our Report
Recommendations
(Section) 20. Members are recommended to consider the following three options:
Option 1: No change
Cornmarket Street is the only street where there are regular complaints about problems caused by busking in the city centre. On average in 2007 less than one complaint a week was received by Environmental Health about busking in Cornmarket street and the number of premises complaining is pretty small.
Option 2: Amend the buskers’ code of practice
· Entertain only between 10am and 8pm on three days in the week from Monday – Sunday.
· Do not use any form of amplification.
· Do not busk for more than 1 hour in any one place. You cannot busk for more than once a day in any one place. Once you have finished your permitted time in one place you are not allowed to busk in an adjacent permitted entertainment area and must find an alternative approved place. Note: very noisy instruments such as bagpipes and drums are restricted to 30 minutes maximum time in any one place.
· In addition a condition could be added to protect services at St. Michael at the North Gate by restricting the use of the nearest designated entertainment area on Sundays to 12 noon to 6pm.
Option 3: Consider introducing a formal licensing scheme
The powers contained in the Highways Act could be used to produce a formal scheme to license buskers. This option would involve the preparation of a further report to the committee to outline the necessary legal procedures, proposed licensing regime etc.

Comments:
With regard to Option 2, the measures recommended should have a significant effect on the problems caused by nuisance busking. Nevertheless, the following passages from elsewhere in the document are problematic:
“A number of complaints are simply to report the fact that a certain busker has commenced playing and the caller is unhappy about the noise. In these cases the complainant is advised to call back if they exceed the performance time allowed in the code.” (Section 11)
“They report that the code is generally complied with and that the buskers self regulate to a large extent.” (Section 13)
The issue of noise here is sidestepped as the buskers will be keen to secure their places, but once in them, experience has shown that volume, and other considerations, in the code are shown scant regard. Moreover, this does not affect the ‘busking relay’ as there is nothing to stop another very loud busker from taking over, subjecting the students, workers and residents of Cornmarket Street to continual noise disturbance. Nowhere in these recommendations is it made clear how sustained high volume will be dealt with, let alone the other problems such as congestion etc.

Summary of the coverage of ‘Busking in the City Centre’ (Item 9),
Central, South and West Area Committee: Meeting of the Committee, Tuesday 12th February 2008.
Ian Wright, Head of Environmental Health, summarised Environmental Health’s response to our report (see above) and offered the three recommendations contained in that response:
Option 1 – No change
Option 2 – Amend the buskers’ code of practice
Option 3 – Consider introducing a formal licensing scheme
His address reiterated the spirit of the response document; that the emphasis of Environmental Health’s approach was on time allocation and, therefore, the code was generally being followed. He also mentioned that we had not yet handed in our petition. William Waggott offered the first instalment of the petition at this point and said that it was still ongoing. He also asked if the independent petition from Jesus was with them but received no answer.

Response from Councillors of the Central, South and West Area Committee
After this, each councillor present had the chance to speak. The overall feeling expressed was that Environmental Health’s approach had not taken into account much that was contained in our report. The following is a selection of their responses.
· Cllr Paul Sargent mentioned that the 50 yard rule was being frequently broken and that changes in approach had to take place as soon as possible.
· Cllr Bob Price emphasised that ‘busking must not be intrusive’, so that changes did have to be made.
· Cllr Sushila Dhall, who was absent through illness, sent a message in support of achieving a balanced solution to the problem and voiced her ‘shock’ at the antisocial behaviour of some of the buskers.
· Cllr Colin Cook agreed that better enforcement was needed but pointed out that a total ban on amplifiers was not necessary as certain acts needed them and a volume limit would cover this. (William Waggott then pressed for the ban to be kept and it was agreed by everyone that this would be simpler)
· Cllr Susanna Pressell was also very sympathetic to our position and stressed the need for better communication with us in future.
Most councillors present voiced concern the present situation was unacceptable and that the codes’ rules and amendments had to be enforced. Due to a concern about resources, however, the feeling was that Option 2 should be accepted, relying on the anticipated increased presence of street trading monitors to police the code. Should this prove ineffective, however, Option 3 should be seriously considered upon review.

The Committee’s Decisions
The following code modifications from Option 2 were decided on:
· No amplification
· Restriction of buskers to just a single play per day on any street (1hr/ 30 min)
· List of restricted instruments to include didgeridoo in addition to bagpipes and drums, although there was some confusion as to what the restriction is. A total ban or limitation to 30 min (to be clarified)?
· The code will be under review and effectiveness will be monitored and amended further. The council will keep option 3 on the table if modified code fails.

Unexpectedly, Heath Richardson (The Bagpipe Man) wasn’t present after all. Also, there seemed to be no sign of a ‘battle of petitions’ that some of us have feared.